D-squared is always a pleasure to read. Sometimes I dream about he and James Wolcott getting into a pissing match for some reason. I warrant the verbal pyrotechnics would be astounding.
Pity I don't have the writing chops to attempt any Wolcott/Davies grudgematch fan fiction.
a gawker.com blind item today may hint at that last question:
..We promptly went in, tried on shoes, and the only available seat was on the same bench as the couple! Jude Law is extremely hot with his hair a couple inches longer than the closely-cropped 'do he sported in Alfie, however, he has gi-normous feet.
I've heard them referred to as "bluffers." In any case, my dear naive Labs, usually what makes a bluffer a bluffer is that it's always partially engorged (or so I'm given to understand), not that it's long when limp but short when erect. But I have a feeling that I'm out of my depth here, and about to hear it from girl27.
Ah, my dear Ogged, I suspect that you mistake the thrust of my criticism. The point I raise is: there's so much variation in the flaccid/erect length ratio that we can't really conclude, as the researchers do, that there's no shoe-penis correlation, since we don't have the real data about length.
Not that I've done any extensive field research on the subject, but wouldn't stretching a flaccid penis give a pretty decent estimation of how much it would extend when engorged? I mean, it can only get as big as it can stretch, right? I think it's the "gently" stretching that may be introducing uncertainty. They needed to tug like they meant it.
"Ah, my dear Ogged, I suspect that you mistake the thrust of my criticism. The point I raise is: there's so much variation in the flaccid/erect length ratio that we can't really conclude, as the researchers do, that there's no shoe-penis correlation, since we don't have the real data about length."
Sigh. This paragraph was really coming along, but it rather petered out at the end.
While I appreciate BW's succinctness, the answer doesn't really provide much guidance. I understand the difference between flaccid and erect varies widely between members of the johnson crew. However, if you grab one and stretch it, there's a certain limit beyond which it cannot be stretched further without breaking either the penis, a law of physics, or a Geneva Convention somewhere. I would think that limit would be somewhere near (though not exactly at) the erect size because in an old-fashioned erection, the blood is simply inflating it to the point beyond which you really wouldn't want yours stretched.
You know, I had just been thinking about how today was pretty boring at Unfogged. Thank you, cock jokes. Are we still allowed to make fun of the names of the guys at "hard-core" Powerline?
Yes: stretching by hand or by blood is still stretching. I'm with you, apostropher, because I believe in science. Labs, ironically, is holding out hope for the magic infinitely growing penis.
21 was meant as a response to 18, but-- surprisingly enough, given the context-- I wasn't quick enough. I nominate 19 and 20 for the Congressional Medal of Honor.
27, Labs and I have both noticed that that's dirty talk. And I'm not participating in this experiment so there's nothing in it for me, no matter how well-rounded you are. There might be other openings, however...
People! You have neglected the hypothesis that some peni increase in circumference, thus taking up some slack that might be used in length! Perhaps the artificial stretching procedure these folk used results in a longer, thinner penis than its natural state. Unfortunately the article did not include actual measurements* so we can't tell whether the ranges were at all realistic.
Oh, and ogged, if you muff this serve from girl27, baa is going to show up at your undisclosed location and whip you with rolled-up wet towels.
*measurements containing the letters 'cm' are not considered actual.
Weiner, appropriately, raises a good point. Maybe, with all this modern technology, it's time to replace the "length" measurement with the "volume" measurement. Then we can start talking about "total displacement," and attract the Nascar crowd.
re: 30; are you seriously getting on my tip for picking up low-hanging fruit? Should I have said "fail to drive that softball deep with your big thick bat"?
Y'all must have either really short erect penises, or really long or rubbery flaccid penises.
I would imagine that when stretching a cock manually you're only able to pull on one particular part, while when one is engorged with blood the entire thing stretches--as Georg Lichtenberg once said, the whole wang must move together. Also, I would bet that the increased diameter actually helps the lengthwise expansion occur, though why I think this I'm not sure.
Wolf, I think that if the part you pull on is on the end, in theory it pulls on the part next to it, and so on down the line. Except that I suspect in practice the parts that drive the expansion are on the inside--blood vessels and the like--and can't be accessed by external tip-pulling. So in that you'd be right. I can't help you with the diameter/length thing, and frankly I don't want to.
Labs, I think the response I had planned actually goes over the line into actual frathouse/Fark territory. I wouldn't want to blow all my cred with bphd.
re 37, first part: even a moment's thought should convince you that this isn't the case, or at the very least, that the majority of the stretching occurs nearest the stretcher. One can easily demonstrate this by breaking a cock's neck (easier to do if you live in a neighborhood with a reasonable Hispanic presence). When you do so you will probably not observe that each vertabra in the neck breaks simultaneously, but rather that one breaks before any other, and it's the nearest one to the pulling hand.
I didn't mean to cast any aspersions on Hispanic neighborhoods, you know, it's just that in my experience it's easier to buy live chickens in them. I apologize for any offense I might have given.
Yeah, b-wo, but we ain't pulling on shit till it breaks here. If you pull on a rubber band--a stretchy thing--the rubber band will stretch out along its whole length.
b-wo, I think the offense maybe comes from "breaking a cock." If you're going to be the Field Assistant with that kind of methodology, no one's going to sign the Human Subjects form.
No, b-wo, I really don't get it. Even if your junk isn't uniformly elastic--assuming that the force required to stretch part A is still less than the force required to break part B--wouldn't pulling on the end get you to maximum external stretching just as well as pulling on several other places.
The cock's vertebrae, I think, are a red herring, because (AFAIK, I have no personal experience of this) you don't pull on the neck, you wring it.
The "stretch" theory seems like the sort of hypothesis the Internet was built for testing. Everybody go to the available bathroom, lock a stall door behind you, and report back in 5 minutes.
Tim, first, I hope to god you're kidding. Second, you do realize that a single penis proves nothing, because the question isn't whether stretched and engorged are the same, but whether the ratio of stretched:engorged is roughly the same across penises?
Ogged, if you want to get all scientific about it, it probably wasn't a great idea to include only teenagers and pensioners. Do you realize how many time I had to type that before I stopped transposing the 'i' and 's' in pensioners? I'm not even going to bother finishing what I had to say.
Matt, you're actually wrong about rubber bands. The effect is just too small to see on most rubber bands you're likely to have lying about.
Think about it this way: let's say you've got cells (not the best word; I don't mean the biological kind but the general discrete-unit kind) which can stretch (at heart I suppose that is the case with the biological cells). A, B, C, etc, with A coming first. You pull on A, and it will stretch itself out as far as it can, and only at that point will your pulling on it communicate the force to B, and then when both A and B are maxed out will C start to stretch, usw. (That won't be perfectly accurate, but close enough.) But, while you're doing this, you're putting a lot of strain on A, since the only reason B is getting pulled is that A is essentially at its breaking point (and would break if it couldn't communicate the stress down to B). So you can't achieve maximal stretch, becaues A, B, etc would be in great pain by the time you got to Z. If you have a long enough piece of elastic you could verify this in the following way: put pairs of equidistant dots 20, 40, 60 and 80 percent along the elastic, say a centimeter apart (or some other reasonable distance depending on the length of the elastic. Then stretch it out various amounts, and measure the new distance between the dots. I am willing to bet that if you started with a piece of elastic that was five feet long (ask your local junkie) you would observe that the dots nearest the stretched end were further apart than those nearest the base. Basically what I'm saying is that you couldn't possibly communicate the stretching all the way down the length of whatever you're stretching instantaneously (otherwise you could transmit information faster than the speed of light trivially), and barring that the only way to stretch something further along is to stretch something closer even more, and that's hard.
(Incidentally, the same dot-pair methodology will be applied in my forthcoming study on what parts of the penis expand first during engorgement, Differential Growth in Cock Parts, which I'm confident will finally net me the coveted Ig Nobel Prize in Biology. I think that it's got to be the base first, with the effects evening out as erection proceeds. By the way, if you already have all of your data, the most efficient way to build a heap is bottom-up.)
(Also, it's true that you don't pull on the neck but wring it (in general practice, anyway; apparently a good way to kill a chicken is to grab it by the head and do a kind of whip-crack with its body), but were you to pull on the head, what I described would happen, because the vertabrae are precisely the kind of semi-independent cells I'm talking about above.)
b-wo, OK, that makes a lot of sense. And of course you have to build a heap from the bottom up--can't build it from the top down, because of gravity. The question is, how many grains of sand do you have to add to get one?
ogged, that link seems to answer the question: apparently stretched size is correlated to what counts. But why the hell does the word "team" there take you to "meet online and reduce costs"?
I believe it's also a consequence of Hook's Law that it's easier to pull a length of elastic to maximum extension (or maybe it only applies to springs? I'm sure something similar holds for stretchy things in general) by first pulling a short amount nearest the base out as far as possible, then fixing it down, then pulling the next piece up, etc, than by pulling it all the way out from the top, since (IIRC) it takes 4 times more energy to pull the elastic 2 times further out.
On one hand, I want this thread to set a new Unfogged record for time to 100, but, on the other hand, I'm afraid of what Wolfson will do if this goes on much longer.
I'm calling BS on Wolfson. His conception of cells seems wrong - that cell A must maximally expend before B expands...well, I can't find any reason for this to be true. What is true is that each cell will have inertia, and the force translated from pulling on A will first have to overcome the inertia of cell B, but after the fraction of time that takes, then pulling on A will equally pull on B. So, if one pulls quickly on A, and it expands quickly but doesn't have enough time to overcome the inertia of B, A will break. But, pulling more slowly, A and B will expand at the same rate.
I feel inadquate for finally coming to this thread and not saying anything funny. Nuts.
Ok, I fucking give up. I just did Wolfson's experiment with the rubber band and the dots. The dot nearest the pulling force moves much farther than the dot nearest the anchor. So fucking what?? How big's your finger???
(In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience. What is this bullshit? Unfortunately ogged and 27 are off doing measurements so I can't expect a quick answer. Not that I'd be able to get one, since I'm going.)
Ok, I guess you're probably right about the first cell not needing to expand maximally before the second cell will start to expand, but I still think it will need to expand more. It's certainly true, though, that they couldn't all expand at exactly the same rate. Of that I'm certain (hence my use in the previous sentence of the word "certainly"). As for it being BS, of course it's BS. But I do think it's true, and I bet if we got an engineer or biologist or biological engineerogist or some such in here, I would be vindicated. Vindicated!
(previewing this comment & reading ogged's: Vindicated!)
I suppose that "previewing..." bit of my last comment should have been a different comment, the better to help the push to 100, but then there's this comment I'm writing now, so it's a wash.
It really says something about us, ogged, that you're running some rubber band experiments and I'm thinking "I can't wait to see the results of those experiments." What it says, of course, is ugly and hurtful.
What's really really sad, Michael, is that I saw it, and decided not to link to it, because the methodology was insufficiently rigorous. This was before I broke out the rubber band.
This conversation is discouragingly male-dominated. ("And over at the frat room that is Unfogged, the boys spend all day talking about their weiners.") I had a friend (female) who believed she could roughly gage penis size based upon body type.
Ogged, that probably didn't come across the way I meant it--I realized it was an anti-spam thing, but I figure frequent malicious comments by abusive users (there you go, ben) is pretty much the raison d'etre of this blog these days. Not like it's my blog.
Were it "boy27" I would claim metric measurement.
(ps, I know, I know. In my defense, I ran into some human beings in the corridor and talked to them.)
Ya'know it doesn't really feel like a 100-ct. with out PG or BPhD around. And if ever there was a thread that cried out for BPhD to exact whatever retribution she felt was her due for the frathouse atmosphere, this is it.
I was with Wolfson before I started reading this thread. If you've ever hand stretched an old spring, the gap spacing is uneven.
Then I saw the BBC thing and noticed that the said the MINIMUM size for 'gently stretched' was SIX cm. Holy shit. That required whipping out the ruler and, yeah, six cm. is tiny.
(But then, I heard it reported that the average testicle was roughly grape-sized, which I personally find freakish. They must be lying.)
Anyways, soft versus otherwise with a ruler clearly indicates the maximum size via 'gently stretching' (not really painful) is much shorter than actual erect length. I expect this mainly has to do with blood pressure inflation maximizing the size of each cell as opposed to simply tugging until it hurts which does not maximize each cell.
I expect that people of the endowed with other-than- male-genetalia can understand the distinction by visualizing the difference between breast sizes involved in 1> nursing and 2> having someone yank on your nipple. If that doesn't do it for ya, you can imagine the difference between clitoris sizes involved when sexually excited versus having the gyno yank on the thing with one of those cold steel doohickeys during a yearly. (After all a clitoris and a penis are essentially the same organ. Or start out as the same organ, anyways.)
As for this stuff:
MEAN VALUES OF SELF-RANKED ENDOWMENT STATUS
Erect Length
Modest
141.5mm (5.6")
Average
161.8mm (6.4")
Endowed
181.1mm (7.1")
Erect Circumference
Modest
117.6mm (4.6")
Average
127.4mm (5.0")
Endowed
137.8mm (5.4")
I'm not sure whether to laugh or not. It implies over-endowed is roughly 7.9" long and 6.0" round but doesn't mention it. (The scary part is, is that I assume the slef-reporters are exaggerating.)
I therefore make no comment.
ash
['Classy thread. I'll save the cock jokes for #151, on account of there being no timestamps and this tiny little text and this business with always dropping to the bottom of thread when opening a window.']
Last I counted almost four. Maybe it was three. This internet thing, geez, you talk to a woman and she turns out to be Zeta nine and has nine penises. I'm so confused.
Hard to see this without the timestamps, though.
Indubitably. It's one of those geek superiority things, yes?
ash
['You ever notice how the people most into the instantly new and different complain when somebody isn't in the herd? Maybe it's one of those internets things.']
Wow, what a great thread. After leaving the FRIST! comment I went away for awhile only to come back and see it's up in the 120s! But the bad sexual encounters I've had er I mean heard about weren't nearly so funny.
By the way, I've been meaning to ask, Ogged, is the reason for no timestamps so that you leave less forensic evidence of how much time you spend blogging/commenting, in the unfortunate even that your employer discovers your secret identity?
Jesus, a girl gets busy and her name gets tossed around all over the place.
#38: It's spelled "whoa."
#42: What credibility? I thought we'd established that I hate men.
#116: A) Thank you for missing me. I've been busy. B) Retribution that's my due? You have no idea. Having said that, though, sorry to disappoint, but I don't mind you boys comparing dick sizes at all. I thought we'd established long ago that I like penises just fine.
All right, I missed this entire thread. Let me just offer this, in reference to Apostropher at #7.
Applying a tensile stress to a penis causes a localized decrease in its cross-sectional area near the midpoint of the penis's length. It's called necking, and because the entire stress acts through that reduced area, a penis experiencing necking has reduced tensile strength.
So: it's perfectly possible for a penis experiencing tensile stress to snap at a smaller length than a penis whose length is increased by other means.
Hmm. When I was a teen, necking generally preceded applying a tensile stress to my penis. All the same, I bow in reverence to the accumulated penile wisdom of the unfogged fraternity. Thank you sir, may I have another.
#128: Yes, but it went unremarked now didn't it? Which of course just proves that if you pretend to be a hot libertarian chick, people will listen to you, and all women who have coasted to positions of authority have done so on their looks.
Brzezinski is known to his buddies as "Zbig". Unfortunately, that's pronounced "Sbeeg", not "'S big" (a lá "'S wonderful/'s marvellous"), which would make the jump from cock jokes to National Security Advisors logical
What? Kevin Kline speaking Russian or something like that?
Hey, "A Fish Called Wanda" was at least as deserving of an Oscar as "Braveheart" and "Dances With Wolves." Even though my girlfriend at the time -- a lying, hurtful bitch, in case you're wondering -- disliked it because of the Michael Palin character's stutter.
Okay then, if we're back to that: have you seen these guys who spend their lives injecting absurd amounts of collagen into their members? Totally, completely, work-unsafe (though abjectly non-arousing) link here. Looks to me like those would have moved well past the point of usability.
Oh dear. Braveheart was indeed a bad movie, but the worst ever made? Holy cow. Not even close. I haven't seen Dances with Wolves, but Braveheart can't touch Waterworld for awfulness, and I don't think Waterworld is even close to making the list. Judging by the reviews here, though, Alone in the Dark seems to be making a decent bid for the crown.
Waterworld was not claiming to be an epic full of Moral Truths, however, which Braveheart was. Plus, I just cannot hack the ahistoricism of making William Wallace's primary motivation the murder of his nuclear family.
But if you want a real rant, ask me about Demi Moore flicks someday. Not today. I have to go do some actual work and blog about what an ass Scalia is.
I would dearly love to make fun of you for having watched General Hospital, but, for some reason, as a kid, I loved daytime soaps. Meet me and Fontana at the Mineshaft, 'k?
One could say that Madeline Albright did not coast to a position of authority based on her looks, but one should note that the person involved in any hypothesized looking would have been Bill Clinton.
So there's just no telling.
Unfortunately, one could suggest the same viz Robert Reich.
I declare anathema on the person who stole my #151 and officially declare a whiny sulk on that basis.
{whiny sulk}
In other news, I've never seen Dances with Wolves on the basis that everybody liked it so it was likely bad. Same with ET and Braveheart. Waterworld was truly, hilariously excreable, but I was dragooned into going to see it.
#42: What credibility? I thought we'd established that I hate men.
#116: A) Thank you for missing me. I've been busy. B) Retribution that's my due? You have no idea. Having said that, though, sorry to disappoint, but I don't mind you boys comparing dick sizes at all. I thought we'd established long ago that I like penises just fine.
So, you like the penises, but would uh, prefer to lose the um, stiff attached? So what we really need is a world of disembodied penises? (Look! It's Flipper! Hi, Flipper!' {thrust}{thrust}{thrust}'Aw, good Flipper!')
I suppose the men would have to exported to ManWorld, inhabited entirely by giant, disembodied breasts, ala Woody Allen.
Well, now I've gone and put myself off human beings for the entire day, so no long hard jokes for you.
ash
['I reserve #201 for further pathetic explorations of this topic. BTW, it's 17:51 CST.']
I want this to read 200, at least, so I'll mention that I saw waterworld on a plane. I remember it being really horrible, with one possibly redeeming feature: the gills looked sort of like labia, which kept me amused as I clawed at my armrests in agony.
Is "kitty bukkake" a take-off of "Kitty Dukakis"? Maybe "kitty Bukkakis" would make it more obvious? Sorry to set the bar high and then fail to contribute, by the way.
I remember it being really horrible, with one possibly redeeming feature: the gills looked sort of like labia, which kept me amused as I clawed at my armrests in agony.
On the other hand, it wasn't as bad as flesh gordon which was like being fucked to death by a sticky comic book.
I don't know why you're all hating on Waterworld, which has Dennis Hopper cast against type as a crazy bad guy, not to mention the Kevin Costner gills/labia (for the Deep-Throat-with-a-twist crowd). And it doesn't feature Jude Law (who, I hear, may or may not be hung).
I don't know why you're all hating on Waterworld, which has Dennis Hopper cast against type as a crazy bad guy
Well, because Waterworld was BAD.
I agree though that casting Dennis Hopper against type was Brill Brill Brill, but face it, Dennis Hopper playing his usual semi-angelic type, as George Bailey, huffing oxygen, humming 'candy-colored clown', and preparing to jump off the bridge just before the angel comes to convince him to save himself in 'It's a Wonderful Life' was truly masterful acting. Hopper's transition from sadistic, resentful bank manager to humble, grateful man who appreciates what he has is simply outstanding but could not exist without a decent film to support it.
Probably not. Recent studies in rats have suggested that encouraging me results in syphillis, the flu, shriveling of the male organs, hairy palms and degenerative eye and brain diseases. The Surgeon General is considering requiring a label.
On the other hand, there are unsubstantiated, anecdotal reports that encouraging me results in small increases in breast size, a reduction in acne, general weight loss, and an distinct increase in multiple orgasms.
So I leave work, get on my hatefully crowded train to lovely Sussex and you slackers can't get to 200? What's wrong with you people?
The mention of Kitty Bukakke and Flesh Gordon transported me back to Massachusetts in the late 80s, when the wonderful Dennis "Oil Can" Boyd was pitching for the Red Sox. One year, during spring training, the cops served a summons on him because he had failed to return six or eight videos he'd rented the previous year. All of them had cheesy soft porn titles, the only one of which I remember was "Nudes in Limbo." I do recall, though, that the Boston Herald ran a sidebar about the movies under the headline "Can Film Festival." I still smile every time I think about that.
Oh, and ash, nobody stole your 151. 151 was mine, damn it, MINE!
You're probably another of those hurtful liars, like those former girlfriends of mine who go around claiming that I do not have a truly majestic member. Bitches...
The biggest problem with Waterworld is that, wanting to be "Mad Max on water," someone forgot to realize that a water world would not, in fact, be grubby and dirty like a desert world.
Also, the absence of Jude Law. I don't give a rat's ass how big his cock is or, indeed, if he even has one. He gets a free pass just for being so fucking gorgeous.
Bitch, in re 116: sorry to disappoint, but I don't mind you boys comparing dick sizes at all. I thought we'd established long ago that I like penises just fine.
I was going to say--so? There are plenty of things that I like, that I don't like talking about. But y'know what? That's not true. There isn't a single thing that I can think of that I like that I don't like talking about. A survey of fellow bloggers reveals that this is 100% universal in humanity.
Also, you can't tell because of no timestamps, but this thread didn't take off until ogged brought the hard evidence in post #3. Shows how scientifically minded we all are.
Also, I mean this in a heterosexual way, but Jude Law in "The Talented Mr Ripley" is about as hot as it gets. It's a shame there had to be a movie around him, instead of just a few hours of him being hot in various scenic locales.
Okay, in the spirit of confession, after the first big burst of discussion on this comment thread, I went home from work (the workday having ended) and reproduced Ogged's rubber band experiment. I concede. One can not stretch a flaccid penis remotely close to its erect length, at least not without a level of pain I was quite unwilling to endure.
Now, how do I get all these ink dots off of my penis?
I'd like to think Ogged, apostropher, and Messrs Wolfson and Weiner are all lurking at their desktops, waiting to be the one who gets to say "200th post!!!!1!"
I'd love to hear the explaination to your students why you're late today... or even better if they didn't need an explaination, all of them silently reading this site...
Wouldn't you know, we get to 197 and an IT guy walks up and says, "Hey, I'm here to configure your Oracle." Which he couldn't even do as the fellow who did the installation yesterday forgot to install the ODBC driver.
So I missed my shot at 200 for no good reason whatsoever. 300, bitches!
OK, so in re 203 my hope is that anyone who stumbles on this site unawares and manages to wade through all the comments to get to my fine deliveries won't mind this sort of thing. But that's probably just wishful thinking.
Horrible confession: I had 200 typed into the browser and ready to go as soon as I saw 199 pop up in the "recent comments" sidebar. If 199 had turned out to be "Let's all get whoever posts 200" I would be in trouble. OTOH, trying to get n*100 after posting n*100-1 yourself is like serving to yourself in Hacky Sac, I think.
Close reading reveals that b-wo initially (72) suggested an experiment with a piece of elastic. Ogged (84) carried it out with a rubber band. So the attribution is not clearly erroneous.
Well, I'll be. You ain't just equivocating on the adjective and noun senses. Do the junkies really use five-foot rubber bands? You could make some nice slingshots outa that.
Still, ogged made a crucial modification to the experimental design by choosing a rubber band that was less than five feet long.
I clearly was equivocating in that sentence, else I would have said "rubber bands are elastics" or something like that. However I did suspect that as nouns they could be synonymous.
The five-foot-long thing was just to cover my ass in case the effect wouldn't be observable at lower band lengths. I think I deserve credit for the original design (note that ogged refers to it as "Wolfson's experiment"). Really, Weiner, I don't see why you work so hard to bring me down.
And towards that end, I want to pick up on the Flesh Gordon theme from a little earlier.
When I was a wee lad in Austin there used to be an adult theater on South Congress with a big prominent marquee. Whever we drove past it, I and any other youth in the car would always check out the names of the movies advertised, to much juvenile hilarity (this was in olden days, before the coming of our puerile Lord Beavis, but his prophesied arrival was much watched for).
Usually the names were some variation on the title of a "real" movie. For example, Romancing the Bone.
My favorite EVAR was Edward Penis Hands.
One I heard about later, but also quite like: Good Will Humping.
I know the good commenters of unfogged must also have some worthy contributions?
Jude Law in "The Talented Mr Ripley" is about as hot as it gets. It's a shame there had to be a movie around him, instead of just a few hours of him being hot in various scenic locales.
Agreed. Vehemently. Did you know that there was some British mag that once did a photo spread of him and Ewan MacGregor in various semi-homoerotic poses? I have never seen the thing, though I tried madly to get it, but I hereby state that I am willing to negotiate with anyone who can obtain a copy for me.
I want to point out that my whoring posts both topped 200 comments, by the way. Making my cunt twice as [something] as ogged's cock.
I dressed up as Edward Penishands for Halloween once. I was met with stunned silence at one party; joyous celebration at the next. It was my finest hour, I think.
FL, did you really dress up as Edward Penis Hands? And did you actually see the said porno flick so as to know what he looked like? And what did you use to make your hands into penises? Details, please. Maybe you can post some pictures, kind of like old what's-his-name!
Although that raises another question. Why is it that big is a compliment for a man, but an insult for a woman? I mean, the answer is obvious, of course. But it also seems kinda weird, if you think about it...
I'm not Wolfson. I firmly hold to the argument that colloquialisms and non-standard grammar and syntax are perfectly wonderful things in the appropriate context. This is a damn blog comment thread. "Ogged and I is" is fine.
And just for good measure, let's get ben and matt to each offer their versions too. We've got promises to keep, people, and miles to go before we sleep.
I have nothing against colloquialisms! Nor do I have anything against non-standard grammar and syntax in appropriate contexts, for that matter.
Besides, I'm not even sure that "is" was incorrect. "He or I is" v. "he or I am", I just dunno. I suspect that the pronoun closest to the verb wins, though.
The costume was created with two 14" "destroyer" dildoes and some ace bandages. One penis per arm, not per finger. I've seen the film, but only for research purposes. Downside: hard to drink when you've got giant dildoes for hands.
You know, it's one thing to enjoy the genius and creativity of our brothers and sisters in porn, but surely we can make up some of our own. This year's best picture nominees:
D-squared is always a pleasure to read. Sometimes I dream about he and James Wolcott getting into a pissing match for some reason. I warrant the verbal pyrotechnics would be astounding.
Pity I don't have the writing chops to attempt any Wolcott/Davies grudgematch fan fiction.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 12:06 PM
a gawker.com blind item today may hint at that last question:
..We promptly went in, tried on shoes, and the only available seat was on the same bench as the couple! Jude Law is extremely hot with his hair a couple inches longer than the closely-cropped 'do he sported in Alfie, however, he has gi-normous feet.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 1:44 PM
I was trying to think of something funny to say, but I can't top the pure deadpan of this.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 2:30 PM
Yes but
How can we accept research that doesn't respect the shower/grower distinction?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 2:41 PM
I've heard them referred to as "bluffers." In any case, my dear naive Labs, usually what makes a bluffer a bluffer is that it's always partially engorged (or so I'm given to understand), not that it's long when limp but short when erect. But I have a feeling that I'm out of my depth here, and about to hear it from girl27.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 2:46 PM
Ah, my dear Ogged, I suspect that you mistake the thrust of my criticism. The point I raise is: there's so much variation in the flaccid/erect length ratio that we can't really conclude, as the researchers do, that there's no shoe-penis correlation, since we don't have the real data about length.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 2:53 PM
variation
Not that I've done any extensive field research on the subject, but wouldn't stretching a flaccid penis give a pretty decent estimation of how much it would extend when engorged? I mean, it can only get as big as it can stretch, right? I think it's the "gently" stretching that may be introducing uncertainty. They needed to tug like they meant it.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 2:58 PM
Apos: no.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:02 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:03 PM
I nominate Wolfson for "Field Assistant."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:04 PM
"Ah, my dear Ogged, I suspect that you mistake the thrust of my criticism. The point I raise is: there's so much variation in the flaccid/erect length ratio that we can't really conclude, as the researchers do, that there's no shoe-penis correlation, since we don't have the real data about length."
Sigh. This paragraph was really coming along, but it rather petered out at the end.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:07 PM
While I appreciate BW's succinctness, the answer doesn't really provide much guidance. I understand the difference between flaccid and erect varies widely between members of the johnson crew. However, if you grab one and stretch it, there's a certain limit beyond which it cannot be stretched further without breaking either the penis, a law of physics, or a Geneva Convention somewhere. I would think that limit would be somewhere near (though not exactly at) the erect size because in an old-fashioned erection, the blood is simply inflating it to the point beyond which you really wouldn't want yours stretched.
Am I making sense?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:09 PM
But I have a feeling that I'm out of my depth here, and about to hear it from girl27
Hmmm?
Posted by girl27 | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:12 PM
You know, I had just been thinking about how today was pretty boring at Unfogged. Thank you, cock jokes. Are we still allowed to make fun of the names of the guys at "hard-core" Powerline?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:12 PM
Yes: stretching by hand or by blood is still stretching. I'm with you, apostropher, because I believe in science. Labs, ironically, is holding out hope for the magic infinitely growing penis.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:12 PM
God, I honestly never thought I'd find myself wondering about Wolfson's penis. Now I'm curious-- does it violate some law of nature?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:12 PM
Ogged, have you seen my feet?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:13 PM
Wolfson? You nominate WOLFSON for the field assistant position?
Ogged. You know I'm well rounded. Please consider my application. I think you'd find me satisfying in any position.
Posted by girl27 | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:14 PM
Ogged, have you seen my feet?
Labs has to ask because he can't see them due to his enormous hand-stretched penis.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:16 PM
Wolfson's penis. Now I'm curious-- does it violate some law of nature?
It never misuses a colon, I'll tell you that much.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:17 PM
Lucikly, I have a degree in English, so I'm able to detect the subtle traces of a subtext here.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:17 PM
Ok, that's brilliant.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:18 PM
22 refers to 20 (no offense, Labs).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:18 PM
21 was meant as a response to 18, but-- surprisingly enough, given the context-- I wasn't quick enough. I nominate 19 and 20 for the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:19 PM
27, Labs and I have both noticed that that's dirty talk. And I'm not participating in this experiment so there's nothing in it for me, no matter how well-rounded you are. There might be other openings, however...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:21 PM
People! You have neglected the hypothesis that some peni increase in circumference, thus taking up some slack that might be used in length! Perhaps the artificial stretching procedure these folk used results in a longer, thinner penis than its natural state. Unfortunately the article did not include actual measurements* so we can't tell whether the ranges were at all realistic.
Oh, and ogged, if you muff this serve from girl27, baa is going to show up at your undisclosed location and whip you with rolled-up wet towels.
*measurements containing the letters 'cm' are not considered actual.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:21 PM
Did you just say "muff?"
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:22 PM
Ogged can detect subtext too!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:23 PM
("'muff'?", even in the US)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:24 PM
"muff this serve"? Honestly, Matt.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:24 PM
Thank you for that, Apostropher.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:25 PM
Weiner, appropriately, raises a good point. Maybe, with all this modern technology, it's time to replace the "length" measurement with the "volume" measurement. Then we can start talking about "total displacement," and attract the Nascar crowd.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:25 PM
This thread would be funnier with timestamps.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:25 PM
re: 30; are you seriously getting on my tip for picking up low-hanging fruit? Should I have said "fail to drive that softball deep with your big thick bat"?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:28 PM
Y'all must have either really short erect penises, or really long or rubbery flaccid penises.
I would imagine that when stretching a cock manually you're only able to pull on one particular part, while when one is engorged with blood the entire thing stretches--as Georg Lichtenberg once said, the whole wang must move together. Also, I would bet that the increased diameter actually helps the lengthwise expansion occur, though why I think this I'm not sure.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:31 PM
No, it was that "muffing the serve" sounds more like what we're encouraging.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:34 PM
Wolf, I think that if the part you pull on is on the end, in theory it pulls on the part next to it, and so on down the line. Except that I suspect in practice the parts that drive the expansion are on the inside--blood vessels and the like--and can't be accessed by external tip-pulling. So in that you'd be right. I can't help you with the diameter/length thing, and frankly I don't want to.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:34 PM
Woah! Timestamps!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:34 PM
Timestamps! We drove him to it! Thank you thank you thank you ogged!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:34 PM
It's just for momentary comedic value; soon they'll be gone...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:35 PM
Tragically, I've been bumped to #2 in the only competition that matters.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:36 PM
Labs, I think the response I had planned actually goes over the line into actual frathouse/Fark territory. I wouldn't want to blow all my cred with bphd.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:38 PM
re 37, first part: even a moment's thought should convince you that this isn't the case, or at the very least, that the majority of the stretching occurs nearest the stretcher. One can easily demonstrate this by breaking a cock's neck (easier to do if you live in a neighborhood with a reasonable Hispanic presence). When you do so you will probably not observe that each vertabra in the neck breaks simultaneously, but rather that one breaks before any other, and it's the nearest one to the pulling hand.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:38 PM
Yeah, I totally like the clean look of no-timestamps, but they're needed to see why this thread is funny, if in fact it is.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:38 PM
Oh. My. God. I honestly cannot believe he just said that.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:40 PM
Wolfson needs a shrink.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:41 PM
You're right, Matt, it's best to keep things respectable and dignified.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:41 PM
I didn't mean to cast any aspersions on Hispanic neighborhoods, you know, it's just that in my experience it's easier to buy live chickens in them. I apologize for any offense I might have given.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:42 PM
Yeah, b-wo, but we ain't pulling on shit till it breaks here. If you pull on a rubber band--a stretchy thing--the rubber band will stretch out along its whole length.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:42 PM
b-wo, I think the offense maybe comes from "breaking a cock." If you're going to be the Field Assistant with that kind of methodology, no one's going to sign the Human Subjects form.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:43 PM
Don't be facetious, Weiner. Very little in the human body is made out of a uniform elastic material. Sheesh. No wonder y'all are in the humanities.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:45 PM
Is there a Koufax for funniest comment thread? 19 and 20 here were amazing, and the rest is damn good.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:45 PM
It wouldn't have been worth saying, if I had said "rooster" or "chicken".
Whatever, I'm going home.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:46 PM
Don't be facetious, Weiner.
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?
This threat totally beats grading, though.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:47 PM
No, b-wo, I really don't get it. Even if your junk isn't uniformly elastic--assuming that the force required to stretch part A is still less than the force required to break part B--wouldn't pulling on the end get you to maximum external stretching just as well as pulling on several other places.
The cock's vertebrae, I think, are a red herring, because (AFAIK, I have no personal experience of this) you don't pull on the neck, you wring it.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:49 PM
Hmph. Punk walked out on me.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:50 PM
Ho ho! I get to correct B-Woah's spelling.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:53 PM
The "stretch" theory seems like the sort of hypothesis the Internet was built for testing. Everybody go to the available bathroom, lock a stall door behind you, and report back in 5 minutes.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 3:59 PM
I think everyone went for a cigarette break.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:06 PM
I'm still stretching.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:07 PM
Yup, that's exactly what we need the self-correcting, exaggeration-free Internet for.
Ogged, I just talked to baa, and he was soaking a towel in water.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:07 PM
he was soaking a towel in water
Maybe someone should explain the rules to him, then.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:08 PM
Can I express my results in scientific notation?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:10 PM
Back now. Stretching length is not equivalent to engorged length, and anyone who says differently is a damned liar!
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:11 PM
Tim, first, I hope to god you're kidding. Second, you do realize that a single penis proves nothing, because the question isn't whether stretched and engorged are the same, but whether the ratio of stretched:engorged is roughly the same across penises?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:16 PM
Ogged, if you want to get all scientific about it, it probably wasn't a great idea to include only teenagers and pensioners. Do you realize how many time I had to type that before I stopped transposing the 'i' and 's' in pensioners? I'm not even going to bother finishing what I had to say.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:21 PM
Also, the results are clearly fraudulent, since they imply that they were able to find teenagers who weren't already fully stretched.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:22 PM
"Average age 54" kind of worried me, too...
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:24 PM
About 4 penisoners to one teenager, if my math is correct. I'm glad b-wo isn't around to call me on the use-mention in 66.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:27 PM
Ogged:
As to both points, see the exclamation point at the end of the sentence.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:37 PM
Mno45re inmfgo hjerre.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:37 PM
Matt, you're actually wrong about rubber bands. The effect is just too small to see on most rubber bands you're likely to have lying about.
Think about it this way: let's say you've got cells (not the best word; I don't mean the biological kind but the general discrete-unit kind) which can stretch (at heart I suppose that is the case with the biological cells). A, B, C, etc, with A coming first. You pull on A, and it will stretch itself out as far as it can, and only at that point will your pulling on it communicate the force to B, and then when both A and B are maxed out will C start to stretch, usw. (That won't be perfectly accurate, but close enough.) But, while you're doing this, you're putting a lot of strain on A, since the only reason B is getting pulled is that A is essentially at its breaking point (and would break if it couldn't communicate the stress down to B). So you can't achieve maximal stretch, becaues A, B, etc would be in great pain by the time you got to Z. If you have a long enough piece of elastic you could verify this in the following way: put pairs of equidistant dots 20, 40, 60 and 80 percent along the elastic, say a centimeter apart (or some other reasonable distance depending on the length of the elastic. Then stretch it out various amounts, and measure the new distance between the dots. I am willing to bet that if you started with a piece of elastic that was five feet long (ask your local junkie) you would observe that the dots nearest the stretched end were further apart than those nearest the base. Basically what I'm saying is that you couldn't possibly communicate the stretching all the way down the length of whatever you're stretching instantaneously (otherwise you could transmit information faster than the speed of light trivially), and barring that the only way to stretch something further along is to stretch something closer even more, and that's hard.
(Incidentally, the same dot-pair methodology will be applied in my forthcoming study on what parts of the penis expand first during engorgement, Differential Growth in Cock Parts, which I'm confident will finally net me the coveted Ig Nobel Prize in Biology. I think that it's got to be the base first, with the effects evening out as erection proceeds. By the way, if you already have all of your data, the most efficient way to build a heap is bottom-up.)
(Also, it's true that you don't pull on the neck but wring it (in general practice, anyway; apparently a good way to kill a chicken is to grab it by the head and do a kind of whip-crack with its body), but were you to pull on the head, what I described would happen, because the vertabrae are precisely the kind of semi-independent cells I'm talking about above.)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:37 PM
You can't fake that kind of crazy.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:41 PM
Your penis may defy laws of nature, B-Wo, but you sure can kill the mood.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:43 PM
b-wo, OK, that makes a lot of sense. And of course you have to build a heap from the bottom up--can't build it from the top down, because of gravity. The question is, how many grains of sand do you have to add to get one?
ogged, that link seems to answer the question: apparently stretched size is correlated to what counts. But why the hell does the word "team" there take you to "meet online and reduce costs"?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:44 PM
I believe it's also a consequence of Hook's Law that it's easier to pull a length of elastic to maximum extension (or maybe it only applies to springs? I'm sure something similar holds for stretchy things in general) by first pulling a short amount nearest the base out as far as possible, then fixing it down, then pulling the next piece up, etc, than by pulling it all the way out from the top, since (IIRC) it takes 4 times more energy to pull the elastic 2 times further out.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:47 PM
Hooke's law, bitch. I've been reading the Baroque Cycle.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:49 PM
On one hand, I want this thread to set a new Unfogged record for time to 100, but, on the other hand, I'm afraid of what Wolfson will do if this goes on much longer.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:50 PM
I'm calling BS on Wolfson. His conception of cells seems wrong - that cell A must maximally expend before B expands...well, I can't find any reason for this to be true. What is true is that each cell will have inertia, and the force translated from pulling on A will first have to overcome the inertia of cell B, but after the fraction of time that takes, then pulling on A will equally pull on B. So, if one pulls quickly on A, and it expands quickly but doesn't have enough time to overcome the inertia of B, A will break. But, pulling more slowly, A and B will expand at the same rate.
I feel inadquate for finally coming to this thread and not saying anything funny. Nuts.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:53 PM
Somehow it seems like it'd be appropriate to stretch this thread out unnaturally, but I really oughta be going. Do what you can.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:53 PM
Michael--that's totally the reason you feel inadequate, I'm sure.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:53 PM
Nothing I've said or done in this thread has been the least bit unreasonable.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:54 PM
Telling me not to be facetious is extraordinarily unreasonable in this or any context.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:57 PM
Ok, I fucking give up. I just did Wolfson's experiment with the rubber band and the dots. The dot nearest the pulling force moves much farther than the dot nearest the anchor. So fucking what?? How big's your finger???
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:58 PM
Ok, I'm really going!
(In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience. What is this bullshit? Unfortunately ogged and 27 are off doing measurements so I can't expect a quick answer. Not that I'd be able to get one, since I'm going.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:59 PM
Matt,
before this, I could have made a snappy comeback by pointing out my size 12s.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 4:59 PM
Ok, I guess you're probably right about the first cell not needing to expand maximally before the second cell will start to expand, but I still think it will need to expand more. It's certainly true, though, that they couldn't all expand at exactly the same rate. Of that I'm certain (hence my use in the previous sentence of the word "certainly"). As for it being BS, of course it's BS. But I do think it's true, and I bet if we got an engineer or biologist or biological engineerogist or some such in here, I would be vindicated. Vindicated!
(previewing this comment & reading ogged's: Vindicated!)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:01 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:01 PM
Sorry Matt, that's an anti-spam thing. Why do they call her 27, anyway?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:01 PM
I suppose that "previewing..." bit of my last comment should have been a different comment, the better to help the push to 100, but then there's this comment I'm writing now, so it's a wash.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:02 PM
I don't think 100 is going to be a problem. I weep for the fact that we've gone from cock jokes to me at my desk with a Sharpie and a rubber band.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:03 PM
88 was composed before viewing 87, of course.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:04 PM
damn ogged and his empircal evidence! him and his "rubber band." (sure, sure)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:05 PM
Needless to say, 87 was composed before viewing 88. Still, it's not like I threw in the towel completely.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:06 PM
I can't believe no one's made the "Welcome to Jamaica, have a nice day" joke.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:06 PM
Well you know ogged the last time I attempted a cock joke you were all like "dude u need therapy".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:08 PM
It really says something about us, ogged, that you're running some rubber band experiments and I'm thinking "I can't wait to see the results of those experiments." What it says, of course, is ugly and hurtful.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:08 PM
Everyone seen this?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:12 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:13 PM
What's really really sad, Michael, is that I saw it, and decided not to link to it, because the methodology was insufficiently rigorous. This was before I broke out the rubber band.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:14 PM
YES!
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:14 PM
There are pick-up lines, and lines that bring the date to a close. Wolfson's finishing touch: "Who you gonna believe, me, or your lyin' eyes?"
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:15 PM
Alternatively, "Well, wikipedia says you came."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:17 PM
At last I have something to put on my business cards!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:17 PM
104 was in reference to 99, not 103 or 102, whose seeming malice I just don't comprehend.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:20 PM
This conversation is discouragingly male-dominated. ("And over at the frat room that is Unfogged, the boys spend all day talking about their weiners.") I had a friend (female) who believed she could roughly gage penis size based upon body type.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:28 PM
Ogged, that probably didn't come across the way I meant it--I realized it was an anti-spam thing, but I figure frequent malicious comments by abusive users (there you go, ben) is pretty much the raison d'etre of this blog these days. Not like it's my blog.
Were it "boy27" I would claim metric measurement.
(ps, I know, I know. In my defense, I ran into some human beings in the corridor and talked to them.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:32 PM
Michael, there's only one of me, you don't own me, and very few of the comments were actually about me anyhow.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:33 PM
The conversation is male dominated, because I'm busy down here measuring.
As for body type, I guess right most of the time, but sometimes I'm surprised. I find that the best indicator is personality.
Posted by girl27 | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:35 PM
Too bad the timestamps are gone now, so we can't see if this wins the "Fastest to 100" contest.
(Though the timestamps remain on comment preview!)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:37 PM
the best indicator is personality
"The apostropher is possessed of a hearty, outgoing weiner, while Wolfson's member might best be described as shy, and retiring."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:39 PM
Interesting. Is this blog enough of an indicator of Ogged's personality? (just to note, I will not be asking a follow-up question)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:40 PM
Nope. Doesn't quite work that way.
Funny, though... the two people you singled out are the same two that I did. And (sorry) my guess is it's the other way 'round.
Posted by girl27 | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:42 PM
Did you just tell the apostropher that he's undersized? I'm staying out of this one.
In other news, Wolfson is on his way to your house.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:46 PM
Sweet. I knew Wolfson'd come round eventually.
And no, I did not just tell the Apostropher he's undersized.
Posted by girl27 | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:49 PM
Ya'know it doesn't really feel like a 100-ct. with out PG or BPhD around. And if ever there was a thread that cried out for BPhD to exact whatever retribution she felt was her due for the frathouse atmosphere, this is it.
Not a joke or anything; I'm just sayin'.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:50 PM
w00t.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:51 PM
Well, I'm in possession of a hearty, outgoing apostropher, so BOO-YAH!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:52 PM
You don't know much about women, do you Tim?
Posted by girl27 | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 5:52 PM
I'm offline the rest of the evening. Stay away, comment spammers!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 6:00 PM
I'm in possession of a hearty, outgoing apostropher
Yes, you are, sir. Yes, you are.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 6:01 PM
You don't know much about women, do you Tim?
Well, let's see. Guy who makes snarky asides on an internet forum that has been described by the owner as a "sausage fest." What are the odds?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 6:02 PM
I was with Wolfson before I started reading this thread. If you've ever hand stretched an old spring, the gap spacing is uneven.
Then I saw the BBC thing and noticed that the said the MINIMUM size for 'gently stretched' was SIX cm. Holy shit. That required whipping out the ruler and, yeah, six cm. is tiny.
(But then, I heard it reported that the average testicle was roughly grape-sized, which I personally find freakish. They must be lying.)
Anyways, soft versus otherwise with a ruler clearly indicates the maximum size via 'gently stretching' (not really painful) is much shorter than actual erect length. I expect this mainly has to do with blood pressure inflation maximizing the size of each cell as opposed to simply tugging until it hurts which does not maximize each cell.
I expect that people of the endowed with other-than- male-genetalia can understand the distinction by visualizing the difference between breast sizes involved in 1> nursing and 2> having someone yank on your nipple. If that doesn't do it for ya, you can imagine the difference between clitoris sizes involved when sexually excited versus having the gyno yank on the thing with one of those cold steel doohickeys during a yearly. (After all a clitoris and a penis are essentially the same organ. Or start out as the same organ, anyways.)
As for this stuff:
MEAN VALUES OF SELF-RANKED ENDOWMENT STATUS
Erect Length
Modest
141.5mm (5.6")
Average
161.8mm (6.4")
Endowed
181.1mm (7.1")
Erect Circumference
Modest
117.6mm (4.6")
Average
127.4mm (5.0")
Endowed
137.8mm (5.4")
I'm not sure whether to laugh or not. It implies over-endowed is roughly 7.9" long and 6.0" round but doesn't mention it. (The scary part is, is that I assume the slef-reporters are exaggerating.)
I therefore make no comment.
ash
['Classy thread. I'll save the cock jokes for #151, on account of there being no timestamps and this tiny little text and this business with always dropping to the bottom of thread when opening a window.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 7:36 PM
I expect that people of the endowed with other-than- male-genetalia can understand the distinction by visualizing...
We have readers like that?
It's sort of funny that a thread about penises would have roughly the arc of a bad sexual encounter. Hard to see this without the timestamps, though.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 7:39 PM
We have readers like that?
Last I counted almost four. Maybe it was three. This internet thing, geez, you talk to a woman and she turns out to be Zeta nine and has nine penises. I'm so confused.
Hard to see this without the timestamps, though.
Indubitably. It's one of those geek superiority things, yes?
ash
['You ever notice how the people most into the instantly new and different complain when somebody isn't in the herd? Maybe it's one of those internets things.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 7:49 PM
Wow, what a great thread. After leaving the FRIST! comment I went away for awhile only to come back and see it's up in the 120s! But the bad sexual encounters I've had er I mean heard about weren't nearly so funny.
By the way, I've been meaning to ask, Ogged, is the reason for no timestamps so that you leave less forensic evidence of how much time you spend blogging/commenting, in the unfortunate even that your employer discovers your secret identity?
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 7:50 PM
Jesus, a girl gets busy and her name gets tossed around all over the place.
#38: It's spelled "whoa."
#42: What credibility? I thought we'd established that I hate men.
#116: A) Thank you for missing me. I've been busy. B) Retribution that's my due? You have no idea. Having said that, though, sorry to disappoint, but I don't mind you boys comparing dick sizes at all. I thought we'd established long ago that I like penises just fine.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-28-05 10:59 PM
b, as long as we're being pedants: I pointed out the woah misspelling in comment 57.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 5:25 AM
I maintain that either is acceptable.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 7:07 AM
I'd like a different maintenance man, please. Your construction would rhyme with Noah.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 7:09 AM
Well, Ben, I maintain that I'm hung like a horse, and that all those former girlfriends of mine are just lying, hurtful bitches.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 7:32 AM
0wned, b-wo. Hoist by your own petard. Suck it up.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 8:59 AM
Damn.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 9:13 AM
All right, I missed this entire thread. Let me just offer this, in reference to Apostropher at #7.
Applying a tensile stress to a penis causes a localized decrease in its cross-sectional area near the midpoint of the penis's length. It's called necking, and because the entire stress acts through that reduced area, a penis experiencing necking has reduced tensile strength.
So: it's perfectly possible for a penis experiencing tensile stress to snap at a smaller length than a penis whose length is increased by other means.
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 9:22 AM
Now that is what makes this blog great. You just can't buy that sort of knowledge.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 9:26 AM
That, and the helpful hints about whoopee cushions.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 9:30 AM
Hmm. When I was a teen, necking generally preceded applying a tensile stress to my penis. All the same, I bow in reverence to the accumulated penile wisdom of the unfogged fraternity. Thank you sir, may I have another.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 9:51 AM
#128: Yes, but it went unremarked now didn't it? Which of course just proves that if you pretend to be a hot libertarian chick, people will listen to you, and all women who have coasted to positions of authority have done so on their looks.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:19 AM
That's such a lie. Lots of women coast into authority on the basis of family connections.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:31 AM
That's such a lie. Lots of women have coasted into authority on the basis of family connections.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:32 AM
I'm fairly certain Madeleine Albright didn't coast anywhere on her looks.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:33 AM
She's a lot better-looking than Henry Kissinger was.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:36 AM
Which Oompa-Loompa was studliest?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:38 AM
But nobody -- and i mean nobody -- said red-hot lovin' like Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:38 AM
better-looking than Henry Kissinger
Granted, but isn't that like being more sober than Courtney Love?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:47 AM
Well, come ON! Just the name "Zbigniew Brzezinski"--swoon.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:48 AM
All those Zs really do it for you, huh? Get you all trembly and shit?
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:50 AM
Ever seen that scene in "A Fish Called Wanda"?
(And look! I've brought the thread back 'round to the Oscars again! I believe I am due for some retribution now.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:54 AM
Shit, not Oscars, movies. Although really, "A Fish Called Wanda" is comedy gold.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:54 AM
Brzezinski is known to his buddies as "Zbig". Unfortunately, that's pronounced "Sbeeg", not "'S big" (a lá "'S wonderful/'s marvellous"), which would make the jump from cock jokes to National Security Advisors logical
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:55 AM
What? Kevin Kline speaking Russian or something like that?
Hey, "A Fish Called Wanda" was at least as deserving of an Oscar as "Braveheart" and "Dances With Wolves." Even though my girlfriend at the time -- a lying, hurtful bitch, in case you're wondering -- disliked it because of the Michael Palin character's stutter.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:59 AM
'sbeeg is just 'sbig with an Eastern European accent. I bet he totally used the "they do call me 'sbeeg'" line when he was negotiating with Gromyko.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:59 AM
Well, the thread seems to have moved away from this, but here's some information on penis enhancements.
I know that this sounds like spam, but it's not exactly what you'd expect from the way the phrase is normally used.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:17 AM
Braveheart is possibly the worst movie ever made. Dances with Wolves is on the list, too.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:25 AM
Okay then, if we're back to that: have you seen these guys who spend their lives injecting absurd amounts of collagen into their members? Totally, completely, work-unsafe (though abjectly non-arousing) link here. Looks to me like those would have moved well past the point of usability.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:28 AM
apostropher, why the fuck are you looking at sites like that? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:30 AM
I don't think that question is allowed in blogland.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:31 AM
Braveheart is possibly the worst movie ever made.
Oh dear. Braveheart was indeed a bad movie, but the worst ever made? Holy cow. Not even close. I haven't seen Dances with Wolves, but Braveheart can't touch Waterworld for awfulness, and I don't think Waterworld is even close to making the list. Judging by the reviews here, though, Alone in the Dark seems to be making a decent bid for the crown.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:32 AM
B, for the same reasons I slow down and look at car wrecks.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:33 AM
Waterworld was not claiming to be an epic full of Moral Truths, however, which Braveheart was. Plus, I just cannot hack the ahistoricism of making William Wallace's primary motivation the murder of his nuclear family.
But if you want a real rant, ask me about Demi Moore flicks someday. Not today. I have to go do some actual work and blog about what an ass Scalia is.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:41 AM
Oh, and the real reason I've looked at that site is the same reason that you have: somebody said, "Hey, have you seen this?"
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:44 AM
I had a big 'ol crush on Demi Moore in her "About Last Night" days.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:44 AM
I had one in her General Hospital days, you whippersnapper.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:48 AM
I would dearly love to make fun of you for having watched General Hospital, but, for some reason, as a kid, I loved daytime soaps. Meet me and Fontana at the Mineshaft, 'k?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 11:51 AM
Okay, but this time I get to be Laura and you have to be Luke. Labs can be the Ice Princess.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 12:15 PM
I find that the best indicator is personality.
I can't believe noone has brought up Ogged's emo penis yet.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 4:33 PM
One could say that Madeline Albright did not coast to a position of authority based on her looks, but one should note that the person involved in any hypothesized looking would have been Bill Clinton.
So there's just no telling.
Unfortunately, one could suggest the same viz Robert Reich.
I declare anathema on the person who stole my #151 and officially declare a whiny sulk on that basis.
{whiny sulk}
In other news, I've never seen Dances with Wolves on the basis that everybody liked it so it was likely bad. Same with ET and Braveheart. Waterworld was truly, hilariously excreable, but I was dragooned into going to see it.
#42: What credibility? I thought we'd established that I hate men.
#116: A) Thank you for missing me. I've been busy. B) Retribution that's my due? You have no idea. Having said that, though, sorry to disappoint, but I don't mind you boys comparing dick sizes at all. I thought we'd established long ago that I like penises just fine.
So, you like the penises, but would uh, prefer to lose the um, stiff attached? So what we really need is a world of disembodied penises? (Look! It's Flipper! Hi, Flipper!' {thrust}{thrust}{thrust}'Aw, good Flipper!')
I suppose the men would have to exported to ManWorld, inhabited entirely by giant, disembodied breasts, ala Woody Allen.
Well, now I've gone and put myself off human beings for the entire day, so no long hard jokes for you.
ash
['I reserve #201 for further pathetic explorations of this topic. BTW, it's 17:51 CST.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 4:51 PM
Ah, someone got that, did they?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 7:28 PM
I want this to read 200, at least, so I'll mention that I saw waterworld on a plane. I remember it being really horrible, with one possibly redeeming feature: the gills looked sort of like labia, which kept me amused as I clawed at my armrests in agony.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 7:55 PM
Ah, someone got that, did they?
I'm not sure, as the whole thing was too hard for me.
ash
['And now it's 22:29 CST. 04:29 UT.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 9:29 PM
Labs, that was a beautiful ending clause. Joyce-esque, maybe.
In the spirit of getting this thread to 200, I'll just note a few non-related things.
Unfogged is the second Google search result for "cock jokes." Not a time to slack, people.
It is the first search result for "bukkake blogging." Hail to the king.
This is funny.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 9:31 PM
Is "kitty bukkake" a take-off of "Kitty Dukakis"? Maybe "kitty Bukkakis" would make it more obvious? Sorry to set the bar high and then fail to contribute, by the way.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 9:56 PM
I remember it being really horrible, with one possibly redeeming feature: the gills looked sort of like labia, which kept me amused as I clawed at my armrests in agony.
On the other hand, it wasn't as bad as flesh gordon which was like being fucked to death by a sticky comic book.
ash
['Oh, muse thou art a wanton bitch.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 9:56 PM
"Flesh Gordon"? Ash, you are a wonder.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 9:59 PM
Maybe "kitty Bukkakis" would make it more obvious?
Is that like having a bukkake at a 12-step meeting?
ash
['99 posts of cock jokes on the wall, if one of them should happens to soften...']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:00 PM
Ought we really be encouraging ash?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 1-05 10:03 PM
I don't know why you're all hating on Waterworld, which has Dennis Hopper cast against type as a crazy bad guy, not to mention the Kevin Costner gills/labia (for the Deep-Throat-with-a-twist crowd). And it doesn't feature Jude Law (who, I hear, may or may not be hung).
Posted by Anthony | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 12:38 AM
Let the record note that I would've contributed, but the site was down.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 12:46 AM
"Flesh Gordon"? Ash, you are a wonder.
You've never seen Flesh Gordon? They used to run it on Cinemax (muchly edited) at 3 o'clock in the morning right after the Europorn.
ash
['Those were the days my friends, of high-end porn ripoffs.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 2:55 AM
Let the record note that I would've contributed, but the site was down.
Hah. It went down two seconds after I said:
Is that like having a bukkake at a 12-step meeting?
It's like the Killing Joke, only it's the server-choking joke.
'Seven Shades of Grayscale! I invoke the Filboblast Bugnuzzer's Hammer of Bukkake Bad Taste!'
ash
['Needs salt.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 3:00 AM
I don't know why you're all hating on Waterworld, which has Dennis Hopper cast against type as a crazy bad guy
Well, because Waterworld was BAD.
I agree though that casting Dennis Hopper against type was Brill Brill Brill, but face it, Dennis Hopper playing his usual semi-angelic type, as George Bailey, huffing oxygen, humming 'candy-colored clown', and preparing to jump off the bridge just before the angel comes to convince him to save himself in 'It's a Wonderful Life' was truly masterful acting. Hopper's transition from sadistic, resentful bank manager to humble, grateful man who appreciates what he has is simply outstanding but could not exist without a decent film to support it.
Whereas Waterworld just sucks.
ash
['And then there's Hopper in 'On Golden Pond'.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 3:11 AM
Ought we really be encouraging ash?
Probably not. Recent studies in rats have suggested that encouraging me results in syphillis, the flu, shriveling of the male organs, hairy palms and degenerative eye and brain diseases. The Surgeon General is considering requiring a label.
On the other hand, there are unsubstantiated, anecdotal reports that encouraging me results in small increases in breast size, a reduction in acne, general weight loss, and an distinct increase in multiple orgasms.
ash
['Use at your own risk.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 3:16 AM
So I leave work, get on my hatefully crowded train to lovely Sussex and you slackers can't get to 200? What's wrong with you people?
The mention of Kitty Bukakke and Flesh Gordon transported me back to Massachusetts in the late 80s, when the wonderful Dennis "Oil Can" Boyd was pitching for the Red Sox. One year, during spring training, the cops served a summons on him because he had failed to return six or eight videos he'd rented the previous year. All of them had cheesy soft porn titles, the only one of which I remember was "Nudes in Limbo." I do recall, though, that the Boston Herald ran a sidebar about the movies under the headline "Can Film Festival." I still smile every time I think about that.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 4:03 AM
Oh, and ash, nobody stole your 151. 151 was mine, damn it, MINE!
You're probably another of those hurtful liars, like those former girlfriends of mine who go around claiming that I do not have a truly majestic member. Bitches...
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 4:05 AM
The biggest problem with Waterworld is that, wanting to be "Mad Max on water," someone forgot to realize that a water world would not, in fact, be grubby and dirty like a desert world.
Also, the absence of Jude Law. I don't give a rat's ass how big his cock is or, indeed, if he even has one. He gets a free pass just for being so fucking gorgeous.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 8:08 AM
Bitch, in re 116: sorry to disappoint, but I don't mind you boys comparing dick sizes at all. I thought we'd established long ago that I like penises just fine.
I was going to say--so? There are plenty of things that I like, that I don't like talking about. But y'know what? That's not true. There isn't a single thing that I can think of that I like that I don't like talking about. A survey of fellow bloggers reveals that this is 100% universal in humanity.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 8:39 AM
Also, you can't tell because of no timestamps, but this thread didn't take off until ogged brought the hard evidence in post #3. Shows how scientifically minded we all are.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 8:40 AM
The purported hard evidence, anyway—much of the thread thereafter was devoted to discussing its plausibility.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 8:52 AM
And routine maintenance.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 8:56 AM
"Can Film Festival."
Life is good, sometimes.
Also, I mean this in a heterosexual way, but Jude Law in "The Talented Mr Ripley" is about as hot as it gets. It's a shame there had to be a movie around him, instead of just a few hours of him being hot in various scenic locales.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:05 AM
Getting all sweaty there, Labs? Maybe you could use a film called "Jude in Limbo" before your next trip to the Minehsaft.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:07 AM
Okay, in the spirit of confession, after the first big burst of discussion on this comment thread, I went home from work (the workday having ended) and reproduced Ogged's rubber band experiment. I concede. One can not stretch a flaccid penis remotely close to its erect length, at least not without a level of pain I was quite unwilling to endure.
Now, how do I get all these ink dots off of my penis?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:07 AM
I'm sort of amused to realize that if you switch the first letters in his name, you get "Lewd Jaw."
Apostropher, we commend your contribution to knowledge.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:11 AM
I'd like to think Ogged, apostropher, and Messrs Wolfson and Weiner are all lurking at their desktops, waiting to be the one who gets to say "200th post!!!!1!"
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:14 AM
Ah, yes, b-wo, that's the problem: The evidence that we thought was hard wilts under too much scrutiny.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:14 AM
Mike D--why would you like to think that? It's obviously true. I'm frustrated that I have to go teach fairly soon.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:15 AM
I'm on a mission to Iraq, to determine the whereabouts and magnitude of Jude Law's WMD.
Posted by girl27 | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:16 AM
I'd love to hear the explaination to your students why you're late today... or even better if they didn't need an explaination, all of them silently reading this site...
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:16 AM
Dammit. I too want to see the big moment, but I have to go read about moral sexplanations instead.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:18 AM
100! 200! And I can hear those fighter planes...
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:19 AM
Touchdown!
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:19 AM
Heh. I was afraid it was going to be a huge standoff, everyone waiting for someone else to post #199.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:20 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:21 AM
Shit. It's "see the fighter planes...."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:21 AM
Wouldn't you know, we get to 197 and an IT guy walks up and says, "Hey, I'm here to configure your Oracle." Which he couldn't even do as the fellow who did the installation yesterday forgot to install the ODBC driver.
So I missed my shot at 200 for no good reason whatsoever. 300, bitches!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:25 AM
OK, so in re 203 my hope is that anyone who stumbles on this site unawares and manages to wade through all the comments to get to my fine deliveries won't mind this sort of thing. But that's probably just wishful thinking.
Horrible confession: I had 200 typed into the browser and ready to go as soon as I saw 199 pop up in the "recent comments" sidebar. If 199 had turned out to be "Let's all get whoever posts 200" I would be in trouble. OTOH, trying to get n*100 after posting n*100-1 yourself is like serving to yourself in Hacky Sac, I think.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:31 AM
Ogged's rubber band experiment
Whose rubber band experiment, now?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:32 AM
Close reading reveals that b-wo initially (72) suggested an experiment with a piece of elastic. Ogged (84) carried it out with a rubber band. So the attribution is not clearly erroneous.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:35 AM
Rubber bands are elastic.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:48 AM
Well, I'll be. You ain't just equivocating on the adjective and noun senses. Do the junkies really use five-foot rubber bands? You could make some nice slingshots outa that.
Still, ogged made a crucial modification to the experimental design by choosing a rubber band that was less than five feet long.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:51 AM
I clearly was equivocating in that sentence, else I would have said "rubber bands are elastics" or something like that. However I did suspect that as nouns they could be synonymous.
The five-foot-long thing was just to cover my ass in case the effect wouldn't be observable at lower band lengths. I think I deserve credit for the original design (note that ogged refers to it as "Wolfson's experiment"). Really, Weiner, I don't see why you work so hard to bring me down.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 10:00 AM
Weiner, I don't see why you work so hard to bring me down.
The narcissism of small differences comes to mind.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 10:02 AM
You've got a five-foot long thing covering your ass?
Posted by Anthony | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 10:18 AM
Henceforth the experiment shall be known as The Ogged Test of Wolfson's Theorem of Penile Elasticity.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 10:20 AM
ogged--Pot, kettle, etc.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 11:37 AM
How inappropriate given the topic of our thread.
And what would that topic be, again? I don't have the strength to scroll all the way back up and figure out.
300, bitches!
Let's roll!
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 1:29 PM
And towards that end, I want to pick up on the Flesh Gordon theme from a little earlier.
When I was a wee lad in Austin there used to be an adult theater on South Congress with a big prominent marquee. Whever we drove past it, I and any other youth in the car would always check out the names of the movies advertised, to much juvenile hilarity (this was in olden days, before the coming of our puerile Lord Beavis, but his prophesied arrival was much watched for).
Usually the names were some variation on the title of a "real" movie. For example, Romancing the Bone.
My favorite EVAR was Edward Penis Hands.
One I heard about later, but also quite like: Good Will Humping.
I know the good commenters of unfogged must also have some worthy contributions?
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 1:39 PM
Jude Law in "The Talented Mr Ripley" is about as hot as it gets. It's a shame there had to be a movie around him, instead of just a few hours of him being hot in various scenic locales.
Agreed. Vehemently. Did you know that there was some British mag that once did a photo spread of him and Ewan MacGregor in various semi-homoerotic poses? I have never seen the thing, though I tried madly to get it, but I hereby state that I am willing to negotiate with anyone who can obtain a copy for me.
I want to point out that my whoring posts both topped 200 comments, by the way. Making my cunt twice as [something] as ogged's cock.
Just sayin'.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 1:56 PM
But were those comments as rigorously on-topic as these are? I ask you.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 1:58 PM
Mitch, yes, indeed! I've always meant to do a post on this. I submit: The Sperminator and Buttman & Throbbin'. Hi mom.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 2:00 PM
I dressed up as Edward Penishands for Halloween once. I was met with stunned silence at one party; joyous celebration at the next. It was my finest hour, I think.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 3:21 PM
Shaving Ryan's Privates was a parody title, right?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 3:21 PM
Making my cunt twice as [something] as ogged's cock.
Large?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 6:10 PM
FL, did you really dress up as Edward Penis Hands? And did you actually see the said porno flick so as to know what he looked like? And what did you use to make your hands into penises? Details, please. Maybe you can post some pictures, kind of like old what's-his-name!
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 6:29 PM
Oh, and I meant to ask, was each hand a single penis, or was each finger a penis, kind of like Johnny Dep having a blade for each finger??
Was there anything in the movie involving topiary?
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 6:32 PM
Edward Penishands lovingly trimming a woman's pubic hair? There's got to be a markert for that.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 6:34 PM
apostropher, I concede that you outflanked me on that one. Never saw it coming.
Now, whether ogged or I is the loser in that joke, I can't begin to say.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 6:43 PM
Well yes, that's the beauty of it, see.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 7:13 PM
Now, whether ogged or I is the loser in that joke, I can't begin to say.
Embrace your inner MILF.
ash
['Say, it 8:48 CST!']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 7:47 PM
Porno ripoff movie title: RAMBONE.
Sounded really painful, actually.
Beats the hell out of 'San Francisco Dykes #11' tho.
ash
['Generic Fuck Loop With Bored Unknowns is now only 4.95$!']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 7:52 PM
Although that raises another question. Why is it that big is a compliment for a man, but an insult for a woman? I mean, the answer is obvious, of course. But it also seems kinda weird, if you think about it...
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 8:10 PM
Big is a compliment elsewhere in a woman.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 8:12 PM
True. I stand corrected.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 8:32 PM
Oh, and "I is"?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 8:52 PM
Jesus, you guys have been busy. So, so much to comment on...let's see...
Speaking of the Kitty Bukakke thread...check out this link:
http://www.cinenacional.com/personas/index.php?persona=11933
She could still do porn. Verrrrry hot.
Or how 'bout this chick?
http://mirrors.meepzorp.com/chew-shit-fun/
I bet she does DP.
Posted by Pr Goose | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:03 PM
I'm not Wolfson. I firmly hold to the argument that colloquialisms and non-standard grammar and syntax are perfectly wonderful things in the appropriate context. This is a damn blog comment thread. "Ogged and I is" is fine.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:24 PM
Oh, and "I is"?
Yeah, everyone knows proper bizarro-speak would be "Me am." As in, "Me am laughing at sad comments."
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:32 PM
I've gotta agree with bitchphd on this one. Both because I think she's right, and because it bumps up the comment count. Everybody wins!
Out of curiousity (and to bump up the comment count), how would you edit the sentence which (that?) offends you, apostropher?
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:32 PM
And just for good measure, let's get ben and matt to each offer their versions too. We've got promises to keep, people, and miles to go before we sleep.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:33 PM
As in, "Me am laughing at sad comments."
Hey, apostropher is just doing his part. But thank you for doing your part too.
Also: "The Little Spermaid"
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:35 PM
I have nothing against colloquialisms! Nor do I have anything against non-standard grammar and syntax in appropriate contexts, for that matter.
Besides, I'm not even sure that "is" was incorrect. "He or I is" v. "he or I am", I just dunno. I suspect that the pronoun closest to the verb wins, though.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:35 PM
Mitch, since you asked:
The costume was created with two 14" "destroyer" dildoes and some ace bandages. One penis per arm, not per finger. I've seen the film, but only for research purposes. Downside: hard to drink when you've got giant dildoes for hands.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:39 PM
Damn, and I'm sure the crew down at the Mineshaft was buying you all kinds of drinks that night, too.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:44 PM
Yes, a lot of people were very excited by my penishands. Frightened, but excited.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:47 PM
hard to drink when you've got giant dildoes for hands.
Really, who hasn't had that problem?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:47 PM
Also, "the little spermaid" is hilarious.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:48 PM
I know.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:51 PM
You know, it's one thing to enjoy the genius and creativity of our brothers and sisters in porn, but surely we can make up some of our own. This year's best picture nominees:
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Million Dollar Baby
Ray
Sideways
Some of those you don't even have to change.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:55 PM
By the way, ogged, you're right. That new ADA is totally hott.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:55 PM
And say, how come there are no timestamps?
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:56 PM
Wow, that would be a dream job.
First entry: Doing Julia
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:58 PM
If you wanted to get all Strunk and White, it would have to be "ogged is and I am." But that sounds ridiculous.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 2-05 9:58 PM
Also: SpRay
Posted by Mitch Mills |