Subject: Re: (urth) uncut dogs

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 12:28:30 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ellis" <LittleSense at necronomicon.co.uk>
> So. I don't really have a theory. It's another of those little bits of 5HC
I
> keep coming back to and coming back to.

An awfully crude queston.

When Marsh remarks that the boy is "uncut" and *therefore* when he was with
the girl, would "bind", or something like that (sorry I can't lay my hand on
my copy of 5HC rigth now) , what the hell is he talking about?

"They would bind, I know.  I think I would kill them if I found them like
that"

(from memory)

This seems to refer to the way a male dog gets stuck up inside a female one
and cannot disengage.  I am uncircumsised and I can assure all you
prick-trimmed Yanks that nothing like that at all happens.

Why did Marsh think this?

Does this signal something about Abo sexual behaviour?

(Or are there entire realms of sexual experiene I have yet to taste?  :-)

    hartshorn

--