uncut dogs

Andy Robertson · 22 Apr 2001, 12:28 · from urth-v0204.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Andy Robertson" <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Subject: Re: (urth) uncut dogs
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:28:30 +0100
Message-ID: <urth-v0204-817 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0204/817.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

----- 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

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net