7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—AspiringProle @Pamduckling

  1. I think we can all be comforted by the knowledge Pam doesn’t like dicks. Of any size. Unless possibly it’s her own? Hard to deduce these days.
    But hey, with a massive IQ like Pam’s, who needs a dick, or dicks in your life, right?

    • I disagree. I’ve met women like Pam, and I’d be willing to bet a paycheck that the reason she brings up dick size is purely a case of psychological projection.

      Not only is Pam familiar with cocks, she is likely a bonafide cock junkie who’s had so many miles of cock run through her that only the largest of dicks provide even a scintilla of satisfaction.

      This obsession of hers, her need to land Moby Dick, is so all consuming and obsessive that she has to bring it up at every available opportunity, for like a drug addict searching for the next hit, she’s always searching for the next cock that might be the one to fill her overused, blown out roastie vagina.

      • Point one: Your claim has no more validity than hers regarding a correlation between gun ownership and penis size. Short of unrepaired tears from giving birth or other trauma there is not going to be measurable changes in vaginal size. It doesn’t matter if it was having sex with one man 1,000 times or 1,000 men one time each. Sexual intercourse doesn’t change the physiology in the manner you suggest.
        Point two: I see this as exactly the same as her response. She doesn’t have any rational response to gun ownership, so she engages in insults. You don’t have a rational, factual response to her, so you engage in insults.
        Point thee: The number of sexual partners she, or any other woman has, is completely independent of her moral character. There are cultures where small numbers of partners are considered moral and others where it is considered abnormal (read Sex at Dawn for a clue). I have corresponded with and/or talked to probably close to 100 different women who have each had hundreds of partners. Nearly all were married and/or in committed relationships and had happy healthy children. Their husbands knew about and encouraged these women to explore their sexual desires. One woman, after having hundreds of partners in one year, created a business around sex parties with a primary goal of encouraging women to discover their sexual nature. It was extremely rewarding to her to see women blossom and realize how mismatched their true nature was from society’s expectations. That was decades ago. The business was still thriving the last time I talked to her a year or so ago. Not all women, or men, are of this nature. But some clearly are. The incredibly strong yearnings and depression which is relieved upon entry into a culture that is accepting of nonmonogamy is indicative of something being repressed in some people by monogamous cultures.

        @PamDuckling may not be very smart and/or be prejudiced and/or bigoted regarding gun ownership. But her sexual history is as unknown to us and irrelevant as the size of the penises of gunowners is to her claims.

        • Well Some Guy. Looks like we clearly hit a nerve on this one. Sorry Joe.
          Just swapping social stigmas with Pam. Should she stop by. All in good fun.

  2. What if I got a Minigun?

    Must I always know the implications toward the size and/or functionality of my genitalia before making any purchase of anything whatsoever? Is that how this works? Maybe the Romish authoritarian left needs to publish a quarterly list of all things and each of their implications toward our genitalia, so we can make “informed decisions” before we acquire anything. Perhaps the penile implications of each and every product for sale should be required labeling, similar to what they’ve already imposed on food labeling.

    They love Love LOVE spending taxpayers’ money to hire their cronies to compile lists, and then imposing things on others, so it should come naturally to them. Yes; Penile ImpLications LAbeling Requirements, or PILLAR. I can see it now.

Comments are closed.