Page 3 of 3

Re: Photoshop or not?

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:28 pm
by MacTheWolf (imported)
twaddler (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:28 am lol.. i used to be able to almost do that. :)

I'd say tanglog was "hung like a prehistoric horse" but.......Eohippus aka Dawn Horse was only nine inches tall hence his winkie was only...what..one half inch?

Re: Photoshop or not?

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:12 pm
by JoaoGenerico (imported)

Re: Photoshop or not?

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:55 pm
by markdf (imported)
There's a basic sociological law relating to genitals and sex: anything that is physiologically possible is being done right now, and there are pictures of it on the Internet.

I first heard this law invoked in a discussion about whether auto-cunnilingus is possible. There is no pornography of it, so auto-cunnilingus can be deemed impossible. By contrast, auto-fellatio is physically possible, and there is an extensive corpus of "visual literature" on the subject.

It's easy to believe that a cock-knot is possible for someone that has a sufficiently long, thin penis. So there should pictures of it, which lends credibility to this image.

Re: Photoshop or not?

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:57 pm
by kristoff
JoaoGenerico (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:12 pm What about this?

http://www.cockchopper.com/

Old news....

Something that Shannon and company at BME patched together a number of years ago. It is all over the net and totally fake, but certainly a fun watch if you're into that...