|
|
|
timmy
|

 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13828
|
|
|
I have been studying geometry and congruence.
At school we had to go to great trouble to prove that triangles, for example, were congruent. It wasn't hard, but it had some things you had to go through.
My thinking has applied congruency to sex.
The vagina is very much more slot shaped than a circle. Its entrance is a slit and the cross section is by no means circular.
The penis has an approximately circular cross section
The penis and the vagina are not congruent. They do fit one inside the other, but it is not a good match. Thus the design, while adequate for reproduction, seems not to be congruent enough for pleasure.
The anus is approximately circular in cross section, whatever the gender of the owner. It is therefore congruent with the penis and seems well designed for pleasure.
The conclusion is that a penis is designed to fit into an anus, not a vagina. This is the most natural insertion because there are no gaps. Pornographic pictures assure me that the vagina/penis combination has gaps while the anus/penis combination does not.
This confirms that anal sex is better designed than vaginal sex.
There is a side issue of the mouth. This is a red herring. The mouth is designed to talk about sex (oral) and the ear designed to hear about sex (aural). There is a congruence of sound here, so the mouth is limited to engaging its "partner in congruency", though pleasure may be found in using it on any other relevant sex organ. This is obviously a true perversion!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
A simple mathematical proof
By: timmy on Tue, 14 March 2006 16:35
|
 |
|
Re: A simple mathematical proof
By: marc on Tue, 14 March 2006 17:25
|
 |
|
Re: A simple mathematical proof
By: timmy on Tue, 14 March 2006 17:36
|
 |
|
Re: A simple mathematical proof
By: marc on Tue, 14 March 2006 19:23
|
 |
|
Re: A simple mathematical proof
By: marc on Tue, 14 March 2006 19:26
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: Deeej on Tue, 14 March 2006 18:51
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: timmy on Tue, 14 March 2006 19:18
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: marc on Tue, 14 March 2006 19:21
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: Deeej on Tue, 14 March 2006 19:29
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: Guest on Tue, 14 March 2006 19:33
|
 |
|
Definitions
By: Deeej on Tue, 14 March 2006 19:46
|
 |
|
Definitions (II)
By: Deeej on Tue, 14 March 2006 20:01
|
 |
|
In the matter of Snotspittle v. Deej ...
By: cossie on Thu, 16 March 2006 01:38
|
 |
|
Re: In the matter of Snotspittle v. Deej ...
By: Deeej on Thu, 16 March 2006 02:27
|
 |
|
Dear Mr. Camn
By: cossie on Thu, 16 March 2006 03:12
|
 |
|
Looks like Deeej is taking this to heart ...
By: cossie on Fri, 17 March 2006 02:30
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: timmy on Tue, 14 March 2006 20:09
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: Deeej on Tue, 14 March 2006 20:32
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: marc on Tue, 14 March 2006 21:27
|
 |
|
Not knocking
By: Deeej on Tue, 14 March 2006 21:57
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: Guest on Tue, 14 March 2006 23:12
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: Deeej on Tue, 14 March 2006 23:24
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: saben on Wed, 15 March 2006 00:54
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: Guest on Wed, 15 March 2006 00:10
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: timmy on Wed, 15 March 2006 08:28
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: Deeej on Wed, 15 March 2006 11:39
|
 |
|
Re: A not very mathematical proof
By: timmy on Wed, 15 March 2006 13:54
|
 |
|
Re: A simple mathematical proof
By: saben on Wed, 15 March 2006 00:51
|
 |
|
I think I'll stay out of this one ...
By: cossie on Wed, 15 March 2006 03:56
|
Goto Forum:
[  ]
|