Though I hate to hear ignorant people espouse ridiculous bullsh*t, I actually DON’T reject wholesale generalizations across the board as completely untrue. The key word there is COMPLETELY, because though generalizations can usually be proven wrong extremely fast, there are some generalization that, except for a few exceptions, do have some bearings in truth, while others are just completely fallacious BS predicated on a stupid and unsound belief system such as Skinny guys are HUNG and ghetto girls have the tightest, wettest nani ever.
Now I am not going to attempt to disprove or prove how large Skinny guys are because, well, that’s kinda gay. But I have one simple question for women who firmly believe this: Since a man’s richard does not change length or girth, but his body will change multiple times, how can you even begin to assert what a “skinny” guy is to prove your point? Take D’Angelo for example:
On the LEFT is him before and the RIGHT is him today. By YOUR characterization he would be HUNG based on the fact that he USE to be skinny, but now that he is fat, and knowing that richard size doesn’t change with weight loss or gain, does that mean you wouldn’t mess with him now because he’s put on weight and therefore inexplicably lost length and girth? If THAT’S your argument, chances are you probably don’t know MUCH about men’s bodies in the first damn place.
But the ignorance is NOT limited to women, because there is a very prevalent thought-process going around that ghetto/hood/project chicks somehow have life-changing, make you wanna slap your-mama nani, which apparently affluent, or simply successful women DON’T have. Apparently, by some men’s ways of thinking, if you meet a cute girl and she says she’s from a neighbourhood with a lot of rich, well-to-do folk then chances are her skills in bed will rival Shaq’s chances in a spelling bee with Mark Twain.
But my question to men is this: If a girl’s relative location to the projects makes her nani increasingly better, how do you explain women who either grew up in the suburbs and moved into the hood later in life, or women who grew up in the projects and ‘moved on up’ to the suburbs. By proxy, wouldn’t the move itself alter the women’s vagina while she is in the moving truck? As a box of her life belongings is shipped deep into the burbs does the nani just dry up like xeroderma? But if she moves closer to the hoods, she starts leaking in the U-Haul like Hellraiser’s waterbed.
How about this – speculating on someone’s length, girth, tightness, moistness, etc. is largely irrelevant, because you can’t use mass generalizations to identify SKILL.
This Is Your Conscience