Responses to:

From: “Conjugate” <conjugate@butter.toast.net>

Well, let's see, where do I begin? First of all, the nipple as well as the penis consists of lots of erectile tissue, and each with appropriate stimulation will emit a white fluid that is associated with babies. But on the other hand, or other whatever, the analogy does not go both ways. Consider:

“His penis stood up like an aroused woman's nipple. ‘Oh, my God,’ his girlfriend said, ‘I... uh, I, uh, just remembered I have a dentist's appointment.’ She dashed desperately for the door.

‘Huh,’ he said. ‘That's the fourth woman this weeek who's had a dentist appointment. I wonder what the matter is?’ The most puzzling thing, he reflected, was that the recollection of the appointment came just as they saw the small mole about half an inch above his massive 8-inch member.”

But you did miss a few analogies that are worth avoiding.

From: bradley_stoke@hushmail.com (Bradley Stoke)

oosh

Breasts are beautiful things. They come in so many different shapes and sizes. Almost all of them uniquely wonderful. However, it's difficult to capture the essense of a breast. The standard terms for describing them already strain the thesaurus, from the vulgar “tits” to the stately “bosom”. From the technical “mammary glands” to the unexciting “breasts”. Crowned by details of cup-size, overall size and nipple design. No wonder they attract so many attempts to describe them.

Obviously, no woman is reducible to their breast-size. This isn't true of men, however. Ultimately all men are reducible to the dimensions and functionality of their penises. This is what men are. Simple testosterone machines. Women are much more complex. The bosom, despite being such a beautiful and wondrous thing, whether small or large, pert or floppy, is not even a small part of what describes a woman. It's not even a sexual organ, and only centuries of male oppression has made such a natural part of the female anatomy an object of sexual fascination. In many, if not most, societies, where the climate is sufficiently warm the breast is left uncovered. That is not so true of male and female genitalia.

And yet, despite (or prehaps because of) all the poverty of prose thrown at the female breast and the lascivious fascination of the tabloid press, there is still a tendency for writers in ASSM to reduce their women heroines to their bust measurements. Why do we need to know, time and time and time again, just how large a woman's bosom is? Okay, there are occasions when its prominence might be worthy of attention. Large breasts, like long noses, huge stomachs, steely abs and shaven heads, are sufficiently prominent when you see them as to excite comment. The reason why it is worthy of comment is not because the sight of huge breasts is an invitation for sex, but because it is not that universally common a sight.

Perhaps when the terms for describing the bosom (which must surely be finite) have finally been run into the ground, we may see authors start regarding more the woman rather than her attributes (however delightful they may be!)

From: Kenny N Gamera <turtlemeat69@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories.d

On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 16:32:59 GMT, “cmsix” <cmsix@DONTSPAMMEcmsix.com> wrote:

>When I see this one without further qualification I always wonder if they
>mean the erasers on #2 pencils or those on the big pencils used by first
>graders.
>
>Does this ambiguity bother anyone else or am I alone here?

AND

On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 18:54:19 GMT, “E. Z. Riter” <ezriter@NShotmail.com>
wrote in Message-ID: <vJ_ja.31845$rd4.817645@twister.austin.rr.com>

>Oosh, search for “like chalkboard erasers.”

With Fred in a Sportsbar

by Kenny Gamera