New Zealand is great

... at sucking Australian cock!

Is being cummed inside pleasurable?

Abstract

We study the question originally (not) asked by Anonymous in his /lounge/ thread 'The Pleasure of Being Cummed Inside' published in the philosophical journal Anus (1950).

The Pleasure of Being Cummed Inside is defined for a semantics where "deep cumming" effect the pan-universal as they study/perceive it: Examples - MILKRIBS4k, RedCream, pork soda. The term "deep cummer" has no single tangible definition (as yet) but the various definitions used in this field do agree with certain key observations. A Deep Cummer must have achieved a previously unreachable pleasure to such a powerful effect that the pan-universal was mutated by them. The pan-universal is a well known term so I will just reiterate breifly by referring examples in popular textboard: The Ramifications of Being Cummed Inside (Anonymous) and The Ultimate Fate of Being Cummed Inside (Anonymous).

Our in depth study is MILKRIBS4k: His homosexuality was a key point in our study and motivates our conclusion (and proof). As a homosexual he would not be (physically) capable of asking questions. The only way for a human to ask an intelligent question is by using a question mark: Whether this was concious to MILKRIBS4k is not known. This effect permeated all his work and the drastic side effect (unforseen by him) was that his Deep Cumming rendered the future creation of questions permenantly impossible.

Conclusion: We have produced another example of Deep Cumming which has helped add much to the credibility of the theory. We beleive the theory of Deep Cumming to be universally accepted in the /lounge/ community before long. The repercussions of Anonymous'$MILKRIBS4k's Deep Cumming have been extremely vast and harmful to the human race: We do leave this topic for a further study, but offer a quote from Anonymous as a lamenting afterthought: "I dream of cocks drifting across the blue sky."

>>2
tl;dr

>>3
Listen, this isn't /b/. And if you can't read what took me just a minute and a half to read, then maybe you should just reevaluate yourself as a person and just head back to /b/.

>>4
Normally I'd agree with you, but the first five words strongly of the post strongly indicate that it will be some stupid blather written by a thirteen year old. Definitely not worth reading.

strongly

>>5
Normally I'd agree with you, but the first five words strongly of the post strongly indicate that it will be some stupid blather written by a thirteen year old.

Pretty good spelling, grammar and punctuation for a thirteen year-old, I'd say.

>>2
As a homosexual he would not be (physically) capable of asking questions.
Well, that's interesting, and explains much.

Pretty good spelling, grammar and punctuation for a thirteen year-old, I'd say.

The American educational system must have really low standards if that's "pretty good" for a 13 year old.

Just sayin'....

Looks like your patriotic spam fest's kind of back-fired.

>>9
The American educational system must have really low standards if that's "pretty good" for a 13 year old.

Yes, it most certainly has low standards. Bush expanded the Department of Education during his two terms, and I'm sure Obama will also do the same. I expect it to get much worse. The sad part is people can't opt out of this failing pathetic system — unless they're well off financially to be able to afford private schools.

I've improved my writing during silly arguments on forums and browsing http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ over a couple weekends in my spare time than I ever did in four years of elementary school.

The English language is too hard to understand. I think we should all learn Spanish because it's much simpler.