what would a Puritan with a speech impediment call a naked woman with a 58" bust?
*running for the hills as i click enter*
nnnnnnnnnnpudennnnnnnndassssss
I can't find the posts, so I am starting a new thread, but in reference to the vaginas Ian is apparently offended by in porn spam, he has now on multiple occasions changed the term to pudendas.
I initially thought this was probably a version of **** and other such references that are generally considered derogatory slang terms. So I decided to look it up as this was a new word to me. Here is what I found:
Pudenda, n. pl. [L., from pudendus that of which one ought to be ashamed, fr. pudere to be ashamed.] (Anat.)
The external organs of generation.
So it's not a synonym for ******, although it would include the external parts of the ******. But what I find ironic is the derivation of this word. Those of us who found fault with Ms. Jackson's display have been told we ought to just lighten up as regards "God's creation" and that we are just too puritanical or blue nosey about nudity. We've been regaled by Ian about all matters sexual including how kids are sexual from birth and there is apparently no difference between someone touching themselves in any way and in a sexual way. Yet he objects to spam that portrays what he now refers to as pudendas. The irony is the derivation of the word as pertains to parts one ought to be ashamed of.
So Ian, should I be ashamed of my pudenda? Why are you offended by displays of pudenda but not of breasts? Are they not both God's creation? Are they not both displayed on the nude body? Your hypocrisy on this issue is astounding!
Evie ![]()

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic