Packing Accomplished
Three years ago ...
full
INTRODUCTION
The term "packing" refers to the process of creating a male-looking bulge in one's crotch. This can be accomplished through a home-made or store-bought pants stuffer, or through a realistic-looking prosthetic device.
[...]
PACKING DEVICES: Home-made
There are affordable and realistic looking/feeling packers on the market today, but if you are very short on cash, are just starting to pack, or simply do not want to invest in a store-bought packer, the following home-made devices can serve quite adequately, and can be adjusted to your own tastes.Socks
The use of a rolled up sock is a very inexpensive way to create a bulge. ...
Packing: Creating a Realistic Bulge
Posted by b on May 1, 2006 at 16:28 UTC | Permalink
what is an ftm?
...and if I go look at all those penises, will have ten times the spam I've gotten since I went to the sex toys sight?
and...btw...I got through my mini oral exam! wheee! and I got my biggest paper finished! wheee!
and I haven't sleep since yesterday!
zzzzzzz
Posted by: fauxreal | May 1 2006 17:13 utc | 2
good for you b. i have yet to read commentary about the bulge until now. what an unavoidable focus! the problem is clear, once they strapped all that faux gear to his chest/belly region it created the vision of an absense of cock, hence the buildup. someone should make a poster of your cropping w/some slogan ( truthieness?,info warfare?,psyops at its finest?)
Posted by: annie | May 1 2006 19:10 utc | 4
Commander">http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0503/050503bushgeorgew.jpg">Commander in Thief
Posted by: Cloned Poster | May 1 2006 19:51 utc | 5
I don't know b. When climbing I wear a harness with straps around my upper thighs like that, and it "lifts and separates", I imagine in the same way that a bra does. There is really no need for packing. Not that I don't appreciate the snark.
Posted by: PeeDee | May 1 2006 22:01 utc | 7
btw, thanks for the info, jonku...you too, PeeDee.
...but I really think you should post photos to explain what you mean.
just joking...really. :)
...it's all this coffee I've been drinking.
Posted by: fauxreal | May 2 2006 17:45 utc | 8
Can't leave it alone fauxreal?
=)
Personally, I'm speechless.
Posted by: beq | May 2 2006 17:58 utc | 9
I really think you should post photos
ha! i actually wrote that yesterday but lost the courage to post , hit delete. but now that it's out in the open i agree, peedee, i want to see!
Posted by: annie | May 2 2006 18:36 utc | 10
@PeeDee There is really no need for packing.
Those three last commentators did really get incited by that it seems. Post your phone number :-)
b- don't pimp out PeeDee.
it's just that the three of us have the same silly sense of humor. come on, aren't packages funny to you? --okay, well maybe not.
actually, my request is a part of some serious research beq and I are doing into...something... I learned alot from a link billmon posted the other day.
okay, that thing about doing research is a lie....sort of.
it's just that, when someone posts something like that, I have to restrain myself from making a socially unacceptable remark. just to make it. annie did. I didn't.
but you have to admit, it's a great visual.
okay, I'll stop now. in fact, I already told beq I was going to stop because I thought I was probably being offensive to some ppl--that I'd go back to our table again.
but then, I had to post that...which is where her remark came from. I'd just told her I wasn't going to do that.
but if ppl don't think we're funny as humans, or that sex isn't funny, among other things...well I guess you have more important issues to deal with. so do I, but it's nice to have diversions.
Posted by: fauxreal | May 2 2006 22:27 utc | 12
not that sex is a desirable diversion, it isn't , i mean should only be taken seriously.
to be sure, i never actually look, y'know, down there, so it would be hard for me to assess the situation, that's the only reason a photo might be helpful, that's all, i mean if we are going to give the topic our full consideration,(not to be confused w/research, which we are not conducting) to be fair to george and all, i think some comparison is in order, no?
and i agree completely w/fauxreal, i'll just go back to the table also, in case we're being too, forward (and i only say that for lack of a better term), and i take full responsibilty for bringing it up, i admit it was me not fauxreal.
Posted by: annie | May 3 2006 0:32 utc | 14
oh beq! (you know)
me: y'know!
great minds think alike
what a coincidence, i was preoccupied w/a kinder gentler way of approaching the situation and completely missed your comment earlier. it's getting to be that time of the evening, perhaps i'll skip the mint julip and order a shot of chevas, snifter of course.
Posted by: annie | May 3 2006 1:08 utc | 16
The comments to this entry are closed.
By the numbers
Posted by: b | May 1 2006 16:41 utc | 1