You're missing the point. The question of penetration of the Uterus my a dog is one about if it could happen in reality to a regular woman. Finding one person with fucked up anatomy and then being the "WELL ACKCHYUALLY..." guy isn't addressing the real question at hand. People are not asking if there's 1 person in 7.7 billion that this can happen to. They're asking about if this is possible for the every woman who might be engaged in this lifestyle.
This is why I called your ass autistic (not you, your ass... go re-read my reply). Anyone with a basic understanding of human conversational behavior would have realized no one was asking if the chances were 0.000000001% of this happening. (1 in 7.753 billion)
Here's what happens every freaking time... you'll have one person make a claim like this based on a literal extreme insignificant outlier... seriously this one is e-10... and then the next person will take that and in their horny state where they want believe fantasy is real they will make a further claim on it that's also insignificant and then the next person who's horny reads that then logs into their LARPing account and makes a similar claim. And before long a string of people who have no care about reality and just want to fap off their head fantasies go about trying to convince people it's real.
That's the same exact reason we have multiple threads about women getting pregnant from a dog. People will find the tiniest sliver of 'evidence' they think proves something... and over multiple people fapping to their fantasies... that'll get extrapolated out and repeated over and over until there's people here that think it might be real.
This isn't a research forum (much to my disappointment, lol) where people are digging into deviances from the statistical mean and trying to figure out what that may imply. A lot of people are here to jerk off or rub one out... and actual truth and reality get lost.
The reason I'm so adamant about calling this kind of BS out is because there are women who are new to this who come onto a site like this and get completely overwhelmed with what they read. And when that doesn't line up to what they've experienced or what they know to be true... they're going to question themselves, possibly think there's something wrong because they cant do the things they read others about... or otherwise get frustrated because they cant achieve what they believe other people are actually achieving with their pet.
TL;DR
You missed the point and became the Ackchyually meme.
Why are you so aggressive? My initial response was that this depends. It literally depends on the person, as in I answered the question that was asked. I thought I clarified this when I wrote that "they are wrong, but only to a certain degree".
Everyone is not the same, so it's not just "1 person", have I made this point clear enough now?
Many people have had kids, which could make the cervix more susceptible to very small things, like the tippy top of the pointed k9 penis which would in turn make cumming directly into the womb a possibility (even without a complete penetration because the urethra is located there):
https://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/Article?contentid=415&language=English
"Your cervix measures about the width of two fingers for a few days after childbirth. Within the next few weeks, the cervix gradually narrows and thickens. Your cervix might not become as narrow as it was before you gave birth."
The extreme girls (plural) I talked about would have gotten even more than just the narrow tip of the k9 penis in.
Now maybe you're one of the people that would get that 100% recovery after all of your pregnancies, and maybe you're not.
But with most people that undergo a radical bodily alteration (EG: a pregnancy) they will experience things changing, and some things can be permanent. Might be droopier breasts, less sensitive and/or stretched out cervixes, darker skin certain places, might not happen after first birth, or second, or third, or it could happen at any of those or they could compound.. and I don't know why I need to explain this to you.
If we
have to paint with broad strokes and generalise all people with either a exclusive yes or no answer, then as I stated in my original post on this matter "no" they will not be able to have the canine cock inside the os. Hopefully this makes you happy.
If we're going to be literal about things then your statement about autism is incorrect. "Anyone with a basic understanding of human conversational behavior would have realised" that calling someone's ass X, Y or Z implies that it's the person as a whole they're talking about.
But I'm not here to discuss semantics.
How is this the exact same reason why people say humans can interbreed with dogs? It doesn't work like that because of the different morphology in cell interfaces. There's insanely tight tolerances that has to be met at that scale, I even made a statement about that in another thread. We're now on the other hand talking about much larger mechanically mating surfaces with much more give. It's like comparing a fine jigsaw puzzle to planting a tree in the ground. Your comparisson doesn't work unless you're talking about complete fiction, and if someone believes fiction without looking into it critically, they're fooling themselves. You can only do so much for these people.
And if a new woman here is so insecure about herself that it is a real problem in her mind not being able to have the urethra of the dog's dick meet the cervical opening when having sex with him for that direct cum filling then she has other issues she need to work on.
Sex is different for everyone, not even just the few outliers, but every single person. No people I've been with has been the same by a long shot.
Even if you're able to have that tip mate with your cervix, it might not ever happen if your uterus doesn't line up with his member.
The cock might have a curve that always makes it go towards the posterior, lateral or anterior fonices, or his memeber can be straight but the cervix could be affected by the location of the uterus if it were retroverted, retroflexed and so on. But then again, the possibility is there, and possible does not equal impossible.
How come you're not claiming those girls are fake still btw? Did you actually look into them?
Not that I want you to answer it here. If you still wish to continue this discussion and actually talk about it I think it would be time we took it into private messaging, but I'm kind of done though as it seems you don't
want to hear something that contradicts your current understanding.
Hit me up if my assumtion is wrong and you actually want to have a civil talk where we bring facts and not just make up things as we go.