Gotta love the liberals screeching "You're so aggressive" in response to "I don't buy your BS" type posts. Gets me to turn them off IMMEDIATELY as anything resembling a useful input. (Hint: Everything after what I quoted got ignored as the typical whining of dipsticks with no grasp on reality - We've heard it all before - your latest variation isn't worth even hearing, let along listening to)
I don't know if they're a liberal, but they're definitely a new user here so they have on clue just how many times this idiotic claim keeps being made.
I just love being lectured to by people that have been around here for less than a week and instantly jump into a long contentious issue that has probably hundreds of people claiming total BS.
Why are you so aggressive?
It's not aggression, its being fed up with new users coming in and making the same BS claims over and over and insisting that --THEY-- know better than anyone else.
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."
Beyond that, a woman with a natural positioned uterus, an anteverted uterus like mine or a retroflexed uterus wouldn't even line up right with a canine cock for it the 'tip' to land directly in the center of her cervix. A woman with a retroverted might, but due to the force of penetration by a canine, its highly unlikely even in that case that it'd line up. However even if it could...
Have you ever touched a canine dick before? That 'tip' that you speak of us super rubbery and not at going to stay stiff enough to penetrate anything. If it comes in contact with the cervix, its just going to get bent away... it's not stiff like what people expect from a cock. It doesn't have the rigidity to penetrate anything... let alone a 99.9999999% of cervixes.
And I'd put money on the reality that any woman with a prolapsed Uterus to the degree at which you describe, wouldn't be able to tolerate the violence of a dog fucking them. They'd likely end up in the hospital if they even tried.
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.
You don't need to explain any of this too me, I'm very well experienced in female anatomy... seeing as how I have my own to look at and I've literally been fist deep inside women after both before and pregnancy. I'm aware changes can occur in the reproductive tract after a pregnancy. But you're not going to see extremes like this outside of a severe medical issue.
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.
Um..... I hate to be the one to break this to you... but since you haven't figured this out yet... almost all conversation is in broad strokes and generalizations. People don't usually discuss extremely rare occurrences when they're having regular conversations. And they certainly don't discuss those things in extreme detail in general conversation. As I mentioned before... this is not a scientific research forum. It's a general conversation forum.
So yea...
OBVIOUSLY we're talking in generalizations. That's what general conversation is. If you want to have a discussion about statistical outliers, that's fine... but don't come crashing into a general thread with them as you try to prove everyone wrong. This conversation... and debate as it turns into all the time... has been going on long before you arrived in it.
Hence you being the "Ackchyually..." meme.
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.
Ah yes... the old... "I'm not here to discuss semantics..." right after you want to get into discussing semantics about something that was said.
If you're not here to discuss semantics... then don't. Otherwise you're playing the "I'm going to do this but I don't want you doing it back to me" game.
How is this the exact same reason why people say humans can interbreed with dogs?
You haven't been here long so I'll be gracious and explain even though I brushed over it before. If you read through any of the dozen threads on here about that. What you will see is the same exact argument logic that you used, they will fine some outlier and make a claim about it. Then the next person takes that and takes it one step further with another outlier. Before long you're several deviations out and all the while people have been getting the details wrong.
Examples...
People will argue that since animals of the same genus can breed (horses and mules), and before long that's been twisted into "humans and animals can breed."
People will bring up chimerism... and before long people are arguing that humans can inherit/absorb canine dna ~somehow~ which will allow them to breed with a dog.
People will bring up about some random story they found somewhere about a woman carrying a canine fetus to term and that proves we're compatible (they provide no sources).
People will bring up "well in a medical situation you can insert something into the cervix..." See:
https://www.zoovilleforum.net/threa...etween-women-and-boar-pig.48355/#post-1059841
Every time it starts by someone bringing up an edge case and then people who don't understand the reality of that edge case... take that and bend that fact or twist that fact into meaning "its possible".
People here want to jerk off or rub one out to fantasy... and they're more than happy to lie about it because the idea gets them horny.
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.
"Tolerances" have nothing to do with it, its a biochemical impossibility due to micro-cellular differences and the obvious fact that out genetic codes are not in anyway compatible and will never be able to bond together.
It's not about comparing a jigsaw puzzle to planting a tree in the ground. It's not a mechanical issue at all, why would you even bring that up?
Even if acrosome reaction would take place between a human oocyte and a canine spermatozoa... and I don't believe that it would... chromosomal mismatch will not render a single viable DNA strand capable of being replicated.
I did research into the interactions of canine male and human female gametes in another thread.
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.
I cant believe you actually thought it was totally fine to say something like that... and then decided you were going to type that out... and then post it publicly.
But to try to take what you said in the most charitable light I can muster... perhaps you need to go back and re-read what I said. I was making a comment regarding women not having their personal experiences match up with the BS claim on this forum all the time. This was not a explicit claim about cervical penetration... even though that comes up all the time by people claiming its true and women then commenting that they never experienced it in response to those claims.
But I wouldn't expect a member here less than a week to have any idea the kinds of discussions that happen here and what gets said.
But then again, the possibility is there, and possible does not equal impossible.
To repeat myself... 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.
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.
I am not going to get baited into a debate over using medical injuries/oddities/deformities as the basis of an argument about this happening to women, because I'm not the "Ackchyually..." meme.
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.
I see no reason to make this a private conversation. You put this out here in the open. In the open it can stay.
...where we bring facts and not just make up things as we go.
... irony defined.
Which is EXACTLY what you're trying to do: Argue that someone is wrong because you found an outlier.
Bingo! Exceptio probat regulam.
Needing and arguing that an outlier proves the "claim" wrong... proves that in every realistic case the "claim" is true.
