It’s not easy to study a whale vagina. But it is necessary.
From this Scientific American article by marine biologist Dr Marah Hardt. The same article also features the following twelve words:
“You can easily fit your whole arm up in there,” says Mesnick.
That 'giant vaginas' tag has been surprisingly useful.
Posted by: Connor | August 23, 2014 at 18:31
That ‘giant vaginas’ tag has been surprisingly useful.
More so than I’d anticipated, yes.
Posted by: David | August 23, 2014 at 18:35
"Make sure to tie that rope off! I'm going in..."
Posted by: JuliaM | August 23, 2014 at 18:44
the largest, most convoluted vaginas on the planet.
I've always said this is an educational blog.
Posted by: Sam | August 23, 2014 at 18:50
I think they have a different definition for "necessary" than I do.
Posted by: jabrwok | August 23, 2014 at 22:59
"Don't be a dick and shove your arm right up in there."
12 words.
Posted by: Tom | August 24, 2014 at 00:13
Five syllables in search of an haiku:
Whale's big vagina.
Posted by: R. Sherman | August 24, 2014 at 13:10
Women may underestimate the role of female selection in reproduction but boys figure it out as teenagers.
Posted by: b moe | August 24, 2014 at 13:11
Well I remember the David Attenborough wildlife programme where he described the mating behaviour of whales.
The female was somewhat protective of this giant vagina, floating and rolling onto her back in an effort to play "hard-to-get".
The male's member, on the other hand, was "several metres long and very flexible" - surely another useful tag there - so he was able to mate with her anyway - if not to "mount" her, exactly.
Posted by: Henry | August 24, 2014 at 15:32
Hell, you can fit a whole baby whale up there.
Posted by: mojo | August 24, 2014 at 15:42
“several metres long and very flexible” - surely another useful tag there
[ Rubs chin, tilts head, ponders. ]
Posted by: David | August 24, 2014 at 15:42
Dave,
Am just beginning the book "Conservative Insurgency" If you have read it, I would be interested in your thoughts.
Posted by: Shiggz | August 25, 2014 at 06:26
Shiggz,
I haven’t read it, so no thoughts.
Posted by: David | August 25, 2014 at 08:27
From the article:
"So that's that sorted then, now to look at the vajayjays."
Posted by: Kevin B | August 25, 2014 at 11:39
Does bitty fish know this?
If Britain were one of the United States, it would be the poorest, after Mississippi.
What UP you guys? Lads, I mean. Aren't your policies supposed to be better for society that ours?
Posted by: dicentra | August 25, 2014 at 17:00
dicentra, wow! Not surprised by his findings only, that it was allowed to be reported.
Posted by: Shiggz | August 25, 2014 at 22:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQsJ3EMgdN4
Posted by: ac1 | August 25, 2014 at 23:22
If Britain were one of the United States, it would be the poorest, after Mississippi.
Errr . . . Really?!??!?!?
For mere GDP/population, of course Alaska is going to lead, Alaska is rather short on population . . . And how does Alaska have the bigger economy than quite a few other places, including California?
Granting the errors of Wiki, the UK being behind the US and ahead of California, and others, does seem a bit more likely . . . .
Posted by: Hal | August 26, 2014 at 00:08
And how does Alaska have the bigger economy than quite a few other places, including California?
Oil Freaking Revenue, of which the citizens of AK get a cut.
AK also has very little in terms of inner cities where people go to atrophy. The "poor" in AK are misanthropes, hermits, and adventurers who've decided to live off the grid. They get a cut of the oil profits, too, but they're not a drain on the system.
Actually, I've heard many times that the middle class in Britain lives below the US poverty line. When you calculate square feet of living space and whether the family owns a car, guess who wins?
Posted by: dicentra | August 26, 2014 at 04:37
Oil Freaking Revenue, of which the citizens of AK get a cut.
. . . . Oh, yes, Alaska's got the oil revenue---and the population--- . . . but that's still not the overall economy, and economic size, which is what I'm reacting to . . . .
Posted by: Hal | August 26, 2014 at 06:25
Finally John Holmes can find a suitable partner.
Posted by: jones | August 26, 2014 at 10:32
but that's still not the overall economy, and economic size,
Who cares that the overall economy is huge when the individual share of the pie is infinitesimal?
Posted by: dicentra | August 26, 2014 at 20:29
Who cares that the overall economy is huge when the individual share of the pie is infinitesimal?
Share of the pie?
Instead of GDP/national population, one gets even better numbers when one considers GDP/citizens who have walked on the moon---so for the US, that's [US GDP/12], and for Britain, zero . . . .
I do note that some columnist decided to throw numbers around. So what?
Why care about these numbers??!
Posted by: Hal | August 26, 2014 at 23:12