The Picture Thread of leader of mortals' armpit fluff

**Bunny** · 08-20-2010, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Originally Posted by Bunny

No, it is not. Chaps do not have a crotch, therefore they are assless. Saying "assless chaps" is wrong and ignorant.

Bunny I know you went to school in America but even you should have enough of a grasp of anatomy to know that the crotch is not where the ass is located. :stare:

MILF, I know you have a British "education", if you want to call it that, but you should know that while the ass is not located in the crotch, it is also not located anywhere on the legs, which is what chaps are: leg coverings. If you want, I can set you up with a proper American tutor so you can gain actual knowledge of things that matter instead of, what is it? Parliament?

**Madame Adequate** · 08-21-2010, 12:01 AM

I am well aware of what chaps are thank you very much, and you are correct to say that "assless chaps" is redundant. However, your stated reasoning/example was entirely faulty. I would not attempt to say that a hat is designed for the head because it is not designed for the elbow, for instance.

**Bunny** · 08-21-2010, 12:02 AM

I will amend my previous offensive post in order to properly convey the most correct knowledge. I had, for some strange reason, assumed that an article of clothing that was without a crotch would be, by default, without a covering for the ass. Otherwise it would just be odd.

Also I can totally wear a hat on my elbow. I cannot wear chaps that cover my ass.