Seinfeld Visits Literotica

Did you ever wonder about those extra buttons that come with suits and sport coats? You know the ones in a little plastic bag in the inside pocket? I mean what's that all about? Does the tailor think we can't find a small black plastic replacement button costing one penny when we need one? I mean you all have a special drawer in your armoire with all these spare button sets neatly categorized by color and size, with a swatch from the suit alongside, right? WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

So goes one of the opening monologues on the Jerry Seinfeld Show during the first or second season. Not funny? I guess you had to be there. When he does it, it's funny. That's his gig - finding humor in the most mundane, ordinary things encountered in everyday life.

So I got to thinking. What if Seinfeld visited the Literotica website. I'm not sure this is everyday life, but we all need a little extra stimulation once and a while, am I right? Even Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kozmo. I mean they don't remain Masters of their Domain all the time. Especially George.

Gee, would I like to be deemed sponge-worthy by Elaine. I mean we'd all like to fuck her brains out, right? But enough about Elaine. What would Jerry say after sitting in front of his computer with his pants unzipped for a month of late nights with Literotica?

I imagine something like this.

Did you ever wonder who Laurel and Manu really are? I mean has anyone ever seen or talked to them? Has anyone ever gotten a return email from them? I want a show of hands on that! No one? WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?

For all I know, Laurel is a pseudonym for Osama Bin Laden. Yes, he has been hiding out at Lit all these months, corrupting the morals of readers in the free world by planting the seed that all Western men are wimps and like to eat creampie. I mean he is already on record with his claim that all Western women are total sluts, which we know is just sour grapes because he's never been able to score any Western pussy. But how could we allow the nose of his camel under our Literotica tent?

And we all know who Manu is, right? Saddam Hussein! I mean for all these years the link between al-Qaida and Saddam has been right under Bush's nose right here at Literotica. Weapons of mass destruction? Duhhhh, I guess! PUSSY! All George and his henchmen had to do was spread the bush a little and get their nose wet. Instead they have been wasting their time beating the bush, which is not a very productive endeavor unless you are into BDSM. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

And have you noticed how challenging the profile page is for aspiring and even regular writers? Can they not figure out how to choose among the multiple-choice answers? Is "Gender?" too difficult? JUST ASKING.

I don't know about you, but I look up the profile of any author I am reading for the first time. I like to know whether this is a novice writer and one who would like to have feedback. That the writer might take a little time to tell me why they are writing and whether this is fantasy or real life inspired is not an unrealistic expectation, is it? Of course having a female writer's picture showing tits or ass is almost guaranteed to get a rise and a read out of me - and at least a vote of four, even if her writing really sucks. Sorry guys.

When I see a string of "No Answers" on that profile, am I wrong to read that as "Fuck you, assholes"? And I'm really going to read that story, right? Ever wonder why someone would post a story and invite everyone not to read it? Like if a writer tells us what sex they are, we're going to show up at their door with a hard-on, right? WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?

And I do kind of like to know what sex the writers and readers are. Kramer tells me that most of the "women" on Lit are really guys in drag, like Kanga 40, but you have to read their stuff and comments to eventually figure that out. So why the deceptive names? I mean "peggytwitty" is a woman and "deadwould" is a man, right? Isn't it hard enough to know whether the profile is truthful without throwing those wrenches at us? Did these people not make up their minds about declaring their gender until after they selected their "nom de Lit"? Or did they change their minds?

And what about the writers who post a picture of a cat or a sunset in their profile? Aren't they afraid we'll recognize the cat and call them up for some nasty sex? Or did they actually try to post a picture of a creampie (his cream or her pie) but Laurel censored it? WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

I mean how anonymous do you have to be? Like the people (primarily chicks) who tell us their height (invariably "small") but give "no answer" for their weight, are really pulling the wool over our eyes. I mean large chicks who contribute to Lit are great fucks, so why hide it? Am I right?

And speaking of anonymous, what is with the cretins (sorry, I meant critics) who write anonymous essays denigrating the story they didn't actually read, because the subject matter offends their delicate moral sensibilities? Are they afraid someone might pick up their social security number from a profile? Are they so cowardly that they are afraid some author might send them a nasty email to thank them for their doltish comments? I suppose it is so much safer to take potshots at people who can't shoot back. A gutless drive-by assassin in a dark tinted car is what they are. I mean I can see Jerry Falwell not wanting to identify himself as a reader of erotic literature, but you don't have to post a picture on your member profile. Do all of these people really not have any testicles? WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

Need I ask why these limp dick wonders are perusing Literotica, anyway? I recently saw where these masturbating moral pigmies have formed a club to combat the portrayal of licentious pussy, called "Dickless Anonymous". A more accurate title might be "Misogynists United". Don't cha wonder if these anonymous illiterates (all apparently male) have had their women cheat on them throughout their lives, while they are impotent to respond.

The picture emerges that, cuck-less though they claim to be, they can't get an erection unless they read of a wife cheating and then can't get off unless she is severely punished. That's why they get so pissed off when there is reconciliation. They wind up with a noodle dick and no way to get off.

Haven't any of these Anonymous numb-nuts figured out how to use a spell-checker? And did you notice that some of these guys give themselves away every time they mumble their incoherent comments? We all know the usual suspects like "sick little one" Anonymous. Kramer heard that the only time this bozo gets his peepee wet is when he pisses himself. And then there is "60 yr old George" Anonymous, who is always looking for someone to root for. Has he mistaken the Cheating Bimbettes for the Fighting Irish?

Perhaps Laurel should give authors more tools than just deletion of these inane essays. How about a button to push that would automatically post a photograph of a horse's ass next to the comment?

Like why are they reading "Loving Wives" category anyway? Don't they realize that the overwhelming number of stories in this category involve married women sampling strange tube steak? Does someone force them to read this stuff? It goes without saying that these anonymous critics are stupid and lack an education, but even a sixth grader can read! WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?

And speaking about Loving Wives, did you ever wonder what is with this category? In almost none of the stories are the wives loving (except of some hot extra-marital sex), and in half the stories they end up not being wives. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

I mean Literotica has about 17 story categories. Can't we create about two or three more? The cuckold stories offend the most ignorant readers and there is never any revenge, so the rest of us have to deal with their incoherent and impotent whining. Like these bozos know anything about what it is to be a real man. Why not give this its own category, or at least put it in fetish. Then these clowns will have no excuse for stumbling into one of these stories (although it's not like they wouldn't search them out anyway).

Another category would be "wife watchers", which stories get the second most hate mail from the testically challenged. I don't usually like these, but Kramer has pointed out a few good ones about independent women who do it for themselves instead of their "wimp" husbands. So I don't know that this is a fetish, but it does deserve its own category.

We cross over the line from "watching" when the husband also gets to dip his wick in his wife or some strange stuff (other than his wife's fresh creampie). And that should be the debarkation for "Loving Wives". Heaven forbid that a wife would actually enjoy fucking her husband. Threesomes and swapping and exhibitionism go on from there, but there are other categories for this activity too.

Speaking of which, what are "Cheating Wife" stories all about? They certainly aren't "loving" as these wives are invariably and inexplicably driven by their raging devil pussies to eternal damnation. I mean when did women begin following their pussies around like we men follow our dicks? Do any of you know a woman who is controlled by her pussy? Where can I meet her? WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

This is a whole genre of alleged erotic story that may not belong on Literotica at all. Who exactly gets off on these stories? I mean if there is no attempt to arouse the reader (except for the members of Dick-less Anonymous), what is the point? What part of "non-erotic" do these writers not understand?

I'm tired of hearing George Costanza complaining about these silly cartoons. It is one thing to read bad Hustler porn but quite annoying to read of cardboard characters following a buffoon script for marriage. BIFF! BAM! BOOM, and the brain-dead June Cleaver abandons Ward and the Beaver for a big dick, and is eternally damned as she deservedly dies of Aids. WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?

Oh, and the idea of the evil alpha male predator, who is the staple of this genre, may not be an idea whose time has yet come, as it were. I tried to float a storyline about one for the Larry David show, but none of the writers had ever heard of or encountered such a human being. And a non-scientific survey of every human being I have ever met did not turn up anyone who would admit to ever having known such a person.

Use of such a character (are there any other kinds to inveigle the innocent slut wife?) leads to some clever writing on Lit though. I loved the recent story about the married bank vice-president who flipped the bird at the cuck husband in the middle of an office Christmas party while he impaled cuck's drugged wife who, despite her alleged drugged condition, was having the best orgasms of her life while she vigorously jumped up and down on A-man's huge dick. Husband was so crestfallen that he disappeared for five years. Oh, and I think somebody died of Aids in there. Couldn't follow that? But that's a great plot, right? It got the coveted red "H", so it must be "Erotic Literature"! Works for me.

Which reminds me that I got the same survey results regarding experience with date rape drugs, an unfailingly clever plot devise used by writers of this genre. Seems that no one knew of such a drug ever turning a woman into a multi-orgasmic cumslut - just a somnambulant rapee and unwitting cumbucket. So I keep wondering why the members of Dick-less Anonymous still think these women are "disgusting sluts". I guess they fantasize that they can finally get into a live woman's pants with something like these drugs. Alcohol never worked for these limp dicks. WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?

And then these stories draw the "Mavens of Misogyny" out of the woodwork to write essays about whether the brain-dead wife is sufficiently punished, or the man so lacking in manhood as to reconcile with the bitch. You know who I mean. Twenty, thirty, or forty comments that do nothing but pontificate about the reader's political views on adultery. The moral essays of these guys are stultifying. Never a word about the writing, only the outcome of the marriage and whether it meets their litmus test for revenge and retribution.

Elaine insists that none of these woman-hating mavens could be a woman, despite their profiles. I mean, surely no woman in this day and age really thinks that a wife and her pussy are the personal property of a husband! But Kramer counters with his peculiar insight to suggest that Phyllis Schlafley has several evil twin sisters who read Lit, including at least one in Australia. Not to worry – UK women never read these stupid stories. Actually, if truth be told, I don't think any women read these stories.

Oh, and Elaine wanted me to ask, why is there no "Loving Husbands" category? Like I don't know. Something to do with the fact that 60% of men are adulterers, while only 10% of Lit readers are women, do you think? Duh. JUST ASKING.

Of course, of those 10 % who claim to be women, only half are. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

The only true "loving husbands" in this category are those who are usually wrongfully accused. And then these clever writers set up the revenge fuck by the offended wife which invariably goes wrong, giving results such as the burning death of the poor husband or the discovery that HE LIKES TO WATCH. Like we all know women who can get instantly catty when it comes to throwing her pussy at the first available male, usually her husband's worst enemy or his best friend. Lots of women like that in the real world, don't cha know. WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?

And while we are examining weird and unexplainable phenomenon on Literotica, what is it about BIG DICKS on Literotica? I mean whose fantasy is that? Really? The male writer who has felt, and will always feel, inadequate? Is that a form of cucksterism for these guys to live in a world where they will always be humiliated because they fantasize that their dicks will never measure up? Or is it the female writer who either has never had one or has such a huge cunt that she can't feel a normal dick in her capacious cavern? Or is submissive and into pain. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

I mean studies show that the average penis length is around 5.9 inches (1/4 inch shorter for Asian and black cock), with distribution on a bell curve. Do you know what that means? That 90 - 95 % of dicks are between five and seven inches long. Now I would be the first to suspect that these studies are not impeccably accurate, because I would guess that the federal funding for the study did not allow for the employment of enough teenage fluffers (all 18 and over, Laurel) to get the job done.

Unhappily, no one has ever undertaken a study to find out how many huge vaginas are out there, but my own personal survey indicates around 2 % fall into this category. It's not like women brag about having the Grand Canyon between their legs. But given the remarkable consistency of Mother Nature, it seems logical to conclude that there are approximately the same numbers of big dicks as there are big cunts. Darwin tells us that they are both relatively useless, because otherwise survival of the fittest would dictate that we all have them by now, or at least that the top of the bell had moved a couple of inches to the right.

Not following this, pencil-dick? The Q.E.D. for the logically challenged is that the porn paradigm of huge dicks does not match the porn paradigm of tight cunts. So why do ninety percent of Lit stories feature stupendous cocks getting stuffed into tiny pussies, when Literotica aspires to be literature instead of pornography? If it were literature, the woman would scream in pain, not pleasure. So I ask you, who gets off on this absurd porn fantasy? Anything longer than 7 inches is wasted anyway, and many women can't even take 7".

Every once in a while, you read a true story about a sad guy with a 9 inch dick who has never been laid, because no woman would let him stuff her with that log. What's that you say - a vagina can adjust to accept a huge dick with a little patience? Well, that may be true and I guess that's why so many women have reported incredible orgasms during natural childbirth. Something about being painfully full, I think. The longer the labor so as to give her time to adjust to that 10-inch (diameter) baby, the better the orgasm. Right, ladies?

I mean do you know any woman, who is not a masochist, who likes to fuck oversized dicks? I mean any such woman who can prove she doesn't have a huge twat? They may smirk when they say it, but I guess the women who claim that "Size matters" always fail to finish the sentence with "because I have a jumbo vagina."

I heard of a club in L.A. for big pricks called the "Hung Jury". Seems like the women who join are known as the "Cunt Canyons". NO, REALLY!

That slut Elaine has trouble with 7 inches. One of the storylines that didn't make the show in the second year had her measuring George, Kramer, and me to resolve some stupid bet. The network threw out the script because Elaine had to get topless and give us all a little head to make it a fair contest. But we did it anyway in her dressing room. As you might expect, George had 5 inches, Kozmo had 6, and I was 7 inches. Or did Kramer have 7 and I had 6? Gee, I forget who had the bigger johnson. We were then going to practice another storyline involving Elaine getting triple penetrated, but George blew before he could get into her ass. Pity. But Elaine is one hot fuck, I can tell you.

Sorry. Where was I? Oh yeah, who exactly is it that fantasizes about a useless big dick? WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?

And speaking of mythical big dicks, what is it with BIG BLACK DICKS? Why is it that only 2% of African-American men have larger than average penises, but 98% of interracial and other stories on Literotica feature black men with transplanted horse dicks that are anywhere from 10 to 18 inches long? Or is that around? Shouldn't these stories be in the category of Sci-Fi or Non-Human? Of course it goes without saying that they are always attached to jive talkin' gangsta pimps who treat their (always) white women as nasty cum-bucket 'hoes to be shared by all the Bros in the 'Hood.

Odd how none of these ridiculous stories involve or are written by black women. And if all black men have big dicks, do all black women have huge cunts? It would seem to follow, wouldn't it?

I mean whose sick fantasy is that? Do you know any black man even remotely similar to this horrid Lit convention? I'm sorry, but I guess that's a stupid question considering that the tenor of the anonymous pencil-dick comments would suggest that most Lit readers have never met a black man. But Kramer claims to have seen a lot of them in the Army and the only distinguishing characteristic of their dicks was that – FLASH – they were black! Of course, now, he may not have seen them all stiff (don't ask!).

One of those studies asked the respondent to measure his erect dingus (no instructions on how to do this), and then "rate" himself as small, average, or large. One black man reported his length as 6 inches, but apparently had not hesitation in rating himself "large". I guess he had heard the rumors that EVERY white woman spreads and assumed that he must have a big black dick. Such a cross to bear for black men everywhere. 98% going through life either feeling inferior or deceiving themselves.

WHAT'S UP WITH THAT? Well, for once I will tell you, if you will permit me to step down off the comedy stage (or is that up onto the soapbox?). What this is all about is RACISM! Whenever you stereotype a group by the color of their skin, you are a bigot. Whether you give them good characteristics ("they" can run faster and jump higher) or bad ("they" are lazy, lack the buoyancy to swim well, are all on welfare, or have huge dicks), you are assigning pernicious labels that relegate a race to "different" than "us". If "they" are not like us, we can dehumanize them and dismiss them. And hate them. The operative word is "they".