Cookies banned

The Church removed my cookies from the bake sale – again! I don’t know what their problem is – I just used a dog bone cookie cutter, cut them in half and decorated them!! I thought they looked rather cute!!

11 Responses to “Cookies banned”

  1. Amfortas October 8, 2012 at 10:22 Permalink

    The ‘Thong’. What a horrid garment. Tasteless. Hallelulya that your Church objected. I much prefer the full-bottomed classic knickers m’self. (Not for m’self, Moggsy and Chrysalis m’dears). :)

    In Oz, thongs are made of foam rubber and are worn on the feet at the beach. Instead of a thin strip disappearing between arse cheeks, the Oz thong thin strip goes between the big toe and its adjacent neighbour.

  2. wiggiatlarge October 8, 2012 at 16:27 Permalink

    Well I must say I prefer your offering to this traditional one !
    http://ericademane.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/nipple.jpg?w=500&h=375

  3. CherryPie October 8, 2012 at 19:21 Permalink

    Are you sure you didn’t do it on purpose so there were more for you ;-)

  4. microdave October 8, 2012 at 19:54 Permalink

    You won’t be able to have any home made jam with them now::
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19810698

  5. ivan October 8, 2012 at 20:57 Permalink

    It was the second row second from the right hand end whot dun it.

  6. James Higham October 8, 2012 at 21:31 Permalink

    Think Rossa’s being a bit naughty here or is it all your imaginations?.

  7. Rossa October 9, 2012 at 07:42 Permalink

    Amfortas, maybe you’d like to include the gym slip, ankle socks, plimsolls and pigtails!

    Too St Trinians for me. At least a thong is better than a G-string.

    Full bottomed classic knickers are the lady’s equivalent of Y-fronts for men and remind me too much of Bridget Jones. Practical but not the most sexiest of item, though useful when facing the medical profession like I am later today where outer clothing needs to be removed.

    But then some of us go commando and only wear lingerie on special occasions like in the bedroom ;-)

  8. James Higham October 9, 2012 at 07:43 Permalink

    Interesting discussion indeed – shall I bring my whip and rope?

  9. Amfortas October 9, 2012 at 08:13 Permalink

    hahahaha, Rossa, I would not go so far in applause, although each of your offerings show some merits inherent. But, each to his/her own.

    There is nothing particularly wrong with Y-Fronts, depending on fit and cut and fabric. I have even seen some ladies wearing Y-front briefs to quite pleasant effect. What aroused ( :) ) my small ire in the ‘thong’ thingo is that they are just not attractive. They disappear up the cleft. G-strings are also unattractive ( to me: I don’t preclude other people of either sex liking them).

    Sexiness in attire is like virtue: at the extreme they turn into vices. Now if vice is what rocks your rocks, go for the G and the T by all means. But Rabecca looks bad enough for the likes of me.

    http://fredsbadside.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/rabeccas-secret.html

  10. macheath October 9, 2012 at 08:52 Permalink

    The whole concept of the thong was kicked out of touch when I inadvertently stumbled on a magazine article by Esther Rantzen enthusiastically hymning the non-VPL properties of the garment and describing her collection.

  11. James Higham October 9, 2012 at 09:39 Permalink

    Yes, Rantzen is a surefire killer, the old Savile-excuser.

    Sexiness in attire is like virtue: at the extreme they turn into vices.

    Yes – for me, it’s a case of For Your Eyes Only, darling.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string TruyWQ to the field below: