Yaknow those aluminium tubes that cigars come in.
Well a lady of my acquaintance with a sporting temperament ( who will remain nameless because we occasionally sleep in the same house and she has a fearful temper) has wagered that she can make an impression on one using her foo foo.
The event will take place in the near future and I wondered if anyone had any opinions as to the likelihood of her succeeding in this endeavour.
Will the cigar still be in the tube?
What is the tube made of?
LOL thank you for the chuckles.
Fill it with sand!!!!
What are you some kind of................ah yes I recall we both are.
I think a couple of bumble bee's inside the tube would be great fun, don't tell the RSPCA though :giggle:
Yup! Filling a tube with sand stops it from kinking, so you can get a proper radius ;o)
Of course it has to be tightly fiiled....ooer! and secure....sandy bits=not good!
Yes, I believe we both are....haha!
I'm sure I saw the bumble bee/angry wasps thing in Viz's Top tips once ;o)
I wouldnt stoop so low as to make the challenge beyond her grasp or that of her foo foo.
I get to choose but I would prefer it to be a sporting challenge.
Think a cigar tube might be tougher than you assume, unless you heat it to say 150c to make it more malleable !!
We saw Sticky Vicky daughter in Benidorm last year, the act obviously consists of producing various items from her fanny and between each set of items she would go behind the DJ stand to "re-load" I presume she has containerised the items so there is a quick insertion of pre-loaded canisters after removal of the expended canister. Especially as she was pulling some sharp items out, a metal container would protect her. Or am I thinking to much like an engineer?
John & Shel
Thailand has girls pulling all sorts of things out as well, ping pong ball, streamers, 'laying hard boiled eggs', confetti, and such like...........
make it a joint effort n u do one as well ben :twisted:
Found the scientific way of measuring the strength of your squeeze !!
A comparison of perineometer to brink score for assessment of pelvic floor muscle strength.
Hundley AF, Wu JM, Visco AG.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599-7570, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Brink scale is a commonly used digital assessment of pelvic floor muscle strength. The Peritron perineometer, a compressible vaginal insert that records pressure in centimeters of water, offers an objective method for this evaluation. This study evaluates the inter- and intrarater reliability of perineometry measurements and correlates those values with Brink scores.
STUDY DESIGN: Subjects were prospectively enrolled and underwent pelvic floor muscle strength assessment by 2 examiners each using a perineometer and the Brink scale. Perineometer measurements of maximum pressure, average pressure, and total duration were recorded for 3 consecutive pelvic floor muscle contractions (Kegels). The Brink assessment was performed by placing 2 fingers vaginally during a single Kegel contraction. Brink scores consisted of 3 separate 4-point rating scales for pressure, vertical finger displacement, and duration. The order of the examiners and the 2 assessment methods were randomized, and each examiner was blinded to the results of the other. Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were used for analysis as appropriate. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to assess intrarater reliability between repeated perineometer measurements.
RESULTS: One hundred women were consecutively enrolled and completed the study. Interrater reliability for the perineometer maximum squeeze pressure (r = ) and baseline resting pressure (r = ) was high. Maximum squeeze pressure correlation was unaffected by the presence or absence of estrogen (r = versus r = ), nulliparity versus parity ( versus ), or genital hiatus 4 or greater or less than 4 (r = versus r = ). Total Brink score and each individual submeasurement showed good correlations (total: r = ; pressure: r = ; displacement: r = ; duration: r = ). The correlation between maximum squeeze pressure and total Brink score during the first and second exams was good (r = versus r = ). For intrarater reliability, there were no significant differences among the 3 maximum squeeze pressures recorded during the first exam (P = .11), but for the second exam, the first squeeze was significantly stronger than the successive 2 (P = .009) attempts.
CONCLUSION: Perineometer measurements of pelvic floor muscle contractions show very good inter- and intrarater reliability. The Brink total and pressure scores had a slightly lower interrater reliability. Variables such as estrogen status, parity, and genital hiatus did not appear to affect correlation. There was good correlation between the maximum perineometer pressure and the total Brink score, suggesting that these 2 methods of assessment have similar levels of reproducibility. Additionally, the perineometer demonstrated good short-term test-retest reliability.
Trouble is, I kept getting a vision of a "test your strenge machine" at the fairground, you know where you hit a spigot with a big wooden hammer and a slider shoots upwards to ring a bell at the top of a tower. Visions of some women squeezing real well and the bell going off and the tester handing them a teddybear, or a cigar in this case !!
John
PMSL John.
Thats brill ty for the giggle.
Not yet Im waiting for my xmas cigars.
Its gone Christmas, any fanny bending done yet?