This gained me the highest mark in the class of 1999, and enabled the lecturer to have a most enjoyable marking session..

Names have been changed to protect the guilty, but the ones used here where what I always called them anyway!!

Sociology "A" level coursework.


"Lads on the pull". A participant observation of friends of mine in order to identify, describe and attempt to explain the ritualistic group behavior and to understand the reasons for their peculiar form of weekend "Sport".


Rationale
.
I have chosen this area for study for several reasons. Firstly, I have a large number of friends who appear to fall into the category best described as "eligible young bachelors".

These lads are mainly in the age range 25-35. They differ from other men I also know in the same age and demographic group in that they have a peculiar seeming obsession with what I might call a "weekend pre-dating ritual". A bizarre and seemingly quite irrational angling for women with little desire to actually "get to know the fish".

As a man who has been married most of his adult life and has even when, in fact, especially when, "between wives" found little urge to behave in this manner, the behavior has always puzzled me. My youthful envy of the lads apparent freedom and success with women eventually became a sort of pity as I realised that they had far less success than they would have people believe. Especially in the "consummation" department.

Although "Don Juan syndrome" is documented and the lads seem to fit in with this description to a degree, I have not come across other studies of this nature. In my research, I have however seen hints at this lifestyle in men's and women's lifestyle magazines and also in a few "fly on the wall" TV documentaries, some quite serious.

My aim is to identify, using a qualitative ethnomethodological approach, if a pattern of group reinforcing behavior and ritual exists to suggest that a sub-culture, based on the weekend pursuit of women as a sport, is evident and to describe its features.

Context

The study is a participant observation of my friends to determine which ones best fit into the category I am interested and observe them in action.
The lads are a group of 25 to 35 year old men in the "Peckering" area that I have known for up to 10 years or so.

To set the scene for the study, I have been socialising with the people I have studied and interviewed for a long time and that has mainly entailed pubs, clubs and occasionally holidays. The past 6 months or so have been spent taking more careful observation of their behavior and analysing and questioning many of their views, opinions and assumptions regarding my area of interest.

The lad's lifestyle was based around the weekend socialising. I was present on most occasions and indeed could be described as "one of the lads". My role was mainly as the driver when the lads were "on tour" and although I did not really partake in the "pulling antics" like the other lads did, I was accepted and the study of their behavior also accepted.

The lads were did not really have much contact with each other during the week, but I would occasionally meet them in the gym were some of us trained. Weekday socialising was not the norm, but I did meet other sensible friends and socialised with them during them week.

I also observed behavior of other men in the same sort of age range who appeared to have similarities to my study group to check the validity of some of the theories I developed during the course of the study.

As I mentioned above, my area of interest does not appear to be in the mainstream of sociological interest. Internet searches have not really been productive. A few "laddish" sites where found, but they were hardly serious and worthy of attention except in so far as to show a market for the "beer, birds and kebabs" lifestyle. Study of Psychological conditions has netted a few interesting "disorders", such as narcissism, satyriasis (Don Juan syndrome).

My study of the lads themselves did expose a media targeting of this group.

Magazines such as FHM, Men's Health and other such "semi-hetro" literature exist and indeed are read by some of the lads. In particular, FHM and Men Health magazines seem to have a lot of advice for men. I do not personally think they are a true reflection of the lifestyle I am interested in, as it seems more appropriate to the "semi-hetro".

This being a derogatory term used by the lads to describe someone who is insecure with women. The advice given in this magazine certainly would convince many a lad that pulling a "fish" and keeping it is a hugely complex and difficult job requiring huge amounts of commitment to style, etiquette and considerate behavior. Indeed, I was appalled. As a man who believes that women's pleasure during love-making is incidental to the main business of dominating the foul beast into a terrorised state of submission, I found articles such as "Sexual Masterclass" and "Grovel Your Way Back Into Her Good Books" totally offensive to my psyche. The traditional one-handed offerings from the top shelf being more my style.

Cosmopolitan and other such women's magazine have often featured articles such as "Beware The Peter Pan Man", "Why Do Chauvinists Still Exist?", "Men Who Treat Women As Sport" and other such articles, and these seem to relate to some degree to my area of interest

TV seems to be more productive. Several documentaries have been made, mostly trashy stuff but occasionally serious and insightful, that have definitely opened up my area of interest to the outside world.. "One Night Stands" was very close to epitomising the behavior and attitude I am studying as they followed the antics of groups of lads, queers and women in their night out on the pull. Very insightful. Especially the lad at the end who stated, sincerely, "It's all... bollocks really..".

Also, I recognised the emotion of the queer bloke who exchanged phone numbers but really had no intention of a future meeting. The ritual had to be done, but "after such a peak experience, you know it's not going to get any better than that".

Whilst the sub-culture does not appear to be of much interest to sociologists, perhaps the half hearted pursuit of women by educated young men on a Friday night is regarded as a bit of a joke by most people, the ringing of my telephone on a weekend indicates that this lifestyle is taken seriously by those who pursue it and spend a good deal of money on it. As many a bar or club owner will testify.

I once had to do a study of student lifestyles based on positivist principles as part of a computing degree course and was disappointed with the sterility of the data. The bar charts of average ages, weights and "levels of cynicism" did not really have much to say about what being a student was about in my opinion. This study is going to give the reader a feel for the area of study, rather than a pseudo scientific account of lifestyles.

I believe that a qualitative interpretative approach is better for this study.

I have decided to take an ethnomethodological approach to the study. To employ mainly primary research in the form of a participant observation and to use the "grounded theory" approach to generating categories and theories from data.

I do not personally like the positivist approach, especially in this sort of a study as I have seen how easy it is to "fake science" and come up with supporting statistics for theories. I prefer the interpretative approach, even if it may be regarded by some as "not good science". I make no apologies for this.

I decided to investigate how the lads behave, what makes them different to others who are "sensible" and to explain the behavior and rituals in the hope that others will either identify a "truth" in what is reported or, hopefully not, to refute it.

Some triangulation methods could be used, observation of other groups for comparison, study of popular literature and media reports and lifestyle programming on TV. I have also taken account of the opinions of "sensible" men and also of women from a variety of backgrounds. Since many of the study subjects know each other pretty well, it could be said that a great deal of debate and discussion has gone into this report.

The language of the lads had a few peculiarities, because we talked in a strange sort of private language to help us understand each other in the few communications we had when "on a mission". Much of this language and the nicknames were actually comments that I had made that seemed to sum up a concept or person quite succinctly and humorously. As a result the lads began to use the terms in their conversations.

I was regarded as a sort of "honorary lad" because whilst I did not feel the need to behave in the same way as them, my youthful exploits were quite legendary and I was regarded as an interesting reference point on occasions.

The common view of the lads and much of the medical profession, was that my youthful behavior was more psychotic than laddish, so my opinions and thoughts were given little consideration. This was good, it prevented me from altering their behavior. "Don't listen to Prowler, he's not right in the head" was a common phrase that I had to endure and accept.

Methodology

As previously mentioned, I decided to choose an area of study that is suited to the ethnomethodological approach. I used the grounded data approach, collection of much data followed by a rough categorising, and more investigations to check out theories and generate further more specific modes of inquiry.

I tried to avoid pre judging the outcome and leading questions in my interview technique and tried to report what I saw rather than influence events or prematurely categorize. These risks I was well aware of. It had been pointed out early in the study, especially by women, that the lads appeared to have too much respect for me and that may affect their behavior.

I considered this, but I think they were confusing the lad's common habit of "using Prowler as a prop" with real respect. Indeed, many of their remarks, paradoxically often getting unexpected results, were not meant as respectful compliments but ploys to keep me out of the picture. For example the comment, "If you sit next to him, you'll get pregnant!", was meant as a jocular warning not a suggestion.

I did several pilot studies aimed at testing out a few of my theories that I had developed. My interview technique was initially going to be more positivistic, but it soon became clear that question choices were very difficult due to the diversity of subjects interviewed. Answers were not reliable, only observation and time on the ground could get something approaching the "truth". The lads in particular were amazingly incapable of accurately describing their weekend behavior when asked to recall it in a sober midweek state.

Even the sensibles' exhibited a preference for ridiculing the lads than giving honest opinion. One good technique was to observe the interactions between lads and sensibles' and record the arguments as they debated the virtues of freedom versus domesticity.

Most of my observations were made on the spot in scene and many of my questions just casual queries of the sort anybody would make to a friend. In truth, my interview technique was practically invisible on many occasions. The lads and sensibles' and others would not have known when I was just being friendly and when I was data collecting.

For example, "Sheath" had the habit of "cold calling" as we described it. Not waiting for eye contact and a subtle signal before chatting them up. I would say, "what made you approach her?" he would usually say, "It's always worth a try." Or something equally unhelpful before I continued to press him to the point of exasperation when he would become marginally abusive and walk off to harass another woman in the middle of a conversation with her friend.

The environment was noisy and alcohol was consumed so obviously the studies main strength was in the observation of behavior and the predictability of outcomes rather than laboratory tests of theories.

One of the definitions of a lad I made was based on social habits at weekends and the opinion of the person questioned. Generally, if a person thought he was "one of the lads", "part of the pack", he could well have been. But, if he did not take part in the ritualistic behavior with the required dedication then I regarded him as not being a true lad for the purpose of this study but made inquiries seeking to ascertain his previous laddishness.

The views of lads, ex-lads, sensibles' and women were all considered and their behavior studied. Many of the theories and observations were based on a sort of group acceptance. For example if I thought "Cheesehat" seemed to specialise in long conversations with women who already had boyfriends, then the others would make their opinions know. This was one of the best ways of validating some of the assumptions I made.

Of course, in such a study the boundaries have to be set and a weakness could be that some of boundaries were quite narrow. I was, for example less interested in what the sensibles' did at weekends and spent less time observing them.

The study has been mostly qualitative. My one concession to the quantitative positivist approach being the grouping of the data into a few "typical subject profiles". Generally speaking, the somewhat anecdotal nature of my report will speak more vividly on the lads than any numbering system based on "percentage hit rates" etc.

I could for example have done a study to show that out of 1000 women approached, 100 were cold called, 69 were the object of sexist

remarks..; you get the idea don't you?

I think it is more informative to remark thus:-

"On a significant number of occasions, about one in ten, Boner would approach a target from behind, usually a young blonde in a slinky dress at the bar and weakly prod her in the back in such a way that a slap was expected. Indeed Sheath often did get rebuffed when he tried this approach. Boner would come out with the most inane one-liner and get away with it."

Time was not really a problem. I was dealing with people I had socialised with for years on a regular basis. Some of the sensibles' needed special visits and even the lads had to be interviewed in a sober environment on a few occasions. I liked group discussions as they led to a more realistic and natural source of data. The only problem was that sometimes the questions were dodged and a bit of humble pie had to be eaten. Good-humored data collection was always a key consideration, but I sometimes pressed to the point of irritation.

Much data is historic and comes from memory of events and diaries etc. We used to have a lads amateur rock band and the lyrics, though unprintable, reflected many incidents in the history of the lads.

The data was collected from a core of about 15 friends, of whom about 5 were very closely studied. Others were observed in the environment also. My data collection period ranged from a night spent interviewing the lad "Salesman" after a few nights watching him in action, to the 25 years I have know sensible "2 Beans".

Secondary data was based on magazine and TV coverage, with a bit of Internet surfing.

I have decided to document my role in the third person as it represents an attempt to view the scene with more insight. I have resisted the urge to boast and glorify myself, but I am sure that the lads would back up most of the observations if put in a head lock..

Content.

Findings.

My data, when analysed suggested 3 basic sub categories of men in my basic demographically similar samples. I called these "Lads", "Sensibles", and "Pragmatics".

There was sufficient evidence to indicate distinctly different attitudes to male/female relationships between those who subscribed to the "lads" lifestyle and those who were "sensible".

The few "pragmatics" displayed features of both lifestyles to a more even degree than the lads. The long term marriage being a common feature of pragmatics.

Lads.

The typical lad as applied to this study could be described by profiling the individual I decided best personified the lads.

"Sheath".

This lad is a tall, athletic man about 6' 3" and 14 St. in weight. Reasonably good looking, with a Masters Degree and a well paid occupation this 32 year old is best known and ridiculed for still living in his parents large sprawling detached house and being a dedicated "weekend wonder" who failed to hit home base in 1998 due to his weak "forgotten condom" excuses, coupled with a lack-lustre technique.

His place in the lads has been pretty secure for the past couple of years and although sometimes rather argumentative usually displays appropriate respect for all the lads.

He is very keen on the lads rituals, sometimes to the point of being too exact on matters of time keeping etc. He is not exactly the best person to preach on time keeping as he is often late and occasionally fails to turn up when expected.

He was initially not very considerate in his behavior and still occasionally shows a slight selfishness but soon embraced the concepts of the "taxi fares" system, (whereby the driver gets free drinks all night from the lads), the "claims" rules and other lads traditions and rituals.

Like all lads, his sole objective on a "mission" is to "hunt the beast". Fueled by lager, he pub-crawls round town then on to a club in the hope of meeting a woman to marry and have his children. He has been in a few long-term relationships, but for the past 3 years or so has been basically celibate. He generally approaches women using a "cold" technique. During a typical evening he will approach 10 women, get "blown out" by 6 or 7, "blow out" a few who he discovers after half an hour have children and collect a phone number or two. The phone number is his basic "trophy". He has quite a shallow conversational manner, but is polite and no-nonsense in his way.

He can be irritating in his obsession with chasing women, and usually he does not follow up leads. His dating experiences have been largely disappointing to him. He is unable to see that while he is out with the lads at weekends, the few girlfriends he has had have been doing the rounds with the girls. He does not like to be given advice. Especially not by Prowler who he regards as a provocative loudmouth and braggart.

Rumours that he is a latent homosexual are not backed up with evidence in my opinion.

The theory that his lack of interest in the "kill" are due to penile deficiencies, thus making him a classic Don Juan sufferer, have yet to be proved for certain but he has indicated that this may be a possibility. (Private urination, shower-dodging tactics, references to the abnormal hugeness of Prowlers todger, etc.)

Though intelligent, he displays a remarkable forgetfulness and lack of insight into his own nature. He often buys people the wrong drinks and believes that women like him more than Prowler even though Prowler tends to be the one who slips the gristle to his claims after Sheath has gone.

Women have commented that his halitosis and stammer do little to engender a desire for closer relations. Also his lack of "Oomph!" (Whatever that may be).

The lads find him vaguely amusing and believe he could do with a course of amphetamines on occasions due to his poor personality.

His main drinking buddies are Prowler and Boner, as well as 5 or 6 other "pragmatics". He has much in common with Boner, but often they clash over claims due to Boner "butting in".

The other lads in my studies, especially "Boner", and "Cheesehat" and "Sheepman" in their lad heydays, have similar profiles.

The superior and more serious polished techniques of Cheesehat and Sheepman meant that they spent no more than about 2 years as lads. They also had more success at "plonking the haddock".

Strangely, they both became committed and somewhat dominated sensibles. An indication as to the fear of loneliness and being driven insane by Prowlers ranting habits.

On the rare occasions that the lads would meet socially midweek for a somewhat sober beer, the weekend "pulling missions" were always the topic. They would discuss theories etc. on how to pull women. Very rarely one of them would have a date with the women they pulled during the week and since I could not participate in this, I relied on their accounts as to what happened. Some very time consuming and careful questioning techniques were required to get a good honest picture of what went on. The lads were not always particularly communicative or appreciative of my probings! Of course, the lads had great interest in each other's success or lack of, because this indicated status in the pecking order. Usually dates went poorly and were not enjoyed. The lads thought that Prowler used his "killer instinct" to pre-select victims, skip the intro's and his tenacious predatorial patience to wear them down. (Prowlers targets never seemed to be regarded as prey, but as victims. It was usually a foregone conclusion that his "one percent effort" would net a 90 percent result.)

Much debate and interchange of ideas would go on, very little else was discussed. Much debate was centred around the theme of "what they want..". Women wanted this, that or the other. The classic pulling approached, as employed by the likes of Sheepman, could be found in any "pulling guide", but was not necessarily enjoyable. Prowlers' contributions were usually ignored since it was well know that he lacked discrimination, self control, manners and sanity.

Much seemed to be based on impressing the "prey". There was an implication that women were in a superior position, a sort of passive acceptance that the prey was entitled to throw its drinks all over the errant lad who said the wrong thing.

One radical "direct action" feminist type once took great offence at one of the lad's sexist comments and committed a quite serious offence. Prowler caught her in the woods after a long chase and "administered the medication". She can now be observed in captivity as Prowlers dutiful wife and mother of 5 of his children. The wounded lad did not press charges.

The lifestyle is quite expensive and regarded as something of a temporary state of affairs before marriage and "settling down". However, the fact that, for example, Boner had spent a good ten years in this disappointment, and "Pope" was still a surprisingly handsome virgin at 39 years of age despite being surrounded by fish clammering for his bait every weekend which he greatly enjoyed, suggested that the lifestyle was regarded as in many ways as superior to the constrictions of the sensibles.

It could be noted that ex-lads tended to end up with less freedom than the Pragmatics and even other life long sensibles. Basically, their new money grabbing wives and girlfriends would not let them out. This fear of ending up like Cheesehat or Sheepman gave justification to the lads to continue fearing "emotional attachment".

Boner claimed that the reason he could not settle was he got worried immediately and wanted to look elsewhere. Past long term relationship disappointments had a lot to do with many of the lads fears of commitment.

The wide availability of suitable young women for prey made it difficult to stop this life for them, even though they rarely got past the preliminary inquiries before giving up.

Women interviewed did not think much of the lads, especially when they realised that the lads were not serious. Generally, the word "sad" was mentioned a lot, but "you know they wanted it really!"

Sensibles.

The sensibles were a more varied group than the lads. In many ways they were what the lads strove to be before they lost the plot in their mid-twenties. The worst form of sensible to be was an ex lad, because then you were never allowed out the door without your gold digging dominatrix.

Profile of "Dr Spliff". Classic life-long sensible.

36 years old, Ph.D. student Dr Spliff regarded the lads culture as representing "post modern glorification of trashy inane behavior elevated into an art form". He had little respect for it, and never subscribed to it. Typically for life-long sensibles, he had a long time girlfriend and in his younger days had indulged in behavior that may appear to be laddish but lacked the ritualism and sexist attitudes. He was in fact free to do as he pleased, which usually meant weekend football and Thursday nights with Prowler and "2 Beans" at the old boys club discussing Tony Blairs' new deal for lone parents and Prowlers huge impact in the creation of single mothers in the past 15 years. He and 2 Beans smoked and snorted a variety of substances with impunity in order to attempt to match Prowler in reaching insightful and humorous conclusions to their debates. He would not be satisfied until hardcore porn was available on TV and Manchester City learned to play football.

Like many sensibles, his long term girlfriend was showing signs of age, but this did not seem to bother him as they got on well. They did occasionally meet up with the lads, and the lads felt slightly ill at ease with them, due to the old boy's culture being a bit different to what they were used to.

Another sensible, Cheesehat, was once a supposedly dedicated lad but had settled down with a young gold digger. At round about the same time, Sheepman met his fate. The lads and these ex-lads had become antagonistic to each other and no longer particularly friendly. Much Mickey taking was in evidence when they met up on both sides. In the same way that ex-smokers hate smoking, so it seems ex-lads hate the lad's lifestyle. The consensus amongst the lads and pragmatics was that these ex-lads were "traitors to the cause". It was hard to break free from the lads, Prowlers consent seemed to be needed for an "Honorable discharge".

Pragmatics.

Many drinking chums were pragmatics. They did not fully partake in all the rituals to make them "full timers", but were usually welcome for home town missions. They trod a fine line between getting sucked into the lads and keeping the "base unit" content.

"Tadpole".

He had a reasonable sex-life with his girlfriend but often came out with the lads for a night out. He took part in the ritualistic chatting up, but ensured that he could get back to the base unit for a leg over.

Most pragmatics paid attention to Prowlers advice to "keep the base unit well-sorted down below before you consider coming out with the lads". In other words, keep the fish tank well stocked and they won't mind were the spare tadpoles go.

Most pragmatics thought little of letting the lads down so were not taken as being true lads. Lack of loyalty.

Conclusion

I would say, in a nutshell, that the lads do not currently feel they need permanent relationships with women, but prefer the company of other lads in the shared sport of ritualised woman chasing. Success largely being judged by how many phone numbers you get, or even how many blow outs. I tried it out myself once, and found it very unfulfilling, even though my friends could not see why. Pragmatic men, like myself can see that it is a poor way of getting a leg over, but can be fun to watch and observe before compromising the prey when the lads have gone! Having said that, it only costs about twenty quid for a character building session with a street slapper, so why bother with any of it?

Evaluation.

I must say that my observations, although of a rather limited sample size, were of such high volume and detail that it has been impossible to fit all observations into the 5000 word suggested limit for this report. In that I set out to describe a type of behavior that seems to exist in some of my friends that is not uncommonly seen in this age group, I think I have succeeded in getting the basic points across. I would like to add many things and make many other observations and descriptions of the rituals and group maintaining behavior that I noticed but there has not been the space. For example, I would like to have pointed out the subtle differences between the behavior of younger lads and the behavior of my friends. Mainly that the sub 25 age group, whilst commonly seen in abundance, do show less commitment to the lads sport and more interest in forming more permanent relationships. The subjects were observed closely and acted normally. There were no real problems with data collection since I was mainly observing and recording natural behavior of the lads. It was perhaps unfortunate that many of the lads took offence at my preferring to concentrate on the "folly" of their hobby. I would often annoy them when I pointed out the contradictions of their ritualised approaches to women. For example, Boner would chase women with an intent and then when he seemed to be on for a definite leg-over would hastily back-track and try to weasel his way out of it. Again, the production of a phone number would indicate success to the other lads present, but I would occasionally point out that I knew it would go no further than that.

The lads did not like to be ridiculed as they devoted a good deal of time and money to this lifestyle.

One thing I did not initially expect was that although the lads and sensibles were poles apart, the pragmatic category had to be brought in to describe the lads who were not regular lads but did come along on occasions and take part in much of the activities, leaving their wives or girlfriends at home for the night.

I think that other researchers would probably find similar results. That is, evidence to indicate that groups of lads informally organise themselves over a period of time into a ritual hunting pack whose very existence depends paradoxically on their lack of success in achieving the sort of secure relationships they often claim to be seeking.

I think that the choice of methodology was correct, but it could be said that since I knew the lads and their behavior before I started the close observations of the past 6 months, I probably had some pre-conceived ideas.

My division of time spent with each subject was not even and this could have led to a bias. The time spent with Sheath and Boner was far more than with Salesman, another lad who seemed to be part of another group of 4 or 5 lads who had similar behavior to the core group I studied.

The categories could be described as arbitrary, after all, everybody has an idea of what they mean by a "lad". In this study I decided it had to be a group of men cohesively bound by a set of rituals and practices based on the "hunting mission" at weekends.

The category was largely suggested by the nature of the data and by the days when Cheesehat was a keen lad. In fact his legacy carried on after his departure in much of the rituals he developed, such as the "Taxi Rules", brought in to prevent the common arguments when lads began to take the lift home for granted. These sort of written down rules, e.g. "Hommonising (talking) with fish shall be limited to 15 minutes after end of night as decided by the Night Prowler". Are rare amongst lad groups, but lads from London, for example, were apparently more considerate towards each other and these rules, even if not written down, were still applied as a matter of "common decency".

I could have sampled other groups who acted like lads to find out how they worked. This would obviously take more time and would probably have to be more positivistic. The use of tighter questioning, more uniform questioning, would have to be applied across the whole spectrum of subjects. This would be more difficult and would have likely produced results that may have been less honest.

It could be said that more secondary sources could be used, but I did have little luck in finding anything of interest and this was time consuming. Some lad groups had produced internet sites, more evidence of lad loyalty culture and the "elevation of banality into an art form" that Dr. Spliff and 2 Beans found too common for their sensible tastes.

If I were to do the study again, it would be interesting to make comparisons with the female version of the lads. I suspect that women who go out regularly tend to behave like this when much younger and it is seen to be more acceptable to fail to score. Indeed, I do personally believe that most women try hard to avoid getting picked up! That is perhaps what enables the lad's peculiar behavior to continue. The challenge and the thrill of the chase were often mentioned by the lads to explain their behavior.

My own role in the lads was of course bizarre, but since I took little interest in chatting up the women in pubs and clubs, preferring to use a sly but more successful tactic of snatching my mates claims when the night was over, or concentrating on masochistic librarian types, I think that I did not affect what happened greatly. I'm sure the lads, especially Boner and Sheath, will be continuing as they are long after my departure to belatedly face up to the responsibilities of my rapidly growing CSA case files.

References:- FHM, Men's Health and Cosmopolitan magazines. Live TV, Channel 4 and Internet sites.


(Following this study, I lost touch with all the lads as a result of impregnating Cheesehats Gold Digging Dominatrix, they had girly tantrums and refused to speak to me anymore!)

They had the last laugh though, due to the GDD being difficult to scrape off my shaft and a damned excellent cook when properly dominated and trained in the arts of feminine virtue, I ended up having a batch of sprogs with her before skipping her off to the nearest womens aid "refuse" dump..

Drex maybe you should write a book or screenplay or something, your experiences would bookend nicely with people like Marc Rudov (U.S.) who appeal for sanity in sex relations

Aye, have often thought of writing a book, lots of people for the past 25 years have suggested I do that, and I have even started a few things, but like all disorganised folk, I lose the plot, if I ever have one!

I was looking at some stuff I did back then last night, its amazing that some of the forum work I did back in the late 90's would not be acceptable now, with the increasingly feminised internet..

I may post a few examples on here soon!

nice work drex, i did sociology in 1998, so we nearly did the same exam! what grade did they give you? i got an A grade hahahaha

i did sociology as a degree too, now i use the degree paper to wipe my bum with for all its helped me out!

I got a B, I dont think the others markers liked my stuff as much as my lecturer did!

Did you not learn all about marxism when studying sociology?

I remember it as a big part of the curriculum, but cant remember much of what it was!