Remove Ads Get VIP
Similar Worlds


Notifications: · Newest First
Only logged in members can view the full post and comments.
Join Similar Worlds today »
What's better, having no arms or having no legs?
A simple question today.
22-25, F
+ 0 15 replies 31 views Nov 2, 2016 |
SW User
Having no legs.
abe182 · 46-50, M
No legs.
LobRockster · 31-35, F
I could still work at a desk job if I had no legs...
A bit more difficult if I had no arms.
Thecharminggirl · 26-30, F
NearMiss · 41-45, F
No legs.
SW User
Still better than no pus** 😫
SW User
SW User
see I got a supprter. Thanks saint pierre
SW User
@ItsNotMaximPromise: pussy is life
FeetAreFantastic · 36-40, M
No arms because no legs would mean no feet. 😢
NearMiss · 41-45, F
What if there were still feet, but they were attached directly to the bottom?
FeetAreFantastic · 36-40, M
@NearMiss: the feet would still be fantastic but the person wouldn't look all that great. Lol
SW User
Well seriously Its better to have no legs than no arms at all. Salute to this guy![image=]
DanielChristensen · 41-45, M
Opposable thumbs are infinitely useful. I had to add opposable to my stupid puter's dictionary.

Write a comment...
Post Comment  
26965 people following
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Updated: 2 mins ago
Content Rating: Non-Adult
Group Members Report Group
What's better, having no arms or having no le... | Miscellaneous | Similar Worlds