PeteMorris Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 If the two things (divided by a gap) move, then the gap can move along with them. But the bottom line is: She certainly isn't spilling out of anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 then the gap can move along with them. But, even if that's so, the gap cannot spill out of anything or anywhere. No matter what over-excited Daily Mail journalists write (or yearn for). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 You're wrong. Although 'cleavage' is indeed the gap between a woman's breasts, it's defined closely by them and by the garment worn, and can either be concealed, be held in, or spill out along with the breasts. But gentlemen of your seniority should probably not be thinking about such matters. It's not good for your blood pressure. No it can't. A term that defines only the absence of something is a privative. Cleavage can't move - by its very definition it does not exist. It's only describing the gap in between two other things. If the two things (divided by a gap) move, then the gap can move along with them. I think this matter requires further study, in the interests of science and philosophy, of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 I think this matter requires further study, in the interests of science and philosophy, of course Absolutely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 But the bottom line is: She certainly isn't spilling out of anything think it was the top half under discussion not the bottom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.