les123 said:Not that big after all
alex8 said:He clearly has the 21cm in an erect state that he claims, and that's pretty big in most anyone's book.
deewil said:But isn't it possible that he's exaggerating or has measured himself in an overly casual, meaning inaccurate, way? I'll grant you that he may be as nicely endowed, if not more so, as he claims. Then again, I am aware that just as various women feel a need to pad their bras (okay, I'll admit I'm one of them on occasion), might someone like Jamie not also feel a need to be into verbal "padding," if you will?
Honey Honoria said:That's a kind of poor quality photo, no offense
Anyways, the shower photos can also be found larger earlier in the post, and it looks to me as if he's still longer than average, by a bit at least. Flaccid size, as many people have said before me, doesn't necessarily mean much at all.
Proudly_Italian said:Jamie had birthday recently, being botn in June, 28th, 1983.
Another hung Cancerian...
? Dunno.. hope it's not me. Just my opinion after all. Do I need to preface everything I say here with "In my opinion..."?Stronty said:I tend to agree, but who specifically are you talking about?
jeff black said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_AgcEJmGQc&search=big%20brother%20%20jamie
1:21 you see an erection... covered by underwear.. but still...
Witlof said:This guy is clearly huge, even though we've only seen him side-on so far.
Last night David (the gay one) was saying it's a good thing Jamie goes for women cos there's no way a guy would let his arse anywhere near that thing!
jeff black said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_AgcEJmGQc&search=big%20brother%20%20jamie
1:21 you see an erection... covered by underwear.. but still...
franlyo said:His hard-on is smaller than I expected...8" maybe