Yeah, only if you take what he wrote out of context.
I think that he's playing a game of semantics because without looking at his link (that he provided later) and reading the context of how he used the term "roof" in the first post that he used it in, he implied that he meant that the cervix is at the end of the vagina.
First of all, it's only the "top" when looking at the diagram or if she's in missionary position. It's the "bottom" when she's in doggy style, and the "front" when she's standing up, and which you don't need to tell me or show me a diagram to "prove" since I
have a vagina.
And if that's what he really meant, then that doesn't make any sense in the context of how he was using the word in his post since it occupies so little real estate in the entire vagina and it has nothing to do with large cocks. It no longer makes sense the way he's ranting about 10" cocks! IF the cervix were as without feeling as he claims, the fact that an area on
one side (a more accurate description) of the vagina has less feeling than the rest of the vagina would be meaningless in the context of his overall argument about whether or not it feels anything when big cocks touch it. (My own cervix is only 2.75" inside my vagina. I'm almost all cul-de-sac! Obviously ALL penises touch mine, and keeping that fact in mind while reading his rant about 10" cocks makes him look like an ignorant fool.) His entire point was that he doesn't believe that it's sensitive (tell that to a woman!) and that since it's at the back where a big cock would hit it, that the fact that it's "without feeling" means that we don't need big cocks. How does that reasoning NOT imply that he meant that the cervix is at the very back end of the vagina?