WOULD YOU RATHER?????

  1. Have no-neck and have to wear clothes that reveal your neck at all times? (you can’t get surgery or do anything to try to fix the physical problem)
  2. Have kankles that make you look like you have logs as legs and have to wear clothes that reveal your legs at all times? (you can’t get surgery or do anything to try to fix the physical problem)

GH: ok so this is kind of tough. both choices suck a lot. but for sure for sure, i would go with the short neck. why you ask? if there’s anything i hate (so much that it makes me sort of shiver thinking about it) on a human body is kankles. motherfucking kankles. for those who don’t know, kankles are pretty much tree stumps. for legs. there is no ankle, calf, knee, etc. it’s just kankle. <insert kankle picture, i can do that> how gross is this? i haven’t seen it on girls a lot but i’ve seen a lot of guys with kankles. i’m not sure why it disgusts me so much. but i really want to go up to them and tell them they shouldn’t be allowed to wear shorts anymore. it’s a big turn off for me. ugh.

now i know, short necks are fairly gross too. it would like i was shrugging all the time. but my disdain for kankles leaves me no choice. my hands are tied. arm is twisted. so yeah, i’d be the hunchback of notre dame with some non-tree stump FINE legs.

..i know. ridiculous.

**i apologize if i’ve offended anyone with my harsh tone and words about kankles.

JK:  I will totally have kankles over no neck any day.  My reasoning is fairly simple.  I feel that people are more likely to notice the no-neck thingy before they notice the kankles.  This reasoning is solely based on the fact neck area is more likely in the field of vision for most people than the kankles.  Of course kankles are bad and most people would not want them, it was on the infamous “list” that Ross made about Rachel on Friends….