>For porky needs, there's also
>ham cock, which likewise does not contain cock,
This is true. Perhaps one could combine the two and get the real deal, as it were.
>warning—the product page's description text does contain a
>startlingly random reference to anal sex (except it's not called that,
>the common Anglo-Standard one-word form is used). Seriously.
Yeah, that one is a bit...peculiar. There is also, on the same page, the Savo word for a train, which is interesting, in a similar manner.
>It's part of a complicated simile. The actual product
>does not contain that either.
For which any customer is even MORE grateful than the 'not cock' part, I suspect. Though, how you would get "@$$fück" in a tin...
Stoke Mandeville, Esq & The Victorian Ballsmiths
"Nobody Want Verdigris-Covered Balls!"