RE: Questions for heterosexual men

RE: Questions for heterosexual men (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

GreedyTop -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 6:49:15 AM)
oops.. I should have said also, that the bonds formed do NOT(for me) need to be permanent.. but the bonds are, nonetheless, THERE even if it is FLEETING.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 7:07:42 AM)
It has been my experience that the best lover, is a man (or woman) who is seriously in love. I'm not saying sexual infatuation isn't great, I too think sexual chemistry is essential to a romantic relationship, and one of the things you can't "fix." It's there or it isn't. But being in love encompasses so much more than mere sexual attraction, being in love is about smiling each time you hear his voice, it's about breaking out in goosebumps when he brushes his scruffy chin against your neck, its about sniffing his crotch for the endorphin rush alone. When you are both mutually that "in" to each other, there is a mutual giving and taking that tends to be quite magical and to feed on itself. The more sex you have, the more you want. The sex act itself becomes less about sex and more about love. Can you spell multiple orgasms?

GreedyTop -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 8:21:44 AM)
since I have obviously mistaken "being in love" for he's hawt!!... repeatedly... I have to stand by what I said before... (oh, and I have had multis froim "fucks" more often than those I think I am in love with)

ForeverFire -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 8:46:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ForeverFire Selfish screws are truly the worst of all. You know, this one of those things that women will say, but I don't think it is always true. I have taken to women to bed with nothing in mind but my own damn satisfaction, with no more foreplay than grabbing them by the hair for a kiss that was only an expression of lust and power, then grabbed her ankles, held those next to her ears, and driven fully into her, hard and inconsiderate, until I had my moment, and hear afterward it was the best sex she had ever had. I should clarify. Selfish (to me) is not a hot grab-and-go. Selfish is being so tired that you are unable to wake up in the middle of the night due to the stomach flu, and having the Other take you anyway. Selfish is being forced to deep throat when so sick, the gag reflex makes you vomit. Then having it done again and again, until there is no ability to move; then you are taken again. That type of thing is what I mean.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 8:49:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop since I have obviously mistaken "being in love" for he's hawt!!... repeatedly... I have to stand by what I said before... (oh, and I have had multis froim "fucks" more often than those I think I am in love with) I was not replying to anyone in particular, just stating my take on the matter. It can be hard to tell the difference from "he's hawt" and "being in love." For me at least, infatuation is selfish, it's about being attracted to someone who can scratch your itches well. In love is less selfish and more selfless. More about putting the other's needs above your own. When you are both doing that in a sexual context, it's not just hawt (to me) it becomes a spiritual exchange which is at the heart of the power exchange. As always, JMO, YMMV.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 8:57:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt It has been my experience that the best lover, is a man (or woman) who is seriously in love. I'm not saying sexual infatuation isn't great, I too think sexual chemistry is essential to a romantic relationship, and one of the things you can't "fix." It's there or it isn't. I agree with your point. I wasn't so much negating the importance of love with good sexual partners but talking about how relationships should be initially. Speaking about love at first sight, its not really something I experienced myself but if feelings of love may come at the same time its is a great thing if it does. Makes me wonder though how its possible if the object of love is unknown. quote: But being in love encompasses so much more than mere sexual attraction, being in love is about smiling each time you hear his voice, it's about breaking out in goosebumps when he brushes his scruffy chin against your neck, its about sniffing his crotch for the endorphin rush alone. When you are both mutually that "in" to each other, there is a mutual giving and taking that tends to be quite magical and to feed on itself. The more sex you have, the more you want. The sex act itself becomes less about sex and more about love. Not to overcomplicate the issue but I used to know what love was until I had a few long term relationships. Now I'm not so sure if what typically passes for love today actually is what it is supposed or reputed to be. I think what passes for it is in fact just a strong affection that is made particularly intimate with sex so it seems that way. On the other hand there is intense but brief infatuation, and it seems that a lot of people describe that as love too. I guess this is where it turns into a tiring philosophical exercise [8\|] but just speaking from my own experience a good or great lover is not always or even often someone one is in love with, just someone there is a strong connection of some sort with! quote: Can you spell multiple orgasms? err.. muttipel organazams? [:D] As a side issue, I read that it seems some men can master multiple orgasms by not ejaculating. Seems had to do but it is possible and perhaps side-steps the whole male post eja process!

porcelaine -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 9:02:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh Agreed! I feel some women approach relationships with a check box when chemistry is something that can never be accounted for. Ultimately the people we seek should be measured as individuals but many women seem to appreciate men more for achievement etc. Maybe its a byproduct of women being tought to look for good husbands or whatever in the past. I need to feel the urge to rip off a woman's clothes (which btw I don't always feel when I see an attractive woman), and I need to know that she feels at least a good bit like that in turn. It shouldn't be half-hearted or one-sided. [sm=poke.gif] i don't fully understand the concept many women have about chemistry or the expectation (especially in this realm) that these things are set aside by the opposite sex in exchange for compatibility in other areas. This is usually followed by some weird lamentation that he didn't find her attractive or he's being shallow and she can't understand why he can't see or accept her "beauty" and look beyond the physical. It's in these instances when i sincerely wish to say, "are you fucking nuts?" Why on earth would you ever crave a man that didn't find you deliciously irresistible from head to toe? How could you possibly serve someone that has to "force" himself to be intimate and cannot grasp or appreciate your sensuality without external provocation or mental manipulation? i digress it leaves me truly confuzzled. Chemistry is one of my make or breaks and i've had many men line up in other areas that just didn't trip my switch. i have never gone forward as the idea of faking or having to grow into an attraction leaves me pretty cold. i like what i like and i don't believe a man should be demeaned for feeling the same or made to believe he must augment his natural self to appeal to someone's inadequacy about their physical presence. Nor will i denounce his hunger or make him apologetic for his need to sate that at the expense of my comfort or feminine sensibilities. i'm more inclined to encourage a full unveiling of both coupled with an unflinching need for transparency. i don't want bits and pieces of his essence, i'm far too greedy for that. i want the whole kit and kaboodle in all its unpleasantness. He shouldn't have to camouflage it for me. There's something very off with that in my opinion. quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop I have been called a slut (in the negative sense) because I have on more than a few occasions fucked the brains outta a guy, not because I wanted a relationship, but simply because he was sexually appealing to me. Sometimes that lead to a relationship (usually shortlived, but hey..), sometimes it didnt. what MATTERED was that the chemistry was THERE.. i'm very liberated about my sexuality and extremely unapologetic. It is one of the key things i dig around for when i'm getting acquainted with a man. If he's laden with hangups or not at ease with himself we'll never get along. i don't believe it's necessary to wear ones sexuality on the sleeve or smear it in the face of every man you encounter. However, decorum doesn't mean one is frigid or horribly prudish either. Carnality is ever present even when we elect not to articulate our thoughts, that doesn't change the fact that we 'went there' so to speak. i believe it's far more commonplace to encounter an individual with compatible chemistry than one with this and the other elements one would want in a prospective partner. The decision to act upon the former doesn't lessen that individual's character. i don't feel that restraint or long periods of celibacy are everyone's forte. Nor should they be vilified for their honesty. An omission of the admission doesn't mean the act never takes place. [;)] And as for the remarks about love... i believe in the best situations you've managed to find an individual that thrills you on every level. In my case, that suggests that he satisfies me on mental, emotional, and physical planes that catapult us to the spiritual. These unions do not diminish our carnal selves, nor is the introduction of love ever done at the expense of those bonds. It's important that each facet is fed. Oftentimes my discussions with men lead me to believe they lose something when i love you's are exchanged. For me, love invites the exploration of the abyss not its avoidance. Namaste, ~porcelaine

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 10:58:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh Agreed! I feel some women approach relationships with a check box when chemistry is something that can never be accounted for. Ultimately the people we seek should be measured as individuals but many women seem to appreciate men more for achievement etc. Maybe its a byproduct of women being tought to look for good husbands or whatever in the past. I need to feel the urge to rip off a woman's clothes (which btw I don't always feel when I see an attractive woman), and I need to know that she feels at least a good bit like that in turn. It shouldn't be half-hearted or one-sided. [sm=poke.gif] i don't fully understand the concept many women have about chemistry or the expectation (especially in this realm) that these things are set aside by the opposite sex in exchange for compatibility in other areas. This is usually followed by some weird lamentation that he didn't find her attractive or he's being shallow and she can't understand why can't see or accept her "beauty" and look beyond the physical. It's in these instances when i sincerely wish to say, "are you fucking nuts?" Why on earth would you ever crave a man that didn't find you deliciously irresistible from head to toe? How could you possibly serve someone that has to "force" himself to be intimate and cannot grasp or appreciate your sensuality without external provocation or mental manipulation? i digress it leaves me truly confuzzled. "Confuzzled" is a good one lol. I think people in the West particularly after feminism tend to separate the body and the soul/heart/mind into separate components. Men are seen as shallow for desiring a woman for her body over and above her mind. Its a bit like saying a train should run on a road rather than a track. If one thinks about it, it doesn't make any real sense. We desire - it is a function of physiology. That by the way doesn't make it right for men to treat women as pieces of meat but a function should be understood for what it is, not what some think it should be! Most importantly the mind isn't the chocolates and the body the box. We are one unit that is not divisable. The body is not the same as the mind but it defines the mind - we are men/women of X age, that grew up in region Y etc etc. Thus the body is who we are in so many respects. Thus for a man to deeply desire a woman for her body is anything but superficial! I think it is this plainly wrongheaded notion that many people have which leads to the sort of folly in relationships you describe. quote: Chemistry is one of my make or breaks and i've had many men line up in other areas that just didn't trip my switch. i have never gone forward as the idea of faking or having to grow into an attraction leaves me pretty cold. i like what i like and i don't believe a man should be demeaned for feeling the same or made to believe he must augment his natural self to appeal to someone's inadequacy about their physical presence. Nor will i denounce his hunger or make him apologetic for his need to sate that at the expense of my comfort or feminine sensibilities. i'm more inclined to encourage a full unveiling of both coupled with an unflinching need for transparency. i don't want bits and pieces of his essence, i'm far too greedy for that. i want the whole kit and kaboodle in all its unpleasantness. He shouldn't have to camouflage it for me. There's something very off with that in my opinion. You are quite right about that. It is better to accept and hopefully enjoy the whole messy situation with sex and desire than repress it. As a man I think it is important not to presume too much or take liberties with women but at the same time it is a matter of good faith to be genuine about the elephant in the room which the French existentialists spoke about (the story of a man taking a woman's hand and she pretending not to notice). In that respect I think faking is almost as close to a sin in a relationship as adultary even if it is done to make the male partner feel good. Chemistry is the key quality - the one thing that separates sexual relationships from other types. Its not merely body parts but a subtle phenomenon thats hard to analyse. I have heard a lot of BS from studies about this. Plenty of men find some women very attractive who are not conventionally pleasing to the eye.

Arpig -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 12:09:49 PM)
~FR~ A good lover is a woman you are happy to take to bed and not fuck.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 1:31:56 PM)
quote: Not to overcomplicate the issue but I used to know what love was until I had a few long term relationships. Now I'm not so sure if what typically passes for love today actually is what it is supposed or reputed to be. I think what passes for it is in fact just a strong affection that is made particularly intimate with sex so it seems that way. On the other hand there is intense but brief infatuation, and it seems that a lot of people describe that as love too. I guess this is where it turns into a tiring philosophical exercise but just speaking from my own experience a good or great lover is not always or even often someone one is in love with, just someone there is a strong connection of some sort with! I get your point. Infatuation doesn't seem to last long, does it? I think the trick is to fall in love with someone you actually LIKE.

needlesandpins -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 1:53:27 PM)
fr ok, so i'm not a hetro guy. but i see no reason why this question has to be male or female spacific unless you are the woman trying to figure out how to be a great lover or fuck. however, you can still only get an opinion of each person and as with most things it's subjective. one person's great fuck could be another's total turn off. for me i guess that a great fuck is where i would be very shallow and going on physical appearance only and have a need to be satisfied and afterwards i'd want him again. but i wouldn't want much else other than that. i did have someone like that when i was 17 and later in my 20's he said that all i had to do was say so and he'd end his engagement for me. i told him not to be so daft as i didn't feel that way for him, but that he should probably end it anyway if he loved her so little as to make me the offer. as a good lover.......i can't veiw someone as a good lover if they are not a good fuck. the thing is, i'm not sure as to what i can call a lover. you see, if a lover is someone you make love with then it can't be my current playmate while he is most certainly the best fuck i've had. for me, making love is all about pouring into a great fuck the feelings and emotions that make you love that person. so if we don't truely love each other, thus make love, we can't be lovers can we? but then there is this; he likes the idea of 'taking a lover' but in the old films and books sence.......such was his/her want that s/he took a lover. on that level he is my lover for i pour into that all the lust and passion that i have, and i do have feelings for him. what makes him so good? he says he is just doing what he likes and that just happens to do it for me. but it's not that, it's so much more as the way he is allows me to be free, to be just me. he makes me feel that i am totally safe to let go, say what i want without being judged in a bad way, to experiment in my own time, that if i need to i can say no or stop without him pouting about it, it's also like he reads my mind and just as i'm thinking that i would like him to just......he's already doing it. we talk so much about what we want to do, will do, and i have not been disappointed. we have done things i would never have considered before, and we talk about things that i realise i say yes to when before i would have said no. because it is him it is all fine. because it's him i want it. we are both exploring parts of ourselves that have not been let loose before and it's just fantastic. needles

Hillwilliam -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 4:44:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop since I have obviously mistaken "being in love" for he's hawt!!... repeatedly... You wont have that problem if ya ever play with Me [8D][8D][8D][8D][8D]

porcelaine -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/18/2011 7:28:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh "Confuzzled" is a good one lol. I think people in the West particularly after feminism tend to separate the body and the soul/heart/mind into separate components. Men are seen as shallow for desiring a woman for her body over and above her mind. Its a bit like saying a train should run on a road rather than a track. If one thinks about it, it doesn't make any real sense. We desire - it is a function of physiology. That by the way doesn't make it right for men to treat women as pieces of meat but a function should be understood for what it is, not what some think it should be! my personal concept of relationships isn't Western derived. i see the two facets as necessary components of a greater whole - each having its respective part (or place if you will) - that when combined creates something wonderfully beautiful that would not exist without its coalescence. In my mind sexuality is sacred and an art that has yet to be explored in its greater depths by most in our culture outside of physical stimulus. Whereas i desire to tantalize on every level imaginable. This allows for the profane and the ethereal. It's all good in my opinion. quote: Most importantly the mind isn't the chocolates and the body the box. We are one unit that is not divisable. The body is not the same as the mind but it defines the mind - we are men/women of X age, that grew up in region Y etc etc. Thus the body is who we are in so many respects. Thus for a man to deeply desire a woman for her body is anything but superficial! I think it is this plainly wrongheaded notion that many people have which leads to the sort of folly in relationships you describe. For a woman to accept that a man sees and finds pleasure in her physical form requires an inherent acceptance and appreciation for it as well. Most fear that he is taken in by the shell and rarely glimpses the bones. And in their defense they focus on the internal to the detriment of its opposite. Both should be nurtured in equal measure. quote: You are quite right about that. It is better to accept and hopefully enjoy the whole messy situation with sex and desire than repress it. As a man I think it is important not to presume too much or take liberties with women but at the same time it is a matter of good faith to be genuine about the elephant in the room which the French existentialists spoke about (the story of a man taking a woman's hand and she pretending not to notice). In that respect I think faking is almost as close to a sin in a relationship as adultary even if it is done to make the male partner feel good. Chemistry is the key quality - the one thing that separates sexual relationships from other types. Its not merely body parts but a subtle phenomenon thats hard to analyse. I have heard a lot of BS from studies about this. Plenty of men find some women very attractive who are not conventionally pleasing to the eye. In spite of my conservative upbringing our French ancestry rubbed off on me in some interesting ways. i'm certain my philosophies concerning beauty and sexuality are heavily influenced by the things i saw and experienced. i have a hard time accepting the dichotomy i observe which promotes one idea while carrying out another in secret. That takes too much energy to maintain and creates the compartmentalization that many struggle with. It becomes very obvious when we discuss the 'submissive self' and the 'woman' which is often viewed as separate and rarely unified. The split is often due to the internal unrest about the need to yield that juxtaposes the societal ideologies they've embraced. Most attempt to carry both but the end result of doing that is constant adjustment and a struggle to keep the balls in the air. At some point one must reconcile the differences and choose which philosophy you'll adhere to. When all things are on one accord the supposed challenges begin to lessen and the primary decision rests in following the leader rather than jockeying for position or feverishly attempting to hold on to what was in the midst of ones 'submission'. In short, your emphasis is on yielding and allowing what must fall by the wayside to do just this with a quiet adieu as opposed to a power struggle. In terms of what is fake or genuine, i think that goes much deeper than a orgasm. Before one gets to the point of misleading ones partner in bed you've already set the ball in motion in other areas. We're not a people that places a value on authenticity and unveiling our real selves. We're afraid of rejection and being inadequate or 'not enough' in some way. For if he sees the 'real me' he may find i'm not beautiful or to his liking. But alas, it is that very thing that often makes him love her with a searing passion that layers would never inspire. Show him your tears, weakness, insecurity, and everything in between and you may find yourself gazing at his. Then we're prepared to relate and truly merge. But until that occurs we're merely skimming around the edges. Once upon a time i swam in the same murky waters. One day my eyes opened and what was no longer applied. i abandoned the path of slavery and boldly entered one that offered something far greater. Not a common way of being, but an enlightened way of relating that has existed since the beginning of time. i merely had to open my mind and heart to receive its message. And when that occurred i saw He and i and the two were One. It was such a mesmerizing picture. That is what inspires me. Having a consort implies all these things and far more. [;)] Namaste, ~porcelaine

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/19/2011 6:55:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine my personal concept of relationships isn't Western derived. i see the two facets as necessary components of a greater whole - each having its respective part (or place if you will) - that when combined creates something wonderfully beautiful that would not exist without its coalescence. In my mind sexuality is sacred and an art that has yet to be explored in its greater depths by most in our culture outside of physical stimulus. Whereas i desire to tantalize on every level imaginable. This allows for the profane and the ethereal. It's all good in my opinion. Absolutely. It is the unification of opposites. Submission in a way is a conflict between fear and desire which makes it all the more intense. In parallel is the pysical side of BDSM, two conflicting sensations of pleasure and pain combining into sensation. I think you are right that the mind is still unexplored, and when truly combined with body brings about an experience far greater than the sum of those parts. quote: For a woman to accept that a man sees and finds pleasure in her physical form requires an inherent acceptance and appreciation for it as well. Most fear that he is taken in by the shell and rarely glimpses the bones. And in their defense they focus on the internal to the detriment of its opposite. Both should be nurtured in equal measure. That concern is understandable and it is right for women to be weary but generally speaking if men really find a given woman attractive and focus on the physical it doesn’t mean he is being superficial unless he seems disinterested in her as a person. As you say both should be appreciated equally. quote: In spite of my conservative upbringing our French ancestry rubbed off on me in some interesting ways. i'm certain my philosophies concerning beauty and sexuality are heavily influenced by the things i saw and experienced. i have a hard time accepting the dichotomy i observe which promotes one idea while carrying out another in secret. That takes too much energy to maintain and creates the compartmentalization that many struggle with. It becomes very obvious when we discuss the 'submissive self' and the 'woman' which is often viewed as separate and rarely unified. The split is often due to the internal unrest about the need to yield that juxtaposes the societal ideologies they've embraced. Most attempt to carry both but the end result of doing that is constant adjustment and a struggle to keep the balls in the air. At some point one must reconcile the differences and choose which philosophy you'll adhere to. When all things are on one accord the supposed challenges begin to lessen and the primary decision rests in following the leader rather than jockeying for position or feverishly attempting to hold on to what was in the midst of ones 'submission'. In short, your emphasis is on yielding and allowing what must fall by the wayside to do just this with a quiet adieu as opposed to a power struggle. Very true – our life experiences particularly in the early years seem to shape many of the views we possess on desire, sexuality etc. The compartmentalisation that you speak of is indeed a waste of energy and needlessly atomises the individual to fit in with certain codes of morality. Your point about women and submissiveness is interesting, the struggle between what society expects and personal needs. Its almost a sort of schizophrenia when taken to extremes and needs to be reconciled, choices made that are sometimes painful to face up to but in time leading to a greater internal peace. quote: In terms of what is fake or genuine, i think that goes much deeper than a orgasm. Before one gets to the point of misleading ones partner in bed you've already set the ball in motion in other areas. We're not a people that places a value on authenticity and unveiling our real selves. We're afraid of rejection and being inadequate or 'not enough' in some way. For if he sees the 'real me' he may find i'm not beautiful or to his liking. But alas, it is that very thing that often makes him love her with a searing passion that layers would never inspire. Show him your tears, weakness, insecurity, and everything in between and you may find yourself gazing at his. Then we're prepared to relate and truly merge. But until that occurs we're merely skimming around the edges. Once upon a time i swam in the same murky waters. One day my eyes opened and what was no longer applied. i abandoned the path of slavery and boldly entered one that offered something far greater. Not a common way of being, but an enlightened way of relating that has existed since the beginning of time. i merely had to open my mind and heart to receive its message. And when that occurred i saw He and i and the two were One. It was such a mesmerizing picture. That is what inspires me. Having a consort implies all these things and far more. [;)] I agree that faking does go beyond faking orgasm. The inauthenticity in some relationships sets such things in motion as you say. The act of faking breaks a certain trust where the partner can no longer be certain how you feel, if what he is doing pleases you are not. Its like putting out a guiding light in a relationship. Feelings of inadequacy and fear of rejection put up barriers. Perhaps that is one of the things that authentic D/S relationships break through because the power dynamic between both partners takes the relationship and its intimacy to a new level where it is hard to hide from the other. Indeed it is not easy to love someone for the image they portray, it may be a source of infatuation in the early days of a relationship but images are not enough to sustain a union for many years. Not only that but not feeling able to be real with the one person we plan to live our lives with makes it that bit harder to be happy. I’m glad you are happy with the choice you made. Its not always easy to do so.

domiguy -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/19/2011 7:06:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather i'm not a heterosexual man, so i can't speak from that point of view, but i can from mine. i have had a number of good lovers, all of them women or gay men, i have never encountered a heterosexual man who was more than a mediocre lover. a good lover engages your entire self in the sex. your whole body and mind become an erogenous zone. she fucks all of you. a good lover studies her partner in the minutest detail, memorizing every reaction, every gasp, twitch and sigh, and using that information to deliver the most erotic and satisfying experience possible to her lover. a good lover's primary focus is on her partner. she never allows her own pleasure to distract her from her main purpose, to satisfy her lover in the most complete way she can. a good lover is not some thing you are, it is something you do. hannah lynn A pile of horseshit. Me thinks someone isn't too enamored with hetero dudes. A good lover is not intent on only delivering pleasure. That doesn't suck but it is probably not going to cut it for her over the long haul. It's a bit of a tug of war and a dance. When she is riding and writhing on top of you I don't think at that moment that she is all that concerned about "her main purpose" of satisfying her lover. Dumb Dumb Dumb. You actually have it reversed, which is not surprising. A good lover is something that you are, it is not something you do. If it is purely was something that "you do" then any gal should be able to pick up a manual and become Donna Juan.

domiguy -> RE: Questions for heterosexual men (4/19/2011 7:08:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig ~FR~ A good lover is a woman you are happy to take to bed and not fuck. No, that is a glass of water.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875