RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs

RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

LordODiscipline -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 7:39:56 AM)
*Wow -* *Vascillate much?* *That is because people are sick and tired of such threads and they get a minimal response from anyone who has read them more than once -* But, they do get a response. (much to my chagrin) *As far as "never" compared to "not very often" - cut me some slack.* ~J quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure *"No one protects the poor submissive when they are slammed"...* Yes, I agree that that would be silly. However, I don't recall saying that. Reading my comment above, what I do see that I said was, "...similarly opinionated and subjective ideas are not challenged as much." As much. Meaning some, but not as many.

Chromewulfie -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 7:55:32 AM)
I agree that submissives tend to be more beautiful, inner and outer. How could they not? They not only have the confidence to give themselves utterly and completely to a Master/Mistress but also the confidence that said person has given themself as utterly and completely in return. I think many vanilla women stumble around in a world of fear, negativity and emotional upheaval. If only we could all learn to embrace our inner self, it's cravings and desires, fears and insecurities and accept that all of that makes up the whole of our being. I think the Dominant in the relationship helps the Submissive to accomplish that, and that beautiful glow just shines through the haze of vanilla baggage. Or I might be rambling about a bunch of shit that doesn't make sense either. Muahwhahaha.

losttreasure -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 8:58:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *Wow -* *Vascillate much?* *That is because people are sick and tired of such threads and they get a minimal response from anyone who has read them more than once -* But, they do get a response. (much to my chagrin) *As far as "never" compared to "not very often" - cut me some slack.* ~J laughs Okay, I've been sitting here trying to determine just what you are saying in your quoted post above, and I have to admit that I'm at a loss. If you are asking if I vacillate, the short answer is no; though, I do try to listen to reasoned arguments and in doing so, my opinion is occasionally swayed. In this particular thread, I don't think that has happened. However, if your question, "Vascillate (sic) much?" was simply illustrative rhetoric, I don't believe the explanation you gave did much to address it. Do I understand your assertion correctly? Opinions waver because people get tired of seeing the same topics? I would be happy to cut you some slack if you would make a conscious effort to avoid changing the meaning of my words. I do try to avoid being silly by choosing them carefully to begin with. [;)]

LordODiscipline -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 11:02:35 AM)
quote: Wow - *Expulsionary exposition denoting a sincere disbelief and/or playful exclamatory of the entire posting being responded to...* quote: Vascillate much? *An incusionary statement of summation - signifying a belief that the author of the previous posting is wobbling about in their statements* quote: That is because people are sick and tired of such threads and they get a minimal response from anyone who has read them more than once - But, they do get a response. (much to my chagrin) *Statement speaking to a specific question raised by the previous posting.* quote: As far as "never" compared to "not very often" - cut me some slack. ~J Codifying summation and response to a statement which is used to inform the reader/former poster that there was no malice intended and no misreading - simply an effort to respond quickly and asking for lenience on the implied assumption that there is an underlying motivation as compared with the casual approach the author took to the previous posting. ~J

FirmhandKY -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 11:07:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists Just as you are annoyed at how individuals come and make silly and even insulting posts of ugly subs... Just as you come and present a flip side of the same coin and find it interesting how individuals only see the covers and not realize the behavior you present is not unlike the individual that express things about ugly subs. I find it equally annoying when anyone comes forward with assumptions, beliefs and conjecture and presents them as some logical argument. I think we need to call a spade a spade. KoM, I accept your premise that in the abstract, it may be just as annoying to you to see a counter-argument to the "ugly" sub theory oft expressed here. I'm still not sure I accept your sharp dictomy between "emotional" and "logical", nor in your dismissal of my words as not falling within the realm of "logic". If it helps you to understand what my view, I actually see myself as employing an informal "argumentive dialogue", rather than "pure logic". I will agree that some of my posts and premises could be considered the mirror image of many who posit the "ugly sub" theorem. That was purposeful. However, I have attempted to move beyond the "I think, and therefore it's true" stage of discussion and have actually employed inductive inferential reasoning. For example: So ... ... if sub women are a cross section of all women, with the same percentage of "lookers" as "non-lookers", and their primary reason for coming to a site such as CM is not related to difficulty in finding "any man" but a special type of man (a structural issue, rather than personal issue), and .... if a certain percentage of women on vanilla dating sites are there due to "attractiveness" issues, compared to the general population, then, The average sub woman on CM is more attractive than the average woman on vanilla sites. I ask you ... is this not a logical argument? What do you consider "emotional" about any of these statements (premises and conclusion)? Are the terms "looker" and "non-looker" too vague for you? Too subjective? Then challenge me on that issue or premise. I'd be more than willing to advance a non-subjective definition and test for both "looker" and "non-looker" (or more widely define "beautiful" and "attractive" in purely objective terms and definitions). quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists Much you have expressed in this thread I happen to agree with. However, I find a more direct approach more to be my style yours is obviously more subtle. But, my agreement is a shared belief and opinion. There is no logical arguement to support these beliefs. For these beliefs are simply rooted in our moral character and that in of it self makes the whole exercise subjective. I'm open to understanding a more direct approach, if you are willing. quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists Even thou a person maybe motivated for emotional or subjective beliefs to make a logical argument. The beauty of logic is that it becomes removed from the emotional and subjective beliefs of the individual. It holds alot of creditability when a person can make an logical argument and remove the emotional and subjective beliefs from the equation. Often, issues of intense emotions can be steered though when we can take out the heat of emotion and out subjective beliefs. I have found in debates, especially in debates and arguments in which the backgrounds of many of the people engaging in such emotional issues as religion, politics and the "worth" of a certain class of individual is extremely disparate, that no single style of argument or debate is more effective than any other. To the contrary, I found that a blending of all forms of argument and persuasion is generally the most effective. Sometimes you have to breach the walls of emotions for any logic or facts at all to penetrate. Sometimes you have to use logic and facts to breach the walls of emotion. Sometimes, there is nothing you can do to breach the "walls" at all. quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists I find that my own learning and growth is greatest when I am able to put my own emotions and beliefs aside. To look at the argument logical presented and see the truths of the conclusion. Many times my own emotions and beliefs have been shifted as a result of this. For most people it is very difficult to even temporarily put aside their own emotions and beliefs to look at any subject dispassionately. quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists This thread and most threads would be served well if there is more logical expression to a conclusion stated. Such as? quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists I have found some individuals here have done that.... and do that, thou none of us are prefect at it. But, also I find that these threads quickly die when the drama is not swirled around with the thread. How often have you seen a increasingly interesting thread develop and last on the boards for weeks on end. How often have you seen a increasingly dramatic thread last on the boards for weeks on end. I suppose it is the nature of the beast ... these online forums. We complain we express our distaste for the drama... but yet most seem to get caught in it from time to time. Your orginally OP... thou I believe moral motivated... is nothing more than positive drama compared to the negative drama. But, drama none the less. But, even as I glance through the thread... I do see some negative drama occuring.... despite your desire to avoid it. It would appear that drama is just drama... or is drama just a place we can allow our own emotional and moral beliefs to run our behaviors... and then the discord of discussion falls to destructive arguments instead of staying on path with the constructive arguments. I think "drama" is often the nature of the beast in online forums that have such a wide range of people. What's amazing and satisifying is when you can carry on a conversation without it disintegrating into "useless drama" with only negative emotional content. However, depending on how you define "drama", there isn't necessarily anything wrong with it, I think. Another way of thinking of it, is as the emotional context of some people's lives. We are free to make value judgements as to what that emotional context may be, but that doesn't lessen it's validity for the individual involved. And it often gives a clue as to how to reach the person (if we decide it worth our energy). FirmKY

Wildfleurs -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 11:26:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So ... ... if sub women are a cross section of all women, with the same percentage of "lookers" as "non-lookers", and their primary reason for coming to a site such as CM is not related to difficulty in finding "any man" but a special type of man (a structural issue, rather than personal issue), and .... if a certain percentage of women on vanilla dating sites are there due to "attractiveness" issues, compared to the general population, then, The average sub woman on CM is more attractive than the average woman on vanilla sites. I ask you ... is this not a logical argument? Its not a logical arguement because looking for a special type of man does not mean that they are more attractive. Similarly there are vanilla women on dating sites that are looking for a special type of men (in the alumni magazine for my undergrad college there are many ads for personal sites for people who only have Ivy degrees - as an example of a special type of man that women may be looking for and there are dating sites just for heavyset women). I've been active in the scene for a fair amount of time and I can with all honesty say that I've never found that women in the scene are remotely more attractive than your garden variety women you'd encounter anywhere else. There are some that are attractive, quite a bit that could be more attractive if they paid more attention to how they dressed and looked, some that are working whatever level of attractiveness they have to their best ability, and some that just aren't physically attractive. Similarly I haven't found myself bowled away at the intelligence level of people in the scene (and that includes female submissives). Overall I find people (particularly men) in the scene do like to appear and act more intelligent than they are. In terms of well adjusted, quite frankly I think you could throw a dime in any direction in a room full of submissive women and hit someone that is either currently or has taken medication for mental problems, has been in intensive psychiatric care, or needs to be on medication (similarly I think you could put a room of non-BDSMers in a room.. throw a dime and find the same thing). C~

losttreasure -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 12:22:14 PM)
laughing even harder I believe I understand now; I detect the presence of a doctrinaire, if not practitioner, of jurisprudence. quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline quote: Wow - *Expulsionary exposition denoting a sincere disbelief and/or playful exclamatory of the entire posting being responded to...* An interjection used to exclaim surprise at having been caught. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline quote: Vascillate much? *An incusionary statement of summation - signifying a belief that the author of the previous posting is wobbling about in their statements* An attempt at misdirection. You alter my words and meaning, when I attempt to reiterate my stance, you accuse me of wavering. A fair try, but I'm not buying it. quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline quote: That is because people are sick and tired of such threads and they get a minimal response from anyone who has read them more than once - But, they do get a response. (much to my chagrin) *Statement speaking to a specific question raised by the previous posting.* A valid statement, I'm sure... but perhaps identifying just exactly what "specific question" you are speaking to would be helpful. The post from which you quoted does not intimate a query, let alone pose a specific question, to wit: quote: ORIGINAL: FirmHandKY By LostTreasure using FirmHandKy's account... ...What I find interesting about this thread is that so many are quick to respond that FirmHandKY's statement is nothing but opinion and thereby invalid. But when it comes to threads where the topic is denigrating toward submissives, similarly opinionated and subjective ideas are not challenged as much. You don't see the same people coming forth to declare to the OP, "you've just only found ugly (fat, insecure, old, stupid or any other derrogatory adjective) submissives so you're just projecting your disappointment on the rest of the submissives here". Merely an expression of my opinion, of course... no questions asked. I do appreciate your effort in supplying a reason; however, in paraphrasing me, I would have preferred that you not change my meaning. quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline quote: As far as "never" compared to "not very often" - cut me some slack. ~J Codifying summation and response to a statement which is used to inform the reader/former poster that there was no malice intended and no misreading - simply an effort to respond quickly and asking for lenience on the implied assumption that there is an underlying motivation as compared with the casual approach the author took to the previous posting. ~J No malice was perceived and I can appreciate the desire for expediency, though sacrificing clarity in the name of brevity isn't always the best course.

Sinergy -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 12:27:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy To suggest that because people did not respond to this thread because they failed to appreciate the intellectual subtlety of your argument is as ridiculous and self-absorbed as Monkeyboy's administrations claim that "absence of evidence supporting WMDs in Iraq is not evidence of absence of WMDs in Iraq." As you so often say Sinergy, in one form or another: "your emotional state is not my concern, nor my responsibility". Your "intellectual subtlety" is something that I've obviously failed to grasp on many an occasion. I have no doubt that I'll continue to be unable to distinguish your subtlety from snobbery. [\quote] I am not sure why you decided to tack the thread in that direction, but ok. If you re-read what I wrote, you will see I was not referring to my own subtlety (or lack thereof) or intelligence (or lack thereof). I was simply making the point that the dearth of responses to your thread might not be, as you stated, every other poster on the board being incapable of understanding the true and inner meaning of what you posted. It might simply be a situation where your statement was lacking in supporting documentation, overly generalized, poorly defined, inarticulately presented, or simply not particularly interesting or relevant. While your comments about emotional attachment to what people post are interesting, I am unsure how germane they are to the thread. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy p.s. Actually, the first time I commented about Jane Curtin was due to the title of the thread. The second time I posted about Jane Curtin was because your arguments, veiled insults to other posters, self-aggrandizement, and logical connections made me wonder if Dan Aykroyd would insist on performing the abortion himself.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 12:38:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure laughing even harder I believe I understand now; I detect the presence of a doctrinaire, if not practitioner, of jurisprudence. I never stated I was associated with the judiciary and/or desired or was relative to Prudence. Both are bitches. quote: An interjection used to exclaim surprise at having been caught. [;)] *Purely subjective and not as intended.* quote: An attempt at misdirection. You alter my words and meaning, when I attempt to reiterate my stance, you accuse me of wavering. A fair try, but I'm not buying it. *No accusation - simply a statemnt of observation. And, there is nothing to buy... obviously, you have a patent prejudice against such on observation...I would too.* quote: A valid statement, I'm sure... but perhaps identifying just exactly what "specific question" you are speaking to would be helpful. How could you declare something 'valid' without benefit of understanding what it is about? (are you a lawyer?) quote: The post from which you quoted does not intimate a query, let alone pose a specific question, to wit:<yadah, yadah, yadah...> Questions may be broached and/raised without a directed statement of inquiry simply through the nature of urging a spurious comment or discussion ot be evolved from it and/or by the very nature of the subject/discussion being specious and/or without obvious merit. IE: The referenced statement quoted brings forth the question of the invalidity of the assertion originally raised in the OP... and further conversation delves into a logical explanation for what logical explanations are and are not in a logical manner without logical conclusion Hence this freaking on going postings about absolutely nothing - like a Seinfeld episode staring Plato's ugly younger brother Daryll and his other brother Daryll. quote: No malice was perceived and I can appreciate the desire for expediency, though sacrificing clarity in the name of brevity isn't always the best course. As it was never claimed to be "the best course" I believe I am not in the wrong in this. And, I can now see that it is also the more lengthy course when discourse with you is involved. ~J

losttreasure -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 1:09:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline I never stated I was associated with the judiciary and/or desired or was relative to Prudence. Both are bitches. I couldn't agree more. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline How could you declare something 'valid' without benefit of understanding what it is about? (are you a lawyer?) I never said that I didn't understand your statement... I do have a fairly keen grasp of the English language. What I had trouble understanding was the context in which you offered the statement. However, my saying it is valid is merely a concession granting you benefit of the doubt; while I'm sure arguments could be made for either side, I personally do not see anything that leads me to believe it incorrect. As for you asking if I am a lawyer... I direct you to my whole-hearted concordance above. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline ...Hence this freaking on going postings about absolutely nothing - like a Seinfeld episode staring Plato's ugly younger brother Daryll and his other brother Daryll. laughs Oh, where is your sense of adventure? quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure No malice was perceived and I can appreciate the desire for expediency, though sacrificing clarity in the name of brevity isn't always the best course. As it was never claimed to be "the best course" I believe I am not in the wrong in this. And, I can now see that it is also the more lengthy course when discourse with you is involved. ~J I'm nothing if not stubborn. More fun that way.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 1:32:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I am not sure why you decided to tack the thread in that direction, but ok. If you re-read what I wrote, you will see I was not referring to my own subtlety (or lack thereof) or intelligence (or lack thereof). Yes. I know. You were making an insinuation about my subtlety (or lack thereof) or intelligence (or lack thereof). quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I was simply making the point that the dearth of responses to your thread might not be, as you stated, every other poster on the board being incapable of understanding the true and inner meaning of what you posted. It might simply be a situation where your statement was lacking in supporting documentation, overly generalized, poorly defined, inarticulately presented, or simply not particularly interesting or relevant. I don't believe you can find anywhere that I was bemoaning the "dearth of responses" to my OP. Nor have I made the claim that "every other poster on the board being incapable of understanding the true and inner meaning of what" I have posted. Your lack of clarity in your responses might simply be a situation where your statements are lacking in supporting documentation, overly generalized, poorly defined, inarticulately presented, or simply not particularly interesting or relevant. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy While your comments about emotional attachment to what people post are interesting, I am unsure how germane they are to the thread. While your comments to what I post are interesting, I am unsure how germane they are to this thread. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Yes. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy p.s. Actually, the first time I commented about Jane Curtin was due to the title of the thread. The second time I posted about Jane Curtin was because your arguments, veiled insults to other posters, self-aggrandizement, and logical connections made me wonder if Dan Aykroyd would insist on performing the abortion himself. shrugs You've thrown that particular insult out for the third time. Wasn't effective the first time. Wasn't effective the second time. Isn't effective the third time. Perhaps you need to reach deeper? A little more originality? There have been no veiled insults from me to anyone in this thread, other than perhaps to you, in a mirrored response to your "not so veiled and subtle" attempts to be snide, insulting and dismissive. But, that's about what I expect from you, anyway. So ... tell me ... does this mean that I can chalk you up to the "all subs are ugly and mentally mal-adjusted" camp? Please clarify. FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 2:01:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs Its not a logical arguement because looking for a special type of man does not mean that they are more attractive. Pointing out possible problems with the logic doesn't make it "not" a logical argument. Perhaps an incorrect argument, a flawed argument, or an incomplete one, but still a logical argument. Ex: All fish swim in the water. Whales swim in the ocean. Whales are therefore fish. Perfectly logical, just incorrect due to incomplete assumptions and definitions. quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs Similarly there are vanilla women on dating sites that are looking for a special type of men (in the alumni magazine for my undergrad college there are many ads for personal sites for people who only have Ivy degrees - as an example of a special type of man that women may be looking for and there are dating sites just for heavyset women). I could argue that all bdsm dating sites have women looking for a special type of man, while very few vanilla dating sites have women looking for a special type of man. Even if the total of vanilla dating sites which could qualify as "vanilla women looking for a special type of man" was in absolute terms greater than the number of sub women "looking for a special kind of man", I think the percentages would be in the single digits for the vanilla women versus 100% of the sub women. quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs I've been active in the scene for a fair amount of time and I can with all honesty say that I've never found that women in the scene are remotely more attractive than your garden variety women you'd encounter anywhere else. There are some that are attractive, quite a bit that could be more attractive if they paid more attention to how they dressed and looked, some that are working whatever level of attractiveness they have to their best ability, and some that just aren't physically attractive. Similarly I haven't found myself bowled away at the intelligence level of people in the scene (and that includes female submissives). Overall I find people (particularly men) in the scene do like to appear and act more intelligent than they are. In terms of well adjusted, quite frankly I think you could throw a dime in any direction in a room full of submissive women and hit someone that is either currently or has taken medication for mental problems, has been in intensive psychiatric care, or needs to be on medication (similarly I think you could put a room of non-BDSMers in a room.. throw a dime and find the same thing). Could be. No big argument. However, this is based only on anecdotal evidence, and with no real supporting logical train of thought, isn't it? [:D] FirmKY

damia -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 5:28:12 PM)
To the OP {havent read all the replies: my internet is down and this computer sucks} I don't know about vanilla people who woulld have no interest in bdsm if they knew about it, but there are many people who fail to fit in and have trouble adjusting to life, but are a lot better off when they discover the bdsm community and see that they are not the only ones into this or that. Myself included. I have borderline personality disorder, but when I was in a D/s relationship the first time, then discovering the local community here and submitting to my Master, Wulf...I am a lot more in control of my mental health, and also tend to push myself physically (not to mention sex is good exercise), as well as doing more research, gaining more knowledge. I know a few others like this. People in the bdsm community tend to be more comfortable when their needs are met and they dont have to push to fit in the vanilla world all the time my two cents damia {apologies for typos: like i said this computer sucks and the keyboard does too}

Wildfleurs -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 5:29:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Pointing out possible problems with the logic doesn't make it "not" a logical argument. If neither fish nor whales actually swim in the ocean (i.e. your reasoning is quite literally a series of generalizations and assumptions not based on much of anything – if you start talking about percentages of population there really should be something behind it) then that’s not a logical argument. Your original premises that I said were illogical were: quote: So ... ... if sub women are a cross section of all women, with the same percentage of "lookers" as "non-lookers", and their primary reason for coming to a site such as CM is not related to difficulty in finding "any man" but a special type of man (a structural issue, rather than personal issue), and .... if a certain percentage of women on vanilla dating sites are there due to "attractiveness" issues, compared to the general population, then, The average sub woman on CM is more attractive than the average woman on vanilla sites. quote: I could argue that all bdsm dating sites have women looking for a special type of man, while very few vanilla dating sites have women looking for a special type of man. By the actual literal meaning of the term special, all personals are looking for a special type of person. quote: However, this is based only on anecdotal evidence, and with no real supporting logical train of thought, isn't it? When I say terms like, “I haven’t found…” and “Overall I find…” and “I think…” generally that means that those are statements from a personal perspective (when I base a post on facts I provide citations). And you can tell me if I said so, but I’m pretty sure I never put the two paragraphs that you put forward as an indicator for what a logical argument should be. Unless that was a rhetorical question and not a literal question, I’m having problems telling when you are being specific and literal. C~

Sinergy -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 6:15:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You've thrown that particular insult out for the third time. Wasn't effective the first time. Wasn't effective the second time. Isn't effective the third time. I apologize for thinking this was a general message board where people could give their opinions. Thank you for clarifying this entire thread is entirely about you and what you think and believe. Peace out, Sinergy

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 6:25:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs Similarly there are vanilla women on dating sites that are looking for a special type of men (in the alumni magazine for my undergrad college there are many ads for personal sites for people who only have Ivy degrees ). I don't know about Ivy Leaguers, but I will take a former Southeastern Conference cheerleader any old day, except those from Vanderbilt. (apologies to Lewis Grizzard)

Sinergy -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 6:32:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain former Southeastern Conference cheerleader any old day, except those from Vanderbilt. (apologies to Lewis Grizzard) Does she have kung-fu action grip? Sinergy

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 6:37:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain former Southeastern Conference cheerleader any old day, except those from Vanderbilt. (apologies to Lewis Grizzard) Does she have kung-fu action grip? Sinergy Not only that, her mental health is askance. Now give me my U. of Mississippi cheerleader. Where is Bearlee when I want to butt fuck society?

LordODiscipline -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 7:30:42 PM)
Butt Fuck the Cheerleader... ...Save the World?* Wonderingly - ~J Except those from Vanderbilt quote:* ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain former Southeastern Conference cheerleader any old day, except those from Vanderbilt. (apologies to Lewis Grizzard) Does she have kung-fu action grip? Sinergy Not only that, her mental health is askance. Now give me my U. of Mississippi cheerleader. Where is Bearlee when I want to butt fuck society?

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/27/2006 7:41:10 PM)
LOD, I have no idea what it meant either.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02