I'm sorry, but you have mistaken me for the user "glice".

was it the yes or no that got you hard?

I'm going to play my cards close and say "it was the knowledge that she had ability to exert her own free will to do with her body as she pleases fully knowing that her man loves and supports her no matter what those wishes may be, as he is the type of man that loves strong women who do so".

I hope that helps.

:)

I find it less worrying that floatingslowly has had more than one relationship in the last 20 years and more worrying that anyone can give so much as half a sloppy drunk fuck about what he's done with his penis. Because no-one's asking questions about the women concerned's sex life, I can only assume it's some bizarre homosexual thing where the gay desire for floatingslowly's not-spectacular-public-sexual-history may only be enacted through scurillous non-rumours of the female partners being grown and explicitly consenting adults.

Paedo debate: It's important to remember that while post-pubescent women associate less pubic hair with the pre-pubescent phase, most heterosexual men have no inherent association of pubic hair with pre- or post-pubescent women; the assumption that they do have that association is also the assumption that most men want no pubic hair, which is to say, it's one of those odd sexisms that's generated almost exclusively from gynophobia, or self-hating women.

I'm not saying that porn culture doesn't contribute to problems in sexual (particularly heterosexual) dialogues, but the associations are more complex than the simplistic (and no less unctuous therefore) 'every man is a potential rapist' or 'all porn is rape' things.

Edit: You've all typed things while I was typing that. So you can all cunt off. Except knox, who's invited around for a cup of tea and a flick through the freemans catalogue for dungarees.

speak of the devil.

now for the real metaphysical question, did he begin typing that bLOLog before or after we invoked his name?

fucking 9th degree Nazi sex magic.

ahahah

(please note: i did not read the debate this is all about, so i'm not taking a stance with this. this post made me laugh, is all.)

on a more realistic note, I find myself falling in love with a certain lady of interest of recent. Just last night we had quite surprise escalation in our chemistry.. Still she's playing games with me but to be honest I'm enjoying the mystery of it all..

The problem: I chase nuns more than a priest. The girls I'm into are of two polar extremes (and only these two), either way too out of control and vitriolically dangerous or way to damned pious (the female version of myself) and we are quicker to find each other sharing the Rosary rather than my bedroom :/

This latest girl is more so the second than the first, but much like that last girl I was falling in love with, she is WAAAY to spiritual to ever tether to my own surreal attempt and reality. So what, the fun part is the thrill of discovery, romance should be like mushrooms, a synchretic blend of childlike bewilderment and blood-curdling fear.

"Better, perhaps, to die in doubt, knowing there was some revelation still unfoound, than to pursue and possess such a wretched certainty.." Clive Barker Sacrament

ps: I'm all in huff about that "not-spectacular" jab because my sex life is "pretty fucking awesome".

that's a lot of trouble to avoid saying "i love the bush"

I don't care about the bush one way or another. I love what's between her ears.

by ears you mean flaps?

thanks guys this has been the best orgy ever.

If your sex life is or isn't great doesn't really bother me one way or another. It'd only bother me if I was a proper basement-dweller/ sexually frustrated. That's what I'm saying. It's a similar point to the 'big gay Rob' one. Apologies for 'srsly' sentiment, but I tend to think that taking an interest in other's sex lives, or explicitly emphasising a sexuality, is pretty worrying.

And little nikky noo noo - the Gliceaphilia thing is probably because I've made some blue statements about JB before.

Sometimes I am invoked; more often, incensed.

I love it how this board can make me feel sane.

oh, I'm not really in a huff. it was mostly feigned indignance.

but for the record, I was calling you a Nazi, not a pedophile. that was ni'k. not me.

I called you a Nazi because you love Prussian Blue....hey...aren't they 13?????? you sick fuck.

I didn't realize that there was a difference?

that is true.

ok. lets get back on to the topic of love and orgies people, all this talk of Nazi's is getting rather drab.

he did look suspiciously caucasian when we met.

no. he once admitted to being able to "throat sing" which makes him either napalese or just really really gay.

that's what 'you people' call it, right? I mean, throat singing.