Skip to main content

The men who are terrified of what their wife will do when they aren't looking, are usually the ones cheating their asses off.

As for the Thong Parade:

As was discussed before, neither virtue nor I nor anyone else who thinks those threads are... unfortunate, have any desire to tell people what to fantasize about. What is hilarious is that people get so damn INDIGNANT when the microscope is turned on those threads in a "How dare you even mention all those precious thongs?!?!? Them joints is SACRED!!!"

You enjoy it, fine. You like to see it and comment on it as often as RadioRaheem can turn out new threads, cool (I guess). You also should have no problem talking about it like a rational human being when someone asks you a question.

virtue sounds like she's asking why men who claim to not date promiscuous women feel so strongly about seeing as many pictures as they can of naked rumps. There's seemingly a disconnect between the two actions. "Oh no, I would never date a woman who has been around the block, but I will seek out and look at those very same women and whack off like a mutha!" I mentioned something similar in the original discussion and was met with the same heavy-handed "Just because we look at tits doesn't give you any right to JUDGE OUR INTELLIGENCE and that is so WRONG and stop trying to tell me what I can get off on and the actual clit wasn't really showing if you squinted your eyes real hard and blahblahblah" from everyone.

It's irrelevant and nonsensical and misses the mark. These are valid questions people are posing. It's less "stop doing this!" and more "WHY are you doing this?"

There are some things that are just always going to be brought up on this board: men's "insatiable" appetite for T&A, Black women being "picky", HeruStar's Asian girlfriend, etc. Those don't have to be fighting words all the time.

Edited to Add: Before someone jumps to any conclusions, I must say that I do not at all agree with the characterization of these women as promiscuous because they are in suggestive photos. That is not my angle, not something I agree with at all because I define promiscuity by the number of sexual partners someone has had and I don't think promiscuity is always a bad thing. But that does not make virtue's question any less valid or the histrionics any less irrelevant. Cool
Kai, look, if you like sexually liberated women, that's fine! If that's what you appreciate when you look at photos, beautiful! If the thought that they are "loose" turns you on then great! That's your view and I respect that. There might even be a lot of people who agree with you.

ALL I'm saying is that NOT EVERYONE THINKS LIKE THAT!

You'd think this wouldn't be a controversial statement: Different people have different tastes.

But for some reason, Virtue and you have become stuck on informing the rest of us exactly what we think (what goes through our minds) when we look at pictures...

That's wack. I'm sorry...But that really is pretty nutty.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
The men who are terrified of what their wife will do when they aren't looking, are usually the ones cheating their asses off.

As for the Thong Parade:

As was discussed before, neither virtue nor I nor anyone else who thinks those threads are... unfortunate, have any desire to tell people what to fantasize about. What is hilarious is that people get so damn INDIGNANT when the microscope is turned on those threads in a "How dare you even mention all those precious thongs?!?!? Them joints is SACRED!!!"

You enjoy it, fine. You like to see it and comment on it as often as RadioRaheem can turn out new threads, cool (I guess). You also should have no problem talking about it like a rational human being when someone asks you a question.

virtue sounds like she's asking why men who claim to not date promiscuous women feel so strongly about seeing as many pictures as they can of naked rumps. There's seemingly a disconnect between the two actions. "Oh no, I would never date a woman who has been around the block, but I will seek out and look at those very same women and whack off like a mutha!" I mentioned something similar in the original discussion and was met with the same heavy-handed "Just because we look at tits doesn't give you any right to JUDGE OUR INTELLIGENCE and that is so WRONG and stop trying to tell me what I can get off on and the actual clit wasn't really showing if you squinted your eyes real hard and blahblahblah" from everyone.

It's irrelevant and nonsensical and misses the mark. These are valid questions people are posing. It's less "stop doing this!" and more "WHY are you doing this?"

There are some things that are just always going to be brought up on this board: men's "insatiable" appetite for T&A, Black women being "picky", HeruStar's Asian girlfriend, etc. Those don't have to be fighting words all the time.

Edited to Add: Before someone jumps to any conclusions, I must say that I do not at all agree with the characterization of these women as promiscuous because they are in suggestive photos. That is not my angle, not something I agree with at all because I define promiscuity by the number of sexual partners someone has had and I don't think promiscuity is always a bad thing. But that does not make virtue's question any less valid or the histrionics any less irrelevant. Cool



I tried to answer the question. I TRIED TO ANSWER IT HONESTLY.. but what I resent like hell is people not taking the answer seriously and going "No, what you really mean is.."

Frenchy, if someone did that to you, and repeatedly, you'd have a fit...
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
The men who are terrified of what their wife will do when they aren't looking, are usually the ones cheating their asses off.

As for the Thong Parade:

As was discussed before, neither virtue nor I nor anyone else who thinks those threads are... unfortunate, have any desire to tell people what to fantasize about. What is hilarious is that people get so damn INDIGNANT when the microscope is turned on those threads in a "How dare you even mention all those precious thongs?!?!? Them joints is SACRED!!!"

You enjoy it, fine. You like to see it and comment on it as often as RadioRaheem can turn out new threads, cool (I guess). You also should have no problem talking about it like a rational human being when someone asks you a question.

virtue sounds like she's asking why men who claim to not date promiscuous women feel so strongly about seeing as many pictures as they can of naked rumps. There's seemingly a disconnect between the two actions. "Oh no, I would never date a woman who has been around the block, but I will seek out and look at those very same women and whack off like a mutha!" I mentioned something similar in the original discussion and was met with the same heavy-handed "Just because we look at tits doesn't give you any right to JUDGE OUR INTELLIGENCE and that is so WRONG and stop trying to tell me what I can get off on and the actual clit wasn't really showing if you squinted your eyes real hard and blahblahblah" from everyone.

It's irrelevant and nonsensical and misses the mark. These are valid questions people are posing. It's less "stop doing this!" and more "WHY are you doing this?"

There are some things that are just always going to be brought up on this board: men's "insatiable" appetite for T&A, Black women being "picky", HeruStar's Asian girlfriend, etc. Those don't have to be fighting words all the time.

Edited to Add: Before someone jumps to any conclusions, I must say that I do not at all agree with the characterization of these women as promiscuous because they are in suggestive photos. That is not my angle, not something I agree with at all because I define promiscuity by the number of sexual partners someone has had and I don't think promiscuity is always a bad thing. But that does not make virtue's question any less valid or the histrionics any less irrelevant. Cool
kiss
Peace...

quote:
Kai, we're going to have another problem if you persist in putting your muthaf*ckin' words into MY mouth...



You said this:

" I don't like being involved with promiscuous women.... As I am not myself promiscuous. I do not become involved with women who I would never consider marrying."

Further you said this:

"There's a (HUGE) difference between (anonymously) looking at a picture and (physically) sharing your body with another person."

Now, I am sure that you are of those who have viewed the photos of half naked women.

Finally you said this:

"In a fantasy, you haven't committed yourself...You simply entertain the possibility"

Here you are justifying fantasy...The subject is half naked women...Should we not understand that the fantasizing in question is fantasizing about half naked women?

quote:
You people need to stop this shit.


"You people"???

What does that mean? Normally white people say that when referring to black people...What does it mean when you say it?

quote:
Don't start a thread if you're not prepared to have a real discussion where people have opinions different from yours.


I have no problem with differing opinions...I feel an obligation to point out inconsistencies, or contradictions in the posts of those who are part of the discussion. i do not do this to shame the person, I raise the issue to allow the poster the opportunity to clarify their position, or to throw it away. this helps us to learn and grow.

When I start a thread i generally offer my feelings on the subject, and I prepare to defend my position. my defense will be respectful. If someone demonstrates a superior position, i will concede. So once again, If you hold a position in opposition to the one I offer, give enough of yourself to the position to prove your point.



Kai
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
Edited to Add: Before someone jumps to any conclusions, I must say that I do not at all agree with the characterization of these women as promiscuous because they are in suggestive photos. That is not my angle, not something I agree with at all because I define promiscuity by the number of sexual partners someone has had and I don't think promiscuity is always a bad thing. But that does not make virtue's question any less valid or the histrionics any less irrelevant. Cool


That was my point all along... I wasn't characterizing these women as promiscuous.. It was the folks on the other damned side of the issue who kept characterizing them as promiscuous....
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
You said this:

" I don't like being involved with promiscuous women.... As I am not myself promiscuous. I do not become involved with women who I would never consider marrying."

Further you said this:

"There's a (HUGE) difference between (anonymously) looking at a picture and (physically) sharing your body with another person."

Now, I am sure that you are of those who have viewed the photos of half naked women.

Finally you said this:

"In a fantasy, you haven't committed yourself...You simply entertain the possibility"

Here you are justifying fantasy...The subject is half naked women...Should we not understand that the fantasizing in question is fantasizing about half naked women?



I don't view these statements as contradictory:

Yes you should understand that the fantasizing in question is indeed about half naked women. We agree there.

But my point was that

1) The model is not herself necessarily promiscuous just because she's posing.

2) The mere fact that she is posing suggestively does NOT necessarily send the message that she is promiscuous.

3) The person enjoying the photographs is not necessarily perceiving the model as promiscuous nor deriving pleasure from the thought that the model may be promiscuous.

AGAIN: YOU'RE "DEBATING" A PHOTOGRAPHER

ALL I'm saying, folks, is that it depends: On the model, the pose, the viewer...

There are many variables in this situation. And not everyone responds the same way.

What's so damned controversial about this statement??
Obviously your ability to post in the Den has returned virtue Roll Eyes Amazing!

A repost:

This whole exchange is actually what we were asked not to do - you know that virtue and yet you continue. You said you were going to drop this issue and just avoid the Den. You've managed to do neither. Frown Not only did you hijack a thread in the Den, but now you've created a brand new thread in a different forum just to continue to push an agenda you said you were going to leave alone. And adding insult (literally) to injury, you cannot refrain from taking potshots, implying lack of moral fiber & character in those who disagree with your viewpoint.

Edit: Frenchy, you've decided to jump into the fray as well. Rational answers were given. They just did not match the responses you wanted us to give. Admiring physical beauty is not disconnected from appreciating character and other qualities in women. The constant attempts to insult & shame people into following your path is disappointing.

This is a slippery slope - one day your thoughts & posts may be deemed inappropriate by a member here. If that day comes, will you willingly submit your contributions here (regardless of whether you think they are good, bad, or neutral) for censorship?
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
Obviously your ability to post in the Den has returned virtue Roll Eyes Amazing!

A repost:

This whole exchange is actually what we were asked not to do - you know that virtue and yet you continue. You said you were going to drop this issue and just avoid the Den. You've managed to do neither. Frown Not only did you hijack a thread in the Den, but now you've created a brand new thread in a different forum just to continue to push an agenda you said you were going to leave alone. And adding insult (literally) to injury, you cannot refrain from taking potshots, implying lack of moral fiber & character in those who disagree with your viewpoint.

Edit: Frenchy, you've decided to jump into the fray as well. Rational answers were given. They just did not match the responses you wanted us to give. Admiring physical beauty is not disconnected from appreciating character and other qualities in women. The constant attempts to insult & shame people into following your path is disappointing.

This is a slippery slope - one day your thoughts & posts may be deemed inappropriate by a member here. If that day comes, will you willingly submit your contributions here (regardless of whether you think they are good, bad, or neutral) for censorship?
Okay.....
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
I don't view these statements as contradictory:

Yes you should understand that the fantasizing in question is indeed about half naked women. We agree there.

But my point was that

1) The model is not herself necessarily promiscuous just because she's posing.

2) The mere fact that she is posing suggestively does NOT necessarily send the message that she is promiscuous.

3) The person enjoying the photographs is not necessarily perceiving the model as promiscuous nor deriving pleasure from the thought that the model may be promiscuous.

AGAIN: YOU'RE "DEBATING" A PHOTOGRAPHER

ALL I'm saying, folks, is that it depends: On the model, the pose, the viewer...

There are many variables in this situation. And not everyone responds the same way.

What's so damned controversial about this statement??

Nothing. I agree with it. The disconnect seems to be with how one defines promiscuity.
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
Edit: Frenchy, you've decided to jump into the fray as well. Rational answers were given. They just did not match the responses you wanted us to give. Admiring physical beauty is not disconnected from appreciating character and other qualities in women. The constant attempts to insult & shame people into following your path is disappointing.


Where the hell is that coming from and where do you get off scolding me?!?! Who is attempting to insult and shame people into following a particular path besides YOU? It's been said *numerous* times that no one gives a shit if you all want to whack off to a monkey with a banana in its ass, but don't get all stupid when someone asks you what on Earth you find attractive and erotic about those pictures. This is NOT about censorship. If you don't want to answer the questions posed, don't. But stop trying to force people to stop asking them when it's so fucking obvious that the situation BEGS these questions. You have men getting all self-righteous about not dating promiscuous women because it's some kind of terrible thing that doesn't mesh with their oh-so-high morality, but they have no problem with looking at nudity frequently. And nobody is supposed to address that?!?!? Is this fucking bizzarro world?!?! It's a valid question that virtue raised!!

Furthermore, I wasn't even IN this damn thread until 2 seconds ago, so how the hell does this have anything to do with "answers being given that *I* didn't want people to give??" Hmph!! nono My viewpoint is not virtue's.
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
It's a valid question that virtue raised!!

Furthermore, I wasn't even IN this damn thread until 2 seconds ago, so how the hell does this have anything to do with "answers being given that *I* didn't want people to give??" Hmph!! nono My viewpoint is not virtue's.


That's precisely the point... you haven't been following the thread.... Virtue didn't merely "ask a question" ... Virtue was pursuing a moral agenda... She wasn't interested in any answer that deviated from the one she already had in her mind... hence it wasn't really an honest question...
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
That's precisely the point... you haven't been following the thread.... Virtue didn't merely "ask a question" ... Virtue was pursuing a moral agenda... She wasn't interested in any answer that deviated from the one she already had in her mind... hence it wasn't really an honest question...


No, no, I read the thread, I just wasn't participating in it. virtue was not pushing a moral agenda, *she was making a point that touched on morality*. Not unlike anyone else in any thread you open who is passionately arguing their point of view. She does not ask questions she does not genuinely want the answer to. I've never known her to do that. And that is why it was clear to me (and to some other people who aren't as emotionally attached to this issue) what she was saying. Take it at face value.
In particular, this

You're kidding right? You think I'm going to believe that men don't look at those pictures because it excites them? Okay...... As far as being loose..... I don't think men who view photos such as this "think" much of anything...... However.... A woman with a thong on posing for God knows how many male strangers doing a close up of her rear simulating sexual movements or positions would be sending the message of sexual readiness and openness to hundreds (thousands?) of men..... would be considered in even today's time as loose........

one does not have to be rigid or religious to see that....


Peace,
Virtue


Again, she's entitled to her point of view but I think she begins to reveal here that she's not really interested in what we think... Cool... i don't care
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
And didn't some feminist on this board who shall remain unnamed recently admit that she likes to watch porn?

Are there different rules for you?

What does that have to do with anything?!?!?!!?!? AND WHY DON'T PEOPLE READ??!?!?!?!?!!?!?

*I* am NOT against porn or suggestive material or women fucking any and everything they come across. *My* problem with RadioRaheem's threads, as I said when I addressed RadioRaheem and as I said in EACH of the 4 conversations we've had about this since that time, is that I do not think there needs to be *so much* material on *a site like this*.

*This thread here* is NOT about my dislikes. That is NOT the subject.
Is this a joke?

*YOU* were the one who starting on with your Font 98 question: "And didn't some feminist on this board who shall remain unnamed recently admit that she likes to watch porn? Are there different rules for you?"

I am responding (for the umpteenth time) to the mischaracterization of what my view point is and the shit being slung in my direction. Unbelievable!
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
Is this a joke?

*YOU* were the one who starting on with your Font 98 question: "And didn't some feminist on this board who shall remain unnamed recently admit that she likes to watch porn? Are there different rules for you?"

I am responding (for the umpteenth time) to the mischaracterization of what my view point is and the shit being slung in my direction. Unbelievable!


You're just in a mood to complain tonight right?

Frenchy, I don't even know what I'm arguing with you about.... For real... I DO NOT KNOW lol bang laugh
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
There are far to many assumptions being thrown around here.

First of all, a provacatively dressed woman does not equal a promiscuous woman.

Secondly, a man appreciating a provocatively dressed woman does not equal any kind of desire to have sex with said woman, or "loose" women in general.


I've already made these points:

quote:

1) The model is not herself necessarily promiscuous just because she's posing.

2) The mere fact that she is posing suggestively does NOT necessarily send the message that she is promiscuous.

3) The person enjoying the photographs is not necessarily perceiving the model as promiscuous nor deriving pleasure from the thought that the model may be promiscuous.

AGAIN: YOU'RE "DEBATING" A PHOTOGRAPHER

ALL I'm saying, folks, is that it depends: On the model, the pose, the viewer...

There are many variables in this situation. And not everyone responds the same way.

What's so damned controversial about this statement??


Some people really don't seem interested in listening...

Note: the use of the words "not necessarily" throughout.
Peace....


the initial question raised by Virtue was legitimate.

Let's not be dishonest. We are not limiting the fantasizing to women who pose in tasteful photographs. We are including within the fantasizing women who are obviously professional strippers. The latest "gift" On the den displays women who are clearly demonstrating sexually provocative movements.

if you all want to split hairs and say that women who pose in Hustler magazine, or Penthouse, are not sending a message of promiscuity then fine....But we all know better.

Sexual freedom, liberation, or whatever is the message you receive from a women who poses in a provocative manner in a sexually enticing magazine, or on the net.

The bottom line is would you still enjoy the photos if you discovered that the beautiful woman you were fantasizing about was in fact a sexually liberated woman who enjoys frequent one night stands?

And uh...I am just now seeing the exchange between honest Brother and virtue at the "sista spot"....I fail to understand how men can bring themselves to fight a woman like that.

has it come to this?


Kai
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
Peace....


the initial question raised by Virtue was legitimate.


Yes...it was

quote:

Let's not be dishonest. We are not limiting the fantasizing to women who pose in tasteful photographs. We are including within the fantasizing women who are obviously professional strippers. The latest "gift" On the den displays women who are clearly demonstrating sexually provocative movements.

if you all want to split hairs and say that women who pose in Hustler magazine, or Penthouse, are not sending a message of promiscuity then fine....But we all know better.


What part of

quote:

AGAIN: YOU'RE "DEBATING" A PHOTOGRAPHER

ALL I'm saying, folks, is that it depends: On the model, the pose, the viewer...


DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?????


quote:

Sexual freedom, liberation or whatever is the message you receive from a women who poses in a provocative manner in a sexually enticing magazine, or on the net.


I disagree... Again, I'm thinking of a great many situations... the so-called artistic nude for example: Repeat: I'm a photographer

Once more: It depends

quote:

And uh...I am just now seeing the exchange between honest Brother and virtue at the "sista spot"....I fail to understand how men can bring themselves to fight a woman like that.

has it come to this?


She hasn't earned any special treatment from me... I'll treat her as I would anyone else... especially if she's going to be as pigheaded as you are.... In fact, she got off sorta light.
quote:
There are far to many assumptions being thrown around here.

First of all, a provacatively dressed woman does not equal a promiscuous woman.

Secondly, a man appreciating a provocatively dressed woman does not equal any kind of desire to have sex with said woman, or "loose" women in general.


Man...You can say that about any photograph...

A picture of a white man wearing a white conelike hood with a big red cross on it, holding a knoose and pointing at a black man, could actually be something other than a photogrpah of the Klan....perhaps we are just looking at it in the wrong way...

there are tasteful pictures of women who are posing in a sexy manner, and then there is stuff hugging the line of porn. Some of the photos posted on this board have been the stuff which borders on porn..Some photos were tasteful...I am sure that you guys who do not like promiscuous women closed your eyes when the raunchy stuff appeared....

Kai
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
quote:
There are far to many assumptions being thrown around here.

First of all, a provacatively dressed woman does not equal a promiscuous woman.

Secondly, a man appreciating a provocatively dressed woman does not equal any kind of desire to have sex with said woman, or "loose" women in general.


Man...You can say that about any photograph...

A picture of a white man wearing a white conelike hood with a big red cross on it, holding a knoose and pointing at a black man, could actually be something other than a photogrpah of the Klan....perhaps we are just looking at it in the wrong way...

there are tasteful pictures of women who are posing in a sexy manner, and then there is stuff hugging the line of porn. Some of the photos posted on this board have been the stuff which borders on porn..Some photos were tasteful...I am sure that you guys who do not like promiscuous women closed your eyes when the raunchy stuff appeared....

Kai



ENGLISH: Phrases like "It depends" or "not necessarily" signal that the statement is context dependent.... Sometimes true... Other times not

Stop being so obnoxious..
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
Let's not be dishonest. We are not limiting the fantasizing to women who pose in tasteful photographs. We are including within the fantasizing women who are obviously professional strippers.

Okay, let's not be dishonest. We are also not limiting the fantasizing to professional strippers. We are including women who pose in tasteful photographs.

quote:
The latest "gift" On the den displays women who are clearly demonstrating sexually provocative movements.

Once again, provocative does not equal promiscuous. Why are these shades of gray so difficult to understand?

quote:
if you all want to split hairs and say that women who pose in Hustler magazine, or Penthouse, are not sending a message of promiscuity then fine....But we all know better.

Roll Eyes

quote:
Sexual freedom, liberation, or whatever is the message you receive from a women who poses in a provocative manner in a sexually enticing magazine, or on the net.

Yes...

Men are visually stimulated creatures, and the idea that a woman is open to sex is arousing. But that has to do with the fantasy of her being open to sex with us. The idea of her being open to everyone is not very appealing. But, it's my fantasy, so I can imagine her to be any way I want.

quote:
The bottom line is would you still enjoy the photos if you discovered that the beautiful woman you were fantasizing about was in fact a sexually liberated woman who enjoys frequent one night stands?

See above.
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
First of all, a provacatively dressed woman does not equal a promiscuous woman.

Secondly, a man appreciating a provocatively dressed woman does not equal any kind of desire to have sex with said woman, or "loose" women in general.



What he's saying here is that a woman dressed provocatively isn't necessarily perceived as "promiscuous" .... nor is she necessarily promiscuous in actuality.

Another way of saying: It depends... Roll Eyes
Peace...


quote:
She hasn't earned any special treatment from me... I'll treat her as I would anyone else... especially if she's going to be as pigheaded as you are.... In fact, she got off sorta light


Special treatment? I wasn't expecting that...I was expecting you to treat her like she was a woman that you respect.

I think that the civilized man would understand that there is a proper way to handle a woman. Your anger will be no excuse for assaulting a woman that you have praised everyday before now.

We boast and brag about how educated we are and yet we behave like savages when it comes to our women.

i understand why the sisters here would be insulted to see the men on this board lusting after whores while singing the praises of thinking women.

HonestBrother, your monday morning apologies will ring hollow when those who know you begin to realize that your abuses are habits...

Kai
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
Peace...


quote:
She hasn't earned any special treatment from me... I'll treat her as I would anyone else... especially if she's going to be as pigheaded as you are.... In fact, she got off sorta light


Special treatment? I wasn't expecting that...I was expecting you to treat her like she was a woman that you respect.

I think that the civilized man would understand that there is a proper way to handle a woman. Your anger will be no excuse for assaulting a woman that you have praised everyday before now.

We boast and brag about how educated we are and yet we behave like savages when it comes to our women.

i understand why the sisters here would be insulted to see the men on this board lusting after whores while singing the praises of thinking women.

HonestBrother, your monday morning apologies will ring hollow when those who know you begin to realize that your abuses are habits...

Kai



Man F*ck you, you lieing DOG

She was not "assaulted" and No actually I have NOT praised her every day.
Peace...

Honest Viking wrote:

quote:
Okay, let's not be dishonest. We are also not limiting the fantasizing to professional strippers. We are including women who pose in tasteful photographs.


Any fantasizing of promiscuous women means that you have a taste or desire for the object in the fantasy...hence you like..



Black brother wrote:
quote:
Once again, provocative does not equal promiscuous. Why are these shades of gray so difficult to understand


it is not difficult to understand. the idea here is not whetehr all nude photos of women mena a promiscuous woman, but rather that sometimes these photos are photos of loose woman, and on the occasions when the woman are notoriously loose...You still fantasize about her while claiming to not like her....



Kai

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×