sexual_chocolate

had obligaciones, mujer. i'm amused at how up in arms people get over insults thrown at some schmuck who offers up his frickin' FIANCEE, woman he LOVES, blah blah blah, half-naked, to a bunch of strangers on the fucking internet. shit! some schmuck is bragging about his hot gf, and actually posts a photo, and challenges these strangers with a "jealous?". you gotta be kiddin' that you'd get offended if someone throws shit at him. i'm surprised, that you, as a woman, wouldn't be pissed at HIM for posting photos of her without her even knowing. maybe they roll that way, i don't know. you know what though? i don't even think he's legit. notice how he's disappeared? although he may have sobered up, and is now mortified? perhaps. i don't think he's legit, cuz he'd have taken the photos down, if it mattered to him.

wrong to insult, or wrong with my opinion that it is way poor taste to post revealing photos of someone without that someone knowing? anyways, gotta go.

come on man, he likes your tits too. but the point is, and why you don't know is beyond me, that i am not trying in any way to deflect or change opinions. then i think you owe me an apology. i think some happy young guy owes his fiancee an apology.

So your idea of righting this wrong was to crudely insult the man's fiancee? how did i insult the fiancee?

priceless! (that one is really good, you have to admit.) that's about the equivalent of Adolf Hitler lecturing on racial and religious tolerance. yeah but hitler didn't have tits (although i guess he only had one testicle??? ).

priceless! (that one is really good, you have to admit.) you are certainly correct that moral categorizations such as "transgression" would come from a poll of peers, but i have no interest in peer polling when deciding upon my own sense of ethics and morality.

last time i was with her, she had this nasty drip and wanted me to go down on her. blech. has it cleared up yet? Classy. Why the hostility and vulgarity? It's fucked up that he went there in response to this photo, particularly knowing it was some guy's fiancee, but then, it's fucked up enough that his mind has a need to go there at all. Mommy dearest issues, perhaps? you two obviously know nothing about yeast infections. but ok, i will stoop for the earthlings, since spoon-feeding is what some of them still need at this stage of development: PLEASE DO NOT POST PHOTOS OF LOVED-ONES ON THE INTERNETS WITHOUT THEM KNOWING. THIS IS WAY MORE BASE THAN GETTING A LITTLE COTTAGE CHEESE STUCK BETWEEN YOUR TEETH AND GUMS. AND A RANCID ODOR ON YOUR UPPER LIP. I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT WHEN YOU, TVASH, POST REVEALING PHOTOS OF YOURSELF, THERE IS A DECENT CHANCE YOU KNOW YOU ARE POSTING THESE PHOTOS. I UNDERSTANDS THAT SOME GUYS (AND GALS) ARE TEMPTED TO POST PHOTOS OF THINGS THAT GIVE THEM AN EGO BOOST, BUT HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT THINGS, AND TO ATTEMPT AN EGO-BOOST THROUGH THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOUR IS, AHEM, CHEESY AT BEST. JUDGING BY THE PHOTO OF HIS BELOVED, 111 IS PROBABLY JUST GETTING PAST HIS TEEN ACNE STAGE, SO A BOUT OF YOUTHFUL INDISCRETION CAN CERTAINLY GIVE HIM SOME LEEWAY, BUT CONSIDERING THE TITLE OF HIS THREAD, THE LEEWAY SEEMS A BIT MEAGER.

it was that bad.

ah, "personal pleasure". how quickly this would come to an end if they only knew the stenches emanating from her snatch, or if her head was turned. blech!

last time i was with her, she had this nasty drip and wanted me to go down on her. blech. has it cleared up yet?

hey drugs are not positive, i don't even care if you are john mccain. that's sorta ghey considering you have a mushroom for an avatar pick and your username is sexual chocolate lesson: don't try to joke irreverently with unknown cc'ers whilst high.

hey drugs are not positive, i don't even care if you are john mccain.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

BARACK OBAMA SUPPORTS DRUG-USERS AND CRIMINALS! ARE WE AS A NATION READY FOR THIS TYPE OF MORAL DECAY? I BELIEVE IN A DECENT AMERICA, THE ONE I FOUGHT FOR IN VIETNAM, WHILE SELF-SERVING WAR-PROTESTERS BACK HOME SMOKED MARIJUANA AND FOUGHT AGAINST AMERICA! MCCAIN IN '08! Are you serious? this is where you forget feelings for a minute and use your intellectual prowess.

some near naked chick climbing the walls of a motel 8? strange....

Agreed. Who the fuck cares. We as a nation need to get over this. no shit. i wonder though if the effect of such tactics is changing as the demographics change.... link

BARACK OBAMA SUPPORTS DRUG-USERS AND CRIMINALS! ARE WE AS A NATION READY FOR THIS TYPE OF MORAL DECAY? I BELIEVE IN A DECENT AMERICA, THE ONE I FOUGHT FOR IN VIETNAM, WHILE SELF-SERVING WAR-PROTESTERS BACK HOME SMOKED MARIJUANA AND FOUGHT AGAINST AMERICA! MCCAIN IN '08!

"Our democratic experiment marches on with that document in flux of change and interpretation with each step." grammatically a bit off-kilter, which maybe adds to the overall effect, or affect. it's kinda like dwight's salesman of the year speech.

more poetic.

hey, i like coke better too. less sweet, more carbonated, more caffeine. kicks pepsi ass all around. i assume you like it for the same reasons?

hehe. the only thing worse than a republican apologist is a democratic apologist (since i share more values with the democrats).

what would be an example or two of what you'd like to see, but has never appeared on their schedule in the last, say, 5 years? erik satie. bach with harpsichord (missed the baroque stuff last month). some unknown contemporary pieces. maybe shostakovich. not beethoven's 5th, and dvorak's new world, for goodness' sake. they are afraid of chasing away the bluehairs (although i could go listen to bach over and over again). how about some telemann? he's accessible and beautiful.

nice shots. it doesn't look like that last face gets climbed or ski'd very often.

it'd be cool though if ss played a more varied schedule. everything on it now is overplayed and hence, boring.

thank you for the reply. my point is directed at your comment below. it is widely accepted that the UN sanctions vigorously endorsed by bill clinton, madeleine albright, al gore, and most democrats throughout the '90's resulted in the death of perhaps 1 million iraqis, mainly children and the elderly. it was a slow death crawl, a siege really, every bit as barbaric as the current war conducted by bush and his cronies, and in some ways worse, since the screws were kept tight even though the results were obvious to all (with this current war, nothing much will seemingly stop the blood-shed, certainly not a withdrawal). so, using your logic, you have as much blood on your hands as any republican.