After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

ruby · 2006-01-27 00:52:48

Garybob! Well done I certainly wont attack you for speaking so freely. Although I do disagree with some of your sentiments, as I said that I was a free spirit I dont really understand how this can be extrapolated to mean that my relationship with my partner means nothing to me, or that I wouldnt mind if he had sex with another woman/ women. The terms of my relationship are very clearly defined, in order to allow both parties to express their sexuality freely. For me this involves working/ modeling for these sites, for him it means something different. I know that every relationship/ marriage is different. Which is a wonderful diversity, I suppose I am just happy that I have found someone who believes in the same things that I do. Similarly, this would mean that the wives/ potential wives we are discussing share you views and boundaries and want only to share themselves with their partners. Wonderful, great! There is someone out there for all of us.

I am not insulted that you find me a pretty package and not marriage material hahaha, I am surprised that you still find me a pretty package, considering we disagree so much.

Erdna- I am glad you liked 5 and 6, and havent had enough by now. I still havent brought myself to watch the edited versions the real one was tiring enough!!
I dont really have the time/ motivation or need to pursue relationships/ encounters/ affairs outside of the one that I am in. I tend to be a all or nothing lady, with an all or nothing man

PC Elmo- Perhaps our "appreciation" of the women here does not seem to be reverence and respect?
Need you wonder? Members seem to appreciate our contribution but save their reverence and respect for wives/ marriageable women. I dont know why there isnt room for both within the one woman? Why cant the two coexist? I certainly feel like my intimacy is special and for my partner only. What I choose to share with agony members is only a slice of my sexual expression and not much to do with intimacy at all. Mmmm, kind of confused myself at this point

Garybob · 2006-01-27 02:23:46

erdna wrote:

Your man is lucky but beside of not willing to get married, are you liberal to the point of considering having some affairs on the side or are you a one man woman? :):) Just curious.

Now I just had a feeling that someone would echo my question....albeit for quite a different purpose. Good luck Erdna.

Garybob · 2006-01-27 02:41:37

ruby wrote:

Garybob! Well done I certainly wont attack you for speaking so freely. Although I do disagree with some of your sentiments, as I said that I was a free spirit I dont really understand how this can be extrapolated to mean that my relationship with my partner means nothing to me, or that I wouldnt mind if he had sex with another woman/ women. The terms of my relationship are very clearly defined, in order to allow both parties to express their sexuality freely. For me this involves working/ modeling for these sites, for him it means something different. I know that every relationship/ marriage is different. Which is a wonderful diversity, I suppose I am just happy that I have found someone who believes in the same things that I do. Similarly, this would mean that the wives/ potential wives we are discussing share you views and boundaries and want only to share themselves with their partners. Wonderful, great! There is someone out there for all of us.
I am not insulted that you find me a pretty package and not marriage material hahaha, I am surprised that you still find me a pretty package, considering we disagree so much.

Need you wonder? Members seem to appreciate our contribution but save their reverence and respect for wives/ marriageable women. I dont know why there isnt room for both within the one woman? Why cant the two coexist? I certainly feel like my intimacy is special and for my partner only. What I choose to share with agony members is only a slice of my sexual expression and not much to do with intimacy at all. Mmmm, kind of confused myself at this point

Ruby:

I certainly have a great deal of respect for you if nothing else. You have the rare ability to listen and really hear a point of view that does not necessarily find favor with you in all areas....it is a character trait that many people lack and it tells me that you have a very healthy sense of self. THAT my dear I do find very attractive.

Just want to clarify something from your response. I did not mean to insinuate that you or your partner are openly "swinging" nor clandestinely acting out. I posed the statement in question form only as a means of asking you to question your own definition of "free spirit".

Moreover, I do not see a contradiction in seeing someone as beautiful on the outside and not so beautiful on the inside. The fact that we "disagree so much" has no bearing on my impression of you one way or the other. People can disagree and still remain friends, lovers, significant others, and in our case, strangers.

Finally, I believe with all my heart that you ARE indeed marriage material. Just not for me. Surely there is/are someone out there who shares your values enough to walk you down the aisle.

My goal is not to denigrate you in any way. I hope you understand that.

ruby · 2006-01-27 03:47:23

i agree, the ability to listen, understand and reply with lack of vindictive emotion is very, very attractive.

if the oppostive of offence is challenge that is exactly what i feel. I welcome and court opinions that differ from mine...so please don't hold back

Garybob....not sure if you forgot but this thread was started by a loyal fan who wanted to offer his hand in marriage! Maybe he has changed his mind about me know he knows my values, wink
Don't worry i have no shortage of offers........

So lets return to the theme of this thread, anyone else out their crazy enough to want to be tied down to this wanton woman? (comment made with tounge firmly planted in my cheek)

erdna · 2006-01-27 05:40:57

Ruby, you are our oxygen. Thanks for being so kind even when there is some controversial issue. You have also a nice philosophy of life. You said you have no time to be more than one man woman and I find that a bit evasive. With the healthy sexuality you show, slackening some control once in a while, when opportunity occurs, why not since liberalism is the motto.:) I have read in ISM about your most outrageous act...and that makes me dream. But one thing, don't wear out too much the intimate parts of yours since you seem to work really hard to reach a lot of orgasms. We want you to stay with us both in submission and the forum for a long time.

PC elmo · 2006-01-27 07:39:35

"Liberalism is the motto," erdna? Maybe for you. I say, it's all about the orgasms, and point of view is a distant second.

ruby wrote:

PC Elmo- Perhaps our "appreciation" of the women here does not seem to be reverence and respect?
Need you wonder? Members seem to appreciate our contribution but save their reverence and respect for wives/ marriageable women. I dont know why there isnt room for both within the one woman? Why cant the two coexist? I certainly feel like my intimacy is special and for my partner only. What I choose to share with agony members is only a slice of my sexual expression and not much to do with intimacy at all. Mmmm, kind of confused myself at this point

That actually pretty much clears it up. For some folks, that slice of sexual expression we find here has a lot to do with intimacy. It may be different from the intimacy you keep between you and your partner (and I think it should be), but it is still intimacy.

Believe me, I've struggled with this difficulty for a long time, in some ways for as long as I can remember. (That might sound more melodramatic in writing than I mean it -- for as long as I can recall, I have been aware of, and seeking some resolution to, this following dilemma). One cannot have, at the same time, both the freedom to share the entirety of one's sexual expression exclusively with one's mate, and yet also the freedom to display one's sexuality openly and publicly. Without driving too deep into details, choosing one precludes choosing the other.

I'm glad for you and your man that the two of you have found your answer to this -- that something less than the entirety of your sexual expression (but still very important!) takes priority as what you share exclusively with him. No need for confusion -- I just don't think I could choose that for myself, and I don't think I could progress to the point of marriage a relationship with a woman who lives life that way.

I'm sorry you think the members here don't respect you and the other contributors, but I realize I don't speak for everyone. You may well be more accurate than not. I know I respect you, even if it's not clear from my posts.

And one final thought:

ruby wrote:

i agree, the ability to listen, understand and reply with lack of vindictive emotion is very, very attractive.
if the oppostive of offence is challenge that is exactly what i feel. I welcome and court opinions that differ from mine...so please don't hold back

You've come to the right place! And I'm glad to be a part of it all.

Garybob · 2006-01-27 15:45:11

PC elmo: "One cannot have, at the same time, both the freedom to share the entirety of one's sexual expression exclusively with one's mate, and yet also the freedom to display one's sexuality openly and publicly".

Elmo, you are right. Light and darkness cannot exist in the same space!

Any attempt to co-mingle the two is defined by one simple word...Abomination!

Any attempt to maintain such a mixture is defined by another word...Denial!!

I think that people who live by such a code of ethos pretty much do nothing more than bastardize the meaning of intimacy. Freedom of choice does not mean you get to do whatever the hell you want to do. Freedom of choice means you REFRAIN from doing whatever the hell you want to do. A person who just allows himself/herself to partake of any and all pleasures without restraint is just a slave to his/her desires. Such an existence is only possible when the "actor" expends great effort to explain away and justify what he/she knows internally to be abhorrent. It is a clear sign of lack of self-control and lack of maturity.

Last edited by Garybob (2006-01-27 15:47:00)

PC elmo · 2006-01-27 19:10:36

Light and darkness, eh? Then ... (take a deep breath) ... how do we know which is which?

And what exactly are we celebrating here?

erdna · 2006-01-28 06:13:01

Garybob, light and darkness do coexist. The famous dutch painter Rembrant succeeded to illustrate light and darkness in his paintings. I believe Ruby has been evasive or trying to drown the fish when she mentioned that she was too busy and explaining that was the reason why she was a one man girl. In her most outrageous act she wasn't. The limits is imagination and I am sure Ruby has a lot of it. You don't have to change partner every week but discovery is important. Intimacy too. Practice too.

Garybob · 2006-01-29 04:45:17

PC elmo wrote:

Light and darkness, eh? Then ... (take a deep breath) ... how do we know which is which?
And what exactly are we celebrating here?

I think there is an innate ability to discern light from darkness Elmo.

erdna
Yesterday 14:13:01 Garybob, light and darkness do coexist. The famous dutch painter Rembrant succeeded to illustrate light and darkness in his paintings. I believe Ruby has been evasive or trying to drown the fish when she mentioned that she was too busy and explaining that was the reason why she was a one man girl. In her most outrageous act she wasn't. The limits is imagination and I am sure Ruby has a lot of it. You don't have to change partner every week but discovery is important. Intimacy too. Practice too.

Erdna, a painting is not real life. It is a depiction of something that either IS real or May be real or IMAGINED to be real! A painting is a veil, an illusion of something the artist has formulated in his or her own thoughts. A gifted painter like Rembrandt or Chagall or any of the other "masters" can effectively create an exceptional illusion. Take for example the "Mona Lisa". There is no real clear answer as to whether this painting is a depiction of a real person or not. Some argue that it is while others vehemently argue that it is not. Who really knows at this point?

IN another analogy, if you look at the ocean on a clear day and from the right angle, it looks blue. But is it really blue or does the water simply reflect the sky above it? If it only reflects the blueness of the sky, then one can not say that the ocean is the sky....it is the ocean....a reflection of something that is real.

I could sit here all day and try to argue that I am happy with my wife. Yet, I want my relationship to be on my terms because I am a "free spirit". Anyone who argues such a position is really saying, "I am a selfish bastard! I want a relationship wherein I get what I want, "on my terms", and I don't want to give back anything...unless I can give back 'on my terms'. My partner's desires are secondary to my own".

This is what I was trying to get across to Ruby. Moreover, this is why I said that she is a very pleasing package to look at, but what kind of meaningful "real life" relationship can anyone have with such a person that transcends the superficial? She wants to mix light and darkness together. "Let me have my own terms and I will give you basically what I give everyone else to some degree. This will make me happy....my terms. Now take it or leave it". A relationship build on such a false premise is lacking is the necessary substance for real meaning and endurance.

Rembrandt? All smoke and mirrors my friend! One must learn to see beyond the mirrors in life. The things you learn as you get older. At least you should!

erdna · 2006-01-30 05:04:47

Garybob, it seems you think too much about something which is elusive like a relationship and love. You can be disappointed a lot with that way of thinking. I am far from being against romantism but so far I have learned to be more the "carpe diem" type. At least I try but it's not always easy especially when the girl is quite alright.
Sorry for the mistake writing REMBRANDT.
I still think light and darkness coexist. Rembrandt's paintings are description of the reality and not abstract works. It takes light to get the shadows. Have you ever been in a dark room for photography? There you have light and darkness.
For me when I am interested to a girl what is counting is honesty, generosity, common sense. And remember the book or movie SIDDARTHA, the candidate says: I can think, I can fast and I can wait. These three actions say it all.

Garybob · 2006-01-31 01:56:24

Well Erdna my friend, you may be right! I do think a lot. However, I like to think that I contemplate things appropriately. Das jus me tho.

I am not "against romantism" either but I try to adequately and accurately distinghuish between what is "illusive" and what is real. Cooing over a woman who strips and masturbates on the internet is fine as long as you put it in the proper perspective. That's just lust. Talking about marrying the same girl is foolish as far as I'm concerned and for all the reasons I've already illucidated.

As to the mixture of light and dark thing, I still disagree with you and I think any physicist would as well. A dark room is dark everywhere that light does not exist. The actual space where light is....is void of darkness. The two can co-exist side-by-side but they cannot share the same actual space. But this is getting far too "weird-science". The point has been made and we just agree to disagree. But still BA forum buddies nontheless. And BA= Bad Ass!

Last edited by Garybob (2006-01-31 01:58:00)

Jo · 2006-02-03 10:05:06

Garybob wrote:

Cooing over a woman who strips and masturbates on the internet is fine as long as you put it in the proper perspective. That's just lust. Talking about marrying the same girl is foolish as far as I'm concerned and for all the reasons I've already illucidated.

Garybob wrote:

A relationship build on such a false premise is lacking in the necessary substance for real meaning and endurance.
(...)
One must learn to see beyond the mirrors in life. The things you learn as you get older. At least you should!

I am with you Gary.

Whether light and darkness can "co-exist side-by-side" in ones own life has to be decided by everybody for his own. For me (like you), in THIS particular case it can not! For some others it seems to be possible.

In Germany we have a saying: "Every pot has its top (lid)."

So, everybody decides for his own purpose. If you find a partner who is content with you, well, good luck!

Garybob · 2006-02-03 14:47:01

Another voice of reason!

erdna · 2006-02-06 04:56:43

Don't forget a million of different shade of grey between black and white. So are the people. If every pot has its lid, then every foot has its shoe like mama used to say. BTW Garybob my studies and job are linked to physics and mathematics. If you have any question on that subject, just tell me. I wrote several papers on the subject and I am a sort of consultant in physics for a major radio network.

Garybob · 2006-02-06 22:35:17

Okay, I have a question Mr. "my studies and job are linked to physics and mathmatics".....

How is that a person with your extaordinary scientific background used an example like Rembrandt to make your point?

I mean, if I had your background, I surely would have come up with an example of the co-mingling of light and dark that would have knocked the socks off everyone here. Make sense?

In any case, I still say that light and darkness cannot occupy the same physical space. Particles of darkness are either pierced or pushed away when particles of light enter the space and arguably vice-versa.

BTW: which major radio network do you consult for? Just curious!!! We may well have spoken a few times here and there.

Khanada · 2006-02-07 06:07:07

Garybob wrote:

PC elmo: "One cannot have, at the same time, both the freedom to share the entirety of one's sexual expression exclusively with one's mate, and yet also the freedom to display one's sexuality openly and publicly".

Elmo, you are right. Light and darkness cannot exist in the same space!
Any attempt to co-mingle the two is defined by one simple word...Abomination!
Any attempt to maintain such a mixture is defined by another word...Denial!!
I think that people who live by such a code of ethos pretty much do nothing more than bastardize the meaning of intimacy. Freedom of choice does not mean you get to do whatever the hell you want to do. Freedom of choice means you REFRAIN from doing whatever the hell you want to do. A person who just allows himself/herself to partake of any and all pleasures without restraint is just a slave to his/her desires. Such an existence is only possible when the "actor" expends great effort to explain away and justify what he/she knows internally to be abhorrent. It is a clear sign of lack of self-control and lack of maturity.

This conversation is absolutely fascinating me, and I feel that perhaps we need another female voice here? Wow, where to begin... I suppose I'm intrigued and rather, I have to admit, disgusted, by the hypocrisy implied within this kind of thinking. Garybob and others, I'm not intending to imply that you are hypocrites, merely that this logic seems to me to be a bit hypocritical. Or perhaps that it's promoting a double-standard--maybe that's the better way to put it. I'm sure I'll be repeating some things that have been said here, I've been just skimming madly through the posts to see where they lead.

I find it interesting that we seem to be joining what is presented here on film at this site to what exists behind closed doors between the models and their partners. I agree that what goes on here is "intimate" in the sense that the models (for lack of a better word, please provide one for me if there is one!) are sharing something we might not ordinarily get to see. However, it seems to me to be equated here, in the above quote, with the very separate relations that happen between partners. She is on the screen, at this site from the shoulders up, and we are sitting at our desks, watching an edited clip after the fact. This is not the same thing as when "she" and her significant other are alone together, physically expressing their feelings for one another. THAT does not involve us. That is entirely separate.

For me, the hypocrisy enters in this instance: men (and ladies such as myself), when you are sitting at your desks viewing these videos, do you masturbate? I understand that the whole world isn't watching, but how is that not an "abomination"? A lot of this thinking comes from a very puritanical religious ideology, which of course considers the very watching of anything even remotely erotic as sinful. Therefore, are you not, as well, participating in the abomination by partaking of these videos? Particularly if it culminates in a physical act with yourself? Are YOU still marriage material while the girl you're wanking to isn't marriage material for you? (Please understand that the "you" here is general, I'm not accusing anyone specific at this site of doing things they may very well not be doing ).

We get: "One cannot have, at the same time, both the freedom to share the entirety of one's sexual expression exclusively with one's mate, and yet also the freedom to display one's sexuality openly and publicly", the commingling of which has been defined as an "abomination." Perhaps it's the phrasing, but forgive me--that kind of thinking is what has women in the Middle East covered from head to toe with nothing but their eyes visible to the world, since only a woman's husband has the right to see any other part of her body. "The freedom to display one's sexuality openly and publicly" is a step in the RIGHT direction, as far as I'm concerned. It begins to do away with the idea that men in some way own "their woman's" sexuality, a problem which, frankly, has been suggested by a number of these posts with regard to what a "marriageable" woman would be. Being exclusively intimate with someone--that is, being monogamous within a relationship, not having other partners--does not mean that you own the rights to that person's entire sexuality. Frankly, if you want to be completely exclusive with your partner, as you seem to believe cannot be maintained by someone who models on this site, then you shouldn't be watching the videos in the first place. Aren't you, then, sharing a bit of your sexual experience--by receiving visceral pleasure through viewing the videos--with the model and not with your partner? Doesn't seem very exclusive to me, at least not by the way you've defined "exclusive".

I could probably keep going on and on, but I'm sure you're about ready to strangle me, so I shall cease for now . I hope I've made sense here.

Ruby, THANK YOU for your beautiful submissions. Your accent is absolutely adorable. YOU are absolutely adorable, and there is a sweetness to you that defies the "dark" side .

Last edited by Khanada (2006-02-07 06:09:58)

Khanada · 2006-02-07 06:09:14

Yikes, everyone, sorry for the length of that post. I get carried away sometimes--I love these kinds of discussions .

PC elmo · 2006-02-07 17:14:50

Khanada wrote:

Yikes, everyone, sorry for the length of that post. I get carried away sometimes--I love these kinds of discussions .

No shame in enthusiasm, Khanada. That elongated post syndrome goes around sometimes. I think it's contageous.

I like these discussions, too. They often leave me bubbling over with possible things I could add. For now, I'll just say that I think your post is very helpful. You're right, we need more female voices. Thank you very much for jumping in.

ruby · 2006-02-09 02:40:34

Ruby, THANK YOU for your beautiful submissions. Your accent is absolutely adorable. YOU are absolutely adorable, and there is a sweetness to you that defies the "dark" side
thankyou
the light/ dark dichotomy strikes again! I am currently in the process of shedding some light into my dark places which illuminates them but doesn't create eternal light rather a balance, a synchronicity between ying and yang, black and white, good and bad.

0427 · 2006-02-10 05:10:26

Khanada wrote:

The freedom to display one's sexuality openly and publicly" is a step in the RIGHT direction, as far as I'm concerned. It begins to do away with the idea that men in some way own "their woman's" sexuality, a problem which, frankly, has been suggested by a number of these posts with regard to what a "marriageable" woman would be. Being exclusively intimate with someone--that is, being monogamous within a relationship, not having other partners--does not mean that you own the rights to that person's entire sexuality.

Thank you, tis the reason I don't trust monogamy, can't have adultery without it! I just don't want to be "owned", Yes, I want to share intamcy deeply, honestly and without reservations, but I wont have it with the cost being my sovreignty! I will not contain, or for that matter , pander my sexual self to that which i "guess" a man is wanting/expecting from me... herein lay the new version of partnership, not quite pologamy, or an "open" realtionship, but an agreement between two people that truly wish to honour, respect, explore and relish in the sexuality of eachother, without ownership, or limit of any kind... mmmm perhaps I am dreaming, but tis a dream worth creating, and there are many that have this kind of dreaming!

I am enjoying the discussion!

Enjoy your world,

Katherine.

PC elmo · 2006-02-12 02:07:50

I hope this helps!

Khanada wrote:

We get: "One cannot have, at the same time, both the freedom to share the entirety of one's sexual expression exclusively with one's mate, and yet also the freedom to display one's sexuality openly and publicly", the commingling of which has been defined as an "abomination."

It has -- but not by me!

Perhaps it's the phrasing, but forgive me--that kind of thinking is what has women in the Middle East covered from head to toe with nothing but their eyes visible to the world, since only a woman's husband has the right to see any other part of her body. "The freedom to display one's sexuality openly and publicly" is a step in the RIGHT direction, as far as I'm concerned. It begins to do away with the idea that men in some way own "their woman's" sexuality ...

At first, I had to go back and look at what made it into my posts so far -- you seemed to be addressing parts I left out! That's cool, but in an eerie sort of way. Anyway, I do find the very suggestion that one human being can "own" another simply disgusting. Espousing (pun intended) the "freedom no matter what" mentality gets tricky, though, because some potential freedoms conflict.

Originally, I was not intending to bring up a two-sides-of-the-aisle kind of statement -- a dualism. The spirit of the statement was actually a monism, in that it's all about the one value of freedom. It just so happens that these two potential freedoms are mutually exclusive -- we can only choose one by letting go of (or at least putting off) the other. Again, it's not about what's right or wrong, since both potential freedoms are valuable. It's about the decision being a free one -- our call, not someone else's. It's more of a pragmatic quandary.

I highlighted above the key component of the first potential freedom, the requirement that makes it incompatible with the second. It's not just that we share something unique and special with our mates -- I hope we all do. It's the freedom to devote an additional gift: when we share the expression of our enjoyment of our own sexuality, it's with only that one person. Such a gift, while clearly poignant and sentimental, may seem, well, wierd to many of us. I only bothered to present my observation because that key component is so important to so many people. Why it's important could include advise from religious traditions, personal preferences, or any number of other individual factors that go into making a choice, including the irreversibility of some actions. (And yes, it is important to remember what makes the first option so beautiful is that it's a gift, not merely an obligation -- anyone can follow rules).

This quickly becomes a horse of a different color -- indeed, a whole different breed -- with the addition of a judgement, a conclusion about the value and meaning of the two possibilities in themselves, not just as they relate to freedom. Freedom takes a back seat as "light" upstages it. And naturally, "light" means the first option, or as close to the purity of door number one as we can get. "Light" means that, be it in terms of public presentability or marriageability or whatever, the non-light option is the more depraved route. It means that wholesomeness is the avoidance of decay. It means that, for ourselves, when we consider "the errors of our ways" we should be more wary of corruption than inexperience. Believe me, I am very familiar with that take on things.

Garybob wrote:

I think there is an innate ability to discern light from darkness Elmo.

Just because we all have some inner compass, that doesn't mean all our inner compasses tell us the same thing! Thankfully, the human race is gradually outgrowing the attitude that anyone who believes his or her innate abilities tell something "other" must be, of necessity, lying, mistaken, under-developed, mentally imbalanced, or otherwise deficient. It's very disturbing how many of us could've been committed to some institution, say, just half a century ago, for nothing more than being ourselves like we are today.

My question about knowing which is which between the light and the darkness was not meant as a wisecrack. There are people in this world who sincerely believe that the second version of freedom in my little maxim is the more enlightened one. That would make the first one the pole of depravity and decay, with its over-restrictive limitations and static boundaries. Choosing never to share one's sexuality outside of complete exclusivity is then the "abomination," and maintaining the constrictiveness of privacy at the expense of outward expression is then the "denial." Not experiencing is then the worse "error."

I am not imagining this!

0427 wrote:

... herein lay the new version of partnership, not quite pologamy, or an "open" realtionship, but an agreement between two people that truly wish to honour, respect, explore and relish in the sexuality of eachother, without ownership, or limit of any kind... mmmm perhaps I am dreaming, but tis a dream worth creating, and there are many that have this kind of dreaming!

I guess this could go anywhere. To the many possible branches of this increasingly interesting topic, I'll add one more: I wonder, which of these two versions of "light" is the more selfish?

Jo · 2006-02-12 12:48:07

The word "freedom" can be used in two different ways.

Freedom in the sense of beeing no longer dependent on something (someONE?) which I would like to define as a physical way of freedom

and

Freedom in the sense of doing what someone wants to do (being independant). This is more a psychical manner of freedom.

Don't misunderstand me, I think the freedom of thoughts is a highly valuable estate! But unfortunately, as we all know, the word freedom has too often be misused to justify selfish purposes and to push through the own way of thinking.

And that's what is dangerous...

exhausted · 2006-02-12 23:44:49

ruby wrote:

Ruby, THANK YOU for your beautiful submissions. Your accent is absolutely adorable. YOU are absolutely adorable, and there is a sweetness to you that defies the "dark" side
thankyou
the light/ dark dichotomy strikes again! I am currently in the process of shedding some light into my dark places which illuminates them but doesn't create eternal light rather a balance, a synchronicity between ying and yang, black and white, good and bad.

Let's not get too carried away here chaps and chapesses. We're talking about somebody having an on screen wank for the delight of us voyeurs. Such wonderful prose..................

ruby · 2006-02-16 03:06:46

yes exhausted! good point

#26 2006-01-27 00:52:48

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#27 2006-01-27 02:23:46

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#28 2006-01-27 02:41:37

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#29 2006-01-27 03:47:23

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#30 2006-01-27 05:40:57

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#31 2006-01-27 07:39:35

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#32 2006-01-27 15:45:11

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#33 2006-01-27 19:10:36

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#34 2006-01-28 06:13:01

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#35 2006-01-29 04:45:17

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#36 2006-01-30 05:04:47

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#37 2006-01-31 01:56:24

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#38 2006-02-03 10:05:06

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#39 2006-02-03 14:47:01

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#40 2006-02-06 04:56:43

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#41 2006-02-06 22:35:17

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#42 2006-02-07 06:07:07

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#43 2006-02-07 06:09:14

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#44 2006-02-07 17:14:50

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#45 2006-02-09 02:40:34

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#46 2006-02-10 05:10:26

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#47 2006-02-12 02:07:50

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#48 2006-02-12 12:48:07

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#49 2006-02-12 23:44:49

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

#50 2006-02-16 03:06:46

Re: After #3 I only have one Question - Ruby will you marry me??

Board footer