Re: Right, I'm Off


"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7RkKf.30685$YJ4.26525@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


What, probably as in you know him and you've chatted to him about these
things, or probably as in she says he doesn't, or just probably as in
"because he's pulled and you haven't"? I ask because Juicy's fucked three
men in her year in Australia, and I thin it's safe to say they all
appreciated her uninhibited experimental nature.


Probably because she's been moaning about his lack of interest in her (and
yet staying with him) for years, and tbh it's going to be clouded by my
mate's perspective as that's basically what he said, and I nod along
thinking 'yep, I know the story'. She is his GHL, and clearly he feels a
long times worth of feelings for her that I'm going to understand.

And not to mention the alleged violence and abuse and serial philandering.
Maybe violent and abusive chavcunts *do* appreciate what they have, but I'm
led to suspect that they take it for granted. That's why it's a 'probably'.


Yeah, although I suspect more women will see Keanu Reeves films than read
that book.

Just like more men will see pictures of a page 3 stunner, than will put a
triple-glansed plug in their arses.

Yep, kinda, except the difference being that the book entirely consists of
interviews with women about their fantasies, which would suggest that the
acts depicted are possibly more mainstream than the cunts making Keanu
Reeves films might like to think.


True, although maybe it only looks that way because even to talk about her
fantasies to somebody compiling a book requires a non-mainstream level of
inhibition. Maybe.


Besides, page 3 stunnas are rubbish***, I've never found those images
attractive.


Me neither. AWTP3S.


Yeah. And women can equally wear trousers to hide their legs, or wear
skirts and dresses'n'***, without being considered dangerously
subversive, while men have fewer choices.

Hell, they can even wear stockings to hide their hairyness and be
considered more sexy in most cases than if they had bare, exposed, shaved
legs. The only reason a woman needs to shave her legs is if she expects
to pull, or it's fucking hot as fuck outside and she's going to expose her
legs out of neccessity. I have to shave every fucking day or I look like
some kind of stubbly latino ***.


And my skin still gets irritated and rubbish, and still feels hairy no
matter how often or infrequently I try to shave it. Fucking rubbish***
skin.


Women can even wear blatant mens suits'n'***, and still look good, and
be accepted for that look.

Basically, there are two kinds of clothing: Unisex and Woman Only. Cunts.

AWTWP. Women's underwear is the best example of all, it's quite a hobby
of mine but it's conversely hard to get excited about 'briefs or boxers?'.

I've a lot of time for cross-dressers, especially those who aren't teh
ghey or anything, they just want to wear women's clothes because
why-the-***-shouldn't-they. Shame most companies wouldn't employ them.


AWTWP.


Hmm... I guess the only ones I've really liked have all been in the 'hold
them tenderly, kiss them all over and take away the pain' category.

Maybe I do have a 'type' after all.

It's quite possible. My only real type is 'little', I'm sexually
attracted to slender girls of all different ages and looks, but not, not
matter how much I might like to be, to any girl who is even 'normal' size.


Heh. I think that makes you responsible for all the eating disorders in the
world.

I don't think I've ever noticed a womans size actually. I have found myself
thinking 'she's a bit thin', or 'she's a bit chunky' and then been told that
this was wrong, or they were the same size and some other ***.


*shrug*


Conlan's not that slender though.


Yeah, diane appleton did that a lot last Tuesday.

BWOHL, I expect.


Yes, and hers.

BTN


.

Loading