Top-opolis
- Thread starter rosco rathbone
- Start date
Pure said:
I will assume he means it when he says "I have no interest," and I will lose mine. If it comes down to strict definitions of sadism, aka "if you're getting pleasure out of me causing you pain then I no longer am having fun," then T is not a sadist, but he does enjoy both hurting and humiliating me. Dunno which comes first, my interest or his reaction of interest which begets more of my interest and so on. The point is that there has to be some.
And I don't want to be told that it's all about me. I get motivated by the thought that I'm taking it for him. Finally, I found that last clause ("...but in teaching them something about their own limits and my desires.") to be utter bullshit. What the hell does it break down to? It could mean any number of things. The point is that by the time the guy gets there, I have already started reading the next post.
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
Pure said:
I think it is understood in a D/s relationship with me, that my sub should get her pleasure from service. If she ALSO enjoys the particular acts, or her pleasure is pleasing to me that day, so much the better, no?
When I decide to do things that are not pleasurable to her, it is either to push her limits, to encourage growth, or the ever popular re-establishment of my dominance over her.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Marquis said:
MArquis...Shalooooooooooooooooooom
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
What if a Dom/me type has loads of interest in hurting and humiliating merely for his/her own pleasure, and additional interest in learning something about each of their limits and desires. Like, "I like waterskiiing AND horsey rides?"
Ah yes, learning limits and desires, so I can use them against you next time, my dear. Hah.
And/or teach you something about what you didn't think you could do.
If my relationship was limited to making M eat his psychic wheaties, I'd be bored. That that's part of my druthers means it's that, a part. I don't hide my sadism behind it. Hell no, that's the best part.
Ah yes, learning limits and desires, so I can use them against you next time, my dear. Hah.
And/or teach you something about what you didn't think you could do.
If my relationship was limited to making M eat his psychic wheaties, I'd be bored. That that's part of my druthers means it's that, a part. I don't hide my sadism behind it. Hell no, that's the best part.
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
Johnny Mayberry said:
Silly me, I forgot one...
Sometimes I just want to hurt or humiliate her because I enjoy doing it.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
JM said
[earlier:]
When I decide to do things that are not pleasurable to her, it is either to push her limits, to encourage growth, or the ever popular re-establishment of my dominance over her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[more recently:]
Silly me, I forgot one...
Sometimes I just want to hurt or humiliate her because I enjoy doing it.
That's an important addition JM, and it goes to the original question of pleasure for self. It's also related to the question,
Does a Dom/me have duties sort of like those of the psychotherapist: for instance, to make sure that every intervention furthers the 'person growth' of the sub; to make sure the interventions are always, and above all, altruistic ( not benefitting just the dom/me) , protective, and nurturing (=good daddy or mommy).
The question is premised on the assumption that serious and lasting or lifethreatening harms are not inflicted by the dom/me.
[earlier:]
When I decide to do things that are not pleasurable to her, it is either to push her limits, to encourage growth, or the ever popular re-establishment of my dominance over her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[more recently:]
Silly me, I forgot one...
Sometimes I just want to hurt or humiliate her because I enjoy doing it.
That's an important addition JM, and it goes to the original question of pleasure for self. It's also related to the question,
Does a Dom/me have duties sort of like those of the psychotherapist: for instance, to make sure that every intervention furthers the 'person growth' of the sub; to make sure the interventions are always, and above all, altruistic ( not benefitting just the dom/me) , protective, and nurturing (=good daddy or mommy).
The question is premised on the assumption that serious and lasting or lifethreatening harms are not inflicted by the dom/me.
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
Well, it is teh same as with her pleasure...nice if she gets some, not my main concern. Growth of my sub and all that? Fine, but they exist for my pleasure. I want my sub to grow and change, and stretch her limits, because then I will enjoy her more. I want her to be basically happy, because that it the type of person I want to sopend time with. Altruism isn't always even an issue.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Hey, Pure, I don't see adressing personal development as tantamount to therapy or the "duties" it entails. You make it sound so icky, like purely wet-diaper changing. Or like the Dom/me into the developmental side is messing with delicate things (as though vanilla relationships don't mess with the same sticky psychoterritory? We all know vanilla headcases from past lives, I'm sure)
I see it more this way:
As the Domme, in the space created by a scene, I have the *power* to foster personal development, or for lack of a less therapy charged notion, new experience. Even if that development is limited to "holy shit, I can get fucked with an 8 incher!" or "Ok, maybe I like wearing high heels, hmm."
I do think that I have obligations. Altruistic drives. Not as a Domme, as a human being. I don't find that moral compass weakening or unsexy, quite the contrary.
It's attractive and easy to know you can misuse your power or just use it for banal shit, it's more fulfilling to use it for good stuff. However depraved that might be, and believe me, the good is not always sweetness and light.
I think that's the failing of most Mommy Dommes/ Daddy dommes, the inability to see black, bleak stuff as nurturing, as feeding us. And the same runs true in the other direction. I'm much more awed by someone who's not scared to be soft sometimes, I'm much more convinced of their power.
I'm a Mommy Domme and completely unashamed that I revel in that archetype, assuming Medusa has children and loves them as much as Mama Bear.
I see it more this way:
As the Domme, in the space created by a scene, I have the *power* to foster personal development, or for lack of a less therapy charged notion, new experience. Even if that development is limited to "holy shit, I can get fucked with an 8 incher!" or "Ok, maybe I like wearing high heels, hmm."
I do think that I have obligations. Altruistic drives. Not as a Domme, as a human being. I don't find that moral compass weakening or unsexy, quite the contrary.
It's attractive and easy to know you can misuse your power or just use it for banal shit, it's more fulfilling to use it for good stuff. However depraved that might be, and believe me, the good is not always sweetness and light.
I think that's the failing of most Mommy Dommes/ Daddy dommes, the inability to see black, bleak stuff as nurturing, as feeding us. And the same runs true in the other direction. I'm much more awed by someone who's not scared to be soft sometimes, I'm much more convinced of their power.
I'm a Mommy Domme and completely unashamed that I revel in that archetype, assuming Medusa has children and loves them as much as Mama Bear.
Netzach, I salute you.
I too would like you to clarify on the "psychotherapist" duties, Pure, since it seems to me that even the most slavish of slaves on here are largely into SM---not exactly standard nurturing and developing. Or maybe I have misread their posts.
In any event, I do agree with Netzach that growth can and does take any number of forms. Every time I take it up the ass, I'm thrilled to tears that I'm doing it when I remember how hard it used to be. I count that as growth.
To clarify my previous post, I like straight-talkers and I like Dom/mes who admit to getting something out of it. I don't so much care if it is their primary desire or simultaneous with my own, but it MUST be there or I'm not going to bother. Likewise they need to be brave and open enough with themselves to say it straight out.
I too would like you to clarify on the "psychotherapist" duties, Pure, since it seems to me that even the most slavish of slaves on here are largely into SM---not exactly standard nurturing and developing. Or maybe I have misread their posts.
In any event, I do agree with Netzach that growth can and does take any number of forms. Every time I take it up the ass, I'm thrilled to tears that I'm doing it when I remember how hard it used to be. I count that as growth.
To clarify my previous post, I like straight-talkers and I like Dom/mes who admit to getting something out of it. I don't so much care if it is their primary desire or simultaneous with my own, but it MUST be there or I'm not going to bother. Likewise they need to be brave and open enough with themselves to say it straight out.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi N,
Your last post is quoted below.
There is some validity to your points, from my perspective, and in my purely personal aberrant opinion. You offer some good insights, as usual, and perhaps some of the points below are a bit picky. You may skip over them.
Minutiae
I think part of the problem of the discussion is simply in terminology, esp. regarding 'nurturance' and 'development.'
If, as you say (A), all(?) 'new experience' is development, in your lexicon, we do not necessarily disagree in substance, since I had in mind the 'development' of which humanistic and 'classical' therapists talk. The same holds for 'personal growth.'
Again, your conceptions and archetypes (D and E)about 'mother' and 'nurturance' are quite broad, to include the dark, black or bleak. I don't think Medusa had kids, but if Medea and Agave (and maybe Kali) are part of your picture then we may not disagree in substance, since I have in mind the generic American Dr. Spock mothering, or the accepting 'earth mother' image (sanitized Demeter) that's arisen in the last few decades. Esp. that proclaimed by some male doms around literotica.
The issues in C are complicated, in that you'll talk of pursuing the 'good stuff' with the proviso that some depravity is included, that there's no limitation to 'sweetness and light.' There is, of course the argument that each person pursues a 'good' as s/he sees it (few say 'I want evil').
The problem is in trying to communicate and in your wanting to use the concept of 'altruism'.
Supposing a dom/me,you, seeks to encourage, in a relatively naive sub, a taste for a scene where the latter provides oral sex to all the dom/me's associates, holding a cup saying "Service 25 cents; quarters please."
You say, "Yes it's depraved but it's a good." why? "It's my good, which embraces the light and the dark." is it altruistic? "Yes, since it's an extention of my 'good', as I conceive it, to another."
It thus seems as if moral terms and concepts, as retained but redefined by you ( the user of them), continue only a nebulous existence. Your stand for 'morality' and mine (hypothetically) for immorality become the same, just labeled differently.
====
Overall
All in all. I like your point D, and how it's stated. E is one of those classic aphorisms we all love to come across in your postings.
It's good that you temper some extremes with common sense and morality. Reminds me a bit, of P. Califia's essay where he mentions his remaining moral sense.
Identifying the domme as 'mother' presents some severe problems in a Sadeian perspective--but that's a topic for another posting.
Since you have been a 'devil's advocate' elsewhere, I hope you understand that I give you a hard time only to keep alive the friendly core of masochism within you.
=============
[Netzach said,]
A)As the Domme, in the space created by a scene, I have the *power* to foster personal development, or for lack of a less therapy charged notion, new experience. Even if that development is limited to "holy shit, I can get fucked with an 8 incher!" or "Ok, maybe I like wearing high heels, hmm."
B) I do think that I have obligations. Altruistic drives. Not as a Domme, as a human being. I don't find that moral compass weakening or unsexy, quite the contrary.
C)It's attractive and easy to know you can misuse your power or just use it for banal shit, it's more fulfilling to use it for good stuff. However depraved that might be, and believe me, the good is not always sweetness and light.
D)I think that's the failing of most Mommy Dommes/ Daddy dommes, the inability to see black, bleak stuff as nurturing, as feeding us. And the same runs true in the other direction. I'm much more awed by someone who's not scared to be soft sometimes, I'm much more convinced of their power.
E)I'm a Mommy Domme and completely unashamed that I revel in that archetype, assuming Medusa has children and loves them as much as Mama Bear.
Your last post is quoted below.
There is some validity to your points, from my perspective, and in my purely personal aberrant opinion. You offer some good insights, as usual, and perhaps some of the points below are a bit picky. You may skip over them.
Minutiae
I think part of the problem of the discussion is simply in terminology, esp. regarding 'nurturance' and 'development.'
If, as you say (A), all(?) 'new experience' is development, in your lexicon, we do not necessarily disagree in substance, since I had in mind the 'development' of which humanistic and 'classical' therapists talk. The same holds for 'personal growth.'
Again, your conceptions and archetypes (D and E)about 'mother' and 'nurturance' are quite broad, to include the dark, black or bleak. I don't think Medusa had kids, but if Medea and Agave (and maybe Kali) are part of your picture then we may not disagree in substance, since I have in mind the generic American Dr. Spock mothering, or the accepting 'earth mother' image (sanitized Demeter) that's arisen in the last few decades. Esp. that proclaimed by some male doms around literotica.
The issues in C are complicated, in that you'll talk of pursuing the 'good stuff' with the proviso that some depravity is included, that there's no limitation to 'sweetness and light.' There is, of course the argument that each person pursues a 'good' as s/he sees it (few say 'I want evil').
The problem is in trying to communicate and in your wanting to use the concept of 'altruism'.
Supposing a dom/me,you, seeks to encourage, in a relatively naive sub, a taste for a scene where the latter provides oral sex to all the dom/me's associates, holding a cup saying "Service 25 cents; quarters please."
You say, "Yes it's depraved but it's a good." why? "It's my good, which embraces the light and the dark." is it altruistic? "Yes, since it's an extention of my 'good', as I conceive it, to another."
It thus seems as if moral terms and concepts, as retained but redefined by you ( the user of them), continue only a nebulous existence. Your stand for 'morality' and mine (hypothetically) for immorality become the same, just labeled differently.
====
Overall
All in all. I like your point D, and how it's stated. E is one of those classic aphorisms we all love to come across in your postings.
It's good that you temper some extremes with common sense and morality. Reminds me a bit, of P. Califia's essay where he mentions his remaining moral sense.
Identifying the domme as 'mother' presents some severe problems in a Sadeian perspective--but that's a topic for another posting.
Since you have been a 'devil's advocate' elsewhere, I hope you understand that I give you a hard time only to keep alive the friendly core of masochism within you.
=============
[Netzach said,]
A)As the Domme, in the space created by a scene, I have the *power* to foster personal development, or for lack of a less therapy charged notion, new experience. Even if that development is limited to "holy shit, I can get fucked with an 8 incher!" or "Ok, maybe I like wearing high heels, hmm."
B) I do think that I have obligations. Altruistic drives. Not as a Domme, as a human being. I don't find that moral compass weakening or unsexy, quite the contrary.
C)It's attractive and easy to know you can misuse your power or just use it for banal shit, it's more fulfilling to use it for good stuff. However depraved that might be, and believe me, the good is not always sweetness and light.
D)I think that's the failing of most Mommy Dommes/ Daddy dommes, the inability to see black, bleak stuff as nurturing, as feeding us. And the same runs true in the other direction. I'm much more awed by someone who's not scared to be soft sometimes, I'm much more convinced of their power.
E)I'm a Mommy Domme and completely unashamed that I revel in that archetype, assuming Medusa has children and loves them as much as Mama Bear.
Last edited:
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Is that you sitting on that throne with the bitch boots, Netzach? YOu look exactly as pictured!!!!!!!!!
My third eye seen it comin' -the RZA
My third eye seen it comin' -the RZA
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Netzach said:
Yikes. You were sent from archetype casting central as my nemesis. Away with you! Begone!
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Oy, one minute he notices my shiny shiny leather the next he's ousting me. Clearly the M word is the most powerful one I know.
Hey, it's mutual Rosco. But I can't shoo you away, you run the joint.
Plus I find all that angst and vitriol charming in a bad boy kind of way.
Yes, that is me and my boots. I dress the part maybe .00001 % of the year. And I clean up ok.
Hey, it's mutual Rosco. But I can't shoo you away, you run the joint.
Plus I find all that angst and vitriol charming in a bad boy kind of way.
Yes, that is me and my boots. I dress the part maybe .00001 % of the year. And I clean up ok.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Pure, honeybun, do I look like a girl who can't handle it? Would I skip over your points for fear of, uh oh...having to reconsider something?
I appreciate your hard time, and everyone may now laugh at the crass double entendre.
*pause to allow ribbing*
I come to the smart board and the most contentious thread on the smart board specifically to hear people as smart as I am offer their slice of reality forward. I come here to be challenged, have my thoughts added to or agreed with, blatantly disagreed with, puzzled over, debated, lauded, laughed at, and even to drive rathbone to cry heresy.
So, that said, I think your little disclaimers are awful sweet, but surely not necessary. I think it's established we respect one another's intellect and insights lots. If I've not said that to you directly enough, I say it now.
To speak to your nitpicky stuff, which is not nitpicky, I clarify this.
When I might say giving head to the dearly beloved gathered is "good." It's not good beacuse I say so dammit, that's why. (Which is kind of what you took from that, if I'm reading right)
It's good because we live in a dumbass culture that really devalues sexual activity, particularly *allowing* onself to be the penetrable, available, "feminine". That's supposed to be bad. When, if anyone's ever really allowed himself or herself the pleasure, it's clearly not. It's not bad. It's pretty fucking good. It's as good when it gives you a rush of "I'm the holy whore" power as it does when it gives you a rush of "I'm the lowly thing" objectification. It all depends what you want to get out of it.
Seeing someone becoming gleefully, piggishly, ravenously whorish and *happy* about that, because I created the right ambience....that's a slice of heaven.
Why?
Dunno.
I appreciate your hard time, and everyone may now laugh at the crass double entendre.
*pause to allow ribbing*
I come to the smart board and the most contentious thread on the smart board specifically to hear people as smart as I am offer their slice of reality forward. I come here to be challenged, have my thoughts added to or agreed with, blatantly disagreed with, puzzled over, debated, lauded, laughed at, and even to drive rathbone to cry heresy.
So, that said, I think your little disclaimers are awful sweet, but surely not necessary. I think it's established we respect one another's intellect and insights lots. If I've not said that to you directly enough, I say it now.
To speak to your nitpicky stuff, which is not nitpicky, I clarify this.
When I might say giving head to the dearly beloved gathered is "good." It's not good beacuse I say so dammit, that's why. (Which is kind of what you took from that, if I'm reading right)
It's good because we live in a dumbass culture that really devalues sexual activity, particularly *allowing* onself to be the penetrable, available, "feminine". That's supposed to be bad. When, if anyone's ever really allowed himself or herself the pleasure, it's clearly not. It's not bad. It's pretty fucking good. It's as good when it gives you a rush of "I'm the holy whore" power as it does when it gives you a rush of "I'm the lowly thing" objectification. It all depends what you want to get out of it.
Seeing someone becoming gleefully, piggishly, ravenously whorish and *happy* about that, because I created the right ambience....that's a slice of heaven.
Why?
Dunno.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Netzach said:
Honeybun, eh?
*giggle* Picturing the scholarly ascetic BDSM aesthete Pure all hot under the collar in his ivory tower, typing away madly, covering all bases dotting all Is , Ps, Qs, whatever, blushing like a fiend at that "honeybun".
I might get into being a holy whore but I am simply too big, gnarly, butch, stubbly and generally rough-and-tough to be anyone's idea of a nice fuck object; unless you are some kind of homo faggot "bear". I find those people utterly foul. Netzach makes it sound nice though.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Evesdream, well especially you girls.
Rosco, whew, it's my turn to get hot and botered at the top of my Ivory tower. Screw Rapunzel, there's nothing I wanna ravish like a gravelly butch guy who only wants to be on top.
Remember, central casting sent me....
Rosco, whew, it's my turn to get hot and botered at the top of my Ivory tower. Screw Rapunzel, there's nothing I wanna ravish like a gravelly butch guy who only wants to be on top.
Remember, central casting sent me....
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Netzach said:
Central casting is trying to get me to balance my anima with my animus, eh? Wouldn't put it past the fuckers, they've been after me forever....
I actually do have fantasies about what it would be like to inhabit a woman's body; or, even better, to be a really attractive Amanda Lepore-style transsexual. The whole idea is the manipulation of male lust from the outside. I think one has to be a man, or to have been a man, in order for this to make sense. Having known male lust, I'd like to torture someone else with it, but it wouldn't really be fun unless I could sort of remember myself the whole time what it was like for them.
Does the butch guy you want to ravish have secret fantasies of being ravished, or are you raping him or what? Very interesting.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Interesting.
You know part of why life on the bottom was so boring for me?
I never met a man I could not manipulate as a girl object. I'm sure there might be one out there, I just haven't found him, or he's too gay to want to play with me. However much a Top the guy professed to be he was so obsessive about my sexuality, so obsessive about my cunt, that pretty soon I was leading him around by the balls. Butch lesbians are the same way, BTW. I would need a heavy dose of sadism mixed with a degree of sexual repulsion towards me to have the quality experience that I'd want.
Well, shit, if I'm fated to do that, I figured, I might as well just do it and do it well.
That sounds really kvetchy, like I don't enjoy what I do, and it's not that. I think its as much me as it is anyone else, if not more, and that I'm really not capable of not grabbing some kind of control of situations, even if I let the other person live with the fiction that they were controlling me.
Have I tapped into some kernel of the male lust excitement thing you were talking about?
The closest I ever came to having the bottom experience I was looking for, was playing puppygirl to a guy who I switch with, or did, for a while. That was a wonderful chance to be stupid and have absolutely no need to control anything. I don't get to be stupid much. The trust levels have to be maximum for me to go there, and the trust levels were forged via many a beating on my part prior and since to this guy's ass. It was the only time I ever felt good bottoming as a femme, because I was safe in the conceptual contstruct that I was a stupid, leg-humping dog.
As for whether my big hairy butch gets raped, no, I reserve that fantasy for lawyer/doctor types who don't notice me, as they unwittingly go for the keys to their Lexi in parking ramps. I want to pull down Armani pants. This takes up a small percentage of my fantasy life, but some of it.
I also fantasize, and I'll not lie about this, about taking down some of the "Doms" I meet, limited intellect type guys with power issues galore. The types who hang on every word at the D/s sites that look like Hallmark cards, or better yet, pass off the wisdom there as their very own. Please.
Just stamp "beat me" on their asses.
The hairy butch guy of my fantasy life, and actually embodied by my "puppy owner" wants to, very badly, and that's the worst part of it all for him, and the best at the same time.
You know part of why life on the bottom was so boring for me?
I never met a man I could not manipulate as a girl object. I'm sure there might be one out there, I just haven't found him, or he's too gay to want to play with me. However much a Top the guy professed to be he was so obsessive about my sexuality, so obsessive about my cunt, that pretty soon I was leading him around by the balls. Butch lesbians are the same way, BTW. I would need a heavy dose of sadism mixed with a degree of sexual repulsion towards me to have the quality experience that I'd want.
Well, shit, if I'm fated to do that, I figured, I might as well just do it and do it well.
That sounds really kvetchy, like I don't enjoy what I do, and it's not that. I think its as much me as it is anyone else, if not more, and that I'm really not capable of not grabbing some kind of control of situations, even if I let the other person live with the fiction that they were controlling me.
Have I tapped into some kernel of the male lust excitement thing you were talking about?
The closest I ever came to having the bottom experience I was looking for, was playing puppygirl to a guy who I switch with, or did, for a while. That was a wonderful chance to be stupid and have absolutely no need to control anything. I don't get to be stupid much. The trust levels have to be maximum for me to go there, and the trust levels were forged via many a beating on my part prior and since to this guy's ass. It was the only time I ever felt good bottoming as a femme, because I was safe in the conceptual contstruct that I was a stupid, leg-humping dog.
As for whether my big hairy butch gets raped, no, I reserve that fantasy for lawyer/doctor types who don't notice me, as they unwittingly go for the keys to their Lexi in parking ramps. I want to pull down Armani pants. This takes up a small percentage of my fantasy life, but some of it.
I also fantasize, and I'll not lie about this, about taking down some of the "Doms" I meet, limited intellect type guys with power issues galore. The types who hang on every word at the D/s sites that look like Hallmark cards, or better yet, pass off the wisdom there as their very own. Please.
Just stamp "beat me" on their asses.
The hairy butch guy of my fantasy life, and actually embodied by my "puppy owner" wants to, very badly, and that's the worst part of it all for him, and the best at the same time.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Words
from 100s of whacked out words at
www.urbandictionary.com
badonkadonk
The sound or image associated with an immensely large posterior.
"Damn yo, her ass be goin badonkadonk!
---------
to have or posess that certain magic shizzle in the booty-izzle.
"I'm hypnotized cuz somebody's got that bo-donk-a-donk!"
============
Cyprus manoeuvre
The single deft motion whereby a gentleman, whilst taking a lady from behind, withdraws his member from her vaginal canal and places it squarely into her rectal cavity via her anus, without any warning or undue commotion.
============
God
an old man in the sky who cares *way* too much where you put your penis
============
fagnanimous
the description of someone who is so caring and giving that they have to be gay. see fagtastic for a similar idea.
=============
fuckbait
A trashy outfit or loud perfume.
"Damn that is some serious fuckbait U got on U."
========
fur trader
A kinky lesbian sixty-niner.
===========
fuck you money
any amount of money allowing infinite perpetuation of wealth necessary to maintain a desired lifestyle without needing employment or assistance from anyone.
'The 6% guaranteed interest payments from Bill's investments earn him about 12 million dollars per year. His standard of living only requires approximately $4,000,000 per year. He will never need to be employed by anyone. He has "fuck you money".'
============
faposaurus
1- A compound word, from the verb "to fap" (masturbate) and the noun "saurus" (lizard), used to describe a male who jerks his salami with comical frequency
======
from 100s of whacked out words at
www.urbandictionary.com
badonkadonk
The sound or image associated with an immensely large posterior.
"Damn yo, her ass be goin badonkadonk!
---------
to have or posess that certain magic shizzle in the booty-izzle.
"I'm hypnotized cuz somebody's got that bo-donk-a-donk!"
============
Cyprus manoeuvre
The single deft motion whereby a gentleman, whilst taking a lady from behind, withdraws his member from her vaginal canal and places it squarely into her rectal cavity via her anus, without any warning or undue commotion.
============
God
an old man in the sky who cares *way* too much where you put your penis
============
fagnanimous
the description of someone who is so caring and giving that they have to be gay. see fagtastic for a similar idea.
=============
fuckbait
A trashy outfit or loud perfume.
"Damn that is some serious fuckbait U got on U."
========
fur trader
A kinky lesbian sixty-niner.
===========
fuck you money
any amount of money allowing infinite perpetuation of wealth necessary to maintain a desired lifestyle without needing employment or assistance from anyone.
'The 6% guaranteed interest payments from Bill's investments earn him about 12 million dollars per year. His standard of living only requires approximately $4,000,000 per year. He will never need to be employed by anyone. He has "fuck you money".'
============
faposaurus
1- A compound word, from the verb "to fap" (masturbate) and the noun "saurus" (lizard), used to describe a male who jerks his salami with comical frequency
======
Last edited:
evesdream
perfect fifth
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2002
- Posts
- 5,716
favourites from my personal slang bank
For Masturbation: Jack and Jill, Manual Pollution, Onan's Olympics, My Southern Comfort,
and Masturbator: tosser, pud-puller, Moses-she (as in parting the red sea), Portnoy
My cunt is the "holiest of holys"
When I go down I'm "lollygagging" (gratis mayoris)
For Masturbation: Jack and Jill, Manual Pollution, Onan's Olympics, My Southern Comfort,
and Masturbator: tosser, pud-puller, Moses-she (as in parting the red sea), Portnoy
My cunt is the "holiest of holys"
When I go down I'm "lollygagging" (gratis mayoris)
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Last edited:
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
make no mistake MAKE NO MISTAKE.
Astral Rapist is ruthless; do not catch his etherial eye.
Astral Rapist is ruthless; do not catch his etherial eye.
