A search for a genuine arousal

[Guest deeply]

Philosophical rant...

Lots of content is made to entertain, but can entertainment ever be beyond its derision to do such a thing?

Some think that everything in front of an audience, is an "act," in of itself. That expression would not hold true to thought, and even consciousness itself within a mind's ear, will not hold true to a mind's truth, whether filtered to be defined, or unfiltered to be abstract.

Can anyone ever be genuine, to a point where it's reasonable to be reciprocal to capability, and is it important?

Well, no... not really. Subjectively genuine, perhaps... but this is rare. Objectively? Depends on what object, it is subjected upon. For any measure of capability to be genuine, must be viewed by another to be also, in a minimal objective form. And this is even rarer. Perhaps vastly improbable.

Is this girl's ability to put her legs behind her head, appealing? Yes. But is it contextually appealing, in a sense of ultimate conscientiousness? No, with a but: it is contextually neutral, if considering that it applies a need to a greater whole, in order to produce and progress capability, in an reasonably exclusive way, that does not impede other functions in time, effort and work.

It's slightly marring to deflect original intention, or "complete intention," to scavenge something, from an action. However, if this action is not agreeable to time, work and effort constraints (that are systematically formulated to best achieve solutions), then it is reasonable to assume that if not wholly, then partially suffices.

It's perhaps even more marring to pick from something that's whole is corrupt, to a point where it does not appeal... but merely a part of it does. However, this is an action of efficiency in selective management.

Conveniently, things seem to work out, even if this reality is not completely compatible, it can be selected within it, what is.

But no males, and definitely no cocks. Edited June 17, 2010 by deeply

[marcus]

You talk/write a lot; and, yet, you've managed to say nothing!

It is a true art, you know, and you've mastered it.

[Kein_Mitleid]

I enjoyed reading this.

[anllover]

[quote name='Marcus' date='17 June 2010 - 07:03 AM' timestamp='1276772605' post='184594']
You talk/write a lot; and, yet, you've managed to say nothing!

It is a true art, you know, and you've mastered it.
[/quote]

I laughed

[Guest deeply]

[quote name='Marcus' date='17 June 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1276772605' post='184594']
You talk/write a lot; and, yet, you've managed to say nothing!

It is a true art, you know, and you've mastered it.
[/quote]

Is that condescending? Not really sure... still fraternizing about exactly how to approach this "review."

No one else has anything to add on this subject? How they battle their strife, their desire... to mold a subjective necessity?

What is mentally accepted by others?

Is it OK to watch something that has been faked, staged or forced (through non-impulsive means)?

Is it OK to watch something where it can be contrived, that beheld sexual facilitator, has been coerced, persuaded or even tricked, and now goes along with this, without realizing a most possible truth, about what this doer is doing?

[quote name='Kein_Mitleid' date='17 June 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1276774367' post='184597']
I enjoyed reading this.
[/quote]

At least some user, some where, some how, at some time had something agreeable to their intentional correspondence, and not some irritation.


[quote name='anllover' date='17 June 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1276783348' post='184625']
I laughed
[/quote]

Obviously mockery plays jest, to such.