rudeboyyouth

Use her saliva as a lubricant. It mixes well with the debris that begins to come out of the ass when you start hitting it correctly. The combination of the two will create an interesting, and rather pleasurable lubricant for your cock. Also, cum in her ass. As I have stated in the past, it creates an interesting "Cookies and Cream" consistency that will make the moment rather peculiar, thus, memorable. Don't forget to wait for it to leak out as well. This happens in intervals (throughout the day sometimes) depending on how deep inside of her asshole you cum. When all is said and done, join her in the bathtub for a hot bath. The steam and moisture will make you hard again, and more importantly, it will have you thinking of anal again. Women, you have such beautiful assholes. Thank you to those that are willing to share it. (Those of you that are skinny, that is) ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

I've always considered a threesome with my girlfriend and her mother. Her younger sister is also an appropriate candidate, as well as a few of her cousins who have a vibrancy about them that makes my cock rise. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

If you do decide to take part in the venture, follow this advice: Make sure you fuck him without protection, and most importantly, make sure you allow him to cum inside of you without a condom. If all works out well, you should have something to remember him by, in the form of a baby, or perhaps babies. You might want to also consider partaking in anal with him, unprotected of course. Allow him to fuck you up the ass, and then let him cum in/on your mouth, or face. I am sure the idea of recieving a married man's cum on your face would be a new experience for you. Good luck, and stay beautiful...you piece of fucking ass, you. And above all, enjoy your day. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)" [This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-14-2001).]

That sounds like a reasonable request. It won't work, most likely. In that event, you might want to suggest to him that Tastyt would enjoy the taste of her own ass in her mouth. Hence the name "TastyT" ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)" [This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-14-2001).]

It was an entertaining movie, but Kevin Spacey definetly did not deserve best actor for that picture. Russel Crowe was more deserving of that award for his role in "The Insider." The Academy Awards often fuck shit up. The AFI awards are more loyal to the different genres of film and the actors themselves. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

Have any of your ever tried double anal? If so, give me an honest account. A few days ago I watched a double anal on a film and it looked very fucked up. Granted, the woman herself was disgusting. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

We Will Survive: Aquagen Remix Phatt Bass: Aquagen More Bass Mix Welcome To The Thunderdome: Josh Collins Speaker Fuck: Opaque Dream World: Josh Collins What You Did To Me: (Rockell) JP SF time dub Touch Me: (Rui Da Silva ft. Cassandra) Original 12" dub You're Ready For Me: Dj Spoke Merge: Armageddon The Exploration of Space pt. 2: Cosmic Gate Ingo vs. Whitney: Junior Vasquez vs. Scene Q The Xavier Jacome: The Beginning Josh Collins: Ezekial 25:17 ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

I am getting my driver's license revoked. Such perfect timing, and what a bitch life is going to be without transportation for the next few months. I have to turn my license in to the DMV by the tenth of this month, and now that I have summer classes, I need to work something out. All this due to a summons for a moving violation that I forgot to appear in court for. I am glad that this is all that happened. Plus, I recently just got a speeding summons before I found out this little revocation. Now I have to take the defensive driving course to get 4 of the 12 or so points off of my license. This is the only part of my life that is behaving like a cunt. Oh yes, and how could I forget, I also just received a notice that I have an outstanding ticket that needs to be paid to the NYC dept. of finance immediately. I believe I received this cunt of a ticket when I got my car towed in the city, and had to pay 175 dollars to get it back. Along with a few more parking tickets, I should be spending a few bucks on tickets. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

Here are a few more that should be to your liking: "A Panic in Needle Park." Shockingly realistic film starring Al Pacino (in his first starring role) along side other up and comers such as the late Raul Julia. The movie is set in Manhattan and deals with a young thug's love interest with another street dweller. The two live on the streets, and as such, they only have one another. Pacino becomes addicted to heroin and drags himself and his girlfriend into a world of turmoil. The film is raw and depicts the harsh realities of street life in Manhattan. The ending is powerful, and as usual, Pacino's peformance is unrivaled. "Raising Cain." This is a film shot around 1992 that deals with the Multiple Personality Disorder. Starring John Lithgow as a traumatized adult, the film deals with a child who was purposely traumatized by his father. The father traumatizes Lithgow from childhood in order to trigger a multiple personality in Lithgow; he was an experiment, and as an adult he now has several personalities that occupy his psyche. Lithgow plays several roles in this film, including that of the father, son, and various personalities. The climax is beautiful, just as Depalma's climactic endings usually are. Lithgow also, as usual, plays a superb role as the insane Carter. "Mean Streets." This film is one of Martin Scorcese's first succesful films. Starring Robert Deniro and Harvey Keitel, this film depicts the harsh life of two up and coming gangsters in Hell's Kitchen during the 1970's. Scorsese shows his skill for directing gangster films in this movie, and much like every one of his gangster films that succeeded this one, he is at his best. This film also introduced the brilliance of Keitel and Deniro on the screen; the two would later act alongside one another in Scorsese's "Taxi Driver." "Dial M For Murder." This film is the original version of the 90's film "A perfect murder," and is directed by Alfred Hitchcock. This brilliant film has so many plot twists that they are difficult to describe. Hitchcock is flawless in this mystery/thriller, and not one moment of this film is wasted. "Marnie." Also directed by Alfred Hitchcock, this film stars Tippi Hedren (mother of Melanie Griffith) and a young Sean Connery. The film involves a young thief (Hedren) who is caught in her plot to steal from her boss. Connery catches on to her plot and makes a deal with her: Be my bride, and I will keep your secret. The relationship between the two evolves, as well as the history behind the mysterious thief. Hitchchock brings this film to an ultimate climax that informs the viewer of exactly why Hitchcock was so ahead of his times. "Frenzy." This is one of Hitchcock's final films, and as such, one can see the decadence within the later films as Hitchcock approached the end of his life. More raw and gritty, Hitchcock truly shows that he is capable of both psychological mystery, and brutal, horrific film making. The film deals with a killer in London who strangles his victims with a necktie. The acting is superb, and Hitchcock provides a shocking combination of humor and horror. A Great film, overall. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

Calyandra, How old are you, if you don't mind me asking? ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

You are a very good quote finder, I don't doubt that. Your ability to prove me wrong thus far however, has been weak. It's not about proving wrong little Runner, it's about stating the truth. Pull your head out of the gutter; formulate your own thoughts, and knowledge will blindside you. I find it a bit difficult to respect one who revels in pullings quotes from another. Pulling quotes is hardly an honorable deed if one can't make sense of the information, or understand it. Aside from that, your worthless attempts at refutation take the shape of a childish moan left unheard. Children are good at finding things however. I have faith you will find a good quote. Good luck, and keep up the search. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)" [This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-07-2001).]

Something about the name "Dolcemimi" makes me horny. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

Rent these following films, you won't be dissapointed: "Happiness" with Lara Flynn Boyle. This is a very shocking and funny comedy. The humor mostly stems from how fucked up and brutally honest the film is. You will be surprised at some of the shit that happens in this movie. The director of this film directed the film that I am about to mention next. "Welcome To The Dollhouse." This is another hilarious movie. Another independent flick with a young actress (I forgot her name) that has become a familiar face in the independent film scene. It is about a young girl's alienation from her piers, and how she goes about dealing with it. It's fucking hilarious. "Requiem For A Heavyweight." This is a superb drama shot in the 1950's I believe. It stars the late Anthony Quinn, Jackie Gleason, and a young Mickey Rooney. It's a superb film about a prizefighter who is unable to fight anymore; he tries to regain his pride by trying various things to gain fulfillment. The film is beautiful. The film was written by Twilight Zone's Rod Serling, and it has the same shocking ironic twists of fate as the series. "Rosemary's Baby." You've most likely seen this one. It really doesn't need a synopsis because the plot is fairly simple. But the directorial style of Polanski and the performances by Cassavates, Gordon, Farrow, and the other cast members are superb. Ruth Gordon recieved an Oscar for her performance as the sweet next door neighbor. "Repulsion." This film is also directed by Roman Polanski, whose style is undeniably superb. The film is about a woman trapped in an apartment. The plot twists evolve from there, but to divulge them would be a discredit to the film. Rent it, you'll enjoy it. "Dressed To Kill." This film stars Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, a younger Dennis Franz, and Nancy Allen. It is directed by Brian Depalma, who is also another superb director. It is a slightly different take on Alfred Hitchcock's original "Psycho." "Obsession." Another Depalma flick starring Genevieve Bujold and another actor. Superb film about espionage and kidnapping. John Lithgow also plays a very good role in this film. "Blowout." Another Depalma flick starring John Travolta and Nancy Allen. Dennis Franz also makes another cameo as a scumbag in this film. It's about the uncovering of an assasination plot on a political figure; superb mystery that unfolds beautifully. "Cruising." Starring Al Pacino, this film was shot on location in Lower Manhattan. The film is about a cop (Pacino) who goes undercover into the S&M Gay nightclub scene to find a killer who has been viciously murdering homosexual men after having sex with them. There is also a small cameo in here by Paul Sorvino. "Afterhours." This film is a funny comedy directed by Martin Scorcese. It's about a lowly word processor who ventures out to SOHO one night to meet a woman who gave him her number in a diner (Rosanna Arquette). He gets lost in Soho, and so begins the adventure. It's hilarious. And finally, "Buffalo 66." Funny film directed by Vincent Gallo, also starring Vincent Gallo. It's about an ex con who is released from prison and sets out to assasinate the individual that helped him get into prison. The film is sad and funny at times, and Christina Ricci plays the young girl that Gallo kidnaps and forces to accompany him on his journey. As the plot unfolds, the viewer learns that Gallo is anything but a criminal, the connection between the two (gallo and Ricci) is far more sweet than once thought. Beautiful film. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)" [This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-06-2001).]

If you read more carefully, the commentary stated that Douglas wished to separate himself from the condition, but only after the internalization of the material began. Only at that point for Douglas is he usefully "objective." His objectivity is self willed, not inevitable. His work explicitly cites his choice to differentiate himself from those around him, including his fellow slaves; not only was the condition too overbearing, but it was humiliating; Douglas chose to differentiate himself not only because of turmoil, but self advancement. Throughout his work, he wished to identify himself. A clear understanding and appreciation of his own condition was done before any of his objective writing or psychological isolation began. The objectivity did not precede his internalization of the work; it succeeded it. It was not needed to understand, but merely to convey to an audience. The experience takes shape and sequence, serving to have oratorical power over the audience; serving to sway them. Such is the only useful purpose of objectivity in this case. The definition of "Aesthetics" as you describe, is a set of Principles. However, beyond what you've stated, it is a particular set of principles that relates to the self; the self that is observant. It is based upon one's particular tastes and approach toward a work of art. It is inevitably subjective. The understanding of the work will ultimately be impacted by this subjectivity, and various criticisms arise as a result. An art form is created by the individual. The individual lends his own tastes/styles/motives/etc to the work of art. His manipulation of the art form ) is specifically designed to take on a certain mold; hence, a plot. It is also (especially in film) meant to evoke a feeling, which relates to self. One can wholesomely appreciate this work of art even before it has been observed in its entirety. The plights of the character within the film evoke personal emotion within the viewer because the viewer is Forced to experience. That experience then stays within the mind of the viewer when the work is observed in its entirety; it is internalized and it becomes subjective. As the characters rise and fall, the subjectivity begins; that is inevitable. The art form is the medium in which the message/emotion is conveyed by the artist. In this case, it is through cinema/television. The actual film that the shots are imbedded upon, is not the art form; you are slightly confused. A creator of films has a preconceived notion of what the film will look like in its entirety: that is the art form. The entire creative process of shooting and organizing is part of, but not the actual form of art. The art form is created through looking at the actual reel of film; the product of the light combined with the reel of film. The shots all work in sequential order to convey the art form. The art form is not the lifeless reel of film, but the product of the light and film; ultimately the picture being observed by the viewer . This is the medium in which the creator conveys his message. The tools such as film, are used to create the form; the form takes shape upon the screen, which is the artist's ultimate intention. And as I mentioned previously, the art form is impossible to wholsomely understand without the relation of the form to the self (observer). You are wrong in your elaboration on Art as well. Inevitably, it does force the viewer to experience a lifestyle, in many ways. In some forms of art, such as writing, the art form forces the reader to experience the lifestyle of the character or writer (depending on what is being written about of course). It does not impose any truths or fallacies upon the viewer, but it does force an experience upon them. That is what separates true art from the bullshit criticism that you have given it. It is the responsibility of the observer to try and understand the character that is psychotic. The movie depicts a killer in action, but the viewer would be an imbecile to not wonder how the killer has reached this point. For the viewer to not try and understand how the killer has reached this point is impossible. The art form (being the projected picture, not the misinterpretted definition you suggested) must be appreciated from as many angles as possible. As with poets and writers of the past and present, their works have been investigated and researched in order to discover what lead to the finished product. The main character within the art form must be given this same insight, regardless of how much is suggested, or how "incomprehensible" psychosis may seem. Without such insights, artwork would not have, or never would have the useful criticism that it does, it would merely have haphazard explanations without a thorough understanding, such as what you are writing. Credibility must be given to the art, the creator, and the character; it must not merely be dismissed as "incomprehensible." Understanding is not limited to what the creator of a film allows; is goes far beyond that, as with any art form. Criticism of art stems from the attempts to understand; and those attempts vary in range. Those attempts are all at one point related to the self (whether it be the perspective of the creator or character that is being studied). It is a natural process of any creator or observer of art. True appreciation of art does not take on a one dimensional form; it takes on a multidimensional form. The viewer is taken on a roller coaster of emotions (depending upon the work) and is in many ways forced to be curious about the character(s). It does not make one crazy to try and figure out the behaviors of the characters, regardless of how "impossible" they may be to explain. Insight into such aspects not only spark further criticism, but useful plot elaborations. Such insights are the root of artwork. That is fairly obvious. As for Aesthetics, it is far from bullshit. Since the birth of Aestheticism, the impact has been undeniable. The results of such an impact have lead to beautiful criticism and artforms that cover a wider range than once thought. Your points would be entirely valid if you thought them through a bit more carefully. And as such, they read like bullshit; regardless of whether or not that was your intention. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)" [This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-05-2001).]

How is space? I haven't been there yet. Who spins there, and is there any afterhours there? ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

I don't consider them to be skills. Mostly common sense. Thanks anyway. [This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-04-2001).]

It wasn't a command, but I do find it flattering that you would consider it as such. The vocabulary on the other hand was far from fancy, and I am again flattered that you would consider to be such. And as for your commentary, it's half assed. You might want to think it through before you write again. I never mentioned giving an "Objective" viewpoint of the subject matter. Starcapone's question clearly depicted an identification with the characters on a personal level. As such, it is not only necessary, but vital for one to relate one's self to the material being discussed. As I also suggested, in a relfective essay when one is being asked to relate one's self to a character, it doesn't suggest emulation. The original question does not suggest objectivity, it suggests subjectivity. There is no need for decoartive diction in order to sound intelligent, just a need for a meaningful statement. In Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer, one doesn't need to relate Henry to one's self. However, if one were watching a film and trying to figure out exactly how the character could get to the point of murdering another individual, etc, one would need to look within one's self and place one's self in the situation. One may watch the film, sum up the events of the killer, and try to explain the emotional state objectively. That is nothing more than a response, and it hardly requires thouhght. One can give an account of a film by watching it objectively; that is a given, and it doesn't require any real thought or reflection. One may understand what the dillema is that one may be facing, but they can not truly appreciate the hardship involved in that dillema until relating one's self to the actual individual, the type of individual, the situation, etc. Watching a film and understanding the beauty and "birth of a nation" does not require any internalization of the subject matter, you're right about that. However, if one wished to understand the plight of one individual within that society, one would need to think of what it must feel like to lose one's family, etc. I am not speaking of an objective response. If you read the post carefully, I speak of a THOROUGH appreciation, which includes internalization on many levels. Writing from an objective standpoint doesn't require much, and many individuals can hide behind objectivity in order to safeguard themselves against humiliation. The one's who immerse themselves in the work to some degree, and attempt to plow through the emotions faced by the character, deserve more respect. Many writers of the past, such as Frederick Douglas for instance, have written the most beautiful work from an objective standpoint while stuck in turmoil; but if a closer look is taken at the work, the objectivity is nothing more than an attempt to separate one's self from the one's surroundings because it is too difficult to deal with at the moment. And more importantly, the internalization of the situation has already taken place, thus, the objective standpoint can be taken. One dimensional appreciation of art requires nothing more than objectivity, but a thorough understanding of it, as I have stated before, requires far more. One can accurately sum up the plight of a character and sound as if they understand, but it is nothing worthy of respect. If one can relate one's self to the art form and perhaps even try to write from the perspective of one of the characters, that would very beautiful. Because not only does it require a bullshit one dimensional perspective of the entire situation, but a personal internalization of the subject matter and the effects. The power of the writing/response is made all the more powerful, as a result. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)" [This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-04-2001).]

One shouldn't have to feel insulted for posing a question in regards to something they've watched. Harley, your commentary on Starcapone's original question is a generalization, and a weak one at that. It has no real bearing on the original question. The question was not meant to be taken as a "precursor for emulation." Any individual who wishes to thoroughly understand an art form (whether it be theatre/television/film/etc) must identify with and relate one's self to the character that is being observed. The relation of the self to the art form is the most direct and clear account (aesthetcially speaking), and more importantly, it is used as the most honest measuring stick of one's accuracy regarding the character one is analyzing. When asked on an a reflective essay whether or not one see another's characteristics within one's self, the goal is not to detect whether or not one wishes to emulate that character, but to simply detect whether or not one has a wholesome understanding of the character's life/perspective/mindset/reactions, etc. It is not as one dimensional as the emulation that you suggested. The fact that Starcapone is female adds more credibility to her question; it shows a wholesome internalization of the show. Asking other's if they can detect something within themselves from the characters on the show is not a question that should be picked apart in a half-assed psychoanalytic manner. I find it strange that an individual can not ask a question without feeling as if he or she is asking something ludicrous. Save the long winded analyzation-of-the-question for something worthy of such dissection. It's a question on a viewer's part regarding something she is watching. You seem to understand that, but if you want to seem logical, you would leave it at that. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)" [This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-04-2001).]

The word "Dinner" would have to be mine. Something about it makes me hungry, and reminds me of a very relaxed setting in which one can sit and calmly eat one's meal without any interruptions. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

Starcapone's original post had very little to do with "emulation" of the characters, so that response really has no validity in relation to the question. It is not abnormal or strange for one to identify with characters in a show that one watches; it helps with the understanding of the show, and the dillemas that the characters face. Candace Bushnell's book was about realistic situations that people do go through. The show takes an original perspective on three women in manhattan who are succesful, intelligent, and at their sexual peak. That is not too difficult for many women to identify with. Some of the sitautions they face may be off the wall, that is why the show is a form of entertainment. However, as far as personality traits go, it is not strange for one to identify those same traits within one's self. The characters are ineteresting, and very peculiar; just as many women who are intelligent, succesful, and able to have the luxury of being independent and free with their sexuality are. The question was a very good one, Starcapone. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

A mixture of vaginal and rectal fluids. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

What you did to me: Rockell (JP rmx) Touch Me: Rui Da Silva (feat. Cassandra) Derb: Derbis Partyalarm: Aquagen Ihr Seid So Leise: Aquagen Versus: Tomcraft Vs. Sunbeam The Beginning: Xavier Jacome Ezekial 25:17: Josh Collins Feelin Me: Kim Sozzi (JP rmx) Come With Me: Sal Dano The Lightning: Future Primitive The Future: Future Primitive Darkside: Future Primitive Melt to The Ocean: Cosmic Gate The Drums: Cosmic Gate Mental Atmosphere: Cosmic Gate Phatt Bass: Aquagen Remix Lovemachine: Aquagen (Cosmic Gate rmx) The Chocolate Track: Whachamacalit ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

PI is a good movie, but Requiem was better. The plot of PI was far more original than Requiem, but Requiem was far more interesting. One can't associate with the character in PI as well as one can with the characters in Requiem; they are less eccentric than the number cruncher in PI. Some of the same actors from PI are in Requiem; I noticed that the Dr. that Jared Leto's girl was seeing in Requiem, was the main character in Pi. And the mentor to the main character in PI played a brief role in Requiem as the individual who buys the television from Jared Leto in the beginning. He also played Antonio Nappa on OZ, for that matter. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

It was definetly a great movie. I don't think the subject matter itself was very original, but the way in which Arrenofsky handled it (especially through camera usage) was beautiful. Most shocking of all was the ending; I watched the last portion of it high and the mother's dillema is what really fucked with my head a little bit. Out of all the the plots within the movie, the mother's seemed the most tragic. What happened to her really scared the shit out of me. Her ending was too fucked up to even watch. I couldn't help but wonder what it would be like to love one's family so much, and then be left alone to literally go nuts in one's home. The most powerful element of the film was the point in which the Doctor informs the mother than they were unsuccesful to bring her back from her psychological state. Directly after that, the scene switches to her being electrocuted. Shocking film, and beautifully directed. The theme music (that was being played when all of the character's were hitting rock bottom) is shocking as well. Listening to the melody while watching the mother's outcome was very disturbing. That would be a NASTY fucking melody to speed up a little bit and put over a sick house beat. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

Is this the same Madd Myles that did "Defenders of Vinyl Vol. 3?" If so, I enjoyed that compilation, and I am sure your upcoming work will be just as great. Great work. ------------------ "I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"