I would be careful, not every (premium) subscriber shows it in their view.
They are free kids. Iâm a firm believer in monogamy, but it must be that Iâm over 40 and this polyamory thing is more widely used.
Anyway, just because you like anal doesnât mean you have to be suspicious. If you say it sexually speaking (like she likes men and thatâs why she looks for that kind of sex), it seems to me that itâs falling into an unfounded prejudice.
Now, if you say she wants it anal because she has other pussies, I donât know. Iâm just talking about what these cameras show.
1 Like
Well, Ariela doesnât spend the day cooking either 
1 Like
if they werenât already snoring
2 Likes
Excuse me! According to a previous US President oral doesnât constitute sex! 
2 Likes
The defence used by President Clinton with Monica Lewinski.
off topic but a good defense
When Is Sex Not âSexual Relationsâ?
By Richard Lacayo
When Bill Clinton gave his deposition in the Paula Jones case, he said he had never had âsexual relationsâ with Monica Lewinsky. But Lewinsky has reportedly testified to a number of acts that most people think of as sex. Can both statements somehow be true? Is it possible that the two of them had intimate contact, yet Clinton still did not perjure himself? In the intricate world of the law, a world of hairsplitting distinctions where the President is famously at home, it just may be so. Hereâs why.
At Clintonâs deposition, Jonesâ legal team asked Judge Susan Webber Wright to approve a very precise, three-part definition of sexual relations. Clintonâs attorney Robert Bennett objected to the whole definition, but to the last two parts especially, as being too broad. Wright agreed to disallow parts 2 and 3, leaving only the first, narrowest definition of sex in place.
With that, Clinton may have been given the room to offer a technically âtrueâ denial to the question of whether he had sex with Lewinskyâeven if she happened to perform fellatio on him. The truncated definition characterizes sex in terms of a checklist of body parts, including the genitals, breast and thigh. Oral sex would not necessarily require the President to touch anything on Lewinsky that appears on that list. Strange as it may sound, under one reading of the definition, Lewinsky could have been having sex with him (because she was âtouchingâ the Presidentâs genitals) while at the same moment, he was not having sex with her. (At the deposition, Clinton wasnât asked if she had sexual relations with him, just if he had them with her.) Isnât the law a wonderfully intricate device?
There are problems with the legalistic defense. For one thing, if Clinton and Lewinsky did have oral sex, is it really likely that he did not touch any body parts mentioned in the Jones definition? (Lewinsky has testified that Clinton fondled her.) And because that definition says that a person engages in sex if he or she âcausesâ contact with the genitals of âany person,â it could be argued that Clinton caused Lewinskyâs contact with his, even if he did not otherwise touch her. He could reply that she was the cause, or at least the active partner, while he was merely the passive receiver, but that makes him seem like either an implausibly shrinking violet or a very cool customer. Beyond all that, Lewinskyâs secret grand-jury testimony may simply be so detailed and explicit that it leaves no room for loopholes.
Even if the word-wiggle keeps Clinton out of the perjury trap, it wonât help him politically because it doesnât account for his Jan. 26 televised insistence that he âdid not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.â When he spoke before the cameras, the lawyerly definition of sex wasnât in f___e. And in a recent TIME/CNN poll, 87% of those questioned said that oral sex was, well, sex. Hiding behind the ultimate tortuous legalism could help the President get through his testimony, but it wonât pass the laugh test with the American peopleâwhich is why Clinton wonât be parsing the meaning of âsexual relationsâ in any public statements. --By Richard Lacayo.
2 Likes
Very true regarding couples. As for Will, well I canât give a true reply as I really havenât been watching so not much sense me speculating. And I agree. as an adult she makes her own life choices and as any adult has to live with them they be they right or wrongâŚlearn and adjust accordingly.
2 Likes
Superb naked images of them both but wasted because of distance from cams. Daft.
1 Like
I fully remember all of that lol
2 Likes
He only got caught because he dropped a load on her dress and she never washed it that dam DNA will get you caught every time
1 Like
There are more than a thousand videos⌠itâs obvious from your nonsense answer that you canât reach any source.
I have no intention of convincing you of anything. Happy Sunday 
Soooo 100% true. Had it not been for that dress and his DNA on it wouldnât have had any traction and the his impeachment would have never happened.
2 Likes
Youâre the one who gave me dumb answers. I donât need to prove anything to you.
Will wants to take that ass if he hasnât already. We all know how much he likes anal.
3 Likes
Heâs the king of anal itâs only a matter of time
1 Like
OMG The guys caught up 
1 Like