[1/2] Of class and grace, with an untouchable, divinely inspired eroticism ...
WARNING: Typical "ProfV" babble ahead ... you've been warned.
lol glad to hear you aren't sad that im not going hard....although...most of my longtime fans know better
There will always be newer fans with the same questions. Your class never escapes you as you take the repeat inquiry with such grace.
That combination of "the top echelon of women every FreeOnes member should know" (because they are so broadly popular) with "questions you don't need to ask about them" (because the answers are placed here) was my main driver for recommending FreeOnes have a "Princesses" title and page a couple of years back. Especially when you have someone as universally enticing as you, you get the repeat, male lust from all directions.
hmmmmmmmmmm guys getting off to pics of me. I LOVE IT!
The overwhelming majority of men -- despite the public macho'isms or appearance to the contrary -- are of the type to never do anything against a woman's consent, even this type of "by ourself" type of consent. This can and does extend to models who they will never have the pleasure of enjoying in-person (other than in a casual, non-intimate social environment). As such, although I cannot speak for men in general, any model who publicly clarifies they do not object to men pleasuring themselves to the thought of her delivers my conscience a great sigh of relief.
Because when the great majority of men are exposed to such an extreme example of pure, flawless beauty, we do have trouble containing our instinct and related lust. I.e., we will most definitely relieve ourselves at some point regardless of the "by ourself" type of consent by the woman. At the same time, we males are not simple creatures or as simple as the media and, not meaning to demonize women but, too many women believe. With the "by ourself" consent, it actually instigates even more pleasure for us, including an emotional and intellectual ease.
Some women, and understandably so from many viewpoints, believe that delivering the "by yourself" type of consent condones sexual attitudes towards women that are not just demeaning, but condones -- even if indirectly -- actual violations of women, or attitudes that it is not uncommon or undeserving. One of the early, spiritual "laws" of mankind was the common prohibition of envy and lust for women you do not have the consent of, I'll use the commonly quoted Judo-Christian phrase,
"Do Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife". This, in many interpretations, extends to the thought and lust "by ourself." But taking history into context, in the millenia before the printing press (if anyone carried/owned a book, it was a spiritual one), still a largely nomading, human populous and countless other lack of civility -- as most men can overpower most women -- it was about men commanding other men to not enjoy a woman without consent, as much as the consent of another man who is otherwise tied to the woman.
I have long argued that those spiritual "laws" are inversely proportional to the consideration man gives woman. I.e., if a man always treats a woman like a lady, always seeks consent and never engages in sexual gratification of himself at the expense of a woman, he does not need such a "law" to guide his already understood responsibility as he understand the covenant better than any "law" followed because of fear of damnation. For those men that look for "excuses" to sexually gratify himself with a woman who has denied him, among other situations, the concept of
"Do Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife" should not only apply literally, but the fact that he may not be entrusted to envy or lust for a woman from afar for he may violate her.
I have always been very open sexually and sexuality isn't BAD to me. it's NORMAL and natural. who doesn't think about someone or something that gets them going?
Indeed. Although I cannot even remotely speak for the wisdom of mankind, I can speak from loving the same woman for almost the last 15 years, and a good 5 years of loving, even if briefly, women before that.
The most beautiful and fruitful, emotionally for both themselves and mankind in general, are women are those who recognize the importance of lust. Lust is ingrained into men and women. Yes, lust has a poor history in mankind because men expensed the rights of women, but that need not continue, and should not. In fact, the last forty (40) years here in the US has seen a great and increasing debate across this spectrum. The traditional views must be broken, because no man or woman should be in the position to judge any other man or woman, and that is an universal truth. The only view that should always be followed is that people must give consent and people should be mindful of what they do prior to that consent. It's not even the "Golden Rule" as people differ on how they want people to treat themselves, so one must seek how others, individually, care to be treated. There is no "universal law" on this at all.
I dearly love my wife. No one is going to tell me otherwise. I love her completely at a sexual level, unlike any other. No one is going to tell me otherwise. No one can even question it, try as they might. But I am also a traveling consultant, away from my wife for at least 5 days straight, and sometimes more. I will enjoy the beauty I find of my wife in other women. She knows this. She knows my love. And I know what she desires in our relationship, including where my emotional and physical limitations should be with relationship to other women to appease her. But it goes even beyond that.
I hold no judgment, and even quite a bit of enjoyment at the thought of other people's happiness who do have multiple partners, polygamous relationship or otherwise just merely made nudity or erotic a healthy part of their responsible, sexual lives. For me, I have such a perfect wife in emotional, intellectual, physical and sexual prowess when it comes to our partnership as friends as well as lovers, so why would I ever settle for a woman less than my wife for an intimate moment? Yes, I still imagine and fantasize about other women when her features and grace drive my lust in the exact same way as my wife. But such women are just reminding me of the best features of my wife. And when I'm not traveling, I find that my eyes and lust are more than content with my nearby wife.
Your statements here, combined with my prior, are very important to make when it comes to many distinctions.
I would wish both the "religious right" and "free love left" would deliver in a single, combined and responsible message. Appeasing the sexual desires of men who would never take any action to go against the will of a woman is not, in the least bit, harmful. At the same time, men and women must join in the same, public symphony to proliferate the fact that women are never, ever to be violated, and some people are too irresponsible to deal with sexual pleasures (from the simple "sex addict" who forgets his responsibilities to the worst of rapists). With many in the religious right outlawing any thought of "erotica," they are actually harming this message by not separating the men who love women from the men who do not. And with some in the free love left (by "some" I would mean a much lesser percentage than the former, but they still exist), I have more than once recognize a sexual predator who was accepted as merely a fellow, male peer, and been chastized for bringing it to the attention of other men.
Yes, women have been crafted by a creator (which you'll often here my claim God Herself in her own, perfect image, but that's my own view) in a way that, physically, has one purpose. I do not candy coat that purpose in my own, lustful writings. But a woman must always deliver consent before a man partakes with her physically. Everything else will always be open for debate, although I wish more women had your attitude realizing we're not condoning the subset of men who would take their lust to levels the overwhelming majority of men do not. Nothing revokes a rebuke strong from me than when someone in the religious right quips, "oh, she deserved that by the way she dressed." Their own "spirtual seeking" has left them with a covenant that is, quite frankly, the most lacking in consideration for women (let alone everyone).
Even though I am a man, I refuse to apologize for viewing women as a sexual object. I will always do so in a social environment, although I do refrain from eying women below their neck in a professional or otherwise non-social or related happenstance setting. I refuse to do so because I am not one who needs to apologize for not treating a woman like a lady, because I always do, regardless of how she treats me. That is just how it has to be, and it does show off one's character, which can, more selfishly, reflect well with other women (who would appease my sexual desires). I only wish society would press this attitude upon people more, and not separate the concepts into "outcast" and (and often "versus") "respect" that cannot be combined into that single, proper message.
We honestly have to stop judging and start seeking out how other people, individually, feel and adhere to that and that alone, on an individual basis.
