Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

chrischmchris · 06-07-13 23:23:38

The fantasy of getting or being wet is quite common while masturbating ("Oh, I'm so wet..") which you actually confirm while talking with other girls. Yet I just Wonder why none of the quite many performers I watched untill now almost never get wet - which after all is one of the major sign of excitment - isn't it? Do you have a clue about this? Maybe because of the "artificial" character of the performance? The stress? This is excepting the few ones who, like Chica for example, occasionnally "fountain". But otherwise, most of the performers appear more like neat-and-clean models like in magazines...
I'd like to have an artist or performer's view...
Thanks in advance.
ChMChR

Aaronhalt · 07-07-13 00:07:18

In my reasonably wide experience, it's rare for women to produce lubrication in such an excessive quantity that it ends up outside of the body in large quantities. This makes sense - biologically the purpose of getting wet is to facilitate the insertion of a penis. Once you've started substantively lubricating the outside world you're really into overkill territory. I mean, it happens, much like squirting happens, but it's a neat quirk that demonstrates the wide variety in human physiology.

Which is to say that the women of IFM do get wet - you can tell because often, once they do, they go for vaginal insertion of something. And there is a physical sense of being ready for something in your vagina, which is what "I'm so wet" tends to refer to - "I've produced enough natural lubrication to start fucking now." It's just that, you know, that's slightly less hot to say.

The image of lusty women who are just dripping with anticipation is one of those illusions of mainstream porn with less relationship to actual sex than one might think.

WLV612 · 07-07-13 00:55:11

Aaronhalt wrote:

The image of lusty women who are just dripping with anticipation is one of those illusions of mainstream porn with less relationship to actual sex than one might think.

Nicely stated.

viva · 08-07-13 01:25:43

Yeah, because of that porn stereotype, I actually thought there was something wrong with my body. I thought I was like, frigid or something cause I don't soak my panties every time I have a naughty thought.

Aaronhalt's right - when I feel like I am "so wet" - a slippery, swollen, drippy feeling - there's actually not much visual change, and you won't know unless you, well, put some part of yourself inside me. And then you will feel that I'm wet, that my body wants you. It's great. Things only really get messy when I've been penetrated quite a bit - open, visibly wet, etc. That does not describe the average solo masturbation session (unfortunately).

I love getting wet now in exactly the way that I do. I can hear it, I can feel it, and when I'm actually having sex I can definitely see it, because the more you fuck the wetter you get. I'm surprised and kind of touched every time I feel myself get wet in the course of a day, it's amazing - and if there's a little wet spot on my underwear, that's a billion times more sexy to me than the imaginary potential soaking because it is actually real and happening to me.

Okay so your answer is, yes lubrication is generally part of arousal and most women on IFM do get wet, you just can't see it. You can usually hear it though.

chrischmchris · 08-07-13 02:10:23

Well, well. Thank you for the lesson in physiology, and the comment on bad porn; nicely put in effect. Sort of a politically correct stating - but not too convincing. How would you then explain that quite an excited woman wets her panties? Due to my age, I have some experience of life which give me some "clinical" idea of the matter. And by the way, I also am a lecturer in sexology...Quite true, there is a variety of lubrications in different women and also acdording to all sorts of factors of condition, environment, etc. I agree, and this is why sometimes a lubricant is wellcome. As a general rule, the intensity of lubrication is very much related to the intensity of excitment. As of the matter here, let me state that since I invite my students to visit both B.A. and IFM and, as you imagine make to them the same sort of comment you do about mainstream pornography, nonetheless, this question of lubrication was put to me several times by some of my feminine students! In fact, as one of this ladies quite rightly put it, the very few evidently lulbricating artists (look for instance at the artist Jasmin in her very nice "Prodigal 2") upon the number ofthem is strikingly out of statistics. So the question remains - what would it be due to? I would have appreciated a statment both more related with effective experience, facts and sincerely concerned with truth . Thank you for further comments in this direction.
ChMChR

aven frey · 08-07-13 02:31:14

I think you might be a bit confused, Chica and Jasmin ejaculate, this is a different thing all together.

Here is some 'clinical' information for you and your sexology class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation

Also, Viva was generous enough to describe her experience in response to your question, it was a very intimate and personal description and for you to dismiss that as 'not too convincing' and 'politically correct' sucks. Also it's stupid, really do you expect anyone else is going to be more forthcoming with the 'truth' when this is how you respond to them?

Aaronhalt · 08-07-13 02:35:40

aven frey wrote:

I think you might be a bit confused, Chica and Jasmin ejaculate, this is a different thing all together.
Here is some 'clinical' information for you and your sexology class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation
Also, Viva was generous enough to describe her experience in response to your question, it was a very intimate and personal description and for you to dismiss that as 'not too convincing' and 'politically correct' sucks. Also it's stupid, really do you expect anyone else is going to be more forthcoming with the 'truth' when this is how you respond to them?

"Lecturer in sexology" even sounds like "professional mansplainer," doesn't it?

viva · 08-07-13 02:39:47

dear Chmchr,
I find your attitude tiresome and insulting. You seem to be calling me a liar, and not a very convincing one at that. How dare you? How rude can you get? I've shared some really personal things with you. I think you're probably not a very good sexologist if you think that every woman gets wet enough to soak through cotton every time she gets (truly?) aroused. Who are you to judge what a woman should do when she gets aroused?

you want politically correct? fuck you.

I am a woman and I do not get wet in that way you demand and describe, yet I know arousal well. I explained how wetness connects with my sexuality above in generous detail. YOU'RE WELCOME.

I am tired of guys like you who demand realism and then criticize because we don't all live up to your expectations. if we moan too loud or don't get wet enough, we're not real. You don't want truth, yet you demand it of us as if we were lying, ashamed little children.

To be judged 'real', we should flush in the right way, make wet puddles on the bed, get really tired out from the frenzied pace of our lusty masturbation, squeal and scream (but only because we truly can't help it), and of course, cum like a champion (but not too overdone please). Every orgasm should be so intense it practically kills us, every part of our body should function exactly as you imagine it should, no one should fart, no one should need lube, no one should be scared, no one should cry (or should everyone cry??) no bellies should rumble, not a hair out of place (or in place, when it's meant to be mussed) and DIDNT WE JUST HAVE THIS DISCUSSION!?

okay look, you big older experienced wise educated man you, you're right, you got us, we're all fake and this is a fake website and everyone on it is secretly part of a grand conspiracy to dry out every vagina on earth. whew. it feels great to get that off my chest.

Aaronhalt · 08-07-13 03:05:40

viva wrote:

dear Chmchr,
I find your attitude tiresome and insulting. You seem to be calling me a liar, and not a very convincing one at that. How dare you? How rude can you get? I've shared some really personal things with you. I think you're probably not a very good sexologist if you think that every woman gets wet enough to soak through cotton every time she gets (truly?) aroused. Who are you to judge what a woman should do when she gets aroused?
you want politically correct? fuck you.
I am a woman and I do not get wet in that way you demand and describe, yet I know arousal well. I explained how wetness connects with my sexuality above in generous detail. YOU'RE WELCOME.
I am tired of guys like you who demand realism and then criticize because we don't all live up to your expectations. if we moan too loud or don't get wet enough, we're not real. You don't want truth, yet you demand it of us as if we were lying, ashamed little children.
To be judged 'real', we should flush in the right way, make wet puddles on the bed, get really tired out from the frenzied pace of our lusty masturbation, squeal and scream (but only because we truly can't help it), and of course, cum like a champion (but not too overdone please). Every orgasm should be so intense it practically kills us, every part of our body should function exactly as you imagine it should, no one should fart, no one should need lube, no one should be scared, no one should cry (or should everyone cry??) no bellies should rumble, not a hair out of place (or in place, when it's meant to be mussed) and DIDNT WE JUST HAVE THIS DISCUSSION!?
okay look, you big older experienced wise educated man you, you're right, you got us, we're all fake and this is a fake website and everyone on it is secretly part of a grand conspiracy to dry out every vagina on earth. whew. it feels great to get that off my chest.

Viva is a national treasure. Of multiple nations. I wish she were my sexology lecturer.

aven frey · 08-07-13 03:15:34

Aaronhalt wrote:

"Lecturer in sexology" even sounds like "professional mansplainer," doesn't it?

Yeah but he's got female students so he can totally use the n word, or whatever.

richard · 08-07-13 06:06:19

Chris you've been extremely rude to Viva after she shared her personal experience, and you owe her an apology if you want to keep posting on this forum. And even if you don't.

On a technical level there are 3 answers to your question that even as a man I think I can offer - (1) you're confusing different vaginal fluids and their purpose and origins; (2) you're generalising; and (3) if you touch a woman and find her wet, and moreso her underwear is wet, she has probably been in a heightened state of arousal for some time (I can't think of any other reason she'd be consenting to being touched there, unless you're a medical professional). Preparing for IFM is probably nothing like the foreplay that precedes sex and that might explain why some women may not appear as externally wet in an IFM session as they may during foreplay and sex. And as Viva says and apropos of point 2, you can't extend the experiences of some people to apply to all people.

chrischmchris · 09-07-13 00:28:17

Author: chrischmchris
Dear All-of-you, Gee, there is a huge misunderstanding here which make me feel very sorry, especially and above all to have seemed to be incorrect towards anyone and especially towards Viva who I by no means ever meant to hurt – since I well understand from her strong reacting that she was. Truly sorry for that. Such an attitude is neither of my kind, nor of my culture lesser to my education. The thing is that when I wrote my post, I was answering to Aaronhalt and WLV612. At that moment, there was no other post, and certainly not Viva’s. I have no idea how it happened that now, Viva’s post appears before mine..?? I discover it now, with all the ones which came next. Let me put it straight: I am a scientist, I am an emeritus professor who has researched, taught and published about sexual health and sexology . I am used to critical discussions which is a foundation for acquiring knowledge. It never was my style nor my intention to be polemical. Contradictory arguments should be welcome to be examined to study different aspects of a problem – not to arouse vindication. And besides, we shall always be modest regarding the “definite truth”. I used to draw my student’s attention upon the fact that in reality, there is no such thing as an “history of science” but rather one of the errors of scientific theories! Let me now state that I regret that, evidently due to the emotion aroused following the above mentioned misunderstanding, my “contradictors” did not read me and lesser so understand me right. So let me explain my point and restore some probity in the debate.
To start right, allow me a comment about Viva’s touching post – the first one. As I said, I shall ignore the second one motivated by an understandable anger. There certainly are in the pornographical environment some disgusting persons. But be sure that they are everywhere – the academic world is a bastion of them. I certainly was struck by and did appreciate Viva’s honesty and sincerity and the effort to talk straight (parler vrai in French). Quite aware of the disastrous effects of ignorance and preconceived ideas in sexual matters, I have been a founder of a curriculum course to train specialists in sex education, always insisting on the necessity to “talk truth” to children and adolescents – according to age and development – about sexual matters and not restricting it to “preventive medicine” – which at the origin was my field. So, I can well understand the feelings Viva expresses about how she initially felt about “something being wrong with her” because supposingly not “like it should be”! She speaks of a reality I know very well and of which I made a central point of all my teaching: the diversity of human sexualities in all of its extremely rich and complex array of anatomical, physiological, sociological, cultural and last, but not least, mental factors. Social overall predominant ideas are in all fields as a rule stereotypes – and not only pornography. Very few of our “ideas” in fact are really scientifically founded, but are conventional: “Italians are seducers, drive fast, eat pasta and sing operatic songs in the streets”. And porn just exaggerates conventional thinking about social roles, how sex “should work” and so on, and also magnifies fantasies. It’s its purpose and the reason why it works. I taught my students that the main point in sexuality is to reckon as a rule the human diversity and reach personal satisfaction and comfort knowing one self’s desires and ways of “functioning” and not to correspond to preconceived ideas. In this I consider IFM a fantastic effort in approaching life as it is and this is the reason why I used it a lot as reference in my teaching.
To close the point, I certainly applaud to and thank Richard for tackling the matter (once again, since we had quite a few other exchanges in the past, as I was still in office)) the most soundly. His view corresponds to the clue I had and the answer I gave my students: "preparing for IFM probably nothing like the foreplay...etc." This is probably the ultimate necessary and inescapable limitation to IFM's effort to present "naturality". It is most of the time "as-near-as-possible" to reality. And sometimes, it may happen to reach it - as in the example of Jasmin. Not, again, saying that Viva’s not! But there again are differences in sexual functions.
I am afraid that my intention and attempt to start a cognitivist debate here might have reached the wrong place. It is a pity in a way, since I truly think that IFM has accumulated a tremendous amount of facts, altogether in the artists performances and in the talks and that this could be a wonderful platform to cross information’s with those of sexologies, descriptive, clinical and experimental. You might be aware for instance that there is a field of study in “orgasmology”. I have in my last academic years expected some of my student to suggest to me a study paper based upon your presentations. Some tried, none ever concluded, for different reasons. I would have had a lot more to say here following the different remakes made to me in the several posts: about the primary and fundamental role of mental states in sexual arousing and functioning (i.e. the nice research on this topic by Beverly Whipple, emerita professor at Rutgers University, USA, showing how, contrary to anatomy and physiology, some medullary injured persons reach sexual competence!) , about the effective differences between people but, however, about the bell curve statistical “normality” which tells us something about a “medium-majority” – far from me the idea of “reducing” everyone to a generality! Also the much discussed and not closed question of vaginal fluids and women’s ejaculation (every sexological congress has a session on the topic!), the differences between orgastic and orgasmic response which today is central to account for lots of sexual problematics, etc.
So, good people, really sorry that our discussion started with this terrible misunderstanding that led to this evidently profound feelings of being hurt and insulted in Viva. I do hope that my explanations will help her now to feel better about the whole thing.
Kindly to all of you,
ChMChR

viva · 09-07-13 02:17:57

I accept your apology, thanks.

I still think that your attitude is misguided, and perhaps based in a combination of personal fantasy, specific sexual anecdotes, and a shallow understanding of texts written by men about women.

You continue to quote Jasmin as an example of someone who gets 'as near as possible' to reality, when in fact she is ejaculating, not only lubricating.

This indicates a pretty big disconnect in your understanding of the female body, despite your claim as an educator and scientist of human sexuality.

My first answer was concise and addressed your question properly. Apart from my personal anecdote, I offered an observation as someone who has watched over 1000 videos of women masturbating from start to finish in the last couple of years.

While contributors usually don't start out lubricated, women on IFM do generally get wet. One can hear it, and I, having no expectations about what 'wet' looks like, and being pretty sensitive about this stuff, can see it. Perhaps you cannot perceive it because you are expecting something else.

I said in my first post that usually the body is nice enough to lube up when it's clear there's going to be a lot of internal friction - which there usually isn't in masturbation, by the way. Thanks body - but not always. Lubrication has to do with arousal, penetration, and also time of day, state of hydration, one's place in her menstrual cycle, her age, her emotional state, any aches/pains/conditions, and simply who she is - as you well know.

Vous avez raison, on peut apprendre beaucoup sur la sexualite des femmes avec IFM. Mais les femmes ne sont pas des livres et il n'y a pas de reponses simples ou d'analyses techniques ici. Je vous prie de vous rappeller que chaque contributeur est une personne a part entiere qui offre quelque chose de vulnerable et de courageux. Posez vous questions avec la deference et le respect qui leur est du. Merci

WLV612 · 09-07-13 03:02:36

viva wrote:

you're right, you got us, we're all fake and this is a fake website and everyone on it is secretly part of a grand conspiracy to dry out every vagina on earth. whew. it feels great to get that off my chest.

I knew it! I knew it from the start! Now I have you all! I was flattered to be mentioned though my contribution was minimal.
I stand by Aaronhalt's statement regarding mainstream porn.
Viva, that was one of the funniest statements I've read on this site and for the record, it's a win/win when you get anything off your chest.

My approach to this whole topic is simplistic, as I mentioned on the other forum. If I enjoy what I see on IFM, I really don't care how it was put together. I've been a member long enough to know IFM offers a certain style of content and there's not a lot of smoke and mirrors about that product. If there was, these forums wouldn't exist. No need for them to exist. Viva, Richard and Aven have taken time to sensibly, honestly and openly address a member's comments.
Why? This is not a tribunal. It's a site where you pay to join to view the content. The content is real. Real enough for me. I can't see the point in quizzing each and every contributor about how they felt, how their bodies responded, anymore than I expect to get PM'd by each contributor asking me details about my thoughts and responses.
I gotta say, you all are some well versed writers who have the rare gift of imparting your thoughts in an intelligent and civilized manner. Well done.

chrischmchris · 10-07-13 16:32:28

The simplistic approach is fine with me. There are others possible. I have been using this site as a contribution to a scientific approach of human sexuality and in particular this territory of feminine one, which was long thought to be misunderstood and / or misconceived - though we more and more discover that it is very much less so than male sexuality which appears to rely very much more on superficial and very conventional image it gives of itself. Men in fact are far more secretive than women upon their intimacy and feelings.
Back to the use than can be made from IFM contribution to knowledge, this type of experimentation can hardly be implemented within academic research for all sorts of ethical, material . and credit reasons. Research credits are restricted to the "due fields", admitted and recognized by the academic world. This is why I think it worthwhile exploring.
At that rating, there is no undue questioning, nor is there matter of “opinion” here. What I or you are supposed to “think” or fantasy is totally insignificant. This is why, though having been personally cursed at here (“fuck you!”) by a staff member and would have expected, after due explanation of a sound misunderstanding, a moderation from the webmaster restoring probity in the exchange, I shall overlook the incident. The misunderstanding remains upon the object of the inquiry. I just regret not to have been read properly. But I admit the difficulty to cross or superpose fields – it is a constant problem in interdisciplinary research.
So dear young Viva, calm and cool down there really neither was nor is nothing personal in all this. And believe me, since I heard you like reading, what books teach is not always rubbish and academic knowledge remains by far the best and the more accurate humanity produces. As of an scholar like me, do not underestimate the amount of knowledge, scientific probity and dedication it takes to occupy an academic position. Knowledge is gained by hard work and honest and sincere dedication. That is my view. In this, you cannot avoid errors, which after all in turn pave the way to knowledge. But my intentions were never obscure or disguised, and I certainly never imagined that IFM was “fake” – all on the contrary! But for the sake of honest research, giving it a second thought upon another basis than the “simplistic approach”, one realizes the tremendous difficulty (and most probably the quasi impossibility) to reproduce on demand the conditions of intimacy. And to the field of orgasmology, this is a central question in view of understanding the real components of effective pleasureable experiences (considering for instance the critical difference between physiological orgastic response and the mentally elaborate orgasmic one) and its related body signs; and this, in turn, for the eventual purpose of helping some people to live better- which in the end is the whole purpose of sexology.
Last but not least, as to the question of feminine ejaculation, as the Wikipedia (which is far from being a recognized scientific reference!) site a colleague of yours mentioned puts it rightly, it remains a much disputed question. And here again, science will have to demonstrate way further what one would “think”, imagine or want to observe. As a great scientist puts it, if simple observation and scientific knowledge were identical, science wouldn’t exist! One may have hypotheses, hints, even intuitions – these are still not proofs.
May I in conclusion assert, excuse my immodesty here, that I was a very good professor and very appreciated by his students quite a number of them still keeping contact with me. I also happen to be a recognized scientific authority. But it is of no importance here – just maybe to help you to resize you’re “anger” against me!
With my kind regards to all of you.
ChMChR

chrischmchris · 10-07-13 16:41:23

P.S.: I may not be able to read a further comment, since I quit the site after this three month period of observation and work. I am not sure at all, being now retired that I'll keep on being active in this field.
Sincerely,
ChMChR

WLV612 · 10-07-13 18:28:26

Professor,
While my educational level cannot come close to your level, more specifically in the area of scientific research involving female sexuality in all it's various forms and given the fact you've only posted eight times, I have to believe you've spent hours and hours studying IFM, it's contributors, the work produced and in all likelihood the forum exchanges, would I be correct?
It would seem to me, with my limited views and "simplistic" approach that your initial step would be simple observation while you establish your base line, your, "norms" from which to work, would that be correct as well?
That leads me to believe in my "simplistic" way that the two approaches are not necessarily exclusive. One observes, develops a working hypothesis and then uses research to further develop a scientific theory.
I would guess, and only guess that in three months a bit more interaction of this forum may have been of some use in your research.
If nothing else, you would have discovered that Ms. Viva is outspoken, generous with her time, honest to a fault and difficult to anger. She has an extremely high level of intellect and would be unlikely to misunderstand a slight or insult if you will.
Not fighting her corner, she hardly needs anyone to play that role, just positing my own view.
On the other hand, I with my limited intellect would take something as simple as using quotation marks on the word simplistic as a mark of condescension.
I would hope to see you back on the forum at some point and perhaps share some of your findings. I think they'd be interesting to read and study.

Last edited by WLV612 (10-07-13 18:29:08)

chrischmchris · 10-07-13 20:20:51

Dear WLV612
As a matter of fact, there is in my view a lot of material produced within IFM – and, BA too, for that matter – that would be of great study interest and I keep on suggesting younger colleagues to consider making it a study field. Had I gone so far, I’d certainly drawn a research project and then taken contact with you for eventual partnership, should you have been interested. As you rightly suggest, the Forum(s) is/are also in themselves a tremendous fund that could bring a rich array of interesting data. Having myself discovered and used IFM in my last years of office, I never got to that stage. I only have mainly searched out for illustrations of my teaching about fantasies, scenarios, masturbation modalities, orgasmic expressions and aesthetics of pleasurable experiences. And also to some extent comparison / opposition to “mainstream pornography” – or as so called “good porn” as Erica Lust puts it! I made IFM one upon my diverse sites or literature recommendations to my student for an experimental approach of human sex life. Thus being quite clear upon the fact that, like any type of inquiry about sexuality there is an unsurpassable limitation here that lies in the fact of the “self selection of the sample” (in research terms!) which makes it not statistically significant to permit generalization to the whole of the human kind – be it only westerners. Here again, you ‘d have to remain prudent and modest in conclusions.
Concerning the methodology of research, you are quite right about its possible observational base and the further drawing of hypotheses. But the very object of scientific investigation is to question that observation, through the intervention of a research setting. It can be some sort of measure like a statistical apparatus, so called “armed observation”, computerised image analysis, etc., etc. This problem of the belief in the “objectivity” of the observation is the Achilles' heel of much of scientific views themselves. Good part of medicine practice until recent years relied on it; doctor’s were formed at observing and accumulate thus “clinical knowledge” or “clinical hints” . Since not so long ago, thorough researching proved the “clinical impression” wrong in too many cases, so that today, the line of acceptable medical practice is “medicine based upon proofs”.
No condescension in using brackets. You’ll notice that I didn’t in the first place. It is just a way of referring to something someone else said – a quotation in other words, or to an expression or to put evidence on something.
And don’t worry about my appreciation of Viva. I have had a lot of students in my career, I know of their enthusiasm and sometimes over passionate implication in the task, that is implicitly a lack of distance you gain with age which leads them sometimes to this very special mode of expression you would qualify further on in life as excessive or inappropriate. I certainly was myself one of the kind and gladly had intelligent, understanding and admirable professors! I’ll keep her post as an ad perpetuam rei memoriam of the kind! But I am sure that Viva is a good girl, don’t worry! My remark about being cursed at was not to her, but much more a formal one concerning the moderation of the site by the webmaster. I might well have been suspected, at first, to have discarded someone’s true and sincere contribution; this does not authorise a staff member to vulgarity with the correspondent. That was my point. Furthermore, once the case clarified, you should “give the exit ticket” as psychologists put it. Not to me particularly, but as a rule. But as to the case here, no problem. If Miss Viva has herself well understood that it was a regrettable misunderstanding in the first place, our posts having been inverted, “all’s well that end’s well” as the Poet puts it rightly!
Kepp well, good people, cuidense y que la pasen bien!

ChMChR

chrischmchris · 10-07-13 20:35:22

PS: as I said before, my subscription will stop at any moment and I have no purpose now to renew it, since i have now collected the informations I was looking for. Who knows if I come back in the future - this will depend upon my para-profesional activities. I am now on a new continent and demands have been adressed to me to contribute to form sex educators here. So I might be back. But in the meantime, I won't be able to carry on discussing with you here. Nor reading your further comments. Sorry.
Bye,
ChMChR
ChMChR

viva · 11-07-13 01:03:36

Something about being called a good young exuberant passionate puppy dear girl-child just rubs me the wrong way. I don't really know why?

aven frey · 11-07-13 01:25:07

But Are You Wet?

viva · 11-07-13 02:05:19

BEHIND THE EARS MAYBE!

Aaronhalt · 11-07-13 04:46:25

This is the greatest thing ever to happen on this forum.

richard · 11-07-13 05:05:35

I think I've worked out who writes those Nigerian scam emails.

artist_sequoia · 11-07-13 07:09:37

check out mins 6.00 and onwards of my newest vid Up Close...plenty of wetness there...

#1 06-07-13 23:23:38

Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#2 07-07-13 00:07:18

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#3 07-07-13 00:55:11

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#4 08-07-13 01:25:43

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#5 08-07-13 02:10:23

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#6 08-07-13 02:31:14

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#7 08-07-13 02:35:40

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#8 08-07-13 02:39:47

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#9 08-07-13 03:05:40

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#10 08-07-13 03:15:34

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#11 08-07-13 06:06:19

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#12 09-07-13 00:28:17

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#13 09-07-13 02:17:57

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#14 09-07-13 03:02:36

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#15 10-07-13 16:32:28

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#16 10-07-13 16:41:23

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#17 10-07-13 18:28:26

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#18 10-07-13 20:20:51

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#19 10-07-13 20:35:22

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#20 11-07-13 01:03:36

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#21 11-07-13 01:25:07

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#22 11-07-13 02:05:19

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#23 11-07-13 04:46:25

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#24 11-07-13 05:05:35

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

#25 11-07-13 07:09:37

Re: Why so little performers ever get "wet"?

Board footer