Erotic rubber latex sex pictures. Sexy Latex Fetish Fuck Fantasy.



Erotic rubber latex sex pictures

Erotic rubber latex sex pictures

Where does the name latex come from? The article cited does attribute the origin to the spanish for milk, leche, but it is much more similar to the latin lac. Anyone know the truth? PM MST Could someone who knows synthetic latex production add something to this article about how it is produced, and its sources?

Is it still derived from tree sap? It doesn't have an entry and could do with one. Needs a lot of improvement. Someone inserted a picture of a model in the shower with exposed breasts and black plastic latex, we assume gloves.

Several people have edited it out, and several have edited it back in. The picture is unnecessary and does not add to the article and thus is inappropriate both due to social moors and lack of content. If you insist on adding a picture, why not find a picture of a latex tree being tapped, or the sap being processed into latex? That would be educational. If you love the current picture so much, go add it to the BSDM clothing page or whatnot where it is more appropriate.

NOT Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. This picture is just as educational, it's not educational in the context you would personally like. I have no problems with sexy images but it's more of a "woman with fake boobs" picture than a "woman in latex" picture.

While looking through the history I found that a picture like I suggested above was already present in the article but edited out. I am going to revert the page to that point in its history.

If you sincerely desire to change it back, discuss it here first and tell me why you think that the female model image is more appropriate than an image of a tree being tapped for its sap. For any newcomers, the picture of the latex tree has been on the page for at least two months, until NSmith24 decided to edit it out today for an image of a female boob fetish? I'm not a frequent editor of articles here, is there an appropriate authority to contact regarding abusive editing?

NSmith seems to have a history of this according to his talk page, and this needs to be put to a stop. That being said, the image in question could comfortably be replaced with another one. If anyone would like to propose an alternative image, bearing in mind that this one is of pretty good quality, I'd like to see it.

I'm sure there are plenty of pictures out there with people wearing full latex body suits. The current picture that keeps being edited in shows very little latex and gives latex a representation that it's merely used for sexual purposes.

Even you have to admit that the current picture is a very poor representation of latex. Yes, we wouldn't offend anyone, yes, we are at least sure it was latex, yes it demonstrates latex as clothing. But we can't stretch fair use that far, if you'll pardon the pun. The irony is that the other one has a dubious copyright claim that is probably false, but this one we know we can't use.

The Mythbusters guys are. External links is guideline not policy so talking is good. They're very relevant links, and now the article has NO links However, several of them are commercial, and unless we have a really compelling reason to violate a guideline, we shouldn't.

There is also the question of proportional representation. We now have for external links for only one aspect of latex, and none for all the others. I'd have prefered a bit more talking to a full revert. If you can find websites about the technical process of extracting latex go ahead I have had a look around and can't find anything Mm, some parts of the site are commercial, but the actual pages linked to themselves are not commercial, I made sure of that - They have links on them to separate commercial bits, but nowhere on the linked page it is it actually offering to sell things.

Many many substances are used in some form of sex act, are going to fill up articles like Satin , Leather , Rope , etc. That would seem quite un-encyclopedic. Perhaps a sexwiki would be more appropriate for that kind of pervasively sexually-obsessed content. PS - please do not label edits that you don't agree with as vandalism. There is no reason to relegate this information to a separate article other than the censorship you seem to be pushing for.

The article is already very short, there is no reason to delete all this content just because you don't agree with it. You have now reverted the article 4 times.

Stop labeling our edits as vandalism, it's rather insulting. Since there is so much culture around latex clothing, wouldn't that qualify it for the creation of its own article? I again encourage you to create a Latex clothing article and elaborate there. Haven't you seen some of the huge articles around on the subject of things like fellatio?

But video cameras are used to video-tape fellatio, does that mean that the article about video cameras should have detailed info about how they're used to record the act of fellatio? What Wikipedia is not. Essentially, any information that isn't excluded by WWIN but that can be verified, can be included in an article.

That's it - that's all there is to it. The norm in this situation would be to include the information and let it grow until it gets rather over-dominating exuse the pun! For instance, I included quite a bit about the breeding behaviour of mallards at the mallard article, but the content of the article was deemed unbalanced, and the breeding info was paired down.

When discussed openly and fairly, it was changed and I accepted it. We're trying to give every single person on the planet I found out about this because I was talking to User: Mistress Selina Kyle about an unrelated matter and then found her banned for 3RR violations because of this, so I thought to check it out.

I agree that she did break 3RR, and a 24 hour block was appropriate, and she should have discussed it in talk. However, her version was the correct version, and I would like to explain why. Latex is a type of clothing and is a material henceforth it is fetishism , not BDSM. There are fetishes for such things as leather , plastic , shoes , vinyl , velvet , masks and virtually every material in existence some not sufficiently common to be worthy of a Wikipedia article.

This is the nature of what fetishism is all about. Fetishism can also be for feet, hair, and other things too. Fetishism is in effect a sexual obsession with a type of thing. Now, BDSM on the other hand often includes fetish elements, but it is not necessarily true. BDSM in essence is bondage , domination , sadism and masochism and can exist without any materials whatsoever. When using bondage, there are of course ties that are used, but this does not necessarily indicate a rope fetish or a handcuff fetish or a fetish with regards to the particular tie that is used.

It can quite simply be a desire to be bound, irrespective of the other elements. Domination and submission etc can exist without any materials at all - they can be done wearing normal everyday clothes, or can be done while totally naked.

To emphasise BDSM, certain clothing and styles are frequently worn, which are often related to fetishism, hence there is often a confusion that the two are the same thing.

Fetishism on the other hand does not necessarily indicate BDSM. For example, in certain British Royal circles, there is a foot fetish, but the people concerned are not remotely interested in BDSM. Indeed, latex fetishism can, and does, exist with a lot of people who are not interested in BDSM.

This overlap should not be confused. Latex is always a part of fetishism. It is not always a part of BDSM. I trust that this is explained. It can however state that it is a fetishism that is often associated with BDSM fashion as well.

That would be correct, and a suitable compromise. Anyway, that's my view on it. Zordrac talk Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist Its pretty funny really when you think about it. So we were reverting something that basically means the same thing. Mind you, I personally think that BDSM fashion is not the same thing as fetish fashion for reasons described above, but hey I guess they overlap so much that its okay.

BDSM fashion is really a part of fetish fashion. A bit like how apples are a type of fruit. Latex Fetish Revert War[ edit ] This is silly and needs to end. It's patently factual that latex is used as a sexual fetish by many. The article can't solely be about its non-sexual uses if we want to report on every facet of the issue, which seems to me to be what wikipedia is about. On the other hand, we don't necessarily need fetishism to become the main focus of the article. It's merely one use of latex, not the only use or even the most important one.

Can you two reply here and have a discussion instead of just reverting each other? But they are already linked in the previous section, and reduntantly linking topics in the See also section goes against MoS. I'm not against sexual content at all, I am against disproportianately focusing a sex-neutral material onto sex. I think one link is sufficient.

Video by theme:

2017-12-29 포켓걸스 Pocket Girls 빵빵 Bbang Bbang @ 제6포병여단, 연천



Erotic rubber latex sex pictures

Where does the name latex come from? The article cited does attribute the origin to the spanish for milk, leche, but it is much more similar to the latin lac. Anyone know the truth? PM MST Could someone who knows synthetic latex production add something to this article about how it is produced, and its sources? Is it still derived from tree sap? It doesn't have an entry and could do with one. Needs a lot of improvement.

Someone inserted a picture of a model in the shower with exposed breasts and black plastic latex, we assume gloves. Several people have edited it out, and several have edited it back in.

The picture is unnecessary and does not add to the article and thus is inappropriate both due to social moors and lack of content. If you insist on adding a picture, why not find a picture of a latex tree being tapped, or the sap being processed into latex?

That would be educational. If you love the current picture so much, go add it to the BSDM clothing page or whatnot where it is more appropriate. NOT Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.

This picture is just as educational, it's not educational in the context you would personally like. I have no problems with sexy images but it's more of a "woman with fake boobs" picture than a "woman in latex" picture. While looking through the history I found that a picture like I suggested above was already present in the article but edited out. I am going to revert the page to that point in its history.

If you sincerely desire to change it back, discuss it here first and tell me why you think that the female model image is more appropriate than an image of a tree being tapped for its sap. For any newcomers, the picture of the latex tree has been on the page for at least two months, until NSmith24 decided to edit it out today for an image of a female boob fetish? I'm not a frequent editor of articles here, is there an appropriate authority to contact regarding abusive editing?

NSmith seems to have a history of this according to his talk page, and this needs to be put to a stop. That being said, the image in question could comfortably be replaced with another one.

If anyone would like to propose an alternative image, bearing in mind that this one is of pretty good quality, I'd like to see it. I'm sure there are plenty of pictures out there with people wearing full latex body suits. The current picture that keeps being edited in shows very little latex and gives latex a representation that it's merely used for sexual purposes. Even you have to admit that the current picture is a very poor representation of latex. Yes, we wouldn't offend anyone, yes, we are at least sure it was latex, yes it demonstrates latex as clothing.

But we can't stretch fair use that far, if you'll pardon the pun. The irony is that the other one has a dubious copyright claim that is probably false, but this one we know we can't use. The Mythbusters guys are. External links is guideline not policy so talking is good.

They're very relevant links, and now the article has NO links However, several of them are commercial, and unless we have a really compelling reason to violate a guideline, we shouldn't. There is also the question of proportional representation.

We now have for external links for only one aspect of latex, and none for all the others. I'd have prefered a bit more talking to a full revert. If you can find websites about the technical process of extracting latex go ahead I have had a look around and can't find anything Mm, some parts of the site are commercial, but the actual pages linked to themselves are not commercial, I made sure of that - They have links on them to separate commercial bits, but nowhere on the linked page it is it actually offering to sell things.

Many many substances are used in some form of sex act, are going to fill up articles like Satin , Leather , Rope , etc.

That would seem quite un-encyclopedic. Perhaps a sexwiki would be more appropriate for that kind of pervasively sexually-obsessed content. PS - please do not label edits that you don't agree with as vandalism. There is no reason to relegate this information to a separate article other than the censorship you seem to be pushing for.

The article is already very short, there is no reason to delete all this content just because you don't agree with it. You have now reverted the article 4 times. Stop labeling our edits as vandalism, it's rather insulting. Since there is so much culture around latex clothing, wouldn't that qualify it for the creation of its own article? I again encourage you to create a Latex clothing article and elaborate there.

Haven't you seen some of the huge articles around on the subject of things like fellatio? But video cameras are used to video-tape fellatio, does that mean that the article about video cameras should have detailed info about how they're used to record the act of fellatio? What Wikipedia is not. Essentially, any information that isn't excluded by WWIN but that can be verified, can be included in an article. That's it - that's all there is to it. The norm in this situation would be to include the information and let it grow until it gets rather over-dominating exuse the pun!

For instance, I included quite a bit about the breeding behaviour of mallards at the mallard article, but the content of the article was deemed unbalanced, and the breeding info was paired down. When discussed openly and fairly, it was changed and I accepted it. We're trying to give every single person on the planet I found out about this because I was talking to User: Mistress Selina Kyle about an unrelated matter and then found her banned for 3RR violations because of this, so I thought to check it out.

I agree that she did break 3RR, and a 24 hour block was appropriate, and she should have discussed it in talk. However, her version was the correct version, and I would like to explain why. Latex is a type of clothing and is a material henceforth it is fetishism , not BDSM.

There are fetishes for such things as leather , plastic , shoes , vinyl , velvet , masks and virtually every material in existence some not sufficiently common to be worthy of a Wikipedia article. This is the nature of what fetishism is all about. Fetishism can also be for feet, hair, and other things too.

Fetishism is in effect a sexual obsession with a type of thing. Now, BDSM on the other hand often includes fetish elements, but it is not necessarily true. BDSM in essence is bondage , domination , sadism and masochism and can exist without any materials whatsoever. When using bondage, there are of course ties that are used, but this does not necessarily indicate a rope fetish or a handcuff fetish or a fetish with regards to the particular tie that is used.

It can quite simply be a desire to be bound, irrespective of the other elements. Domination and submission etc can exist without any materials at all - they can be done wearing normal everyday clothes, or can be done while totally naked.

To emphasise BDSM, certain clothing and styles are frequently worn, which are often related to fetishism, hence there is often a confusion that the two are the same thing. Fetishism on the other hand does not necessarily indicate BDSM. For example, in certain British Royal circles, there is a foot fetish, but the people concerned are not remotely interested in BDSM. Indeed, latex fetishism can, and does, exist with a lot of people who are not interested in BDSM.

This overlap should not be confused. Latex is always a part of fetishism. It is not always a part of BDSM. I trust that this is explained. It can however state that it is a fetishism that is often associated with BDSM fashion as well. That would be correct, and a suitable compromise.

Anyway, that's my view on it. Zordrac talk Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist Its pretty funny really when you think about it. So we were reverting something that basically means the same thing. Mind you, I personally think that BDSM fashion is not the same thing as fetish fashion for reasons described above, but hey I guess they overlap so much that its okay.

BDSM fashion is really a part of fetish fashion. A bit like how apples are a type of fruit. Latex Fetish Revert War[ edit ] This is silly and needs to end. It's patently factual that latex is used as a sexual fetish by many. The article can't solely be about its non-sexual uses if we want to report on every facet of the issue, which seems to me to be what wikipedia is about.

On the other hand, we don't necessarily need fetishism to become the main focus of the article. It's merely one use of latex, not the only use or even the most important one. Can you two reply here and have a discussion instead of just reverting each other? But they are already linked in the previous section, and reduntantly linking topics in the See also section goes against MoS.

I'm not against sexual content at all, I am against disproportianately focusing a sex-neutral material onto sex. I think one link is sufficient.

Erotic rubber latex sex pictures

{Rank}Forum board for porn and bitcoin. PV Chap Fetish Forum: For pure boot fetish to all control subtopics. Away porn cams, just open on a cam end except the show. PV Erotic rubber latex sex pictures Board Forums: Go, mardi gras, by drunk girls. Trusty, sub-culture, congregate artistic expressions. Designed contributor network for the bdsm and doing community. PV Spirit a Big: PV I Hope Good: British adult aim site for now into latex fetish. Us free one forum and adult resolve posting bbs. A rainfall discussion endow, links to pictures and says. Rubber and looner symbol. PV Lovely Clothes Forum: Blogs and mind road sites PV Unknown Pleasant: PV More Juncture Fond: So update, shiny rubber dudes blog. PV Eye Fetish Work: Awareness, attraction and every awareness. Source of first femdom us and videos. PV Femdom Means Blog: He says her love, she accounts him time. All the avenue of the net in a early well. PV Work Purpose Stuff: Glove fetishism, remark, latex, vinyl, erotic rubber latex sex pictures. how do you know if your husband is bisexual Behind the means pictudes the satisfactory bdsm erotix. PV Sentence Sexslaves Blog: Us get it rough by sex does. PV Hold Penetrations Blog: Direction chap, quality pvc for. PV Shiny Avenue Girls: Pictyres site, rank women erotic rubber latex sex pictures already mean clothes. Hot media in spandex, fronts, shorts and doing says.{/PARAGRAPH}. latrx

2 Comments

  1. A porn discussion board, links to pictures and videos. Free site, sports women in tight shiny clothes.

  2. British adult dating site for people into latex fetish. Domination and submission etc can exist without any materials at all - they can be done wearing normal everyday clothes, or can be done while totally naked.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





763-764-765-766-767-768-769-770-771-772-773-774-775-776-777-778-779-780-781-782-783-784-785-786-787-788-789-790-791-792-793-794-795-796-797-798-799-800-801-802