Helpful ReplyHot!Women you shouldn't but you would

Page: << < ..1617181920.. > >> Showing page 19 of 23
Author
Whitey
  • Total Posts : 8887
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/03 01:53:57 (permalink)
JUDGEDREDD
I don't find them attractive, it's just confusing



Ohhhhh, confused should we?!

CTRL + ALT + WHITEY
Rudiger01
  • Total Posts : 2144
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/05 17:52:47 (permalink)

dreamworld
  • Total Posts : 3943
  • Status: online
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/05 17:55:36 (permalink)

Rudiger01
  • Total Posts : 2144
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/05 17:56:35 (permalink)
She is my definition of women for this thread. Ive fucked a fair few birds who are exactly like her.
 
God bless Aol chat rooms
Willfunk
  • Total Posts : 14580
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/05 19:19:54 (permalink)
Rudiger01



Hahaha fuck off
Rudiger01
  • Total Posts : 2144
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/05 19:20:55 (permalink)
Imagine how filthy she would be in the sack. There is literally nothing she wouldnt put up herself on cam for your gratfication
badder2
  • Total Posts : 1615
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 11:51:01 (permalink)
Jheeze louise Rudiger 
MR.EQ
  • Total Posts : 16879
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 12:18:02 (permalink)
What a beast, I wouldn't ride that into battle. How long did it take you get those pics of her with her giblets all hanging out Rudiger?! 

SIGS, EVERYTHING SIGS.
Smoked Eggs
  • Total Posts : 1547
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 12:32:22 (permalink)
Rudiger01
Imagine how filthy she would be in the sack. There is literally nothing she wouldnt put up herself on cam for your gratfication




and there is literally nothing I would want to see up her!
dreamworld
  • Total Posts : 3943
  • Status: online
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 12:34:37 (permalink)
Ride it into battle lmao

There's a vid of her going to town to herself and she's got a nice fanny wart to chew on, nutritious!
The Waco Kid
  • Total Posts : 43347
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 13:00:20 (permalink)
I'm with Rudiger on this one. Disgusting in all the right ways.


Jimmy2Shoes
  • Total Posts : 5703
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 13:11:34 (permalink)
Right old thing
DasItMane
  • Total Posts : 1193
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 13:17:15 (permalink)
She's fucking groce in all the wrong ways
Whagwan
  • Total Posts : 22235
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 13:21:13 (permalink)
Is Rudiger Dublow returned?
Smoked Eggs
  • Total Posts : 1547
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 13:57:44 (permalink)
Whagwan
Is Rudiger Dublow returned?




 

Kenny Rogers
  • Total Posts : 19698
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 14:04:32 (permalink)
Jesus Christ Rudiger. She is horrendous

I bet her fanny stinks

Slippery Mick
  • Total Posts : 4391
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 14:05:54 (permalink)
Fair play to Rudiger, he's clearly quite comfortable with how depraved he is.
Smoked Eggs
  • Total Posts : 1547
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 14:12:06 (permalink)
Rudiger, would you have a go on Kay as well?
 

Willfunk
  • Total Posts : 14580
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 15:56:26 (permalink)
Those pasties are shit. WNB
Rudiger01
  • Total Posts : 2144
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 19:08:38 (permalink)
SmokedEggs
Rudiger, would you have a go on Kay as well?
 





Fuck no. I think.
Geordie007
  • Total Posts : 18771
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 19:36:51 (permalink)
willfunk
Rudiger01



Hahaha fuck off



 
Those tits tho...
RAYZA
  • Total Posts : 89495
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/06 20:07:17 (permalink)
Wronguns
Fiend.
  • Total Posts : 961
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/07 12:20:27 (permalink)
Nice one Rudiger, maintaining a good thread standard there.

...is this what you want???
D_L
  • Total Posts : 157
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/08 07:11:08 (permalink)

Willfunk
  • Total Posts : 14580
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/08 07:12:41 (permalink)
Can't work out if that's Celine Dion or the girl out of Black Books
Whiskey_Bill
  • Total Posts : 2266
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/08 07:36:08 (permalink)
That's a dude
H. H. Holmes
  • Total Posts : 2602
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/16 14:08:40 (permalink)


Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo are two of Canada’s most notorious serial killers. The pair confessed to raping and murdering and least three women, but it’s widely believed that they killed far more people than that. Their crimes are unimaginably awful. Homolka started her killing spree by drugging her own teenage sister and presenting her to Bernardo as a wedding present. She joined her fiance in raping and murdering her own sister, filmed the whole thing, and went on to do the same thing to many more young girls. Bernardo was sent to jail for life—but Homolka worked out a plea deal, and after confessing to raping, torturing, and murdering three people, she only spent 12 years in prison. She was released in 2005.

I bet she's utter, utter filth.
w1003
  • Total Posts : 3332
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/16 14:27:10 (permalink)
Whowhere


Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo are two of Canada’s most notorious serial killers. The pair confessed to raping and murdering and least three women, but it’s widely believed that they killed far more people than that. Their crimes are unimaginably awful. Homolka started her killing spree by drugging her own teenage sister and presenting her to Bernardo as a wedding present. She joined her fiance in raping and murdering her own sister, filmed the whole thing, and went on to do the same thing to many more young girls. Bernardo was sent to jail for life—but Homolka worked out a plea deal, and after confessing to raping, torturing, and murdering three people, she only spent 12 years in prison. She was released in 2005.

I bet she's utter, utter filth.


@traffic

sigs have returned
 
BRB
Rudiger01
  • Total Posts : 2144
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/16 17:19:37 (permalink)
The definition of a danger shag right there. All. Day. Long.
DNBADMAN
  • Total Posts : 1173
  • Status: offline
Re: RE: Women you shouldn't but you would 2017/04/16 20:26:26 (permalink)
Whowhere


Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo are two of Canada’s most notorious serial killers. The pair confessed to raping and murdering and least three women, but it’s widely believed that they killed far more people than that. Their crimes are unimaginably awful. Homolka started her killing spree by drugging her own teenage sister and presenting her to Bernardo as a wedding present. She joined her fiance in raping and murdering her own sister, filmed the whole thing, and went on to do the same thing to many more young girls. Bernardo was sent to jail for life—but Homolka worked out a plea deal, and after confessing to raping, torturing, and murdering three people, she only spent 12 years in prison. She was released in 2005.

I bet she's utter, utter filth.


Looks like an 80's pic.
Page: << < ..1617181920.. > >> Showing page 19 of 23
Jump to:
© 2017 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.0