Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

klp wrote:NO, because the approved example is to "lay" with your wife?

But using command ,example, and necessary inference must the woman be on top or bottom?

B.H. wrote:

klp wrote:NO, because the approved example is to "lay" with your wife?

But using command ,example, and necessary inference must the woman be on top or bottom?

B.H. wrote:

klp wrote:NO, because the approved example is to "lay" with your wife?

But using command ,example, and necessary inference must the woman be on top or bottom?

All things are permissable, BH.

Ivy wrote:

B.H. wrote:

klp wrote:NO, because the approved example is to "lay" with your wife?

But using command ,example, and necessary inference must the woman be on top or bottom?

All things are permissable, BH.

But not all things are expedient.

B.H. wrote:

Ivy wrote:

B.H. wrote:

But using command ,example, and necessary inference must the woman be on top or bottom?

All things are permissable, BH.

But not all things are expedient.

We'll just leave it right there.

Dodger wrote:So if the neighbors see them they don't think that they are dancing!

Got it

We'll just leave it right there.

It feels really, really, really good with it there doesn't it.


No, BH. Just - No. Agricola

No, BH. Just - No. Agricola

As you wish .

BH - no real names!


For the record, for those who missed it (and I hope you did), BH posted a series of statements which I considered outside the permissible usage on this board, and I deleted part of a previous post.

I didn't see it, but if Agri deleted it it must have been really bad!!!