Massage Adagio

Taylor Lagrande anyone seen her?

joektown

Member
Aug 30, 2017
41
19
8

brockwindsor

Member
Jun 23, 2016
26
28
13
What a bush....haven't seen one like in many years. Would love her to sit on my face for a while. I cant find any reveiws and she wants a deposit or a photo ID showing the the info on it.. Any help appricated.


Just had a Duo with Taylor and Emilia Dagger during one of Taylor's Toronto tours. It was a delightful hour, and I would have loved to stay longer as it seemed like the party would be continuing long after I left. I would recommend both of them.
 
Last edited:

Amancalledorst

Active member
Nov 9, 2017
121
75
28
Saw her . She couldn't have been nicer and i absolutely love tall girls. But she wore a wig and wigs freak the fuck out. I know this may sound strange or petty to other hobbyists, but they are really off-putting for me. I can't tell you why.
 

source

Active member
Jul 11, 2007
285
198
43
Saw her . She couldn't have been nicer and i absolutely love tall girls. But she wore a wig and wigs freak the fuck out. I know this may sound strange or petty to other hobbyists, but they are really off-putting for me. I can't tell you why.
If she uses a wig for a bush, It also would freak the fuck out of me!
 
  • Like
Reactions: buwft

Hustler095

New member
Aug 24, 2022
6
18
3
Met her today. It was a wonderful session. Slim natural beauty. Engaging and seductive. She was kind and the discussions were easy. She mentioned her offerings clearly. Not into Greek and doesn’t do kissing.

Her place was so clean and well maintained. Would definitely repeat.

 

Billking

Active member
Aug 8, 2022
217
105
43
Met her today. It was a wonderful session. Slim natural beauty. Engaging and seductive. She was kind and the discussions were easy. She mentioned her offerings clearly. Not into Greek and doesn’t do kissing.

Her place was so clean and well maintained. Would definitely repeat.

Was her bush hairy?
 
Dec 28, 2021
41
52
18
Of course her bush is going to be hairy (contain hair) otherwise it wouldn’t be a bush. 🤷‍♂️

Its autological.
Actually, "autological" means "possessing the property it describes. The word polysyllabic is autological, but the word monosyllabic is not. Because the word short is in fact short, it is considered autological." (Wictionary)

If one were to say that her bush is hairy, that would be tautological.
 

joedrake

Just someone living the life!
Sep 26, 2020
1,074
3,108
113
Of course her bush is going to be hairy (contain hair) otherwise it wouldn’t be a bush. 🤷‍♂️

Its autological.
Actually, "autological" means "possessing the property it describes. The word polysyllabic is autological, but the word monosyllabic is not. Because the word short is in fact short, it is considered autological." (Wictionary)

If one were to say that her bush is hairy, that would be tautological.
Who doesn't like a discussion like this... 🤓

For the term "bush is hairy" to be tautological and/or autological, it would depending on how the base terms "bush" and "hairy" are defined.

For the statement "her bush is hairy" to be "tautological", which means either (a) needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word; or (b) a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form alone, i.e. a logical combination of sentences that is always true (Merriam-Webster), the word "bush" would have to mean "hairy" to satisfy (a) or (b). Is there a circumstance where "bush" could be used to describe any amount of hair, and where the term "hairy" is used to describe only a large amount of hair. Consider how to describe a trimmed landing strip type of patch, there is some hair but is it "hairy". In such circumstances, the phrase "bush is hairy" may not qualify as being "tautological".

Regarding "autological", which is "of or relating to an adjective that is self-descriptive", i.e. an autological word is a word that describes itself (Oxford Reference), if the term "bush" were to include having "hair" regardless of the amount of hair, and where the term "hairy" is used to describe any amount of hair, then the statement "bush is hairy" would be "autological" as bush would include hair. However, if "hairy" is specifically defined as requiring a large amount of hair, and since there are situations where a bush does not always have a large amount of hair (trimmed landing strip), it could be concluded that a bush may have hair but is not hairy. Under those circumstances, the phrase "bush is hairy" would not be autological.

So, depending on the definitions of "bush" and "hairy", the statement "bush is hairy" could be autological and/or tautological.

After this exercise of the logic of the english language, I need some bourbon! Happy Hobbying! 😎
 

William St

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2018
1,698
1,839
113
Actually, "autological" means "possessing the property it describes. The word polysyllabic is autological, but the word monosyllabic is not. Because the word short is in fact short, it is considered autological." (Wictionary)

If one were to say that her bush is hairy, that would be tautological.
It's a tautology I can do without. Luxuriant pubic hair - not a turn-on. I do think Ms Dagger's pretty, however.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts