Recomended For Rationals
For a large selection of Pre-Internet, softcore, newsstand
NO flames, NO burning leaves, No Carbon-monoxide,
NO tar. No Ash, No Butts. No Tobacco,
|3 main reasons to switch to Vapor:
* SAVE MONEY
- Vaping is much cheaper in the
long run, and face it, you've been smoking a long time.
* Avoid Carcinogens
- NO flames, NO burning leaves,
NO tar. NO tobacco
* Avoid Nicotine,
If you want - (Nicotine strength is optional)
E-cigs mimic smoking so well, you won't know you quit.
* SAVE MONEY - A single Disposable
E-cig costs $7.50 to $10 and replaces 1.5 to 2 packs of tobacco.
A Rechargeable Kit is $30-50, but e-juice refills are $5-10 and replace
Recharges off a wall socket, USB port or car lighter.
* NO Carcinogens, No
Carbon-monoxide. No Tar, No Ash, No Butts. NO
- NO BURNING of anything,
Vapor (e-juce or e-liquid) is just:
Water, Propylene Glycol*, Vegetable Glycerin, Nicotine (or not), and flavor.
* Nicotine is Optional
- E-juice comes in several strengths of Nicotine, from x-tra to none,
So you can nurse yourself off Nicotine - or not.
(Nicotine. is NOT a carcinogen. But it IS addictive.)
And unlike patches, e-cigs look, feel, & taste just like tobacco
You can even vape traditional tobacco flavors with no Nicotine. You
won't know you quit.
But you'll want to try ALL the NEW FLAVORS.
For further reading see the
*Propylene Glycol is a common
pharmaceutical & food additive with full aproval of the FDA. (GRAS)
One property of propylene
glycol, irrelevant to vaping, is that it lowers the freezing tempature
So it is also used as a
component in certain NON-toxic coolants used by the Food and Beverage industry.
For further reading see
Not Recomended For Non-Smokers
FLING E-cig replaces 1.5 to 2 packs of tobacco.
Vape-R.us site map
Stolen from DOMAI:
"A new movement is started now, one that appreciates
the beauty of girls
, and want it
to be acknowledged for itself, not something
that is just there to support Art or
stimulate sex. We respect woman and her
, and we celebrate it.
Don't get us wrong, we have nothing against porn
in principle, and we certainly have
nothing against fine art! It is only thatSimple
Nudes is its own thing, is independent of
and should not be confused with those two
Obviously quite a lot of art and photography throughout
history can be fitted into
"simple nudes". But most of this is
a retrofit, an overlap from either fine art or soft
erotica. This focal point is a new
thing. We tend to forget that pornography/erotica only a few decades ago
was illegal all
over the world, so people did what they could
get away with, which then of course often looked like simple nudes.
is that pin-ups, "cheesecake" and so on basically
disappeared once porn was legalized. And it has taken a few decades of
legal porn for enough people to get fed up
with it, and being open now to the possibility of Simple Nudes,
without the focus
- Eolake Stobblehouse, DOMAI founder
Stolen from Body In Mind:
"Doom and gloom
Every religion has its
story about the end of the world, each describing man's depravity, his
abandonment of values and the resulting self-destruction of human civilization
on an apocolyptic scale. What they don't say is that female beauty can
save us. Female beauty is the natural representation of human values, and
moral men are naturally attracted to it. Over millienia this sexual selectivity
created Pamela Anderson from a cavewoman. Without female beauty mankind
will lose its way. 'Pursue values or perish' is nature's commandment to
mankind. But the religions of the world tell us to do the opposite - to
sacrifice values. To save the world? No. They simply tell us to sacrifice
until the world inevitably ends. So who are you going to believe about
the kind of values required for human survival? Nature and beautiful women?
Or an ancient book written by someone who can't wait for the world to end?"
Have you ever noticed that some women look better in clothes and some
look better naked? They are all beautiful of course, but some, like fashion
models, seem made for clothes, and clothes seem made for them. Take them
out of their clothes and somehow they don't seem as glamourous. Take some
bikini models out of their swimsuits and they just don't seem as voluptuos
as they did on the cover of that magazine. Yes clothes can hide "flaws"
or accent a woman's assets but put the same clothes on some other women
- curvy and voluptuous women like Kelly - and somehow they fail to make
her look any better. The clothes might very well be her size but they just
don't "fit". Kelly has the kind of gorgeous body that belongs on a statue
in an art museum. Such beauty never looks better covered up; clothes just
aren't made for art models. Men often fantasize about a world where women
are all naked. But the truth is some women look better naked and some look
better dressed. From an aesthetic
point of view we're grateful for them all, and certainly
from a freedom standpoint women should be able to be as dressed or undressed
as they like. But let's not forget that the human body is a bit of a miracle
and that dressed or undressed it is worth looking at and enjoying for its