Ummi Hafilda the Prostitute's Ultimate Fantasy: Size not Foreplay but she Loves Oral Sex

Ummi Hafilda the Prostitute's Ultimate Fantasy: Size not Foreplay but she  LOVES Oral Sex

Karima el-Mahrough isn't letting the ongoing media frenzy over her alleged involvement with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi get her down.

Yes, God has sent us many signs. If not why would Augustine Paul expire at the same time as the sign above Umno’s headquarters? Was not Augustine the main scumbag in the Anwar Ibrahim trial?

Fernando then took the court through the testimony of Raja Kamaruddin Raja Wahid, a.k.a Raja Komando, who had, in fine detail, revealed how the conspiracy against Anwar originally unfolded and the role he was given in this whole conspiracy.

“Ummi Hafilda is a prostitute,” said Aziz Samsuddin Day three of Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal hearing at the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court hit a high note today when Christopher Fernando read out transcripts of the previous trial that quoted Aziz Samsuddin as saying Ummi Hafilda Ali is a prostitute.Fernando started by recapping yesterday’s proceeding where he had told the court Ummi had been disowned by the father after she confessed to writing the letter to the Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, accusing Anwar of sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar, one-time driver of Anwar’s wife, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.Ummi’s father, a religious teacher, just before he died, wrote an open letter to the Harakah detailing the reasons he had disowned her and, in no uncertain terms, implicated her as the prime mover behind Azizan.“Ummi’s father died broken-hearted without ever forgiving his daughter for the role she played in framing Anwar of sodomy charges,” related Fernando.

Fernando had earlier read out Azmin Ali’s (Ummi’s brother) testimony in court that proved she played an active role in the whole conspiracy.

The prosecution never called her to testify in court to rebut this allegation, added Fernando. Instead they expected the defence to call her. The judge, in fact, even mentioned this point in his written judgment. “But Ummi would have been a hostile witness so it should have been up to the prosecution and not the defence to call her,” argued Fernando.Fernando said that the court should have invoked Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act on the prosecution for failing to call a most crucial witness to testify in court.

Fernando then took the court through the testimony of Raja Kamaruddin Raja Wahid, a.k.a Raja Komando, who had, in fine detail, revealed how the conspiracy against Anwar originally unfolded and the role he was given in this whole conspiracy.

“The evidence of this witness will show he was invited to join the conspiracy with a view to topple the Deputy Prime Minister,” said Fernando.

“The meeting was held in the office of Aziz Samsuddin, the Prime Minister’s Political Secretary, on 26 June 1998.”

In the meeting, revealed Fernando, Aziz confirmed that Ummi and Azizan would pose no problem as “Ummi is a prostitute”.Raja Komando then asked Aziz whether there was any other way to bring Anwar down.According to Raja Komando, “Aziz replied sodomy would be the best way. Other ways would have no affect.”“Raja Komando’s role was to manage the political assassination part of the exercise,” added Fernando. “The sodomy allegation was assigned to Ummi and Azizan.”

“Raja Komando was to disseminate the allegation as far and wide as possible. He was also to spread word that Anwar is a CIA agent.”From what Fernando told the court today, it was clearly established in the meeting Raja Komando had with Aziz Samsuddin that he (Aziz) was the Chief Conspirator and that, while Ummi had written the purported “Azizan” letter to the Prime Minister accusing Anwar of sodomy, Aziz was the one who had edited and redrafted it.

The letter, Fernando said, was based on the book “50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot be PM” – which somehow found its way into the attaché bags of almost 2,000 delegates at the Umno General Assembly that year.“The judge did not give this evidence the weight it deserved,” argued Fernando. “He erred, grossly.”“If he had given the evidence the weight it deserved, would he have arrived at the judgment he did?”And what about the tragedies befalling the rest of the gang of conspirators? Remember what happened to Aziz Samsuddin, Dr Ristina Majid, Megat Junid, Mohtar Abdullah, Ummi Hafilda Ali, Azizan Abu Bakar, Hamzah Zainuddin, Rahim Thamby Chik, Daim Zainuddin, etc.?

The only two remaining yet to hit the dirt are the AG and the IGP. These two are still awaiting judgment on earth. And when it comes it will come hard and brutal. So stay tuned to see how the remaining scumbags find their faces hitting the shit in time to come

Question about oral sex?

You know what this questions about, so don't report

I'm not a virgin, but I've never really had sex with the same person more than like, 5 times. I'm  a whore! I sleep around a lot and I still feel pretty inexperienced.

I'm just wondering if almost all couples (well, the female in the couple) gives the guy a bbllooww jjoobb.

Will it be expected of me to do that? If I say no, am I more likely to get dumped?

Just wondering what y'alls opinions were. Thanks!

Why did men find low class Victorian Prostitutes appealing if the women rarely washed?

Ive heard that prostitutes from the victorian era ie (the low class ones that inhabited the streets during the jack the ripper killings) were of really bad taste--most of them ive read slept with 5 or more clients a day and did this in street alleys, as they were locked out of lodgings during the day.

none of them had access to a bath in-between clients as this was thought as time consuming, so why did men find this so attractive, and why would they pay for it.

UMMI immune from the law. Since is not visible to the majority of Malay society, police turned a blind eye to their lifestyle choices.

Streetwalkers/Brothel Workers

For these women, like Fantine in Les Mis, this type of lifestyle was not done out of choice, but out of necessity. The majority of women who walked the streets or worked in brothels did so because they were impoverished, or had a family to support. Either that, or they were abandoned and alone.

Courtesans often chose their lovers, out of jealousy and rivalry with other women of their social class. These women often held small jobs already, usually in small shops. They took bourgeois lovers who were already married as a form of social climbing. There was no chance that these women would ever have to resort to walking the streets.

Lower class prostitutes did not lead a pampered lifestyle. They did not have the benefit of money, clothes and extravagant gifts from their prestigious lover. They did not have one lover who they were attached to, but hundreds of men just interested in using them for their own sexual pleasure.

Courtesans and lorettes were very pampered. They received fine clothes, jewelry and gifts from their lovers. These women usually stuck with their lover until a better offer came along, or they were just plain dumped.

These women were frequently assaulted by male antagonists. There are reports of men wreaking havoc on brothels, as well as a large number of assaults on unregistered prostitutes. (The vast majority of which going unreported.)

While domestic violence against courtesans and lorettes probably occurred during that time, courtesans were sheltered enough that they were not very vulnerable to attacks by random men like the brothel workers were.

Streetwalkers especially had to be street-smart and avoid the police at all costs for fear of being arrested. Women who worked in brothels were kept on a list which tallied all the operating brothels in the city.

She charges £600 an hour, looks great in a court wig and robes, speaks several languages, knows her tort from her barratry and can charm half the High Court.

She's not a barrister, or a solicitor, she's a prostitute.

Mind you, she might be arguing cases before a court of law in a few years yet. If American, there's a good chance she's putting herself through law school. But for the moment, she is a prostitute. Far likelier then other kinds of prostitutes to be an Ethical Slut, she might not even charge for sex. Instead she calls herself an escort and charges her fee for her company no matter if they have any sex or not.

The High Class Call Girl is the highest class of prostitute and one that is usually safer, pays more and is seen as more glamorous. It allows for highly attractive actresses to look convincing as prostitutes and do plenty offanservice. Her clientele will mostly be men in the upper echelons of society; expect at least one of them to be a politician, particularly one who is always publicly stressing good old fashioned conservative Family Values. Having said that, if these girls are anything like their real-life counterparts, they cater to a higher-class clientele because they are classy, well-educated, and smart. The nature of this clientele may also lead to them becoming involved in a Hookers And Blow situation

Ummi confesses to being the architectthe Anwar sodomy allegation; a purely fabricated charge
During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.
In a new twist to the Anwar Saga, it was revealed that Ummi Hafilda Ali was the architect behind the accusation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan Abu Bakar. And, for this, she was disowned by her father just months before he died of a broken heart.

Christopher Fernando told the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court that Said Awang, the Director of the Special Branch, went to meet Azmin Ali, Ummi’s brother, who was then Anwar’s Chief Private Secretary, to solicit his (Azmin’s) assistance to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan.

What is most interesting by this revelation is that:

1. Said Awang went to meet Azmin BEFORE he met Anwar. Therefore, the allegation that Anwar had abused his position by summoning the Special Branch, and that he asked them to force Ummi and Azizan to withdraw the sodomy allegation, is a fallacy. In fact, it was not Anwar who summoned Said Awang to see him, but the Special Branch Director who took the initiative to meet Anwar.

2. The idea to persuade Ummi and Azizan to retract the sodomy allegation came from the Special Branch and not Anwar. During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.

3. The Special Branch was fully aware that it was Ummi who was behind the sodomy allegation and that Azizan was merely the instrument to the whole thing. That was why they wanted Azmin, her brother, to try to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation.

This sheds light on the previous day’s proceedings where Fernando revealed that Azizan testified three times, under oath, that Anwar never sodomised him – an admission that took even the trial judge aback.

Fernando related how Said went to meet Azmin to request a meeting with Anwar Ibrahim. In the meeting with Azmin, Said asked him whether Ummi is his sister and Azmin confirmed so.

Said Awang then asked Azmin whether he was able to persuade his sister to withdraw the sodomy allegation against Anwar but Azmin replied that would be impossible as he no longer talked to his sister since the allegation surfaced.

The Special Branch was aware that Ummi was behind the accusation and was, in fact, the plotter of the whole thing. And, the period when this discussion with Azmin was going on, the Special Branch had not met Anwar yet.

Azmin then called the family together to discuss the issue. In all, three meetings were held that included Ummi herself.

Ummi at first denied she had written the letter to the Prime Minister accusing Anwar of sodomy. Azmin then advised his sister to steer clear of the conspiracy, and that was when she admitted this would be impossible to do as she had been promised money and contracts for her role and, in fact, money had already changed hands.

Ummi later confessed to her father her involvement in the conspiracy and that it was actually she who had written the letter to the Prime Minister. The father, a religious teacher, then disowned her and, soon after, died of a broken heart, never forgiving his daughter for what she had done.

It was clear, from the testimony in court, that Azizan’s letter to the Prime Minister had been written by Ummi. Ummi had confessed to this. Azizan, in turn, during the course of the trial, admitted that Anwar did not sodomise him.

However, when the defence tried to bring up this very crucial bit of evidence during the trial, the trial judge disallowed it. The judge refused to allow the letter to be admitted as evidence or to allow Ummi to be called to court to testify.

Ummi’s role in this whole thing was clear and indisputable. The fact the sodomy accusation against Anwar was false was apparent. Just before he died, Ummi’s father wrote an open letter to Harakah, an opposition newspaper, explaining the whole matter and, in no uncertain terms, accused his daughter of involvement in the conspiracy to frame Anwar and of being the person who wrote the letter to the Prime Minister.

Had the judge allowed this crucial bit of evidence to be admitted, argued Fernando, it would have changed the entire complexion of the case and the judge would have been hard-pressed to find Anwar guilty.

Attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar of sexual misconduct charges; and Pak Lah is involved too

“There was an evil plot to secure a conviction through devious means,” said Christopher Fernando on the second day of Anwar’s appeal hearing in the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court.

Fernando then told the court that attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar on sexual misconduct charges.

One such case was Dr. Munawar Ahmad Anees, then one of Anwar’s speech writers, who was arrested and subjected to physical and mental torture to force him to admit he had a homosexual relationship with Anwar.

Fernando then took the court through the lengthy Affidavit signed by Dr Munawar on 7 November 1998 that detailed the experience he went through at the hands of the Malaysian police.

The torture he endured finally broke him and he admitted to the ‘crime’, which he later retracted in his Affidavit.

Fernando then brought the court’s attention back to the Manjeet Singh Dhillon matter that was raised in court yesterday to emphasis his point of yet another attempt to frame Anwar.

At this point, Fernando called upon the court to recommend a Royal Commission of Inquiry be established to investigate Manjit Singh Dhillon’s serious allegation against Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad as this is a most serious matter affecting the administration of justice and the rule of law.

“If they are found not to be involved in extorting fabricated evidence, then their names will be cleared,” said Fernando. “It will be to their benefit.”

“If they are involved, then they ought to be brought to justice. That is the only way to resolve this pressing problem and to restore public confidence.”

Clearly there was a concerted effort to frame Anwar. But these attempts were not confined to Malaysia. It also extended to the shores of the US as well, argued Fernando. One case in point was an incident involving Jamal Abder Rahman.

“We are trying to show a pattern, how witnesses were approached to give fabricated evidence and these efforts extended beyond the shores of Malaysia to the US,” said Fernando.

Jamal is an American citizen of Arab descent who operates a limousine service in Washington DC and had a contract to provide limousine services to the Malaysian Embassy in Washington.

In September 1998, soon after Anwar’s dismissal and subsequent arrest, a Malaysian Diplomat, Mustapha Ong, asked Jamal to declare that he had procured women and young boys for Anwar.

“A witness who constantly changes his stand means he is lying,” argued Karpal. “And yet the judge declared that Azizan’s testimony is ‘as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar’.”

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

“The prosecution not only wanted their pound of flesh, it also wanted a pint of blood”

Karpal Singh continued where he left off on Wednesday, 26 March 2003, by emphasising that Section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory and there is absolutely no discretion in the matter.

The Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court was told that the date on the charge against Anwar was amended twice; from ‘May 1994’, to ‘May 1992’, then to ‘one day from1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993’. The defence had asked for a postponement to allow it time to file its notice of alibi but the court did not grant this ten-day grace that it should have under the law.

“This violated Article 5(1) of the Constitution,” argued Karpal. “Dato Seri Anwar was deprived of his right under the law.”

Karpal said the trial judge had acted prejudicial and irredeemable and he ought not to have sanctioned the prosecution of Anwar.

Karpal then asked the court to consider setting aside the judgement against Anwar.

On the credibility of the prosecution’s star witness, Azizan Abu Bakar, Karpal said Azizan gave five conflicting statements at different points of time.

Azizan’s statement was recorded under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, under this section of the code, a person whose statement is being recorded:

1. Must answer all questions posed to him. (He/she cannot refuse to answer any question).

2. Must tell the truth. (He/she cannot lie).

3. Anything he/she says can be used against him/her. (Including cited for perjury if he/she lies).

Azizan, who had his statement recorded over five different dates from August 1997 until June 1999, however, kept changing his stand.

“A witness who constantly changes his stand means he is lying,” argued Karpal. “And yet the judge declared that Azizan’s testimony is ‘as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar’.”

“Far from it!” said Karpal.

“The duty of the prosecutor is not to obtain a conviction but to administer justice.”

“The role of the prosecutor should exclude the notion of winning or losing.”

Karpal said that since Azizan made five conflicting statements at different points of time, this “made an improbability of what actually happened.”

As for the fact that Anwar was charged in 1999 for an event that was alleged to have happened in 1993, the six years delay would have reduced his opportunity of preparing a proper defence.

“Memories fail with time erasing the ability to recollect happenings six years ago,” said Karpal. “A fair trial could not be achieved with such a long time lapse.”

“Under section 402A, Dato Seri Anwar’s trial should never have taken place. This is a serious miscarriage of justice.”

“Your Lordships are bound to rule that Section 402A has been infringed.”

The Bench and Karpal then engaged in a debate as to the notice of alibi which, according to the Bench, is to the benefit of the prosecution.

Karpal argued that it did not matter as to whose benefit the notice of alibi may be. It is something mandatory and not something the judge could use his discretion to rule. The defence had made a request for a postponement but the trail judge denied the request.

“The judge did not do his duty. He should have stopped the trial and all the evidence should have been ruled inadmissible.”

Karpal then related how the defence had applied for a postponement to allow the investigating officer to investigate Anwar’s alibi. The Attorney-General then, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, stood up to say he had no objections to the postponement.

“However, after lunch, the AG turned turtle and raised an objection.”

Even the judge had declared that the police should investigate the alibi. “Then, later, he turned round and said that it is their choice, that it was their discretion if they choose to do so.

“The judge said that it was the prosecution’s own funeral if they do not challenge the defence’s alibi.”

Karpal then told the court that the judge had stated that corroboration is necessary. He then turned around and said he was prepared to accept Azizan’s testimony without corroboration though Azizan was an unreliable testimony who perjured himself many times.

“Corroboration is necessary. But, if a witness is unreliable, then, even if his testimony is corroborated, it still cannot be accepted and should be rejected.”

Karpal then took the court through Azizan’s close proximity (khalwat) case in the Alor Gajah Syariah Court. Because of this case, Azizan’s credibility as a witness had been destroyed.

Azizan said he had revealed the alleged sodomy incident because of his “duty and honour as a Muslim.”

Karpal said the defence then requested to recall Azizan as a witness to reassess his credibility. The judge, however, would not allow it.

“You can put a label of a thoroughbred on a horse,” said Karpal. “But a donkey is still a donkey.”

“The judge was not only scraping the bottom of the barrel. He was scraping the outer bottom of the barrel.”

The investigation officer had testified that Azizan’s testimony had no contradictions. “Then why amend the date on the charge?” asked Karpal.

“Was the judge judicially honest in arriving at the decision that Azizan is a reliable witness who did not perjure himself?”

Karpal then said that medical evidence is prime evidence. “Why was Azizan not sent for a medical examination? This could have corroborated Azizan’s testimony.”

“The investigation officer admitted that there was still time to send Azizan for a medical examination.”

“The judge swallowed the evidence hook line and sinker.”

“Allegations of sodomy can easily be made but are very difficult to prove. The evidence therefore must be very convincing.”

In any trial, there is the prosecution’s case and the defence’s case. But Dato Seri Anwar was denied his constitutional right to a proper defence. Anwar, therefore, had only half a trial – which means he had no trial.

Karpal then asked the court to allow Anwar’s appeal and set aside the conviction.

“Anwar’s prosecution, in fact, ought not to have commenced right from the word go. No man properly trained in the law would have done what the AG (then) had done.”

“The prosecution not only wanted their pound of flesh. It also wanted a pint of blood.”

“Azizan’s evidence has turned to stardust.”

POSTED BY THE TAXIDRIVER786

BY CECIL FUNG 

KUALA LUMPUR: A High Court awarded Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim a total of RM4.5mil in his libel suit against Datuk Abdul Khalid @ Khalid Jafri Bakar Shah, the author of the book 50 Dalil Mengapa Anwar Tidak Boleh Jadi PM (50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot Become PM). 

Justice Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus awarded the former deputy prime minister RM4mil for defamation and RM500,000 for conspiracy to injure. 

Khalid Jafri and his wife Datin Rozihan A. Ghani, of Media Pulau Lagenda which published the book, were named as defendant and second defendant respectively. 

Justice Mohd Hishamudin also awarded costs to the plaintiff in respect of the proceedings for the assessment of damages. 

“Recent cases on libel actions in this country show that the current judicial trend in Malaysia is no longer to award millions of ringgit in damages for libel. 

“However, I am in agreement with Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah (Anwar’s lead counsel) that the facts and circumstances of this case are unique and hence the damages to be awarded must be reflective of the peculiarity of the case,” the judge said in his judgment. 

When met after the proceedings, Anwar, 58, said he was thankful that the case was finally settled. 

“I’m very pleased with the judgment. I’m completely vindicated. This is also the first judgment that made reference and affirmed the existence of a conspiracy to topple me,” he said. 

The 65-year-old author was not present in court. 

According to media reports, Khalid Jafri is in critical condition after being warded at a private hospital in Seremban for chronic diabetes on Aug 2. 

His right leg was *CENSORED* three days later. He is now warded at Selayang Hospital 

From there, she went on a tirade of Anwar's "sins", recounting her version of events that led to the former deputy prime minister's sacking from the government in 1998.

Ummi Hafilda attacked Anwar for his alleged sordid affair with PKR deputy president Azmin Ali's wife, Shamsidar Taharin, before launching a blitz against Anwar's alleged penchant for deviant sexual behaviour.

She went to the extent of telling the crowd Anwar's alleged apparent preference for lelaki jambu, or pretty boys, counting her brother Azmin, Rahimi Osman, who said he was forced to sign two statutory declarations related to Anwar's on-going sodomy trial, and Anwar's alleged sodomy victim Saiful Bukhari Azlan, as clear examples of this.

Ummi Hafilda also accused Anwar of using Islam to hide his true nature as "the father of all corruption", claiming that the nation had lost billions to his scheming and siphoning of the nation's wealth over the 16 years he served as a minister.

"Anwar is a thief, a serial rapist and a chronic sodomite," she declared, to cheers from the assembled crowd.

This situation left the crowd at the BN camp clearly uneasy. As if sensing the situation, Ummi Hafilda launched into another tirade on Anwar's misdeeds, barely pausing between breaths to grip their attention by recalling her harrowing "torture" at the hands of the police.

Her claim that Anwar allegedly ordered police to detain and torture her - to allegedly force her to retract her infamous letter incriminating him in adultery, sodomy and corruption - managed to win back some of the crowd, but most could not help but be drawn by Anwar's sheer force of personality.

Many who were standing on the road started to gravitate towards the Pakatan camp, to catch a glimpse of the famous former deputy premier as he spoke of Pakatan's promises of a better future.

Ummi Hafilda had to resort to repeated references to former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, getting the largely elderly BN crowd to join her in cheering Hidup Mahathir.

Despite asking the Pakatan crowd to ignore her, Anwar couldn't help but respond to the cheers for his former boss, asking the crowd; "Masih ada ke Mahathir? (Is Mahathir still around?)".

Anwar sporadically poked fun at Ummi Hafilda - who repeated throughout her ceramah that he is a sodomite, a serial rapist, thief and a tool of the Jews - while also asking the Pakatan crowd to ignore her.

"Don't pay any attention to her. If you do, you will push her price up from RM500 to RM600," he said, getting a hearty laugh from his listeners.

Anwar ended his speech after 30 minutes. Ummi Hafilda ended hers barely a minute after he stepped off the rostrum, hurriedly telling the crowd that she did not have much time left to spare before bidding them adieu.

The rest of the night went without incident, with traffic police working together with PAS' security detail to manage traffic and to make sure people did not block the road.

Q: I need a bit of advice on my sex life. I'm 24 and my main goal at the moment is to have fun and sleep around. I'm not bad looking but I'm no model. Here's the problem: Ever since I came out eight years ago, I feel like an oddball on the scene as I don't know how to approach guys with the intention of it leading to sex. My friends say I look very sweet and innocent and they think it can put guys off. I am on Gaydar and other sex websites that are only about hooking up, but I struggle about what to write and most of the messages I send go unanswered, or worse, I get a "no." I'd really like to hear what you've got to say.

A: Man, I really feel for you, especially since you're reminding me of what dating and hookups were like for me when I first started playing around. Before I give you any advice, let me just say two things. First off, it's great that you know what you're looking for -- in this case, sex. Less risk of wasting other people's time, let alone your own. Second, if some guys aren't turned on to you because you're "sweet and innocent," believe me they are going to be many more who just love those qualities in you.

To get to the nitty gritty, I think there are some other things you're likely overlooking. Hooking up online is all about first impressions and that's why you need to pay such close attention to your screen name, profile, and photos that you post (and you must post pix). When it comes to a screen name, be explicit: BangUBud, SexyStoner, and Jeff11X7 put it on the line. For you, I might suggest: NastynNice -- or some other handle that suggests there's more to you than meets the eye. Then, you also need to be clear in your profile about what you want. Here are some highly specific ones I found online: "I'm most attracted to younger, masculine bottoms." "Definitely not a vanilla type of guy" or "Poz seeks same."

One of the great advantages of hooking up online is the ability to put out there what you want -- and, often, get it.

Next: Your photos. Sometimes I visit sex pickup sites and I see a handsome guy but he looks like he just came from work. You need to show some skin! Or he's a perfect ectomorph and has unwisely chosen BigMuscle.com as his hookup site. Choose a site that's going to work for who you are and who you're seeking. Last point: You need to be explicit in your photos although it's your choice whether that extends to full-frontal nudity; remember what you put up online stays online -- potentially forever.

Finally: Bear in mind that many -- if not most -- guys don't get responses back. Don't take it to heart; it's simply the way of the Internet.

* * *

"Grandma, I'm bi"

Q: I'm a bi woman, and my current boyfriend knows it -- and it's not a big deal to him. My grandparents however, don't know yet and I want to tell them. They're very loving but deeply religious. However, they deserve to know the truth since they took ten years raising me when they didn't have to. How do I tell them that I like men and women equally without worrying about how they'll react to the news?

A: I think it's great that you want to share your truth with your grandparents (even though being in a relationship with an opposite-sex partner means you're don't have to) and that you're so considerate of their feelings. Most of the time, respect begets respect (if not acceptance). Of course, coming out to one's family as bi -- or gay or transgender for that matter -- is often a big step and telling your religious relatives could put your knickers in a twist (it would make me want to reach for an Ativan.)

Before you sit down and talk with them, I suggest doing some research into your grandparents' likely beliefs on this subject so that you can be prepared. Certainly, not all religious folk are homophobic, especially when it comes to a family member. But if that's what you're facing, take aim against that much-quoted Leviticus argument against homosexuality: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," which is frequently translated by Christian fundamentalists to: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin." A good reply to this argument is to point out that Leviticus also says that shaving and eating pork are abominations -- and supports the idea of owning slaves.

Whichever way the discussion goes, I would definitely be careful to avoid getting into an argument. Fights generally produce more fire than light. Do your best to remain patient and respectful, speak from your heart, and be prepared to walk away if necessary. And definitely don't expect to actually change your grandparents' views on bisexuality -- at least not right aways

Karima el-Mahrough isn't letting the ongoingmedia frenzy over her alleged involvement with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi get her down.

Better known as Ruby Rubacuori or "Ruby the Heartbreaker," the 18-year-old Moroccan dancer debuted a glamorous new look as she stepped out to attend a news conference in Vienna. As Reuters is reporting, Ruby was visiting the Austrian capital to attend Thursday night's Opera Ball on the arm of 78-year-old entrepreneur Richard Lugner, whoseprevious dates are said to have included Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson and Carmen Electra. Austrian media have reported Lugner is paying Ruby 40,000 euros ($55,452) for her Opera Ball appearance.

Ruby seemed poised and confident as she spoke to reporters while accusing the Italian media of misrepresenting her. "There's going to be a trial...and I hope that over the course of the proceedings the truth will come to light -- I'm very hopeful about that," she said through a translator, according to the Associated Press. She took the opportunity to once again slam allegations that she worked as escort girl. "There's no evidence that I was ever paid for such services -- it's simply not true."

But for her future plans, Ruby insisted she was most looking forward to putting fame and fortune aside for a new role: housewife. "I just want to be the Ruby I was before all this and lead a normal life," she said.

See photos of Ruby's appearance with Lugner here: