RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions

RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

trustingsubHF -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 4:00:47 AM)
trust plays a huge role in any relationship. i was never told that i was 'under consideration', that was a 'given' when we made it past the first conversation. it is not my business how others choose to build a relationship. but, if i were not trusted enough to speak to other people (Dom's included)... i do not believe that is the kind of relationship i would be a part of! i was told that i could 'play' and to enjoy myself if i chose to... it is being totally committed to a person and having no doubt about their commitment to you. how is one to commit (from either side) if their is no trust? gaining a person's trust should not be done by reading their e-mail and IMs... that seems totally ridiculous![image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m18.gif[/image]

ExquisiteFeline -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 4:14:45 AM)
in my case i would agree with the op, the case of others i would agree with LA. Nothing is right or wrong, only accepted or not, however as a newby, i would be cautious about Doms met off the internet stopping outside communication, that would be red flags for me. Master has never asked that i stop communicating with anyone, would i if he did? Of course, yet i would wonder where it has come from and if it stems from insecurity. i have learnt from a lot of other Dominants, and some upon finding that i am dedicated stop communicating as part of protocol, and that is fine. i would never play or be collared to someone who was not a friend for sometime. Master and i would eagerly invite a Dominant who could teach us further in D/s scenes, protocol and rope work, in that case we would have to both be comfortable in communicating to the party/s. i trust myself to see through Dom crap as was spoke of above, and i am sure Master does also, as well as not running off for a 'better' illusion, no one can take my devotion from Master. We may not be as hardcore as others, W/we like the D/s aspect of relationship and we like bondage and discipline in play, so still consider as part of a BDSM relationship, however there are other aspects to our connection. As for other speech restrictions, it makes sense in a scene for me, and at other times, it makes sense when Master does not want to hear me rabbit on, also when he is just not in the mood for communicating. i restrict my contact to him while he is not with me, out of respect for his space, if he wants me, he will come to me.

MissHarlet -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 4:29:17 AM)
Under consideration to me means .. WE ....submissive and Dominant are getting to know each other and think this has good potential for becoming a permanent relationship(and yes I place the line that I have someone under consideration in my profile at the time they place it in theirs)... I place no restrictions on a submissive I am considering ....they choose those for themselves at that time( if I have no trust then we have nothing anyway) . However, I think it gives fair warning to other submissives and Dominants that our attention is focused on each other and we are not looking for others at that point in time. Just my opinion and way of doing things .. and if that makes me an idiot in others minds then so be it. lol I have my own idiot list that would probably not make sense to anyone but me.

orfunboi -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 4:32:17 AM)
i never had to worry about this, because my Domme never restricted my email or communication in any way. She trusted me to have common sense and to be loyal to her. i am not sure i could interact with someone who did not trust me in this way. i think a lot of the "under consideration" and "collar of protection" and such, are mainly internet things. i don't hear about them in the real world, unless of course we are discussing how crazy the internet is.

Vampyrefledgling -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 10:53:58 AM)
DS4Dummies...do you currently have a sub in your service? Because with your last post, you probably might want to start accepting applications. As for this whole 'under consideration' thing, I am surprised by the responses. This topic has aroused far more emotion than I would have thought. Granted, I'm new at this, but I can tell you pretty quickly that I will not agree to anything (BDSM related or otherwise) that I find uncomfortable or too invasive. If a Dom wishes to have access to my e-mail/voicemail, whatever, chances are, unless that Dom is my husband (and even then...) that just isn't going to happen, unless He is willing to make that same concession, and I think everyone can agree that privacy and independence (to an extent) is an important part of every working relationship. The people who fall prey to these so-called Dom/mes who intend to victimize them (and not in a good way) frankly may be asking for it. Please, do not throw some comment about a person asking to be killed or a woman asking to be raped, that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if someone is foolish enough to get involved with something about which they know nothing and are unwilling to learn on their own, then there isn't much anyone can do to help them. Ignorance is no excuse and I just don't buy it. You cannot depend (or trust always) other people to teach you. A great deal of it is up to you. Do your homework, protect yourself, heed the warnings of those more experienced than you and ask advice. It's not rocket science. As for those who put 'under consideration' on their profiles...perhaps it is just a red herring to keep away the casual browser. ~Fledgling

sirguym -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 11:22:55 AM)
If I have a potential slave 'under consideration' I would actively want them to communicate as widely as possible with whomsoever they wished, in order to check out my reputation. If they don't do that they are dangerously (for themselves) naive. If they find out or are told anything about me that gives them cause for concern, they will be welcome to raise iyt with me. I actively abjure sarcasm, irony, direct criticism, in such circumstances (and most others). If they have a problem, I want it out in the open now, and dealt with. I would concur with those that point out that socially isolating somebody, and worse deliberately forcing them to discredit themselves in the eyes of friends and family, is universally a technique employed by abusers. If somebody tries that on you, get out, it is dangerous stuff. I have had a bit of experience (check out my profile) and have in my vanilla life helped out to defend and establish in womenss' refuges and met and talked with the women residents and the women who run the support networks. I know that female submissives in particular will be approached, stalked and receive a lot of mail; some of which may be gossip, lies, attempts to manipulate or divide them from a partner. As the partner of a popular Domme (although a Dom myself) that is happening all the time. But do you want somebody who can see through the bullshit and lies to perceive the truth, or do you want some Barbie Doll or Stepford Wife. I have told a slave to go offline for a period, when she began posting stuff that seemed to me to be implicitly critical of me and which seemed to me to implicitly suggest she was available. Had she refused she would have been released, as she was contravening the clause in her contract that she should always write of me with respect; but she accepted my point and complied. But that was for a fixed period as a penaslty and warning, until issues had been resolved between us. But the uder if a a potential slave accepting limitations on their behaviour whilst they are 'under consideration' seems to me to undermine the whole concept of consensual slavery. The key thing to me when a slave signs a contract of slavery is that at the moment before she signs she is free, the moment afterwards she is not. If she were to accept termns that limited her freedom before that moment, then she is not free at the moment of signature and the agreement is not consensual. It goes back to basic contract law. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 12:42:04 PM)
Considering what is out there in cyberspace and even in the real world, I figure the more contact they have with others the better. It can only make me look better by comparison.

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 3:03:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirguym The key thing to me when a slave signs a contract of slavery is that at the moment before she signs she is free, the moment afterwards she is not. If she were to accept termns that limited her freedom before that moment, then she is not free at the moment of signature and the agreement is not consensual. It goes back to basic contract law. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Real contract law doesn't apply to M/s "contracts" I'm sure you all know. You couldn't hold a slave to such a contract legally.

AquaticSub -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 3:11:37 PM)
Eh... If I was under consideration but not owned and he wants to read my mail, he certainly can. As long as I get to read his too. [:D]

grlneedstolearn -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 3:55:34 PM)
i can agree with you 100%. i've talked with some Doms who are like that and for me i won't accept it. That's why the Dom i'm with now does not have any problems with me talking to others online, and for that i'm very grateful.

slavegirljoy -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 5:11:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vampyrefledgling As for those who put 'under consideration' on their profiles...perhaps it is just a red herring to keep away the casual browser. ~Fledgling For me, putting the caveat, "Under Consideration" of Master David (NControlofU), at the top of my profile, after i made the choice to invest my time and energy into seeing if i wanted to become His slave, was a big help in stopping a lot of the email i had been getting from the "casual browser". i would never have placed that caveat at the top of my profile, for all to plainly see, if i had not felt very secure in what was developing between Him and i. It was my way of saying to all that my status of "free slave seeking" had changed to "Under Consideration" and that i was now off the market, for the time being, at least. Of course, a month later, i was off the market completely when my status changed from "Under Consideration of" to "Owned property of". The important thing to remember, as far as i see it, is for the prospective Master and prospective slave to be sure that they have a clear understanding as to what exactly is meant by the use of that "term" and what is expected with it. It's no different than making sure that there is a clear understanding of any other terms used between the people involved, such as "Master", "slave", "property", "pain", "serve", etc., etc. It's not just a matter of "common sense". It's a matter of maintaining clear communications and asking questions. Like i said before, i have never been put "off limits" from communicating with anyone but, Master David does have full access to my CM mail and often reads it more than i do, since He is usually online more than me. i have nothing to hide from Him and it's a huge help to know that the Man, i trust with my life and who cares about me more than anyone else alive, is screening my CM mail. He replies to a lot of the men who write to me and lets them know that, just as my profile states, i am His owned slave. i usually don't hear back from any of them. It saves me a lot of trouble. slave joyOwned property of Master David "Commitment transforms a promise into a reality."

theq -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 6:55:18 PM)
I agree with the OP and the sentiment of many others who expressed similar thoughts. When a bond of exclusiveness has been established (in the vanilla world we call such a bond boyfriend/girlfriend....etc.) and a mutual understanding of exclusive commitment has been made for "until we break up"...and both are serious about the long term intentions of the relationship...I would expect each partner to hold a level of fidelity towards each other. That being said it would follow to reason they'd both politely (yet assertively) turn away communications which had more a more than friendly tone. If one partner expects monogamy and fidelity they better offer their's first. Be it they are a top or a bottom. Being a Dom/me doesn't give you a hall pass to be unfair and unreasonable in relational matters. quote: Author: Sirguym I would concur with those that point out that socially isolating somebody, and worse deliberately forcing them to discredit themselves in the eyes of friends and family, is universally a technique employed by abusers. If somebody tries that on you, get out, it is dangerous stuff. Aye to that. I had a friend who was in a very messed up and abused situation as a child. Isolate, form a dependence, and abuse is a classic technique employed by abusers. You can find all sort of things about how this is used in "SRA Training" (Sadistic/Satanic Ritual Abuse). I am seeing it currently as well with a dear friend who is breaking her habit of being a doormat to her estranged husband. As a student of knowledge myself, I find one who thirsts to understand....and can learn on their own an attractive feature in a mate. I'd certainly not discourage a girl of mine from learning about the lifestyle/play by talking to others. If monogamy is involved.....see above. Q's $.02....

OedipusRexIt -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/19/2007 10:11:23 PM)
Oh good... permission! I was 'fraid I wouldn't get that' "Under consideration", whether online or not, is silly and pretentious. Usually, a sign of an insecure poseur. Remember, I have "permission"

MaamJay -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/20/2007 2:41:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissHarlet Under consideration to me means .. WE ....submissive and Dominant are getting to know each other and think this has good potential for becoming a permanent relationship(and yes I place the line that I have someone under consideration in my profile at the time they place it in theirs)... I place no restrictions on a submissive I am considering ....they choose those for themselves at that time( if I have no trust then we have nothing anyway) . However, I think it gives fair warning to other submissives and Dominants that our attention is focused on each other and we are not looking for others at that point in time. Just my opinion and way of doing things .. and if that makes me an idiot in others minds then so be it. lol I have my own idiot list that would probably not make sense to anyone but me. Hear hear! That is also how I use the same term. It means that this person has progressed beyond the "getting to know you" stage, has visited, appears to be a good fit in Our household and so is now under serious consideration for being a full time member. It's not, especially in a poly household, as simple as saying someone is either IN or OUT as Susan suggested. There are a lot of practicalities to be worked out, relocation, accommodation, finances, pets (does your dog get on with Our dogs and aged cat?) etc etc. I am not about to make spontaneous and hasty decisions about whom I want to live with on a daily basis, and I certainly can't speak for Master as to whom He wants to share His house with. We both have to be happy with My choice of 24/7 sub. As an example, I have many vanilla friends whom I love dearly ... but relatively few of those could I consider living with! And one I can live with ... I can't travel or holiday with ... the one time we tried it was almost the end of a beautiful friendship! Finding someone who fits both in personality and kink and D/s desires isn't easy and I'm definitely not going to offer a permanent collar until I am confident that this is what all 3 of U/us want. Master didn't collar me until 2 years after 24/7 living together ... granted I came with complications such as a hubby who was going to be sub and then wasn't and it wasn't until decisions were made about the future that Master felt it was right to collar me. I won't do velcro collars and neither do I hand out "under consideration" gifts like candy. This is a serious step to Me, not sure if anyone remembers the old friendship ring idea that was trendy in My youth, but this is equivalent to "going steady" but not quite engaged! I have NEVER put restrictions on a sub as to whom they can/cannot speak to ... I am encouraging My new sub to meet others, to post here, and to attend her local munches etc. I want her to speak to other subs and Dom/mes ... BUT she is to make it clear to Dom/mes that she is not available to be courted, she can be a friend only. she wants it that way and I want it that way. she doesn't want others hitting on her. I have NEVER monitored a sub's emails or asked for passwords etc etc ... and neither does Master monitor mine and never has. They are capable of handling that for themselves though I suggest they bring anything troubling or that they are unsure about to Me (as i have done with Master). In terms of the restriction not applying to the Dom/me ... My sub knows she is the only one under consideration for 24/7 in Our house and knows I will be honest with other subs I talk to in that. However, I do enjoy playing with other subs, especially males, and she has no problem whatsoever with My continuing to talk with them. In fact, while she was here I had a coffee meet with one ... and she and Master came along as well (wasn't the lad a brave boy for showing up to meet all 3 of U/us!). she thought he was lovely and hopes that someday he will come for a play session ... and she'll be here to watch! So ... for Me, My version of "under consideration" is rational, practical and useful. If other people don't agree ... well fine, I'm not telling THEM they have to play by My rules, I am just clarifying what I choose to do so hopefully people can understand and perhaps even consider another viewpoint. (Am I just being naive here? LOL!) However, the OP erred in suggesting anything such as this practice could be banned here ... inappropriate ... and made several sweeping generalisations that detracted severely from his post. I do think his basic concern, that such restrictions hastily applied are a bad idea, has merit. The way he went about raising that alarm? Well, that didn't work! Maam Jay aka violet[A]

slavegirljoy -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/20/2007 4:29:54 AM)
Beautifully expressed, Maam Jay! There seems to be two camps on this issue, one that understands the purpose and usefulness of the term "Under Consideration" and applies it, as needed, and one that has a no idea or a misinformed idea of what it means and doesn't want anyone to use it. Thank You for clearly stating the case for, and giving the fine example of, what is meant by the term and how useful it is to those of us in the first camp. slave joy Owned property of Master David "Commitment transforms a promise into a reality." quote: ORIGINAL: MaamJay So ... for Me, My version of "under consideration" is rational, practical and useful. If other people don't agree ... well fine, I'm not telling THEM they have to play by My rules, I am just clarifying what I choose to do so hopefully people can understand and perhaps even consider another viewpoint. (Am I just being naive here? LOL!) However, the OP erred in suggesting anything such as this practice could be banned here ... inappropriate ... and made several sweeping generalisations that detracted severely from his post. I do think his basic concern, that such restrictions hastily applied are a bad idea, has merit. The way he went about raising that alarm? Well, that didn't work! Maam Jay aka violet[A]

spankmepink11 -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/20/2007 5:29:56 AM)
To me, "under consideration" is just a glorified way of saying "not pursuing a possible relationship with anyone else" I'm not in favor of "banning" in general. However, I've never understood why anyone needs a third party to handle or control their on line communication, so it's hard for me to grasp that whole concept, but i would certainly not involve myself with anyone who felt it necessary to monitor all my correspondence ...etc. Trust is a two way street.

DS4DUMMIES -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/20/2007 5:40:30 AM)
All of these posts and no one has yet been able to explain away the obvious insecurity present in a man who, unwilling to make a commitment of his own, can't endure competition or a woman having any input but his own. Does a submissive woman, REALLY want a scared, insecure little boy to lead her? Re: your analogy....on someone climbing a mountain.... if enough people who had previously tried climbing that PARTICULAR mountain had the same bad experience you eventually did - and you knew it - then there is nothing noble or enlightened by your failing to learn by their experience and go tumbling down the same cliff. That is the stuff Darwin Awards are made of. Serenity makes a good point. DS4 quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: lilserenity I agree with this topic.. I have been under consideration just once and I will say it was Bulls***..The term is so loosely used.. Yeah if people have a marriage or relationship why come here bothering those who are looking.. They should just make this site strictly a dating site and nothing else it is a waste of time and energy to add a lifestyle or alternative way to life here.. I have seen it all everywhere and been there.. But I have never seen so much misused words or terms used.. The the one that wanted to consider me had a woman at home,thats sad I think. But to each their own. Players will play as long as they stay out of my way lol.. Good luck everyone serenity.. Well, its clear you have had one bad experience regarding "Under Consideration". I'm sure many people have had bad experiences with it...just like many people have had bad experiences with simply dating that wasnt call "Under Consideration". However, if I tried to climb a mountain once and had a bad, unsuccessful experience from it, and my disposition to the public was that "Climbing mountains was complete bullshit", wont you consider me to be a silly person?

DS4DUMMIES -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/20/2007 5:47:05 AM)
MaamJay; Yours is an enlightened approach, given the facts you have laid out. You are not trying to isolate the potential partner, and that is very different than what I and others were railing against. I'm not sure the OP was "generalizing"....I've hear a LOT of women discuss this "consideration" situation that includes isolation, surrender of email passwords, etc. THAT, is the thing that isn't healthy in my view. Your approach, is far different and far more legitimate. DS4 quote: ORIGINAL: MaamJay quote: ORIGINAL: MissHarlet Under consideration to me means .. WE ....submissive and Dominant are getting to know each other and think this has good potential for becoming a permanent relationship(and yes I place the line that I have someone under consideration in my profile at the time they place it in theirs)... I place no restrictions on a submissive I am considering ....they choose those for themselves at that time( if I have no trust then we have nothing anyway) . However, I think it gives fair warning to other submissives and Dominants that our attention is focused on each other and we are not looking for others at that point in time. Just my opinion and way of doing things .. and if that makes me an idiot in others minds then so be it. lol I have my own idiot list that would probably not make sense to anyone but me. Hear hear! That is also how I use the same term. It means that this person has progressed beyond the "getting to know you" stage, has visited, appears to be a good fit in Our household and so is now under serious consideration for being a full time member. It's not, especially in a poly household, as simple as saying someone is either IN or OUT as Susan suggested. There are a lot of practicalities to be worked out, relocation, accommodation, finances, pets (does your dog get on with Our dogs and aged cat?) etc etc. I am not about to make spontaneous and hasty decisions about whom I want to live with on a daily basis, and I certainly can't speak for Master as to whom He wants to share His house with. We both have to be happy with My choice of 24/7 sub. As an example, I have many vanilla friends whom I love dearly ... but relatively few of those could I consider living with! And one I can live with ... I can't travel or holiday with ... the one time we tried it was almost the end of a beautiful friendship! Finding someone who fits both in personality and kink and D/s desires isn't easy and I'm definitely not going to offer a permanent collar until I am confident that this is what all 3 of U/us want. Master didn't collar me until 2 years after 24/7 living together ... granted I came with complications such as a hubby who was going to be sub and then wasn't and it wasn't until decisions were made about the future that Master felt it was right to collar me. I won't do velcro collars and neither do I hand out "under consideration" gifts like candy. This is a serious step to Me, not sure if anyone remembers the old friendship ring idea that was trendy in My youth, but this is equivalent to "going steady" but not quite engaged! I have NEVER put restrictions on a sub as to whom they can/cannot speak to ... I am encouraging My new sub to meet others, to post here, and to attend her local munches etc. I want her to speak to other subs and Dom/mes ... BUT she is to make it clear to Dom/mes that she is not available to be courted, she can be a friend only. she wants it that way and I want it that way. she doesn't want others hitting on her. I have NEVER monitored a sub's emails or asked for passwords etc etc ... and neither does Master monitor mine and never has. They are capable of handling that for themselves though I suggest they bring anything troubling or that they are unsure about to Me (as i have done with Master). In terms of the restriction not applying to the Dom/me ... My sub knows she is the only one under consideration for 24/7 in Our house and knows I will be honest with other subs I talk to in that. However, I do enjoy playing with other subs, especially males, and she has no problem whatsoever with My continuing to talk with them. In fact, while she was here I had a coffee meet with one ... and she and Master came along as well (wasn't the lad a brave boy for showing up to meet all 3 of U/us!). she thought he was lovely and hopes that someday he will come for a play session ... and she'll be here to watch! So ... for Me, My version of "under consideration" is rational, practical and useful. If other people don't agree ... well fine, I'm not telling THEM they have to play by My rules, I am just clarifying what I choose to do so hopefully people can understand and perhaps even consider another viewpoint. (Am I just being naive here? LOL!) However, the OP erred in suggesting anything such as this practice could be banned here ... inappropriate ... and made several sweeping generalisations that detracted severely from his post. I do think his basic concern, that such restrictions hastily applied are a bad idea, has merit. The way he went about raising that alarm? Well, that didn't work! Maam Jay aka violet[A]

DS4DUMMIES -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/20/2007 5:59:14 AM)
LOL.....Ohhhhh....no you don't :) . You're not going to get away with THAT sort of observation unchallenged. You assume all "under consideration" labels/situations are valid, healthy situations and that is simply NOT true. There are not simply two camps as you say. I'm not misinformed at all. Far from it. I know multiple women for whom this "consideration" stuff was nothing more than so much insecure garbage designed to hide the problems with someone by not allowing the woman a chance to get other inputs. In my personal view of a D/s relationship and all of the things that comprise it or orbit it, it is not only about consent - it is about INFORMED consent. INFORMED consent. One added word - huge difference.... DS4 quote: ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy Beautifully expressed, Maam Jay! There seems to be two camps on this issue, one that understands the purpose and usefulness of the term "Under Consideration" and applies it, as needed, and one that has a no idea or a misinformed idea of what it means and doesn't want anyone to use it. Thank You for clearly stating the case for, and giving the fine example of, what is meant by the term and how useful it is to those of us in the first camp. slave joy Owned property of Master David "Commitment transforms a promise into a reality." quote: ORIGINAL: MaamJay So ... for Me, My version of "under consideration" is rational, practical and useful. If other people don't agree ... well fine, I'm not telling THEM they have to play by My rules, I am just clarifying what I choose to do so hopefully people can understand and perhaps even consider another viewpoint. (Am I just being naive here? LOL!) However, the OP erred in suggesting anything such as this practice could be banned here ... inappropriate ... and made several sweeping generalisations that detracted severely from his post. I do think his basic concern, that such restrictions hastily applied are a bad idea, has merit. The way he went about raising that alarm? Well, that didn't work! Maam Jay aka violet[A]

Celeste43 -> RE: Stop "Under Consideration" Speech Restrictions (8/20/2007 6:26:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DS4DUMMIES All of these posts and no one has yet been able to explain away the obvious insecurity present in a man who, unwilling to make a commitment of his own, can't endure competition or a woman having any input but his own. Where does it say that he can't make a commitment? With us, he asked me to focus on him and not chat with doms I was not already friendly with and in return he stopped chatting with other subs and focused on me. So where's the fear and the insecurity there? We're not poly, we're monogamous so what value would there be in having three different possible partners dangling except to show that we aren't capable of actually committing? What did I lose by agreeing to this except a few weeks of my time if it had not worked out. Are you so terrified that she won't commit that you need to keep chatting to others so you won't wind up alone and needing to rethink what you want, what you have to offer, and what went wrong?

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875