Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: SSC/RACK


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress >> RE: SSC/RACK Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/2/2008 11:54:50 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pixelslave

 I can't say it loudly enough that much of what is considered SSC still has risks involved, which does not necessarily make it SAFE!  ....

 Its not at all about edgeplay, it's about being aware of what the risks are in any activity, understanding them, and then making an informed decision as to whether or not you want to participate in that activity! 


I disagree completely.  Saying "There are risks in anything we do" is childish, when the risks associated with some activities are ridiculously low and the risks associated with others can never be reduced beyond a certain limit.  Wow, if I give my playmate an over-the-knee spanking, he might slip off my knees and get a bruise on his elbow.  If I decide to choke him until he passes out, I might be attending his funeral next week, and then go on to spend my twilight years with a wonderful cellmate named Violet.

Some activities are automatically more risky than others.  Driving a motorcycle at high speed is not as safe as driving a Volvo below the speed limit with your seatbelt on.  Period.  Which is more fun is another question!

I've never understood why people try to call "Safe Sane and Consensual" some kind of license to be a complete idiot.  Because honestly, the sort of moronic blunders you're talking about--not knowing how to keep your toys clean, for God's sake!--does not fit into any category of acceptable BDSM.  If this really needs to be said, great:  no matter what label you slap on your playtime, you are not safe, sane, OR risk-aware if you are a complete ignoramus.  Dominant or submissive, you need to know your striking zones.  Know your bondage safety.  Know your partner and keep an eye on his/her wellbeing, during scenes and after.  Keep your toys clean.  Yadda yadda.  These are the absolute minimal basics.

ANY bdsm which is performed by idiots is going to be dangerous.  But there are some things which are risky even when the player is extremely competent and experienced.  Sometimes the risk of harm cannot be significantly reduced, as with strangulation; sometimes the harms that can result from mishaps are more serious, as with fireplay.  Regardless, it's fairly easy to put some activities under the RACK heading and recognize that they are for the advanced class.  Everything else is one of two things:  SSC or just plain stupid.  And there is a difference between the two!

_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to pixelslave)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 3:15:13 AM   
sadomasokisti


Posts: 221
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Iceland
Status: offline
I'm a heavy edge player and SSC.

I don't use SSC as a tool to describe my activities.  SSC was never intended for that.

_____________________________


Pain is good. Extreme pain is extremely good

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 4:36:11 AM   
Madame4a


Posts: 2045
Joined: 2/4/2008
From: Washington, DC area
Status: offline
You can't assume people know how to keep themselves safe -- I know its often a normal desire for most sane people, but just look around the community and you'll see its not as common as it should be.

Calling my name means all kinds of things, not just a safeword -- ultimately, it means the bottom needs my attention in some way.  When playing with my boi, who I know very well, it could mean "my cuffs are not tight enough and I'm going to slip out and I know that will annoy the shit out of you" -- it happened recently.. and what she says is "Ma'am I have some information for you" -- but that could mean anything.  It means I check in, that play has to be paused for a moment for whatever reason, maybe even stopped if necessary.

When playing with people I am a bit less familiar with.. we start with my name.

and because people are saying this or not... I'm certain I'd be considered an edge player -- probably unsafe by some.. *grin* love that... but I'm sure I'm most people's edge... not mine though...

< Message edited by Madame4a -- 6/3/2008 4:37:05 AM >


_____________________________

You're crazy bitch
But you f*ck so good, I'm on top of it
When I dream, I'm doing you all night
Scratches all down my back to keep me right on

(in reply to torsionman)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 11:51:02 AM   
KindLadyGrey


Posts: 358
Joined: 11/6/2007
Status: offline
I disagree that the difference between SSC and RACK is mere semantics. I'm sure I'm going to piss people off with this reply, but here's my .02:

SSC is totally delusional. Safe? You must be joking. Sane? Are you serious? What the hell does "Sane" even mean? Consensual? I'll give you that one. I generally snicker behind my hand whenever some experienced kink person starts rambling on about SSC. And believe me, folks in this lifestyle LOVE to explain SSC to people like it's a rule to live by.

RACK makes much more sense to me and is more inline with my general life philosophy. If your life is safe, you probably aren't living it to the fullest. It is better to be aware of the risks and choose to take them anyway.

(in reply to torsionman)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 12:55:03 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KindLadyGrey
If your life is safe, you probably aren't living it to the fullest. It is better to be aware of the risks and choose to take them anyway.


Always reassuring to hear this kind of talk from a parent of small children. 

_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to KindLadyGrey)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 1:09:12 PM   
KindLadyGrey


Posts: 358
Joined: 11/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

quote:

ORIGINAL: KindLadyGrey
If your life is safe, you probably aren't living it to the fullest. It is better to be aware of the risks and choose to take them anyway.


Always reassuring to hear this kind of talk from a parent of small children.


ShaktiSama with the OHHH SNAP!

I stand by that. Children need to take risks too, and parents need to let them. I hate it when parents try to keep their children in safe little boxes as long as possible. How are they supposed to learn anything? Great heroes take risks. Sheep do the safe thing.

When I got pregnant the first time (and by the way, deciding to keep that baby was a HUGE risk) my friends and family expressed doubts about the kind of parent I would be. My lifestyle is a bit extreme, and not just because of the D/s aspect. I just don't tend to pull my punches when it comes to speaking my mind and trying to fight the good fight. I told them all that if my daughters were not political prisoners by the time they were 30 I would be very disappointed in them. I was only half joking. I hope my children take risks. I hope they make trouble. I hope they change the world. I hope they learn about themselves.

I'm about to go through an ugly custody battle. Feel free to tell the court I want my daughters to be courageous human beings.

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 6:12:19 PM   
torsionman


Posts: 74
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline
Thank you ElanSubdued,
                                        This is EXACTLY what I hoped for and now I'm pressed for time to actually research the answers. :(

(in reply to ElanSubdued)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 6:15:38 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KindLadyGrey
ShaktiSama with the OHHH SNAP!


Heh.  Sometimes when you deliberately set out to piss people off, you get a little snap.  What did you expect   when you used the word "delusional"?  A dozen roses?

Mother of two myself.  And when I was younger, a taker of sometimes spectacular risks, most of which amused me greatly at the time.  However, when my children were born and while they were small, I toned it down for several years, and made some sacrifices to give them a reasonably safe and sane existence.  Neither safety nor sanity is anything to snicker about when you have people under twelve who depend on you, and who are effectively hostages to your every error in judgment.

Both of my children have grown to be exceptionally courageous human beings.  There is a great deal to be said for a reasonably happy and secure childhood. 

_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to KindLadyGrey)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 6:23:12 PM   
torsionman


Posts: 74
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline
Been through the "ugly custody battle". It wasn't SSC or RACK, just INSANE for the kids sake! Not to change the thread's focus but I hope that if the children are safe for real around you both that custody is shared. I don't know your situation but it is best for the children they have the thought and confidence they are loved by both parents. Now back to your regularly scheduled program...

(in reply to KindLadyGrey)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 6:39:15 PM   
torsionman


Posts: 74
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline
Please put the word "that" between children and they...sheesh.

(in reply to torsionman)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 8:04:44 PM   
KindLadyGrey


Posts: 358
Joined: 11/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

quote:

ORIGINAL: KindLadyGrey
ShaktiSama with the OHHH SNAP!


Heh. Sometimes when you deliberately set out to piss people off, you get a little snap. What did you expect when you used the word "delusional"? A dozen roses?

Mother of two myself. And when I was younger, a taker of sometimes spectacular risks, most of which amused me greatly at the time. However, when my children were born and while they were small, I toned it down for several years, and made some sacrifices to give them a reasonably safe and sane existence. Neither safety nor sanity is anything to snicker about when you have people under twelve who depend on you, and who are effectively hostages to your every error in judgment.

Both of my children have grown to be exceptionally courageous human beings. There is a great deal to be said for a reasonably happy and secure childhood.


No disagreement here. . .spent too long studying psychology not to know that family security is vital to self esteem and self efficacy. Despite the divorce, my children have an exceptionally safe and secure existence. My own existence has never been particularly unsafe in a physical sense anyway. It is only socially that I cause trouble. Mostly just because I get offended when people tell me it's appropriate to be in the closet. . .so instead of allowing that I raise hell anyway as a lifestyle, that way I'm very publicly out of the closet so nobody can actually ask me to go back in it. (Did that make any sense?) You've probably seen me get a little incensed on these forums when someone has implied that lifestyle choices just aren't polite to inflict on others. And well, if that's a little extreme I guess I'm guilty. I generally think any kind of social rule that suggests to people that something about them simply isn't acceptable is a pretty evil and damaging rule, so when I find them, I fight them. You know that boys aren't supposed to wear dresses and makeup, right? Grrrr. . .

This thread has taken a bit of a tangent, but I actually do think a lot about how that will effect the children. There will probably be some people who won't let their children play with my children because mommy has a girlfriend. Or because mommy's boyfriend wears dresses. Or because mommy worships Odin. Or because mommy is some other kind of moral reprobate. That will probably hurt them, especially when they are too young to understand. On the other hand, it means the grossly intolerant will self-select themselves out of our lives, and I'm okay with that.

To bring it back to topic, RACK suggests something very important that SSC lacks: Awareness. Conscious consideration of consequences. SSC has always seemed to me to be just another box people create to limit themselves. I don't like boxes. I like making my own decisions based on rational thought, not lines other people draw for me.

YMMV.

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 9:03:42 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KindLadyGrey
Mostly just because I get offended when people tell me it's appropriate to be in the closet. . .so instead of allowing that I raise hell anyway as a lifestyle, that way I'm very publicly out of the closet so nobody can actually ask me to go back in it. (Did that make any sense?)


Yep, it does.  And I've never been terribly closeted myself, although as I said, I did tone things down in some ways.  Made compromises to maintain a stable household, a consistent and positive presence of loving adults, and laid off physically risky activity...*shrug*  Was doing my best, I'm sure I'm not a perfect parent and my children could file many complaints!

quote:

You've probably seen me get a little incensed on these forums when someone has implied that lifestyle choices just aren't polite to inflict on others. And well, if that's a little extreme I guess I'm guilty. I generally think any kind of social rule that suggests to people that something about them simply isn't acceptable is a pretty evil and damaging rule, so when I find them, I fight them. You know that boys aren't supposed to wear dresses and makeup, right? Grrrr. . .


I understand your point of view, and I also understand the conflicting point of view.  I am not in favor of any sort of persecution of people for being harmlessly different, but I still do believe that inflicting some lifestyle choices on others is rude--BDSM in particular, I suppose, because non-participating vanilla witnesses are really not "consenting", in my opinion.  I'm not very comfortable with people who subject vanilla strangers to public humiliation scenes, for example, especially when they invoke issues that are still uncomfortable in day-to-day life, like raceplay, etc..  *shrug*  I guess my compromise is that I can define something as "rude" or "gauche" without thinking it should be "illegal". 

quote:

To bring it back to topic, RACK suggests something very important that SSC lacks: Awareness. Conscious consideration of consequences. SSC has always seemed to me to be just another box people create to limit themselves.


I disagree.  To me, SSC implies a great deal of awareness--of safety and consent.  This is why, to the degree that there is any worthwhile distinction between the two terms, I tend to use RACK to describe the ethics of riskier and more physically or psychologically dangerous play.  SSC is just basic, ethical BDSM--all games aside, there is an authentic concern for everyone's wellbeing, everyone has to be within their right minds, and everyone has to be able to fully consent to their role in the game. 

RACK has always seemed to be imply something above and beyond this, to me.  If not, why is the term necessary at all?  This is why I tend to use it for situations where everyone present is competent, caring, and consenting, but the games being played cannot be made "safe" beyond a certain point.  Even if you are very expert and take every precaution, something could go wrong and somebody could get hurt rather badly, or end up wearing a toe tag.

*shrug*  Anyway. Upshot is:  if I wanted to "piss people off", I could easily project all sorts of negative BS onto RACK too.  I could claim that it's a philosophy for people who don't really give a crap about their partners, for example--people who want the luxury of performing BDSM while stoned out of their minds or the privilege of telling someone they've gruesomely injured "Sorry baby, you knew the risks."  I've certainly seen the term abused by plenty of thoughtless, careless, brutally juvenile and narcissistic idiots.

I choose not to do this, though, because I don't think that abuse of a term or a philosophy should really define that term or philosophy.  Hence I take some umbrage when SSC is called "delusional" or a catch-all term for people who are craven or incompetent.  I also do not think RACK is "insane", or needs to be demonized as a catcch-all term for people who are careless and indifferent to causing permanent harm or death.    

< Message edited by ShaktiSama -- 6/3/2008 9:05:41 PM >


_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to KindLadyGrey)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 9:45:08 PM   
pixelslave


Posts: 1444
Joined: 8/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

I disagree.  To me, SSC implies a great deal of awareness--of safety and consent.  This is why, to the degree that there is any worthwhile distinction between the two terms, I tend to use RACK to describe the ethics of riskier and more physically or psychologically dangerous play.  SSC is just basic, ethical BDSM--all games aside, there is an authentic concern for everyone's wellbeing, everyone has to be within their right minds, and everyone has to be able to fully consent to their role in the game. 


What you describe is your personal interpretation, not what I've seen written about SSC or RACK.  Perhaps SSC (when compared to RACK) would be considered by some to be analogous to being something of a "Catch-22", based on the book of the same name.  If one is fully Safe, Sane and Consenting, how can they agree to take any Risks?

quote:


RACK has always seemed to be imply something above and beyond this, to me.  If not, why is the term necessary at all? 


It does imply something above and beyond SSC.  Perhaps it's necessary, because someone got to thinking one day and came to the conclusion that SSC was inadequate.  As KindLadyGrey pointed out, SSC by definition lacks something very significant: Awareness of all the risks involved!  To me, that's the main difference between the two.  A couple is consenting to play with full awareness of all the risks involved in the agreed play.  It matters not how edgy or fundamentally basic the play is.  The edginess is something that you seem to want to attach to the definition.  It's not something that's inherent to RACK's definition.
 
IMO, RACK emphasizes the need for self-education and full disclosure to all involved.  SSC doesn't do that nearly to the same extent.
 
 - pixel



< Message edited by pixelslave -- 6/3/2008 9:47:30 PM >


_____________________________

Chivalry isn't dead! It's for those who have it in their hearts & are willing to be taught. It's a way of life, a code of honor; this one's armor still needs some polishing!

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 9:56:50 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pixelslave
It does imply something above and beyond SSC.  Perhaps it's necessary, because someone got to thinking one day and came to the conclusion that SSC was inadequate.  As KindLadyGrey pointed out, SSC by definition lacks something very significant: Awareness of all the risks involved!  


I suppose, but how can you define something as "sane" or "consensual" if the risks are not known and fully disclosed to all parties concerned?  That doesn't seem like a legitimate definition of consent to me.  Consenting to something you dont fully understand is no consent at all.  That's why children and animals and inebriated adults are all incapable of consent, legally speaking.

_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to pixelslave)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/3/2008 11:50:00 PM   
jim64


Posts: 86
Joined: 10/21/2007
Status: offline
I have never really considered the difference between the two. Thought it was just semantics. Wow! Interesting thread. I agree with at least a couple of things. One, being that both/all parties should have a degree of knowledge about whatever they are engaging in. The risk factor! Two, accept that there are dangers in some of the things we like do. That is what makes it fun!

Oh, and a third- Yes, there seems to  be a difference between SSC and RACK. Learned something today. I think?

People die/get hurt doing all kinds of stupid things they should have thought about before they did it. Most of them have nothing to do with BDSM.
Be very careful with all sharp and  hot objects!

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/4/2008 2:22:19 AM   
torsionman


Posts: 74
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline
So then the "line" I asked about isn't so clearly defined? Even though each word in SCC/RACK has a dictionary "definition", the actual application seems to be by whomever is applying it whether they know ALL the risks or not. Stupidity is being ignorant of the risks and not bothering to learn by definition but by experiance, sometimes too late. Naivete is just not knowing all the risks because they haven't even been thought of...yet. I want to avoid the stupidity but no one, by "definition" can avoid the later. By this it seems that learning by definition is a wise start and by experiance,- learned by doing, guided by definition and those with experiance-, is the smarter course. (Whew, I had to reread that) You all are helping me, I am thankful for this even though I'm not done yet.

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/4/2008 2:35:53 AM   
torsionman


Posts: 74
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline
How then, do we communicate our thoughts and experiances if not for the "boxes" we draw? I asked for a "line" of definition, you are helping to define that line for me.


 

(in reply to KindLadyGrey)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/4/2008 9:26:37 AM   
pixelslave


Posts: 1444
Joined: 8/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

quote:

ORIGINAL: pixelslave
It does imply something above and beyond SSC.  Perhaps it's necessary, because someone got to thinking one day and came to the conclusion that SSC was inadequate.  As KindLadyGrey pointed out, SSC by definition lacks something very significant: Awareness of all the risks involved!  


I suppose, but how can you define something as "sane" or "consensual" if the risks are not known and fully disclosed to all parties concerned?  That doesn't seem like a legitimate definition of consent to me.  Consenting to something you dont fully understand is no consent at all.  That's why children and animals and inebriated adults are all incapable of consent, legally speaking.


Note: Bold emphasis is my addition to the above & what I'm responding to.
 
To a large degree you're right Shakti, and thus the origin behind my reference to SSC being something of a Catch-22.  One can't be truly Safe, Sane and give informed Consent if they aren't Aware of the Risks. 
 
RACK on the other hand, spells out the need for Awareness before Consent can be given, which is why I prefer it's use over SSC.  The degree of Risk one wishes to take is then entirely a person's choice and not a matter of what's considered generally "safe" because "everyone does it".  By following RACK, a person doesn't have to become an edge player, but they learn they should understand the need to have an Awareness of the amount of Risk they're taking before they become involved in any activity associated with wiitwd.  SSC doesn't specifically give them that in it's definition while RACK does.
 
 - pixel



_____________________________

Chivalry isn't dead! It's for those who have it in their hearts & are willing to be taught. It's a way of life, a code of honor; this one's armor still needs some polishing!

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/4/2008 10:22:31 AM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pixelslave
To a large degree you're right Shakti, and thus the origin behind my reference to SSC being something of a Catch-22.  One can't be truly Safe, Sane and give informed Consent if they aren't Aware of the Risks. 
 
RACK on the other hand, spells out the need for Awareness before Consent can be given, which is why I prefer it's use over SSC. 


I guess the real crux of the problem then is that I see no reason why the two philosophies have to be placed in opposition to one another, or why they should be competing for the same semantic territory.  If you approach the defniitions this way, people are forced to "pick sides" and prefer the use of one term over the other as an approach to all BDSM.  Having to pick a position then forces you to declarre the other philosophy to lacking or inferior in some way, to justify your choice--and all we've done is divide people into camps uselessly.

Personally, I think it goes without saying that there is no such thing as safety, sanity or consent without awareness of the risks and some competence in managing them.  Whereas you feel the need to declare SSC to be "ignorant"--devoid of "awareness"--so that RACK can lay claim to the territory of keeping people properly informed.

*shrug*  I see no reason for two different terms unless they can be meaningfully applied to genuinely different but equally legitimate approaches to BDSM.  Hence I choose to define the terms in such a way that both can be used to describe BDSM styles which are equally intelligent, compassionate and valid--the one being more conservative in its approach to risk, the other being more accepting of risks for the sake of pleasure.

I will freely admit, as well, that these definitions are also formed in part by experience.  People and clubs who identify with SSC have always seemed to be more conservative in their approach to edgeplay and risk, while being ultra-concerned with safety and education.  People who identify with RACK have seemed much less conservative in their approach to edgeplay and risk, while being equally ultra-concerned with safety and education.  Therefore it is very hard for me to see how one philosophy is automatically for the ignorant or the careless?  But if people feel the need to fight for One Truth that has to apply to all activities, I can see where the conflict comes from!

_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to pixelslave)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: SSC/RACK - 6/4/2008 10:54:43 AM   
pixelslave


Posts: 1444
Joined: 8/19/2006
Status: offline
Shakti,
I think you've overgeneralized my comments and those of others.  Obviously your experience has been different than mine. 
 
I don't recall declaring SSC to be "ignorant".  I also don't see SSC and RACK as competing with one another, just different ways of stating how one should approach play in this lifestyle.  I view RACK as encompassing all that's included in SSC, plus adding more to the definition which coincidently helpful for those who wish to take things beyond SSC into edgeplay.  It give them a choice and guidelines for how they perhaps should do that. 
 
 - pixel


_____________________________

Chivalry isn't dead! It's for those who have it in their hearts & are willing to be taught. It's a way of life, a code of honor; this one's armor still needs some polishing!

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress >> RE: SSC/RACK Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078