RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms?

RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

pixelslave -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/13/2008 10:16:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chiaThePet In the interum of this thread, it became quite pellucid unto myself that deep within, an upheaval likened to a volcanic eruption began to manifest itself in both a physcial and mental bombardment. The views I expressed, and options I forwarded were quite serious considerations, quite serious. Okay, so you seriously considered throwing up. Please tell us in simple english how that adds to the discussion at hand? quote: Had I wished to slam the discussion, I would have taken the liberty to do so. This was not my intent nor desire. My response was in addition to the discussion, as presented, and I wish to change nothing of it. It seems to me that you slammed it in an obscure and passive-agressive manner which Sea called you on and now you don't want to take ownership of your behavior. quote: Here, one may tend to postulate, and rightly so, that my offering was mere jest. I am known as I am known, one whom finds seriousness, simply a bit serious. In other words, you don't want to answer a direct question and own what you posted. Sometimes life is serious and people have serious discussions about it. If you don't like it, you can choose to respect their right to have the discussion and move on. [X(] quote: I might believe, though not thoroughly convinced, that the resolute disection and cadence of the subject matter infuriated any direct desire within me to possess a complex, literal and equipoise definition or definitions aligned with the op's queries and the subsequent discussion and subject matter which followed. At least it turned into something other than the flamefest it began as. quote: Simply said, the need here for exactness most often drives me crazy. Thus, perhaps a preponderance exists within me akin to, or perhaps of, ADD, Attention Deficite Disorder. (I lack immediate indepth knowledge, but shall research said disorder, that I might satisfy my query) You always have the choice to move on to another thread if you don't like what's being posted here. I see no need to be disrespectul of those who are trying to have a serious discussion that you may not find of interest. If you genuinely feel you need medical help as a result of your exposure to it, you can always post in the Health & Safety Forum instead of posting something here that doesn't add to the discussion and is dismissive of those participating in it. quote: I feel the need even now to go bang my head against a solid mass. Where oh where is the laughter? chia* (the pet) If you want laughter, you can always try the Humor Forum. [:)] - pixel See my journal for latest update on the search for Wyatt.

adorationofwomen -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/13/2008 10:54:41 AM)
i'll refrain from using the true word, yet i do honestly believe that there are real submissives. i've attended many loacal events and such, and have myself been a live-in sub/slave, and by my own personal experience and observation, i have seen and felt nothing more than wishing for the Dominant to be happy. As well as my profile here on CM states, my limits are basically those set by the Dominant i am serving, with no i needs or i wants even listed. Let's think, if there weren't any real sub/slaves, were there be any real Dominants?

chiaThePet -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/13/2008 11:56:22 AM)
Hey there pixiedust, knew it would just be a matter of "well I never" and "where's my corncob" before you whined in. Your observations; well intended, but WRONG! I said it, I said it all, and I'll say it again, underlined if need be, and I liked it. There, owning it up enough for you? You can unclench those buttcheeks now Johnny come lately, we've all moved on. chia* (the pet)

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/13/2008 3:53:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixelslave In essence then Sea, based on what you've described above, isn't the lower status you're referring to really the result of the agreed upon power exchange between a dominant and a submissive?? If so, I see no discrepancy, only a difference in terminology. Yes, your statement is correct. The status is a result of consensual power exchange. The point that led me down this path of discussion is to consider why a submissive might wish for something (to voluntarily assume a lower status) that generally defies the ego, which I attribute to masochism. I use the word ego more in its academic sense (a component of the psyche) than a colloquial sense (pride). quote: I suspect, to a large degree we both seek similar things in a relationship with a Dominant in that at the end of the day, we both desire mutual respect and love from a Dominant that will also be our life partner. Yes, I do seek a life partner. The significance of the discussion of the different components of a sub's psychology is that it helps each the domme and the sub get a better understanding of the psychology and needs of a sub, which helps determine compatibility and maintain a satisfying relationship. For example, a domme who seeks a sub for a dynamic that is more like a classic master-servant dynamic has limited compatibility with a sub who has a strong romance and companionship component. Either he needs other means to satisfy romance and companionship, or they need to recognize incompatibility. quote: Yes, your use of the term masochism is indeed causing me difficulty in understanding where you're trying to go. I generally see emotional masochism as harmful to the ego and self-esteem. Emotional masochism can be a loaded term. I do not use it with any negative connotation. I see it to simply be the reflection of physical masochism except this type occurs in the mind. Just as people who do not understand BDSM might see physical SM to be unhealthy, it is possible for someone unfamiliar with emotional SM to think it to be unhealthy. Each physical or emotional SM can occur in healthy or unhealthy forms. I see emotional SM to create emotional discomfort (at least by non-BDSM standards), like physical SM does. Some people enjoy emotional SM for the discomfort it creates and for how the body responds to this discomfort, just as some do for physical SM. There is risk for injury in emotional SM but it can be done without injury or, at least, long-term effects, just as what can be said of corporal play in physical SM. I will add, however, that emotional SM is more complex and less intuitive, which makes it more edgy and more risky for unintended injury. In summary, I do not think emotional SM is necessarily harmful to the ego and self-esteem. I use the term emotional masochism because it is what I have picked up from past discussions on b.com. Perhaps mental masochism or psychological masochism offer a less loaded term. I did not know about emotional SM and asked those who engage in it for elaboration. Before I give examples, I would like to make a point in favor of those who engage in this play. I have tremendous regard for the woman whose posts made me aware of emotional SM. She and her master are experienced and intense players. Their play may seem extreme to others. They play with desconstructing the ego (she made references to various eastern philosophy writings about desconstructing the ego and likened it to phoenix emerging from the ashes--see below for a wiki explanation) and she finds bliss in it. From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(mythology) quote: A phoenix is a mythical male bird with a tail of beautiful gold and red plumage (or purple and blue, by some sources [1]). It has a 500 year life-cycle, and near the end the phoenix builds itself a nest of cinnamon twigs that it then ignites; both nest and bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes, from which a new, young phoenix arises. The new phoenix is destined to live, usually, as long as the old one. At one time, I was a bit offended when I heard what dominants were doing to subs, much like how vanilla people might be upon hearing one partner in a BDSM relationship beats the other partner. I no longer am offended by these examples as long as they occur consensually. The most common example of emotional SM is humiliation play, especially that that creates any amount of discomfort. I consider some aspects of financial domination to be based on emotional SM. I consider the bitch goddess persona to exist towards emotional SM. Other examples of emotional SM activities given by those who engage in it are: A sub is told to build a tower of cards in order to earn an orgasm, or just for sake of whim. As he nears completion, the domme knocks down the tower and tells him to begin again. A more edgy example of undoing that to which he gave energy would be to modify or defile art that the sub created. Playing with a sub's pet peeves can be another example. Hiding something that the sub needs and have him go through the frustration of finding without telling him it has been hideen is another example. One example of play that was based on creating similar frustration was that a dominant and sub went to the store and the dominant quitely slipped out and went home, leaving the sub to figure out that he had done so, and that she must now arrange to get home. If she did not have cash and had to walk or otherwise make arrangements, that would have added to the emotional discomfort. These activities could drive one crazy. However, some consensually play in this manner, which is fair enough. I used to think that I have no interest in emotional SM. Over time I have come to rethink that position and see various activities that are common in BDSM to fall in its realm. In fact, it is this path of reflection that is behind the statement that led to a portion of this discussion: that a desire to assume a lower status is a form of mental masochism (status-based masochism). Cheers, Sea

pixelslave -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/13/2008 6:18:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: Yes, your use of the term masochism is indeed causing me difficulty in understanding where you're trying to go. I generally see emotional masochism as harmful to the ego and self-esteem. Emotional masochism can be a loaded term. I do not use it with any negative connotation. I see it to simply be the reflection of physical masochism except this type occurs in the mind. Just as people who do not understand BDSM might see physical SM to be unhealthy, it is possible for someone unfamiliar with emotional SM to think it to be unhealthy. Each physical or emotional SM can occur in healthy or unhealthy forms. I see emotional SM to create emotional discomfort (at least by non-BDSM standards), like physical SM does. Some people enjoy emotional SM for the discomfort it creates and for how the body responds to this discomfort, just as some do for physical SM. There is risk for injury in emotional SM but it can be done without injury or, at least, long-term effects, just as what can be said of corporal play in physical SM. I will add, however, that emotional SM is more complex and less intuitive, which makes it more edgy and more risky for unintended injury. In summary, I do not think emotional SM is necessarily harmful to the ego and self-esteem. I use the term emotional masochism because it is what I have picked up from past discussions on b.com. Perhaps mental masochism or psychological masochism offer a less loaded term. Either mental or psychological masochism, would seem to me to be far less loaded terms to use for what you describe. I'd certainly feel much more comfortable with them and not have the same "knee jerk" reaction to them than I do to when I read or hear the term emotional masochism. [&:] quote: I did not know about emotional SM and asked those who engage in it for elaboration. Before I give examples, I would like to make a point in favor of those who engage in this play. I have tremendous regard for the woman whose posts made me aware of emotional SM. She and her master are experienced and intense players. Their play may seem extreme to others. They play with desconstructing the ego (she made references to various eastern philosophy writings about desconstructing the ego and likened it to phoenix emerging from the ashes--see below for a wiki explanation) and she finds bliss in it. From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(mythology) quote: A phoenix is a mythical male bird with a tail of beautiful gold and red plumage (or purple and blue, by some sources [1]). It has a 500 year life-cycle, and near the end the phoenix builds itself a nest of cinnamon twigs that it then ignites; both nest and bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes, from which a new, young phoenix arises. The new phoenix is destined to live, usually, as long as the old one. At one time, I was a bit offended when I heard what dominants were doing to subs, much like how vanilla people might be upon hearing one partner in a BDSM relationship beats the other partner. I no longer am offended by these examples as long as they occur consensually. The most common example of emotional SM is humiliation play, especially that that creates any amount of discomfort. I consider some aspects of financial domination to be based on emotional SM. I consider the bitch goddess persona to exist towards emotional SM. Other examples of emotional SM activities given by those who engage in it are: A sub is told to build a tower of cards in order to earn an orgasm, or just for sake of whim. As he nears completion, the domme knocks down the tower and tells him to begin again. A more edgy example of undoing that to which he gave energy would be to modify or defile art that the sub created. Playing with a sub's pet peeves can be another example. Hiding something that the sub needs and have him go through the frustration of finding without telling him it has been hideen is another example. One example of play that was based on creating similar frustration was that a dominant and sub went to the store and the dominant quitely slipped out and went home, leaving the sub to figure out that he had done so, and that she must now arrange to get home. If she did not have cash and had to walk or otherwise make arrangements, that would have added to the emotional discomfort. These activities could drive one crazy. However, some consensually play in this manner, which is fair enough. I used to think that I have no interest in emotional SM. Over time I have come to rethink that position and see various activities that are common in BDSM to fall in its realm. In fact, it is this path of reflection that is behind the statement that led to a portion of this discussion: that a desire to assume a lower status is a form of mental masochism (status-based masochism). Cheers, Sea That's very enlightening information Sea. I'd definitely call that edge play myself. Having been emotionally abused in the past, I have limits regarding areas of humiliation play and how far I'm willing to allow a Domme to take me with them; some of which I find very arousing and greatly enjoy. But there are other areas which I know are very dangerous territory and would definitely feel abusive for me if taken even close to some of them. As you noted, playing with a sub's mind is not something that's always predictable and is territory that a Domme should carefully consider before she takes her sub there. When a sub and a Domme decide they want to go into deconstructing the ego, I'd expect the Domme to have a great deal of knowledge before allowing her to take me there. I desire to become a better man, or at least one that learns more quickly from his mistakes. [;)] So there are places along those lines I'd readily go with a Domme I felt could help me to improve myself. In fact, that's something I'd like to have in a relationship with a Domme. However, some of that doesn't necessarily require going into the kinds of places you're speaking of that might not be healthy for me. [&:] This has been very illuminating and thought provoking for me my friend! I need to digest and process what we've discussed before I think I'll be able to add anything more. - pixel

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/13/2008 8:15:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixelslave As you noted, playing with a sub's mind is not something that's always predictable and is territory that a Domme should carefully consider before she takes her sub there. <snip> I desire to become a better man, or at least one that learns more quickly from his mistakes. I agree. The woman and man of whom I speak have been engaging in BDSM with each other for decades and have a solid relationship foundation for this type of play. Their knowledge draws upon information gathered from readings and attending educational BDSM events. Yes, playing with the mind is risky. Just as past experiences of abuse define red zones for physical play (choking, faceslapping, use of the belt), so they do for mental play. Furthermore, the mechanism for mental injury is much less clearly understood by the average person in comparison to that for physical injury. Aside from the dominant being informed, the sub should also be informed about a criitical skill if engaging in this type of play: processing. It is from the same discussion about mental SM by that woman that I learned about the concept of processing. Processing is how a sub frames an experience in his mind. Outside BDSM, hitting is usually a hostile gesture or act. Within a BDSM context, the sub sees the hitting to not be a hostile gesture. It is not something that conveys disregard. In fact, as I indicated in a prior post, it can be ego enhancing because it represents a positive interaction as a relationship expression (like holding hands) in a BDSM relationship. The sub processes (frames the meaning of the experience) differently. The dominant is not hitting the sub out of disregard. Instead the dominant is hitting the sub because they each enjoy SM, and the hitting represents an activity that helps them express their relationship to each other. Similarly, in the example of the store scenario, the knee-jerk reaction outside of a BDSM context would be that the man had no regard for the woman for just leaving her at the store like that. For processing, she could recognize that leaving her behind was not a gesture of disregard (she can draw upon the rest of the relationship to get a sense for regard) but a gesture done for the sake of mental SM and can perhaps perve off it. I feel similarly about growing to become a better person. I consider myself nominally informed about mental SM as my knowledge comes from discussions in forums, educational events, and intuition. However, I sense that it has potential to help one grow, especially if one seeks to better manage the ego along lines of eastern belief systems, a point referenced by Mettadas. This concept of processing can be extended to everyday life encounters with experiences that are emotionally draining. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/13/2008 11:32:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Venatrix MzLinda, I find it curious that your profile was just started today, you have made only two posts, and both of them have been to attack I agree. It smells of a profile created with an agenda. My detective powers leave me unsure whether the apparent agenda is the actual agenda. In either case, it is unwelcomed. My detective powers are certain, however, that Miss Scarlett did it in the study using the rope. She always did strike me as the kinky type. I recall one instance on b.com where a moderator was able to look up the IP addresses of two posters and determine the posts were made from the same computer, which was then revealed on the thread. I bet that exposure cut down on subsequent attempts to post under dummy profiles. And it would give me the clues to determine who did what in which room ;-) Cheers, Sea

Nikolette -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/13/2008 11:35:33 PM)
quote: I wish you well on your journey as you discover how your choice of words affect the way others interact with you. - pixel Now that deserves etched in stone somewhere, I tell you what.

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/13/2008 11:46:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikolette Now that deserves etched in stone somewhere, I tell you what. Round here we tend to carve it in flesh instead ;-) Cheers, Sea

petpete -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/14/2008 2:10:39 AM)
For my personal experience and how i feel as a sub, i will have to say that only the right person gets to see the true submissive in me. It takes special chemistry and the way i am approached to open myself and show my true submissive self. If not and i am approached in the wrong manner, then i can be a great disappointment and may leave a Domme very disappointed in contacting me...

pixelslave -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/14/2008 11:45:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chiaThePet Hey there pixiedust, knew it would just be a matter of "well I never" and "where's my corncob" before you whined in. Your observations; well intended, but WRONG! chiaThePet, If you truly felt my observations were well intended, but wrong, may I ask why you felt the need to reply in the manner you did by making light of my screen name; seemingly personalizing things when I've never done anything of the sort to you? My reply was specifically in regard to your behavior. I don't believe I said anything about you as a person. To my best recollection, I have never ridiculed your choice of screen names, nor would I. [8\|] Since I don't want to add to the off-topic posts in this thread, feel free to message me on the other side if you'd like to respond to this question privately. quote: I said it, I said it all, and I'll say it again, underlined if need be, and I liked it. There, owning it up enough for you? You can unclench those buttcheeks now Johnny come lately, we've all moved on. chia* (the pet) Yes, I do appreciate your owning up to your behavior. I think that is the honorable thing to do and in doing so, you've increased my respect for your character as a person. That said, I'd like to add something in regard to my response to what you previously had to say. I coach girls' volleyball as a volunteer for the YMCA. I've had girls on my teams with ADD and currently have one that struggles daily with ADHD to a greater extent than girls I've coached in the past. She has a very difficult time with it from what I can tell, and I see how it affects her daily at least twice a week for about an hour during my interactions with her as her volleyball coach. Last Thursday, I watched her cry following my having to set some firm boundaries for her as part of doing my job to assist her with her problems following her interrupting me twice during time-outs during our match; a time when she should have been listening to me and controlling her impulses to share her thoughts (a symptom of her disease). It was not easy to do nor for me to witness the reaction that followed which I later learned was again typical of girls her age who have this disease. I've been troubled by it ever since and sought counsel from knowledgable friends as to how I might have handled it differently; making the effort to learn more about her special needs. As such, I found it offensive for you to make light of her disability and special needs. [&:] If you do indeed have ADD, then I humbly apoligize here and now for my comment to post in the Health and Safety forum if that's the case. Otherwise, I strongly urge you to investigate how people's lives are affected by this disease before you decide to make light of it again in your posts. In doing so, I hope you'll discover upon examining what's in your heart that it's not something to casually make jokes about at their expense. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m23.gif[/image] With the utmost sincerity, - pixel

ThundersCry -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/14/2008 5:20:59 PM)
chia has just as much right to his opinions and thoughts as you....do If it really bothers you...don`t read his posts... Lighten up...dude

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/14/2008 6:01:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThundersCry chia has just as much right to his opinions and thoughts as you....do Fair enough. Which opinion or thought do you see to have received an unfair objection? Cheers, Sea

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/14/2008 6:04:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThundersCry chia has just as much right to his opinions and thoughts as you....do If it really bothers you...don`t read his posts... Lighten up...dude Do let me know which "opinions" you found relevant to this discussion.

ThundersCry -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/14/2008 6:07:55 PM)
Finnnnnnnneeeeeeeee =L= I have to go back and read every post now.... Tell ya next week when assignment is done!

chiaThePet -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/16/2008 5:59:11 PM)
Alrighty then Pixel, you've got questions and comments so I'm here to oblige. My apologies for taking so long, but I've been busy enrolling my son in college, and apartment hunting as he "yearns to be free". Add to that, the need to do a little research, both in the archives here, and with definitions of ADD. First off, yes, I apologize for the cheap moniker hit, the end of a busy day and I just shot a quick one off. Though I must say, had I been on my game, you would have gotten a good, "Polly Want A Cracker"? Why? As I felt it, you were band wagon jumping when it wasn't necessary to do so. I know the relationships here and how they can work. Sort of Wally and the Beav, if I can possibly say that in a way which won't offend. I think you get it. Anywho, sea had already felt the need to question my motives and demand my intent, though I thought my original post explained it fairly well. When pressed for more, yep, I resented it and my reply included a touch of smartass. I had entered this thread and read through from beginning to the page where upon I posted, some eighty something replies, and I will admit that it often is something difficult for myself to do. The focus eludes me easily, I "lose" patience, and my place, and become frustrated suddenly. It is the same with books, papers, movies, there are just moments they lose me and I disassociate, whether momentarily or completely. At the end, I spoke my feelings, true feelings accumulated from a thread which was compiled of seriousness, humor, snarkiness, anger and some I'm sure I forget. So when sea approached as he did, I felt it was in addition to, and a carry over from another thread where we had recently crossed wires. He had not "called out" and demanded "intent" from anyone else whom advanced humor and any other tone or emotion. I believe this still. The three of us have crossed wires in the past, spoke our piece and moved on. The three of us have "all" pissed someone off here with our posts and opinions. That is not likely to change anytime soon. As I said to sea recently, "I won't go changing to try and please you". Most know my heart here, it means no harm. My head on the other hand, slinkys, bouncing endlessly in a unison of madcap halarity. I can never apologize for seeing the lighter side, though I can attempt to muffle my screams when class is in session. I said attempt. Now, it is my turn to chastise, as none of us is perfect in our approach. I will say, "shame on you" for using a childs disability to advance your agenda of "shame on me". I did not make light of "her" disability or "her" special needs. Cheap shot. First and foremost, this child, and possibly myself do not have a "disease", but we may possess a behavioral disorder, of which there are types and severities, most often controllable with proper medication. As a child, I was most often described as hyper with endless energy, uncapable of sitting still. Now that my body is slowing down, it would seem the energy has shifted into my mind. "Oh God, I'm crazy as a loon". Kidding, maybe. Annnnyway, I have issues, and I may wish to share them in places other than the Health and Safety forum. God, just got this horrible image in my head of me as an aging crossing guard trapped in the middle of the street. "Hurry you little bastards, my depends are full". Annnnnyway, I was not jesting other than my approach, I was serious of both thought and action. Something I do not believe I have shared here before is the fact that I have a developmentally disabled 47 year old younger brother, whom I have been guardian and caregiver for since the death of my mother seventeen years ago. I have lived a lifetime of knowing disability and many whom possess varying degress of such. What is alway prevelent within them, is the desire to "not" be seen as disabled, and the always present laughter in their voices and the wonderful sparkle in their eyes. If I do possess Adult ADD, no big wup, just add it to list list of infirmities which apparently wait for me just outside the door. Sigh. But I'm over it, and this thread, cause I really need to move on or I'm going to have to bang my head on something. I don't hate anyone, and hope they don't hate me. But I'm out here, sometimes correct, sometimes not. And if you slap me, you'll simply just wake up all those slinkys in my head. And I will not be responsible for the carnage or aftermath. Seriously. chia* (the pet)

cloudboy -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/16/2008 8:47:59 PM)
If it adds anything to the discussion, you are one of my wife's favorite posters.

thishereboi -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/17/2008 4:38:16 AM)
It is truly frustrating, isn't it. The search for the one true slave. Especially on the internet where you can't be sure who you are even talking to. I think the chances of finding the one true slave on here, are about as good as finding the one true mistress.

MizSexyVixen -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/17/2008 5:41:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi It is truly frustrating, isn't it. The search for the one true slave. Especially on the internet where you can't be sure who you are even talking to. I think the chances of finding the one true slave on here, are about as good as finding the one true mistress. I think a person finds what they are looking for, filtered through their own prism and perspective. My daddy used to tell a story of a man who was looking for a new place to live. He drove into a new town, stopped at a station for gas, and asked the attendent (this -was- a looong time ago) what the people were like in that town. The attendent asked him what kind of people he was looking for. He replied "kind, compassionate, open minded, honest." The attendent told him "that's the kind we have in this town." Then the attendent asked him what the people were like in the last town he visited. "Cold, hostile, dishonest," was the reply. "Well, there you go," said the attendant. Daddy was a country boy, but he could be subtle on occasion.

solvr70 -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/17/2008 8:07:54 AM)
i'd say at this point, i'm a bottom having only had limited experiences. one has to start somewhere.... i feel it would take a bit of time with One to reach the truely "sub" point. but what do I know [:D]

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875