RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (Full Version)

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



Message

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 12:01:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

Referring back to my answer on 'what is a true Dom?', a Dom is someone who gets a sexual charge from the obedience of their partner.  So 'submissiveness' under the same terms is someone whose sexuality is tied to obedience to another. 


See... I don't know that this definition works for me. Everything works -- except for the "sexual" part. I do get a charge out of the obedience of my servants, and the glorious agony of the bottoms I work on -- it is energetic, but it isn't sexual for me. I wouldn't even call it "erotic", in the philosophical sense of that word. I would call it "intense" and sensual, as in being consuming of the senses... but there isn't a sexual tinge to this for me. If there is -anything- it is a -spiritual- charge... it is something that feeds the me that resides within my skin and  absorbs experience from the world.

I love the taste of tears -- the salty, bitter flavor... but it isn't eros... erotic love... it is definitely closer to 'agape' -- that sense of one-ness with the Universe and all of its power.

In the same sense, I think I see submission as this amazing yielding energy -- it seeps into hidden places, and beats futilely against and winds itself around the brick walls of the dominant spirit, until it finds the cracks in the foundation of our hard demands, and fills our lives with the rich fragrance of that yielding energy, so that we sense it and crave it on a level that is difficult to recognize with our consciousness, but which brings us back, over and over, to drawing that energy from this one who opens hirself to us.

Calla Firestorm



CreativeDominant -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 12:20:48 PM)

Many of the posts on here make a lot of sense to me.  I've always felt similar to what eyesopened had to say:



Posts: 1680
Joined: 6/12/2006
Status: online I've always liked the dictionary definition: 'to yield to the authority of another'  In this definition, submission first recongizes Authority and then yields to that Authority. It requires a change in focus away from oneself to focus on the Authority figure.  It is beautiful in its simplicity.

Submission is not about only doing what you like nor is it about only doing what you don't like.  To me, it is about retaining dignity and interest in one's self but recognizing another's interests above your own and about recognizing the dynamic's interests as above both of yours with his implementation of those interests, his authority and his structuring of that dynamic being what is followed and not just out of obedience...though that is great...but out of a sense of wanting to follow this person that leads you...because you agreed to let him do so.




OnlyHisLovebug -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 12:38:00 PM)

Only at page two so far, so please forgive me if others have already touched on this.  I understand the willingness part of the following statment:
Submissive (səb mis′iv)
noun 
As applied to a member of a couple engaged in D/s or M/s practices:  One who is willing to act in a way (or allow actions to be done to them) they would normally refuse to act/allow because the desire to please their partner overpowers whatever unpleasentness was attached to the action in question. 
 
However, what about the fact that He and I are so compatible that I don't generally run into things I would normally refuse to act/allow?  Not only that, but even if there are things that would have been in that category prior to this relationship, I found many of those sorts of things became moot once we were together.  It's not so much me doing things I don't want to do in order to please Him, as it is finding that I enjoy exploring those things because I like to make Him happy.   

By Your definition, I'm never really all that submissive, because I'm quite happily along for the ride- wherever it may lead.   I don't just subject myself to His authority, I instead find that because of our dynamic, there simply are not too many things He would want of me that would fall into the caveat that You built into Your  definition.




IrishMist -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 1:24:50 PM)

quote:

Oh come on!  ... now you are just saying that to be contrary

Really?
How well do you know me?
How many times in the past 40 years have we had conversations that would make such a statement valid from your point of view?

I don't do or say anything just to make noise; I always have a purpose for saying what I do; in any way that I choose to say it. I don't argue for the sake of arguing; thats a waste of my time and energy; and it rarely produces results that are a positive nature.
quote:

  If you look like a submissive and you act like a submissive and everyone around you including yourself says that you are a submissive, but you are not a submissive, then what are you? 

I would have thought that the answer to this question would be obvious. I am ME.
If knowing me means that YOU have to label me with a word to understand ME better, then you go right ahead. Don't expect that I will agree with your conclusions though.

quote:

Yes - the thread is about submission and what it is - but one can only answer that on a personal level in all honesty.  It would be a mistake to think that just because she is submissive to you and you were able to nurture that and bring it out in her, doesn't make her anymore submissive to another person - which in essence is what IM is trying to get across(I believe). 
 

As usual, you have hit it pretty close to the mark [:)]




MadRabbit -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 1:41:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Yes - the thread is about submission and what it is - but one can only answer that on a personal level in all honesty. 

 
I don't know...Maybe if we are talking about determining one's own orientation on a purely individual level.

However, I could really give a rat's ass if a potential partner has validated herself as being submissive through introspection. I Own the relationship and the girl, all of her, and that includes her identity. Therefore, whether or not I perceive a potential partner as "submissive" is more important than whether or not they perceive themselves as being "submissive".

Any definition they have of "submissive or slave" means nothing, because it will do nothing to change my definition for my dynamic. My expectations for what a "submissive or slave" is are the only ones that matter, because if they aren't met, they won't be able to be with me. They have to express their submission how I expect it to be expressed and not how they internally "feel" they should express it.

If your going to be Owned by me, then you are going to validate yourself through me. Not through Wikipedia, a BDSM munch group, the Internet, your mentor, or your own conception of what a submissive or slave is.

Of course, if you aren't interested in being Owned by me, then why give a fuck what I think?



IrishMist -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 1:45:26 PM)

quote:

If your going to be Owned by me, then you are going to validate yourself through me. Not through Wikipedia, a BDSM munch group, the Internet, your mentor, or your own conception of what a submissive or slave is.

THANKYOU

Dayum, sometimes you are good bud...dayum good [8D]



daddysprop247 -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 1:47:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

So what IS submissive?

OR dominant?
 
the way this slave sees it, there are at least 3 different answers to the question of "what IS submission or dominance"---sometimes the catagories overlap in the same person, sometimes they don't.  it has been this slave's experience that the motivation for submission and/or dominance is as unique as the individuals that engage in it.
 
1.  Personality type.
some folks tend to submit to others while other folks tend to dominate those around them.  there are even folks who are a little of both, depending on who they are with or some other qualifier.
 
2.  Relationship orientation.
some folks prefer and thrive in a relationship where they submit to, or dominate, another.  it could have absolutely nothing to do with their personality, or how they are wired sexually.
 
3.  Sexual preference.
some folks are aroused and fulfilled by submitting to another's sexual desires, or dominating another in the bedroom/dungeon.  again, this could have nothing at all to do with their personality or preferred relationship orientation.
 
the problem this slave sees so often on these boards is that inexperienced or small-minded folks expect "a" submissive or "a" dominant to ALL identify exclusively with any particular one or ALL of the above mentioned catagories and to ALL have the exact same motivation as the next one that has either label affixed to themselves.
 


out of all the responses here, i think that beth's answer was most clear and accurate. when people use the word "submissive," to describe someone, they are generally referring to someone who fits into one of the 3 categories above...sexual submissive, relationship submissive, or personality submissive. these 3 types of submission are drastically different however and it often makes for confusion when people come together on forums like this and discuss dominance, submission, etc. and each with a different definition of these terms in mind.

as a personality-type submissive, i can't relate to a submissive who is motivated by a relationship (he brings it out in me) or sexual arousal (it turns me on to submit), and they can't much relate to me. none are any better or worse, but the differences must be acknowledged and accepted, and the idea of lumping everyone into one group is fruitless and counterproductive.



IrishMist -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 1:51:30 PM)

Off topic for a minute

Prop...

it's good to see you around again; I miss your posts [:)]



daddysprop247 -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 1:56:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

Off topic for a minute

Prop...

it's good to see you around again; I miss your posts [:)]


thanks Mist, it's nice to be back. [:)]



MizSexyVixen -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 2:19:50 PM)

I've given a great deal of thought to this lately.

To me, submissive is:

the willingness to obey
the desire to serve
the need to be found pleasing

As someone has already pointed out, this can be a personality trait (need to please everyone) or attributes that are brought out by a specific relationship dynamic.



Maxwell67 -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 3:00:22 PM)

Here is the crux of the conversation which I understand myself to be having with people on this thread.

What I am seeing is a lot of people who have fantasies that are considered twisted by society at large, who are waiting for a person to come along who also wants to play the same freaky little games and is willing to assume the responsibility for the actions of both parties whom they can then call "Master" so that they may assuage their consciences by saying they were "submitting to the will of another."  If that is what you need to allow yourselves to enjoy WIITWD then fine.  I am among those willing to assume responsibility and give you permission to be the freak that you are but I don't believe that your accepting my permission can be called submission.

I think actual submission must go deeper than that and involve doing things that one would not wish to do otherwise out of a desire to please.

Mine did not need my permission to be the freak she is, though I appear to be the only lover she has had who was able to indulge her fantasies and give her what she craved.  She did not, however fantasize about being owned nor wearing a collar nor even serving another nor any number of other things which so many here seem to have wanted most of their lives.  She enjoys all of WIITWD in our relationship and finds it exciting and even rewarding, but she participates in much of it because it pleases me.   

Others here seem to be saying that it is the need to please that is foremost and defines being a submissive.

While Mine feels a need to serve my will now, her need to serve does not extend beyond me.  In fact, it did not exist before she met me.  So by many arguments here that would mean she is not a submissive.  So if she was not a submissive whose need I met and matched with my own dominance then what exactly happened?

My mother used to make fun of the women I dated, calling them timid sisters because I was so clearly in charge of everything that happened in the relationship.  She said I was manipulating these girls. So then is that what took place here?  Do I have some mutant power of manipulation that turns vanilla women into slavering little freaks craving my approval as my mother seemed to think?

Perhaps Mine is not A submissive, but she is certainly is MY submissive.  I never knowingly abused her.  I swore to use my mutant super-powers of mind control only for good, so have I unknowingly broken my vow and brainswashed her by reflex action?



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 3:21:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Maxwell67


Perhaps Mine is not A submissive, but she is certainly is MY submissive.  I never knowingly abused her.  I swore to use my mutant super-powers of mind control only for good, so have I unknowingly broken my vow and brainswashed her by reflex action?


I'll tell you what, Max (May I call you Max?), I'm a heretic. I like beth's three categories of submission, but I believe that -everyone- has the capacity to yield under the right circumstances. In the same way, on another thread, one of the individuals who self-orients as a submissive individual mentioned how, when her dominants were hospitalized, she was compelled to protect them and terrorize any of the nursing staff who didn't care for them properly. I also believe that -everyone- has the capacity to stand solid and accept leadership, again, under the right circumstances.

If your lady yields to you, those are the "right" circumstances for her. Screw 'em all if they don't like that her circumstances only revolve around you. I knelt at the feet of my trainers when I was earning my crop, and damned if I didn't submit, as hard as it was (especially for the first year, when I hadn't gotten the whole "yielding with grace" thing down yet). For me, that and seminary were the ONLY two times I was motivated sufficiently to yield. Hell, I even got my ex in trouble by facing down his First Sargent and Commanding Officer when they were being dipshits. (They didn't do anything to him -- just ragged him a lot, and the First Sargent told him he'd better "get the little woman under control" -- to which he responded "She's never -been- under control, First Sargent. Her parents couldn't do it, the Church couldn't do it, I sure as hell can't do it...but you're welcome to try.") I've always been a bit of chaos in the pot -- but damned if I didn't let my moderators at the seminary and my trainers in the House bring me to heel... and I learned a LOT in the 4 years of required servitude... including how to put my seminary training to use in practical ways.

If you -are- some kind of Hoodoo Master who can turn domineering women into putty.... well... if they follow you, 'tain't your fault. *Grins* Don't look at me, though -- I only -look- like the Sta-puf Marshmallow Woman. There's a considerable portion of good Sicilian brick under the padding, and I wouldn't want ya to break anything!

Calla Firestorm



Maxwell67 -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 4:21:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
I'll tell you what, Max (May I call you Max?)

You may.  I have been signing my missives on the other side with that nom de plume.  I suppose I will eventually add a sig line here that identifies me with it as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
I'm a heretic. I like beth's three categories of submission, but I believe that -everyone- has the capacity to yield under the right circumstances.

She is not simply 'yeilding' though.  She really does love it... now.  For that matter we have been looking around for a female she could submit to as well (a switch who could submit to me and be able to dominate her on occasion) and it is something she is more that just 'willing' to try.  There again, she did not know she was bisexual til I told her she was, but since that time she has enthusiatically expressed that aspect of her sexuality as well.  In all of these cases, though I never told her she was something I did not honestly think she really was in her most secret heart, I have just been right on every call.  She is a great prize to me.  When I found her she was a diamond in the rough.  Now she is a diamond, and I spend a great deal of time polishing her so she can shine as brightly as she is able.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
...the First Sargent told him he'd better "get the little woman under control"

And this guy is still walking around with both testicles?  You have been too self-effacing, Calla, you have far more self-control than you let on. 


quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
If you -are- some kind of Hoodoo Master who can turn domineering women into putty.... well... if they follow you, 'tain't your fault. *Grins* Don't look at me, though -- I only -look- like the Sta-puf Marshmallow Woman. There's a considerable portion of good Sicilian brick under the padding, and I wouldn't want ya to break anything!

Mine was never domineering, that I can tell.  I thought she was going to be submissive when I met her.  It was not until later that I discovered what a surprise discovering that part of herself had been for her.  I have never, to my knowledge been attracted to a dominant, and if I was I would not try to turn her into something else.  It has always been my intention simply to bring Mine into the fullness of her own being.  IMO, I just knew who she was better than she did, that is all.



TanukiChan -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 4:31:16 PM)

Labels often get the best of people and cause them to over-complicate things, and wish to "protect" their ideas when "threatened" by someone else having a contrary or 'sub-par' idea. The lifestyle is about exploring certain desires, and I find nothing wrong with this person's idea of submission.



slavegirljoy -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/6/2008 4:34:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidS8ist

In essence, one isn't "A submissive".  One submits to a particular other person to whom the first can not *not* submit.  It's a state of being that may not exist for any other person.  Or it can be a state of being elicited by anyone slightly more dominant.

Not many enjoy *all* the chores and responsibilities of life.  Doing them doesn't make one submissive.  Doing them *for* someone probably does (although we get into that blurry "what about the parent doing all those things for a child, does that make the parent the child's submissive" world of specious counter-arguments).
 
This is easy.  i'm a mom and i have always done "all those things" for my children and still do but, doing things for them doesn't make me submissive to them.  It makes me a mom who believes it's my responsibility to make sure that they are safe, well nourished, well educated and well nurtured, according to my ideas and beliefs, not theirs.  i don't bend my will to theirs.  i don't comply with their demands.  i don't do things for them because they tell me to.  In fact, when they try to tell me what they want me to do, i remind them that i am the parent, not vice verse.
 
Like you said, i don't believe i am "a submissive".  Rather, i am a submissive woman.  Submissive isn't what i am.  Submissiveness is one of my many characteristics that makes me who i am.

Within my intimate relationships with men, i have always been submissive because i have always complied with the wishes, rules, and demands of the man in my life, whether or not he was into BD/SM or whether or not he was Dominant or whether i agreed with it or liked it or wanted to do it or not.  That's just how i am. 
 
Being compliant with the man i have entered into an intimate relationship with is something i have always just automatically done.  i didn't have to learn to be submissive or be made to submit.  If i didn't want to comply to his wishes and do what he wants me to do, i never would get into a relationship with the man to begin with.  If i do want to be in a relationship with him, i make myself available to him to use any way he wants.  That's just how i have always been with guys.  i believe in the man being in charge and me being a willing and obedient helpmate.

No one ever had to bring out my submissive nature.  It was there from the start and no matter how much i might have tried to change myself to not be submissive, i couldn't.  As you said, i cannot "not submit", within my intimate relationship.
 
i have never needed to be Dominated in order to be submissive.  But, i do need to be Dominated in order to feel content in my relationship because i need to feel His power over me and know, without a doubt, that He is in charge of me.  For that reason, simply being a submissive woman/girl friend/wife/etc. was never enough for me.  i needed to belong to a very Dominant man who would take charge of me and Own me.  And, now that i have found a Master to own me and use me the way that i need to be used, all is well and life is good.
 
joy
Owned servant of Master David



IrishMist -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/7/2008 5:46:15 AM)

quote:

Others here seem to be saying that it is the need to please that is foremost and defines being a submissive.

No. That is not what others are saying; and if you would remove the feeling that we are attacking you, you would be able to see that.

I don't care what your property calls herself. I don't care what you call yourself. I don't care what others call you. I don't care if you and your property are the 'picture that appears in a dictionary definition of D/s or M/s."

What I care about is that YOU do not try to place the same definition upon me. What I care about is that you understand that each and every one of us are individuals and unique in our way; and because of that, we can NOT accept your definitions for ourselves. Only as an individual and as a couple can we define not only ourselves, but our own individual relationships.

THAT is what everyone in this thread has been saying. That because of the differences in each individual; a universal definition can not be used. It's not realistically possible. To adopt such a policy, places all relationships of individuals into the realm of universal, generic FANTASY.

You have a relationship with your property that works for you and you alone. Would you prefer that another tell you that you are doing it wrong and that you can only do it one way? Simply because of a definition in a book?

I am not sure about you, but there is no way in hell that I would ever conform to such a policy. I would rather be thought of as the one who is on the outside; living her own life, by her own rules, regulations and definitions. It makes for much more interesting living in my opinion.

Edited to add:
You seemed to take offense when I stated that submission and submissive, when applied to a D/s M/s relationship, was nothing more than a word thrown around for impact.
Perhaps now, you understand a bit why I said what I did.



BoiJen -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/7/2008 6:05:39 AM)

Hang me up on a cross cuz I'ma use the word "real." (and likely piss on some people's toes)

At a dinner not too long ago I started in on my personal feeling of the "all inclusive approach" to BDSM and the Leather Community. I think it's bullshit. There are several RIGHT ways to REALLY be into BDSM and the Leather Community. I'm sick and fuckin tired of people who are too fat, or too lazy, or just plain can't figure out where else they fit, so they drag their asses over from their gaming tables and stamp their feet and say "hey! I'm kinky!" IT'S NOT TRUE just cuz they say it is. I for one, think that we're NOT the last resort for those who can't figure out where they belong.

There is a wrong way to go about WIITWD. If you take away the basic concept at it's core of "someone's on top, and someone's on bottom...and we do shit WAY out of the ordinary" then it's NOT BDSM. Period. A once in a while smack on the ass during sex is NOT kinky. It's liking sex. It does NOT make someone submissive.

Now...to the topic...yes, there are specific traits that are considered submissive behaviour. (Please note, not gonna see me type "a submissive"...it's an adjective, not a noun, use a dictionary.) The desire to please is not one of those things otherwise...D-types would be performing submissive behaviours on a regular basis. On average, D-types really do want their s-types to be happy and pleased in them as D-types. It's human nature. A defining characteristic is doing even though you don't want to. Not because it makes so-and-so happy...but because you were told to by so-and-so. Does this make UM's standard expectation in behaviour "submissive"? YES! They're supposed to follow submissive behaviour patterns. Otherwise, they get punished for not doing as they're told.

Now, if this breaks it down too much for some people as "parental" stayle adult relationships...get over it...you're already acting out issues of your childhood in your adult life just like everybody else. You aren't special. Choose to be conscious of it and actually deal...you'll end up better off as an individual.

And no I don't care if I'm stepping into the firing range. I said it, I mean it, and I'll stand by it. Hate me or not, I'm being truthful. Sue me for not candy coating it for the people who's feelings got hurt because THEY know who I'm talking about.

boiJen
who's gonna enjoy half a week off terrorizing Chi-town...yay! *happy dancin*



Maxwell67 -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/7/2008 6:40:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen
Please note, not gonna see me type "a submissive"...it's an adjective, not a noun, use a dictionary.

Sorry to go off topic, but I am starting to get tired of this.  Maybe it is for the time being, in current dictionaries, but English is still a living language last I checked.  'Party' used to be a noun, not a verb.  'D'oh' was just a made up sound on a television cartoon once, things change.  It is pointless to bitch about it.  Adapt.



Maxwell67 -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/7/2008 7:13:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

quote:

Others here seem to be saying that it is the need to please that is foremost and defines being a submissive.

No. That is not what others are saying;

I am not using the operative term 'seem' simply because I need four more letters here.  That is what I am perceiveing.  Yet others seem to be saying something else, again. I am saying yet another thing, but in most of these cases we have all (myself included) been careful to point out that the descriptions and definitions we post are our own, and not meant to be taken at a universal staement of fact.  We are each describing what submission means from our own perspectives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist
and if you would remove the feeling that we are attacking you, you would be able to see that.


I did not accuse anyone here of attacking me.  I did say my mother used to attack me concerning this subject but it was not the definition of the term that concerned her  For her, any man dominating a woman was abusive.  I merely pointed that out to explain, by way of example, that I do in fact have a bit of a complex about it and that I am not placing the blame for that complex on anyone here.  Perhaps I should not just have assumed that you would have gotten that idea frome reading my post, but I did.  My bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist
I don't care what your property calls herself. I don't care what you call yourself. I don't care what others call you. I don't care if you and your property are the 'picture that appears in a dictionary definition of D/s or M/s."

What I care about is that YOU do not try to place the same definition upon me.

I have only applied my definition to others when directly questioned about it, in what I assumed was an attempt to clarify and understand my view.  At those times yes I applied my own definition, since that is what I thought I was being asked about.  I am not the type to impress my authority universally over everyone I come in contact with (especially not here in these forums.. I am not that stupid).   I did not TRY to place my definition on anyone.  I was answering what looked to me to be an INVITATION to apply my definition to certain presented circumstances.  No more. 

So no I don't think anyone here is attacking me, but yes I have been persecuted over this before, so I am a little touchy.  I was not trying to defend myself so much as trying to explain why I am a bit touchy.  OK.  So you don't give a shit.  Excuse me for living.

Edited to remove an operative term I did not actually use.  oops.  And to add the following response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist
You seemed to take offense when I stated that submission and submissive, when applied to a D/s M/s relationship, was nothing more than a word thrown around for impact.
Perhaps now, you understand a bit why I said what I did.

No that wasn't me taking offense, that was my attempt to get you to clarify the statement, that is all.  And I have to say no, I still don't understand why you said it.  I think you might be saying that it is something for trolls to throw out like a grenade to get people fighting.  That is the line of reasoning I was following with the rest of that post.  I still think these threads are useful.  I did actually get to ammend my own definition based on what was said here, after all.  I found it useful, anyway.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: ok, then what IS submissive? (8/7/2008 10:17:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maxwell67
As applied to a member of a couple engaged in D/s or M/s practices:  One who is willing to act in a way (or allow actions to be done to them) they would normally refuse to act/allow because the desire to please their partner overpowers whatever unpleasentness was attached to the action in question.

It may not work for everyone but that is how I view it.

Edited to that the willingness clause.. it really is more attitude than action.

But I've seen dominants and masters willing to act in ways they would normally not allow because they want to please their partner or make the relationship more fulfilling ultimately.  They do it all the time.  Heck *I* do it quite regularly.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625