Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: For Dominants and submissives


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: For Dominants and submissives Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 6:10:43 AM   
sambamanslilgirl


Posts: 10926
Joined: 2/5/2007
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		i didn't place a "blanket" on what you quoted by me - if you prefer a woman who's a dasmel in distress waiting to be saved ...fine however don't expect that from every woman (including me) you meet. i shouldn't have to be more feminine to make any man feel more manly. why i have to change for him?  he should accept me as i am.

as women try to break that glass ceiling, in my opinion, there's no room for the "dasmel" type anymore. you can blame the ERA movement in the 70s for that if you want.
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

See here is a good example of what I just refered to. sambamanslilgirl has placed a blanket "this is wrong for how a female should act" just because as she states "in today's society". If someone's nature is such that they are not extremely submissive and defering to dominant personalities, then that is fine but to change one's nature based upon what society tells you, is to go against one's own self. Nothing personal meant in this post, just using it as an example of allowing societal pressures to make us act in a way that may be against our nature.


quote:

ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl

being more feminine so he can feel more manly - now that to me is a bunch of crock. in today's society, you cannot be the "dasmel in distress waiting for your prince to save you" type of woman.



_____________________________

...2011 - year of the fabulous rock star life ...and i do it so well...


...announcing Mr. & Mrs. British Petrol ...yeah, marrying into oil is slick business...

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 6:18:07 AM   
IrishMist


Posts: 7480
Joined: 11/17/2005
Status: offline 		~FR~

Interesting discussion.

All my life, I fought to keep control of myself. Literally fought. I am about as far from the ‘stereotype’ of feminine that you can get. I am rough, I am abrasive, I am brutal at times. I don’t own a single dress or a pair of heels. My choice of clothing is leather, chains, boots, and weapons. I can easily take down a man three times my size without breaking a sweat.

Most, who meet me for the first time, would say that I am about as far from being submissive that a person can be.

Yet, in the presence of some men; all it takes is a word, a look, a certain aura or personality; and my aggression is completely wiped out. It could be someone I have known for years; it could be a stranger on the street ( and yes, that has happened ).

When I am in that person’s presence, I become what nature intended me to be.

I don’t need a book to tell me something that I already know. No matter how feminine I try to appear; unless the person I am trying to ‘impress’ touches on that deepest part of me…it does no good.

Just me, but there it is.

_____________________________

If I said something to offend you, please tell me what it was so that I can say it again later.


(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 6:21:51 AM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		If you did not mean it as a blanket statement, then I suggest you improve your communication skills. i.e. " now that to me is a bunch of crock. in today's society "


quote:

ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl

i didn't place a "blanket" on what you quoted by me - if you prefer a woman who's a dasmel in distress waiting to be saved ...fine however don't expect that from every woman (including me) you meet. i shouldn't have to be more feminine to make any man feel more manly. why i have to change for him?  he should accept me as i am.

as women try to break that glass ceiling, in my opinion, there's no room for the "dasmel" type anymore. you can blame the ERA movement in the 70s for that if you want.
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

See here is a good example of what I just refered to. sambamanslilgirl has placed a blanket "this is wrong for how a female should act" just because as she states "in today's society". If someone's nature is such that they are not extremely submissive and defering to dominant personalities, then that is fine but to change one's nature based upon what society tells you, is to go against one's own self. Nothing personal meant in this post, just using it as an example of allowing societal pressures to make us act in a way that may be against our nature.


quote:

ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl

being more feminine so he can feel more manly - now that to me is a bunch of crock. in today's society, you cannot be the "dasmel in distress waiting for your prince to save you" type of woman.




_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to sambamanslilgirl)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 6:24:06 AM   
sambamanslilgirl


Posts: 10926
Joined: 2/5/2007
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		wow - you even bold with HUGE frickin' letters too.

my opinions and i stand behind them - not changing my manner of communication either.

_____________________________

...2011 - year of the fabulous rock star life ...and i do it so well...


...announcing Mr. & Mrs. British Petrol ...yeah, marrying into oil is slick business...

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 6:41:34 AM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		I did it to point out your inconsistant statement. If you want to be misunderstood, and or just backpedal when called on something, stay as you are. Thanks for the good example though.


quote:

ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl

wow - you even bold with HUGE frickin' letters too.

my opinions and i stand behind them - not changing my manner of communication either.


_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to sambamanslilgirl)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 6:51:00 AM   
lusciouslips19


Posts: 9792
Joined: 9/8/2007
Status: offline 		I think it has definately made a difference in the quality of men i have dated since recognizing and accepting my submissive nature. But I am more open and I do more things that will please men. I let them take control because i dont want it. I no longer want to be a nag so I work really hard to say things that need to be said but in a more gentle way. This has brought the protective side of my Dominants out.

Or perhaps it was honing and fine tuning my Blowjob skills. This is probably the single most over riding thing of importance to men in general.

_____________________________

Original Pimpette,
Keeper of Original Home Flag and Fire of Mr. Lance Hughes
Charter member of Lance's Fag Hags,
Member of the Subbie Mafia
Princess of typos and it's my prerogative

(in reply to greeneyedreamer)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 6:55:49 AM   
starshineowned


Posts: 1551
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Greetings..

I will try to explain my mindset on this but warn that it may be confusing.

quote:

  And for submissives:
The same question but in reverse...do you find dominants are more attracted to you if you allow them to be more in control even in simple ways (such as those mentioned above)?



I am not the very girly girly type in the sense I think most utilize descriptors to define "feminine". It takes a masculine male to bring that out.

If I have to relinquish control or be less controlling within a relationship on a conscious effort..then the man is not right for me. It is his will, determination, and control that inspires the need and desire for me to yield to him in a happy productive way. Once that has become internalized for me without question (and this takes time with alot of elements and factors)..I'll follow him through the gates of hell.

starshine

_____________________________

"And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." --Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to porcelain26)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 6:56:49 AM   
MadRabbit


Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

quote:


Just another thing that makes me wonder what exactly American society would be like if the Bible hadn't played such a strong role in it's development.


The bible did not play any role in the development of most Asian cultures. Ever thought of that? I think it is very short sighted thinking to write off all of this because of the Christian bible.


I wasn't being short sighted, but I do apologize for my rather ambiguous statement. I was solely talking about American society with no reference to other cultures.

In my opinion, historically, our religious zeal is the second most influential driving force in the development of American society besides our capitalism. I source our social gender roles to a Biblical viewpoint of men and women with the current mainstream one being changed by the feminist movement.

I just wonder how different our history would be if the pen holders had written God as a female.



_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 6:59:30 AM   
Padriag


Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelain26

The book talks about how, by trying to control every aspect of a relationship, a woman will actually find herself without any relationship at all, because that kind of behavior drives away the very men she's trying to attract.

...by not holding each man she meets to impossible standards and by not trying to control him.

I would consider the above bits good advice to anyone dating.

quote:

So here is my question for Dominants (both men and women): do you find that you're more attracted to women who graciously receive everything that you offer, ?

Everything?  No.  That would smack of insincerity.  However, what I do find attractive in any woman is the ability to be gracious... whether they are accepting something, or refusing it.  Sometimes a gracious no can be more appealing than a crass yes.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to porcelain26)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 7:14:15 AM   
MsFlutter


Posts: 1305
Joined: 11/12/2008
From: East Coast
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelain26

...(there is also another book by the same author entitled "The Surrendered Wife" which gives the same theories only for those women who are already married and in long term relationships). I'm naturally inclined to let any man I'm with be in control, but as a smart, capable, independent woman, I still find myself making all kinds of mistakes which are discussed, for example: brushing off compliments, refusing offered help, ducking my head instead of smiling at people, etc.


This books sounds very much like Maribel Morgan's book Total Woman (circa 1974-ish). My mother read it and turned our entire household upside down for awhile.

_____________________________

'Dont torture yourself, Gomez darling. That's my job' Morticia Addams

"The right data, filtered through an idiot, can yield a bad answer." einstien5201

(in reply to porcelain26)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 7:27:00 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		this slave has never desired to control a relationship, regardless of how badly they wanted her to, so a how-to book on how to not do it would be a total waste of time and as useless for her as would be a book on how to suntan.

(in reply to porcelain26)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 8:09:37 AM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

quote:


Just another thing that makes me wonder what exactly American society would be like if the Bible hadn't played such a strong role in it's development.


The bible did not play any role in the development of most Asian cultures. Ever thought of that? I think it is very short sighted thinking to write off all of this because of the Christian bible.


I wasn't being short sighted, but I do apologize for my rather ambiguous statement. I was solely talking about American society with no reference to other cultures.


I actually delved into this a few years back, and discovered that it is impossible to isolate to just America. America is made up of so many other cultures that were already exposed to the Abrahamic religions.

quote:


In my opinion, historically, our religious zeal is the second most influential driving force in the development of American society besides our capitalism. I source our social gender roles to a Biblical viewpoint of men and women with the current mainstream one being changed by the feminist movement.


Undoubtedly the bible has heavily influenced all of Western civilization. If you source your viewpoint to the Christian bible, then how do you explain such similar roles in cultures that were not heavily exposed to the Christian bible? I steer away from generalizing the feminist movemoment because there were several waves of that movement and the different factions cannot even agree among themselves what that movement actually is. I agree that second wave Feminist heavily influenced the current societal expectations of how a male and female should act and interact.

quote:


I just wonder how different our history would be if the pen holders had written God as a female.



The Tao Te Ching is translated with feminine pronouns but in actuality the translation of the pronouns are non-gender based. There are also several religions in ancient times that had female archetypes within the pantheon, and many are used today in Neo-paganism. From my studies, the religions that made the most sense were based upon a shared existance of the male and female aspects, and where the moral/ethical lessons are more closely aligned with nature. Many do not realize it, but even in Christianity there is masculine and feminine aspects of the Holy Trinity. The feminine aspects were severely downplayed though, due to the influence of those that translated those passages and applied them to the early church.

I may have gone far afield of the OP, and if so we may want to start another topic.

Live well,
Orion

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to MadRabbit)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 8:16:13 AM   
FlamingRedhead


Posts: 451
Joined: 3/4/2007
From: Georgia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelain26

And for submissives:
The same question but in reverse...do you find dominants are more attracted to you if you allow them to be more in control even in simple ways (such as those mentioned above)?



No, I haven't noticed that, but then again, I'm a girly girl already and try to be deferential whenever I can.  I say "try" because they tend to force me to make a decision on occasion.
 
I'm sure the book probably has some good ideas, but the problem is that it rarely works in a vanilla setting.  I don't know how many dates I've been on where I tried to let them have control, and they wouldn't take it.  Most vanilla men are too afraid to make a damn decision.  I hate having the conversation, "Where do you want to eat?"  I honestly don't care.  I can find something edible on virtually any menu.  If you're going to ask someone out, you should have a plan, no?  If they won't take control, I will....but they've lost face and need to do something about it if they want another date.  It's why I don't do vanilla anymore.

_____________________________

I'm so addicted to
All the things you do
When you're going down on me
In between the sheets
Or the sound you make
With every breath you take
It's unlike anything
When you're loving me

(in reply to porcelain26)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 8:30:21 AM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline 		i dont think you can really argue that what closely aligns with "nature" is what works, since even in animals there are differing roles of "dominance." spiders and mantids who eat their mates, female ants who go on sprees and abduct a male for their queen, the role of the matriarch in elephant and meerkat populations, male seahorses who carry the eggs and lay them, etc etc =p alot of animals live in groups of females while the males remain solitary and thereby exert dominance over no one. =p
"nature" is a grab-bag. there is no ONE rule.
women can be just as dominant as men can be. and that idea that the "natural order" puts men first is the same thing that fuels the comments on the thread  over on "Ask a Mistress" about Doms who fly in and say "oh you just haven't met the right Dom!"
=p
alot of cultures derived what became male dominance out of facination with the penis, and nothing else. =p "look it can stand up on its own! let's build monuments to it!" hindu lingam worship, obelisks, whatever. well hello, you can't "plant your seed" without a garden to plant it IN.
no sex is greater than the other, both need each other, and both have the capacity to be absolutely ANYTHING.  
and the more we argue about who the "natural" boss is, the more the ideological gap between the sexes grows, and we never really will work together.

(in reply to FlamingRedhead)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 8:37:42 AM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		There are general traits within a species due to biology. An example of this would be found in the following facts: 1) Male muscle mass has a higher average and upper limit than female muscle mass, especially in upper body. Nature did this for a reason, due to evolution, why do you suppose that is? 2) Females are better at multi tasking, and males are able to apply more to singular tasks. These are general traits, and not absolutes. If you references for facts 1 and 2, let me know and I can link you to the studies that support these. Both do need each other, for the continuation of the species, and humans seem to be very adaptable. The natural boss should be the one with the more dominant personality and the tools (intelligence, charisma, etc.). Now the questions is whether societal pressures are forcing people into certain gender roles, against their nature and against nature? I believe there is extreme views on both sides of the issue, and the answer is actually somewhere in the middle.


quote:

ORIGINAL: RainydayNE

no sex is greater than the other, both need each other, and both have the capacity to be absolutely ANYTHING.  
and the more we argue about who the "natural" boss is, the more the ideological gap between the sexes grows, and we never really will work together.



_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to RainydayNE)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 8:41:39 AM   
Padriag


Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FlamingRedhead

Most vanilla men are too afraid to make a damn decision.  I hate having the conversation, "Where do you want to eat?"  I honestly don't care.  I can find something edible on virtually any menu.  If you're going to ask someone out, you should have a plan, no?

That observation is something many men ought to sit up and pay attention too.  Society is at a peculiar crossroads.  In a more chauvanistic past gender roles were better defined, and that included expectations of what you were supposed to do when dating... who paid for what, who opened the door for whom, who called who first, who planned the date, etc.  Then came some social upheaval called feminism (which is ironic because it advocated behavior in women that was the opposite of then popular ideas of what was feminine), which began deconstructing much of those social "rules" and expectations.  Unfortunately, there was nothing put in its place... we were told to be equal... and then left to figure out what exactly that meant in practical everyday terms.  Its had its impact on dating... many men are now less sure of what to do when dating, how to approach, how to plan a date, who pays for what, etc. and confusion has ensued.  So now we have entire generations trying to figure what they're supposed to do, and what they ought to expect, when dating... with a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication.

My observation is that for men the choice to be assertive, take the lead, be a leader, mixed with some style and charm, is always the better option when dating, whether vanilla or a dominant man.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to FlamingRedhead)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 8:42:58 AM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline 		sure there are genereal traits within a species, but most of what we as humans do doesn't have anything to do with dominance due to muscle mass. =p
we don't fight it out like rams do =p
societal roles put pressure on everyone. some women don't WANT to go out and work. some women have it in them to stay home and be a nuturer. some men would prefer to be like a male seahorse and tend after the kids.
humans are complex, too complex to rely on little things like "oh well males have more muscle, therefore they're truly dominant." =p
a bull elephant will outweight a cow on any day. but their SOCIAL ORDER depends on the matriarchs. =p even in nature, it doesn't really even matter.
males use their mass to fight EACH OTHER for the females. not to boss the females around.

also, i'm aware that the female brain is more suited to multitasking. =p and it could be argued obviously that a leader would have to juggle LOTS of responsiblities at once. wouldn't this skill make females perfectly capable leaders and dominants? this is something second nature to females but has been relagated to household duties.

you can argue anything really. the debate has been raging for aeons.
but using "nature" as the reason for something is a fallacy because nature itself has no ONE answer.

< Message edited by RainydayNE -- 12/10/2008 8:45:45 AM >

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 9:14:55 AM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RainydayNE

sure there are genereal traits within a species, but most of what we as humans do doesn't have anything to do with dominance due to muscle mass. =p


Actually it does. Nature has used hormones and chemicals within the brain, to match the physical make up of an animal. This also applies to why females are more adapative socially than males. Each has their own strengths.

quote:


we don't fight it out like rams do =p


Look into recent studies of urban males, and the dominance that occurs within a male bonding structure. While physical blows may not occur as frequently as in rams, the posturing that occurs before the physical aspect are very similar.

quote:


societal roles put pressure on everyone. some women don't WANT to go out and work. some women have it in them to stay home and be a nuturer. some men would prefer to be like a male seahorse and tend after the kids.
humans are complex, too complex to rely on little things like "oh well males have more muscle, therefore they're truly dominant." =p


I am not arguing any of the points above other than the fact that there are differences between genders for a reason, and that reason is often placed there by biology (nature). More testosterone and more muscle mass, often leads to a more aggressive male, because males were made for combating things in a physical way. The development of the female, which I used the multi tasking as an example, allows females to be more adaptive in social environments. These statements are not saying one is better than the other, but illustrating the fact of the biological differences in the genders that often lead to how we interact.

quote:


a bull elephant will outweight a cow on any day. but their SOCIAL ORDER depends on the matriarchs. =p even in nature, it doesn't really even matter.
males use their mass to fight EACH OTHER for the females. not to boss the females around.


Not disputing certain exceptions within nature. It could be theorized that their society developed that way because of too much aggression within the male, and that is one of the theories in the evolution of human behavior. This does not remove the fact that there is more aggression and overt dominance exhibited by male elephants.

quote:


also, i'm aware that the female brain is more suited to multitasking. =p and it could be argued obviously that a leader would have to juggle LOTS of responsiblities at once. wouldn't this skill make females perfectly capable leaders and dominants? this is something second nature to females but has been relagated to household duties.


You seem to think that I am arguing that males are better suited for leadership. I suggest you reread what I have written, as I am not going to keep repeating myself. You are arguing points that I am not making.

quote:


you can argue anything really. the debate has been raging for aeons.
but using "nature" as the reason for something is a fallacy because nature itself has no ONE answer.


I never said it did have a single answer. This is a good illustration of you not taking my entire post into the perspective, and just singling out phrases as if they were stand alone assertions. In fact I specifically stated the opposite of what you believe my point to be.

Using nature as a reason for how we interact, is actually factual.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to RainydayNE)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 9:25:01 AM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline 		actually the statements you think are forcing you to "repeat" yourself are actually meant to apply to the greater "world" of the thread and not just your posts.
they're my opinions on the idea presented by the thread, and not by you.
thoughts tend to flow in and out of each other, etc etc. just the way i think.

i'm not arguing against biological differences, they certainly ARE there. and they are there for a reason. the sexes are attracted to each other for a reason, and a world in which everyone was the same would suck terribly. =p but people should be allowed to be who they are, without "nature" becoming the be-all, end-all of what they should be.

the part about women being suited for leadership referred to the primary idea of the thread itself, and it only related to you in the way that you were the one who brought it up. =p

i prefer to think that matriarchal elephant society arose not as a response to male behavior, but just because that's how they are. =p the minoan civilization (or well, atleast what we know about them) is similar to that. and yes, male elephants exhibit more aggression, but i think equating agression and dominance isn't exactly right. dominance is willingness to lead, agression is willingness to fight. they aren't the same. a bull elephant leads no one but himself since he is primarily solitary. when he comes in contact with cows, it's generally just for mating, but he doesn't permanently affect their social order. =p he doesn't move in and become the leader. he's not interested in leading them. he wants to mate with them and move on. =p

same with lions. male lions are very large, very aggressive, but the females decide when they'll hunt and what they'll hunt. the females hunt when THEY are hungry, and the male takes most of their food. =p other than that, it doesnt have much to do with his leadership.

edit: that could be contrasted with wolves, where (well, from what i understand about them) the alpha seems actively involved in leadership and decision-making.

< Message edited by RainydayNE -- 12/10/2008 9:31:37 AM >

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: For Dominants and submissives - 12/10/2008 4:57:31 PM   
stella41b


Posts: 4258
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: SW London (UK)
Status: offline 		Then along comes someone like me and screws the theory and the hypothesis completely....

_____________________________

CM's Resident Lyricist
also Facebook
http://stella.baker.tripod.com/
50NZpoints
Q2
Simply Q

(in reply to porcelain26)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: For Dominants and submissives Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   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

0.109