RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT?

RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (Full Version)

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

Message

SimplyMichael -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 7:42:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 i have to disagree with Bernstein. herds/packs/pods all have a pecking order. all of these groups are led by an alpha that has earned the trust and role of leadership through proving themselves to be calm in a crises and capable of taking care of their group. horses for instance avoid bullys because the potential for damage impinges on their instinct to survive. it is always the calm leader horse that the others follow. I have to SO disagree with you about horses. My brother has two herds of wild horses that range over his property. He captured the alpha of one of the herds after it was wounded killing another horse. It killed another of his horses and busted him up a couple of times. Both herds are run by viscious beasts that are anything but calm leaders. And the whole "alpha male" thing is so 1960s. The image that emerges now is so much more nuanced with alliances, varying mating strategies, and many other things that has changed the view to much less black and white. Some thought now tends to see premature ejaculation in young men as a mating strategy allowing copulation before the larger older males can run them off. The world is a far more complex place than one uber male...

LaTigresse -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 7:52:25 AM)
Michael you found words to describe what was bothering me when I read the OP. What difference does it make how two people define what they have. I really don't see any importance in trying to find a general definition for either dominance or leadership. As Michael pointed out, there are glaringly horrid examples of both, and a few examples of wonderful human beings that identify as both. To me, it isn't the word used to describe the action, but the action itself that matters. How a person conducts themself within that role is everything. To take a word that defines a role, and puff up the definition of it to make it somehow better than another word, then say I am the former and not the latter because the first word is better, is assinine. We are the ones that give any words power. Because we are human and so varied, there is no way we can generically say all leaders are better than all dominants. No differently than we can say all slaves are better than all submissives. Or my personal favourite, all chocolate is better than all.......not chocolate (though it just has to be in my esteemed opinion...). Because as soon as you create such rigid absolutes, someone/thing is going to come along and blow the whole thing right out of the water. Call yourself whatever you want, the reality is that some people will look at you and think you are fabulous a shining example of a leader, and others will look at you and thing....."mmmmmm, not so much so" among other things. What difference does it make??? If you are being your authentic self, and the people in your life are happy with who you are, thats all that really matters.

leadership527 -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 8:16:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Jeff, two questions, if it is a "bother" to initiate a thread, why bother? Specifically, normally I do not "bother" because it's my impression that my worldview on the topics here is too different to have much utility to the readers. It's a lot easier to keep "on target" when I am responding to an initial thought of someone elses. In this case, I did "bother" because of the very bias you and CD below are alluding too. I'm well aware of it and I'm trying to peer through it. I figured that whether this stuff was right or wrong, I was going to learn a lot about myself and BDSM in general based on the answers... which I am. quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Why do you feel so compelled to set yourself apart all while setting yourself at the top of the pile? Apart? I don't know. I'm still trying to understand that reaction in myself. I don't normally feel the need to do so. At the top of the pile? Huh? You should know better. I approve of mutually supportive relationships in whatever stripe they come in... MercnBeth leap to mind here and they definitely have a punishment dynamic. You know that I think of them as a guiding light for me. You also know that I have a great deal of respect for Merc in particular. Actually, in my own head, I had no qualitative assessment on this at all. I was more fascinated at an insight into a dynamic I didn't understand (punishment) and now maybe I would. Everyone here talks about it and it's been totally opaque to me. I probably should've clarified that in the initial posting. But for the record and not simply as some sort of mealy-mouthed politically correct assertion, *I am WAY in favor of any relationship type or pattern that ends up giving both parties what they need.* In the end, I'm too pragmatic to think anything different. quote: agirl said: c) I've no idea if there's an existing term for leader/follower....there are plenty of people in similar relationships that just say D/s. There's not a term to describe my relationship in it's entirety.....some parts are a bit like other people's and a lot of it isn't. And in typical agirl fashion, direct and to the point and this may be the very thought I've been missing all the way along. Perhaps I've just been expecting more commonality than is really possible given the complexity of human relations and so feeling incorrectly that everyone else is all well-aligned with each other and I'm less so. Why do I suspect that Michael is going to jump in here with a statement along the lines of "Dude, I have been telling you that for the last year." laughs.

Andalusite -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 8:30:51 AM)
A lot of people use "punishment" as a synonym for S/M play, rather than it being linked to any actual wrongdoing. Corporal punishment doesn't work well for me in a D/s relationship, but some people do use it as a learning tool rather than as vengeance. For me personally, we tried it twice in my last D/s relationship, and it had some negative impacts on our relationship. Dominance/domination and submission in the context of BDSM is "jargon," so a general dictionary isn't going to be helpful. In Dressage with horses, submission is measured by things like the tail swinging freely, a quiet mouth with a slight amount of "foam, a soft, relaxed expression, and tilting an ear toward the rider/handler. In BDSM, most of those don't apply at all. [;)] Even the lack of resistance isn't necessarily an aspect of it - lots of dominants actively enjoy some resistance play, or signs that the submissive is struggling physically or mentally to comply. I actually do enjoy a certain amount of feeling overpowered when I am submissive toward someone, but I don't feel submissive toward them just because they hit me or overpower me. It's an interaction that is positive and mostly feels very easy and natural toward that person. Likewise, when I was a Domme for almost 5 years in my first BDSM-oriented relationship, my submissive weighed twice as much as I did, and I didn't control him by violence - he enjoyed me thwacking him. Spankings are for good submissives, brats don't deserve them.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 8:39:29 AM)
quote: Original: Leadership527 a) Do you see any issues with these definitions? Actually, the definitions are pretty accurate in terms of how I've always seen "dominance/submission" -- the sole exception is that, in general, in the way I've always defined it myself, "punishment" is not the only means for a dominant individual/creature to effect submission in others. Discipline (which -is- an educational process) is also effective in similar ways... however, when asserting dominance, it seems to me that there -is- always the spectre of punishment waiting in the wings. quote: b) In your personal relationship, do you want a punishment dynamic? No. Despite my interest in rather fetish-y activities like decorative piercing (which has now superseded fireplay as my all-time-favorite recreational fetish), I find that I am also not a 'true dominant' according to the dictionary definition. I prefer not to enter into retributive relationships with other people, and that, too, is one of my kinks -- I want -acolytes-... folks who -choose- to come into my sphere and learn and grow... not whipping-boys and disciplinary nightmares. Heck, I shared in raising four offspring to adult-hood and, I think because I'm a big fan of structure without stifling, I can count on one hand the number of times I actually had to PUNISH them... while still having them come out as exceptionally well-mannered, very productive creatures. In the same way, our servants have, I think, benefitted from an environment (with me) that is more structure-enforcing than retributive, providing room for individual growth while still maintaining a strong framework for smooth functioning of a household. I don't think this is necessarily -better- or -worse- than any other pattern, but I do know it is the only really effective pattern for me. Even in our House there are others who choose different dynamics, and that works for us, too. quote: c) In your opinion, is there an existing name/label/whatever for a leader/follower relationship? I use Keeper/servant. It works for us, and demonstrates the relationship between those of us who manage the framework on which the House rests and those who do the day-to-day work of completing the individual tasks within that framework. That doesn't mean that the Keepers don't work and the servants don't contribute to the structure -- instead, it designates the primary focus for each individual. As I told one gentleman that is under consideration, I prefer to -enjoy- a spanking, and have the person I'm spanking enjoy it too. When it becomes punishment, it takes all the joy out of that adorable pink tushie. Dame Calla

agirl -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 9:29:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse What difference does it make how two people define what they have. I really don't see any importance in trying to find a general definition for either dominance or leadership. As Michael pointed out, there are glaringly horrid examples of both, and a few examples of wonderful human beings that identify as both. To me, it isn't the word used to describe the action, but the action itself that matters. How a person conducts themself within that role is everything. Call yourself whatever you want, the reality is that some people will look at you and think you are fabulous a shining example of a leader, and others will look at you and thing....."mmmmmm, not so much so" among other things. What difference does it make??? If you are being your authentic self, and the people in your life are happy with who you are, thats all that really matters. (snipped) Yes to the above. Whatever you call yourself and whatever term you look for to describe yourself and your relationship, it'll STILL fall short of saying what you are and what you have. There isn't a handy term or word to sum anyone up other than human. I did think it quite curious that you (Leadership) felt this... So putting this all together, we see that within this context, I might say that "dominance" is control established via the use of punishment. That fits pretty well with what I read here on Collarme in terms of how most people think about it. ...because I have felt the opposite from reading here. agirl

leadership527 -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 9:47:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: agirl ...because I have felt the opposite from reading here. which is fascinating in and of itself and in fact the single largest reason why I did "bother" to make this post. The fact that this is true implies a perceptual bias in one of us and given how squirrelly I know my thinking is here, I'm willing to readily speculate that it's me. In fact, of the three questions I asked, only #2 -- do you have/want a punishment dynamic, had any real meat to it in my head. That was the question designed to validate exactly this perceptual bias. See? Even if I was totally wrong in my suppositions, this thread is going to end up being significantly useful to me I think. If I can understand what drives that bias, I'll be a happy man. My default behavior when entering into a new group is to seek commonality and consensus (yup, middle child). The struggles I have in BDSM-land are extremely atypical and I want to know if it's that I really don't belong in this group or is there just something so shocking to my own worldview that I cannot except it even if I do belong.

agirl -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 9:51:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Perhaps I've just been expecting more commonality than is really possible given the complexity of human relations and so feeling incorrectly that everyone else is all well-aligned with each other and I'm less so. That could be the case. I know that there are only a few people here that share the odd similarity with my relationship based on what they share...and even then , it's only aspects of what they share. I've never met or spoken to anyone that I could align with on anything but certain views. Perhaps you feel uncomfortable being lumped in alongside many, many people that you feel so far removed from? I know that I wouldn't like ANYONE else to represent MY D/s relationship, simply because they describe themselves as D/s too. agirl

leadership527 -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 10:10:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I would say that it would be more accurate to say is it control "maintained via the use of punishment" (punishment which can be latent/passive). Punishment can really just mean the interactive altruistic forces in a caring relationship that motivate us. For many subs (obviously I cannot speak for Carol, but am curious how she would respond), for instance, the idea of a displeased reaction from their D-type upon (willingly or not) failing to follow a requirement is a preemptive punishment of its own. I'll agree on the switch to the word maintained. But I disagree that it is reasonable to suggest that any inducement whatsoever constitutes coercive force or aggression. I suppose carried to extreme, that is a true statement but it is also useless. In that scenario, even a smile is aggression and that just flies in the face of common sense. I might also note that the same folks in the veterinary behavioral science field who identified that dominance implied aggressive force also specifically say that leadership and dominance are not the same thing. I could pull up more quotes but I suspect it's a tangent really. If it turns out, as agirl and you have both suggested, that the punishment dynamic is not nearly as prevalent in the BDSM community as my reading of the boards indicated to me, then this whole thing goes away. That particular point would be the turning point for this entire thought process. Note that leadership absolutely allows for the use of coercive force. It's just contra-indicated in anything other than very unusual cases because it tends to build up a back pressure of resentment and is therefor self-limiting in it's utility (within the leadership context). What I'm exploring here is whether dominance is a different context entirely (neither better nor worse) in which coercive force somehow works out a lot better -- an astonishing thought to me and worthy of exploration. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero A) Despite my commentary above, this becomes a circular endeavor. After a while, most definitions of words and terms could be interpreted to apply to make the case for either "leadership" or "dominance" as being the proper term. But this gets away from the main point. Except for in this case, the definitions being used are not arbitrary, they are based in the relevant fields of science (or as relevant as I could find) and did, at least seemingly when I started this thread, align with my observations. That second part gave the definitions weight in my head... at least enough to explore. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Let's presume your distinct definitions of dominance and leadership are correct. Many of the more personal interactions I've had with folks on this site (one-to-ones) have yielded conversational results that (contrary to what you seem to think)... nods EXACTLY something I was wondering about... what sort of skew is there on the wilds of the internet versus the reality of someone's home?

maia09 -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 10:32:33 AM)
i don't do well with labels in general. They tend to give me the same feeling as attempting to fit my size 9 foot into a size 6 shoe because i hear a smaller foot is more feminine or whatever. i am who i am, period. my choices are based on that. i got all caught up in labels, models etc. and it nearly destroyed our relationship completely. No more. i am maia - and i am His - that, to me means what He wants, when He wants, how He wants. In terms of punishment - it's part of our dynamic but it's not the ruling force. i do not obey Him out of fear of the consequences. i obey Him because it gives me enormous pleasure to do so. Should He find it necessary to punish me, it's to train me and teach me that i did or said something that was extremely displeasing to Him. It's not an ongoing mechanism to keep me in line. Punishment shows me that i will not run Him, should i start to get really out of line. But it's something we both prefer to avoid as much as possible.

NihilusZero -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 10:36:00 AM)
Apologies for being a temporary C in an A & B part of the conversation.[:D] quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Specifically, normally I do not "bother" because it's my impression that my worldview on the topics here is too different to have much utility to the readers. I suspect that this is the case because, in your mind, you see it as: a "leader" speaking to a group of "dominants". When, in reality, if you just stripped away the titles and delineated the qualities you think are important for healthy partnerships (of this dynamic), you'd realize you were already speaking among peers. quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Why do you feel so compelled to set yourself apart all while setting yourself at the top of the pile? Apart? I don't know. I'm still trying to understand that reaction in myself. I don't normally feel the need to do so. At the top of the pile? Huh? You should know better. I approve of mutually supportive relationships in whatever stripe they come in... It doesn't even have to be intentional, but something appears to skew your interpretation of the average D/s relationship as adversarial rather than jointed. Whether it's interactive experience or just the semantics that are getting to you, it's not always as reflective of the reality of the relationships as you naturally seem predisposed to believe it is. You also mention Mercnbeth a little later, positively...so there is room in your appraisal of the dynamic for 'exceptions' that are built upon true partnerships while wearing the presumed 'clothes' of dominance.

agirl -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 10:58:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero You also mention Mercnbeth a little later, positively...so there is room in your appraisal of the dynamic for 'exceptions' that are built upon true partnerships while wearing the presumed 'clothes' of dominance. It's actually very difficult to explain how a relationship works. I can describe mine but it doesn't begin to even touch the intricate nature of it. All I ever do is share sound-bites or glimpses into what we do, or think. It doesn't come remotely close to a description of the whole nature of it. Sometimes you have to just see it , to get it. Some things sound dreadful when written starkly but when you fill in the background, the history, the nature of the people involved and the way they relate, share and thrive....it fills in all the blanks. agirl

NihilusZero -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 11:01:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 In that scenario, even a smile is aggression and that just flies in the face of common sense. That's because you're still working under the premise that dominance is about aggression (leading to the above non sequitur), when it's about compelling. quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 If it turns out, as agirl and you have both suggested, that the punishment dynamic is not nearly as prevalent in the BDSM community as my reading of the boards indicated to me, then this whole thing goes away. That depends. Would you say that if big fights aren't nearly as prevalent among regular couples as one would think, that the desire to question the solidity of the concept of a relationship altogether goes away? quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 That particular point would be the turning point for this entire thought process. Note that leadership absolutely allows for the use of coercive force. It's just contra-indicated in anything other than very unusual cases because it tends to build up a back pressure of resentment and is therefor self-limiting in it's utility (within the leadership context). What I'm exploring here is whether dominance is a different context entirely (neither better nor worse) in which coercive force somehow works out a lot better -- an astonishing thought to me and worthy of exploration. I don't know that the mechanisms that make each tick (by the definitions you've boxed them into) are necessarily different at all. Compelling someone into obeying happens in both cases. Presuming mutual consent, aren't we just arguing that some methods seem prettier than others (or, rather, seem less adversarial on the surface)? I think you've got a concept of laissez-faire dominance that stems from the idea of wanting to water only the plants of want/pleasure in a partner. Meaning...the concept of dominance that takes the initiative to decide what is best in a situation, if contrary to the temporal desire of the sub, starts heating your circuitry. I think punishment is one of the more blatant examples of this, which is perhaps a reason why it's at the forefront. The reason I mentioned laissez-faire dominance is that this mindset seems to suggest that when asked by sub what should be done in a certain instance, the process of using one's place in the relationship to determine what the best decision would be isn't the prime motivator...but, instead, we try to divine (through knowing the sub) what answer she would arrive at on her own given enough time. Without having a method of compelling (and compelling the acceptance of the sub that we know what we're doing), this process (whether you call it leadership or dominance) gets reduced to the role of simply an expediter. quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Except for in this case, the definitions being used are not arbitrary, they are based in the relevant fields of science (or as relevant as I could find) and did, at least seemingly when I started this thread, align with my observations. That second part gave the definitions weight in my head... at least enough to explore. Despite my affinity for the scientific method...we are speaking in an entirely geocultural and sociological context here, though. quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Let's presume your distinct definitions of dominance and leadership are correct. Many of the more personal interactions I've had with folks on this site (one-to-ones) have yielded conversational results that (contrary to what you seem to think)... nods EXACTLY something I was wondering about... what sort of skew is there on the wilds of the internet versus the reality of someone's home? Which brings us back to the earlier point: lay out an outline of the traits and characteristics that you think describe a "leadership" dynamic. Then those for "dominance". If, after an exhaustive study having numerous people (including plenty you view as respectable) follow a questionnaire where they choose how applicable each aspect is to their dynamic...if after all the results are in and, to your surprise, more than 50% of those who describe themselves as in a "dominance"-based relationship actually qualify as "leadership", based on your parameters....then what?

LaTigresse -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 11:11:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 MercnBeth leap to mind here and they definitely have a punishment dynamic. You know that I think of them as a guiding light for me. You also know that I have a great deal of respect for Merc in particular. Just a quick question. Now, lord knows I have not read every single post made by Mercnbeth, nor do I know them personally. BUT, I have never got the idea through what I do know, that Beth's submission to Merc is based upon a punishment dynamic. Quite the opposite from where I sit. Are you confusing S&M activities with punishment and seeing it as the driving force behind Merc's leadership, within that relationship?

RCdc -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 11:13:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 What I'm exploring here is whether dominance is a different context entirely (neither better nor worse) in which coercive force somehow works out a lot better -- an astonishing thought to me and worthy of exploration. That is assuming that ever person considers dominance to be about control. For lots of people it isn't it is about authority. Maybe that is where 'leadership' comes in? I don't believe you are all that different to what you think other peoples dynamics might be? Why are the labels so important to you? And this by Nilhilus absolutely rocks. quote: That's because you're still working under the premise that dominance is about aggression (leading to the above non sequitur), when it's about compelling. Not only is it that, it's soooooo many other yumminess also. the.dark.

CatdeMedici -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 11:25:17 AM)
I find that whenever I struggle for some term to describe Me, its to validate for someone else that I'm something believeable---I have to do that "out there"--in here, I keep it simple, because I see soooooooooo many people trying to "wear" some term and 99% of the time it fails because its based on some generalist idea or ideal. To Me, its simple--I am/you are---I'm not/you're not--Dominance in My world has nothing to do with aggression, nothing to do with punishment--it simply is that-- I am.

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 11:26:20 AM)
Dominance is me being enough of a bastard to get my way and her being nice enough to let me think I did :P

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 11:49:39 AM)
Ok, now that I have read most of the thread, a serious reply (If this doesnt make sense I blame 48 hours of no rest) First NihilusZero: You rock man, your views are well thought out, and even when I dont fully agree I can appreciate the intelligence behind the view, secondly, what are the cone things in your pic? Leadership527: Over here, we do not have a punishment dynamic, when I hit julianna, it is because we both enjoy it, if she does something that pisses me off I dont punish, in the sense that you seem to be referring to (though maybe I am reading you wrong) We talk, find out what happened, and move to fix it so that the same mistake does not happen twice. What we have here I refer to as a reward dynamic, basically it is more carrot and less stick. When Julianna does something good/correct/nice/well I do something to show her how much I appreciate it, usually anything between a thank you and something physical. this leads to more of the same behavior, and we both win. Now I am not in any way trying to frown on people who use punishment, I just enjoy rewarding more so I do all I can to be able to reward as much as possible. The definition of Dominance that you found to me seems a bit crude, and lacking a certain regard to the strength of the group. a good Dominant/Master/Lord/Leader/Big Head Person Guy has to always look to the strength of the group first, I would think that this would still be the same in the respective animal groups that move in herds/packs/flights/schools what have you. Because an unhealthy group will not survive the attack of a healthy predator. I do find it interesting that you seem to have this vibe of "In your world but not of it" going on, if I am mistaken in this let me know. It seems to me, that you are much more "In BDSM" (Which by the way, I do not think really exists in the way soo many people want it to) than you would like to believe. Clarifying my previous statement " I do not think really exists in the way soo many people want it to" Before it bends someone's shape out. I do not see the place where one can firmly draw the line and say here there be BDSM, maybe its my youth, or something in the way I was raised, but it kinda makes me laugh whenever I see words like Vanilla and here about people getting "into" BDSM. I feel that there is not a single relationship out there where someone is not making at least over half of the decisions, again, this is all opinion, but thats the way I roll. :)

DavanKael -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 12:07:40 PM)
Hi, Jeff---- I'm going to give this a whirl and apologize in advance for any sub-par eloquence as the cold from hell (As well as the hang-over from the codeine cough syrup) endure. :> a) Do you see any issues with these definitions? **It always irks me to see a word used to define itself because it doesn't give any new information, just leans to usage. That having been said (And, it may have already been pointed out; I've not read every reply), I think that what's preventing your allowing the ideas to flow together as I think they more naturally do than the walled stance you're taking on them (Which is kind of atypical for you and I know is part of the reason you know it's worth inquiry). I'm kind of inclined to go with the idea we've discussed of leadership being an upper eschelon of dominance; while there are many facets to dominance, I think that leadership is more nuanced. Not better, not worse, different. Jumping to the statement I made that you have in your sig line, I'd say my preference is for a leader who happens to be someone I feel safe and naturally inclined to allow to be my Dominant partner. Now, might I have someone as a partner who isn't Dominant but who can be a leader, sure, that would be an option too. Since I view myself as a leader in a lot of ways, I'm rather flexible on the D/s part, though my preferences are pretty obvious, I think. b) In your personal relationship, do you want a punishment dynamic? No. I don't think that facilitates the sort of relationship in which I would flourish. c) In your opinion, is there an existing name/label/whatever for a leader/follower relationship? **D/s, M/s, healthy partners. Davan (Who, like Mcchael, invites you to the dark side. We have cookies and kitty cats, lol! :> )

ShaharThorne -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 12:10:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Asherdelampyr First NihilusZero: You rock man, your views are well thought out, and even when I dont fully agree I can appreciate the intelligence behind the view, secondly, what are the cone things in your pic? They're sailboats. It is part of an optical illusion that I cannot think what the name is, but it's cool.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625