RE: Under Protection????????

RE: Under Protection???????? (Full Version)

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

Message

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 8:38:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanIsleKnight I've a question, does this term apply only to women? What about submissive men that are bisexual or gay? I'd assume that the dangers and obstacles that submissive women experience from straight men would be the same dangers that bi/gay men would experience from other men as well (or particularly malicious women, if that's the case). We've helped out individuals of both genders. In general, though, getting out into the community, if you have some common sense, isn't often 'dangerous' -- mostly annoying when you have people who simply don't understand the meaning of "sorry, not interested". I'd only worry if you find yourself consistently unable to stand up to bullies. If so, finding someone to accompany you who -can- and -will- stand up until you can get your own feet under you -can- be helpful. Dame Calla PS: If you happen across one of those interesting dominant-type individuals who approach with the immediate "Kneel before me, worthless worm!", I find that a glance at the crotch (if a man) or a full-body scan (if a woman), along with a derisive snort really says -so- much more than any argument I could offer. This also works phenomenally well, IME, for those dominant-type individuals who absolutely cannot grasp the concept that a member of the "fairer sex" might, perhaps, be... ummm... dominant.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 11:39:35 AM)
First you state this... quote: DarkSteven I did not come in with a preconceived notion of who they needed to be protected from. And then you state this... quote: DarkSteven If I don't think a relationship would be good for her, it ain't gonna happen. Thus, it's YOUR WAY or NO WAY, based on your "preconceved notion" of who/what would be good for another. Forget the fact that YOU are not THEM. Self-serving and ego-driven garbage.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 11:41:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally quote: ORIGINAL: VanIsleKnight I've a question, does this term apply only to women? What about submissive men that are bisexual or gay? I'd assume that the dangers and obstacles that submissive women experience from straight men would be the same dangers that bi/gay men would experience from other men as well (or particularly malicious women, if that's the case). What bugs me is not only that it is almost always women but that it is almost always submissive women, the implication being 'we' can't look after ourselves It's patronizing... assumes submissive = idiot.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 11:45:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA Funny how those that support the "Under Protection" thing think it "upsets" all that don't or that we "take issue" with it, People get that impression because you post in an angry, histrionic fashion -- using words and phrases that only an upset person would use. For example??? You may be misreading my posts. They are, after all, only words on a screen. Note again... thinking something stupid does not equate to being "angry". quote:* Perhaps you dislike the idea because you're one of the people subs have been "protected against" over the years Swing and a MISS... that doesn't even make sense. Try agian.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 12:09:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA Funny how those that support the "Under Protection" thing think it "upsets" all that don't or that we "take issue" with it, instead of the reality of simply finding it stupid, as well as illogical, manipulative, self-serving, and hypocritical. I don't think that it is always illogical, manipulative, self serving or hypocritical. I'll elaborate... 1) Illogical -- because Adult X is in no position to know what's best for Adult Y. 2) Manipulative -- too often Adult X uses the "Protector/Mentor" dynmic as a ruse to obtain the milk the cow would not have otherwise consented to allow them. 3) Self-Serving -- See #2 above, as well as adding in the "ego" thing. A shining example by one of your fellow-posters here who stated: quote: ORIGINAL:DarkSteven If I don't think a relationship would be good for her, it ain't gonna happen. 4) Hypocritical -- They're supposedly "protecting" another from one who is DIFFERENT from themselves, so they are not "protecting", but LIMITING. Thus, said "Protector" is the one they should be avoiding. Newbies, especially, have no idea of every dynamic, and for the most part, many subs/slaves who enter this dynamic thinking one thing, years later find they've changed considerably. Said "Protector" is ONLY ALLOWING ACCESS TO THOSE THAT MATCH THEIR IDEA OF THE DYNAMIC. So they are not "protecting", but limiting... to THEIR likes and dislikes. A newbie sub/slave has no idea what THEIR likes/dislikes are yet. This is no different from a parent allowing their son/daughter to only date this person or that person, because those are the people the PARENT "approves of"; which may not be what the son/daughter wants, or even needs. Now extend this attitude/outlook to ADULTS. It's not "protecting", but limiting. The alleged "protector" is the only they need to be "protected" from. We all know those that solicit opinions about the power dynamic... that's vastly different from disallowing an ADULT to choose whose best for them. Again, it's patronizing and assumes all the poor little subs/slaves are idiots.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 12:38:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact No where in your opinion have you stated why you think those who use the term have a lack of intelligence. Actually, I have... you simply may not have picked up on it. Recall I used the example given in this thread of WHY one who "...is (i) just out of an "abusive" relationship, (ii) living with someone because they can't fend for themselves, and (iii) lacks the ability to "say no" (i.e., is unable to give/deny consent) should in ANY way be focusing on BDSM (munches and play parties), instead of getting therapy and their life in order as a first priority?!!" This is neither an intelligent or HEALTHY path for the bottom in question, or the Top who is supposedly "protecting" them. For those that see no issue here (and can't see the pending future train wreck by following this path), I'm tempted to search their head for the lobotomy scar. This is simply not intelligent... on either side of the slash.

lovingpet -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 4:02:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I can still give her the protection part of that. Protection from WHO... those that YOU deem they need to be "protected" from; i.e., those who hold YOUR view of this dynamic. Hint: Your view is not the ONLY view, and YOUR way is not the only way. So your alleged "protection" is little more than an egotistical mirror. Yes, actually. The submissive chooses a person under whose protection to be because they agree with that dominant's view and trust their experience and judgement. If they didn't, then it would be foolish to do so. So no, there is nothing egotistical about it, but it is an honor to be chosen.[ quote: It's like a way to bring another person in, temporarily, without the complications of a full poly relationship. Ohhhh.... so it's a PARTIAL "poly relationship", then. Which part? Where YOU get to BANG them as part of your alleged "protection", have them clean your house, or some other behavior that should ONLY be limited to the one the submissive person chooses as their Dominant partner?!! So umm... who is going to "protect" this trusting submissive from YOU?!! I view this as the person being accepted as a part of the dominant's family with some, but not all, of the same expectations. DS even stated that he had a no sex policy with submissive under protection in the very post you are quoting, but you snipped that part out. How convenient. Yes, the dominant can expect some return for providing protection and those terms are agreed upon prior to such an arrangement. I suppose if you provided a service in a business setting, you would not expect payment or reciporcal service? It's the same thing only on a more personal level.[ quote: And there is NOTHING wrong with someone turning over responsibility for making decisions to someone else - FFS, she's a submissive! Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... because all teh wittle submittives can't possibly be responsible for themselves. You actually hold such a poor opinion of someone just because they're "submissive"??? Incredible!!! May surprise you to know that subs/slaves "turn over responsibility" ONLY to the one that becomes their Dominant partner and not every Tom, Dick, or Harry that checks the Toppy box on CollarMe; including you. Your admission that you view your alleged "protection" as an exchange for any type of "poly relationship" is disturbing at best. Again... who's "protecting" this person from YOU?!! No, he is saying that for some, it is more comfortable to be in such an arrangement, not because the submissive can't, but perhaps doesn't want or wants input prior to making a final decision. He did not say this was the case for every submissive, only for some, just like under protection is only for some. What business is it of yours if a submissive gives any amount of control or service to someone outside of a collared relationship? I would even dare say that most couples that wind up in a collared relationship did so by progressively greater power exchange over time prior to the collaring. Some of these couples even started as being gasp a protector relationship. As for the submissive being protected from the protector, sorry, that is a decision that submissive made and he/she must bear those consequences. Of course the submissive chose to be under the protection of the dominant because he/she trusted them in the first place and, therefore, does not perceive that they need protection from that particular individual. If the trust was misplaced, it is as simple as walking away. Last I checked if you choose someone for a job, you can also dismiss them from said position. lovingpet

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 5:06:18 PM)
In the end, it all comes down to choice. Sometimes it is simply the choice that makes an individual the happiest or most comfortable with the path xhe's walking. If someone chooses to ask my protection, and I choose to offer it, then that is the decision of the consenting adults involved. Judgmental, ignorant people mean little in the equation, and the only reason they get any consideration whatsoever is because, in the end, that kind of judgmental behavior may be a key reason that the individual whom is sheltering under our household's wings felt compelled to seek out a protector in the first place. Dame Calla

lovingpet -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 5:31:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA Funny how those that support the "Under Protection" thing think it "upsets" all that don't or that we "take issue" with it, instead of the reality of simply finding it stupid, as well as illogical, manipulative, self-serving, and hypocritical. I don't think that it is always illogical, manipulative, self serving or hypocritical. I'll elaborate... 1) Illogical -- because Adult X is in no position to know what's best for Adult Y. 2) Manipulative -- too often Adult X uses the "Protector/Mentor" dynmic as a ruse to obtain the milk the cow would not have otherwise consented to allow them. 3) Self-Serving -- See #2 above, as well as adding in the "ego" thing. A shining example by one of your fellow-posters here who stated: quote: ORIGINAL:DarkSteven If I don't think a relationship would be good for her, it ain't gonna happen. 4) Hypocritical -- They're supposedly "protecting" another from one who is DIFFERENT from themselves, so they are not "protecting", but LIMITING. Thus, said "Protector" is the one they should be avoiding. Newbies, especially, have no idea of every dynamic, and for the most part, many subs/slaves who enter this dynamic thinking one thing, years later find they've changed considerably. Said "Protector" is ONLY ALLOWING ACCESS TO THOSE THAT MATCH THEIR IDEA OF THE DYNAMIC. So they are not "protecting", but limiting... to THEIR likes and dislikes. A newbie sub/slave has no idea what THEIR likes/dislikes are yet. This is no different from a parent allowing their son/daughter to only date this person or that person, because those are the people the PARENT "approves of"; which may not be what the son/daughter wants, or even needs. Now extend this attitude/outlook to ADULTS. It's not "protecting", but limiting. The alleged "protector" is the only they need to be "protected" from. We all know those that solicit opinions about the power dynamic... that's vastly different from disallowing an ADULT to choose whose best for them. Again, it's patronizing and assumes all the poor little subs/slaves are idiots. Let's see, when DS wrote that he was talking about a relationship between himself and a submissive seeking his protection. Can he not know himself well enough to know that he is not a good match for her? As far as limiting other relationships, the dominant in a protector status should be helping the submissive find what the SUBMISSIVE is looking for. This involves communication and being nonjudgemental about the submissive's expressed needs and desires. You are still assuming the dominant is getting some sexual gratification from this arrangement? Why? None has been implied. Relationships (platonic or otherwise) normally do serve self in some way. As long as this is not at the expense of the other person in the relationship, who cares? Further, I believe the statement that poster made to have more to do with being self aware than self absorbed. That simply is not necessarily so. People can assist a person in taking a direction that would not be appropriate for his/her own life, but very much what the other person both wants and needs. Further, experience and familiarity breeds a knowledge base that is not available to the person under protection. This is the whole reason it is sought and provided. I'm sorry, but in some cases mommy and daddy were right to limit those options for their offspring. Of course, the thickheaded ones had to go headlong and find out for themselves, but parent try to protect a child from undue pain when they can. The same is true here. There can always be a conscious choice to take the protector's opinion under advisement and proceed anyway. Despite this bullheaded foolishness, the protector may be willing to be the safe place to return after it all goes to hell anyway. Other times, it may be best to suffer the consequences of a poor decision. In response to another one of your posts, who said the protector is just functioning in a bdsm capacity, that the person is always new, unable to support themselves, or unable to say no on their own? This protection and advisory position could be family or career oriented, etc. The person could just need down time (death of or release from the service of a dominant) and have no interest in being intimately involved or possibly even active in the scene during this time. Perhaps the person could rent a place of their own, but it would be more prudent to save instead. Maybe their no is ignored while someone elses with more position within any given community is better received. Your worldview is very narrow. I have no interest in being enbroiled in some flame war. I will just have to now go to a more neutral corner and let this play out. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. Once again, I am not much one for the whole "under protection" thing. I still defend others' right to engage in such. Best wishes lovingpet

DarkSteven -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 5:33:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA First you state this... quote: DarkSteven I did not come in with a preconceived notion of who they needed to be protected from. And then you state this... quote: DarkSteven If I don't think a relationship would be good for her, it ain't gonna happen. Thus, it's YOUR WAY or NO WAY, based on your "preconceved notion" of who/what would be good for another. Forget the fact that YOU are not THEM. Self-serving and ego-driven garbage. Tell ya what. Try to read my posts objectively, without preconceived notions. will ya? You started off with the idea that I'm only doing this to fuck her. Now you are trying to read things into my posts that are not there. "I did not come in with a preconceived notion of who they needed to be protected from. " Translation: you had implied that I had a laundry list of Doms I wanted to protect a girl from. The above statement refutes that. I do NOT have a ready made list. Is that clear? "If I don't think a relationship would be good for her, it ain't gonna happen." Read. Read my post. I said that this pertained to a relationship BETWEEN HER AND I. It was in response to an accusation from you that I was doing this to fuck her and that she needed protection from me.. I was stating that I will not have a sexual relationship with her if I do not think it is good for her. For you to criticize me means either that you felt like attacking me without bothering to read my post, or that you believe that a Dom is obligated to have a sexual relationship with a sub even if he thinks it's not good for her. "Thus, it's YOUR WAY or NO WAY, based on your "preconceved notion" of who/what would be good for another. Forget the fact that YOU are not THEM. Self-serving and ego-driven garbage." I find it incredible that an alleged Master/slave couple cannot fathom the notion of a Dom deciding what he feels is best for a sub, after an agreement that he can and should do so. I don't force this on a submissive, but do it to make her feel more comfortable. If you cannot understand the idea of a Dom doing what he thinks is best for another, I suggest that you drop the pretense that you live M/s, and just go live vanilla lives. You'd be much happier.

LadyPact -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 5:52:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact No where in your opinion have you stated why you think those who use the term have a lack of intelligence. Actually, I have... you simply may not have picked up on it. Recall I used the example given in this thread of WHY one who "...is (i) just out of an "abusive" relationship, (ii) living with someone because they can't fend for themselves, and (iii) lacks the ability to "say no" (i.e., is unable to give/deny consent) should in ANY way be focusing on BDSM (munches and play parties), instead of getting therapy and their life in order as a first priority?!!" This is neither an intelligent or HEALTHY path for the bottom in question, or the Top who is supposedly "protecting" them. For those that see no issue here (and can't see the pending future train wreck by following this path), I'm tempted to search their head for the lobotomy scar. This is simply not intelligent... on either side of the slash. This is only one case though. Just like not everyone who uses the term isn't especially out to bang someone. (That's kind of why I showed up on this thread in the first place.) While I'm not disagreeing with you that anyone who needs to put their lives back together shouldn't be making that a priority, I also don't advocate the theory that they need to be secluded while doing so. Many people are very social creatures who thrive better when having social interactions. I'm not talking about just the play variety. I'm talking about opportunities to make like minded friends. Speaking of social skills, let's remember that not everyone is the same. Some people are shy. Horribly shy. They feel that making that leap of getting involved in meatlife with others in WIITWD can go easier if they feel protected. I happen to be a rather outgoing individual and that is what attracts a lot of these folks to Me. Some feel more secure and less likely to be a flower on the wall if they have someone they can turn to during an event or a munch. Some just don't have the experience yet and have tons of questions that, hopefully, I can answer. For others, it can be something as simple as having an easy out when they aren't comfortable with confrontation or having to reject a potential play date. (Another capacity that I happen to excel at.) It doesn't make them stupid. What it makes them is different than you and while you are entitled to your own opinion, I see no reason to be condesending.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 6:29:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I find it incredible that an alleged Master/slave couple cannot fathom the notion of a Dom deciding what he feels is best for a sub, after an agreement that he can and should do so. I don't force this on a submissive, but do it to make her feel more comfortable. If you cannot understand the idea of a Dom doing what he thinks is best for another, I suggest that you drop the pretense that you live M/s, and just go live vanilla lives. You'd be much happier. Whoever they are, and whatever they're doing, they clearly aren't happy right now.

CaringandReal -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 7:03:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Speaking of social skills, let's remember that not everyone is the same. Some people are shy. Horribly shy. They feel that making that leap of getting involved in meatlife with others in WIITWD can go easier if they feel protected. I happen to be a rather outgoing individual and that is what attracts a lot of these folks to Me. Some feel more secure and less likely to be a flower on the wall if they have someone they can turn to during an event or a munch. Some just don't have the experience yet and have tons of questions that, hopefully, I can answer. For others, it can be something as simple as having an easy out when they aren't comfortable with confrontation or having to reject a potential play date. (Another capacity that I happen to excel at.) It doesn't make them stupid. What it makes them is different than you and while you are entitled to your own opinion, I see no reason to be condesending. Very good point. It applies sometimes to online as well. I have known prortectors, in fact, who would on occasion write the first contact letter to a promising dominant because their mentee/protectee was too overwhelmed/shy to do so. In a face-to-face situation this would be like making introductions, I guess, with a little detail provided. They didn't do this with all their letters, just a couple that were to potentially good matches that the sub just couldn't bring herself to contact. That must have been an interesting experience for the dominant recieving the letter! :)

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 8:19:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet What business is it of yours if a submissive gives any amount of control or service to someone outside of a collared relationship? None... as I stated earlier, people are free to do whatever they choose, and I'm free to think their behavior/verbiage stupid. The OP asked for opinions, and got them. "What business is it of yours" to think all need to see this from YOUR point of view?!!

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 8:29:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Read. Read my post. I have. I disagree with you. quote: I said that this pertained to a relationship BETWEEN HER AND I. Make up your mind... are you her "Protector" or are you in a "relationship" with her? If her "Protector", then you're not in a "relationship" with her, or shouldn't be, as that clouds your judgement as to who YOU FEEL (since you've given yourself this grand power) she should be with. quote: I find it incredible that an alleged Master/slave couple cannot fathom the notion of a Dom deciding what he feels is best for a sub, after an agreement that he can and should do so. I don't force this on a submissive, but do it to make her feel more comfortable. I find it incredible that you can't understand the difference between "a Dom deciding what's best for THEIR sub" versus "a Dom deciding what's best for A sub". The difference is between one that's owned by another versus one that's not.

Arpig -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 9:00:26 PM)
quote: 1) Illogical -- because Adult X is in no position to know what's best for Adult Y. Ummmmm....isn't that sort of the whole idea around here? Isn't a dom supposed to decide what is best for a sub? Maybe I have the whole d/s M/s dynamic wrong.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 9:04:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact No where in your opinion have you stated why you think those who use the term have a lack of intelligence. Actually, I have... you simply may not have picked up on it. Recall I used the example given in this thread of WHY one who "...is (i) just out of an "abusive" relationship, (ii) living with someone because they can't fend for themselves, and (iii) lacks the ability to "say no" (i.e., is unable to give/deny consent) should in ANY way be focusing on BDSM (munches and play parties), instead of getting therapy and their life in order as a first priority?!!" This is neither an intelligent or HEALTHY path for the bottom in question, or the Top who is supposedly "protecting" them. For those that see no issue here (and can't see the pending future train wreck by following this path), I'm tempted to search their head for the lobotomy scar. This is simply not intelligent... on either side of the slash. This is only one case though. Just like not everyone who uses the term isn't especially out to bang someone. (That's kind of why I showed up on this thread in the first place.) Yes, one case... because you asked for one where there was a lack of intelligence; so I provided one... one from this very thread. Additionally, my criticism has not been limited to "banging" someone. Recall I've repeatedly stated no alleged "Protector" (or anyone else for that matter) is best qualified to decide who is best for another, as they are not them. quote: While I'm not disagreeing with you that anyone who needs to put their lives back together shouldn't be making that a priority, I also don't advocate the theory that they need to be secluded while doing so. Many people are very social creatures who thrive better when having social interactions. I'm not talking about just the play variety. I'm talking about opportunities to make like minded friends. Nor have I advocated seclusion, but rather, that their time would be better spent (in the above referenced case) learing to support themselves, seeking counseling to both (i) avoid another "abusive" relationship, and (ii) obtaining the ability to say "no"; thus being able to ensure consent. Simple requirements for ANY human being, be they of the bottom, Toppy, or 'nilla sort. quote: Speaking of social skills, let's remember that not everyone is the same. Some people are shy. Horribly shy. They feel that making that leap of getting involved in meatlife with others in WIITWD can go easier if they feel protected. I happen to be a rather outgoing individual and that is what attracts a lot of these folks to Me. Some feel more secure and less likely to be a flower on the wall if they have someone they can turn to during an event or a munch. Some just don't have the experience yet and have tons of questions that, hopefully, I can answer. For others, it can be something as simple as having an easy out when they aren't comfortable with confrontation or having to reject a potential play date. (Another capacity that I happen to excel at.) 1) I get what you're stating about the "shy" thing... but in that case, I personally feel said person would be better off befriending a fellow sub/slave. I mean... 'nilla girlies do that all the time, using the other girl to help them bolt (e.g., "Hey Karen... we gotta go") when they need to. 2) For those that don't have the "experience" you referenced, wouldn't it be better then that they GET THAT EXPERIENCE, instead of avoiding it via utilizing said "Protector"? I mean... at what point then are they to get this "experience"?!! 3) Just had to comment on the "meatlife" thing. Funny as hell... never heard the dynamic referred to as "meatlife". LOL!!! quote: It doesn't make them stupid. What it makes them is different than you and while you are entitled to your own opinion, I see no reason to be condesending. We're obviously not going to agree here. I personally find someone who avoids learning to fend off unwanted advances, who leaves themselves at the mercy of another choosing WHO they should be with, and fails to take responsibility for their own life stupid. You may not, and so we agree to disagree. I have my opinion... you have yours. The OP posed a question and I answered as it pertains to my PERSONAL view of the "Protector" dynamic. To me, it's as stupid a dynamic as the "Mentor" dynamic. So again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 9:14:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: 1) Illogical -- because Adult X is in no position to know what's best for Adult Y. Ummmmm....isn't that sort of the whole idea around here? Isn't a dom supposed to decide what is best for a sub? Maybe I have the whole d/s M/s dynamic wrong. Ummm... THEIR sub, yes... "a sub", no.

Apocalypso -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/7/2009 11:27:55 PM)
It means I can hit on them. So it's the same as "under consideration".

CelticPrince -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 3:28:57 AM)
quote: Wow, 5 pages on something that doesn't mean anything beyond the people involved. Impressive, not. To those bothered by seeing this in a profile, move on; to those confronted with it in a club, she's not that into you; to MSLA, well, not much I can say there without getting mod spanked. Done. WH, Well sometimes, these threads just create a life of their own. CP

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875