Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress >> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/4/2009 5:37:46 PM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline 		I am an artist.  I am a woman.  And... I guess that makes me visual! 

_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/4/2009 5:57:26 PM   
hardbodysub


Posts: 1654
Joined: 8/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub

quote:

And in a nutshell, this is why I do not feel desire for the vast majority of men.  They are not natively comfortable with the concept of displaying themselves as a potentially desirable sex object ...


Wow, your "vast majority of men" is from a whole different universe than virtually all the men I know.


Aggressive courtship displays do not interest me.  The key word here is "object".  I am seeking a possession, a slave, a toy, someone who is softly seductive and yielding, charming and deferential, eager to be pretty and pleasing.  He strives to be wanted so fiercely that he will be hunted down and taken savagely, and kept in ropes and chains to show his value and the extent to which he is desired.  That is why he displays himself, submissively, helplessly, yearning to be taken.

That's the mindset it takes to get me interested.  Any other mindset and I'm turned off.  Very few men are able to get into this mindset, probably because society teaches that this is not how men are supposed to think or act. 



In the immortal words of Emily Litella, "Oh. That's very different. Never mind."

(in reply to LadyNTrainer)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/4/2009 7:47:27 PM   
hardbodysub


Posts: 1654
Joined: 8/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wheldrake

Fair enough. Sorry about the teeth - I have a congenital allergy to statements that begin "all men", "all women", "all economists", or whatever, which is purely a quirk in my psychological makeup.


I have a congenital allergy to people who are so eager to pick a meaningless fight that they actually edit my statements, in their own heads and otherwise.  It's not a quirk in my psychological makeup, it's a necessity for courteous and well-reasoned discourse.  So for the record, here's what I actually said:

quote:

My personal experiences over many years tell me that all men want to be looked at, and looked at with desire--they want this in general, but especially from the right woman.


Let me repeat that for you, so that you can see how the statement actually began.  Not with the words "All men" or "all women".  The words at the beginning of the sentence are:

My personal experiences over many years

Have we got that?  Are we clear that NO categorical or absolute statement of "reality" for all humankind can EVER begin with those words, because they immediately establish that the parameters of the discussion are confined to personal experience?

Great.
...



That's like saying nothing insulting could possibly follow "With all due respect".

From the ensuing posts, it's clear that an absolute or categorical statement wasn't intended. However, one was made, whether the author intended it or not. Starting a statement with "My personal experiences over many years tell me" does nothing except indicate the source of the data upon which the conclusion was based. If that conclusion is categorical or absolute, as it was in this case, the beginning of the statement does nothing but indicate that someone is willing to make a general statement based merely on personal experience.

Better phrasing can avoid the unintended overgeneralization. If I say "My personal experiences over many years tell me that all Lithuanians are mean drunks", I'm overgeneralizing, making a categorical statement based on my personal experience. If I say "In my many years of experience, all the Lithuanians I have known have been mean drunks", then I'm not overgeneralizing.

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/4/2009 7:52:57 PM   
aidan


Posts: 904
Joined: 5/28/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

Who gets to look at who, and when, is very much an issue of power.  Many dominant women have spoken up already in this thread to say that they are inclined to seize that power--they most definitely look, even when they aren't going to pounce.

And some of us do both.  *winks at Aidan*  As soon as our prey is within striking range, of course.



*smiles impishly, wagging his tail* It's why I'm always sure to accidentally trip at the last moment. ^__^


_____________________________

Do what now?

"I aim to misbehave."
-Mal Reynolds

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/4/2009 9:44:07 PM   
Eivarden


Posts: 101
Joined: 4/15/2009
Status: offline 		"Do you want to feel desired etc"

Yup.

Main reason I thought a D/s relationship was the way to go.

Of course I finally woke up and realized it isn't going to happen.
Now I just come here out of boredom.

(in reply to hardbodysub)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/4/2009 11:50:12 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub
Better phrasing can avoid the unintended overgeneralization.


*shrug*  Your comparative example implies that I was saying something negative or bigoted about men, or making an over-generalization at which any sane man could legitimately take offense.  I categorically reject this line of argument and thought.  I said nothing wrong.  Wheldrake is just being over-sensitive and thus over-zealous.

Fact is, some people will leap to take offense no matter how carefully you phrase your statements.  It's because they have a chip on their shoulders in general, or because your opinion makes them uncomfortable for some reason, not because you haven't covered your ass well enough grammatically.

Wheldrake is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that a woman would judge a man by his looks.  This is because he feels he personally can't compete in that arena, not because my opinion on male beauty wasn't perfectly phrased for political correctness.  Personally, I think his insecurity is leading him to read WAY too much into the posts about visual appeal in this thread.  "Beauty" is not a simple or straight-forward matter on the best of days...and blind women fall in love as easily as those who can see. 


_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to hardbodysub)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/5/2009 7:05:58 AM   
hardbodysub


Posts: 1654
Joined: 8/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Your comparative example implies that I was saying something negative or bigoted about men


My post implied no such thing. You inferred it. It's ironic that to make that inference you "read WAY too much into" my post. Whether or not you said something negative or offensive is irrelevant. My post implied nothing about that; it addressed only the logical error in yours, and the wording that created the error.

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/5/2009 8:57:08 AM   
Wheldrake


Posts: 477
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub
Better phrasing can avoid the unintended overgeneralization.


*shrug*  Your comparative example implies that I was saying something negative or bigoted about men, or making an over-generalization at which any sane man could legitimately take offense.  I categorically reject this line of argument and thought.  I said nothing wrong.  Wheldrake is just being over-sensitive and thus over-zealous.


Well, maybe. For the record, I haven't felt offended at any point during this exchange. I read your initial post the same way hardbodysub did (as an extrapolation from your personal experience to a sweeping statement about "all men"). This clearly wasn't what you intended, and I'm sorry I misunderstood, but I hope you can see how the misunderstanding arose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
Wheldrake is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that a woman would judge a man by his looks.  This is because he feels he personally can't compete in that arena, not because my opinion on male beauty wasn't perfectly phrased for political correctness.  Personally, I think his insecurity is leading him to read WAY too much into the posts about visual appeal in this thread.  "Beauty" is not a simple or straight-forward matter on the best of days...and blind women fall in love as easily as those who can see. 


Equally, I think you're reading into my responses a level of vehemence/discomfort/insecurity that really isn't there (not that I blame you: again, misunderstandings happen). Your original post left me with the (mis)impression that you thought "all men" who went around with "bland, body-concealing clothes and bland Stoic fake personas" did so because "the fear of being censured and considered unmanly/uncool is just a tad stronger than the desire to be noticed and wanted". This made me want to point out that my own bland, body-concealing clothes are more of a default option that I stick with because I’m more interested in cultivating other sides of myself. I suppose I could have added that wouldn’t know how to go about turning myself into a work of visual art (a problem you nailed in your original post) even if I wanted to make this a priority. In any case, I thought I was just bringing another perspective to the discussion, not picking a fight with someone whose posts I enjoy and whose intellect I respect. I’m sorry that my post evidently rubbed you the wrong way - maybe it was a problem of tone.

As for being uncomfortable with the idea that a woman would judge a man by his looks: no, that doesn’t bother me in the least. Some of my male friends seem to be incapable of walking past a pretty woman on the street without commenting at length on the experience, and I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea that a lot of women probably think in similar terms. Equally, there are some people who don’t take beauty in that purely visual sense all that seriously – I know because I happen to be one of them, and because I’ve met others. Not having made myself into a work of visual art, I suspect that I’m personally more appealing to women who fall into this second category, but that doesn’t mean I have a problem with women who have more of a propensity for eye candy. And since you’ve now made it clear that you have in mind a concept of beauty that isn’t simple or straightforward (again, I’m sorry about having initially misunderstood, but you did talk a lot about clothing and haircuts), it’s close to being a moot point in any case. Bottom line: I’m not offended or wallowing in insecurity, I regret having misunderstood you, and variety is the spice of life.

Now that we’ve (hopefully) got all that out of the way…
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Who gets to look at who, and when, is very much an issue of power.  Many dominant women have spoken up already in this thread to say that they are inclined to seize that power--they most definitely look, even when they aren't going to pounce.

Yes, I very much agree with this, and being openly and deliberately looked at (especially when I’m not wearing very much) can certainly make me feel exposed, vulnerable and subservient. It’s a subtle and very effective way of exerting power. Of course, the relationship between power and looking can be complicated. Some dominant women seem to cultivate a specific type of seductive power by strategically exposing their bodies, and some cultivate a different kind of power by remaining fully clothed while their slaves go around naked. From a different perspective, a dominant woman could parade her undressed or barely-dressed boy in front of others to show off her property, or put him in the male equivalent of a burqa to make the point that he belongs to her alone. Do all these ways of exercising power seem equally valid and effective to you? Or do you think some are better than others?

In any case, I’m sorry again about what have apparently been repeated misunderstandings. Happy looking and pouncing!

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/5/2009 9:50:13 AM   
AAkasha


Posts: 4429
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

I wonder if the perception/fantasy of the male submissive often includes him being sexually objectified/desired without him having to put any effort into it.  Is part of the fantasy that a woman takes control and pursues him so passionately and intensely, makes the first moves, and does all of that, even if he is passive or unassuming? It's a nice fantasy because it removes all effort, potential for failure. 

Is part of the male fantasy simply "effortless desirability"?

I've met lots of submissive men who could be "head-turning" attractive if they got the right hairstyle and dressed properly and maybe adopted a style.  I suppose there could be the argument that submissive men are above being shallow and don't want to attract shallow women who just like them for their looks, but I don't think that's the case.  I think in some cases, it may be that part of the attraction is that in their fantasies, dominant women pursue them despite their lack of interest in how they look physically, or at least present themselves.

There's nothing wrong with a man who doesn't want to invest time, money and effort into his looks, but he has to realize this means he needs to spend more time on the package surrounding that -- good conversation, charming wit, an assertive social style, or other ways to make his inner personality shine through his packaging.   In all cases though, the bottom line is that being submissive and attracting dominant women arguable takes MORE effort, not less, than Miss Vanilla, despite what men may hope for.  And this means paying attention to the whole package.

I have a very weird taste in men. I like uber geek, waify boys over toned athletes any day of the week, and also prefer stylish nerds to perfectly-handsome GQ corporate guys that I am surrounded by.   But while I like longish hair, for example, I don't like unkept hair - and while I don't have much of an eye for fashion, I do notice if a man wears the same thing over and over again, has stains on his clothing or shirt not tucked in when it should be. 

I love doing 'sub makeovers' though, and part of my dating ritual was often to take a guy and get him a proper haircut, go shopping with him and then tell him he had to spend a certain amount of time 'getting ready' when he was going to see me. I've noticed a LOT of submissive men are really, really good looking underneath their underappreciated packaging!


Akasha




_____________________________

Akasha's Web - All original Femdom content since 1995
Don't email me here, email me at [email protected]

(in reply to OttersSwim)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/5/2009 10:32:46 AM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline 		OOH, Akasha, come to my town and do a makeover on one of our guys!  He's a fabulous servant but he needs... help. 

_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to AAkasha)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/5/2009 10:58:57 AM   
pyroaquatic


Posts: 1535
Joined: 12/4/2006
From: Pyroaquatica
Status: offline 		AH, may I interject here Akasha lady.

Each person (not how I do not say sub or dom) has raw potential to be something wonderful, beautiful.

I do make an effort to be something desirable so that I may be carved into whatever my Lady desires.

^_^

So objectification does not entirely have to be sexual. But it sure is nice to be wanted in such a fashion.




_____________________________

You are what your deep, driving desire is.
As your desire is, so is your will.
As your will is, so is your deed.
As your deed is, so is your destiny.
-Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV.4.5

(in reply to AAkasha)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/5/2009 3:40:26 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wheldrake
Not having made myself into a work of visual art, I suspect that I’m personally more appealing to women who fall into this second category, but that doesn’t mean I have a problem with women who have more of a propensity for eye candy. And since you’ve now made it clear that you have in mind a concept of beauty that isn’t simple or straightforward (again, I’m sorry about having initially misunderstood, but you did talk a lot about clothing and haircuts), it’s close to being a moot point in any case.


Actually, I mentioned clothing and haircuts for a reason, and contrary to what you seem to both believe and imply, these things are NOT simply the paraphenalia of the shallow.   They are a valid form of communication which a man is very wise to master, if he wants to attract women.

It comes down to a simple concept:  presentation.  Ask any master chef and they will tell you that this is an important component of the meal, and not something that you can simply dismiss and ignore because you've managed to whip up a decent sauce and you use fresh ingredients.  The most beautiful, tasty, skillfully prepared dish in the world will still cause potential diners to turn up their noses in disgust and never take a single bite, if you slop it onto a plate so clumsily that it looks like shit.  If you go to the trouble of preparing a gourmet meal, it is simply counter-productive not to have it presented well and served by someone wearing a clean shirt.

What people who like to consider themselves "deep" and "non-superficial" tend to ignore is that clothing and haircuts are important sexual signals.  Even among less sophisticated primates, good grooming is essential--it's a sign of mental, physical and social well-being.  When you invest a bit of effort in self-care and self-presentation, you're telling the world that you are ok in many ways, and a person of value to himself and others.  Why on earth would anyone think it was wisest to say otherwise?

As a human, if you can't be bothered to get your hair cut to suit you or dress yourself half decently, you're no "deeper" and "more substantial" than a person who sends an email full of spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.  The clear message that you send to others with a badly spelled email (at least, when English is your mother tongue) is "I don't have enough self-respect to learn to communicate clearly, and I don't care enough about YOU to try and make a good first impression on you."

It's more than possible for a man to send the same messages with his clothes and his attitude that he does with bad spelling and grammar:  and that message is "Frankly, Scah-let, I don't give a damn."  All very macho, to be sure, but not real attractive.  To me, at least.

Personally, I had three older brothers when I was growing up, and I saw each and every one of them go through the same ritual before they were meeting a woman who mattered to them.  They showered, they picked their clothes as carefully as they could--sometimes trying on a few different shirts and yelling at whoever had stolen the good one.  They shaved, they combed their hair, they put on male jewelry and their best boots and hat--whatever was appropriate to the situation.  Whether it was just a dance at the grange hall or your wedding day, they were clear that a man who wants a woman, and RESPECTS a woman, makes an effort to please her with his appearance.  It's not a substitute for being a man of substance, but it's a sign of desire to please that most women respond to very well.

Ultimately, I consider the work a submissive man does on his "whole package" to be a thing he does both for my benefit and because he is mine.  I don't like my house to be surrounded by a mangy lawn full of rusting automobile wrecks, I don't like my animals to look like no one has given them a bath or brushed their fur since the day they were born, and I don't like my men to look like Schubbly McSchlubbin.  *shrug*  I guess the thing we do around here is "call it a quirk of my personality". 






_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to Wheldrake)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/5/2009 4:02:16 PM   
SomethingCatchy


Posts: 796
Joined: 7/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dickkitty

I don't think women really lust after men in quite that way....



There are men, who I look at and think 'oh pretty' and then there are men who I undress with my eyes, fantasize about pinning him to the concrete floor and having my way with him, and then leaving him all worn and bloody and cat scratched...

You can't generalize a gender, although I understand this may be the way you see the world. More power to you!

I think there are a lot of men who have the need to be looked at and desired, but that depends on your personality. Some are shy and feel put on the spot, perhaps stupid or foolish, and others are more outgoing (at least about this topic) and enjoy preening and being admired.


_____________________________

I believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns

Everyone is gay for Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil.

(in reply to dickkitty)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/6/2009 8:09:40 AM   
Andalusite


Posts: 2492
Joined: 1/25/2009
Status: offline 		pyro, I agree! I think things like modelling for photography/etc., or being a canvas for body art can both be objectifying in a positive way - not necessarily outright sexual, but it can influence the way we view ourselves in very powerful ways.

Venatrix, not Tim Curry, but I've seen some Rocky cast members who are fantastic eye candy! Mostly, I'm not attracted to people just based on looks, but if someone I'm already interested in cross-dresses, he or she can definitely still push those buttons.

dickkitty, even completely aside from looks and clothes, there are lots of visual signals that play into it. The right expression, posture, moving with that combination of power and grace that comes with martial arts or a few other forms of athleticism - it might not be as overt, but it's still there to some degree.

< Message edited by Andalusite -- 10/6/2009 8:13:01 AM >

(in reply to SomethingCatchy)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/6/2009 9:27:43 AM   
Wheldrake


Posts: 477
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

What people who like to consider themselves "deep" and "non-superficial" tend to ignore is that clothing and haircuts are important sexual signals.  Even among less sophisticated primates, good grooming is essential--it's a sign of mental, physical and social well-being.  When you invest a bit of effort in self-care and self-presentation, you're telling the world that you are ok in many ways, and a person of value to himself and others.  Why on earth would anyone think it was wisest to say otherwise?


Well, I've never considered myself a terribly sophisticated primate, so I keep the grooming basic. It's a matter of degree, I guess - I don't walk around looking like an earthquake survivor, but I can't remember the last time I stood in front of a mirror experimenting with different shirts, either. I'd likely have trouble deciding which one looked better in any case.

You're absolutely right that the key word is presentation, and yes, the analogy to proper grammar and spelling is a good one. For some reason I'm instinctively fussy about grammar and spelling, whereas a lot of the time I literally don't even notice what other people are wearing. Some of the most enjoyable meals I've ever eaten have indeed looked like shit, too - although they were mostly consumed around campstoves after strenuous days, which admittedly changes the equation. If caring about presentation is superficial, then I guess most of us are superficial about some things and less so about others.

With that said, I'm well aware that not everyone in the world thinks exactly like I do (probably a good thing, on the whole). If I need or want to impress someone who strikes me as grooming-sensitive, then yes, I'll make a particular effort to the best of my limited abilities. If the someone happened to be a dominant woman, then adjusting my behaviour to fit her priorities might be a pleasurable experience in itself.

Anyway, they seem to be discussing this very issue over in the General BDSM area:

http://www.collarchat.com/m_2836949/mpage_2/tm.htm

For what it's worth, your viewpoint seems to be a lot more popular than mine.



(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/6/2009 1:53:56 PM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wheldrake

For what it's worth, your viewpoint seems to be a lot more popular than mine.



And that's not a hint to you, not even a little?

_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to Wheldrake)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/7/2009 12:15:04 PM   
Wheldrake


Posts: 477
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wheldrake

For what it's worth, your viewpoint seems to be a lot more popular than mine.



And that's not a hint to you, not even a little?


Not really, no. If I were uncomfortable with the idea of being in the minority, I'd probably be too conflicted about my BDSM desires to go around posting on these forums in the first place.

(in reply to LadyHibiscus)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/7/2009 3:28:30 PM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wheldrake

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wheldrake

For what it's worth, your viewpoint seems to be a lot more popular than mine.



And that's not a hint to you, not even a little?


Not really, no. If I were uncomfortable with the idea of being in the minority, I'd probably be too conflicted about my BDSM desires to go around posting on these forums in the first place.



Flashing back to every SF or comic con I have ever been at... you are right.   And, I am going to make the big leap, the sadly truthful leap, that there are women out there who need to develop some fashion sense as well.  Wouldn't it be lovely if those two groups could hook up with each other?

_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to Wheldrake)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/7/2009 5:26:38 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline 		"Fashion sense" is a term that I avoid, because it comes with an attached industry which is the enemy of all beauty and joy in the universe, as near as I can tell.  Fashion and beauty are almost never friends.

_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to LadyHibiscus)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive - 10/7/2009 5:29:05 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wheldrake

Anyway, they seem to be discussing this very issue over in the General BDSM area:

http://www.collarchat.com/m_2836949/mpage_2/tm.htm


Your link leads to the second page of a thread on the "Ethics of Desirfe"--not sure what if anything that thread has to do with this one.  I see zero connection.

_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to Wheldrake)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress >> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive 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