RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s?

RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (Full Version)

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

Message

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 2:58:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leonine quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig quote: ORIGINAL: ARIES83 Hey... I'm a FinDom sometimes! ARIES This is nice and honest. Most of the time however, when a lady says this, she might as well ask to be stoned to death, and called "bad prostitute." But not here. Here, she identifies herself as one of the queens of the hill and gets a license to flame from the moderators. quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK That's what we are attempting to correct. Incorrect thinking like that. Some people want to be educated, others will simply remain ignorant. Gods forbid we should allow any incorrect thinking round here, when there are educators to correct us and tell us all what to think. Without their correction we'd just have to go on ignorantly thinking for ourselves. Seriously, have you any idea how stunningly arrogant that passage looks? Not at all, you see I'm talking about myself. No one can tell me about myself, except...myself. So when I'm attempting to educate someone who clearly is wrong about me, it isn't arrogant at all. It's helpful actually.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 3:00:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK That's what we are attempting to correct. Incorrect thinking like that. Some people want to be educated, others will simply remain ignorant. Topic aside, I still cannot quite understand why people do not have a right to an opinion here? You (generic you) keep saying people are hard on pros and findommes, but very few people have actually said anything against that. All have said that that is between the involved parties, all have said that whatever prostitution is it is ok, but some, including me, have had an opinion on how it affects us or whether it would be good to seperate these groups (commercial and non-commercial). This has gotten very impolite answers from pros to say the least, and at the start something that started to look like a mobbing on the person who dared to voice such an opinion. To me, a new member of CM, dropping in this thread as the very first one, it seems that the pros are very firmly in control of who can say what here. A question to you, and I do mean this a serious question to learn something I simply cannot grasp: WHY is it that people who think otherwise than you do in this question need to be 'educated'? About what? The only questions debated here is what to call it, which is a matter of personal semantics and, of course, law, and the question of whether some would like a non-commercial list. Where is the education in that? I am seriously asking you. And why is it ok to bash people who would like a non-commercial list? I am asking you, because I think you might answer me, and probably not even either patronizing or 'yelling'. Thanks. That's bc the mods came in a couple of times and shut down the thread and took out the slander towards us.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 3:03:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EsotericLady I honestly and truly don't care if someone is a Fin-Domme, Pro Domme, or whatever. I really don't. It doesn't affect me nor have any bearing on my life. The only thing that DOES bother me are all these little 20 year old girls that are appearing en masse on this site that are playing it up as being some big, bad Fin-Dommes, hoping to make an easy buck. It bothers me when (any) really young people act like those who give them money should feel privileged that the kids would even accept it. We don't like those girls either. That's what gives us a bad name.

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 3:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK We don't like those girls either. That's what gives us a bad name. I somehow doubt that. Seriously? I find myself quite capable of discerning the subtle differences between some "pay me now piggie" 20 year old drama queen and someone like Ladypact. Perhaps it's my own sensitive male intuition? Pretty much the first moment you and Allison started posting on this thread the differences were fairly obvious also. I have to believe it has more to do with the money aspect than anything else. Insofar as the 20 year olds, yeah... i see the influx also. So what? I gather they read on some website somewhere that there was easy money to be had in BDSM-land. Their approaches are all so formulaic that it's gotta be something like that. But you know what? Rickie Lee Jones was right. There ain't no such thing as easy money. So let them come. The gold rush will wear off eventually when they realize there ain't no gold in them thar hills. And if it doesn't? If there really is money to be had? Well... then I guess the face of BDSM just changed didn't it? As much as I've read all 46 pages of this thread... some of them multiple times, I have yet to hear someone tell me what evil these "bad fin-dommes" are doing. The clearest I have is, "prostitutes are bad, mkay?"

LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 3:27:17 PM)
No fair using Me, Jeff. You know Me, have talked with Me, etc, etc. You, My friend, are biased. (And don't stop because I love every minute of it. [:D] ) While I get what others are saying about how the duck lips, flipping the bird types make the kink look bad, there's another aspect worth considering. The truth is, those types make the other ones look good. When those get compared to somebody like K or Allison, it's not hard to make an evaluation.

TheLilSquaw -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 4:51:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK quote: ORIGINAL: EsotericLady I honestly and truly don't care if someone is a Fin-Domme, Pro Domme, or whatever. I really don't. It doesn't affect me nor have any bearing on my life. The only thing that DOES bother me are all these little 20 year old girls that are appearing en masse on this site that are playing it up as being some big, bad Fin-Dommes, hoping to make an easy buck. It bothers me when (any) really young people act like those who give them money should feel privileged that the kids would even accept it. We don't like those girls either. That's what gives us a bad name. Actually truth be told those girls don't bother me and I don't dislike them either. The reality is if there were not men / women who used them they wouldn't be around. They don't even give ME a bad name. I am the only person who can do that.

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 5:06:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact make the kink look bad That's my peeve. Perhaps it's just my outsider's viewpoint looking in but honestly isn't ALL kink "looking bad" -- and in most cases deliberately so? I mean seriously... you can't tell me that you think me calling Carol my "property" or "slave" looks particularly good. So I guess for me I don't really understand why SOME of what you freaky people get up to is supposed to "look good" and yet what this other group of freaky people get up to is supposed to "look bad". For me, the more or less vanilla guy... I had to make a decision that I was either going to accept other people's relationships on face value or not. edited to add: Oh... and I never claimed to play fair. And I stand behind my biases. Nor do I need to meet someone face to face (in all instances) to get a bead on whether they are honorable or not... dominant or not... etc. Without wanting to make anyone blush, there's a few people here that I'd send Carol to visit with "open ended instruction to obey" without a moment's thought (with the full understand that that is basically placing my entire marriage in someone else's hands).

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 7:32:14 PM)
Maybe that's what I should have said, they make the kink look bad. And lilSquaw you are right about being the only person to make one look bad is oneself. Jeff, what I mean is, majority of these male subs see these bratty girls, have bad experiences and assume we are all like that. Don't think that just because you have sense, everyone else does too.after all, look at some of the ignorant posts in the thread about "all" fin dommes.

littlewonder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 7:57:33 PM)
Does it really matter though? They are obviously fulfilling their role and if others fall for them or whatever, is it really all that bad? They have just simply weeded out the horny, desperate, clueless, little boys, that's all. Making the kink look bad? eeehh...I couldn't care less if someone sees it as bad. I don't see why anyone else cares either. Lots of things look bad to me too outside of bdsm. Doesn't seem like those people are being hurt by me thinking that lol.

absolutchocolat -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 8:45:41 PM)
Thanks for that amazing summary, Roch. Will be posting it on the other side in my journal. And I am with LW. I think the only idiots that make kink look bad are the ones that a) hurt anyone without their consent or b) engage in activity with children or animals. Other than that, your kink is your kink and do what you want! Threads like these make me smile. I love you guys.

LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 9:07:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC That's my peeve. Perhaps it's just my outsider's viewpoint looking in but honestly isn't ALL kink "looking bad" -- and in most cases deliberately so? I mean seriously... you can't tell me that you think me calling Carol my "property" or "slave" looks particularly good. So I guess for me I don't really understand why SOME of what you freaky people get up to is supposed to "look good" and yet what this other group of freaky people get up to is supposed to "look bad". For me, the more or less vanilla guy... I had to make a decision that I was either going to accept other people's relationships on face value or not. edited to add: Oh... and I never claimed to play fair. And I stand behind my biases. Nor do I need to meet someone face to face (in all instances) to get a bead on whether they are honorable or not... dominant or not... etc. Without wanting to make anyone blush, there's a few people here that I'd send Carol to visit with "open ended instruction to obey" without a moment's thought (with the full understand that that is basically placing my entire marriage in someone else's hands). I've got a theory on this. No matter where any of us are on the scale of kink or authority dynamics, none of us is the ultimate extreme. (At least I haven't met them yet.) There is stuff that is easier for us to accept because it's 'softer' (I need a better word for that) than we are and stuff that is more difficult to accept because it's harder than we are. The softer stuff? That's easy. That would be like comparing a bottom to your thoughts on ownership or a light spanking would be to My thoughts on sadism. No big deal. Completely different when we start looking at stuff that is more extreme than us. A few inches in the "more" direction, we can usually handle that. The farther away we get from our own center, that's where we become challenged. What we have to remember is, to somebody, somewhere, we are the ones who are so much more than their center. It can be a struggle sometimes, but a rather interesting mental exercise. Oh, and if you ever sent Carol to Me, I'd get a damn nice piece of art on My new dungeon wall. Freaky chick that I am. [8D]

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 9:27:16 PM)
FR: I didn't know opinions had become forbidden here. Isn't just about everything written here opinions? What is so wrong with educating people about kinks with which they may not be familiar, or comfortable. This is one of those things, say like scat play.... Not for everyone. M

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 9:37:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK Jeff, what I mean is, majority of these male subs see these bratty girls, have bad experiences and assume we are all like that. Don't think that just because you have sense, everyone else does too.after all, look at some of the ignorant posts in the thread about "all" fin dommes. Yup. But try to remember that a lot of what you do is awfully different than what I do. Heck, I could say that of LP and a fair number of others too. The exact same thing that makes me inclined to defend YOUR right to be here and accepted and whatnot makes me accept those "bratty girls". If I stop arguing for them then you're next on the list. Down that path is madness. LadyPact said: Oh, and if you ever sent Carol to Me, I'd get a damn nice piece of art on My new dungeon wall. Freaky chick that I am. That made Carol and I both laugh. You mean a sensible dominant actually uses their property (loaned or otherwise) sensibly? Wow! Plus, of course, Carol was tickled to be acknowledged as an artist. On the "edge" thing, I personally don't think there's any such linear scale like "hard" and "soft". But man... again I can only recall (with some humor) my poor FREAKED RIGHT THE HELL OUT vanilla self learning about blood spatters and tarps during whipping. I'm sorry but even now that agitates me more than a $20 gift card to amazon in exchange for some verbal abuse. I don't think this has anything to do with "edgy" or "hard". I think it's the twueness argument all over again. Only this time it's not "true slave" it's "true domme". Accordingly, I think the question itself is stupid. "Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s?" "Are findomme's true dommes?" You get the same sorts of folks wanting to protect the purity of BDSM on this thread as you get wanting to protect the purity of M/s on the "true slave" threads. I'm underwhelmed by all of them and their trueness. Nor am I about to say that those "bratty girls" aren't true either because that's equally stupid.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/5/2013 11:01:09 PM)
All of you make very valid points. I concur.

Zonie63 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 3:42:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 Okay, after 45 pages, I'm getting sick of my own thread. [sm=diethreaddie.gif] I haven't heard any new thoughts/opinions voiced in the last 30 pages or so. So let me summarize what I've gotten from the past 45 pages. -Financial domination is probably the most polarizing topic discussed on the boards. -People tend to fall into three key camps when it comes to financial domination: 1. Those who think that all financial Dommes are prostitutes, fakes, scammers, the spawn of Satan, etc. 2. Those who think that what happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business (i.e. YKINMKBYKIOK). 3. Those who think that financial domination is a viable part of BDSM, and who will defend it until they die. -There are various TYPES of financial Dommes 1) Scammers (These are often men pretending to be women, or Nigerians) 2) Bratty princesses - Usually 18-25 years old. They don't tend to have any interest in BDSM except to "rape wallets". 3) Pro Dommes who also accept "tribute". 4) Life style Dommes who control the finances of their subs/slaves. 5) Financial Dommes who build real, long-term D/s relationships with their "financial subs". -Some people believe that the person who has the money is actually in the dominant position. -Some believe that a true Dom/Domme has the right to control everything, including their sub's money. -Some people believe that it is inaccurate from a legal standpoint to say that financial Dommes are "prostitutes". -Some say findoms should have to declare their "commercial" status, and that there should be a separate section for them. -Some say the findoms should be banned from CollarMe altogether. -Some think it's silly to segregate, and think it's easier to simply hide findom profiles if you don't want to see them. -Some (okay, 1 person in particular) say that women can't be dominant, and all of you "Dommes" are delusional fakes. -Some believe that the owners of CM actually encourage findoms because the site somehow makes money from them. -Financial Dommes who actually build relationships with their "clients" say that it's unfair to lump them in with the scammers. Those are my basic takeaways from the first 45 pages of this thread. So if you haven't read all 45 pages, you can just read this summary, and it pretty much captures what you've missed. Any questions? IMO, financial domination is a topic that it's probably best to just "agree to disagree" about. It appears that few opinions have actually been changed during the course of this 45 page thread. And if the thread continues for another 45 pages, I still doubt that anyone will be persuaded to change their opinion about financial Dommes. Can the church say "Amen"? I think this is a good summary, and I also think that it's best to agree to disagree. But the one thing that's missing (and which often seems to go unnoticed in these discussions) is that this is not really a "kink" issue, but it's a money issue. It's all about the money. There's an old saying that there's no quicker way to break up a friendship than to let money come between them. It's also a class and socioeconomic issue as well. Some people don't like to be reminded about how much money they don't have. I've also noticed that some people here have a certain anti-capitalist bent, and some (not all) findommes seem to be the quintessential capitalists of the BDSM world. An analogous situation might be if there was a fuel shortage and I owned the only gas station in town and started charging $150 per gallon of gas. You can imagine that there'd be some people who'd be pretty pissed off at me. If one can understand why people would get angry in a situation like that, then it should be easy to understand why some people get angry at findommes and why it's such a polarizing issue. But from reading this and other threads on the topic, so many people seem to be missing that side of it. Everyone thinks the negative reactions are all about the kink, but I think that it's really about the money.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 3:53:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 Okay, after 45 pages, I'm getting sick of my own thread. [sm=diethreaddie.gif] I haven't heard any new thoughts/opinions voiced in the last 30 pages or so. So let me summarize what I've gotten from the past 45 pages. -Financial domination is probably the most polarizing topic discussed on the boards. -People tend to fall into three key camps when it comes to financial domination: 1. Those who think that all financial Dommes are prostitutes, fakes, scammers, the spawn of Satan, etc. 2. Those who think that what happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business (i.e. YKINMKBYKIOK). 3. Those who think that financial domination is a viable part of BDSM, and who will defend it until they die. -There are various TYPES of financial Dommes 1) Scammers (These are often men pretending to be women, or Nigerians) 2) Bratty princesses - Usually 18-25 years old. They don't tend to have any interest in BDSM except to "rape wallets". 3) Pro Dommes who also accept "tribute". 4) Life style Dommes who control the finances of their subs/slaves. 5) Financial Dommes who build real, long-term D/s relationships with their "financial subs". -Some people believe that the person who has the money is actually in the dominant position. -Some believe that a true Dom/Domme has the right to control everything, including their sub's money. -Some people believe that it is inaccurate from a legal standpoint to say that financial Dommes are "prostitutes". -Some say findoms should have to declare their "commercial" status, and that there should be a separate section for them. -Some say the findoms should be banned from CollarMe altogether. -Some think it's silly to segregate, and think it's easier to simply hide findom profiles if you don't want to see them. -Some (okay, 1 person in particular) say that women can't be dominant, and all of you "Dommes" are delusional fakes. -Some believe that the owners of CM actually encourage findoms because the site somehow makes money from them. -Financial Dommes who actually build relationships with their "clients" say that it's unfair to lump them in with the scammers. Those are my basic takeaways from the first 45 pages of this thread. So if you haven't read all 45 pages, you can just read this summary, and it pretty much captures what you've missed. Any questions? IMO, financial domination is a topic that it's probably best to just "agree to disagree" about. It appears that few opinions have actually been changed during the course of this 45 page thread. And if the thread continues for another 45 pages, I still doubt that anyone will be persuaded to change their opinion about financial Dommes. Can the church say "Amen"? I think this is a good summary, and I also think that it's best to agree to disagree. But the one thing that's missing (and which often seems to go unnoticed in these discussions) is that this is not really a "kink" issue, but it's a money issue. It's all about the money. There's an old saying that there's no quicker way to break up a friendship than to let money come between them. It's also a class and socioeconomic issue as well. Some people don't like to be reminded about how much money they don't have. I've also noticed that some people here have a certain anti-capitalist bent, and some (not all) findommes seem to be the quintessential capitalists of the BDSM world. An analogous situation might be if there was a fuel shortage and I owned the only gas station in town and started charging $150 per gallon of gas. You can imagine that there'd be some people who'd be pretty pissed off at me. If one can understand why people would get angry in a situation like that, then it should be easy to understand why some people get angry at findommes and why it's such a polarizing issue. But from reading this and other threads on the topic, so many people seem to be missing that side of it. Everyone thinks the negative reactions are all about the kink, but I think that it's really about the money. So even with the numerous fin dommes explaining to you why they enjoy this fetish, you still choose to assume it's really about the money?

NIMH -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 4:15:32 AM)
No matter how many times I hear well thought out and carefully defined explanations when it is all said and done it comes down to money. People can justify anything they want and they can rationalize things six ways to Sunday but at the end of the day it is about the money and not about anything else. If it was all just about the power that goes into this type of abuse then you would see an equal level of love for other things. For instance instead of money why not social status? I.e. Having someone ruin their social status or hurt their reputation if they don't comply? Or why not appearance? I.e. Forcing someone to dress down or dress inappropriately? The list is endless in which a similar level of claimed power can be granted. The only difference being that with money you can pay your bills and legitimize stealing it or taking advantage of someone elses weakness in this lifestyle. No, I have no respect for a financial domme. All of them money hungry, vile, and good for nothing and I have no problem telling them such at munches or play events when someone is open about it.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 4:24:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK So even with the numerous fin dommes explaining to you why they enjoy this fetish, you still choose to assume it's really about the money? That's not how I interpreted his post at all. I didn't think that he was saying that the financial Dommes are only in it for the money. I think he was saying that the reason that people get so upset is because money is involved (and money can bring out the worst in people). But I could be wrong. He'll have to come back and clarify his meaning.

Zonie63 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 4:56:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 Okay, after 45 pages, I'm getting sick of my own thread. [sm=diethreaddie.gif] I haven't heard any new thoughts/opinions voiced in the last 30 pages or so. So let me summarize what I've gotten from the past 45 pages. -Financial domination is probably the most polarizing topic discussed on the boards. -People tend to fall into three key camps when it comes to financial domination: 1. Those who think that all financial Dommes are prostitutes, fakes, scammers, the spawn of Satan, etc. 2. Those who think that what happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business (i.e. YKINMKBYKIOK). 3. Those who think that financial domination is a viable part of BDSM, and who will defend it until they die. -There are various TYPES of financial Dommes 1) Scammers (These are often men pretending to be women, or Nigerians) 2) Bratty princesses - Usually 18-25 years old. They don't tend to have any interest in BDSM except to "rape wallets". 3) Pro Dommes who also accept "tribute". 4) Life style Dommes who control the finances of their subs/slaves. 5) Financial Dommes who build real, long-term D/s relationships with their "financial subs". -Some people believe that the person who has the money is actually in the dominant position. -Some believe that a true Dom/Domme has the right to control everything, including their sub's money. -Some people believe that it is inaccurate from a legal standpoint to say that financial Dommes are "prostitutes". -Some say findoms should have to declare their "commercial" status, and that there should be a separate section for them. -Some say the findoms should be banned from CollarMe altogether. -Some think it's silly to segregate, and think it's easier to simply hide findom profiles if you don't want to see them. -Some (okay, 1 person in particular) say that women can't be dominant, and all of you "Dommes" are delusional fakes. -Some believe that the owners of CM actually encourage findoms because the site somehow makes money from them. -Financial Dommes who actually build relationships with their "clients" say that it's unfair to lump them in with the scammers. Those are my basic takeaways from the first 45 pages of this thread. So if you haven't read all 45 pages, you can just read this summary, and it pretty much captures what you've missed. Any questions? IMO, financial domination is a topic that it's probably best to just "agree to disagree" about. It appears that few opinions have actually been changed during the course of this 45 page thread. And if the thread continues for another 45 pages, I still doubt that anyone will be persuaded to change their opinion about financial Dommes. Can the church say "Amen"? I think this is a good summary, and I also think that it's best to agree to disagree. But the one thing that's missing (and which often seems to go unnoticed in these discussions) is that this is not really a "kink" issue, but it's a money issue. It's all about the money. There's an old saying that there's no quicker way to break up a friendship than to let money come between them. It's also a class and socioeconomic issue as well. Some people don't like to be reminded about how much money they don't have. I've also noticed that some people here have a certain anti-capitalist bent, and some (not all) findommes seem to be the quintessential capitalists of the BDSM world. An analogous situation might be if there was a fuel shortage and I owned the only gas station in town and started charging $150 per gallon of gas. You can imagine that there'd be some people who'd be pretty pissed off at me. If one can understand why people would get angry in a situation like that, then it should be easy to understand why some people get angry at findommes and why it's such a polarizing issue. But from reading this and other threads on the topic, so many people seem to be missing that side of it. Everyone thinks the negative reactions are all about the kink, but I think that it's really about the money. So even with the numerous fin dommes explaining to you why they enjoy this fetish, you still choose to assume it's really about the money? No, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm just saying that people seem to be dancing around the issue of money, and that may be the reason why it's such a polarizing issue. It's the elephant in the living room in this discussion. It has nothing to do with you personally or your reasons for enjoying this fetish. Live and let live, I say. I'm very libertarian in that aspect. I was thinking more of why there's such a sharp reaction against it. Money brings out the worst in people. That's what I was thinking when I was reading Rochsub2009's summary of the thread. I agree with the summary of what's been talked about, but I was looking more at what wasn't being talked about. I respect your position and others who take a more practical approach to things, who still live in the real world and seem to understand the practical side of life. But my main point here was that there didn't seem to be much discussion of money itself and why it seems to generate a great deal of hostility in the context of this and other threads on this topic. What is money?

TheLilSquaw -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 5:03:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat Thanks for that amazing summary, Roch. Will be posting it on the other side in my journal. And I am with LW. I think the only idiots that make kink look bad are the ones that a) hurt anyone without their consent or b) engage in activity with children or animals. Those people don't even make "kink" or the "lifestyle" look bad IMO. They make themselves look bad. The reality is a snake will a snake. The snake being a snake doesn't make the rabbit look better. It simply reminds folks that the snake is a snake.

Page: << < prev 44 45 [46] 47 48 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.347656E-02