Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Eiuol

Understanding Human Beauty

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

My interest here is to develop a better understanding of what human beauty actually means, or even should mean. I understand that most refer to a sense of harmony, but that is kind of vague to me. I can easily identify who does or doesn't look beautiful by common standards. Still, if I ask why some standards are considered beautiful, I wouldn't be able to tell you why other than that it is merely common preferences in appearance. I don't know if I could honestly say any face is more beautiful than another.

A good starting point would be that beauty in the most generally speaking refers to a positive aesthetic judgment. I'm leaving out “inner beauty” here, which I think may be nice as a metaphor, though it only would confuse matters here. Essentially anything concrete can be beautiful or not, since all concrete things have a physical appearance. That would also mean that a judgment of beauty has to do with the nature of the thing in question. I say judgment specifically because a thing could only have a positive evaluation if a negative evaluation were possible. To say something is beautiful requires stating in some manner “this entity is more pleasing to my eyes than other kinds of this entity.” I'm not suggesting here how specific that would get, but I wouldn't be able to compare the beauty of a sculpture to the beauty of a sunset. The visual characteristics are so fundamentally different that direct comparison cannot be made. In addition, the possibilities in appearance between a sunset and sculpture are different, so different aspects are taken into consideration.

More directly related to the topic at hand of human beauty is paintings/sculpture and animals. What about judging beauty in these things is the same? What is different?

Art (I'm focusing here on portrayal of people) is of course selective, and I hope people here are at least a little familiar with how art is a metaphysical value judgment of the artist. Since everything is left up to choice of the artist, there is plenty of room for saying that, to use an example Rand used, a cold sore is ugly in a painting. Portraying deformities in paintings is something to be avoided, because that would in a sense suggesting anything better is not possible in any person. There is room for complete control of portrayal of the subject, so when judging the beauty of a painting, the primary consideration is the choices that the artist makes. In addition, focus is on the rendering itself. The frame need not be considered, nor the canvas (unless somehow the canvas is used specifically for a particular technique).

Animals by their nature are non-conceptual, so there is no need or possibility to take into account choice. An animal will only look how its genes let it, save for injuries. Genetic features should be considered here because that determines what is aesthetically possible to the animal. Further, beautiful animals would be ones that best display genetic/physical prowess, because also in the nature of animals is the need to survive in the wild. The only way to really evaluate an animal's beauty is what affects their ability to survive through genetic traits.

The way I understand it, most people consider beauty the same way they would other animals. Certain features are beautiful because of how they relate to survival needs. Or something like harmony is the reason such features are considered beautiful. I think that almost entirely drops the nature of people being conceptual thinkers, choosers. The similarity between animals and humans is the need to survive, but the human method of survival is reason. The similarity between art and humans is the involvement of choice, but the important difference is that humans don't have nearly limitless options to choose from.

I think that human standard for beauty could still be survival. However, that ISN'T genetic features. Use of the mind should be the most important indicator, since that is the human method of survival. Again, I'm still not talking about “inner beauty”; mental ability at philosophy itself isn't demonstrated physically. Still, intelligence and ability to think CAN be showed outwardly in creative ways such as clothing, makeup, tattoos, hair styling, anything. Combine these things and you can have something to use in order to judge a person as beautiful in a meaningful way. The only potential problem I see is to what extent can you consider a person who has not opted for plastic surgery? Plastic surgery is the only snag I've had in my reasoning, although maybe it is just an EXTREMELY contextual case.

Just to point out, I'm not talking about attractiveness. That refers to something else and does include the non-physical stuff. Just as I could dislike art pieces and find them good, I can find a person unattractive and beautiful. (Although, that can complicate things, sometimes attractiveness does refer to just beauty).

I'm still not sure what standards to use for suggesting that certain aesthetic choices in human appearance are ugly or beautiful. I may have to leave those choices as a matter of preference for now, much like how Rand left objective evaluation of music. Not that there is no answer, but that I don't have one right now. Maybe something with harmoniousness of values expressed?

Do you agree with my reasoning here? Why or why not?

If you do agree, what sort of specific standards can be used to call certain aesthetic choices beautiful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since people can survive in many different ways, so would each individual's concept of beauty differentiate to go along with the "survival method". Some people might like the cold sore in the painting. Rand didn't but that's her preference.

Edited by Dingbat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since people can survive in many different ways, so would each individual's concept of beauty differentiate to go along with the "survival method". Some people might like the cold sore in the painting.
because cold sores are somehow related differently to one person's survival needs compared to another's? Secondly, it is false to say that Rand didn't like cold sores in a painting. If someone says they don't like chocolate syrup on their salad, it does not mean they don't like chocolate syrup. Secondly, Rand was trying to make a point about the artist's selectivity and purpose in art, not about cold sores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not somebody likes cold sores will be determined by their own sum of focused experiences, whatever they may be. People's preferences will be determined by their own individual values which come anywhere from the whole gauntlet of human experiences in reality expressed as an emotional sum: the sense of life.

Rand doesn't like cold sores in portraits because it is inconsistent with her personal aesthetic preference: Romanticism. But, that's just the result of her unique sense of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that it is established that we react positively to symmetry. Also, the Golden Ratio is apparently considered most pleasing. Those have been tested across peoples and places, times and "races." Ayn Rand's delineation of beauty by geography is not general enough.

American plastic surgeon Dr Stephen Marquardt has studied human beauty for years. He believes that he has discovered a fundamental rule for facial beauty. Whatever the race, period of history or gender, beautiful faces exhibit the Golden Ratio in their shape.

http://www.beautyanalysis.com/index2_mba.htm

From Wikipedia

[Petter] Hegre studied at the Brooks Institute of Photography in California and worked in New York with Richard Avedon before returning to his native Norway. He received the "Photographer of the Year 2001" award at the 8th annual 'Erotic prizes' in London. He went on to publish six books and have his work exhibited internationally.

Hegre-Art, his official website, was launched in 2002 as Hegre-Archives. It underwent a substantial redesign in December 2005, coinciding with the name change.[2] Hegre is married to model Luba Shumeyko and they divide their time between Barcelona and an atelier in Paris.

http://www.hegre-art.com/

Let me add this WARNING Note: There are rip-off sites, such as PeterHegre (one t), which have admittedly pretty and very naked women on them, but it does not take much to see the edge of missing difference betweent those and the genuine article.

As wasteful as warfare is, there are a lot of beautiful warbirds among the aircraft of the world. Having worked in and around machineries of all kinds in large factories and small, it is true that some designs are beautiful and others are not. These things are "human" in that we make them to fit our needs -- you can't have barbed wire on the handle of a refrigerator and kitchens avoid garish colors like stripes in lime green and racing orange.

As for animals (and plants), natural selection demands that every feature of every living thing make it survivable and reproducible. However, we do not always know how those operate. The leopard and panther are the same animal, with different color fur. Why is the zebra's tail different from the horse's? Coloring that attracts mates attracts predators, but if the species collectively survives even as the individual perishes, then the coloring works well enough. Our appreciation of beauty in living things derives not so much from their needs as ours. Otherwise a shark would be just as beautiful as a finch -- and orchids would not be weeds in Hawaii.

Also, of course, these comments are skewed toward my male view of women as objects of beauty. Just let me close by saying that on one guard force, I worked with another patrol officer whose African face I would love to have had carved in ebony. It was perfect.

Edited by Hermes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...because it is inconsistent with her personal aesthetic preference: Romanticism.
Rand had a certain concept of Romanticism, and her writing was romantic in that sense. Secondly, Rand spoke about how she wrote to project the ideal. Therefore, it is a common mistake to conflate these two things. Actually, one can easily write about villains and still be romantic in Rand's sense. Nor is it a question of strong-willed heroes and strong-willed villains: one can even write about people who are mixed or wishy washy about making the right decisions and also about making the wrong decisions, and one can still remain in the romantic style while doing so. Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that it is established that we react positively to symmetry. Also, the Golden Ratio is apparently considered most pleasing. Those have been tested across peoples and places, times and "races." Ayn Rand's delineation of beauty by geography is not general enough.

This is a worthwhile read reagarding the golden ratio:

http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_07.html

And regarding the Marquardt mask it's no sursprise that it matches beautiful faces fairly well. What it essentialy does is taking fairly generic proportions and following the facial planes. For example, having the nostrils in line with the inside corners of the eyes, corners of the mouth in line with the pupils, the head about five eye-widths wide... and so on. The reason why those are generic proportions is because they fit most people fairly well. It avarages out discrepancies, and the result is proportionate and symetrical. It's got nothing to do with some mystical number, however.

I'd also like to add that breaking such "rules" can sometimes result in a more beautiful face. If you would take a female face and make the eyes and lips larger it may very well become more appealing, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And regarding the Marquardt mask it's no sursprise that it matches beautiful faces fairly well. What it essentialy does is taking fairly generic proportions and following the facial planes. For example, having the nostrils in line with the inside corners of the eyes, corners of the mouth in line with the pupils, the head about five eye-widths wide... and so on. The reason why those are generic proportions is because they fit most people fairly well.

I suppose harmony is okay for how to judge a final result, but my main issue is leaving it at sort of a judgment on features that are unmodified. With makeup for instance, you could make one's face more proportional or balanced. A face is pretty proportional as it is, no one has eyes by their chin and forehead like in a Picasso painting. Because of that, it is still of primary importance I think to consider choices when evaluating beauty. Everyone has the option of wearing makeup (males included! Beauty isn't female only), and it does change how a person appears in a very obvious way. It's almost irrelevant to evaluate the genetic features when to me an unmodified face is almost like a blank canvas.

I don't want to focus only on facial features. By beauty I'm basically talking about the whole person. Some cultures saw folds of fat under the stomach beautiful, others saw sagging breasts as beautiful, so weights were used to make breasts sag even more. (I don't recall which cultures these were specifically). How should those standards be evaluated? I don't want to say that it can only be subjective, but I want to emphasize that whatever you think is beautiful, it is always something related to values. I would say beauty is more generally harmony and visual integration of values important to the viewer. For example, I think fake tans are probably the ugliest thing in the world, they're practically orange. Surely someone out there thinks its beautiful, otherwise no one would do it. What it usually signifies, from experience, is a lack of intelligence. The value expressed by the person with such a fake tan is likely that of conformity, so it's no surprise that I'd find it pretty unappealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose harmony is okay for how to judge a final result, but my main issue is leaving it at sort of a judgment on features that are unmodified. With makeup for instance, you could make one's face more proportional or balanced. A face is pretty proportional as it is, no one has eyes by their chin and forehead like in a Picasso painting. Because of that, it is still of primary importance I think to consider choices when evaluating beauty. Everyone has the option of wearing makeup (males included! Beauty isn't female only), and it does change how a person appears in a very obvious way. It's almost irrelevant to evaluate the genetic features when to me an unmodified face is almost like a blank canvas.

But it is the final result that is being judged as either having or lacking harmony. How the result was achieved is not relevant to what it is. A face has no more or no less harmony - or beauty - wether it's an accident of birth or achieved by make up or plastic surgery. It still looks what it looks like.

It's true that faces are very proportional, and in fact very similar. However, they are also very important for communication and therefore incredibly expressive. Something which most of us are very keen to notice. Therefore the standards of beauty when judging human faces must be very precise.

I don't want to focus only on facial features. By beauty I'm basically talking about the whole person. Some cultures saw folds of fat under the stomach beautiful, others saw sagging breasts as beautiful, so weights were used to make breasts sag even more. (I don't recall which cultures these were specifically). How should those standards be evaluated? I don't want to say that it can only be subjective, but I want to emphasize that whatever you think is beautiful, it is always something related to values. I would say beauty is more generally harmony and visual integration of values important to the viewer. For example, I think fake tans are probably the ugliest thing in the world, they're practically orange. Surely someone out there thinks its beautiful, otherwise no one would do it. What it usually signifies, from experience, is a lack of intelligence. The value expressed by the person with such a fake tan is likely that of conformity, so it's no surprise that I'd find it pretty unappealing.

Beauty is not intrinsic. This is from the link I posted earlier:

"Now since this is an objective definition of beauty, there of course can be universal standards of beauty—provided you define the terms of what objects you are going to classify as beautiful and what you take as the ideal harmonious relationship of the elements of that particular object"

This is akin to saying that for there to be value, there must be something to be valued and someone to value it. The question then, regarding different cultures, is by what standard of harmony do they judge something to be beautiful or ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question then, regarding different cultures, is by what standard of harmony do they judge something to be beautiful or ugly.

I think that definition from the lexicon isn't so great. I'm questioning it, and seeing if I'd either verify that definition or come up with a more informative definition. The point of my post is basically to see what good standards there are. What standards should be used? I'm saying at the very least standards should not include unmodified genetic features since that has little to do with the choice people are capable of. I understand what you mean by "it still looks what it looks like," and what you say about faces may be entirely true, but again, I'm talking about the whole person, not faces specifically. Faces in particular may be deserving of different standards than most of the human body, because for most people, its purpose also includes expressing emotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Rand's Romanticism would entail not having cold sores in a portrait.

In her lexicon, Rand only says that beauty is a sense of harmony, but leaves it open to what the individual identifies as being harmonious in the first place. It would depend on his unique sense of life. Some people might consider a cold sore in a portrait harmonious.

Ever try to find the beauty in the "ugly"?

Edited by Dingbat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In her lexicon, Rand only says that beauty is a sense of harmony, but leaves it open to what the individual identifies as being harmonious in the first place. It would depend on his unique sense of life. Some people might consider a cold sore in a portrait harmonious.

So I would assume you think that beauty is a matter of purely preference then? Explain to me what you mean by how a cold sore could be beautiful in a portrait. If you still want to go by harmonious, WHAT would be harmonious about a cold sore in a portrait? There could be a harmony of negativity, but note how I qualified beauty earlier as a positive evaluation. Keep in mind this is in response to portraits specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that definition from the lexicon isn't so great. I'm questioning it, and seeing if I'd either verify that definition or come up with a more informative definition. The point of my post is basically to see what good standards there are. What standards should be used? I'm saying at the very least standards should not include unmodified genetic features since that has little to do with the choice people are capable of. I understand what you mean by "it still looks what it looks like," and what you say about faces may be entirely true, but again, I'm talking about the whole person, not faces specifically. Faces in particular may be deserving of different standards than most of the human body, because for most people, its purpose also includes expressing emotion.

What do you find wrong with defining beauty as a sense of harmony? Why should the standards of beauty not include traits that are given by nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be a harmony of negativity, but note how I qualified beauty earlier as a positive evaluation. Keep in mind this is in response to portraits specifically.

Yea, it depends on a person's sense of life. Romanticism is the positivity you are talking of. Gothic surrealism is an example of your "negativity" which is a genre I enjoy. That should give you a glimpse into my personal sense of life ;)

Edited by Dingbat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, it depends on a person's sense of life. Romanticism is the positivity you are talking of. Gothic surrealism is an example of your "negativity" which is a genre I enjoy. That should give you a glimpse into my personal sense of life ;)

Sure, but by positive evaluation, I meant a favorable positive idea. I don't think romanticism in literature has to mean positive ideas, just abstracted portrayal of what it means to be a person. Sometimes that means bad ideas bring bad results. What you *enjoy* is different than how you evaluate a piece of artwork, but when I say beautiful art, that doesn't mean the same as good art. I would say that not all good art is beautiful. As I stated before, when it comes to beauty, it comes across as something very subjective to say "sense of harmony".

"What do you find wrong with defining beauty as a sense of harmony?" It's vague, that's why. Standards of beauty in people shouldn't really take much of genetic features into account is for reasons I stated in my original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"What do you find wrong with defining beauty as a sense of harmony?" It's vague, that's why.

I find it very exact and economical. I think another way to put it would be; the quality of integration between the different elements. I think Ayn Rand's definition is better though.

What do you find vague about it? Does it not point exactly to what beauty is as we see it?

Standards of beauty in people shouldn't really take much of genetic features into account is for reasons I stated in my original post.

Is this what you mean?

"The way I understand it, most people consider beauty the same way they would other animals. Certain features are beautiful because of how they relate to survival needs. Or something like harmony is the reason such features are considered beautiful. I think that almost entirely drops the nature of people being conceptual thinkers, choosers."

The problem here is that you are dropping the context of physical features and making it about character instead. Not matter what a persons choices their physical features will have certain attributes - attributes that can be judged. You can for example judge someone as being, or atleast looking, strong. That's an attribute which is judged by a persons ability to move heavy objects; an ability which does not change depending on if the person chose to train for it or not. Beauty is no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

beauty: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

A reduction of beauty should point to the elements that are necessary to validate it. Intense pleasure, and/or deep satisfaction to the mind, strongly suggests an emotional response. If we accept that emotional responses are generated automatically, an evaluation of what we identify as beautiful can serve as a tool for introspection. Those who do not recognize the relationship between emotion and stimuli will lean toward the popular bromide that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. More accurately restated, this bromide could be restructured something like "Beauty is a mirror that reflects is reflecting the Sense of Life of the beholder."

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not somebody likes cold sores will be determined by their own sum of focused experiences, whatever they may be. People's preferences will be determined by their own individual values which come anywhere from the whole gauntlet of human experiences in reality expressed as an emotional sum: the sense of life.

People's preferences in terms of the physical appearance are not as subjective as you suggest. The common denominator seems to be what is perceived as healthy regardless of cultural background. Healthy is a common human value and it is rational to have a positive emotional reaction to it. Yes what people consider as healthy can vary somewhat - some cultures/people prefer human bodies more plump (when resources are scarce - a sign of affluence) whereas others like them very skinny (when resources are not scarce - can be a sign of self control/discipline). In both cases - not irrational judgments. However, I know of no cases in which significantly unhealthy appearance such as cold sores all over the body is considered physically beautiful.

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have trouble with the word "beauty" in the same way that I have trouble with the question "what is your favorite color?" or "what is your favorite building?" An aesthetic experience should go beyond identifying some thing as just beautiful.

I love Bach and Thelonious Monk, however, much of their work is not "beautiful" in the conventional sense of being "pleasing to the senses" . Their works can be fascinating, intriguing, sad, wistful, arresting -- but always more that just "beautiful".

The question should not be so much why is something beautiful, but rather, why do we ask this question in the first place? What are the neurological underpinnings that give rise to an aesthetic experience? Why can the colors of a thunderstorm illicit a feeling of tension while a pastel sunset calmness?

Regarding human beauty, and speaking as a man, a woman's beauty can be playful, harsh, regal, nurturing, cunning, distant, etc. This can be the collective assessment of the sum total of your observation of that particular person. In the same way, I've known some women who have all the hallmarks of the western idea of beauty (large eyes, full mouth, high, well defined cheek bones, etc) but who are so uninteresting that I'm not attracted to them beyond an almost clinical appreciation of their attributes.

Regarding the underpinning of emotion to thought, Antonio Damasio's book Descartes' Error offers an intriguing explanation of how the body registers response to stimuli by changes in body state that are perceived as feelings. It's more complex than this, but it's an interesting read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reduction of beauty should point to the elements that are necessary to validate it. Intense pleasure, and/or deep satisfaction to the mind, strongly suggests an emotional response. If we accept that emotional responses are generated automatically, an evaluation of what we identify as beautiful can serve as a tool for introspection. Those who do not recognize the relationship between emotion and stimuli will lean toward the popular bromide that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. More accurately restated, this bromide could be restructured something like "Beauty is a mirror that reflects is reflecting the Sense of Life of the beholder."

I'm curious here if you would say that beauty is an emotional response first and foremost, which may or may not be rational? That is, it is subjective? By subjective, I only mean that while it is a result of consciously held values, but is itself not a response that is immediately a cause of thinking. My reasoning is that beauty is a conscious evaluation and therefore needs specific standards. The intense pleasure is a side-effect of noticing beauty, but of primary importance is satisfaction of the mind like in that definition I'd say. Still, I agree with beauty reflecting sense of life of the beholder, meaning that seeing beauty comes from one's values but may only be an emotional response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious here if you would say that beauty is an emotional response first and foremost, which may or may not be rational? That is, it is subjective? By subjective, I only mean that while it is a result of consciously held values, but is itself not a response that is immediately a cause of thinking. My reasoning is that beauty is a conscious evaluation and therefore needs specific standards. The intense pleasure is a side-effect of noticing beauty, but of primary importance is satisfaction of the mind like in that definition I'd say. Still, I agree with beauty reflecting sense of life of the beholder, meaning that seeing beauty comes from one's values but may only be an emotional response.

It was not meant to suggest that 'beauty' is a response. Beauty is an evaluation. It would be the positive emotional response (side-effect?) that would prompt you to say that something is beautiful. I would also include satisfaction as a positive emotional response as well.

The tie-in to the mind would be the emotional response being generated via one's sense of life.

A little rambling would include consciousness as a difference and similarity detector. Relating that along with perception as the arithmetic of cognition - suggests that patterns and symmetry may produce a natural 'visual harmony'. The early Greeks certainly liked the triangular (1, 3, 6, 10 . . .) and square (1, 4, 9, 16 . . .) numbers, among other patterns they found within numbers and the relationship they connected them to in the world around them.

I know you are looking specifically within the human form, but something like a spiders-web I consider more attractive with a noticeable pattern than when it does not possess one. Snowflakes and flowers are almost all with patterns and symmetries, and when choosing flowers, I tend to pick them where the pattern is more uniform and not choose the ones that appear 'malformed' to my senses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The problem here is that you are dropping the context of physical features and making it about character instead. Not matter what a persons choices their physical features will have certain attributes - attributes that can be judged.“

I don't think I am doing that. I guess it might sound like because I'm emphasizing choices, but I'm only pointing that out as what basis we should evaluate beauty. Specifically, the nature of what you are judging. Now as I stated before, anything concrete can be beautiful or ugly, so it makes sense to say even unmodified bodies should in some cases be determined to be beautiful in some minimal way at least. However, maybe an important idea is that choices make room for a greater degree of beauty, meaning that if you want to seek beauty, you should emphasize evaluating how a person chooses to look. As I said before, that may create difficulty in having objective criteria for beauty in the same way there is difficulty in objectively calling music good. Possibly a better way to come up with a more satisfying understanding of human beauty is to consider symmetry as a kind of necessary but not sufficient criterion for beauty. Visual harmony is important, but one must consider *what* is being evaluated as visually harmonious. What should be regarded as important in evaluation? To be explicit in my wording here, I'm not suggesting that value portrayal being important means that there is a claim as to a “correct” sense of life; how one expresses values one holds is sense of life.

It may be worth noting that beautiful architecture for ancient Greeks was primarily about proportion, and even western European architects in the 17th century as I recall went along with that understanding. That may create a minimal sense of beauty, still, those proportions pretty much exclude a lot of architecture in modern times. A better standard than proportion to use is "form follows function," which is more or less what I'm getting at in regard to human beauty. What is the function of the human body? Perhaps there should be a distinction between the modified and unmodified body when judging human beauty. After all, modification is necessarily a kind of self-expression and self-identification, while plain naked bodies really don't signify anything except some amount of bare survival ability like animals.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...