Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
KevinD

When She Wants to Rush Things In Romance

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(This is an article I wrote for my romantic advice blog for men — The Leading Man.)

 

From a reader:

 

I’ve been dating a 25 year-old woman for about five weeks . . . I like many things about her, and we have good chemistry, but she seems to be overly eager for us to become an exclusive couple.

 

Prior to discovering your website, I would have jumped at the chance, since she’s quite physically attractive and has many positive qualities.

 

Now I have a more “skeptical attitude.” I’ve told her that we need to get to know each other better before making any serious commitments.

 

She seems partly impressed by this, but also somewhat irked. She has told me that she thinks we should be seeing each other (or at least keeping in touch) a lot more often.

 

She often tries to engage me in phone/text conversations, but as per your advice I always insist on in-person communication.

 

I’m doing my best to take things slow . . . It’s hard because I am so attracted to her, and she constantly hints that she wants more than we’ve got now.

 

We have not been physically intimate, aside from kissing.

 

I’m worried that if I keep going at this pace, she’s going to get fed up and drop me. She has no shortage of suitors who would become her boyfriend in an instant.

 

What do you think?

 

For a man in romance, consistency is key.

 

A Leading Man does not ever modify his basic game plan to suit a particular woman.

 

A Leading Man is such because he knows in principle what is the correct thing to do, and he does it consistently.

 

You seem to be doing all the right things. You’re taking it slow. You insist on communicating in person, not via phone or text. Any mature adult who understands romance would commend you, and confirm that you’re doing exactly what you should.

 

A woman will often test a man to see if she can wrest control away from him. When she succeeds in doing so, he (and the relationship) fails.

 

The tests might not be intentional. But any time you find that you have feelings for a woman, consider yourself tested: Will you adhere to your principles and do what you know to be right, or will you be run by your feelings?

 

That said, there is a definite type of woman whom you will encounter from time to time, whose virtual goal in life is to be in a relationship with a man. Some women just can’t stand to be single.

 

This especially becomes an issue when a woman has recently broken up with a guy. The “rebound effect” is real, and can cause a person to desire a greater level of intimacy and commitment with a new partner prematurely.

 

Your goal in romance is to form an exciting, dynamic connection with a woman — one which is mutually rewarding, and ideally lasts for a while. You’re here to sweep her off her feet, not to fulfill a role (“boyfriend,” “husband”) in her life.

 

A quality relationship cannot be rushed. It takes time; it involves a lot of getting to know each other.

 

In negotiating, whenever the other side starts to apply pressure, that’s when you back off. You become more skeptical and uncertain than you had been before.

 

In romance, pressure of any kind is unloving and unsupportive.

 

If she’s as attractive as you say, she ought to be overjoyed to have finally met a man who is sincerely interested in taking his time to get to know her — and who has the self-discipline not to be lured off the path of righteousness.

 

If things don’t work out with her, there are plenty of other women who are dying for you to work your slow, steady, masculine magic on.

 

Stay the course. Take your time, take the lead, always in romance!

 

© 2013 Kevin Delaney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gosh, this is downright horrible advice. "Don't take the individuality of any particular person or circumstance into account, treat them all the same! If she doesn't like it, well screw her! That just means when she walks away to meet somebody who will work with her rather than against her that you start evaluating her to be a lesser person!"

"Rebound" as a reason for rushing is generally not a great idea, but nothing in this letter indicates that is what is going on. It's been more than a month and both of them have clearly concluded they are interested in each other romantically. There's no point left in hesitation here. "Going slow" is for when you don't know enough yet to know what you want. They're past that point.  

This is not a test (there's no such thing as an unintentional test), it's somebody's life. She has every right to pursue her happiness just as much as the other party here. If some other person she takes an interest in can contribute more to her happiness by offering more time together and greater aknowlegement and security in their bond, then the logical choice is clear. This sort of thing also speaks to caring about her more that somebody would have that concern for her wellbeing and also likes her enough that he wants to see her more often too. There's a lot of room here for "you snooze, you lose" to take over and it would be especially a shame for that to happen when the guy's not even still tired (ie, he's not still unsure about her and how he feels about her.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gosh, this is downright horrible advice. "Don't take the individuality of any particular person or circumstance into account, treat them all the same! If she doesn't like it, well screw her! That just means when she walks away to meet somebody who will work with her rather than against her that you start evaluating her to be a lesser person!"

 

I'll never hire you as a ghostwriter!

 

Reverse the sexes of the participants: A woman is dating a man whom she likes and feels attracted to, but he is now pressing her for a level of intimacy and exclusivity that she is not yet ready for.

 

Would you (or anyone) advise this woman to take into account his "individuality," and modify her own timetable so as not to "work against" him?

 

If I were to write that a woman should stick to her principles and avoid making emotional choices with men, will you call my advice "downright horrible"?

 

My critics cannot bear the idea of a man taking charge of his own life, and taking a strong, confident lead in romantic love.

Edited by Kevin Delaney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'l[sic] never hire you as a ghostwriter!"

Likewise.

 

If he really was still unsure how he felt about her, waiting to make any officials labels would be wise, yes. Spending more time would probably still be a good idea though to get to where he could feel sure about things sooner. However, he's not unsure how he feels about her. He knows already. There is no point in putting things off. Principles have to serve toward the end of one's well being and they exist for certain types of contexts. I've mentioned when going more slowly would be wise. This is not one of those circumstances. Going slowly at this point would just be following an out of context commandment. This doesn't sound like he's not ready for more, it sounds like he's read something online that states he would be "unmanly" or something like that if he didn't do things more slowly than he otherwise would have and now he's doubting himself and feeling insecure because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who takes advice from Kevin deserves what he gets.  Kevin like to play games with women, but he knows nothing about them.  I think it makes him feel masculine to control women.  What a fake, and women can see right through him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he really was still unsure how he felt about her, waiting to make any officials labels would be wise, yes. Spending more time would probably still be a good idea though to get to where he could feel sure about things sooner. However, he's not unsure how he feels about her. He knows already. There is no point in putting things off.

 

As if "feelings" were the be-all and end-all of why one should enter into an exclusive relationship with someone!

 

Men need to take their time and scrutinize a potential partner — just as, and for the same reasons that, women must. In my world, an exclusive relationship involves a serious decision. It's to be approached with caution.

He feels an attraction to her. Great. Feeling are not knowledge. Besides, what if he has similar feelings of attraction for other women he's dating?

 

Five weeks is a flash in the grand scheme of things. If he's spacing out his interaction with her the way I prescribe, that could mean as few as two or three dates.

 

t sounds like he's read something online that states he would be "unmanly" or something like that if he didn't do things more slowly than he otherwise would have . . .

 

Rushing in romance is, objectively, "unmanly" — i.e., unmasculine. 100% of modern men rush. My goal is to help a man to set aside his emotions (temporarily), so he can see more clearly, and avoid making bad choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Five weeks is a flash in the grand scheme of things. If he's spacing out his interaction with her the way I prescribe, that could mean as few as two or three dates."

 

This is from my last post: "Spending more time would probably still be a good idea though to get to where he could feel sure about things sooner." Five weeks doesn't need to be having practically no information about her. It's insisting on slowness, this sparse and spread out interaction, that could make it that way. Furthermore, if one is up front about things one can get a lot of information about somebody very quickly. You've created a false dichotomy between going slowly and being hasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five weeks doesn't need to be having practically no information about her . . . f one is up front about things one can get a lot of information about somebody very quickly.

You need much more than information about a person to decide whether or not they should become your exclusive romantic partner. You need a strong sense of who they are as a human being.

What is their basic character and sense of life? Are they moral? How do they conduct themselves generally?

Are they sweet, supportive, benevolent, kind — or is there nastiness and spite bubbling beneath the surface?

Perhaps most important: How do their values & personality mesh with yours?

These questions can only be answered by getting to know a person across time, and by the two of you interacting on a number of different occasions.

It's kind of incredible that anyone would have to make the case for taking it slow in romance, but such is the state of our current culture.

Edited by Kevin Delaney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You need much more than information about a person to decide whether or not they should become your exclusive romantic partner. You need a strong sense of who they are as a human being. What is their basic character and sense of life? Are they moral? How do they conduct themselves generally? Are they sweet, supportive, benevolent, kind — or is there nastiness and spite bubbling beneath the surface?Perhaps most important: How do their values & personality mesh with yours?"

 

All of the above *is* information. Spending more time with somebody more frequently helps gather more of this kind of information, among other information, sooner. Worst case scenario, you get no more useful info, but more frequent interaction can't take any information away and it sounds like they enjoy each other's company just for its own sake already anyway. There's nothing to lose by doing this and there are things to gain, assuming the only or primary thing stopping somebody from any particular one of these extra interactions is just the notion that one has to go slow.

 

By the way, just adding the word "objectively" to something doesn't make it objective. I'd like to see some logic and evidence for the objectivity of this claim of "unmanliness" and also a source for that above 100% statistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rushing in romance is, objectively, "unmanly" — i.e., unmasculine. 100% of modern men rush. My goal is to help a man to set aside his emotions (temporarily), so he can see more clearly, and avoid making bad choices.

When *should* one make a move, then? You basically said 5 weeks is too soon, without any alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When *should* one make a move, then? You basically said 5 weeks is too soon, without any alternative.

 

What do you mean by "make a move"?

 

In my opinion, five weeks is too soon to begin an exclusive relationship with someone. I can't prescribe specific time tables; in this instance, there is a man who — for whatever reason — has indicated that he is not yet ready for the level of intimacy and exclusivity that a woman is pressing him for. Isn't that enough?

 

As I indicated above, if the sexes in the scenario were reversed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always going to be an insuperable divide between those who insist on treating people according to their supposed "type," and those who treat individuals as individuals.

 

Treat individuals as individuals — and relate to a woman as a woman in romance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "make a move"?

 

In my opinion, five weeks is too soon to begin an exclusive relationship with someone. I can't prescribe specific time tables; in this instance, there is a man who — for whatever reason — has indicated that he is not yet ready for the level of intimacy and exclusivity that a woman is pressing him for. Isn't that enough?

Like make things more "official". Okay, five weeks may be too soon sometimes, what should he wait for in this circumstance? If the sexes were changed, I'd say the same thing. The only reason he's not ready is because of the (bad) advice you give. He would have felt comfortable and ready most likely if it weren't for your advice. He says as much: "Prior to discovering your website, I would have jumped at the chance, since she’s quite physically attractive and has many positive qualities."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treat individuals as individuals — and relate to a woman as a woman in romance.

 

Fair enough. Treat individuals as individuals, and... a Jew as a Jew in business, and a black man as a black man in education, and so on down the line.

Doubleplusgood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need much more than information about a person to decide whether or not they should become your exclusive romantic partner. You need a strong sense of who they are as a human being.

What is their basic character and sense of life? Are they moral? How do they conduct themselves generally?

Are they sweet, supportive, benevolent, kind — or is there nastiness and spite bubbling beneath the surface?

Perhaps most important: How do their values & personality mesh with yours?

These questions can only be answered by getting to know a person across time, and by the two of you interacting on a number of different occasions.

It's kind of incredible that anyone would have to make the case for taking it slow in romance, but such is the state of our current culture.

 

You need much more than information about a person to decide whether or not they should become your exclusive romantic partner. You need a strong sense of who they are as a human being.

What is their basic character and sense of life? Are they moral? How do they conduct themselves generally?

Are they sweet, supportive, benevolent, kind — or is there nastiness and spite bubbling beneath the surface?

Perhaps most important: How do their values & personality mesh with yours?

These questions can only be answered by getting to know a person across time, and by the two of you interacting on a number of different occasions.

It's kind of incredible that anyone would have to make the case for taking it slow in romance, but such is the state of our current culture.

Kevin, I go with this as written, since I do think superficiality has become depressingly rife between the sexes - to nobody's advantage in the end. There has to be more than "me man, you woman - let's go." Or, hey we like the same rock bands, we re meant for each other. Also, it has traditionally been the preserve solely of the woman to allow the relationship to get going, and that I certainly don't mind seeing fall away.

However, you don't help your case by slightly contradicting yourself, and posing woman as woman, man as man - and not as

individuals, first and foremost. (With specific morality, character etc - as you make clear above.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Y]ou don't help your case by slightly contradicting yourself, and posing woman as woman, man as man - and not as individuals, first and foremost.

 

In society, human beings properly are recognized as individuals first, members of a class, group, or sex second. (To reverse this, does indeed result in the kind of bigotry that DonAthos implicitly accuses me of above.)

 

But romance is a personal relationship — specifically, an interpersonal one — and in many respects, it represents a grand exception.

 

In romance, a man must recognize and address himself to a woman's feminine psychological nature. He sees her, relates to her, and above all experiences her, first and foremost, as a woman.

 

If he doesn't, he fails in romance. He might make a fine friend, but he'll be a lousy lover.

 

Femininity does not diminish or contradict a woman's individuality — in fact it enhances it. An individual man is an individual man; he possesses a masculine psychology, yet no two men are "masculine" in exactly the same way.

 

Don't fall prey to the ideas of those who would love to see you made miserable. To be aware that a woman is a woman in romance, and to conduct yourself appropriately as a man in relation to her, isn't sexist — it means that you are cognizant of a basic, inescapable, and overwhelmingly positive aspect of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In society, human beings properly are recognized as individuals first, members of a class, group, or sex second.

 

"In society"? So pertaining to what, law, work, that sort of thing? But in contrast you think that it's improper for an individual in an "interpersonal relationship" (meaning one-on-one?) to deal with another as an individual first? We rather should deal with each other, first, as "members of a class, group, or sex"? So... maybe the problem I'm having in understanding your arguments is down to the fact that I don't know your ethnicity/nationality, your age, your socioeconomic status, etc...?

 

(To reverse this, does indeed result in the kind of bigotry that DonAthos implicitly accuses me of above.)

 

Shall I be explicit?

There is nothing different between what you routinely do and any garden variety bigot. You blend well-worn stereotypes together with some number of observations you've made about some of the people you've known, doubtless accounting to the bias of looking for that very thing to begin with, then pretend like it's some general rule, and dismiss out of hand any supposed "exceptions." You reject calls for evidence or proof or rationale, simply asserting that you know what you know... somehow! And then you call into question the character of anyone who questions your methodology or your conclusions.

So you claim to know what women are really like, despite the protestations of women who say that you're wrong about them, and other men whose experiences do not match your own. Brilliant. It's no better than those who talk in the same sorts of terms about what the homosexuals are like, or the Jews, or any other group you could imagine. You've pulled opinions out of your ass and pretend that you've found truth. The fact that this is bigotry is almost besides the point; it is a crime against reason.

 

Femininity does not diminish or contradict a woman's individuality — in fact it enhances it. An individual man is an individual man; he possesses a masculine psychology, yet no two men are "masculine" in exactly the same way.

 

If no two men are masculine in exactly the same way, and no two women are feminine in exactly the same way, and some men are masculine in such a way as to seem feminine, and some women are feminine in such a way as to appear masculine, then...

Then maybe there isn't one size fits all advice that applies to a gender. Maybe we would need to deal with individuals as individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You need much more than information about a person to decide whether or not they should become your exclusive romantic partner. You need a strong sense of who they are as a human being. What is their basic character and sense of life? Are they moral? How do they conduct themselves generally? Are they sweet, supportive, benevolent, kind — or is there nastiness and spite bubbling beneath the surface?Perhaps most important: How do their values & personality mesh with yours?"

 

All of the above *is* information. Spending more time with somebody more frequently helps gather more of this kind of information, among other information, sooner. Worst case scenario, you get no more useful info, but more frequent interaction can't take any information away and it sounds like they enjoy each other's company just for its own sake already anyway. There's nothing to lose by doing this and there are things to gain, assuming the only or primary thing stopping somebody from any particular one of these extra interactions is just the notion that one has to go slow.

 

By the way, just adding the word "objectively" to something doesn't make it objective. I'd like to see some logic and evidence for the objectivity of this claim of "unmanliness" and also a source for that above 100% statistic.

 

^^^ Still waiting on a reply to this one. ^^^

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't prescribe specific time tables; in this instance, there is a man who — for whatever reason — has indicated that he is not yet ready for the level of intimacy and exclusivity that a woman is pressing him for. Isn't that enough?

 

From a reader:

. . .

Prior to discovering your website, I would have jumped at the chance, since she’s quite physically attractive and has many positive qualities.

. . .

I’m doing my best to take things slow . . . It’s hard because I am so attracted to her, and she constantly hints that she wants more than we’ve got now.

. . .

 

This doesn't sound like he's not ready for more, it sounds like he's read something online that states he would be "unmanly" or something like that if he didn't do things more slowly than he otherwise would have and now he's doubting himself and feeling insecure because of that.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Reverse the sexes of the participants: A woman is dating a man whom she likes and feels attracted to, but he is now pressing her for a level of intimacy and exclusivity that she is not yet ready for.

 

Would you (or anyone) advise this woman to take into account his "individuality," and modify her own timetable so as not to "work against" him?

 

If I were to write that a woman should stick to her principles and avoid making emotional choices with men, will you call my advice "downright horrible"?

(See above about the "not yet ready for" part.)

As I indicated above, if the sexes in the scenario were reversed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Principles have to serve toward the end of one's well being and they exist for certain types of contexts. I've mentioned when going more slowly would be wise. This is not one of those circumstances. Going slowly at this point would just be following an out of context commandment.

Just saying, when the "principle" involved is just "go slow!", yeah, I would be saying the same things regarding a woman in a similar situation. I'm not against principles qua principles for anybody, I'm against pointless, counterproductive things whether somebody calls them "principles" or anything else.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 In society, human beings properly are recognized as individuals first, members of a class, group, or sex second. (To reverse this, does indeed result in the kind of bigotry that DonAthos implicitly accuses me of above.)

 

But romance is a personal relationship — specifically, an interpersonal one — and in many respects, it represents a grand exception.

And what makes romance an exception? If your answer is, "If he doesn't, he fails in romance" and you don't intend to give any further reasoning and leave it at "that's just how it is" then what of the numerous cases where such a failure hasn't happened? I'd also add "and the cases where such treatment has caused a relationship to fail," but I suspect your reply to that would be something along the lines of "the failure was simply due to the woman being in the wrong and so good riddance to her."

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 To be aware that a woman is a woman in romance, and to conduct yourself appropriately as a man in relation to her, isn't sexist — it means that you are cognizant of a basic, inescapable, and overwhelmingly positive aspect of reality.

In any context, being aware that a woman is a woman is up there with being aware that a tree is a tree. The law of identity, basic and inescapable, yes. However, you've given no cause for accepting that what you claim the psychology of females is like is true and/or why what you claim specifically that a man should do in regard to a woman is actually appropriate, with no backing for how what you advise is in any way rooted in the nature of women and/or men. Nobody here wants to throw out the law of identity, they want you to support your claims of what some identities are.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Don't fall prey to the ideas of those who would love to see you made miserable.

 

1) Motives don't determine the truth or falsehood something 2) Actually, I started posting in this thread because I it looks like you are contributing to making some actual person miserable and that upset me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin, to me, you appear to have a major cognitive bias - someone is having a hard time *because* of your advice, and you don't seem to notice. Do you have success stories from people? Has it worked for you? Give some personal experience and I might be able to get a worthwhile. So far, all I see is a prescription from a phony doctor. You talk about your advice and solution, but not how it actually works out, and if it doesn't work out, you can just say "you didn't follow my advice exactly, so you didn't succeed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need much more than information about a person to decide whether or not they should become your exclusive romantic partner. You need a strong sense of who they are as a human being.

What is their basic character and sense of life? Are they moral? How do they conduct themselves generally?

Are they sweet, supportive, benevolent, kind — or is there nastiness and spite bubbling beneath the surface?

Perhaps most important: How do their values & personality mesh with yours?

These questions can only be answered by getting to know a person across time, and by the two of you interacting on a number of different occasions.

It's kind of incredible that anyone would have to make the case for taking it slow in romance, but such is the state of our current culture.

 

The things you say here are true but there is an underlying premise in these types of writings which is false.  Making up an artificial prescription of how to act in order to "get the girl" is not right.  I think that any relationship that was going to be worthwhile would not require such superficialities as limiting a date to a certain amount of time, or waiting a certain number of weeks to couple, or always saying the right thing at the right time.  Trying to make these regulations around human relationships is tedious.  Furthermore it is artificial in the same sense that the government regulating an economy and making rules of how people can interact is artificial and thus doomed to fail.  To my mind human interaction is a more natural thing, which in pretty much all cases does not need a set of preformed rules to follow.  What the real trick is, does not have to do with creating a certain appearance when you are first getting to know someone, the trick consists of finding the right person to begin with, in which case I doubt whether becoming a couple "too soon" or having the date run "too long" or appearing "needy" is going to affect anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In society, human beings properly are recognized as individuals first, members of a class, group, or sex second. (To reverse this, does indeed result in the kind of bigotry that DonAthos implicitly accuses me of above.)

 

But romance is a personal relationship — specifically, an interpersonal one — and in many respects, it represents a grand exception.

 

In romance, a man must recognize and address himself to a woman's feminine psychological nature. He sees her, relates to her, and above all experiences her, first and foremost, as a woman.

 

If he doesn't, he fails in romance. He might make a fine friend, but he'll be a lousy lover.

 

Femininity does not diminish or contradict a woman's individuality — in fact it enhances it. An individual man is an individual man; he possesses a masculine psychology, yet no two men are "masculine" in exactly the same way.

 

Don't fall prey to the ideas of those who would love to see you made miserable. To be aware that a woman is a woman in romance, and to conduct yourself appropriately as a man in relation to her, isn't sexist — it means that you are cognizant of a basic, inescapable, and overwhelmingly positive aspect of reality.

The individualism in society - contra - interpersonal individualism, has been well answered, so I don't need to.

 Obviously, the initial attraction to a woman is precisely ~ because ~ she is a woman (and vice-versa). So don't make the error of splitting 'individual' from 'woman' - she is 'individual woman', as you are 'individual man', in that order.

I appreciate a non-conformist and fresh (rational) approach, but it seems that in overturning one traditional order of female dominance in initiating relationships, you are posing another, of male dominance: a false dichotomy? Surely

See, we are talking in contexts and degrees here. And volition of course.

A f'rinstance is my own experience, which I think is quite atypical (isn't that the point?). 

My most satisfying and most long-lasting relationships were unconventional in that neither party was always dominant in any one field.

In other words, each could and did assert themselves, by choice - and back off at other times, by choice. Personality, one person with more energy, and individual character and expertise - all play a part. 

You can view a person really blossom, when he or she is not playing to their society stereotype. The thing is it's volitional, which should always outweigh man's or woman's nature, qua gender - I believe.

Kevin, I've no doubt your 'system' can 'work' - especially early on - in a reverse psychology, holding-back manner. With some women, for a while. There is an important distinction between self-assertion and self-esteem in considering a relationship - and a contrived power-play, to "get the girl". Many have maybe experienced its effectiveness, in making oneself seem desirably unattainable, but some would suspect that such techniques don't relate to reality and honesty, and anyway one can't hold back forever. (To be fair, I don't think you have taken it this far, explicitly.) 

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...