Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can Objectivism explain sexual attraction?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hello all!

This is my first post on the forum which I have started to like alot.

Without any prior education in philosophy I've done alot of reading ever since the idea of selfishness struck a chord with me. Now I have a comprehensive view of the philosophy.

There is one thing I don't understand however, and that is how Objectivism would be able to explain the experience of sexual attraction. The idea is that judgements made by our rational faculty is the cause of emotions, correct? Well growing up I never concluded that a certain type of appearance among girls would be good or bad for me, and then became attracted - with all that goes along with that e.g. the body's almost mechanical reaction and the emotional rollercoaster and what have you. I'm pretty convinced it all started as soon as the girls my age were starting to grow up, and it didn't take a rational evaluation of them.

Nowadays there is alot going through my mind whenever I'm with a gorgeous woman such as some nervousness and all that but that's not what I'm talking about. I mean the almost mechanical, automatic respone to attractive women's appearance (and whatever the other senses pick up as well) that gets your heart beating faster, sweat, and basically gets your body ready for sex. That response is caused by something, the only question is what?

The only explanation I can come up with is that we, because of evolution, have a natural drive to start procreating as quickly and effectively as possible so as to ensure the genes survival. We are born hard-wired to want certain characteristics in other humans (The opposite sex, usually). But that would mean humans have automatic physiological responses not tied to themselves as the standard but to the genes as the standard of the good, which noone here belives exists. All automatic physiological responses are for the continued survival of the individual animal, you say. Objectivism makes alot of sense on every topic except this one.

I can simplify this with one question: Why am I attracted?

Thanks for any comments.

Edited by patrik 7-2321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one thing I don't understand however, and that is how Objectivism would be able to explain the experience of sexual attraction.

....

I can simplify this with one question: Why am I attracted?

Ayn Rand, while formulating the principles of Objectivism, did not attempt to fully asnwer that question, becuase it is also a question for biology and psychology, not just philosophy. Biologists would explain sexual attraction, its causes and mechanisms, with the help of the Theory of Evolution, and various chemicals in the brain, while psychologists would focus on the actual thought process behind it, and even how to alter it. The explanation is quite complex, obviously.

Objectivism focuses on what we ought to be attracted to, and why.

The idea is that judgements made by our rational faculty is the cause of emotions, correct? Well growing up I never concluded that a certain type of appearance among girls would be good or bad for me, and then became attracted - with all that goes along with that e.g. the body's almost mechanical reaction and the emotional rollercoaster and what have you. I'm pretty convinced it all started as soon as the girls my age were starting to grow up, and it didn't take a rational evaluation of them.

It wasn't a rational evaluation based on a rational philosophy that you understood and accepted in its entirety, no. It was a mixture of various ideas and patterns you have learned, during your childhood, through play, education, etc.

The only explanation I can come up with is that we, because of evolution, have a natural drive to start procreating as quickly and effectively as possible so as to ensure the genes survival.

I'm willing to take you up on that, and bet you a million dollars that I can last from now (I'm 28) until the age of thirty (or, if you make that a larger sum of money, I'll bet you I can last until the age of 32, or even 33), without procreating, thus proving that it isn't true that I'm driven to procreate as soon as possible, by my genes.

But that would mean humans have automatic physiological responses not tied to themselves as the standard but to the genes as the standard of the good

Why would automatic physiological responses (which do exist, that's why the heart is beating, why we have bowel movement, and yes, why men's penis become erect and whatnot etc.) be the standard of good, just because they exist? Yes, sexual attraction (and having your heart beat) are both good things, and they exist automatically, but the standard by which we determined that they are good is rationally chosen. (and there are plenty of irrationally chosen standards which lead to the conclusion that they are evil)

All automatic physiological responses are for the continued survival of the individual animal, you say.

Who said that? There are all sorts of animals who live to reproduce, and die when they do.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all!

This is my first post on the forum which I have started to like alot.

Without any prior education in philosophy I've done alot of reading ever since the idea of selfishness struck a chord with me. Now I have a comprehensive view of the philosophy.

There is one thing I don't understand however, and that is how Objectivism would be able to explain the experience of sexual attraction. The idea is that judgements made by our rational faculty is the cause of emotions, correct? Well growing up I never concluded that a certain type of appearance among girls would be good or bad for me, and then became attracted - with all that goes along with that e.g. the body's almost mechanical reaction and the emotional rollercoaster and what have you. I'm pretty convinced it all started as soon as the girls my age were starting to grow up, and it didn't take a rational evaluation of them.

That's not what Ayn Rand wrote. Emotions, including sexual attraction are a result of a SUB-conscious evaluation of the facts of reality (in this case, people). The content of your subconscious, however, is the ideas you have accepted.

A simple example: You win the lottery and feel happy. Happiness from winning the lottery is not something you are born with - it is a result of years of knowledge, of understanding the meaning and role of money in your life and the good things it can bring. Sometimes one can feel something before even realizing why one feels this way, and only discover it after some introspection. You can read more on emotions here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emotions.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only explanation I can come up with is that we, because of evolution, have a natural drive to start procreating as quickly and effectively as possible so as to ensure the genes survival. We are born hard-wired to want certain characteristics in other humans (The opposite sex, usually). But that would mean humans have automatic physiological responses not tied to themselves as the standard but to the genes as the standard of the good, which noone here belives exists. All automatic physiological responses are for the continued survival of the individual animal, you say. Objectivism makes alot of sense on every topic except this one.

I can simplify this with one question: Why am I attracted?

I agree with you. We're hardwired to sexual attraction. If you have not read "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkings, you should, great book.

My question is: Why do you think objectivism should explain sexual attraction?

Greetings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is more of a scientific question and I don't think Objectivism should explain it like that. But it seems we can at least limit the answer to conciously chosen ideas being the cause. That's what I was getting at, because that's what it would have to be if the Objectivist theory of emotions is true. And that's interesting because it runs very contrary to common belief.

But why would the preferences end up being so equal among people? A biologist would tell you that if a woman is young, looks healthy and happy, has wide hips and big breasts, men would be attracted because she's ready to have kids. The same goes for men. If a man is strong, proud, happy, dominating, has some muscle, then girls will tend to be attracted because those are signs of survival capability. Obviously that's not what happens at a concious level, we just say "Oh, I like him/her because of the way they make me feel."

I'm willing to take you up on that, and bet you a million dollars that I can last from now (I'm 28) until the age of thirty (or, if you make that a larger sum of money, I'll bet you I can last until the age of 32, or even 33), without procreating, thus proving that it isn't true that I'm driven to procreate as soon as possible, by my genes.

Haha, yeah let's try that. It's bound to hit the news.

When I said "Natural Drive" I wasn't talking about something that takes over your rational faculty but just an inclination people have, in the same way most people enjoy fat and sugar for example. Doesn't mean they must eat it uncontrollably.

Who said that? There are all sorts of animals who live to reproduce, and die when they do.

In the virtue of selfishness it says that an animal cannot choose to act for it's own destruction (pg. 20), it can only do whatever it's automatic values are guiding it to. If a certain species of animal commits suicide by reproducing and does so regularly, then it would seem like Ayn Rand is wrong on the role of the automatic pain/pleasure mechanism. Maybe it plays a certain role, in sexuality, that she didn't consider.

I'd like to think of sexual attraction as being partly because of our physical pain/pleasure mechanism which we can't control (limiting what we can find attractive), and the direct cause being our chosen value judgements based off of that. Doesn't that make sense? I mean how else would you explain the commonalities in what people like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why would the preferences end up being so equal among people? A biologist would tell you that if a woman is young, looks healthy and happy, has wide hips and big breasts, men would be attracted because she's ready to have kids. The same goes for men. If a man is strong, proud, happy, dominating, has some muscle, then girls will tend to be attracted because those are signs of survival capability. Obviously that's not what happens at a concious level, we just say "Oh, I like him/her because of the way they make me feel."

I think the preferences you are describing are common, but not equal among all people. There are people who have preferences that are nothing like those. The reason for why those particular preferences are widespread is cultural influence. If you want to fit in, you better like what others like.

And I'm not convinced that biologists have any evidence of that myth, by which men like certain women because they look ready to give birth. It sounds like junk science to me.

When I said "Natural Drive" I wasn't talking about something that takes over your rational faculty but just an inclination people have, in the same way most people enjoy fat and sugar for example.

Enjoying something is not the same as having an inclination to do it. If you had no idea that sugar tasted good, you wouldn't be inclined to look for it. You are choosing to eat sugar, because you are aware of the fact that it wiill taste good. Or you can choose to not eat it, whatever.

That is very different from what animals do, which is act mostly automatically, on instinct, not by choice.

In the virtue of selfishness it says that an animal cannot choose to act for it's own destruction (pg. 20), it can only do whatever it's automatic values are guiding it to. If a certain species of animal commits suicide by reproducing and does so regularly, then it would seem like Ayn Rand is wrong on the role of the automatic pain/pleasure mechanism.

Ayn Rand said that an animal cannot choose its own destruction. You're misinterpreting that to mean that an animal cannot self destruct (by instinct). That's obviously false, plenty of animals self-destruct (salmon, various flies, etc.). They don't choose to, they do it automatically (sometimes through a process characteristic of most specimens in a species-I.E. salmon, sometimes not characteristic at all- beached whales, "crazy" penguins, whatever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It matters what age range is under consideration. Ayn Rand's theories about sex (not part of Objectivism but necessary for her as a novelist) best apply to adults not teenagers, especially not male teenagers. Sexual response is comprised of physiological and conscious elements, and the weighting seems to change over time from physiology to consciousness. What romantic value response is involved in a wet dream? None whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the preferences you are describing are common, but not equal among all people. There are people who have preferences that are nothing like those. The reason for why those particular preferences are widespread is cultural influence. If you want to fit in, you better like what others like.

And I'm not convinced that biologists have any evidence of that myth, by which men like certain women because they look ready to give birth. It sounds like junk science to me.

I understand that more research is needed, but in principle, and based on what we know from other speices, why would it sound like a myth for you, Jake?

  1. We know that many features in animals, specially those that are gender-specific and underpin sexual attraction, have to do with health which in turn is tied to reproductive fitness, not just in getting pregnant and giving birth, but in feeding and taking care of children (specially in mammals). Animals choosing healthier mates have more chances to pass their genes to future generations. And better health can be signaled in myriad ways, such shiny feathers, larger size, a louder cry, etc. (all of them signaling the availability of nutrients and a working process to handle those nutrients in the body of the mate)

  2. We emerged from a long evolutionary process, and during >90% of that process, our ancestors were not capable of conceptual thinking. So, why would it be weird having instincts that derive sexual atraction from the likelihood of reproductive fitness? Why the emergence of conceptual thinking would erase any influence of our instincts? Wouldn't be plausible to think that our current sexual attraction is a mix between old biological instincts and recent abstract, volitional thinking, influenced by culture?

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that more research is needed, but in principle, and based on what we know from other speices, why would it sound like a myth for you, Jake?

So, why would it be weird having instincts that derive sexual atraction from the likelihood of reproductive fitness?

Well, things that are argumented by "Why would it be weird?" instead of evidence are myths. It wouldn't be weird, it's just not real.

Why the emergence of conceptual thinking would erase any influence of our instincts?

Explaining why it did is above my knowledge level (you're asking why did humans evolve from instinctual into conceptual beings), but it is pretty obvious that it did.

Wouldn't be plausible to think that our current sexual attraction is a mix between old biological instincts and recent abstract, volitional thinking, influenced by culture?

Plausible, shmausible. That's what I say, because there's no one around to be annoyed enough by the awful pun to throw something at me.

But it wouldn't be a good idea to assume things that are plausible are true, without evidence. The intuitive is not necessarily the rational. There's nothing in biology or psychology to prove that people act on instinct. There's plenty to prove that animals act on instinct, so I would be very surprised if scientists just missed the same evidence in humans.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing in biology or psychology to prove that people act on instinct.

Hi Jake

It is my understanding that this thread is about sexual attraction, not about sexual behaviour. Flirting, dating falling in love, engaging, marrying, making love, loving itself etc. are all actions and I agree with you that are the product of man's choices or volitional thinking.

We could compare sexual attraction with attraction to food. We are naturally, biologically attracted to things that look like food, smell like food and taste like food, and not attracted to blue foul-smelling jelly-like stuff. Hunting, fishing, harvesting, cooking, grilling and preparing a nice dinner are actions and the product of man's volitional thinking.

Certainly, you can build upon these food atttraction instincts and prefer Chinese food or veggie food as result of your personal preferences, influenced by your family, culture, etc.

By the same token, you can build upon the natural, biologic, instinctive attraction to a healthy female-like body look (broad hips, breasts, smooth skin) and develop a preference for brunettes, blondes, slim, deeper voice, bright smile, high-brow look, miniskirsts, etc. which is all the product of your choices, influenced by culture.

When Howard Roark and Dominique had their first sex encounter, how much did they know about each other in terms of values, projects, affinities? What sort of rational thinking had led them to engage in sex that first time? They could not forget each other since the very first time they saw each other. Why?

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could compare sexual attraction with attraction to food. We are naturally, biologically attracted to things that look like food, smell like food and taste like food, and not attracted to blue foul-smelling jelly-like stuff.

.....

Certainly, you can build upon these food atttraction instincts and prefer Chinese food

The sense of taste is not an instinct, it involves a physiological response to good and bad taste, same as pain or pleasure. We aren't biologically attracted to certain colored and textured food, we learn to search it out, through experience.

When Howard Roark and Dominique had their first sex encounter, how much did they know about each other in terms of values, projects, affinities? What sort of rational thinking had led them to engage in sex that first time?

Ayn Rand's heroes are the worst example to use, if you're looking to prove instinctual behavior. They did the valuing just by looking, but that definitely wasn't meant to suggest they reacted instinctively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I can simplify this with one question: Why am I attracted?

I would argue that attraction ultimately has to do with the individual or self, and the self's perspective of reality, which is a big part of objectivism. Essentially, the choosing process that consciously or subconsciously precedes sexual attraction would be objective in that we choose the mate who best fits into certain categories of desirable characteristics, i.e. health, beauty, intelligence, and so on. Though we may all put different things into these various categories we do tend to use the same categories of analysis, broadly speaking, when choosing a mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

All this nonsense about sexual attraction being instinctual is just that: nonsense. It is impossible for a rational being to have instincts. For instance, we have the sensation of hunger. But being hungry doesn't tell us what food is good for us, how much we need to eat, where to get it, how to cook it, etc. etc. It's just a feeling and gives us no knowledge whatsoever. Also, the sensation of hunger differs from person to person. Some foods may be repulsive to me and make me want to vomit, while they may make you salivate and want to eat them. This is clearly not instinctual. It's based on associations you've made throughout your life. I may have associated the smell of a particular food with some other repulsive smell, like the smell of rotting flesh for instance. That makes me not want to eat that food and it doesn't make me hungry when I look at it.

It's the same for sexual attraction. There are no hard-wired physical traits that all people are attracted to. There are many cultures, in Africa for instance, that laugh at the idea of the female breast even being considered sexually attractive. Note that no two people have exactly the same sexual preferences. Some men may like large breasts, some may prefer small breasts. Some may not even notice the breasts at all. Some may find hair or hands or legs or some other body part more significant. Some women may find muscle tone attractive, some may not care at all. Some may find square jaws attractive, some round jaws. It all depends on what kind of associations you've made throughout your life. Some women may prefer bald men, others may prefer hippie hair. Going to the extreme: some men may prefer the female bodybuilder look, most prefer the traditional femininity.

And associations can be changed if you want to change them.

Finally, standards of sexual attractiveness have changed throughout history. Going back even 10 years you can see that different standards were the mainstream. Nowadays we seem like the stupid spoiled whore look: Megan Fox. And for men the "I haven't shaved in two weeks" look is "sexy." And for some reason those gross six-pack abs. I'm so f*cking tired of the hubbub over abs. They're really gross, actually.

Anyway, just 5 years ago we liked "thick" women like Shakira and Jennifer Lopez.

10 years ago, and even to some extent now, we liked supermodel-thin almost anorexic.

In the 80s we liked the toned Fara Faucet look.

Note that even in relation to specific traits: the female breast for instance, what is considered attractive has changed over the centuries. Before it was the small breast, then the large breast, and back and forth. There are many socio-cultural reasons at work as well as just plain personal preference that is created by associations made throughout your life.

May I also point out that sexual arousal can occur as a result of words spoken by you to your partner and vice versa. And it can occur as a result of a combination of attraction to a person's character and mind and physical traits. Sexual arousal is not just physical. For instance, I find it impossible to be sexually aroused by hard-core pornography. The whole idea of hard-core pornography is vile to me on so many levels that it just immediately kills my interest, physically and mentally. In short, we must not forget the effect of ideas on sexual attraction. It's not something totally unaffected by the mind.

Edited by Krattle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly, you can build upon these food atttraction instincts and prefer Chinese food or veggie food as result of your personal preferences, influenced by your family, culture, etc.

By the same token, you can build upon the natural, biologic, instinctive attraction to a healthy female-like body look (broad hips, breasts, smooth skin) and develop a preference for brunettes, blondes, slim, deeper voice, bright smile, high-brow look, miniskirsts, etc. which is all the product of your choices, influenced by culture.

When Howard Roark and Dominique had their first sex encounter, how much did they know about each other in terms of values, projects, affinities? What sort of rational thinking had led them to engage in sex that first time? They could not forget each other since the very first time they saw each other. Why?

What makes you think I like broad hips, breasts and smooth skin? Maybe I prefer rough skin. Maybe I prefer thin hips. Maybe I prefer small breasts, or just don't even care about breasts at all. I'm sorry, but none of this is hard-wired. It's all up to mental associations made throughout your life, particularly your sexually formative period. And those are often if not always volitional associations.

Also, please don't invoke a fictional story to prove your point. It's FICTION. In fiction things are not always realistic for the sake of drama.

I should also point out, that even if something like the female breast is hard-wired to be attractive to men, then we still have full control over our sexual arousal. Personally, I cannot be turned on by strippers. It doesn't matter how attractive their breasts are because I find everything about strippers and their "career" to be morally repugnant. I cannot be aroused by it, period.

Allow me to go on even more...let's say you saw some women with what you considered attractive breasts (I'm sticking with breasts because they are so often invoked as that one "hard-wired" trait that all men are attracted to). Then you hear the woman's voice and she's a total ditz. Depending on your preferences, you could either be even further aroused or you could be completely turned off. Personally, I find the flaunting of breasts to be quite a turn off because it's insulting to my intellect. If a woman flaunts her breasts to random men, it says she has a low opinion of men - that all she needs to do to attract us is do that. That no one would ever care about her mind, her character, her personality. I find character to be one of the sexiest traits of a woman. I don't know about other men, but an extremely motivated passionate woman who works hard to accomplish something is extremely attractive to me. That one trait is far more attractive than any physical trait, for me.

Edited by Krattle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can go even further back in time and find that obese women with pendulous breasts were attractive: The Venus of Willendorf.

I would also like to further emphasize the importance of mental association in the process of forming sexual preferences by noting the existence of fetishes. A fetish is sexual arousal in response to inanimate objects. Being turned on by lingerie, by high-heel shoes, etc. Not a one of these things existed in prehistoric times. They have become fetishes because of things like Victoria's Secret making "sexy" lingerie popular. It wasn't necessarily sexy, at least popularly so, until they made it sexy. Until men saw all their magazines and their stores and were turned on by it.

Fetishes can even get very strange, like sexual arousal in response to "amazonianism" or grotesquely large breasts. These things are definitely not hard-wired into us, and you can only become sexually aroused by them through association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess no one is interested in this topic?

Maybe everyone just agrees with you. Or, disagrees so much that it doesn't seem worthwhile to argue it again. Either way, based on the many, many posts on the many, many threads related to this subject, it is extremely doubtful that there is no interest in the topic of sexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this nonsense about sexual attraction being instinctual is just that: nonsense. It is impossible for a rational being to have instincts. For instance, we have the sensation of hunger. But being hungry doesn't tell us what food is good for us, how much we need to eat, where to get it, how to cook it, etc. etc. It's just a feeling and gives us no knowledge whatsoever. Also, the sensation of hunger differs from person to person. Some foods may be repulsive to me and make me want to vomit, while they may make you salivate and want to eat them. This is clearly not instinctual. It's based on associations you've made throughout your life. I may have associated the smell of a particular food with some other repulsive smell, like the smell of rotting flesh for instance. That makes me not want to eat that food and it doesn't make me hungry when I look at it.

It's the same for sexual attraction. There are no hard-wired physical traits that all people are attracted to. There are many cultures, in Africa for instance, that laugh at the idea of the female breast even being considered sexually attractive. Note that no two people have exactly the same sexual preferences. Some men may like large breasts, some may prefer small breasts. Some may not even notice the breasts at all. Some may find hair or hands or legs or some other body part more significant. Some women may find muscle tone attractive, some may not care at all. Some may find square jaws attractive, some round jaws. It all depends on what kind of associations you've made throughout your life. Some women may prefer bald men, others may prefer hippie hair. Going to the extreme: some men may prefer the female bodybuilder look, most prefer the traditional femininity.

And associations can be changed if you want to change them.

Finally, standards of sexual attractiveness have changed throughout history. Going back even 10 years you can see that different standards were the mainstream. Nowadays we seem like the stupid spoiled whore look: Megan Fox. And for men the "I haven't shaved in two weeks" look is "sexy." And for some reason those gross six-pack abs. I'm so f*cking tired of the hubbub over abs. They're really gross, actually.

Anyway, just 5 years ago we liked "thick" women like Shakira and Jennifer Lopez.

10 years ago, and even to some extent now, we liked supermodel-thin almost anorexic.

In the 80s we liked the toned Fara Faucet look.

Note that even in relation to specific traits: the female breast for instance, what is considered attractive has changed over the centuries. Before it was the small breast, then the large breast, and back and forth. There are many socio-cultural reasons at work as well as just plain personal preference that is created by associations made throughout your life.

May I also point out that sexual arousal can occur as a result of words spoken by you to your partner and vice versa. And it can occur as a result of a combination of attraction to a person's character and mind and physical traits. Sexual arousal is not just physical. For instance, I find it impossible to be sexually aroused by hard-core pornography. The whole idea of hard-core pornography is vile to me on so many levels that it just immediately kills my interest, physically and mentally. In short, we must not forget the effect of ideas on sexual attraction. It's not something totally unaffected by the mind.

Since you want some discussion, I'd have to ask what you'd have to say about sexual orientation.

Ie: can someone be "born with it", or can it be a "choice"? Or both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know enough on that subject. From what I have read, there is a genetic or just early uterine environment on sexual orientation. I know people who were "different" from the moment they were self-aware. However nowadays, it is popular to be "gay" and there are many people who pretend to be gay (but surely never participate in sexual intercourse with the same sex). I also know people like that. They just put on affectations. The real gay people I know don't act much differently from straight people.

Keep in mind I never said that the capacity for sexuality is volitional. All people have the capacity for sexuality. What I *did* say was that what arouses you is volitional. What images, acts, words, etc. etc. Those things are chosen and I can easily prove so with my own experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you want some discussion, I'd have to ask what you'd have to say about sexual orientation.

Ie: can someone be "born with it", or can it be a "choice"? Or both?

Neither, actually. The explanation that makes sense to me is that it is something that becomes ingrained in us at an early age, long before any chance to rationally choose it. (I guess you could speculate that to some small extent the average parent might have some choice in the matter of their young child's future sexual orientation, since they have some control over the child's environment)

As far as I know, there's never been a successful and well documented reversal of sexual orientation, in an adult, so the position that it is a choice can be dismissed from the start. The "born with it" alternative explanation might have some credibility, if someone can find evidence for it.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...