Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Whyz

How does one justify the rape of Dominique in FH?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

An act of invitation is not only an implicit feeling of welcoming the other person, but an explicit action of requesting them to indulge in the person's desire and take advantage of the implicit welcome. Dominique would obviously never tell Roark, or any man, to go and take her, but her behavior was clear that her desire was to be taken by him. She welcomed him to her bedroom, and all but explicitly expressed this welcome. This is what is meant by the phrase "she all but invited him". She welcomed his 'invasion', but never told him to go ahead and do it. He understood what was on her mind and knew that his 'invasion' was what she wante as much as he did, so went ahead with it.

Also, what was up with this tirade about how your mind is your own? That's pretty obvious and no one is stating otherwise. But the fact that AR has stated on numerous occasions what she meant by that scene, and the fact that everyone else keeps pointing out that they 'got' the scene too, should be an indication to you that maybe the problem here is your "perception", not AR's or anyone elses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did get confused toward the end of this because I could not see what Roark would see in Dominique other than physical beauty and ended up reaching an invalid conclusion.

Roark was seeking a proud woman who was as passionate valuer, aloof and independent, and hard to win. He wanted a woman who was a challenge and Dominique definitely was.

If I interpret it in a different manner than was intended, then that is my right. I have the right to interpret art as I perceive it. My mind is sovereign. I do not need someone to tell me what to think of a work of art be it by Ayn Rand, Pablo Picasso, or anyone else.
Yes, you have the right ... to be wrong.

Will someone please explain what, exactly, was going on in Dominique’s head? What, exactly, was going on in Roark’s head?

Sure. Let's look at what actually happened in the story.

Dominique showed up at the quarry, dressed in delicate, expensive clothing. She saw a striking looking man who is brazen enough to stare at her. (She wanted to be seen, but he was REALLY seeing her and she found his boldness attractive.)

The foreman called her "Miss Francon" -- the owner of the quarry. (She was glad because she wanted to put that impudent man staring at her in his place.)

He continued to look at her and smiled insolently. (He knew what she was doing and he was not intimidated.)

The thought of his physical strength obsessed her (as an expression of his boldness and self-confidence). She tried to avoid going back to the quarry, but returned anyway.

She stared at him openly. "When he raised his head, she did not turn away. Her glance told him she knew the meaning of her action, but did not respect him enough to conceal it. His glance told her only that he had expected her to come. He bent over his drill and went on with his work. She waited. She wanted him to look up. She knew that he knew it. He would not look again." (They were very aware of each other and there was a silent power struggle going on.)

She came back to the quarry again. When she found herself accidentally close enough to speak to him:

""Why do you always stare at me?" she asked sharply.

She thought with relief that words were the best means of estrangement. She had denied everything they both knew by naming it. For a moment, he stood silently, looking at her. She felt terror at the thought that he would not answer, that he would let his silence tell her too clearly why no answer was necessary. But he answered. He said:

"For the same reason you've been staring at me."

"I don't know what you're talking about."

"If you didn't, you'd be much more astonished and much less angry, Miss Francon."

"So you know my name?"

"You've been advertising it loudly enough."

"You'd better not be insolent. I can have you fired at a moment's notice, you know."

He turned his head, looking for someone among the men below. He asked: "Shall I call the superintendent?"

"No, of course, not. It would be too simple. But since you know who I am, it would be better if you stopped looking at me when I come here. It might be misunderstood."

"I don't think so."

(She was attracted to him, but afraid of getting close to him. She was in denial of her own desire. He called her bluff.)

Dominique was aware that she is talking to an educated man and asked:

"You don't belong here, do you? You don't talk like a worker. What were you before?"

Roark gave her the bare minimum information. (He was trying to make her curious .. and interested.)

---

Dominique found she was obsessed with thinking about Roark and repulsed by romantic advances from other men (when she used to be indifferent).

Staying away from the quarry didn't work.

"But she felt too certain and the house was too safe. She felt a desire to underscore the safety by challenging it."

She invented a pretext to get him to come to her house -- the "broken" marble fireplace -- and invited him to fix it -- which he accepted.

"She walked away, disappointed. She felt that their secret understanding was lost; he had spoken as if it were a simple job which she could have offered to any other workman. Then she felt the sinking gasp inside, that feeling of shame and pleasure which he always gave her: she realized that their understanding had been more intimate and flagrant than ever—in his natural acceptance of an unnatural offer; he had shown her how much he knew—by his lack of astonishment."

When Roark came, she invited him into her bedroom. When he saw the marble, he called her bluff:

"He knelt, took a thin metal wedge from his bag, held its point against the scratch on the slab, took a hammer and struck one blow. The marble split in a long, deep cut.

He glanced up at her. It was the look she dreaded, a look of laughter that could not be answered, because the laughter could not be seen, only felt. He said:

"Now it's broken and has to be replaced." "

She deliberately stood close to him as he worked.

"She approached him and stood silently over him. She had never stood so close to him before. She looked down at the smooth skin on the back of his neck; she could distinguish single threads of his hair. She glanced down at the tip of her sandal. It was there, on the floor, an inch away from his body; she needed but one movement, a very slight movement of her foot, to touch him. "

She tried to keep him there with small talk.

"There must be things you'd like to talk about."

"Oh, yes, Miss Francon."

"Well?"

"I think this is an atrocious fireplace."

"Really? This house was designed by my father."

"Yes, of course, Miss Francon."

She sat seductively posing on the edge of the bed.

Roark spoke:

"It is very important to distinguish between the various kinds of marble. Generally speaking, there are three kinds. The white marbles, which are derived from the recrystallization of limestone, the onyx marbles which are chemical deposits of calcium carbonate, and the green marbles which consist mainly of hydrous magnesium silicate or serpentine. This last must not be considered as true marble. "

(He let her know he was an educated man who knew what he was talking about.)

"True marble is a metamorphic form of limestone, produced by heat and pressure. Pressure is a powerful factor. It leads to consequences which, once started, cannot be controlled."

"What consequences?" she asked, leaning forward.

(He's WARNING her that what she is doing will have consequences and she knows it.)

"The recrystallization of the particles of limestone and the infiltration of foreign elements from the surrounding soil. These constitute the colored streaks which are to be found in most marbles. Pink marble is caused by the presence of manganese oxides, gray marble is due to carbonaceous matter, yellow marble is attributed to a hydrous oxide of iron. This piece here is, of course, white marble. There are a great many varieties of white marble. "

(More showing off.)

"You should be very careful, Miss Francon..."

(More warnings.)

Roark left and Dominique asked him to return to set the stone. Roark sent someone else instead. If she was really just interested in the fireplace, it wouldn't have mattered WHO came -- but it did!

""Why didn't you come to set the marble?"

"I didn't think it would make any difference to you who came. Or did it, Miss Francon?"

She felt the words not as sounds, but as a blow flat against her mouth. The branch she held went up and slashed across his face. She started off in the sweep of the same motion."

At that point, it was obvious to both of them exactly what she wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now:As I see it, the only assumption I made was that Dominique Francon would not call the police if she thought that Roark had truly raped her and that Roark did not consider this beforehand. Yes, I did arrive at an erroneous conclusion as I failed to integrate this into my overall theme.

No, you assumed more. You assumed that Roark was concerned with her station in life or essentially standing up against authority in a forthright manner. Roark's continued "insolence" towards Dominique clearly demonstrates that he wasn't concerned with her stature or situation. He remained, consistently throughout the book I would offer, concerned with being his own man and facing whatever challenges he chooses to face (with Dominique being one of those challenges). What your visualization assumes is not that of a man who would wish conquer Dominique romantically by giving her something she (ambivilently) wants, but rather that of a man who would club her over the head, drag her back to the cave and break her spirit.

When Twooey confronts him and asks him what he thinks about him as the man who has been the catalyst for all of Roark's troubles, do you remember what Roark tells him? Roark obviously knows he's a man of means and power. Roark tells him he's given him no thought, no consideration at all.

When Roark blows up the building towards the end, he wasn't concerned with the overwhelming authority he was up against. He was concerned with standing on the principle that he had been wronged and that he would stand up for himself regardless of the odds against him. He knew his weapon against his foes was reason. To Roark, the continuity of his vision and design were paramount, moreso than material gain. I would suggest this is also a fitting metaphor as to how much Ayn Rand valued the continuity of her own ideas when she portrayed them in her art. She wanted them understood as she intended, not just in any manner in which they could be wildly "interpreted".

Your assumed characterization is of a man who would willingly commit a vile crime against a women that was grossly disproportionate to the offense committed against him just to retaliate and show her who's boss. This reeks of accusing him of a whimsical behavior that is woefully undeserved by Roark.

If I interpret it in a different manner than was intended, then that is my right. I have the right to interpret art as I perceive it. My mind is sovereign. I do not need someone to tell me what to think of a work of art be it by Ayn Rand, Pablo Picasso, or anyone else.

No one is saying otherwise. However, if your interpretation appears on it's face to be inaccurate, other people have a right to point this out. Your logic here suggests that anyone has the right to "interpret" Animal Farm as a book supportive of Communism, but that no one should be critical of that intrepretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claiming self-defense in Roark's cause in this instance is rather bizarre. Only the environment created by militant, man-hating feminists could account for such a contortion. Much excitment has been lost in these PC times.

It's all about the dance between men and women, and Miss Rand was a master choreographer of this dance. Consider the building drama and excitment between Roark and Dominique, the tension building until Dominique delivers the ultimate challenge, an engraved invitation cut across Roark's face.

Saying that a woman wants to be taken by a man isn't the same thing as saying that a woman wants to be raped by a man. Most feminists see no difference between the two, denying the former by conflating it with the latter. This isn't what Dominique does, however, when she calls it rape. In her state of mind, she couldn't face wanting Roark to take her, that would mean admitting that she had actually desired something. She was all about the attempt to murder her own desires. What a dilemma she found herself in, once Roark shattered the lie she was attempting to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whyz and Publius, you have just been treated to some world-class explanations of one of Miss Rand's most misunderstood and misrepresented scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betsy, thank you for the detailed analysis. But I disagree on one point, at least as stated:

Roark was seeking a proud woman who was as passionate valuer, aloof and independent, and hard to win.  He wanted a woman who was a challenge and Dominique definitely was.

I don't think he was actively seeking a woman. He didn't have a plan in mind, or a checklist of items to look for. I don't think there's a mention of his romantic life at all until the quarry scene. It is Dominique's entrance that begins that aspect of the story. (By contrast, many movies have the guy dating lots of women until he finds "Miss Right.")

When he first saw her, he liked what he saw. As they began to interact, he gradually determined what kind of person she was. He was attracted to her -- to a concrete, specific individual, not just anyone who fit the description you gave.

Moreover, while I agree he wanted a passionate valuer with an independent mind, I'm not so sure that a challenge per se is something he desired. Remember the pain he went through when she married Peter and Gail. Each time he would have rather married her himself, but knew that she needed time to take care of her baggage. He wanted her so much, and cared for her enough, to bear the pain. But I don't think he desired the pain or the challenges that caused it. I bet he'd prefer that she not have those issues. What if it had been Dagny's quarry instead? I think he'd be attracted to her as well.

---

One other point with which to refute the rape charge: after Roark left Dominique, she crawled to the bathroom and fell asleep on the floor. Real rape victims often (if not always) have a desire to wash off every trace or reminder of their attacker. She easily could have taken a bath, but chose instead to revel in the aftermath of their encounter.

I can't say for certain, but the deliberate inclusion of such detail leads me to believe that Miss Rand was aware of this behavior among rape victims. The dramatic contrast between what Dominique does and what a rape victim would have done underscores her desire for Roark. (Maybe Miss Rand included it to show that she was not raped, but I think there's enough evidence already by this point that it wouldn't be necessary.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Betsy, thank you for the detailed analysis.  But I disagree on one point, at least as stated:

I don't think he was actively seeking a woman.

I don't think it was an active pursuit, but he did have demanding standards -- for everyone -- and a sense of life that would have found someone like Dominique compellingly attractive from the moment he first saw her.

When he first saw her, he liked what he saw.  As they began to interact, he gradually determined what kind of person she was.  He was attracted to her -- to a concrete, specific individual, not just anyone who fit the description you gave.

Right, but I don't think it was gradual. I think he had an immediate and intense reaction to her and the rest of their interplay was to determine if she truly was what she seemed and how much interest there was on her part.

Moreover, while I agree he wanted a passionate valuer with an independent mind, I'm not so sure that a challenge per se is something he desired.  Remember the pain he went through when she married Peter and Gail.

By "challenge," I don't mean a painful undertaking but a difficult goal worth achieving. As Roark remembered that night he took her --

"Roark awakened in the morning and thought that last night had been like a point reached, like a stop in the movement of his life. He was moving forward for the sake of such stops; like the moments when he had walked through the half-finished Heller house; like last night. In some unstated way, last night had been what building was to him; in some quality of reaction within him, in what it gave to his consciousness of existence."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you describe that as a rape?

I've been re-reading certain chapters from The Fountainhead, but this, unfortunately was not one of them. However, at the time of my first reading, I too thought it was rape. Rape is, by definition, an act in which the rapist forces the victim to have sex with him, even if the victim doesn't agree to it and explicitly rejects it verbally, and defends from it physically if necessary.

I don't quite remember whether Dominique said anything at all during the scene, but I think that she did try to fight Roark off.

Anyway, when I first read the scene, I asked about it on some objectivist group on Yahoo, but I got a weird answer that Ayn Rand defended the scene by saying that Dominique gave Roark something called an "engraved invitation." I assumed that it was some sort of a phrase, but to this day I have no idea what it means, because when I asked what it means on the group, they gave me a dictionary definition of the word "engraved". I figured out that none of them knew what it meant (if it really is a phrase and it really means something other than simply an invitation with engraved letters), so I just left the group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, when I first read the scene, I asked about it on some objectivist group on Yahoo, but I got a weird answer that Ayn Rand defended the scene by saying that Dominique gave Roark something called an "engraved invitation." I assumed that it was some sort of a phrase, but to this day I have no idea what it means, because when I asked what it means on the group, they gave me a dictionary definition of the word "engraved".

There was nothing literally "engraved;" it was a metaphor. "Engraved invitation" were words Ayn Rand used in answer to this issue, in order to stress that BY NO MEANS was Roark an unwanted lover: "If it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, but I don't think it was gradual.  I think he had an immediate and intense reaction to her and the rest of their interplay was to determine if she truly was what she seemed and how much interest there was on her part.

It looks like we're on the same page here. I agree his immediate reaction was intense, and he enjoyed playing with her, but he did find out more about her as he did so. Had she, for instance, gone after the Italian laborer, he would have lost interest in her. He was playing with her as well as testing her.

BTW, I like the analysis you did of the several scenes between Roark and Dominique. In his screenwriting book "Story", Robert McKee does a similar analysis of the scene in Casablanca where Ilsa is looking at some lace fabric in the market. He steps line by line through the scene, making explicit just how much passion there is between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify, "engraved invitation", as a metaphor, attempts to conjure up in the imagination the kind of invitations one sends out announcing a wedding - an invitation to something special, precious, and of the utmost importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was nothing literally "engraved;" it was a metaphor.  "Engraved invitation" were words Ayn Rand used in answer to this issue, in order to stress that BY NO MEANS was Roark an unwanted lover:  "If it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation."

Thank you and y_feldblum for clearing this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quoting from Ayn Rand (in Letters of Ayn Rand):

"But the fact is that Roark did not actually rape Dominique; she had asked for it, and he knew that she wanted it. A man who would force himself on a woman against her wishes would be committing a dreadful crime. What Dominique liked about Roark was the fact that he took the responsibility for their romance and for his own actions. Most men nowadays, like Peter Keating, expect to seduce a woman, or rather they let her seduce them and thus shift the responsibility to her. That is what a truly feminine woman would despise. The lesson in the Roark-Dominique romance is one of spiritual strength and self-confidence, not of physical violence."

"It was not an actual rape, but a symbolic action which Dominique all but invited. This was the action she wanted and Howard Roark knew it."

Case Closed :thumbsup:

Ash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ayn Rand was making something of a joke by using the term "engraved invitation". Recall that Dominique did manage to scratch the marble fireplace in her bedroom with a hammer. That could be loosely called an "engraving," and it was her basis for inviting Roark into her bedroom. Then he broke the rock (suggesting to me further sexual metaphor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall my previous rapes, it occours to me that when the woman invited me back, the first time was no longer considered rape. . .

But seriously folks, we have to remember that Miss Rand wrote that scene 65 years ago, and that the world, sexually speaking, was much more sane than it is now.

Roark was a man, not a p***y. Most of today's men can only be classified as males. That is, their anatomy is the ONLY thing that makes them a man. Otherwise, today, they are indistinguishable from women.

Women, for the most part, in America, are spoiled neurotics who have no clue what is best for them. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

But these two characters were different. Ayn Rand knew that no decent single woman could or would resist Roark. But story-wise, every scene must have some degree of conflict. So the first few minutes of the sex were forced. Dominique's resistance broke down - not because she knew she couldn't stop him but because she no longer wanted to. Do you really think a man of Roark's character would continue to have sex with her if she was truly repulsed by him?

The whole discussion of rape here is kind of embarrasing. I am embarrased for mankind when the scene is even an issue. One must take the work of art as a whole - not try too determine whether at some split-second of the novel Howark Roark was a rapist. A rapist is a man who can't get a woman any other way, just as those who can't create end up stealing or borrowing (Keating, other looters).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Roark percieved Dominique's attraction for him and his subsequent actions can be endlessly debated as this is a fictional work, and of course Rand's interpretation of her own novel holds higher credance. What can be debated is the nebulous interpretations another person could draw from Roark's actions, Rand's ideal man. If every man thought a woman was attracted to him and proceeded to "initiate" romance with her, every convicted rapist could claim to have been morally justified by claiming she practically "invited" it. Being based on wordless assumptions and half subtle signals Roark presumed much by his brash actions which seems more like subjectivist delusions with wavering edges than a rational response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being based on wordless assumptions and half subtle signals Roark presumed much by his brash actions which seems more like subjectivist delusions with wavering edges than a rational response.

You have here charged that Ayn Rand's ideal man, in The Fountainhead, is delusional. In effect, you are charging Ayn Rand -- the creator of the character, Howard Roark -- with valuing irrationality.

What is your evidence for these charges?

P. S. -- You might want to read the "Intellectual Guidelines, Prohibited Behavior" section of the Forum Rules, especially item (4), concerning attacks on Ayn Rand.

Edited by BurgessLau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that Roark percieved Dominique's attraction for him and his subsequent actions can be endlessly debated as this is a fictional work, and of course Rand's interpretation of her own novel holds higher credance. What can be debated is the nebulous interpretations another person could draw from Roark's actions, Rand's ideal man. If every man thought a woman was attracted to him and proceeded to "initiate" romance with her, every convicted rapist could claim to have been morally justified by claiming she practically "invited" it. Being based on wordless assumptions and half subtle signals Roark presumed much by his brash actions which seems more like subjectivist delusions with wavering edges than a rational response.

Try re-reading Betsy's wonderful post, you will see there is more to Roark than some power-hungry fool who hides behind the excuse that she asked for it. Roark was no fool, he was a highly educated, highly intelligent man, who attended the most prestigious school in the country, excelled, and would have graduated with honors if he hadn't refused to take the class in classical architecture. Dominique was no floozy either. The "she asked for it" was very real. A rapists excuse is that she asked for it because she dressed sexy and it turned him on, which has all the morality of a man suing Hustler magazine for giving him Carpal Tunnel syndrome. Roark had no excuse, he had the truth. As Betsy pointed out, Dominique gave him very clear metaphorical come-ons, and Roark had triple-checked his premises before he made his move, once by explaining the nature of pressure, asking her again if she was aware of the consequences, and finally sending another man in his place to install the new marble.

Dominique's musing that it was rape is simple. Roark would have had no evidence to bring before a judge if Dominique had chosen to file rape charges. They only had an unspoken agreement that it was not in fact, rape. A few pages later, Dominique clearly remarks that she wanted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry if my post was interpreted as an attack on either Roark or Rand. This was not my intention. The question I would like to posit is how Roark's actions can be integrated into Objectivist philosophy. To my understanding you should never take action on unsubtantiated premises. What if Roark was wrong? Subtlety has its purposes but by its very nature does not openly state its intentions. Rather, it leaves the interpretation up to another. What if an Objectivist thought he percieved a subtle "hint", took action on what he percieved as a "wordless agreement" and then found out there wasn't any? It is clear that an assumption unsubstantiated is subjectivist fancy. My question can be summarized: where does wordless assumption turn into a basis for action, and how can Roark's action be integrated in Objectivism in this specific instance. Again I am sorry if my post was percieved as an attack as I have nothing but respect for both Roark the charcater and Rand herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if Roark was wrong?

If Roark had been wrong, there was a justice system in place for Dominique to seek recourse.

where does wordless assumption turn into a basis for action, and how can Roark's action be integrated in Objectivism in this specific instance.

As demonstrated throughout the story, Roark was a man who took responsibility for his actions. We all take actions on limited data from time to time and we know that when we do, we invite consequences. Roark took a risk acting on limited data, and if he remained true to his character, which I believe he would have, he would have taken responsibility for it had Dominique pursued charges against him. He was that sure that he was right about the limited data he had, and he was correct.

Because you may not be as comfortable with the data he evaluated, or ( and I don't mean this to be insulting ) if you aren't perhaps as perceptive as another person in evaluating a situation, that doesn't mean they are necessarily acting on whim.

Poker is a good example of varying degrees of perceptiveness. You will see certain players consistently win games even though they are just as susceptible to the luck of the draw as anyone else. The difference is, they can successfully "read" and evaluate people's actions, rather than relying simply on getting good cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I enjoyed every minute of it :D  :P

It? A card game? (That was the last subject discussed, above.) What are you talking about? Your post is very unclear as to subject and theme. Also, if you are taking sides in a dispute, your reasons are not stated.

P. S. -- Forum Rules prohibit posts that simply express agreement or disagreement and thereby do not contribute to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It? A card game? (That was the last subject discussed, above.) What are you talking about? Your post is very unclear as to subject and theme. Also, if you are taking sides in a dispute, your reasons are not stated.

P. S. -- Forum Rules prohibit posts that simply express agreement or disagreement and thereby do not contribute to the discussion.

I think that she meant to answer the rape charges as if she were Domonique--her screename, afterall, IS Dominique. So she assumed the character and answered likewise: "I enjoyed every minute of it [Roark's taking of her]" .

Get it? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are you talking about? Your post is very unclear as to subject and theme. Also, if you are taking sides in a dispute, your reasons are not stated.

P. S. -- Forum Rules prohibit posts that simply express agreement or disagreement and thereby do not contribute to the discussion.

I think that she meant to answer the rape charges as if she were Domonique--her screename, afterall, IS Dominique.  So she assumed the character and answered likewise: "I enjoyed every minute of it [Roark's taking of her]" .

Get it?  :lol:

Thank you TR :lol:

I'm sorry if my post did not contribute much, I thought it contributed humor (although I've also seen humor attacked) and also my views on the subject being discussed which is the "rape" (sorry I wasn't specific but I misunderstood that to be the subject of this thread and of all the posts :confused: ) scene mentioned in the Fountainhead. TR's assessment was correct, but I will try to refrain from such posts in the future if it is not allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will try to refrain from such posts in the future if it is not allowed.

Personally, I have no problem with it, although other moderators might think otherwise. The ultimate authority on what is allowed is the forum's owner, GreedyCapitalist; we mods are applying our own interpretations of the Forum Rules and our own sense of right and wrong, which are very often different from moderator to moderator. (Even among the ones who are not like NIJamesHughes... :sigh:)

Now, as for my opinion of your post: I enjoyed every letter of it! ;)B) As I said on your intro thread, I found it wonderfully spunky of you to sign up under the name Dominique, and this comment was even more so! :D

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...