Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Morality of visiting Strip Clubs

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

That's not what I said, though. I said that being attracted to animals or the dead means they must have a very low self-esteem. I do think that they go hand in hand, but I don't know if the correlation is also a causal relationship.

I don't think this has to be the case.

What a person finds attractive is a function of that person's beliefs and preferences. I don't see a relation between attraction and self-esteem.

I'd say that in regard to attraction to humans, which character a person finds attractive says something about their beliefs, not necessarily about their self-esteem. (It could be but doesn't have to be the case.) But (to get back to the actual topic of this thread :pimp: ) there's obviously more to attraction than character. The very existence of a huge cosmetic industry should be proof enough. And how prefering redheads over blondes has a relation to self-esteem is even more beyond me.

You can't nail down every belief to self-esteem. Doing so would result in rationalisations worse than Freudian dream interpretation. As Freud himself (who was known for seeing phallus symbols everywhere) said it so eloquently: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem isn't that you don't understand why these folks like what they like. The problem is that they don't understand why they like it. People can like things that I don't care for, for perfectly rational reasons. And if you ask someone who runs why they like it, they usually give you an answer. (they've had a hundred and fifty miles to think it over). Not, 'I don't know, i just like it', which is what you tend to get when it is a subject which a person doesn't like to think about or has thought about but doesn't wish to share the answer.

I don't like mushrooms and raw tomatoes. I have no idea why. I just don't like them. I also prefer chocolate ice cream over lemon flavor. If you combine milk and multivitamin juice it tastes pretty good but looks rather strange. I could certainly come up with wonderful rationalizations why mushrooms and raw tomatoes are bad or why chocolate is superior to lemon. But even though I could do that, I still think it would be utter nonsense.

Doing the same regarding sex is not better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
there's obviously more to attraction than character. The very existence of a huge cosmetic industry should be proof enough. And how prefering redheads over blondes has a relation to self-esteem is even more beyond me.

Redhead or a brunet should be a very minor issue for a rational man: Because he realizes that what makes a person who he/she is is mainly their mind: the mind later determines the shape of the body: the amount of body fat, amount of muscles, posture (straight or bent), health etc'. If someone is falling in love with brunets, because they are brunets, he necessarily views the human essence as physical (and in my view is a pathetic piece of meat).

So when someoen here says that self esteem is tied to one's choice of partner, they do not mean the partner's hair color, but the partner's essence as a human being, which means their ideas, character, actions, emotional world, motivation in life, etc'.

I'm not denying that people have aesthetic preferences on top of the selectivity for character, but this, for a rational man, is minor.

I don't like mushrooms and raw tomatoes. I have no idea why. I just don't like them.

...

Doing the same regarding sex is not better.

You might as well say that you think that murder is wrong. why? no onw can ever know, you just happen to think so. Ideas are not like taste in food. Taste in food is more random and depends on someone's past and the place where they grew up.

But if someone likes you or hates you it is not random, it is because they have certain reasons for it which are tied to the whole of their philosophy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this has to be the case.

What a person finds attractive is a function of that person's beliefs and preferences. I don't see a relation between attraction and self-esteem.

I'd say that in regard to attraction to humans, which character a person finds attractive says something about their beliefs, not necessarily about their self-esteem. (It could be but doesn't have to be the case.) But (to get back to the actual topic of this thread :pimp: ) there's obviously more to attraction than character. The very existence of a huge cosmetic industry should be proof enough. And how prefering redheads over blondes has a relation to self-esteem is even more beyond me.

I'm not talking about such superficial issues as preferring a certain color of hair. But if someone is attracted to a person who is actually quite horrible, then how can that be anything but an issue of low self-esteem? They have to believe deep down that they deserve no better, else I do not think they would want to be with such a person.

Granted, though, there is much more to sexual attraction than self-esteem, but I do think it is one of the components that weigh the equation towards some final result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Women shouldn't be put on a pedestal for having a hot body. That being said, i see nothing wrong with admiring a woman's physical beauty.

You would be hard pressed to convince me that what goes on in strip clubs between men and women is something I would classify as "admiration."

--Schefflera

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read this thread and have found it very interesting.

First of all, I am what my friends call a "raised objectivist." My parents are objectivist and I was raised with the philosophy as my childhood classmates were raised with religion. So I consider myself rather well versed in the subject. That said...

My fiance and I have gone to a local strip club a few times and have found it to be a visually stimulating experience for both of us. We have a drink, relax, trade comments on the physical attractivenss of the women. We discuss what we do and do not find attractive on a purely physical basis. We watch the interaction between the dancers and the patrons. We applaud the dancer's skills - being a physically awkward person without much grace I am amazed by anyone who can dance on a pole while wearing platform shoes - this is not a joke - I think it's interesting.

The point is - we enjoy a wonderfully full, exciting, mutually pleasurable sex life and revel in the wonder of exploring each other sexually. It is an extension of the love we share on a moral, psychological and intellectual basis. None of that is threatened by either of us going to a strip club - either together or seperately. To my knowledge he hasn't gone without me, but I don't see it as different than him admiring a woman's beauty in the mall or in a magazine. I think those women who are threatened by a man's appreciation of feminine beauty not her own have greater problems with self-esteem than they do with the quality of their relationship.

Sure, some men use these outlets - strip clubs - as a means by which to engage in degrading sexual acts or hide them out of shame because they see the women as degraded and are ashamed that they can only feel sexual attraction to a woman they hold in low esteem...those are larger problems. But as far as two consenting, intelligent, mutually respecting adults who can view the strip club as a novelty it can be exciting and mutually enjoyable. Where is the immorality in that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, some men use these outlets - strip clubs - as a means by which to engage in degrading sexual acts or hide them out of shame because they see the women as degraded and are ashamed that they can only feel sexual attraction to a woman they hold in low esteem...those are larger problems. But as far as two consenting, intelligent, mutually respecting adults who can view the strip club as a novelty it can be exciting and mutually enjoyable. Where is the immorality in that?

I don't think there's anything immoral with what you're doing (although I would question your taste).

The problem is that you've changed the context of the thread a bit, there, Becky. The immorality is in a man, who is in a committed relationship, taking a prurient sexual interest in women other than his significant other. And also the negative degrading aspect that you mention above.

The way you phrase that: "sure, some men..." strikes me as rather naive. "Some" men? Hah! Try 99.9999% of the men who go to strip clubs. That is what strip clubs are for. That is their explicit purpose. If you've found a joint that's classier than most, and are using it for a purpose that is rather different than its intended one, hey great, but don't pretend that strip clubs are about art and beauty and so forth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think there's anything immoral with what you're doing (although I would question your taste).

The problem is that you've changed the context of the thread a bit, there, Becky. The immorality is in a man, who is in a committed relationship, taking a prurient sexual interest in women other than his significant other. And also the negative degrading aspect that you mention above.

The way you phrase that: "sure, some men..." strikes me as rather naive. "Some" men? Hah! Try 99.9999% of the men who go to strip clubs. That is what strip clubs are for. That is their explicit purpose. If you've found a joint that's classier than most, and are using it for a purpose that is rather different than its intended one, hey great, but don't pretend that strip clubs are about art and beauty and so forth.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I've always believed the definition of prurient to be "to have lustful longings." I term lust as a matter of having sexual attraction to someone on a purely physical basis - that one sees someone they find attractive and are aroused. So what? I may be naive in some resepects but I am not naive enough to believe that just because I am in a committed relationship that my love and I will never have lustful feelings towards someone else. Whether we act upon them or not is what is important. Physiologically men are aroused by the visual more than are women. While the men I admire may harbor some feelings of attraction or even lust towards someone on a physical basis, they do not act upon those feelings unless/until they know the woman in question. Heck, I've had feelings of lust towards men in the past yet when I get to know them and they underwhelm me with their lack of intelligence my feelings dissipate. I am not Jimmy Carter - I do not believe it's wrong to "sin" in one's heart by feeling lust for someone else. It's a biological response based on what one finds visually alluring. That's all. For a man to go to a strip club because they find it sexually exciting is of no consequence to me - I am not threatened by a man being aroused by someone other than me. If he needs to act upon it instead of bringing that lusty energy home, then that may be a problem but I simply date men of honor who would not act upon baser feelings like that.

If it is wrong for a man to go to a strip club in order to elicit sexual feelings than I guess we ought to rule out all pornographic material as wrong as well, right? Plus anything which has sexually explicit and sexually arousing aspects - novels, pictures, movies, songs, etc. I find the Chris Issak song, "Wicked Game" to sound very sensual and arousing - is that wrong because I am being aroused by something other than my boyfriend? Am I being a traitor to my values by getting all hot and bothered at sensual music?

I'm digressing...

The point is, I didn't write that all strip clubs are about beauty and art. I wrote that I can see it as a novelty, as an extra bit of naughty oomph in a relationship between consenting adults. I don't think that simply watching naked women in order to become sexually aroused makes a man immoral or act in a degrading manner. If they look at those women as nothing more than a hot body and without value as human beings, then they are being degrading but then again, the women who choose that line of work are aware of that. I doubt they take the job under the impression that they are going to admired for their skill.

In short, I wonder why people spend so much time (and obviously I am now included in this milleu) worrying about whether the choices of consenting adults is appropriate or not. If you don't want to date someone who frequents strip clubs, don't date them. It's your personal preference - it's not moral or immoral to state your preferences and act upon them.

(edited: I reread this and realize that it may sound like it's drifting in thought and expression...I have been hit with the onset of the flu and I think my meds are making me groggy. I am really a very articulate person though my post here today may not show that. I would've deleted it but I thought maybe I'd leave it just to see if it may lead to any more interesting discussions. Thanks.)

Edited by Becky
Link to post
Share on other sites
In short, I wonder why people spend so much time (and obviously I am now included in this milleu) worrying about whether the choices of consenting adults is appropriate or not. If you don't want to date someone who frequents strip clubs, don't date them. It's your personal preference - it's not moral or immoral to state your preferences and act upon them.

Hello Becky,

I am not sure what you mean by appropriate. Obviously it should not be illegal.

I think about it from the perspective of it's benefit to my life. What value does it confer for m? I should confess that I have been to strip clubs only 3 times in my life, all of which, I was dragged by friends or acquaintances. And in all 3 circumstances, lap dances were bought for me. It might be argued that I lack imagination, but I was unable to view the experience out of context. And for me, the experience was that I was paying a woman of questionable character twenty bucks to pretend to like me for 30 seconds. Something, I shouldn't need to do. The acknowledgment of this fact was far too negative to make up for the pleasure of seeing a naked woman, much as I like naked women. So I would be curious to know what value proper value can be gained from attending a strip club. In what way can it be viewed as a gain? The only one that occurs to me is an individual too physically and personally revolting to acquire the attentions of any woman without payment, but that is lifeboat scenario talk.

Note: I don't buy the, beautiful talented bodies as pieces of art, idea. If that was truly the case, the ballet or cirque du suleil are far, far superior and usually less expensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I am wrong, but I've always believed the definition of prurient to be "to have lustful longings." I term lust as a matter of having sexual attraction to someone on a purely physical basis - that one sees someone they find attractive and are aroused. So what? ... Whether we act upon them or not is what is important.

I think you have all the right ideas, you just haven't put them together yet. If a man in a committed relationship has a lustful feeling, that is one thing. Properly, he would not want to have such feelings, but our emotional computers can take some time catching up with us. No biggie.

The real problem, as you say, is whether we act on them or not.

So how is going out and paying money specifically to engage in lust for other women NOT acting on them?!? :)

I wrote that I can see it as a novelty, as an extra bit of naughty oomph in a relationship between consenting adults.

I have no real problem with that goal. I just don't think that any strip club I've ever heard of caters to that kind of goal. But I'm very very sensitive to anything that degrades sex; I hold it in very high esteem. I couldn't tolerate the way it is treated in places like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since this kinda blew me away I would just like to know what your definition of "lust" is Inspector.

You're not going to agree with me. I remember the monogamy thread.

Anyhow, I'm working with Becky's definition, as stated.

I'm saying that a man in a monogamous relationship would not properly want to have attractions to other women. He consciously believes that his girl is the best and that he is not interested in other women. He would want his emotions to follow suit.

Edited by Inspector
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt we don't agree, I just think it is a deep deep disagreement, and has to do partly with Becky's definition, at least the error I see in it, i.e. the erroneous assumption implicit in it which is this: that physical beauty is totally divorced from (mental, intellectual, moral)virtue.

What I see in this thread is two sides of a false alternative arguing with each other. One side thinks that its ok to have sex with a tremendously evil beautiful person(essentially, since they seek to divorce value from the mind) and those that think it is ok to have sex with a hideous saint. Both sides are assuming a split between the values of the mind and the values of the body, and it is this point that they agree on and concede to each other continually. One side chooses the body and disregards the mind, the other chooses the mind and disregards the body, or the bodies of others that aren't one's "beloved" as illustrated by the above quote in my last post. Now these are the two sides being debated here, but none of you are taking either side fully or consistently, and everybody is settling somewhere in the middle, where its ok to sexually desire someone's body "only if you take their mind into account" to some extent. The error implicit in this view is the assumption that when you are sexually attracted to someone's body it is necessarily an instance of valuing them in a "less than proper or justifed manner." The error is assuming that when one values another's body, one must do so in opposition to their mind. The other side simply wants to do away with having to consider a person's mind altogether.

I would get into my view but I don't want to hijack the thread. Please continue and excuse my interruption.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no doubt we don't agree, I just think it is a deep deep disagreement, and has to do partly with Becky's definition, at least the error I see in it, i.e. the erroneous assumption implicit in it which is this: that physical beauty is totally divorced from (mental, intellectual, moral)virtue.

What I see in this thread is two sides of a false alternative arguing with each other. One side thinks that its ok to have sex with a tremendously evil beautiful person(essentially, since they seek to divorce value from the mind) and those that think it is ok to have sex with a hideous saint. Both sides are assuming a split between the values of the mind and the values of the body, and it is this point that they agree on and concede to each other continually. One side chooses the body and disregards the mind, the other chooses the mind and disregards the body, or the bodies of others that aren't one's "beloved" as illustrated by the above quote in my last post. Now these are the two sides being debated here, but none of you are taking either side fully or consistently, and everybody is settling somewhere in the middle, where its ok to sexually desire someone's body "only if you take their mind into account" to some extent. The error implicit in this view is the assumption that when you are sexually attracted to someone's body it is necessarily an instance of valuing them in a "less than proper or justifed manner." The error is assuming that when one values another's body, one must do so in opposition to their mind. The other side simply wants to do away with having to consider a person's mind altogether.

I would get into my view but I don't want to hijack the thread. Please continue and excuse my interruption.

You make a good point that both the physical and mental ought to be considered. I hope that I did not give the impression that a person ought to pursue a relationship with someone they admired without regard to physical attaraction. I believe both are important. I disagree very much that you should have sex with someone you find hideous even if they are great mentally.

And I do not believe being attracted to someone physically without knowledge of the context of their character is wrong. It is an automated emotional response. I only believe that acting on such limited knowledge would be unlikely to be beneficial to your life. Also wrong would be to sleep with someone who was attractive but who you knew to be immoral.

Thanks for pushing for clarification. I do not see your comments as off topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope that I did not give the impression that a person ought to pursue a relationship with someone they admired without regard to physical attaraction. I believe both are important. I disagree very much that you should have sex with someone you find hideous even if they are great mentally.

And I do not believe being attracted to someone physically without knowledge of the context of their character is wrong. It is an automated emotional response. I only believe that acting on such limited knowledge would be unlikely to be beneficial to your life. Also wrong would be to sleep with someone who was attractive but who you knew to be immoral.

Yes, me too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I do not believe being attracted to someone physically without knowledge of the context of their character is wrong. It is an automated emotional response. I only believe that acting on such limited knowledge would be unlikely to be beneficial to your life. Also wrong would be to sleep with someone who was attractive but who you knew to be immoral. (emphasis added)
aEqualsA said the above, and IamMetaphysical and Inspector agreed. But... how is this different from what Becky said? From what I can tell, the difference seems to center around the meaning of "acting on". In Becky's judgement, watching a stripper perform is not "acting on" in a substantial sense (I assume we're taking a context of someone who goes to strip-clubs only occasionally). I'm not clear if there is some other line being drawn by the other side? For instance, is looking at the picture of a beautiful clothed model "acting on", what about lingering a while on a beautiful woman who passes you on the street, etc. Are you guys drawing some line along that continuum? Or, have I misunderstood this?

Also, I have another question about the quote above. If we agree that being attracted to someone physically is not wrong, can we also agree that it is right, or true value, and good? Or, is there a difference in those two formulations?

Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I can tell, the difference seems to center around the meaning of "acting on". In Becky's judgement, watching a stripper perform is not "acting on" in a substantial sense (I assume we're taking a context of someone who goes to strip-clubs only occasionally).

Right, and I disagree with that position, which was implicitly (although not explicitly) put out by Becky.

I'm not clear if there is some other line being drawn by the other side? For instance, is looking at the picture of a beautiful clothed model "acting on", what about lingering a while on a beautiful woman who passes you on the street, etc. Are you guys drawing some line along that continuum? Or, have I misunderstood this?
Either of those things could be, depending on the intent of the one doing them. If the intent is to indulge (satisfy, encourage, etc) their sexual lust for the model or woman, then that is "acting on."

Also, I have another question about the quote above. If we agree that being attracted to someone physically is not wrong, can we also agree that it is right, or true value, and good? Or, is there a difference in those two formulations?

No, it is neither right nor wrong. It simply is. Since one's immediate emotional/subconscious/physical reaction it is not something that one directly and consciously controls, then it is not subject to morality. What is subject to morality is what one chooses to do about that reaction/emotion. If one chooses to tell oneself, "no, I love my girlfriend/fiancée/wife and am not interested in other women, that emotion is not one that agrees with my conscious convictions and I do not wish to have it." then that is one choice (assuming of course that that is in fact one's conscious conviction). If one chooses to indulge the presumably unwanted emotion by oogling or by going out and paying strippers so that one can oogle, then that is another choice. Those two choices most certainly are open to moral judgment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it is neither right nor wrong. It simply is. Since one's immediate emotional/subconscious/physical reaction it is not something that one directly and consciously controls, then it is not subject to morality. What is subject to morality is what one chooses to do about that reaction/emotion. If one chooses to tell oneself, "no, I love my girlfriend/fiancée/wife and am not interested in other women, that emotion is not one that agrees with my conscious convictions and I do not wish to have it." then that is one choice (assuming of course that that is in fact one's conscious conviction). If one chooses to indulge the presumably unwanted emotion by oogling or by going out and paying strippers so that one can oogle, then that is another choice. Those two choices most certainly are open to moral judgment.

Would you say that if a person is in a romantic relationship and they continue to admire physical beauty when they see it, this is also wrong?

Maybe oogling refers to a very specific type of looking at a person, but I don't see any essential difference between admiring the beauty of a woman and admiring the beauty of a statue of a woman.

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone would say that it's wrong to look at art that depicts the human figure in a very positive and beautiful way, so why should this suddenly be different if it's a real person?

These are mostly preliminary questions that allow me to determine what exactly your position is on this; I think that will make for a more productive discussion later.

Edited by Maarten
Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you say that if a person is in a romantic relationship and they continue to admire physical beauty when they see it, this is also wrong?

No. It is something which occurs automatically. When I am in a grocery store and see an attractive woman I can't help but notice.

When in a relationship with someone I adore, I have noticed that my immediate evaluation of their attractiveness is less then it is otherwise. This tells me something about my feelings for the girl I'm with. But again, it's automated, so not really subject to morality.

Maybe oogling refers to a very specific type of looking at a person, but I don't see any essential difference between admiring the beauty of a woman and admiring the beauty of a statue of a woman.
A big difference is the reason you are admiring it. Most often it is amazement at the skill of the artist and enjoyment of the sense of life he captures, rather then lust. Although some statues....:)

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone would say that it's wrong to look at art that depicts the human figure in a very positive and beautiful way, so why should this suddenly be different if it's a real person?

Like I said before, cirque du suleil and grinding on a pole are hardly the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I am wrong, but I've always believed the definition of prurient to be "to have lustful longings." I term lust as a matter of having sexual attraction to someone on a purely physical basis - that one sees someone they find attractive and are aroused.

IAm Metaphysical already wrote about this, but I wish to repeat: While there is such thing as "purely physical beauty", for a man who realizes the significance of morality, who is in love with the heroic, with good traits, it would be impossible to seperate a beautiful body from a heroic soul: For example: I really admire the female body, but suppose I knew that some woman who has a pretty body is investing all her time into having it, and she feels like this is her only source of worth, and she becomes insecure without getting that attention to her body, then all of a sudden she would become so ugly to me, that I would actually try to look aside whenever I see her passing by, to prevent myself from puking. And usually I realy love looking at women with a beautiful body: The reason is that it immediately connects in my subconscious to a heroine.

So let's summarize: no such thing as enjoying a "purely physical beauty" unless someone thinks that human beings are all about their physical aspects (a lump of meat).

For a man to go to a strip club because they find it sexually exciting is of no consequence to me - I am not threatened by a man being aroused by someone other than me. If he needs to act upon it instead of bringing that lusty energy home

If my man went back home with this "lustful energies" he would have no home to return to very quickly. I would not stand someone who, not only has a cheap sexuality, but also wishes to announce that my value is the same as a piece of meat by using me to "get off" from getting all excited about strippers. I mean, this is just so damn disgusting!

If it is wrong for a man to go to a strip club in order to elicit sexual feelings than I guess we ought to rule out all pornographic material as wrong as well, right? Plus anything which has sexually explicit and sexually arousing aspects - novels, pictures, movies, songs, etc. I find the Chris Issak song, "Wicked Game" to sound very sensual and arousing - is that wrong because I am being aroused by something other than my boyfriend? Am I being a traitor to my values by getting all hot and bothered at sensual music?

It seems as if you're asking "is it wrong to get aroused by something other than one's romantic partner". But that's entirely missing the more basic question: which is, what would a good man (or woman) find sexual to begin with?

There is a difference between being aroused by music (which is strange BTW), and getting aroused by a movie describing humiliating sex, or getting aroused by someone's character etc'.

You keep on repeating the consenting adults thing, as if, once everyone agree on something, and are aware of the terms of a certain deal, everything goes and nothing can be immoral.

Some people think that as long as you didn't murder someone or steal their property or did something against their will - then you are 100% moral. Well of course not. Morality is something personal, and does not only exist in a social context. A man can be moral or immoral even if he lived on a desert island.

I don't know what would drive an Objectivist to think that morality only exists in a social context, but I'd hate to take a look at their inside. Must be an ugly mess, if all they care about is simply not murdering anyone, and the rest is amoral.

Edited by ifatart
Link to post
Share on other sites
No. It is something which occurs automatically. When I am in a grocery store and see an attractive woman I can't help but notice.

When in a relationship with someone I adore, I have noticed that my immediate evaluation of their attractiveness is less then it is otherwise. This tells me something about my feelings for the girl I'm with. But again, it's automated, so not really subject to morality.

And if you become sexually aroused as a result of looking at the woman and admiring her beauty and form? I think that would still fall under an automated response, right?

So, then I guess it reduces to whether or not someone intends to become aroused or not? Would you say that if they look at women in order to become aroused, it is bad if they are also in a relationship, but if they look at a woman and they just happen to get aroused as a result of that, it's okay? Is that an accurate way of stating what you mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you become sexually aroused as a result of looking at the woman and admiring her beauty and form? I think that would still fall under an automated response, right?

So, then I guess it reduces to whether or not someone intends to become aroused or not? Would you say that if they look at women in order to become aroused, it is bad if they are also in a relationship, but if they look at a woman and they just happen to get aroused as a result of that, it's okay? Is that an accurate way of stating what you mean?

Yes and yes, of course. Morality is exclusively applied to actions which are volitional. If he was going out looking for women to "automatically" turn him on, morality would become applicable. Such is the case with a strip club.

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...