Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

I know its not literal rape, but people who enjoy physically overpowering women (even with their consent) have some issues ...

GC, could you explain what that statement is based on? If you already did that, would you mind referring to the post in which you explain why you think this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you wouldn't mind my take on this, i'd say Jim Bob should do country music! If he hates singing, he should find out why: it could be because his father, who was a country singer, run away from his family and married Dolly Patton's cousin. After he analyses the root of his hatred for singing, he will discover it is basically irrational, especially when he realises that he is not his father and he is not predetermined to do what he did!

What if Jim Bob doesn't find singing intellectually stimulating enough (say he doesn't write his own songs or music, but is able to perform them exceptionally well), but does find that programming intellectually stimulates him even though he is not as good at it (although he is competent)? Should he just buckle down and sing for a living and persue programming, or some other means of gaining intellectual satisfaction, in his off the job time?

When you do the thing that you are "amazingly talented at", you WILL enjoy it, unless you have not dealt with those unconsciously held premises that are making you not enjoy it. Enjoyment is not supposed to be a random, floating feeling that is not connected to facts of reality. As a rational man, your choice of career is not to be guided by emotions - including 'enjoyment' - even though it is your aim to enjoy your life through productive work.

Allow me to upgrade enjoyment (implies emotional or irrational enjoyment I guess) to Rational Enjoyment with reason and capital letters to boot! Would the amount of Rational Enjoyment I take from a job only increase as my ability to do that job increased? Is the amount of Rational Enjoyment taken from a job relative to the person (meaning if two people are both doing what they are best at would they be able to get the same amount of Rational Enjoyment from their work, or would the more skilled necessarily gain more Rational Enjoyment)?

Same for your sex life.

What is a man is extremely talented at giving fellatio? Like Epic, songs will be written about his ability, good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Capitalism Forever @ Mar 9 2006, 03:38 PM)

In the initiation of intimacy, a man should express physical strength and undauntedness because that is expressive of his nature as a man; it would be shame enough for him to be overpowered by another man in fight--let alone by a girl in bed; shame enough to need to be fed by a nanny state, let alone to need to be taken in hand by a date.

(The bolding was of my doing.)

I was under the impression that what is most expressive of the nature of a man is what he can accomplish through the use of his mind. This is even expressed through the manner in which war is waged, meaning that the side with the best tactics and technology will win out over the side made up completely of seven feet tall body builders. Is it maybe time that love follow from war's fine example, and let the initiation of intimacy contain more poetry and less shirt ripping?

I was thinking "the 50's are over" would be an appropriate comment here, but it's really more like "the Pleistocene is over"

2387.jpg

Indeed.

Edited by LaVache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Styles, when i said "ah, but there is force!", i was not making the point that this makes it immoral. i was just quoting you. And my next (rhetorical) question "is milking a cow immoral?" was to show you that you can apply force on your cow without it being immoral.

it is not what you are doing to the cow that makes it immoral, but what you are doing to yourself.

You have rightly admitted that this act is immoral, and you have honestly admitted that you do not know why, since 'force' is not the issue here. You would not be confused about the issue if you accepted the reasoning for why homosexuality is also immoral. You understand what i'm saying?

Sorry, I haven't been on in a while, so I haven't had a chance to make any comments on this.

Milking a cow could be respresentative of force upon an animal, however it is not the same as having SEX with the cow. Milking it is taking a useful (to you, or another human) product of the animal from it. However, this action also helps the cow, becuase if left full, the milk could get infected and kill the cow. Milking a cow actually benefits both parties. I already stated, and will not state again, the inherent immorality of sex with a cow. So far, there have been no clear cut or defined reasons on the immorality of homosexuality.

Capatilism Forever - I know this is going back a couple pages, but I don't see the link between femine features on a Man, or Masculine on a Woman, and Islamic terrorism. You'll probably have to break that down for me, because I don't have a CLUE what you're even talking about. Maybe you misunderstood my question? Even from that, I don't see how you could get any moral standing on homosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the initiation of intimacy, a man should express physical strength and undauntedness because that is expressive of his nature as a man; it would be shame enough for him to be overpowered by another man in fight--let alone by a girl in bed; shame enough to need to be fed by a nanny state, let alone to need to be taken in hand by a date.
Doesn't this apply equally to women?

On a side note, it should be argued that a fight for one's life is entirely different from consentual sex.

When you do the thing that you are "amazingly talented at", you WILL enjoy it.
There are rational reasons why a person might not want to do things they're good at. Should I prefer being the world's best ditch digger over being a good (though hardly the best) pianist??? If you can't say yes, then I ask you to clarify if you would.

Second, this may not be an either/or issue. Even if we were to agree that people should want to do what they're comparatively better at, does it follow that people should not want to do what they're not as good as someone else at?? Does this go from the mildly acceptable idea that people should do what they're good at to the debatable one that people should do only what they're good at?

The rest of your misunderstandings have also been addressed in this latter part of the forum.
Have they? Was it addressed whether women should not initiate sex and be brave at all, or simply that they should make sure to be less brave and initiating than the men around them?

Is it maybe time that love follow from war's fine example, and let the initiation of intimacy contain more poetry and less shirt ripping?
:pimp:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Pleistocene ended about 12,000 years ago. Perhaps you are thinking of the Quaternary, which is ongoing.

oh i know, GC. it was my attempt at some humour. :(

(The bolding was of my doing.)

I was under the impression that what is most expressive of the nature of a man is what he can accomplish through the use of his mind.

okay? and of the nature of a woman?

Milking a cow could be respresentative of force upon an animal, however it is not the same as having SEX with the cow. Milking it is taking a useful (to you, or another human) product of the animal from it. However, this action also helps the cow, becuase if left full, the milk could get infected and kill the cow.

Gosh, styles. Alright, change that to butchering the cow for minced meat. is that immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Jim Bob doesn't find singing intellectually stimulating enough (say he doesn't write his own songs or music, but is able to perform them exceptionally well), but does find that programming intellectually stimulates him even though he is not as good at it (although he is competent)? Should he just buckle down and sing for a living and persue programming, or some other means of gaining intellectual satisfaction, in his off the job time?

Yes, why not?

[is there a rule that your full time job must be the thing that gives you the highest possible level of intellectual satisfaction? then why don't you get a full time job at objectivismonline.net - or does your full time job give you more intellectual satisfaction than any philosophy web site you visit?]

Allow me to upgrade enjoyment (implies emotional or irrational enjoyment I guess) to Rational Enjoyment with reason and capital letters to boot! Would the amount of Rational Enjoyment I take from a job only increase as my ability to do that job increased?

OR it (your enjoyment) could increase as your pay increases!

What is [if] a man is extremely talented at giving fellatio? Like Epic, songs will be written about his ability, good at it.

what if a man is extremely good at murdering people? (why do you just drop context, LaVache?)

[one word edited].

Edited by blackdiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are rational reasons why a person might not want to do things they're good at. Should I prefer being the world's best ditch digger over being a good (though hardly the best) pianist??? If you can't say yes, then I ask you to clarify if you would.

Hunter, i said when you do what you are "amazingly talented at" you will enjoy it. But i did not say "you should do what you will enjoy" or even what you are amazingly talented at! [LaVache is also working from that straw man]. In the specific case of Jim Bob, lavache gave an elaborate context which included $ and success, and in this case i thought he should just do it because after all, he will find the "enjoyment" if it is something he is amazingly talented at (and it pays that much), as long as he deals with issues that make him not like it.

Of course as you expand the context and introduce more problems for his singing career (e.g. twenty-seven thousand people die at every concert of Jim's), i could start changing my mind and say he should do the programming (hey, i am not religiously committed to his Country Music career!). The point here is that the person is not just looking at 'enjoyment' as his guide in life - he is examining a much wider context than just his feelings - his 'enjoyment' of programming or even music. The reason this discussion came about is because someone wanted to show or suggest that a gay man (or any man) must just follow what he enjoys the most as his guidance in sex or romance (i.e. sex with same sex!). I say that a person should not simply be guided by pleasure in his choice of career or sexual partner - unless he is a hedonist. (This is why a person should not just start sleeping with cows simply because he finds 'enjoyment' and 'fulfilment' in that act, etc).

Keep that context in mind if you do not want to stray into more irrelevant questions on this single analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that what is most expressive of the nature of a man is what he can accomplish through the use of his mind.

Of the nature of a man as distinct from an animal, yes. Of the nature of a man as distinct from a woman, no. Women can think too, or do you disagree with that? (Hey, the Pleistocene is over, etc., what not...)

Is it maybe time that love follow from war's fine example, and let the initiation of intimacy contain more poetry and less shirt ripping?

Somebody's got to take that shirt off her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you understand my point about ideas having consequences? Do you grasp how the ideas represented by John Wayne can defend America, while those represented by Johnny Depp enable America's enemies? Are you aware that Islam can kill you?

I don't see the link between femine features on a Man, or Masculine on a Woman, and Islamic terrorism. You'll probably have to break that down for me, because I don't have a CLUE what you're even talking about.

I suppose it's safe to assume that you understand what I meant by the ideas represented by John Wayne (right?) so what you're probably missing is that Johnny Depp stands for the opposite of those ideas, not only as far as masculine appearance is concerned, but also masculine action, extending right up to the realm of foreign policy.

Johnny Depp: U.S. is like a stupid puppy

BERLIN, Germany (Reuters) -- Hollywood star Johnny Depp said on Wednesday the United States was a stupid, aggressive puppy and he would not live there until the political climate changed.

The 40-year-old actor, who stars in the "Pirates of the Caribbean," told the German news magazine Stern he was happier staying in the south of France with his wife, the French actress and singer Vanessa Paradis, and their two children.

"America is dumb, it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive," he said.

[...]Depp slammed George W. Bush's administration for its criticism of French opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

It is no coincidence that the guy you've picked as a perfect specimen of non-masculine looks is also a perfect specimen of abject boot-licking. Weak body, weak mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what if a man is extremely good at murdering people? (why do you just drop context, LaVache?)

The context would be that homosexuality is immoral and wrong, right? Hard to make any sort of argument without dropping that context I'm guessing.

As for the man who is extremely good at murdering people, I'd say that he could productively apply his skills in the defense off his country. Good at killing, check. Good at avoiding the local authorities, check. Sounds like Spec Ops material to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The context would be that homosexuality is immoral and wrong, right?

No, the context would be: that's what we are debating - whether homosexuality is moral or immoral. If it is moral (or amoral), then your felatio statement might have some merit. If it is not, then it wouldn't (which was the point of the murder example - to show the possibility of something that is not open to choice even if you were "good at it"; in short, being good at something does not change the moral status of that thing, so you can't just extend this to homosexuality before you show that our arguments are wrong, or that your arguments are right. You do understand "circular reasoning", don't you?)

As for the man who is extremely good at murdering people, I'd say that he could productively apply his skills in the defense off his country. Good at killing, check. Good at avoiding the local authorities, check. Sounds like Spec Ops material to me.

So? The question is: is career choice of murdering people per se open to him? Murder and killing are not the same thing - and the one i meant is the one i said (when you kill in defence, you are NOT a murderer). You change context, as usual, to escape. You are becoming good at this, LaVache?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Regarding the case of Jim Bob] The reason this discussion came about is...
I have to correct you here. CF brought this subdiscussion about. He implied that there was something objective to be drawn from a person who is more talented in one field than another. You have to remember the context from which his examples were drawn: that a person should do what their sex is amazingly talented at, because they are amazingly talented at it. If you reject that conclusion, as you do with the examples, say so and let's get on to the endgame.

In short, being good at something does not change the moral status of that thing, so you can't just extend this to homosexuality before you show that our arguments are wrong, or that your arguments are right.
You're not saying that a person should do what their sex is amazingly talented at. You haven't identified any signficant volitional characteristics that are possible only with a single sex, and for the multitude of characteristics that are possible for both sexes, you haven't given any reason why it is proper for one sex to have any given characteristic, and the other sex not to have that characteristic. In addition to the undefined masculinity and femininity, you haven't said why a rational man/woman should prefer women/men, as you haven't established what is the proper basis for complementarity.

Do you have any arguments left?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hunter, i have to correct your correction of me here. In the statement in which i mentioned why "this discussion" came about, i was talking specifically about the Jim Bob example which was introduced by LaVache (a sub-sub-discussion, if you like) for a specific reason: to show that 'enjoyment' should be the supreme guide for one's career. But then you started asking questions which were not appparently related to that particular purpose (of his Jim Bob analogy) and which did not even appear to even reject my particular proposition, hence my statement which specifically ended with these words "Keep that context in mind if you do not want to stray into more irrelevant questions on this *single* analogy". I was talking about that single analogy.

I must also mention that you have got much more from CF's examples than he obviously intended to communicate, which is what happens when you take an analogy or example too far (a logical fallacy). He was responding to this specific error in your premises:

QUOTE(hunterrose @ Mar 18 2006, 01:29 PM) *

There'd be no objective argument that a rational man should prefer being an architect to a novelist, only one's feelings would determine what is proper in such a case.

The examples he gave after this were simply to show that there must be an objective way of determining your career.

After this was established (and apparently you accepted it), it was time to go back to where you brought in this idea that your feelings are all you needed to choose a career, but instead you got reinforcements in laVache and together started taking the examples to their illogical limits. It became funny to me at one point (although i did not state it) that all your points were just proving that you can determine your career objectively even though that was the premise you were supposed to be working against! (e.g. your ditch digging example?).

CF's point had nothing to do with being "amazingly talented" at sex; it had to do with only the fact that your important choices in life can and should be made objectively (i.e., from your nature) and not, as you said, merely from feelings.

"Amazingly talented" is just one objective way you can use to choose your career; another can be money (as your ditch digging example amply showed), etc; a rational man will consider the entire context before making such a choice, of course. These are the "facts of reality" that surround career choice - rather than just "feelings". In the same way, there are facts of reality that determine what a person should desire sexually and romantically, and these have to do firstly with the particular metaphysical state of man qua man and woman qua woman. You do not just use "feelings" even in this case, but those facts of reality that pertain to this particular question.

So...let's go through this step by step.

do you agree that man and woman have some differences in their behaviour that are specific to their identity as 'man' and 'woman'? (are there certain behaviours you might find strange in a man, for example, but not strange in a woman, and vice-versa?)

If your answer is 'yes', can you explain where these differences come from?

If your answer is 'no', which planet do you live on?

Let's continue. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would find it strange if a man regularly spent hours shopping for the perfect outfit, though I wouldn't particularly find it strange for a woman to do so. I can't think of anything behavior I'd find strange in a woman that I wouldn't find strange in a man.

I'd explain this difference by acknowledging a lot of women I know like to shop, whereas most guys I know are wash-and-wear and don't generally care whether their attire is "perfect."

I don't agree that this difference (or any others I can immediately think of) are specific to the identity of 'man' or 'woman.'

Continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunter,

Good. We are getting somewhere, although you are apparently not focussing enough.

Your observation is correct: it's not strange for a woman to regularly spend hours shopping for the perfect outfit, but it would be quite strange for a man to do that (and this is not just true among your circle of friends - it's true even here in Africa!!!). i can think of another one for you, along the same lines: it would not be that strange for a woman to spend two hours in front of the mirror before going for dinner (trying on twelve different outfits before finally settling for the first one :) ), but it would be quite strange for a man to do that, especially habitually!

You see, if you just think of one little example, you are not likely to come to a good conclusion, as in all induction processes. So, your explanation that "a lot of women ... like to shop" begins to look very inadequate (even for that specific example you gave), as you introduce more similar examples of these differences within the range of your focus. You will start requiring a higher level of conceptualisation as you take more instances of differences into account before making a good conclusion.

There are many more examples you can think of, and only when you do this will you be able to question your assertion that "i don't agree that this difference is specific to the identity [specific nature] of 'man' or 'woman'." You can't just "don't agree" with something before you integrate a lot more things. This is the correct process of acquiring knowledge - or establishing a rational opinion - about anything.

(Let me help again: would you find it strange for a woman to wear something that will intentionally show off her nice legs? and a man? And yes - there are even examples *you* CAN think of that are strange for women and not men.)

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd explain this difference by acknowledging a lot of women I know like to shop, whereas most guys I know are wash-and-wear

And how do you explain that difference? Why do you think women "like to shop" while men are content to wear the same clothes for longer periods?

and don't generally care whether their attire is "perfect."

I, for one, am a man who is a perfectionist in dressing, just like I am in everything else. But a man takes much less time to get prefectly well-dressed than a woman does. His purpose with dressing, and thus his definition of perfection, is different from that of women: he merely wants to stay warm and covered and find a style that expresses his values. Unlike women, he does not aim to attract the attention of the opposite sex with fancy clothes--because it simply wouldn't work for him. The only thing he needs to display in order to attract women is masculinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike women, he does not aim to attract the attention of the opposite sex with fancy clothes--because it simply wouldn't work for him. The only thing he needs to display in order to attract women is masculinity.
That's not true. Ask most women, and they will tell you that they are more attracted to well-dressed men. I've known men who are not especially attracted to women who primp, and I have met many women who are attracted to men who do their own "primping".

After reading the beginnings of this thread, I find that it is of little value to me to continue arguing my position. I have less interest in swaying others to my position than in the other things I can be doing with my time. I will, however, present my final thoughts.

My opinion of whether or not homosexuality is a choice has changed while reading this thread. My initial position was that it was completely under volitional control, and the choices that develop sexual orientation are made very early, with biology not being a factor. I now think that biology probably plays an uncertain role, but ultimately it is up to volition. Hence, sexual orientation is still open to the realm of morality.

Regarding morality: Homosexual relationships can be moral, depending on each individual's value judgments (just as engaging in a relationship with a supermodel or female body builder can be moral). It seems to me that many here who believe homosexuality to be immoral (in every case) are simply projecting their own value contexts onto others. When this point is brought up, one is usually referred to a different part of the thread that does not itself address the issue.

Regarding masculinity and femininity: I believe that the only proper concept of the masculine and feminine is in relation to a social context, as the description of masculine and feminine changes depending on the culture. It follows that femininity and masculinity do not imply attraction to thier opposites.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next step: If a characteristic applies to only some women, what exactly is the induction about women and that characteristic?

Not too fast, Hunter. Let's leave the "next steps" to me! :)

You can not go to that step before you answer the question of why you think the particular behaviour you gave would be strange to men, but quite common with women. "Because they like to shop" is not an adequate explanation, especially if you consider similar behaviours that have nothing to do with shopping per se. You have to go a little deeper than that. As i said earlier, you need to do a little more focussing than you are currently doing.

In case you need further explanation for my insistence, look at it this way: if you find a trait that is common in one species but "rare" or absent in another similar species, you will need to account for that fact before you start accounting for the fact that it does not actually appear to be completely universal even in that first species.

For example. You come to earth as a Martian and observe something about this animal that wears clothes: it seems to have an ability to speak in some language(s) whereas the other animals do not appear to do this. But then you observe that it is actually only SOME of this animal that speaks - you meet quite a number that can not speak at all (of course you do not know anything about being deaf and/or dumb). Would you say, "we can not yet account for why this type of animal is able to speak because it is only SOME and not all that speak"? I don't think so. I think the fact that you find this behaviour common in this kind of animal and absent in the rest is enough for you to begin theorising on why *this* difference exists, before you begin to account for those individuals in whom this trait does not appear to be present. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true. Ask most women, and they will tell you that they are more attracted to well-dressed men. I've known men who are not especially attracted to women who primp, and I have met many women who are attracted to men who do their own "primping".

Conversation 1

Hi Jane, i've met these two guys, i like them both and i am confused which one i should choose coz both of them want to marry me. One of them dresses really, really nice and he has a very smooth skin, but he can't seem to find a job (he says he wouldn't mind being a "house-husband"); the other guy is Bill Gates - but you know how badly he dresses and he still has freckles on his face. What should i do, girlfriend? i am soooo confused!

Conversation 2:

Hi John, i have met these two girls that i like. One of them doesn't have a job - she can't seem to find one (or she's just not that ambitious) - she just wants to be a housewife or something, but man, she dresses like an angel, she has such a pretty face and she's just so sweet in that feminine way. The other one has a top executive job at Microsoft and she is very ambitious - she wants to be the next chairman - but she absolutely has no feminine features - or maybe it's just her dressing that doesn't show any of these features; she doesn't even like make-up although i think she needs it. When I talked to her about it, she said "please don't impose your value judments on me - i am an independent thinker". Of course i love the fact that she's such a successful woman unlike the other girl, but the other girl is so ... feminine. In short, man, i am soooo confused about these two girls. Which one should i take?

[assume that all people in this example have otherwise good moral character, intelligence, etc. Also: I am not suggesting a dichotomy of sorts, i am simply trying to see if men and women value the same things, or there is just no way of telling].

Are these conversations strange or what? Or is this just me projecting my "own value contexts on others"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can not go to that step before you answer the question of why you think the particular behaviour you gave would be strange to men, but quite common with women.
I suppose our society rewards the woman with a perfect (as opposed to good) appearance more than it does the man with a perfect appearance. I do not think there is an objective reason for this. If there is, you'll have to tell me what it is.

When you answer, then we can go to the next step?

Edited by hunterrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: Holy Cow I thought there were 3 pages to this thread but now I find that there are 36! I have not nearly read all of this so my post points may have been discussed already so feel free to ignore it.

CF, two men are capable of having sex. (Your dismissal of homosexuality because of "incompatible" body parts doesn't make sense to me.) So what is wrong with being sexually

attracted to an attractive man?

A man is capable of having sex with animals too, that of course doens't mean that he should. He also may want this but again does that mean he should? Where does one draw the line? I assume your point would be that a animal could not posses the values at all and therefore a person should not rationally be attracted to them. That I believe is the problem, the vast majority of homosexual men I have met are actively acting in a manner contrary to thier nature. Obviously we have all seen the homosexual man who is very feminine, is that really a rational way for a man to be? Now I can't say that there isn't a biological foundation involved in homosexuality but a lot of the homosexual men that I have talked to look up to the strength in thier partner. Having someone there to protect them in a sense. It's not nessasarily blatently obvious, sometimes it's very subtle but I tend to see that a lot.

I certianly cannot see a person who is homosexual to have the same psychological make up of a normal man. Whenever you like anything there is always a reason most of the time it's a matter of introspection. If a man loves another man, why does he? What is it about that man that he loves? Why does he find it nessasary to find it in a man rather than a woman? I would love for someone who is homosexual to try to answer those questions. Not because I want to criticize at all, I'm just curious. Have you defined your values, if so what is it about men/women you find attractive?

Personally I am a man and I find men attractive, not sexually, not like I would like to kiss them but I can say "okay that is a good looking guy there, he has developed his muscles well and looks healthy. " or "His facial structure is very even and is pleasant to look at". To me it's the same as looking at a work of art in the sense you have standards you are judging it by.

Edited by fatdogs12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it's safe to assume that you understand what I meant by the ideas represented by John Wayne (right?) so what you're probably missing is that Johnny Depp stands for the opposite of those ideas, not only as far as masculine appearance is concerned, but also masculine action, extending right up to the realm of foreign policy.

Johnny Depp: U.S. is like a stupid puppy

It is no coincidence that the guy you've picked as a perfect specimen of non-masculine looks is also a perfect specimen of abject boot-licking. Weak body, weak mind.

Correlation is not equal to causation, et cetera. Even if you could prove that there's a correlation between being "feminine" and being "liberal" (you haven't so far), that wouldn't prove causation.

And how do you explain that difference? Why do you think women "like to shop" while men are content to wear the same clothes for longer periods?

Let me guess... cultural pressures enforce differing ideals on young girls and boys?

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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