Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-24-2011, 02:06 AM
serialmonogamist serialmonogamist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit View Post
Relationships are not defined/classified by their duration.
I'm not sure "love" ever "stops" ,but evolves. When we've truly loved someone there's a part of them - that piece we did love - that we'll always love. But like we say in so many other places and topics - life (or people) is/are not static. We can well 'love' someone - i.e. wish them nothing but happiness and success in their life and contribute to that when we can, and still not be able to live with them or tolerate negative aspects they've taken on.
Hey, GS. Yes, I think this is a concept that people have lost in modern serial monogamy. I had relatives that were married and could no longer live together but they stayed married after separating and never got divorced. This is also the way it seems to have been done during the time the old testament was written - i.e. you were supposed to honor your existing marriages while taking on new marital responsibilities.

Quote:
You seem to state that you are incapable of literally 'seeing' another person when you ...........'love' ? one person. You become blind to the external world of love potential. i.e. the very definition of a monogamous person.
No, that's my point. I'm not incapable of finding other people attractive or feeling love for past lovers. I just can't deal with the idea of having to reassure one person that my relationship with another isn't going to take away from my love for them and then go off and not worry that I'm doing something hurtful while having fun with someone else. In my mind I can reason that it's all ok, but when I see a person feeling a little guarded the next time I see her after being out with another woman and she's saying, "no, really I'll be alright," I still feel responsible for her pain on some level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
It still seems to me that you see monogamy as something that is meant to last forever.
Monogamy technically refers to marriage, not love. If you would have true "monoamory," you would only be able to love one person, period. Can love totally end? I think you have to believe that if you truly believe in your own "monoamory" but in reality the part of you that loved someone always lives on somewhere inside your heart. So to say you completely stopped loving someone seems more like something you tell yourself to be able to move on and still view yourself as "monoamorous."

Quote:
Well, that's interesting. Never would have thought of it that way. But then you wouldn't need to learn about managing poly relationships, befriending metamours, sharing time, households, responsibilities, and so on, as many of the poly peeps here do. You'd really just be living monogamously and having memories and past experiences of former relationships to draw on -- nothing new there. I really don't think that's a very useful way of looking at sequences of monogamous relationships. What good does it do you to think of it as polyamory?
Because I'm trying to figure out a way to reconcile my desire for monogamy with my feelings of confusion at being potentially polyamorous. I don't think wanting to limit myself to one relationship makes me a hypocritical poly. It's just another poly choice, I think. What I don't want to have to do anymore is say things like, "I don't know what I ever saw in her," when I know darn well what I saw in her and I still see it in her, only I know nothing will come of it anymore. Or I don't want to say, "no, I never meet any other women who I find attractive and would like to date if I had the chance" when I would like to date them if I wasn't in a relationship. Such honest issues aren't as important as organizing time, households, responsibilities, etc.?

Quote:
you can see that we can choose to be (in the sense of how we live) either one, in numerous relationships during the course of a lifetime.
If monogamy was as simple as how you choose to live, then people would never ask if you ever thinking about being with someone else and care if you say, "yes." I see more honesty in polyamory than monogamy for the most part, which is why I'm attracted to discussing life and love in this forum.

Quote:
You know, if I meet someone, enter into a relationship with them and we choose monogamy as the structure for our relationship, it doesn't mean we are committing to be together for a lifetime (unless, of course, it reaches that point and we do make that commitment). But monogamy doesn't require that.
Try telling someone monogamous when you start dating that you aren't interested in committing for life. If you say you can't know until later, they might take their chances but then you risk having to be the one to disappoint them and tell them to start their search for a life companion again. I don't want to do that to someone so I just tell them worst-case scenario, you're not going to become my soulmate because I already had one - but then they usually don't want to invest time and energy in a potentially temporary relationship.

Quote:
I don't believe in soulmates. I think of love as an endless pool within myself. When I love someone, it means I have let them get close enough to me to touch that pool of love I have inside me. Some people immerse themselves more deeply than others, but once they've reached it, it cannot be undone. But people change, move on, die, etc., and relationships end.
To me, "soulmate" means your relationship never ends with a person, even after they or the relationship dies, because that person has become an engrained part of your soul. This could happen for many reasons I think, but one big one is when someone is the parent of your child and you always see parts of them in the child you love.

Quote:
And many loving relationships are just meant to bless my life for a finite period of time. The path to my heart will always be there, although with time it will eventually be overgrown with thickets and weeds. Then someday someone else will blaze another path to my heart. All the people I've loved, whether platonic friends, family, or those with whom I've been sexually intimate, all accessed the very same pool and each has made their own trail to it (and therefore, to the center of me). How sad if it wasn't that way. The love I feel, the depth to which I feel it, and the imprint they have made on me have nothing whatsoever to do with whether I choose to have monogamous or polyamorous relationships in my life.
Nicely said. I look back on most relationships with gratitude for what I was able to learn and express through the interactions. Sometimes it takes me a while to arrive at the realization of what was positive that came out of it, but eventually I start seeing the light.

You're absolutely right that love is energy inside you that you send out to others and express in other ways. It's just some people want to be structured into your life in a certain way and if they aren't, they would appreciate it if you'd please seek someone else to direct your love toward. With monogamists, this seems to occur typically when you can't/won't tell them they're the only person you can think about having in your life. Rationally, they might understand that you don't want to dump them or hurt them, but they can't handle the thought that you could be interested in others. Maybe that's natural polygamy, maybe it's jealousy, or maybe it's both. I just wish there was a way around it without having to deal with more than one relationship at a time.
  #22  
Old 07-25-2011, 05:36 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
.............

No, that's my point. I'm not incapable of finding other people attractive or feeling love for past lovers. I just can't deal with the idea of having to reassure one person that my relationship with another isn't going to take away from my love for them and then go off and not worry that I'm doing something hurtful while having fun with someone else. In my mind I can reason that it's all ok, but when I see a person feeling a little guarded the next time I see her after being out with another woman and she's saying, "no, really I'll be alright," I still feel responsible for her pain on some level.
I understand this. You seem like a kind, thoughtful person which of course is admirable. But somewhere along the way the enlightenment comes that we can't take responsibility for internally generated 'harm' to others. If that makes any sense. It's much different than physically slugging someone over the head with a bat.
We all have our own belief systems and sometimes those beliefs conflict with the realities in life. It's simply impractical (impossible?) to take ownership of the rest of the world's belief systems and any pain that's caused because of conflicts with those. We don't want it, don't intend it (hurt) but also don't have control over someone else's thought process. The power is truly not within us.



Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist;
Monogamy technically refers to marriage, not love.
Well - that may be YOUR definition. I know some people, including members here, who would disagree with that. Language is SUCH a trap !
For some monogamy is a way of living and viewing the world. Because the 'love' we are speaking of here is what most refer to as 'romantic' love, some actually do become blind to other potential 'romantic' love once in love with one person. Not the same 'love' you have for....say....your pet. It has nothing to do with 'marriage' which is nothing more than a legal contract which stipulates (for most) living situations etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist;
Because I'm trying to figure out a way to reconcile my desire for monogamy with my feelings of confusion at being potentially polyamorous. I don't think wanting to limit myself to one relationship makes me a hypocritical poly. It's just another poly choice, I think.
I think this is just playing with words and confusing the issue - and you.

In it's most basic form, polyamory refers to the ability and openness (recognition) to love (in a romantic way) more than one person. And it's a very natural thing in the majority of humans. But it's been condemned by the powers that be for so many hundreds of years and therefore becomes a conflict when it surfaces. There are few (until recently) resources available for those who discover it within themself to turn to to learn ways to handle it constructively.

It's quite possible, if painful and difficult, to BE (self acknowledge) polyamorous yet still live monogamously because it's easier, more practical or sometimes temporary. That's different than BEING (self identifying) monogamous.

That's how language can confuse so easily. Words have to be understood within the context of the sentence they are used in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist;
Try telling someone monogamous when you start dating that you aren't interested in committing for life. If you say you can't know until later, they might take their chances but then you risk having to be the one to disappoint them and tell them to start their search for a life companion again.
Again, the cultural trap. And again the fallacy of owning someone else's beliefs and actions. Unfortunately the whole concept of commitment (or lack of) has come to be used as an identifier of ethical intent. Which of course is ludicrous !

Instead of looking at relationships in a more realistic manner a majority of society is caught in this programming.

Maybe a little analogy..........

Suppose you are a top gymnast and coach. You meet a wonderful new enthusiast and discover a common passion which draws you together. The 'love' you discover between you is composed of all these parts, mutual respect and admiration, passion for a shared path, desire to pursue it together etc.

The relationship may last for some indeterminate time - years - until finally your love has mastered the skills as far as you can take them. You are blissfully happy - for each other. Happy in the choices you've made. There will always be a bond between you because of what you've shared together.

But he/she now craves additional challenges. Having gained mastery of one thing they discover another. Say.......climbing.

But you're not a climber. And what's more, really have no interest.
Poly says "go climb - and come back and share your excitement with me !"
Mono say - "sorry - I don't climb - no climbing allowed unless you leave me so I can find another gymnast".

Which mode of living makes more sense to YOU ???

GS
  #23  
Old 07-25-2011, 06:18 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
. . . I'm trying to figure out a way to reconcile my desire for monogamy with my feelings of confusion at being potentially polyamorous. I don't think wanting to limit myself to one relationship makes me a hypocritical poly. It's just another poly choice, I think.
You are confusing yourself unnecessarily. Seeing serial monogamy as a form of polyamory just ain't so, and won't reconcile anything for you.

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart invented the term "polyamory" in a 1990 article she wrote for Green Egg Magazine (the term was included in a glossary sidebar, not the actual article). Here is her definition of the word: "The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved."

If you're into definitions and the evolution of the word, you might find this page interesting:
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2...d-english.html

BTW, Polyamorous Percolations, the blog I linked above, is a great resource to learn about poly. Also xeromag: http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html. Maybe doing some reading will help clear up some of your confusion.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 07-25-2011 at 06:25 PM.
  #24  
Old 07-25-2011, 07:12 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart invented the term "polyamory" in a 1990 article she wrote for Green Egg Magazine (the term was included in a glossary sidebar, not the actual article). Here is her definition of the word: "The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved."

.
Not to nit pick but...


http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...99&topic=17224

In Dec 2010, Alan, who runs the website Polyamory in the Media, did something very interesting. (Incidently, his website is about how p. Check it utolyamory is being covered in the media, and is very cool, even apart from this particular
episode). Check it out:
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/

Alan used search engines on the GoogleBooks site to search for instances of the
word polyamory, polyamorous, polyamorists, etc., as well as French and other
versions of the word. The GoogleBooks search engine lets you search a vast
number of books that have been digitized for specific words and phrases. Alan
did this for the years between 1400 A.D. and 1991. Lo and behold, his efforts
turned up seven specific items prior to the magic year of 1990, including
several earlier than the 1980s - and one as early as 1953! (Check out his
website for the full scoop, including a continuing series of updates on the
matter).

In a single stroke, Alan has demonstrated that the word polyamory and its
various forms was already in existence in the English language - and some other
European languages, at least 47 years before it was allegedly invented in
1990-1992. Way to hang, Alan!
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
  #25  
Old 07-26-2011, 03:12 AM
serialmonogamist serialmonogamist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
You are confusing yourself unnecessarily. Seeing serial monogamy as a form of polyamory just ain't so, and won't reconcile anything for you.
Definitions aren't my major concern. You could say humans are animals so human-human sex is bestiality, but that would just be semantics. My concern is about how to reconcile feelings with behavior in a way that doesn't involve hyprocricy or dishonesty. I think that is more important an issue that whether you're having multiple relationships at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I think practical issues are also important, but the reason I'm here is because I would like to achieve truth in relationships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit View Post
I understand this. You seem like a kind, thoughtful person which of course is admirable. But somewhere along the way the enlightenment comes that we can't take responsibility for internally generated 'harm' to others. If that makes any sense. It's much different than physically slugging someone over the head with a bat.
Thanks for your moral support. I have actually thought this for some time. The problem is that humans have this bad habit of treating culture as if it was automatically applicable beyond themselves. To give an extreme example, you can tell someone that you didn't see it as rape when you were taking her to fulfill your desires, but you're still responsible for the internal harm generated for her. That's a bad example because it involves physical body-boundaries, but many people claim emotional boundaries are just as sacred.

Quote:
We all have our own belief systems and sometimes those beliefs conflict with the realities in life. It's simply impractical (impossible?) to take ownership of the rest of the world's belief systems and any pain that's caused because of conflicts with those. We don't want it, don't intend it (hurt) but also don't have control over someone else's thought process. The power is truly not within us.
The power isn't to control others. It's to empathize. And when we empathize, we give power to others. And when we give that power to others, we also take power for ourselves by inviting their return empathy. This is the basis for many emotional social-contracts and social power, imo, for better or worse.

Quote:
In it's most basic form, polyamory refers to the ability and openness (recognition) to love (in a romantic way) more than one person. And it's a very natural thing in the majority of humans. But it's been condemned by the powers that be for so many hundreds of years and therefore becomes a conflict when it surfaces. There are few (until recently) resources available for those who discover it within themself to turn to to learn ways to handle it constructively.
My interest is in truth, as I think that is the interest of people who wish to be true to their feelings by pursuing multiple relationships at the same time. If I was interested in monogamy without question, I don't think I would have become interested in a polyamory forum. I wish to have a sexual culture where people can be honest about their feelings and desires, regardless of whether they choose to pursue one, more, or no relationships at a time.

Quote:
It's quite possible, if painful and difficult, to BE (self acknowledge) polyamorous yet still live monogamously because it's easier, more practical or sometimes temporary. That's different than BEING (self identifying) monogamous.
Exactly, but I think it's more painful to have to BE polyamorous and live monogamy whey you are disavowing your polyamorous nature. I think many monogamists are doing this, simply because they want to believe that having one relationship at a time but multiple relationships in a lifetime is natural.

Quote:
But you're not a climber. And what's more, really have no interest.
Poly says "go climb - and come back and share your excitement with me !"
Mono say - "sorry - I don't climb - no climbing allowed unless you leave me so I can find another gymnast".

Which mode of living makes more sense to YOU ???
This is my whole point. I think the reality of love and relationships is that you don't lose your place in your heart for someone just because your interests diverge. Yet in monogamy, it is expected that you kill the part of your heart that loved one person to love another. I think that's negative and destructive, even if you don't want to maintain more than one active relationship at a time. This is why it is so important to me to reconcile a polyamorous heart with the desire for a monogamous lifestyle.
  #26  
Old 07-26-2011, 04:39 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,306
Default

<heavy sigh>
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
  #27  
Old 07-26-2011, 07:22 AM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,379
Default

Serial, while I understand that you mean having more than one partner in your lifetime isn't what you consider true monogamy, you need to understand that if you talk about being poly, people will get misconceptions.

Monogamy in human has never meant only one person in your lifetime. It's very rare among humans. Even before divorce was allowed, people remarried after the death of their spouse. People had affairs. Life long monogamy is rare and when people say "monogamy", that's not what they mean, they mean "serial monogamy". They mean "when I'm with someone, I don't see anyone else". It doesn't matter if the relationship is a few months old or lasts for years.

I think it would be bad for you to present yourself as poly. This isn't how most people understand the word. And you're not part of the minority. As a serial monogamist, you're pretty much the norm. While use a word that requires coming out, explaining stuff and possibly being ostracized while what you are is already what people assume and expect of you?

"Monogamy refers to the state of having only one mate at any one time". I can't even find a place that has a definition talking about one mate for your whole life. I mean, that means marrying the first person you date, and never dating anyone else if you break up. That means if the person dies on your first date, you never see anyone else. That means if you first fall in love as a kid with someone you could never get, you never have a partner ever.
It's very, very limiting, and therefore understandably very rare.

As far as lifelong goes, just be honest about that. Say you're looking for an exclusive but not lifelong relationship. People will understand that much better. And when describing yourself, serial monogamist will be the accepted term, not poly. And even if you think serial monogamy is a subset of poly, it would still be the more accurate and specific term.
  #28  
Old 07-26-2011, 09:40 PM
serialmonogamist serialmonogamist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
Serial, while I understand that you mean having more than one partner in your lifetime isn't what you consider true monogamy, you need to understand that if you talk about being poly, people will get misconceptions.
I find it really interesting how divorce was nearly completely forbidden before the laws changed in the 1970s and since then divorce and remarriage have grown so much in popularity. Still, people insist on calling themselves monogamous (and believing it) because of the cultural taboos associated with polyamory (usually just called, "non-monogamy," no?). So I think that there are many many closet polyamorists, who may even be denying it to themselves in order to maintain mono-conformity. Behaviorally, such people may be monogamous, and that's what counts imo. I am just trying to establish the relationship between feelings and behavior and choices. It almost seems in the spirit of "don't ask don't tell" being repealed that more people will start wanting to be more open and honest with each other and themselves instead of living in confused conflict and repression.

Quote:
Monogamy in human has never meant only one person in your lifetime. It's very rare among humans. Even before divorce was allowed, people remarried after the death of their spouse. People had affairs. Life long monogamy is rare and when people say "monogamy", that's not what they mean, they mean "serial monogamy". They mean "when I'm with someone, I don't see anyone else". It doesn't matter if the relationship is a few months old or lasts for years.
The problem is that the whole distinction between polyamory and serial monogamy rests on symbolically defining your relationships according to what constitutes the boundaries between love, friendship (platonic love?), etc. People seem to always be limiting some aspect of their actions to assert boundaries.

Quote:
I think it would be bad for you to present yourself as poly. This isn't how most people understand the word. And you're not part of the minority. As a serial monogamist, you're pretty much the norm. While use a word that requires coming out, explaining stuff and possibly being ostracized while what you are is already what people assume and expect of you?
I'm interested in honest living. I'm trying to resolve what seems to be a massive contradiction in sexuality. I'm trying to make sense of why some people's sexuality is respected and others decried. I can't accept pure cultural and moral relativism. I am seeking moral reason.

Quote:
"Monogamy refers to the state of having only one mate at any one time". I can't even find a place that has a definition talking about one mate for your whole life. I mean, that means marrying the first person you date, and never dating anyone else if you break up. That means if the person dies on your first date, you never see anyone else. That means if you first fall in love as a kid with someone you could never get, you never have a partner ever. It's very, very limiting, and therefore understandably very rare.
There's also this interesting part of the bible that talks about the thought of adultery already being adultery. So I'm wondering if so many people are capable of serial monogamy, what is stopping them from considering other relationships while involved in a current one? Or is there a culture of secrecy and shame that is practically impossible to avoid?

Quote:
As far as lifelong goes, just be honest about that. Say you're looking for an exclusive but not lifelong relationship. People will understand that much better. And when describing yourself, serial monogamist will be the accepted term, not poly. And even if you think serial monogamy is a subset of poly, it would still be the more accurate and specific term.
Yes, I think you are describing mono-normative culture pretty well. Like I said, though, I'm interested in a slightly deeper cultural level.
  #29  
Old 07-26-2011, 09:58 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
I find it really interesting how divorce was nearly completely forbidden before the laws changed in the 1970s and since then divorce and remarriage have grown so much in popularity.
Hey, FYI, I'm a genealogist and have researched numerous civil records of quite a number of families (for myself and other people) -- enough to tell you that many of our ancestors got divorced wa-a-a-ay before the 1970s! True, divorce was frowned upon, but not exactly forbidden -- there were always ways around it. My ggparents staged fake photographs of my ggfather with another woman (a family friend) even though the split was amicable, just to get around a law that required infidelity to sue for divorce. This was in the early 1920s. Believe me, divorce was much more common than you think, even among the working class (meaning that it wasn't always just for the privileged rich). And often couples split unofficially and just started families with other people. I myself, when my divorce is final, will be the fifth generation divorced in my own family. I have traced divorces that took place in the 18th century. So, it actually is not such a recent development in modern life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmonogamist View Post
There's also this interesting part of the bible that talks about the thought of adultery already being adultery.
What does that have to do with anything? I do not see the relevance of this statement.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 07-27-2011 at 04:47 AM.
  #30  
Old 07-27-2011, 02:04 AM
serialmonogamist serialmonogamist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Hey, FYI, I'm a genealogist and have researched numerous civil records of quite a number of families (for myself and other people) -- enough to tell you that many of our ancestors got divorced wa-a-a-ay before the 1970s! True, divorce was frowned upon, but not exactly forbidden -- there were always ways around it. My ggparents staged fake photographs of my ggfather with another woman (a family friend) even though the split was amicable, just to get around a law that required infidelity to sue for divorce. This was in the early 1920s. Believe me, it was much more common than you think, even among the working class. And often couples split unofficially and just started families with other people. I myself, when my divorce is final, will be the fifth generation divorced in my own family. I have traced divorces that took place in the 18th century. So, it actually is not such a recent development in modern life.
That's interesting. I knew it was allowed in special cases but I didn't know the special cases were commonly simulated to justify common divorce. I've also seen many divorces in my family and out, but after doing it myself, the illusion of it broke down for me. Before I got married, though that marriage was just a piece of paper but after getting divorced I realized that was just a piece of paper too. Everything comes down to the actual people and the underlying relationships, imo.

Quote:
What does that have to do with anything? I do not see the relevance of this statement.
Because people who feel that they are sinning by having sexual fantasies should clear their consciences by embracing polyamory and injecting ethics into their fantasy lives, I think, or at least they should have that option even if they don't want to have simultaneous multiple relationships. Also, I think many people get dishonored as a parent of their ex's children because their ex feels the need to degrade them as a show of preference for a new partner. You don't have to keep sleeping with someone to honor them as the parent of your children, imo - and honoring is a form of love, I think.
Closed Thread

Tags
arguing, confusion, definitions, divorce

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:52 PM.