Guru falls

Again I will say the support group should have stood behind the victims and allowed their voices to be heard first.

The support group are doing this in line with good transformative justice principles - and more importantly, as the survivors have collectively asked us to.

I’m surprised you’re so invested in this, not having read any of Franklin’s books.
Personally, I think what we’ve said in the statement stands for itself, and I won’t be replying to the same points over and over.
 
Last edited:
The support group are doing this in line with good transformative justice principles - and more importantly, as the survivors have collectively asked us to.

I’m surprised you’re so invested in this, not having read any of Franklin’s books.
Personally, I think what we’ve said in the statement stands for itself, and I won’t be replying to the same points over and over.

Invested? No. I'm contributing to a topic on a forum I regularly frequent.

What happens if FV returns with 6 exes of each of these exes who can attest to them being abusive? This seems so much more complicated than it needs to be.

I don't understand why anyone would think 3rd and 4th parties associated with journalism would overcome any of the reasons victims are typically not believed. One reason people often disbelieve victims is because they feel they are seeking revenge/attention/sympathy over justice or acting out of concern.

As I keep saying, it's the people who aren't claiming to be victims but feel some sort of compusion to speak before and on behalf of the victims that seems slightly off to me. As well as them seemingly tracking down anywhere on the Internet this is being discussed to weigh in and further influence opinion. This is the 3rd place online I've seen "one of the 14" show up to argue with the people talking about what they wanted them to know.
 
I don't understand why anyone would think 3rd and 4th parties associated with journalism would overcome any of the reasons victims are typically not believed. One reason people often disbelieve victims is because they feel they are seeking revenge/attention/sympathy over justice or acting out of concern.

As I keep saying, it's the people who aren't claiming to be victims but feel some sort of compusion to speak before and on behalf of the victims that seems slightly off to me. As well as them seemingly tracking down anywhere on the Internet this is being discussed to weigh in and further influence opinion. This is the 3rd place online I've seen "one of the 14" show up to argue with the people talking about what they wanted them to know.
"The 14" are playing kind of a bumper. The purpose of a support team is not to make the story more believable (there's no story yet after all), but to get the message of "watch out, this man could be dangerous" out into the aether, while saving the victims from being retraumatized in direct confrontation.

And that is a good thing.

They seem to have decided to do the confrontation themselves - personally, I think an even more reserved matter-of-fact voice would be a better choice, but that's their choice.
 
"The 14" are playing kind of a bumper. The purpose of a support team is not to make the story more believable (there's no story yet after all), but to get the message of "watch out, this man could be dangerous" out into the aether, while saving the victims from being retraumatized in direct confrontation.

And that is a good thing.

They seem to have decided to do the confrontation themselves - personally, I think an even more reserved matter-of-fact voice would be a better choice, but that's their choice.

Is it fair to say you assume he is guilty without any evidence?
 
Is it fair to say you assume he is guilty without any evidence?
People going out of their way to write the shared testimony - that's not no evidence.
It's indirect hear-say evidence at best, sure. But hear-say evidence is often the best we've got.

I do assume now he's not the most healthy person to date. I will proceed to examine his text more carefully, should I read some.
So yes, this warning works on me.

I don't assume he's a bad person. I have no idea what happened. My estimate is, there's a 5% chance someone made it all up, and anything up to 50% probability that it's just "normal" relationship dynamics exaggerated.
But yeah, that does leave me with a roughly 50% chance, that he's being abusive in some ways, and that there are 6 traumatized women I should be considerate of in my comments.
If there are, I don't think the approach of only publishing the meta-story is bad. I don't think they should be forced to reveal details just to get across a warning. (That's why I'm super annoyed by SeasonedPoly - Again ;))

I do not think a community's response to an accusation of abuse should be "no response" (or worse, stand behind the leader), I also don't think it should be blind belief and ostracization.
 
Last edited:
stand behind the leader

Just for clarification's sake, FV has never been held up as any kind of "leader" in this forum community and in fact, his writings are periodically critiqued. To its credit, this place doesn't seem to revere anyone or hold any sacred cows, often to the dismay of those coming here for blanket support of all poly situations and all poly people. As we sometimes remind newcomers, we are not a support community, we are a discussion board. In my years here, I have not perceived FV to be any kind of a leader in the poly movement, merely an often challenged voice. He's visible, but a leader? Not in my perception.
 
I haven't seen any shared testimony.

BTW, I don't view Veaux as a leader of anything. But I also don't believe there is a Poly Community per se.

I think there is very little chance this was completely fabricated. I just want to know what constitutes abuse. You give it a 50/50 chance of it being abuse. I think that's fair enough at this point. However, the cabal has made up it's mind and the accused doesn't get a defense. I can't call that a good thing in any situation.
 
However, the cabal has made up it's mind and the accused doesn't get a defense. I can't call that a good thing in any situation.

Interesting that you're choosing to use the word "cabal". There's nothing secret or political about this group. What's happening is pretty clear. The article is about the process, not about the specific abuse. Since it asks none of us to be a judge and jury yet, I don't feel the need to see specific accounts in order to validate the process happening. That's for FV's pod and the victims' pod to determine between themselves.

The only ask I've seen is that people give space for this to happen. (and yes, part of that asking for space is to ask FV not to be given speaking engagements in which he positions himself as an expert on abuse- I think there's enough concern raised to make that a valid request. It specifically states that he shouldn't be barred from other speaking engagements, just ones where he talks specifically about abuse in poly relationships)


It sounds to me like lots of people are critiquing a process that they don't know much about and critiquing based on their incorrect assumptions about that process. Transformative justice isn't about accusing and defending. It's about establishing healthy accountability so that all people can move forward together and reduce harm *for everybody*. I've seen this process work very well in other situations. And while people may not see a poly community here, they do exist elsewhere and there are people who are placed as "experts" within such communities.

I'm also seeing people ascribe mindsets to the people involved in this with very little information to base those assertions on.

One thing is clear though, many of the sentiments expressed in this thread are a large part of the reasons most victims don't come forward and report abuse within relationships and those who do come forward seek to protect their anonymity for as long as possible.
 
many of the sentiments expressed in this thread are a large part of the reasons most victims don't come forward and report abuse

Which sentiments? Which quotes in this thread might be considered hostile or threatening? Are differing viewpoints and alternate thoughts automatically considered negative and antagonistic? In this thread, I don't see any rancorous remarks, only the same atmosphere of sincere, honest, intelligent discussion that is found throughout this forum community.
 
This truly is the most bizarre way to handle an abuse allegation.

I don't see any of the people involved as qualified to speak about abuse in any relationship. Certainly not as experts.

To me, healthy accountability means everyone is accountable for their actions. So like when I skipped the job opportunity for a new and unstable relationship, I take responsibility for that choice and for feeling obliged to do so. Yes my partner at the time didn't alleviate those feelings AT ALL, but that's because we had a new and unstable relationship and I was a people pleaser. It would be easy to say that they abused me by limiting my choices and making me feel as if I would not even consider it if I was ethical and a decent partner. Those things were my failings. The relationship didn't work out. That's it.

So with this healthy accountability, I hope Eve for example is able to separate from her account what was in her hands to halt and what was abuse by FV. If you continued to give money or your partner wouldn't see you, the answer is to find a better partner. Not continually give money until the relationship ends and then follow with an accusation of abuse.

Elsewhere, someone says they feel betrayed by one or some of the 6 as they've appeared with FV many times when the abuse allegedly went on lecturing and advising people how to have a relationship just like them.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that you're choosing to use the word "cabal". There's nothing secret or political about this group. What's happening is pretty clear. The article is about the process, not about the specific abuse. Since it asks none of us to be a judge and jury yet, I don't feel the need to see specific accounts in order to validate the process happening. That's for FV's pod and the victims' pod to determine between themselves.

The only ask I've seen is that people give space for this to happen. (and yes, part of that asking for space is to ask FV not to be given speaking engagements in which he positions himself as an expert on abuse- I think there's enough concern raised to make that a valid request. It specifically states that he shouldn't be barred from other speaking engagements, just ones where he talks specifically about abuse in poly relationships)


It sounds to me like lots of people are critiquing a process that they don't know much about and critiquing based on their incorrect assumptions about that process. Transformative justice isn't about accusing and defending. It's about establishing healthy accountability so that all people can move forward together and reduce harm *for everybody*. I've seen this process work very well in other situations. And while people may not see a poly community here, they do exist elsewhere and there are people who are placed as "experts" within such communities.

I'm also seeing people ascribe mindsets to the people involved in this with very little information to base those assertions on.

One thing is clear though, many of the sentiments expressed in this thread are a large part of the reasons most victims don't come forward and report abuse within relationships and those who do come forward seek to protect their anonymity for as long as possible.

If FV is a part of a community, it is very much political. This was private until they made it public. It has the appearance of making it public for some sort of revenge for him initially saying he wasn't interested.

None of us will ever be asked to be judge and jury. That was kind of my point. The Transformative Justice angle means it has already been determined that FV is guilty. The accusers don't need to tell their side. They don't need to participate at all. Of course, neither does the alleged perpetrator, but that didn't satisfy this group.


To top it off, people say to question the process and question the narrative. When anyone does that they are told they are victim blaming or being threatening. All I'm being is skeptical, which is my nature.
 
The support group are doing this in line with good transformative justice principles - and more importantly, as the survivors have collectively asked us to.
I googled transformative justice, but I haven't found a source which would satisfy me, would you mind sharing a relevant link?

This truly is the most bizarre way to handle an abuse allegation.
If FV is a part of a community, it is very much political. This was private until they made it public. It has the appearance of making it public for some sort of revenge for him initially saying he wasn't interested.
...
To top it off, people say to question the process and question the narrative.
I'm genuinely curious.
Say you realize you have been mistreated (gaslighted, blamed etc.), and you see your perpetrator giving lectures on relationships (and people believing, and sometimes adoring him). And you're not alone.
How would YOU want to handle this situation?
As outside viewers, how do you think the situation SHOULD be handled?

IMHO addressing abuse is a really complex problem. I've been thinking about it now for a while because of rape accusations in the shibari community, but I'm not clear yet.
 
Say you realize you have been mistreated (gaslighted, blamed etc.), and you see your perpetrator giving lectures on relationships (and people believing, and sometimes adoring him). And you're not alone.
How would YOU want to handle this situation?
As outside viewers, how do you think the situation SHOULD be handled?

Generally, I'd decide whether or not to go public with my story. If I felt I'd been abused, that is. If I felt it was a case of an ex being less than a decent partner and me perhaps tolerating that for longer than I should, I'd likely just learn from it privately. I have spoken to an ex about what went wrong though - privately. And we both got something from it.

In a case where the person was somewhat of a relationship expert like FV, or at least thought to be, I'd consider if I'd had any involvement in catapulting him to that status and whether I maintained it in any sense while feeling exploited by him. If I felt he was disingenuous, I'd have not publicly supported his role at the time.

If I felt abused and therefore trapped against my will, I'd be coming forward now to say as much. I'd also find it vital to immediately renounce anything I'd said at the time which was coerced as a result of the abuse about relationships generally. So if I'd said something like "unicorn hunting usually means control issues - when I became secure and healthy, I no longer needed such closed relationships" when in fact I felt overwhelmed by the freedom and unpredictability of an open relationship structure but couldn't speak up, I'd correct that now.

It would be really important to me that my story was spoken by me to the public and while I might join forces with a group where other people abused by the same person also share their stories, I would not want mine muddied by anything that resembles this sort of set up. I'd make sure my/our stories were heard before anyone else's interpretation.
 
I googled transformative justice, but I haven't found a source which would satisfy me, would you mind sharing a relevant link?

Sure, this is my quick "go to" reference:

http://aorta.coop/portfolio_page/destabilizing-rape-culture-through-transformative-justice/

There's a bit more depth in this one:

https://emu.edu/now/restorative-justice/2011/03/10/restorative-or-transformative-justice/

This is also quite interesting:

http://adriennemareebrown.net/2015/07/09/what-isisnt-transformative-justice/


The key points for me are:

People can do harm without being a bad person - so focus on behaviours rather than the person.

People who harm can also be harmed themselves.

Offer opportunities for healing.


In this case, the survivors are quite clear they are not looking for retribution, largely they want safety, and the restoration of their voices in their own stories.

The support groups job is to keep them safe while they do that. If Franklin chooses to engage, he'll set up his own accountability group who will work with him - and the support group can give him information on the harms the survivors have experienced, so he can work on that with his own group.

Aida Manduley is our consultant / expert on transformative justice - I can ask for more references if needed - but I hope the few Ive provided explain what we're trying to do. And quite probably tripping up and making mistakes while we do it - all of us do that and transformative justice is still evolving.
 
I'm genuinely curious.
Say you realize you have been mistreated (gaslighted, blamed etc.), and you see your perpetrator giving lectures on relationships (and people believing, and sometimes adoring him). And you're not alone.
How would YOU want to handle this situation?
As outside viewers, how do you think the situation SHOULD be handled?

IMHO addressing abuse is a really complex problem. I've been thinking about it now for a while because of rape accusations in the shibari community, but I'm not clear yet.

Interesting question. I've been in two relationships in which I've been mistreated like that. Unfortunately, as a man, people would tend to not believe that, especially in the current climate.

The first woman actually did start a support group. I suppose she is helping people. I hope, through it, she does eventually see what she did. I doubt it though. It would be foolish of me to publicly criticize her. As far as I know, she hasn't used my name. She did try to sabotage my marriage. Overall, her actions after I left haven't really affected me.

The second one was more recent. I suspect she has BPD. My head is still swimming from this.

So, in the first case, enough time has passed that I have healed. I have moved on. In the second case it is still fresh. I would probably be extremely frustrated.

I agree this situation is complicated. FV claimed he was also abused. I don't know if he was or not, but I feel he should be heard. Right now that is being dismissed. One of the support group actually posted in here that they "believe all women", while at the same time accusing SEASONEDpolyAgain of having unchecked bias.

Ideally, this should all have been done in private with an eye toward conflict resolution. Then, since all these people do live a somewhat public life in poly circles, a statement could be released once resolved. It was irresponsible to proceed the way they did.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I predict it will be very messy.
 
Interesting that you're choosing to use the word "cabal". There's nothing secret or political about this group. What's happening is pretty clear. The article is about the process, not about the specific abuse. Since it asks none of us to be a judge and jury yet, I don't feel the need to see specific accounts in order to validate the process happening. That's for FV's pod and the victims' pod to determine between themselves.

The only ask I've seen is that people give space for this to happen. (and yes, part of that asking for space is to ask FV not to be given speaking engagements in which he positions himself as an expert on abuse- I think there's enough concern raised to make that a valid request. It specifically states that he shouldn't be barred from other speaking engagements, just ones where he talks specifically about abuse in poly relationships)


It sounds to me like lots of people are critiquing a process that they don't know much about and critiquing based on their incorrect assumptions about that process. Transformative justice isn't about accusing and defending. It's about establishing healthy accountability so that all people can move forward together and reduce harm *for everybody*. I've seen this process work very well in other situations. And while people may not see a poly community here, they do exist elsewhere and there are people who are placed as "experts" within such communities.

I'm also seeing people ascribe mindsets to the people involved in this with very little information to base those assertions on.

One thing is clear though, many of the sentiments expressed in this thread are a large part of the reasons most victims don't come forward and report abuse within relationships and those who do come forward seek to protect their anonymity for as long as possible.

Thank you very much for this.
 
*please forgive my blanket-binary gendering. I know it sucks, but this is predominantly about how "men" treat "women" and vice versa, so I hope you'll be patient with me. I believe in the spectrum of gender, nonetheless.*

If FV is a part of a community, it is very much political. This was private until they made it public. It has the appearance of making it public for some sort of revenge for him initially saying he wasn't interested.

This has been public for a lot longer than the point at which we began to engage as we did: Franklin Veaux has been writing about his relationships and positioning himself as an arbiter of how relationships ought to be conducted for a long, long time. The correction of status quo that we are attempting to make with our work is to give the other people involved in those relationships an opportunity to speak with a reach that compares to his.

Ideally, this should all have been done in private with an eye toward conflict resolution. Then, since all these people do live a somewhat public life in poly circles, a statement could be released once resolved. It was irresponsible to proceed the way they did.

A note on keeping things "private": who is the beneficiary of that privacy? Certainly not the people experiencing harm in this context. Silence perpetuates trauma, to (all too hastily) sum up Judith Herman's work in "Trauma and Recovery", and we are disrupting that norm, which seems to be striking some nerves. Keeping the "private" separate from the "public" is such old school misogyny 101 I am surprised to see it manifest here.

Another note on my position of believing women: there are mountains of cases to show the blatant disadvantage and perpetuated harm that women are subject to for speaking out against ill treatment they have suffered, and plenty of studies to suggest that the rate at which they would falsely accuse is so incredibly minuscule, we are much safer to assume they are telling the truth and repair the mistake, later, should it happen to be such. The fact of the matter is that when men are accused of abuse, little detriment actually happens to them, most of the time. The tangible damages to someone falsely accused are easily repaired, once investigated and found to be the case (how any investigation is expected to go through due process with all these scripts unnoticed, I have no idea), whereas the perpetuation of silencing and ignoring women's voices ripples through us all, reminding us of the futility of opposing patriarchy, and driving us further underground. My cost-benefit analysis of whether to believe women or not is measured based on this. I know the men falsely accused will recover quickly. I know the women who are silenced and ignored will surely not.

One more on bias: of course I have bias. I am a person. So are we all. It is _so easy_ for me to see where the Patriarchal biases in some of the commentary here and elsewhere, I am at times full of despair and hopelessness. I have much still to learn, and much I do not fully understand, but I have made it my business to understand this. I do not actually wish that on anyone, in the current climate of seeming progress, as it is devastating. Things have changed, but not that much.

The assumption that credentials and expertise look a certain way (namely, diplomas and certificates indicate such) is a colonizer ideal, and often meant to exclude voices who are marginalized in many different ways. The same could be said for any construct of objectivity. I would also love it if people would consider that any discourse about relational life is extremely personal to us all, hopefully, so dispassion is a privilege afforded to few, and indicative of power held. Turns out, people who care less are in more power most of the time, truly or in projection.
 
Which sentiments? Which quotes in this thread might be considered hostile or threatening? Are differing viewpoints and alternate thoughts automatically considered negative and antagonistic? In this thread, I don't see any rancorous remarks, only the same atmosphere of sincere, honest, intelligent discussion that is found throughout this forum community.

I haven't said anything about hostility or people threatening. But it's exactly that kind of leaping to conclusions that demonstrates what I was talking about. There are a lot of people making assumptions in the form of "inquiring" that are minimising and victim blaming. (What it it's just revenge, what if it's just bad boundaries on the part of the victims, etc) The only thing I see gained from such discussion is protection of the status quo.



If FV is a part of a community, it is very much political. This was private until they made it public. It has the appearance of making it public for some sort of revenge for him initially saying he wasn't interested.

None of us will ever be asked to be judge and jury. That was kind of my point. The Transformative Justice angle means it has already been determined that FV is guilty. The accusers don't need to tell their side. They don't need to participate at all. Of course, neither does the alleged perpetrator, but that didn't satisfy this group.


To top it off, people say to question the process and question the narrative. When anyone does that they are told they are victim blaming or being threatening. All I'm being is skeptical, which is my nature.


Is it skepticism or bias? Because everything I've seen and read on this indicates that the process *was* initiated privately and was intended to remain so. FV is the one who went public about it with his scathing narrative (which was shown to be factually incorrect with receipts) and the Medium article was published in response to FV's public commentary on the process.

FV has since deleted the criticising posts with which he went public and posted that he'd engage the process (a post that also throws a narrative spin of a series of events that leaves out the fact that he went public with it first).

Those are pretty key points that seem to keep getting missed here.


And it still seems that you're passing this assessment of transformative justice already deciding FV is "guilty" without much knowledge of what the process is about. Because it's not that into declaring people "guilty". And believing the women who have come forward is not mutually exclusive with that, which is why they're seeking this process rather than the way things normally get handled around abuse cases (did you really think "Me Too" came out of nowhere?). And as a point of information, the process does also examine the victim's role in perpetuating abuse and holding them accountable because the goal isn't "retribution" or "revenge". The goal is to stop the conditions which create harm in communities. There's a massive difference between being held accountable and being declared "guilty".
 
Franklin Veaux has been writing about his relationships and positioning himself as an arbiter of how relationships ought to be conducted for a long, long time. The correction of status quo that we are attempting to make with our work is to give the other people involved in those relationships an opportunity to speak with a reach that compares to his.

So have the women. Allegedly, at least one continued to permit him to do this while she was in the abusive relationship. So she stood there, letting him speak about said relationships AND advise other people, yet this only becomes a big deal now they've split up AND he has accused her of abuse. It isn't just FV who is seen as some sort of "guru".

A note on keeping things "private": who is the beneficiary of that privacy? Certainly not the people experiencing harm in this context. Silence perpetuates trauma, to (all too hastily) sum up Judith Herman's work in "Trauma and Recovery", and we are disrupting that norm, which seems to be striking some nerves. Keeping the "private" separate from the "public" is such old school misogyny 101 I am surprised to see it manifest here
.

I don't think it needed to be private, but the people speaking up needed to speak up if they were going public with it. The people who have not benefited from the involvement of journalists and outsiders in regards to going public are the victims. It has made their story which was always going to be criticised for a range of reasons more doubtful as it seems about vengeance (yes even though you keep repeating that it isn't). I think you have disrupted a normal, but I can't see it working the way you hope. I fully expect FV to come with his own band of supporters (some who have already spoken online about the women being abusive) and embarrassing and personal stories to come out about them. Some of which will reinforce his views that his partner(s) was/were abusive.

Another note on my position of believing women: there are mountains of cases to show the blatant disadvantage and perpetuated harm that women are subject to for speaking out against ill treatment they have suffered,

You (and the group) continue to speak as if we do not understand victim blaming. For me personally, I DO understand victim blaming and that's why I am saying that any victim is more likely to be blamed due to the presence and continued efforts of the "14" and just about anyone who decides to pose as one of them online because they want to give their opinion on the matter more weight. It's the words of the support group that cause me to doubt the women because I haven't heard anything the women have said. They keep speaking on their behalf.


(What it it's just revenge, what if it's just bad boundaries on the part of the victims, etc) The only thing I see gained from such discussion is protection of the status quo.

Again you also misunderstand. Any talk of the possibility of revenge comes from how the publications are worded (again the fault of the support group) and that the statement by Eve about a previous partner does show someone who has poor boundaries and seeks a particular style of polyamory that not everyone wants. Eve seems to suggest that all poly is *that way* so any poly woman will feel the same as her. That isn't a testimony of abuse - it's venting about a bitter break up. Nothing in that makes me think her ex is inherently harmful. If she came on this site, I'd tell her to focus on herself and her own relationships and less about what her partners are doing elsewhere. Consider if she would be more compatible with someone who agrees with the level of entanglement she obviously requires. I'd also tell her to set a budget and stick to it.

I've seen and read on this indicates that the process *was* initiated privately and was intended to remain so. FV is the one who went public about it with his scathing narrative (which was shown to be factually incorrect with receipts) and the Medium article was published in response to FV's public commentary on the process.

Apparently, it was less than 24 hours between a private letter and a public statement naming him. In between, he spoke of the letter and the ex but did not name anyone. In response to what he did, this "light and dark piece" was released. Obviously written and ready to fly if he responded in ways that were less than satisfactory to the group.

And it still seems that you're passing this assessment of transformative justice already deciding FV is "guilty" without much knowledge of what the process is about. Because it's not that into declaring people "guilty".

From what is released, FV has been openly accused of financially abusing or exploiting partners; exploiting youth/naivete in order to reel in new victims; neglecting partners to the point of abuse; "serious harm"; exploiting people with a mental illness and verbal abuse. You cannot say that they're accusing him of such actions but not attempting to "declare him guilty". Some of those things are crimes. They are absolutely trying to declare him guilty.

And as a point of information, the process does also examine the victim's role in perpetuating abuse and holding them accountable because the goal isn't "retribution" or "revenge".

I seriously doubt the 6 women would be happy for us to hear his side of things and analyse their actions. One of them at least seems to think KTP with access and even control over other relationships is what polyamory is about. I'd expect someone who wrote a book on the subject to be more adaptable to the range of poly relationships and realise that FV cannot be a nesting partner for her as he does things very differently. Downgrade the relationship and find a model that works for the people involved. Of course if you've already pretended that you're cool with everything and written a book saying as much, you're going to feel stuck.


I'll say again that the support group and their supporters need to stop going.around the Web arguing with people who are discussing it. I think the way it was handled will make it a lot more difficult for any victim to be believed but it's done now. Best thing is that they step back and leave any public accounts to victims now. Stay behind the scenes.
 
Would I date FV? No. But I'm highly unlikely to date anyone who writes a book about relationships and how to have them. Someone who does that is likely to be a worldclass dick in my opinion. But now, nor would I date any of the 6 or the 14. This has given me 21 new people to strike off my dating list.
 
Back
Top