Jump to content

:cake:


binary suns

Recommended Posts

Hear hear! *cheers*

I feel the same as you. Exactly the same, actually o_o And I also identify as asexual. It was very well said. Thank you :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice to hear this perspective. I'm sure many others feel the same way. :)

Much :cake: !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only speak for myself but I'm not going to reject you. We're even on each other's friend lists!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexuals can definitely be interested in sex, no problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
romantic-woman

ok you can label yourself as you like but when i read this it scared me, to tell you the truth. It is because i reject sex out of my life so imagine if an asexual like me find another asexual it will be nice cause we both don't want to have sex and that is why i can't understand what is the purpose of an asexual relationship if the 2nd makes me a surprise and starts to want sex of me :blink: or desire my body...cause for me it is when someone wants other's body unless he/she can choose masturbation to deal with a random arousal or whatever.

While there are, (and i do know) many sexuals who are willing to give up sex when they are satisfied on other parts of relationship it freaks me out to think that when i will meet an ace he may forget as you say sometimes that i don't need sex in a relationship so i will have to give up hopes about meeting people who really don't need sex in their lives..

But i guess that there are people who think like you so you will be able to find girls who want sex, at least in my life i need an asexual who are totally happy without sex or a celibate sexual who can be with me without wanting my body XD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds pretty asexual to me...

Personally I would never want to have sex since I don't feel arousal and don't enjoy/suffer from sexual touch, but if you find it physically comfortable I see why you'd initiate it despite not feeling sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and you find one of many of reasons why I have zero clues how I'll go about finding a partner someday.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get people who make lists of things of what they expect from a potential partner. To me, the whole beauty of other people is that they'll be unexpected and new, and anyone important to me will definitely change the way I view the world. So, it would be totally pointless to ahead of time think about what kind of person I'd want to be with and who not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sort of uncomfortable because I fear that people might say "but I've heard that some asexuals like sex and even may initiate it" as a way to try to pressure an asexual into sex with them, or to deny that their "no never" is valid. (This fear could also be all in my head, because of years of being erased as an asexual.) This is not about you personally and more about my more general issues with the way asexuality is defined on this forum as being about attraction only (versus other alternative definitions proposed here), which AVEN tries to get around by defining attraction as desiring partnered sex (for any reason), which is itself flawed.

There needs to be a way to express "I don't experience sexual attraction, but sometimes I am into sex," and that's NOT the same as Grey-A or demisexual, as you have pointed out. I also have a problem with the term "sex-repulsed" because of the set of asexuals who cannot under any circumstances consent to sex, not everyone is repulsed (they find the subject of sex really fascinating, and/or may enjoy porn or erotica etc.) -- what matters is that they are incapable as a matter of orientation of consenting to it themselves.

This is the issue for me -- not so much about how the community uses words (this is always in flux and always evolving, and I've been the way I am since long before the community came along, so I don't put a huge amount of stock in the words of the moment), but that I don't feel that someone who is capable of consenting to sex (anyone, whether sexual or asexual) has the "same" sexual orientation as me, mine being (in part) centrally defined by the intrinsic and innate inability to consent to physical sexual acts (which has always been the case for me). It is for me simply impossible.

But, you know, labels.

tl;dr I personally wish there was a way to succinctly express "as a matter of my orientation, I am incapable of consenting to sex" -- which doesn't have to hinge on what kinds of attraction someone feels and whether it qualifies as "sexual" in some way. I do experience sexual attraction. I sometimes experience it very, very strongly. I am asexual because as a matter of my orientation I am incapable of consenting to (physical) sex (and happen to also be repulsed by it, but that's not determinative).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francoise Wang

I'm sort of uncomfortable because I fear that people might say "but I've heard that some asexuals like sex and even may initiate it" as a way to try to pressure an asexual into sex with them, or to deny that their "no never" is valid. (This fear could also be all in my head, because of years of being erased as an asexual.) This is not about you personally and more about my more general issues with the way asexuality is defined on this forum as being about attraction only (versus other alternative definitions proposed here), which AVEN tries to get around by defining attraction as desiring partnered sex (for any reason), which is itself flawed.

There needs to be a way to express "I don't experience sexual attraction, but sometimes I am into sex," and that's NOT the same as Grey-A or demisexual, as you have pointed out. I also have a problem with the term "sex-repulsed" because of the set of asexuals who cannot under any circumstances consent to sex, not everyone is repulsed (they find the subject of sex really fascinating, and/or may enjoy porn or erotica etc.) -- what matters is that they are incapable as a matter of orientation of consenting to it themselves.

This is the issue for me -- not so much about how the community uses words (this is always in flux and always evolving, and I've been the way I am since long before the community came along, so I don't put a huge amount of stock in the words of the moment), but that I don't feel that someone who is capable of consenting to sex (anyone, whether sexual or asexual) has the "same" sexual orientation as me, mine being (in part) centrally defined by the intrinsic and innate inability to consent to physical sexual acts (which has always been the case for me). It is for me simply impossible.

But, you know, labels.

tl;dr I personally wish there was a way to succinctly express "as a matter of my orientation, I am incapable of consenting to sex" -- which doesn't have to hinge on what kinds of attraction someone feels and whether it qualifies as "sexual" in some way. I do experience sexual attraction. I sometimes experience it very, very strongly. I am asexual because as a matter of my orientation I am incapable of consenting to (physical) sex (and happen to also be repulsed by it, but that's not determinative).

You do experience sexual attraction, but you are incapable of even consenting to have sex? Then how can the attraction you experience be considered "sexual attraction"? The definition of "sexual attraction" is "an innate desire of partnered sex with the person you are attracted to". If the attraction you feel doesn't lead to "desire of partnered sex", why do you consider it "sexual attraction"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sort of uncomfortable because I fear that people might say "but I've heard that some asexuals like sex and even may initiate it" as a way to try to pressure an asexual into sex with them, or to deny that their "no never" is valid. (This fear could also be all in my head, because of years of being erased as an asexual.) This is not about you personally and more about my more general issues with the way asexuality is defined on this forum as being about attraction only (versus other alternative definitions proposed here), which AVEN tries to get around by defining attraction as desiring partnered sex (for any reason), which is itself flawed.

There needs to be a way to express "I don't experience sexual attraction, but sometimes I am into sex," and that's NOT the same as Grey-A or demisexual, as you have pointed out. I also have a problem with the term "sex-repulsed" because of the set of asexuals who cannot under any circumstances consent to sex, not everyone is repulsed (they find the subject of sex really fascinating, and/or may enjoy porn or erotica etc.) -- what matters is that they are incapable as a matter of orientation of consenting to it themselves.

This is the issue for me -- not so much about how the community uses words (this is always in flux and always evolving, and I've been the way I am since long before the community came along, so I don't put a huge amount of stock in the words of the moment), but that I don't feel that someone who is capable of consenting to sex (anyone, whether sexual or asexual) has the "same" sexual orientation as me, mine being (in part) centrally defined by the intrinsic and innate inability to consent to physical sexual acts (which has always been the case for me). It is for me simply impossible.

But, you know, labels.

tl;dr I personally wish there was a way to succinctly express "as a matter of my orientation, I am incapable of consenting to sex" -- which doesn't have to hinge on what kinds of attraction someone feels and whether it qualifies as "sexual" in some way. I do experience sexual attraction. I sometimes experience it very, very strongly. I am asexual because as a matter of my orientation I am incapable of consenting to (physical) sex (and happen to also be repulsed by it, but that's not determinative).

You do experience sexual attraction, but you are incapable of even consenting to have sex? Then how can the attraction you experience be considered "sexual attraction"? The definition of "sexual attraction" is "an innate desire of partnered sex with the person you are attracted to". If the attraction you feel doesn't lead to "desire of partnered sex", why do you consider it "sexual attraction"?

This is sort of long but the short version of it is that I am incapable of consenting to physical sex (see text under my icon). When I am sexually attracted to someone, being in contact with their energy makes me sexually aroused, their thoughts sexually arouse me, and I may want to engage in non-physical sex with them (energy-based). Clothing off not required. Anything to do with touching genitals squicks me out.

What a partner visualizes doing to me I literally feel. Sex is "get in my head and do me" -- though to the outside (sounds aside), it might look like intense cuddling.

What I am incapable of consenting to is anything involving genital contact, physical penetration, etc. All of that is also entirely orthogonal to what constitutes sex for me. It's complicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and you find one of many of reasons why I have zero clues how I'll go about finding a partner someday.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get people who make lists of things of what they expect from a potential partner. To me, the whole beauty of other people is that they'll be unexpected and new, and anyone important to me will definitely change the way I view the world. So, it would be totally pointless to ahead of time think about what kind of person I'd want to be with and who not.

I don't make a list

it's just that I don't know what to do

first dilemma being that I don't experience sexual or romantic attraction.. .how am I to validate to a parrtner that I'm worth them wanting me if I don't want them?

second is that I can't satisfy a sexual person's needs but also don't match most asexual person's needs

it's mostly that for now, who knows what else will come up tho :unsure:

I can relate to that. I don't think I would have been interested in my partner if they didn't show interest first. I became emotionally attracted to them cuz they tried to bond with me on a deeper level. I have no preference whatsoever, not even gender cuz I'm almost completely aromantic and as a demiromantic I only experience romantic attraction as an extension of emotional attraction which itself is so intangible. No preference in looks cuz I don't experience aesthetic attraction. No preference in personality either since I get along with random people. It just happened when I wasn't expecting a thing at all. So who knows? I hope you find a partner who loves and cares for you and vice versa and it doesn't have to be romantic :) but I have to admit that it's so much easier to get a romantic partner. Most aren't willing to bond with you if it weren't romantic :/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am incapable of consenting to sex

if someone says this about themselves, there are zero ways of denying it.

(somehow, at least in the past, hearing someone say this has made me uncomfortable, but I'm positive it's because our sexual culture has ground the idea that sex is a healthy necessity for a relationship. now that I realize the solid validity in the logic of the statement, I dunno if I'll squirm anymore lol)

There is nothing whatsoever in society's expectations of genital contact with other people that I find remotely healthy for me personally. I want nothing to do with that.

Sex (or any type) is also not a necessity for a healthy relationship, where neither of the partners needs it for a healthy relationship. Obviously if both partners do, and there's no sex, then there will be problems in the relationship. But there are also people for whom sex would inherently make a relationship unhealthy, since it's not something they can consent to, or not something they can tolerate even if they can consent. And for some people, it's just not something they ever enjoy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sort of uncomfortable because I fear that people might say "but I've heard that some asexuals like sex and even may initiate it" as a way to try to pressure an asexual into sex with them, or to deny that their "no never" is valid. (This fear could also be all in my head, because of years of being erased as an asexual.) This is not about you personally and more about my more general issues with the way asexuality is defined on this forum as being about attraction only (versus other alternative definitions proposed here), which AVEN tries to get around by defining attraction as desiring partnered sex (for any reason), which is itself flawed.

There needs to be a way to express "I don't experience sexual attraction, but sometimes I am into sex," and that's NOT the same as Grey-A or demisexual, as you have pointed out. I also have a problem with the term "sex-repulsed" because of the set of asexuals who cannot under any circumstances consent to sex, not everyone is repulsed (they find the subject of sex really fascinating, and/or may enjoy porn or erotica etc.) -- what matters is that they are incapable as a matter of orientation of consenting to it themselves.

This is the issue for me -- not so much about how the community uses words (this is always in flux and always evolving, and I've been the way I am since long before the community came along, so I don't put a huge amount of stock in the words of the moment), but that I don't feel that someone who is capable of consenting to sex (anyone, whether sexual or asexual) has the "same" sexual orientation as me, mine being (in part) centrally defined by the intrinsic and innate inability to consent to physical sexual acts (which has always been the case for me). It is for me simply impossible.

But, you know, labels.

tl;dr I personally wish there was a way to succinctly express "as a matter of my orientation, I am incapable of consenting to sex" -- which doesn't have to hinge on what kinds of attraction someone feels and whether it qualifies as "sexual" in some way. I do experience sexual attraction. I sometimes experience it very, very strongly. I am asexual because as a matter of my orientation I am incapable of consenting to (physical) sex (and happen to also be repulsed by it, but that's not determinative).

You do experience sexual attraction, but you are incapable of even consenting to have sex? Then how can the attraction you experience be considered "sexual attraction"? The definition of "sexual attraction" is "an innate desire of partnered sex with the person you are attracted to". If the attraction you feel doesn't lead to "desire of partnered sex", why do you consider it "sexual attraction"?

This is sort of long but the short version of it is that I am incapable of consenting to physical sex (see text under my icon). When I am sexually attracted to someone, being in contact with their energy makes me sexually aroused, their thoughts sexually arouse me, and I may want to engage in non-physical sex with them (energy-based). Clothing off not required. Anything to do with touching genitals squicks me out.

What a partner visualizes doing to me I literally feel. Sex is "get in my head and do me" -- though to the outside (sounds aside), it might look like intense cuddling.

What I am incapable of consenting to is anything involving genital contact, physical penetration, etc.. All of that is also entirely orthogonal to what constitutes sex for me. It's complicated.

Wow, that's interesting. I'm the complete opposite of you. I can't imagine myself having sex in my mind. Mental arousal rarely ever occurs to me and it's also very fleeting. I'm capable of physical sex. All it requires is rubbing things the right way at the right time lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sort of uncomfortable because I fear that people might say "but I've heard that some asexuals like sex and even may initiate it" as a way to try to pressure an asexual into sex with them, or to deny that their "no never" is valid. (This fear could also be all in my head, because of years of being erased as an asexual.) This is not about you personally and more about my more general issues with the way asexuality is defined on this forum as being about attraction only (versus other alternative definitions proposed here), which AVEN tries to get around by defining attraction as desiring partnered sex (for any reason), which is itself flawed.

There needs to be a way to express "I don't experience sexual attraction, but sometimes I am into sex," and that's NOT the same as Grey-A or demisexual, as you have pointed out. I also have a problem with the term "sex-repulsed" because of the set of asexuals who cannot under any circumstances consent to sex, not everyone is repulsed (they find the subject of sex really fascinating, and/or may enjoy porn or erotica etc.) -- what matters is that they are incapable as a matter of orientation of consenting to it themselves.

This is the issue for me -- not so much about how the community uses words (this is always in flux and always evolving, and I've been the way I am since long before the community came along, so I don't put a huge amount of stock in the words of the moment), but that I don't feel that someone who is capable of consenting to sex (anyone, whether sexual or asexual) has the "same" sexual orientation as me, mine being (in part) centrally defined by the intrinsic and innate inability to consent to physical sexual acts (which has always been the case for me). It is for me simply impossible.

But, you know, labels.

tl;dr I personally wish there was a way to succinctly express "as a matter of my orientation, I am incapable of consenting to sex" -- which doesn't have to hinge on what kinds of attraction someone feels and whether it qualifies as "sexual" in some way. I do experience sexual attraction. I sometimes experience it very, very strongly. I am asexual because as a matter of my orientation I am incapable of consenting to (physical) sex (and happen to also be repulsed by it, but that's not determinative).

You do experience sexual attraction, but you are incapable of even consenting to have sex? Then how can the attraction you experience be considered "sexual attraction"? The definition of "sexual attraction" is "an innate desire of partnered sex with the person you are attracted to". If the attraction you feel doesn't lead to "desire of partnered sex", why do you consider it "sexual attraction"?

This is sort of long but the short version of it is that I am incapable of consenting to physical sex (see text under my icon). When I am sexually attracted to someone, being in contact with their energy makes me sexually aroused, their thoughts sexually arouse me, and I may want to engage in non-physical sex with them (energy-based). Clothing off not required. Anything to do with touching genitals squicks me out.

What a partner visualizes doing to me I literally feel. Sex is "get in my head and do me" -- though to the outside (sounds aside), it might look like intense cuddling.

What I am incapable of consenting to is anything involving genital contact, physical penetration, etc.. All of that is also entirely orthogonal to what constitutes sex for me. It's complicated.

Wow, that's interesting. I'm the complete opposite of you. I can't imagine myself having sex in my mind. Mental arousal rarely ever occurs to me and it's also very fleeting. I'm capable of physical sex. All it requires is rubbing things the right way at the right time lol

Heck, I wouldn't even have contact with my own genitals if I didn't have to for hygiene.

Self-stimulation for me is also entirely mental -- I think things, get aroused, and climax if I want to. It's really not so exciting as having a partner. It's usually very quick and boring. Sex for me is getting off on someone else's thoughts (which isn't necessarily easy... it takes some skill in said partner), even better if we're both getting off on each other's thoughts. Physical limitations need not apply -- well-matched partners can do this on and off for hours.

Bodies, I don't get what's "sexual" about them, except in that they make other people think sexual things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sort of uncomfortable because I fear that people might say "but I've heard that some asexuals like sex and even may initiate it" as a way to try to pressure an asexual into sex with them, or to deny that their "no never" is valid. (This fear could also be all in my head, because of years of being erased as an asexual.) This is not about you personally and more about my more general issues with the way asexuality is defined on this forum as being about attraction only (versus other alternative definitions proposed here), which AVEN tries to get around by defining attraction as desiring partnered sex (for any reason), which is itself flawed.

There needs to be a way to express "I don't experience sexual attraction, but sometimes I am into sex," and that's NOT the same as Grey-A or demisexual, as you have pointed out. I also have a problem with the term "sex-repulsed" because of the set of asexuals who cannot under any circumstances consent to sex, not everyone is repulsed (they find the subject of sex really fascinating, and/or may enjoy porn or erotica etc.) -- what matters is that they are incapable as a matter of orientation of consenting to it themselves.

This is the issue for me -- not so much about how the community uses words (this is always in flux and always evolving, and I've been the way I am since long before the community came along, so I don't put a huge amount of stock in the words of the moment), but that I don't feel that someone who is capable of consenting to sex (anyone, whether sexual or asexual) has the "same" sexual orientation as me, mine being (in part) centrally defined by the intrinsic and innate inability to consent to physical sexual acts (which has always been the case for me). It is for me simply impossible.

But, you know, labels.

tl;dr I personally wish there was a way to succinctly express "as a matter of my orientation, I am incapable of consenting to sex" -- which doesn't have to hinge on what kinds of attraction someone feels and whether it qualifies as "sexual" in some way. I do experience sexual attraction. I sometimes experience it very, very strongly. I am asexual because as a matter of my orientation I am incapable of consenting to (physical) sex (and happen to also be repulsed by it, but that's not determinative).

You do experience sexual attraction, but you are incapable of even consenting to have sex? Then how can the attraction you experience be considered "sexual attraction"? The definition of "sexual attraction" is "an innate desire of partnered sex with the person you are attracted to". If the attraction you feel doesn't lead to "desire of partnered sex", why do you consider it "sexual attraction"?

This is sort of long but the short version of it is that I am incapable of consenting to physical sex (see text under my icon). When I am sexually attracted to someone, being in contact with their energy makes me sexually aroused, their thoughts sexually arouse me, and I may want to engage in non-physical sex with them (energy-based). Clothing off not required. Anything to do with touching genitals squicks me out.

What a partner visualizes doing to me I literally feel. Sex is "get in my head and do me" -- though to the outside (sounds aside), it might look like intense cuddling.

What I am incapable of consenting to is anything involving genital contact, physical penetration, etc.. All of that is also entirely orthogonal to what constitutes sex for me. It's complicated.

Wow, that's interesting. I'm the complete opposite of you. I can't imagine myself having sex in my mind. Mental arousal rarely ever occurs to me and it's also very fleeting. I'm capable of physical sex. All it requires is rubbing things the right way at the right time lol

Heck, I wouldn't even have contact with my own genitals if I didn't have to for hygiene.

Self-stimulation for me is also entirely mental -- I think things, get aroused, and climax if I want to. It's really not so exciting as having a partner. It's usually very quick and boring. Sex for me is getting off on someone else's thoughts (which isn't necessarily easy... it takes some skill in said partner), even better if we're both getting off on each other's thoughts. Physical limitations need not apply -- well-matched partners can do this on and off for hours.

Bodies, I don't get what's "sexual" about them, except in that they make other people think sexual things.

WORD! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bodies, I don't get what's "sexual" about them, except in that they make other people think sexual things.

WORD! :D

Bodies are meat! Why would looking at meat turn me on?! Even more bizarre, why would looking at a pic turn me on? (The most I can imagine is that I would see something and imagine myself in that situation and then get turned on by my own thoughts. Which may be arousal, but it's not really attraction.)

I am often oblivious to whether someone looks "hot" or not because I have little to no basis on which to judge that, and tend not to notice people's appearances very much anyway unless there is something very striking. And unless people have distinctive body tattoos or other unique features, people tend to all look the same to me naked. Flesh flesh flesh... flesh flesh flesh... boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Deleted Person

I know there always seems to be an argument going on here somewhere about this topic, but I personally don't see what the problem is. If I was you I'd probably describe myself as a 'sex positive' asexual to distinguish myself from other asexuals and leave it at that. Sex releases all kinds of hormones and reactions so I'm not surprised some people find it nice even without an innate desire/libido/whatever... that is what it's designed to do after all. I mean I don't have an innate desire for cake, but if someone's offering me a slice I'm probably going to take it! It's basically the same thing (in my mind). I see it as like being offered a slice of dark fruit cake. Some people will look at it and say "No thanks, I don't like currents." and others will say "I love currents" while still others will be "Well some kinds of fruit cake a like, but it really depends on my mood and how many cherries it has in it". No one has an innate desire to eat fruit cake, they probably won't think about it afterwards or want to go home to make some, or miss the fact they may never eat fruit cake again, but if it's offered they might say yes.

I would describe myself as sex neural, perhaps mildly repulsed or on that border (to be defined later if I ever get into that situation). I don't know if I could ever have sex, I sometimes think I could with the right person and other times thing that I'd probably freak out if the situation came up. I have no libido, no desire, no interest at all other then mild curiosity and the hertro-nomartive expectation that if I get into a relationship with a boy that it's probably going to be expected... but I'm not really surprised that there are people who feel differently to me (positive or negative).

I want to also put my two cents in that when I learnt that some asexuals could, and were happy in, sexual relationships it actually made me very happy and feel more positive about myself, because before I was convinced that I'd never be able to enjoy a relationship and that no non-asexual could possibly want me or try to make it work. I don't know if that's true for me or not, but the fact that it is possible for some was a very uplifting moment for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the sub-labels of asexuality aren't exactly organized. I have heard of sex-favorable/repulsed, which is whether one would want sex themselves, and sex-positive/negative, which is whether one is accepting of sex in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WoodwindWhistler

I think I'm very very similar to you. The only difference is that I choose the gray label consciously because it's easier to explain to others than "well, I don't personally believe what I do feel IS sexual attraction, because I have a very specific definition in mind that isn't in general usage, and anyway it's hard to define and I could write an entire paper about it." It seems better for all involved to let those who are 100% sure use the label and just be a go-between for allosexuals and my fellow AVENites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, wanting to have sex with a partner isn't exactly a point against asexuality. Sex is kind of the point of romance. It's why people get jealous, because it all comes back to people trying to secure mates, and even if some don't naturally have the behavior that leads to that, the pervasiveness of it means that we all learn from it to a degree too.

Besides, asexuals, I imagine, want to have kids as much as sexuals, and that logically implies that you're going to have sex to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sort of uncomfortable because I fear that people might say "but I've heard that some asexuals like sex and even may initiate it" as a way to try to pressure an asexual into sex with them, or to deny that their "no never" is valid.

I have the opposite opinion that a label is not a defense. For instance, if a guy asked me out, then my "heterosexual" label would not be a defense against that. I'd still have to turn them down. I can also not say "I will never enjoy sex with a guy" because I can't know that. Something might change. Probably not, but who knows.

Asexuality is a very useful label to describe one's underlying mechanisms that influence your love life and all that. But it's not really there to explain what you will and won't do. It's better to just *say* what you will and won't do, and to be as clear on those boundaries as you need to be for your own comfort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

first dilemma being that I don't experience sexual or romantic attraction.. .how am I to validate to a parrtner that I'm worth them wanting me if I don't want them?

I think when you find someone who's a suitable partner all that will resolve itself. However, it's entirely possible never to find such a person, which is sad. :/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...