• Announcements

    • Kelly

      AVENues Holiday Special Edition is now live   08/17/17

      The new edition of AVENues is done!   See:        
    • Lady Girl

      Ace Community Census   11/06/17

      It’s time for the 2017 Ace Community Census!   see:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/162675-announcing-the-2017-ace-community-census/  
    • Heart

      Help fund AVEN's servers!   11/06/17

      AVEN is doing its annual fundraiser to raise donations for server costs! See http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163251-aven-server-fundraiser/ for more details.  

Archived

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

Rivan Vox

I am asexual. I want sex. These are not mutually exclusive in the least.

Recommended Posts

Skullery Maid
I do agree that the definition of asexuality has to become more refined. It's like asexuality has become the new trendy thing (remember a few years ago when almost every teenager on MySpace declared themselves bisexual?) which doesn't do any justice to our visibility. How can the larger society take us seriously when so many on AVEN are calling themselves asexual just because they "hate having a uterus" or "sex freaks them out"?

Well, how many gay men are freaked out by vulvas? Or lesbians think penises are disgusting? Does it mean that their sexuality is no longer valid - that their sexuality is simply an aversion?

I think the question you meant to ask is:

How many men want to have sex with women, are drawn to women, but call themselves gay because they don't like vulvas?

Most people are freaked out about sex when they start having it. It took me a long freakin' time to get used to touching another lady body. That doesn't make me not gay. Most sexual people think genitalia is gross, but that doesn't make them not sexual. One's opinion of genitalia isn't a relevant factor in sexual orientation.

EDIT: RD, is it your contention that one's orientation is dictated by which genitalia they prefer? Honestly, I think the majority of people prefer their own, but the majority of people aren't gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RandomDent
I do agree that the definition of asexuality has to become more refined. It's like asexuality has become the new trendy thing (remember a few years ago when almost every teenager on MySpace declared themselves bisexual?) which doesn't do any justice to our visibility. How can the larger society take us seriously when so many on AVEN are calling themselves asexual just because they "hate having a uterus" or "sex freaks them out"?

Well, how many gay men are freaked out by vulvas? Or lesbians think penises are disgusting? Does it mean that their sexuality is no longer valid - that their sexuality is simply an aversion?

I think the question you meant to ask is:

How many men want to have sex with women, are drawn to women, but call themselves gay because they don't like vulvas?

Most people are freaked out about sex when they start having it. It took me a long freakin' time to get used to touching another lady body. That doesn't make me not gay. Most sexual people think genitalia is gross, but that doesn't make them not sexual. One's opinion of genitalia isn't a relevant factor in sexual orientation.

EDIT: RD, is it your contention that one's orientation is dictated by which genitalia they prefer? Honestly, I think the majority of people prefer their own, but the majority of people aren't gay.

No, I was merely pointing out that an orientation isn't simply decided by an aversion to certain acts, or parts of the body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SFX

Vamp actually suggested incorporating that into the current definition:

In my own view of what asexuality is, I have made clear that I think is encompasses BOTH the lack of sexual attraction AND the lack of innate sexual drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex. I believe that encorporating both of these traits in the description of what asexuality is and means eliminates the possibility of including sexuals who simply choose to obstain from sex. Neither of these traits have much to do with conscious will, they are simply traits that an indivudal either does or does not possess. If an individual has one of these traits and not the other then I would feel comfortable putting them in the Grey-A category, which is all ready there as the middle ground between asexual and full sexual.

.. which I think is a lot better than separating sexual attraction and the innate drive, since (again, as Vamp as pointed out) they would mean very little without the other.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but by saying that asexuality "encompasses both the lack of sexual attraction and the lack of innate sexual drive towards fulfillment from partnered sex" I think one is actually making that separation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣



Basically, it's a slippery slope to include lack of sex drive in the definition of Asexual, because then, it'd only be a matter of time before it's narrowed down to only include cis gender Aces or extroverted/sociable Aces etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid
I do agree that the definition of asexuality has to become more refined. It's like asexuality has become the new trendy thing (remember a few years ago when almost every teenager on MySpace declared themselves bisexual?) which doesn't do any justice to our visibility. How can the larger society take us seriously when so many on AVEN are calling themselves asexual just because they "hate having a uterus" or "sex freaks them out"?

Well, how many gay men are freaked out by vulvas? Or lesbians think penises are disgusting? Does it mean that their sexuality is no longer valid - that their sexuality is simply an aversion?

I think the question you meant to ask is:

How many men want to have sex with women, are drawn to women, but call themselves gay because they don't like vulvas?

Most people are freaked out about sex when they start having it. It took me a long freakin' time to get used to touching another lady body. That doesn't make me not gay. Most sexual people think genitalia is gross, but that doesn't make them not sexual. One's opinion of genitalia isn't a relevant factor in sexual orientation.

EDIT: RD, is it your contention that one's orientation is dictated by which genitalia they prefer? Honestly, I think the majority of people prefer their own, but the majority of people aren't gay.

No, I was merely pointing out that an orientation isn't simply decided by an aversion to certain acts, or parts of the body.

I'm pretty sure that's the same point bromance and I were making. An aversion to genitalia is a bad reason to adopt an orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

Basically, it's a slippery slope to include lack of sex drive in the definition of Asexual, because then, it'd only be a matter of time before it's narrowed down to only include cis gender Aces or extroverted/sociable Aces etc etc.

WHAT.

I can't watch the link, but I can't think of a single argument that would make "I have no drive to seek out sex" to mean I = cisgendered extroverts. I can also make a slippery slope argument out of anything to prove anything. Just sayin'.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but by saying that asexuality "encompasses both the lack of sexual attraction and the lack of innate sexual drive towards fulfillment from partnered sex" I think one is actually making that separation.

They're already being separated because, as it is now, you can have an innate drive to have sex so long as you don't feel "sexual attraction". At which point I think some of us are suggesting that requires a really weird definition of "sexual attraction" if you're disconnecting it from an innate desire toward sex. I would call it a wrong definition of sexual attraction.

EDIT: Vamp ninja'd me. She said it better. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

Vamp actually suggested incorporating that into the current definition:

In my own view of what asexuality is, I have made clear that I think is encompasses BOTH the lack of sexual attraction AND the lack of innate sexual drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex. I believe that encorporating both of these traits in the description of what asexuality is and means eliminates the possibility of including sexuals who simply choose to obstain from sex. Neither of these traits have much to do with conscious will, they are simply traits that an indivudal either does or does not possess. If an individual has one of these traits and not the other then I would feel comfortable putting them in the Grey-A category, which is all ready there as the middle ground between asexual and full sexual.

.. which I think is a lot better than separating sexual attraction and the innate drive, since (again, as Vamp as pointed out) they would mean very little without the other.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but by saying that asexuality "encompasses both the lack of sexual attraction and the lack of innate sexual drive towards fulfillment from partnered sex" I think one is actually making that separation.

What I am saying is that having an innate drive towards sex is directly dependent upon experiencing some kind of sexual attraction. I have phrased it in such a fashion because here on AVEN there is a very clear divide between the two concepts, according to many. While they are different concepts and therefore have different definitions, I do not believe they are nearly so seperate as some seem to believe.

I do believe there are certain rare situations in which sexual attraction can exist without an innate sexual drive, such as those with a lack of libido. This being the case, it is clear to me that they are different concepts. What I am theorizing, however, is that, in most cases, these two concepts cannot exist independently and, in all cases, sexual drive cannot exist seperate of sexual attraction. Thus, while they are sufficiently seperate concepts that they can be discussed as such, one is directly dependent upon the other and cannot exist without the other accompanying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

Basically, it's a slippery slope to include lack of sex drive in the definition of Asexual, because then, it'd only be a matter of time before it's narrowed down to only include cis gender Aces or extroverted/sociable Aces etc etc.

I have absolutely no idea how one logically follows the other even by stretching my mind in order to try and do so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

All I can think is it's something like:

1. I like bread.

2. I am the kind of person who goes out to buy bread.

3. Jim also likes bread.

4. Jim is not the kind of person who goes out to buy bread.

5. Jim and i originally had the same bread drive.

6. Jim has gotten used to not going to the bakery every day.

7. Jim no longer feels such a strong drive to get bread.

8. Jim no longer likes bread.

9. Jim has become an abreadual.

Of course that proves the exact opposite of AOC's premise, which is that only extroverted social people would be asexual. Regardless, this little "proof" of mine has so many logical holes I can barely stand typing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

All I can think is it's something like:

1. I like bread.

2. I am the kind of person who goes out to buy bread.

3. Jim also likes bread.

4. Jim is not the kind of person who goes out to buy bread.

5. Jim and i originally had the same bread drive.

6. Jim has gotten used to not going to the bakery every day.

7. Jim no longer feels such a strong drive to get bread.

8. Jim no longer likes bread.

9. Jim has become an abreadual.

Of course that proves the exact opposite of AOC's premise, which is that only extroverted social people would be asexual. Regardless, this little "proof" of mine has so many logical holes I can barely stand typing it.

Logical or not, you are on a role with posts that make me giggle today :cake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

Happy Friday!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kisa the Cat

All I can think is it's something like:

1. I like bread.

2. I am the kind of person who goes out to buy bread.

3. Jim also likes bread.

4. Jim is not the kind of person who goes out to buy bread.

5. Jim and i originally had the same bread drive.

6. Jim has gotten used to not going to the bakery every day.

7. Jim no longer feels such a strong drive to get bread.

8. Jim no longer likes bread.

9. Jim has become an abreadual.

Of course that proves the exact opposite of AOC's premise, which is that only extroverted social people would be asexual. Regardless, this little "proof" of mine has so many logical holes I can barely stand typing it.

Logical or not, you are on a role with posts that make me giggle today :cake:

I couldn't help but think of rolls when you said that. That post really took the :cake:

*leaves before making another half-baked off topic pun*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

would the person who baked this be a breadual or an abreadual?

whythebakergotfired.jpg

All I can think is it's something like:

1. I like bread.

2. I am the kind of person who goes out to buy bread.

3. Jim also likes bread.

4. Jim is not the kind of person who goes out to buy bread.

5. Jim and i originally had the same bread drive.

6. Jim has gotten used to not going to the bakery every day.

7. Jim no longer feels such a strong drive to get bread.

8. Jim no longer likes bread.

9. Jim has become an abreadual.

Of course that proves the exact opposite of AOC's premise, which is that only extroverted social people would be asexual. Regardless, this little "proof" of mine has so many logical holes I can barely stand typing it.

Logical or not, you are on a role with posts that make me giggle today :cake:

I couldn't help but think of rolls when you said that. That post really took the :cake:

*leaves before making another half-baked off topic pun*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naosuu

Basically, it's a slippery slope to include lack of sex drive in the definition of Asexual, because then, it'd only be a matter of time before it's narrowed down to only include cis gender Aces or extroverted/sociable Aces etc etc.

I don't see how this could lead to cisgendered or extroverts/sociable being the only asexuals?

All I can think is it's something like:

1. I like bread.

2. I am the kind of person who goes out to buy bread.

3. Jim also likes bread.

4. Jim is not the kind of person who goes out to buy bread.

5. Jim and i originally had the same bread drive.

6. Jim has gotten used to not going to the bakery every day.

7. Jim no longer feels such a strong drive to get bread.

8. Jim no longer likes bread.

9. Jim has become an abreadual.

Of course that proves the exact opposite of AOC's premise, which is that only extroverted social people would be asexual. Regardless, this little "proof" of mine has so many logical holes I can barely stand typing it.

:cake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

Basically, what I'm saying is, that you and vamp think Asexuality as it's currently defined is 'too confusing' for the general public to understand. However, to simplify Asexuality to make it easier to understand to the general public, you'd be getting into unassailable Asexual territory. Which would alienate Asexuals who don't fit the perfect image of an Asexual, not just from society, but from our own community. Do you really want that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nogitsune

But... if we'd include "lack of drive to engage in sex" because of the assumption that an innate drive to engage in sex is not possible without sexual attraction, why can't we just stick to the definition based purely on sexual attraction and use the drive thing as an explanation if and when we need it?

For one, I don't think "refining" the definition this way would help clear up any confusion, because people may very well make the leap from "drive to engage in sex" to "sex drive" (in the sense of "libido"), and I'm also not on board with this because we simply have no compelling evidence that you can not be driven to engage in sex without experiencing sexual attraction. Even some fetishes may involve sex, and separating a desire to indulge such a fetish from a desire to enage in sex could be very hard, if not impossible, for some people.

(...Damn, now I want bread. With honey. Edit: And I just realized that putting this below my post seems... random. xD)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

Basically, what I'm saying is, that you and vamp think Asexuality as it's currently defined is 'too confusing' for the general public to understand. However, to simplify Asexuality to make it easier to understand to the general public, you'd be getting into unassailable Asexual territory. Which would alienate Asexuals who don't fit the perfect image of an Asexual, not just from society, but from our own community. Do you really want that?

Honestly, I really couldn't care less about that. Right now the way the definitions are set up, you can say "i want to have sex, I just don't feel attraction", but that requires one to use a really dumb definition of sexual attraction that requires a person to mentally twist into pretzels. From my perspective, if you genuinely want sex and seek out sex and you say you don't feel sexual attraction, you're either lying or your definition of sexual attraction is nonsensical. And I've seen a lot of nonsensical definitions of sexual attraction on AVEN, which doesn't surprise me in the least since that's how a person gets membership in this club. If membership were restricted to no innate desire, there wouldn't be 10 kids a day trying to claim they feel no sexual attraction even though they obviously feel sexual attraction.

Your objection seems odd to me, btw. All of asexuality has to look stupid to the general public because you don't want to offend someone who, although loves having sex, also loves calling himself asexual? I, for one, couldn't care less if someone who took one criminal law class and calls themselves a lawyer gets told that they are not, in fact, a lawyer. I see nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faelights

You know, just to throw this out there: for a while, the "Collective Identity Model" for the definition of asexuality was touted. Man, confusing as hell. Glad that's not the prevalent definition anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bromance
I do agree that the definition of asexuality has to become more refined. It's like asexuality has become the new trendy thing (remember a few years ago when almost every teenager on MySpace declared themselves bisexual?) which doesn't do any justice to our visibility. How can the larger society take us seriously when so many on AVEN are calling themselves asexual just because they "hate having a uterus" or "sex freaks them out"?

Well, how many gay men are freaked out by vulvas? Or lesbians think penises are disgusting? Does it mean that their sexuality is no longer valid - that their sexuality is simply an aversion?

I think the question you meant to ask is:

How many men want to have sex with women, are drawn to women, but call themselves gay because they don't like vulvas?

Most people are freaked out about sex when they start having it. It took me a long freakin' time to get used to touching another lady body. That doesn't make me not gay. Most sexual people think genitalia is gross, but that doesn't make them not sexual. One's opinion of genitalia isn't a relevant factor in sexual orientation.

EDIT: RD, is it your contention that one's orientation is dictated by which genitalia they prefer? Honestly, I think the majority of people prefer their own, but the majority of people aren't gay.

No, I was merely pointing out that an orientation isn't simply decided by an aversion to certain acts, or parts of the body.

Which exactly was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naosuu

Honestly, I really couldn't care less about that. Right now the way the definitions are set up, you can say "i want to have sex, I just don't feel attraction", but that requires one to use a really dumb definition of sexual attraction that requires a person to mentally twist into pretzels. From my perspective, if you genuinely want sex and seek out sex and you say you don't feel sexual attraction, you're either lying or your definition of sexual attraction is nonsensical. And I've seen a lot of nonsensical definitions of sexual attraction on AVEN, which doesn't surprise me in the least since that's how a person gets membership in this club. If membership were restricted to no innate desire, there wouldn't be 10 kids a day trying to claim they feel no sexual attraction even though they obviously feel sexual attraction.

Your objection seems odd to me, btw. All of asexuality has to look stupid to the general public because you don't want to offend someone who, although loves having sex, also loves calling himself asexual? I, for one, couldn't care less if someone who took one criminal law class and calls themselves a lawyer gets told that they are not, in fact, a lawyer. I see nothing wrong with that.

This is the prevailing objections I've been seeing so far: most people here want to be sensitive and want to be very inclusive. Some have voiced that they don't want to expand the definition because it's too confusing. However, like Skullery has said, the definition itself is already very confusing. I mean, just do a quick look-over on the first TWO pages of Asexual Q&A:

  • Sexual attraction (asks what it is)
  • I don't know... (don't know if i'm asexual? Help?)
  • Another confused.
  • New confused and has questions
  • Am I asexual or just plain weird?!
  • Another "Am I asexual?"
  • Am I Asexual? (x2)
  • Define my asexual type.
  • Is this asexual or something else?

... so I have to ask: why is this confusion so prevalent? I mean, it's not even questions about their relationship with sex (like "I've had sex a few times but it hasn't done much for me..." or, "My mind turns off when anything becomes sexual." or, "I've had sex with my partner even though I never really felt that I should") but most of them revolve around "is this sexual attraction??". Take into account how individual sexual attraction is (and, arguably learned), how sexual attraction is lumped together with desire (that is, the drive for sexual contact with another person), aesthetic attraction (which is arguably the first stepping stone for most sexuals to sexual attraction) and all the other various factors I've already listed... yes, by all means, provide a safe place for people to figure themselves out, but I think it's a dysfunction when you make one space a "safe place" while trying to advocate an orientation, as it begins to inform that safe place into a safe place... for asexuals.

I've asked myself this multiple times: how do I know what I'm experiencing isn't sexual attraction? If I do, then I'm not asexual... but if I don't, I'm asexual. But what is it? I've searched quite tirelessly through the forums, and quite frankly I haven't found any correlation between two sexuals. The cold, hard fact is that it is so individual, so how can you base your identity off of something you can't even define?

The stigma only arises in asexuality because every other orientation has sexual attraction and desire as a complete package. For most orientations, it's mostly about what rustles your jimmies and the possible consequences that might entail (such as household, friends, going against the hetero-normative society, etc). Asexuality breaks all the presumptions people had about sexuality. Again, this is why I think it's actually a good idea to expand it: base it off of something more concrete than this mysterious sexual attraction. From my reading, the most prevalent theme I've noticed is the lack of an innate drive for sexual contact with another person; even if sex enters the relationship, it isn't "ignited". If you put this together with sexual attraction, it actually makes a lot more sense than basing it off of attraction OR drive precisely because these two things have a tendency to go hand-in-hand. As Vamp has mentioned, if anyone experiences one or the other, there is the Gray-A area.

I mean, if someone is already concerned about its confusing definition, of course it's going to be confusing! Asexuality has never been formally researched in such depth until recently. Anything new and unknown is going to be confusing, but once more knowledge is accumulated it should shed some light on what's really going on. Quite frankly, more often than not the easiest road is not always the best.

You know, just to throw this out there: for a while, the "Collective Identity Model" for the definition of asexuality was touted. Man, confusing as hell. Glad that's not the prevalent definition anymore.

..... Wow, that is confusing. How... ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reptillian

As an asocial aromantic asexual, I'll be sure be open to the idea of having sex as an alternative to socializing to develop relationship in order to experiment and shit as long as they understand that I have limits when it comes to potential relationships. Unlikely that I'll find someone, but I am not willing to shell out the social efforts as that is too mental draining even if it is for a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rivan Vox

O.O

So I go out to disapprove of an irksome behavior I've noticed, and ti ends up with everyone and their nanny have a discussion about a pretty vital thing to the asexual boards. Jeez, and I thought that sex wasn't really that important. For asexuals, we sure do spend a whole lot of time talking about sex.

So, according to the new definition:

A: Hey, guess what?

B: Oh God what is it.

A: Y'know, that sex thing? That everyone's doing? Why are they doing that? I don't see the attraction. I mean, I guess it probably feels good.. but, I mean, cake is good too. Why don't we have cake movies? What don't we have the phrase 'cake sells?" Why don't we talk about who is eating cake with who? Or massages? Why does the pleasure that sex give get put on a pedestal? I mean, it's not like CAKE can impregnate me, or give a Frostually Transmitted Disease..

B: Well, I dunno, because you just.. want to have sex. You see a person, or you're with a person, and your body gets all stirred up, and.. BAM! sex happens. I mean cake is great but I only eat it when I'm, y'know, not full. But sex is.. like, why do bees like flowers? Because they are attractive, and that attraction resonates with them, so then they get their buzz on.

A: To extend that bee metaphor.. what you call a bee that didn't respond to flowers? Like, they saw a flower, and were like, "That's a nice flower." but they didn't get their buzz on in response? If they didn't experience attraction to, and thus desire for, the flowers?

B: I suppose you'd call them Afloral bees, as in, not floral, do not get their buzz on in response to flowers, regardless of what colour or how pretty and what they smelt like or anything.

A: So, let's bring this back to me... since I'm not attracted to, erm, sexiness, and that sexiness does not make me get my 'buzz' on, what would you call that? Not being attracted, therefore not desiring sex, innately I mean? Because I'm pretty sure even afloral bees would still, y'know, like honey. Even if they don't particularly like nectar-gathering.

B: Asexual, I guess?

A: Hrm. "Asexual". I like it. I wonder if there are others like me.

B: Try going online, I'm pretty sure you can find SOMEBODY who's, er, 'asexual' too.

A: Righty-o!

AND THUS A TERM WAS BORN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faelights

Gonna throw this in here as well, just something someone linked in a discussion group on FB: Inherent Sexuality/Sexual Orientation.

Wanted to bring attention to this, I guess:

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), inherent sexuality/sexual orientation is enduring and also refers to a person's sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

For some reason, I have deja vu though. SM, did you quote something like this before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SFX
What I am theorizing, however, is that, in most cases, these two concepts cannot exist independently and, in all cases, sexual drive cannot exist seperate of sexual attraction.

Which means that incorporating the sexual drive part into the definition of asexuality doesn't make it any more exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NotAllHere

I just wanted to throw my two cents in. I agree with Vamp and Skullery- I'm pretty sure I agree with all they've written, but there were a lot of posts to read and I can't remember them all.

I think that using sexual desire is misleading if one does not experience that innate drive to have sex with someone (note: with someone, not just plain old libido). I use the term sexual interest. I'm interested in sex- in an academic way, in a partner-pleasing way. I'm interested in it because it feels good, because I like feeling good, and because a partner can do things to me that I cannot (unless I grow some extra hands). None of this is linked to an innate drive/desire to have sex that seems to drive people to trying it, with whatever gender. And the many ways that drive and desire can be used can get confusing- I'm not sure that each time it's being used, that the people using it are all using it in the same way.

You have the regular sex drive. You have the drive to have sex with other people (not sure if that drive can be separate from desire. And you have interest in having sex, trying sex, or experiencing sex.

I'm not actually sure how much of this made sense, and if I got confusing, I will clarify later. I haven't had much sleep lately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faelights

So... anyone up for hammering out some terms and accompanying definitions? :P

(Even if they're meant to only be understood by the people engaging in the discussions here on the forum.) >.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

Excellent idea Fae. I may not have time in the next day or two, but if I could be permitted a couple days, this is definitely a project I am willing to take on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faelights

I'm actually on Reading Break this week, so if we're going to do it, this week would be a lovely week for me... XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

Excellent! Sounds like a pretty fantastic project to me :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naosuu

I like that idea too. It's reading week for me as well, so it would be the perfect time to do it! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.