Jump to content

What is "asexual elitism" and why does AVEN discourage it?


Recommended Posts

Wait a second. Then how do you say you find someone sexually attractive but don't want to have sex with them? Even sexuals experience this! What about sexuals in monogamous relationships, they still experience sexual attraction to people other than their partner, they just don't have the desire to have sex with them.

I guess it depends on your definition of "want". The word "desire" usually means physical desire. The word "want" can mean many things.

A sexual who is in a monogamous relationship may be sexually attracted to (i.e., have sexual desire for) someone else, but he/she doesn't want to actually carry out having sex with that person because he/she doesn't want to hurt the person they're in a relationship with.

There could be other reasons for not wanting to have sex even though you are sexually attracted, like religious reasons, or because the other person is married, or they're not someone otherwise attractive (i.e., personality), or it just seems like too much trouble at the moment to follow up on your physical desire, etc.

Ok thanks, this helps. I suppose repulsion towards sex would also be a possibility here.

I suppose it could. Although I haven't read about anybody being sexually attracted to other people but being repulsed by the thought of sex. That would be VERY difficult!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it could. Although I haven't read about anybody being sexually attracted to other people but being repulsed by the thought of sex. That would be VERY difficult!

There are repulsed sexuals...(I'm a repulsed grey-a) but I suspect that most of us have a low or nonexistent sex drive. Otherwise, you're right, it would be rather uncomfortable. I believe MetalGoblin is also a repulsed sexual actually...(sorry if I got that wrong). (EDIT: I was basing that on MetalGoblin's own signature - I would never claim anything about anyone's sexuality without them saying it themselves!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a good example of why we should not and do try ..not to say someone is asexual

anti sexual is something very different to asexuality..as is low libidoism

it really is one of those things that taking time to look around and undertsand what the differences are and how they fit in with you is the best way forward for every individual

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it could. Although I haven't read about anybody being sexually attracted to other people but being repulsed by the thought of sex. That would be VERY difficult!

There are repulsed sexuals...(I'm a repulsed grey-a) but I suspect that most of us have a low or nonexistent sex drive. Otherwise, you're right, it would be rather uncomfortable. I believe MetalGoblin is also a repulsed sexual actually...(sorry if I got that wrong).

We've had a few, actually. Orlok comes to mind recently, although I'm not sure he identifies as sexual, despite admitting homosexual attraction.

It's just a hunch, but I'd also guess that very few of the more bigoted antisexuals that have graced AVEN are actually asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Antisexual means (to me) that someone is against the act of sex and those who participate in it. Judging from the samples on AVEN, antisexuals appear to be quite angry. Who knows where that anger comes from.

Repulsed asexual means (to me) that someone is personally repulsed by the thought of having sex, but thinks whatever other people like/do is up to them. Judging again from AVEN samples (me being one), we just don't want to think about, hear about, or have sex. No particular anger about it, anymore than we have anger toward foods we don't like.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Antisexual means (to me) that someone is against the act of sex and those who participate in it. Judging from the samples on AVEN, antisexuals appear to be quite angry. Who knows where that anger comes from.

Repulsed asexual means (to me) that someone is personally repulsed by the thought of having sex, but thinks whatever other people like/do is up to them. Judging again from AVEN samples (me being one), we just don't want to think about, hear about, or have sex. No particular anger about it, anymore than we have anger toward foods we don't like.

Indeed, I just have a hunch that some of the angry antisexuals would fall into the "repulsed sexual" category as their self-loathing of their own sexuality seems one of the drivers of their anger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I get tired of the "sexual orientation is fluid" argument also, which seems to be put forward by people who believe that an orientation is a straight-jacket and they don't want to be defined, or even self-defined. But they seem to claim that the fluidity theory applies only to asexuality, not that homosexuals or heterosexuals float around between orientations in some sort of cosmic lake. You needn't define yourself, ever, if you don't want to, but don't deny others the right to define themselves by claiming that orientation is always fluid. That's a kind of intellectual orientational elitism, it seems to me.

End of rant.

In a way, it makes sense; not that they're right, but that asexuals are more likely to change their self-perception. BECAUSE- asexuality can easily be confused with nonsexuality, and it is sometimes true that people who think they are asexual ARE simply late bloomers. Granted, this seems unlikely if you are nearing thus end of puberty, which victims of this phrase often are, but younger asexuals may change their minds at some point in time, because ASEXUALITY CAN BE CONFUSED WITH NON DEVELOPED SEXUALITY. This is why people think this. However, once someone HAS felt sexual attraction, they know they are attracted to that gender.

Asexuality is much harder to pin down until later.

End rant. (Sorry.)

Now, thanks very much to the OP for explaining! It was very clear and simple. So it seems to me that asexual elitists are simply confusing asexuality with celibacy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm in the disinterested-almost-repulsed sexually asexual category.

I mean, for some people, those that are in love, and are actually loving (emphasis again on love, not lust) with one another, I'm more or less disinterested in sex, but not outwardly repulsed by what someone else does. For the more lust filled stuff, my own feelings take on a shade of 'ugh'...and personally, the idea takes on a repulsed-almost-afraid shade, probably because I can't see myself ever consenting to sex, given my complete lack of interest in it. Nevermind the raw...force and almost animalistic nature that's often depicted in movies and stuff.

It looks angry, almost, or...not quite angry....aggressive. Primal. And for someone with a distinct lack of sexual attraction/ no sex drive, I find it sort of scary.

And then when that same very action is seemingly put on a pedestal by so many people....well, I can understand emotionally why some asexuals may appear repulsed by sex, or elitist in their own views of asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nameless Someone

I get tired of the "sexual orientation is fluid" argument also, which seems to be put forward by people who believe that an orientation is a straight-jacket and they don't want to be defined, or even self-defined. But they seem to claim that the fluidity theory applies only to asexuality, not that homosexuals or heterosexuals float around between orientations in some sort of cosmic lake. ... don't deny others the right to define themselves by claiming that orientation is always fluid. That's a kind of intellectual orientational elitism, it seems to me.

Excellent arguments.

Sexual orientation, in my experience, has not been fluid. I think the fluidity of such a thing is more the exception than the rule.

I've had the experience of being uncomfortable with my orientation. To say that sexual orientation is fluid brings with it the implication that I could just think my way beyond this and be oriented some way else.

It's not going to happen.

ITA with these posts. I thought I was the only one tired of seeing "sexuality is fluid" like everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get tired of the "sexual orientation is fluid" argument also, which seems to be put forward by people who believe that an orientation is a straight-jacket and they don't want to be defined, or even self-defined. But they seem to claim that the fluidity theory applies only to asexuality, not that homosexuals or heterosexuals float around between orientations in some sort of cosmic lake. You needn't define yourself, ever, if you don't want to, but don't deny others the right to define themselves by claiming that orientation is always fluid. That's a kind of intellectual orientational elitism, it seems to me.

End of rant.

In a way, it makes sense; not that they're right, but that asexuals are more likely to change their self-perception. BECAUSE- asexuality can easily be confused with nonsexuality, and it is sometimes true that people who think they are asexual ARE simply late bloomers. Granted, this seems unlikely if you are nearing thus end of puberty, which victims of this phrase often are, but younger asexuals may change their minds at some point in time, because ASEXUALITY CAN BE CONFUSED WITH NON DEVELOPED SEXUALITY. This is why people think this. However, once someone HAS felt sexual attraction, they know they are attracted to that gender.

Asexuality is much harder to pin down until later.

If by "later" you mean like 16, perhaps. But feelings of sexual attraction toward other people generally occur during the teen years, when puberty has been established. Except for demisexuals, who have said they are attracted only to people they get to know, asexuals on AVEN have pretty uniformly said they have never felt sexual attraction toward other people. I don't know what "non-developed sexuality" would be, except for someone who hasn't gone through puberty yet, which is pretty much age-defined, so it wouldn't be a category per se.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
evanescence

An asexual elitist is simply somebody who thinks that asexuality is defined by sexual behavior rather that by sexual attraction.

I think the difficulty, at least in some people's minds, is with the term "sexual attraction." I agree that its absence is an elegant and logical way to define asexuality. But defining sexual attraction is not easy. There have been many threads about it, but no satisfactory answer has emerged (at least, none that satisfied me). If sexual attraction is not arousal, then what is it? It's "wanting" to have sex with another person, you might say. But how is that "wanting" experienced? Is it purely mental (in which case I'd argue that it's not sexual)? Does it have a physical component? If so, how does that physical component differ from arousal? In terms of the object of attraction, does it really make sense to draw the line at live humans? For instance, many gay guys discover their orientation through imagery, usually in early adolescence. They get turned on by a nude picture of a guy, but not by one of a girl. That's when they start thinking of themselves as gay. What if someone is extremely turned on by same-sex porn, but doesn't "want" to have sex with a real guy? Does it really make sense to call such a person asexual? To me it's not all that clear.

E.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if someone is extremely turned on by same-sex porn, but doesn't "want" to have sex with a real guy? Does it really make sense to call such a person asexual? To me it's not all that clear.

E.

Porn isn't a real person -- not a living, breathing person next to you (or across the street, or wherever). So I'd still call that person asexual. On other threads, a number of people on AVEN have said they are interested in porn/aroused by porn but they aren't sexually attracted to other people, and they call themselves asexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
evanescence

On other threads, a number of people on AVEN have said they are interested in porn/aroused by porn but they aren't sexually attracted to other people, and they call themselves asexuals.

I get that such people fit the AVEN definition, but to ME the line is not that clear. For instance, someone might not "want" to have real-time sex because of an aversion to the sounds and smells of sex, while highly attracted to specific people on video or in fantasy. To ME it doesn't make sense to call such people asexual, because they're responding sexually to humans they find attractive.

E.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

On other threads, a number of people on AVEN have said they are interested in porn/aroused by porn but they aren't sexually attracted to other people, and they call themselves asexuals.

I get that such people fit the AVEN definition, but to ME the line is not that clear. For instance, someone might not "want" to have real-time sex because of an aversion to the sounds and smells of sex, while highly attracted to specific people on video or in fantasy. To ME it doesn't make sense to call such people asexual, because they're responding sexually to humans they find attractive.

E.

For me when I watch porn it has nothing to do with the people involoved or how attractive they are, it's the acts they are doing. I like to watch lesbian porn because I like what they do but that doesn't make me a lesbian. I have a libido, which to me is different than wanting to have sex with someone, but I don't feel the need to take care of it with someone else

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I joined the site back in 03, and then there was a big "but that's not really asexuality" thing came up and I stopped visiting the site because I felt uncomfortable. Something like this would have made me feel a lot better back then, when I was unsure, and I think other people will find it similarly valuable today.

I was actually really glad to see this post when I first signed up to the boards. I've had so many people jump on me in the past, saying that x-behaviour means I'm not asexual...really ticks me off and I'm really glad that one of the first thing that AVEN instils in its members is that asexual elitism won't be tolerated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
CornOnDaCobb

I think another main reason asexual elitism exists is because of posts like this:

Anyways, I recently told another one of my online [male] friends. He tried feeding me the "It's a phase" line and telling me that I should wait until I'm in my twenties (Which I vehemently called him out on), but he eventually came around. This is where it gets a little odd. He now has no problem accepting that I'm not sexually attracted to people; the part he would not accept was when I said I'm non-libidoist/have no sex drive. No matter how many times I tried to explain that to him, he just wouldn't let it sink in and was insistent there had to be something there. He then told me to try masturbating before saying I truly had no sex drive. <_< Eventually he deemed me a "lost cause" in that area and stopped trying, which makes me happy because it seems like the magnitude of my aceness finally hit him, so I doubt this'll ever become an issue again.

Long post, but the concept of a "magnitude of aceness" is completely false. I think the main problem is linkage of sex drive to the definition asexuality.

Defintion(s) of asexuality (some, and the most prominent ones I've found) reference a lack of sexual attraction. --> Sexual attraction is (usually) based on desire to have sexual activity with someone. For this, you need 2 things, sex drive and the attraction to that person. --> Sex drive, while a changeable and fluctuating force, is present in most people (including asexuals).

--> Therefore, by having a sex drive (and sometimes this is improperly correlated regarding people -who can be without sex drives at all- participating in sexual activity -ie masturbation-) you have one part of things needed for sexual attraction. Therefore, you lack less sexual attraction, therefore you are LESS asexual.

What we need to do is break the stigmatism. I don't know how to do that though. I hope this cleared things up.

btw I am very much opposed to elitism, though I have been exposed to faaar to much of it (bicyclists and video gamers).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I am confused now. The OP reads:

Asexuality is defined as not experiencing sexual attraction to either (or any) gender. That's all. It has nothing at all to do with libido or with behavior.

Ok, according to that definition I am NOT asexual, since I experience sexual attraction when I see attractive women. But then...

Libido could be defined as a type of itch. Some people itch more than others, but the amount doesn't matter. What matters, when determining sexual orientation, is whether the person would prefer for somebody else to help them scratch it when/if it happens. If they would prefer help, and if they prefer it from someone of their own sex, we call them homosexual. If they get the itch, and prefer help from someone of the opposite sex to help them scratch it, we call them heterosexual. If they get the itch and would prefer no help from anybody in scratching it, we call them asexual.

Since I get the itch but prefer to scratch alone, even if a sexually attractive woman offered to do it for me, wouldn't it mean that I am asexual?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you experience sexual attraction, then that is not asexuality (by definition). If, however, you prefer solo activities over partnered activities, I think that comes under autosexual. Autosexuality is often used to describe libidoist asexuals, however I have seen it used in the context of the above as well, just meaning that one prefers personal activities over partnered activities. Having said that though, I have seen autosexuality defined in several ways- one as I have said, and the other that one "experiences sexual attraction to oneself", which wouldn't necessarily fit with libidoist asexuals. The definition of libido was worded under the assumption that a sexual person would want to scratch the itch with someone else, it didn't take into account that some sexual people are more solo people. These things can be very hard to describe accurately and satisfy everyone in doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused now. The OP reads:

Asexuality is defined as not experiencing sexual attraction to either (or any) gender. That's all. It has nothing at all to do with libido or with behavior.

Ok, according to that definition I am NOT asexual, since I experience sexual attraction when I see attractive women. But then...

Libido could be defined as a type of itch. Some people itch more than others, but the amount doesn't matter. What matters, when determining sexual orientation, is whether the person would prefer for somebody else to help them scratch it when/if it happens. If they would prefer help, and if they prefer it from someone of their own sex, we call them homosexual. If they get the itch, and prefer help from someone of the opposite sex to help them scratch it, we call them heterosexual. If they get the itch and would prefer no help from anybody in scratching it, we call them asexual.

Since I get the itch but prefer to scratch alone, even if a sexually attractive woman offered to do it for me, wouldn't it mean that I am asexual?

Do you definitely experience sexual attraction?

People define sexual attraction in different ways. One view is as follows. While it's possible to find someone sexually appealing or stimulating, without wanting (on an automatic physical level) to take things further, that is not necessarily sexual attraction. Attraction is like a magnet - it tries to draw you in. Unless it is causing you to want (on a physical level) to take things further and engage in sexual activities of some sort, it's not attraction.

That's just one view; YMMV.

If you experience sexual attraction, then that is not asexuality (by definition). If, however, you prefer solo activities over partnered activities, I think that comes under autosexual.

The word autosexual tends not to be used very much anymore in the ace community, and with good reason I think. Why would anyone want to advertise to the world that they masturbate? It even has nothing to do with orientation really, being more about libido as you said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nameless123

On other threads, a number of people on AVEN have said they are interested in porn/aroused by porn but they aren't sexually attracted to other people, and they call themselves asexuals.

I get that such people fit the AVEN definition, but to ME the line is not that clear. For instance, someone might not "want" to have real-time sex because of an aversion to the sounds and smells of sex, while highly attracted to specific people on video or in fantasy. To ME it doesn't make sense to call such people asexual, because they're responding sexually to humans they find attractive.

E.

For me when I watch porn it has nothing to do with the people involoved or how attractive they are, it's the acts they are doing. I like to watch lesbian porn because I like what they do but that doesn't make me a lesbian. I have a libido, which to me is different than wanting to have sex with someone, but I don't feel the need to take care of it with someone else

Thanks for pointing that out. The porn issue is an often debated one. I would be interested in whether sexual people are actually attracted to the people in a porn movie or really are only turned on by the sexual acts themselves. Maybe a sexual could wander in here and explain...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Petra_Lorre

Thanks for pointing that out. The porn issue is an often debated one. I would be interested in whether sexual people are actually attracted to the people in a porn movie or really are only turned on by the sexual acts themselves. Maybe a sexual could wander in here and explain...

Wandering sexual appears! Kidding. I can only speak for myself anyway, not the whole sexual world. I'm only attracted to the acts/context, not the people. I just plug myself and someone whom I find attractive into the roles. Having said that, I don't like porn all that much...it's too sex act centered. I need a plot. I'd probably be more excited by porn made by/for women or somesuch.

Edited by GirlDreamer
Quote fixed
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

The word autosexual tends not to be used very much anymore in the ace community, and with good reason I think. Why would anyone want to advertise to the world that they masturbate? It even has nothing to do with orientation really, being more about libido as you said.

I'm rather new to the site, so bare with me if I perhaps am inarticulate or use a wrong terminology. I refer to myself as an Autosexual because I am also Autoromantic (which is a concept that is very hard for other people to wrap their head around, I've found). To me, it's not about advertising that I masturbate. I don't see how masturbation is any more or less important or not important as advertising that you have sex or don't have sex. To me, it's a sexual attraction to myself, and since we've defined that asexuality is defined by attraction, I guess you could say that I'm not 'actually' asexual.

Typically speaking, this is somewhat dispelled by the fact that if a clone of me existed in real life or a twin or some form of doppleganger, I would not be attracted. Not entirely sure why, and I'm fine with that. I don't claim to have all of the answers for people's questions. I merely know that I am what I am. I think of it as having sex, just with myself.

Other people could say that I'm Asexual because I have no sexual attraction to someone else, and also Sally made a remark about porn being different from sexual attraction to someone; I am often attracted by the sight of myself in photography as well as mirrors occasionally. Other people could say that I'm Sexual because I have a sexual attraction to a human being, period, and the only difference is that if there were two of me, I wouldn't be as attracted because I am Aromantic in regards to other people. I can't be in a relationship with someone else and feel love for them in any way other than platonic, and I do not want to have sex with anyone especially if I am not even in love with them.

I choose to also define myself with the Asexual Community because of the first half of the paragraph above, and I don't see how identifying myself as Autosexual is odd. I'd think that someone that is Aromantic and Asexual and is pretty much finds any sort of sexual activity grotesque (obviously not saying that all Aromantic Asexuals do) they wouldn't care to know that you have sex with other people in your spare time any more or less than if you have sex with yourself in your spare time. I'm sure that could be said for a lot of people however.

I hope that made sense.

To bring it back to the original post, I completely agree. I don't see why there should be elitism. Anyone that thinks that they are above someone else for something that they cannot control is ignorant. That's like saying that I was born with light blond hair, and for whatever reason I want to come up with, that makes me superior to people with brown hair. If you're born sexual, how does that make you any better than someone who is born asexual? And if you're born asexual, how does that make you any better than someone who is born sexual?

Sexuals could argue that they are better because they have the ability to take part in something they believe is in some instances the greatest expression of love and connection to another human being, and they are able to participate in reproduction and enjoy it completely uninhibited by lack of sexual attraction.

Asexuals could argue that they are better because sex is dirty, or that sexual urges are wrong, or that they are above some sort of primal urge that drives humanity to do stupid things such as cheat on each other and break hearts, and sexual diseases, and basically complicate life all for the sake of one moment of "sex," which they don't think is all that important to begin with.

(Obviously none of the arguments above apply to either 100% of the time. They are examples)

And as far as "True" Asexuality goes... why even go there? Unless someone is blatantly in reverse or contradictory to what 'Asexuality' means, then why try to point out who they are or who they aren't? It's okay to give people advice, such as whether they fit as an Ace, or a Gray-A, or a Demisexual and etc., because for whatever reason most of us humans desire to have definition to avoid long drawn out explanations, and to have a label in order to talk to others of the same interest, orientation, and the like. But telling someone what they are and aren't just because it doesn't fit inside your little box is ridiculous. Giving them advice that they could be something else is productive and sincere; berating someone for being a 'false Asexual' is not.

That's just my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The word autosexual tends not to be used very much anymore in the ace community, and with good reason I think. Why would anyone want to advertise to the world that they masturbate? It even has nothing to do with orientation really, being more about libido as you said.

I'm rather new to the site, so bare with me if I perhaps am inarticulate or use a wrong terminology. I refer to myself as an Autosexual because I am also Autoromantic (which is a concept that is very hard for other people to wrap their head around, I've found). To me, it's not about advertising that I masturbate. I don't see how masturbation is any more or less important or not important as advertising that you have sex or don't have sex. To me, it's a sexual attraction to myself, and since we've defined that asexuality is defined by attraction, I guess you could say that I'm not 'actually' asexual.

To me, that's exactly what the term autosexual means. I've never understood why autosexual was termed to those who masturbate. I can definitely see your dilemma with fitting into the asexual/sexual boundaries, but I've definitely seen other autosexuals around the boards here and everyone is welcome no matter where they find themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to hear this, but I have questions about my presence here. I identify as an autoromantic, even heteroromantic -- I've been trying for equality or nothing, but my brain won't listen -- autosexual. I came to AVEN to ask where autosexuals fit in.

Autosexuals like myself, liable to take interest in specific relationship advice, libido enhancers, other autosexuals' adventures, and possibly even the rare or unlikely tryst with a fellow meatbag, do not meet the specifications. I like this community and I can relate to AVEN's causes, but I'm a stickler for format; my activities and conversations relating to my sexuality are anything but asexual. Is there another forum I should frequent instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nameless123

I'm glad to hear this, but I have questions about my presence here. I identify as an autoromantic, even heteroromantic -- I've been trying for equality or nothing, but my brain won't listen -- autosexual. I came to AVEN to ask where autosexuals fit in.

Autosexuals like myself, liable to take interest in specific relationship advice, libido enhancers, other autosexuals' adventures, and possibly even the rare or unlikely tryst with a fellow meatbag, do not meet the specifications. I like this community and I can relate to AVEN's causes, but I'm a stickler for format; my activities and conversations relating to my sexuality are anything but asexual. Is there another forum I should frequent instead?

I can't really help you with pointing you to another forum, but if you like this community and can relate to our causes I see no reason why you shouldn't stick around. I don't know if you've noticed the "For Sexual Partners, Friends and Allies" subforum - the sexual people posting there (and everywhere else on AVEN) don't exactly meet the specifications either, but I for one always value their input. True, this forum is about visibility of asexuality, but a fair lot of us like to discuss sexuality in general. So, really, stay and give us your input.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. After perusing the forums a bit, I think it could be argued that autosexuality has significant parallels with asexuality. I didn't realize this was also a haven for demisexuals [or that they existed; I was very glad to learn this].

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they get the itch and would prefer no help from anybody in scratching it, we call them asexual.

Is "prefer" the right word here? It's ambiguous as to whether what is meant is "would choose no help from anybody in scratching it" or "have no desire for help from anybody in scratching it."

"Sexual attraction" is itself a problematic term, which I think deserves to be further problematized. While it's a good try, I don't find the AVENwiki's definition very instructive and have a feeling it may even be inaccurate. Unfortunately I don't have a better one in mind.

If a person is:

heteroromantic

heterosensual

heteroaesthetic

heterolibinous

heteropornovoyeuristic

heterofantasistic

Might it perhaps be fair to define heterosexual broadly enough to incorporate such a person, rather than define it narrowly and broaden the definition of asexuality?

Given a pair of such people who are a couple, they might both prefer to ignore their itches or to address them alone, but why?

The questions might seem to imply it, but actually I'm not an asexual definitional inclusionist or exclusionist: I'm agnostic, undecided or questioning on the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...