| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| High fidelity | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 3 2007, 12:30 AM (391 Views) | |
| Eral | Oct 3 2007, 12:30 AM Post #1 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
http://www.theage.com.au/news/relationship...1091073978.html Is fidelity a trait or a choice? I personally think saying it's a trait is a cop-out, and abdication of responsibility for the choices we make. This article is a smidge better than the evolutionary pysch ones (men are unfaithful because of the racial need to spread their sperm: while women cling to one man because they are incapacitated by pregnancy and children and need the protection of a provider :rolleyes: :hurl:) but I just can't come at it. Yes, people do view relationships in different ways: and have different needs, but it seems simplistic to categorise them. And then again, there are some people who obviously don't have a faithful bone in their body who should come with "open relationship only" tattooed on their foreheads. We fall out of love, we are attracted to others, we are dissatisfied with our lives and want some excitement: I think these are the reasons for infidelity. But I wonder what excuse serial adulterers use? A friend of mine was confronted with the sad news that her husband was having an affair, after 20 years together some months ago. They have three children. She forgave him. He swore blind she was the one he wanted, that their life together was what he wanted, and she believed him. She found out last month he had continued to see The Other Woman. He claims now he has truly finished with the relationship, he says he has seen how much it hurt her the second time :medusa:: but obviously my friend doesn't trust him at all. She is now trying to decide what she wants her life to be: a single mother with three children-having seen her children go through all the pain of family break-up, and living on a greatly reduced income; or continue to live with someone who has lied to her and hurt her. Twice. I am all for booting the bastard out (you're surprised, aren't you) and I believe she will eventually. I don't see her returning to normal relations with him, and it will die a slow death from there. I wouldn't ever tell her what to do though. She doesn't know what she wants to do, her husband is living in the house with them for now, and my job at the moment is just to listen and sympathise with her confusion and hurt, and help her find ways to manage. If she leaves him, I'll support that. If she stays with him, I'll support that. I can't bring myself to speak to the husband, or look at him. I always thought he was very lucky my friend gave him the time of day, and his best feature was the way he absolutely adored her. Now this. To cap it off, the woman is a cheap bimbo with three other men on a string. It's adding insult to injury. His father was unfaithful to his mother for many years: and it may be infidelity is a norm for him- in which case he had no business marrying my friend. His mother advised my friend to put the Other Woman out of her mind, and that's obviously what she has done all her life. Her mother-in-law is the most bitter, controlling, selfish person in the world. Cause or effect? Have your cake and eat it, too: the security and comfort of an established relationship, and the excitement of a new root. The best of both worlds. But only for him. When asked if he wanted an open relationship, he reacted with horror at the though of my friend being intimate with someone else. <_< Paul Robeson always claimed he was unable to be monogamous, and his wife accepted that from the beginning. Eventually, she seperated from him: but still provided emotional support to him, from what I gathered from a bio of his life. When she died, he was grief-stricken, and he died lauding her great qualities and missing her intensely.
|
![]() |
|
| Bex | Oct 3 2007, 01:59 AM Post #2 |
|
puppet dictator
|
What's there to say more, really? I didn't find any of that surprising or new. I'm not sure about characterizing personality types as something that can't ever be changed, but it typically takes an experience that shakes you up quite a lot, and that may never happen. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Oct 3 2007, 02:42 AM Post #3 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
People are so impatient around here. :lol: |
![]() |
|
| lara | Oct 3 2007, 04:42 AM Post #4 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Eral, you are being a very good friend. |
![]() |
|
| lara | Oct 3 2007, 04:50 AM Post #5 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
As for the article:
This had to be studied to be discovered?
I repeat: This had to be studied? And these aren't personality traits. There was a time when I was uncomfortable with intimacy and uninterested in commitment - try, most of my 20s. I viewed a relationship as a bit of a game, and while I was never unfaithful, that's because I ended a commitment when I was no longer having fun/my eye was starting to wander. I did the responsible thing: I didn't get married. But I started to change. I started to settle down a bit. Commitment and intimacy weren't as scary as I matured. Then I met my husband. The time was right. At age 33, I was ready to get married, I'd found the right man, and so - here I am, faithfully married. I would suggest that someone is NOT "a ludos or an eros." Those are behaviours, not personalities. Behaviours change. If you want eros, find someone else who is interested in eros. For someone seeking eros to fall in love with someone whose behaviour is that of a ludos - well, it's a mistake. End of story. |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Oct 3 2007, 05:21 AM Post #6 |
|
puppet dictator
|
Ted Hughes. Ok, I'll elaborate. This afternoon, I finished reading a book about Assia Wevill, the woman who was the alleged catalyst for the breakup of Hughes and Sylvia Plath (examining the evidence, it looks like that relationship was breaking down before Assia came on the scene). Assia Wevill was, for the early part of her life, a serial adulterer. Her first marriage broke up after a short time; she'd had affairs, but nothing long-term as yet. She later married, and then her second husband (Richard) eventually divorced her and she married her third husband (David), whom she'd been seeing for some time. It's interesting; she could carry on quite contentedly with a marriage and an ongoing affair, even for years at a time, loyal in her way to both men. For their part, the men would also go along with it, though each in the hope that she'd eventually settle in his favour. She did talk about her behaviour to friends, wondering at how it was possible to be in love with two people at once. (It's perfectly possible, just not how we're supposed to do things, and of course not fair if those other people are reasonably expecting monogamy.) Assia and Ted and David followed much the same pattern as had Assia and David and Richard, though this was punctuated by Sylvia's suicide. By all appearances, Assia wanted to settle down with Ted Hughes, but initially circumstances kept them apart, and eventually his own unwillingness to make the commitment, and Assia's own suicide is a disturbing echo of Sylvia Plath's. That's a very abbreviated version of a sad and complicated story, of course. Ted Hughes continued womanizing for many, many years. Intriguing personalities, all of them. The contrast between Assia's style of adultery and Ted's is particularly intriguing, as hers seems to spring from almost an excess of love at times (though boredom was a factor when she was young, and loneliness after things with Ted Hughes soured), and his seems to stem more from the expected lack of commitment. Meh, I'm rambly. I think my overall point was that human relationships are complex. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| lara | Oct 3 2007, 05:29 AM Post #7 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
As are people, and we fuck up all the time. It's still behaviour. Maybe Assia was ready to settle down, maybe not. Maybe Ted expected problems, maybe not. What motivated them and what they did are still different things. One does not have to behave badly; one does not have to hurt. Not saying I haven't hurt anyone, but I'm bleedin' glad I recognized my own lack of ability to settle down and chose short-term mates accordingly. And I'm really glad I didn't marry the first guy I considered as a life mate, or rather, he didn't marry me, because although it might have happened had he been willing, it would have been a disaster. What I got works, and I'm happy. |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Oct 3 2007, 05:55 AM Post #8 |
|
puppet dictator
|
Oh sure. There's plenty of surviving evidence that both Assia and Ted were guilty at varying times of refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. There's also no way to get the whole story as most of the principle figures are deceased and a whole lot of documentation has been destroyed or supressed. It's just rather at the front of my mind right now. I had a boyfriend in high school who went through girls like tissue. Bobby was extremely charismatic (well duh), extremely seductive, and extremely full of himself. He made you feel like the only girl in the world for a week or two, and then it was over. He was particularly adept at paying just enough attention to his exes to keep them hopeful without actually promising anything, but also had a bit of a sadistic streak, an inclination to subject members of his harem to subtle (or not-so-subtle) humiliation. I was crushed when he dumped me, but we travelled enough in the same circles that I really got to see through his ways in time, and I think I got off easy. I've never been easy to intimidate, but a lot of high school girls are. I joked about forming a support group, but frankly the joke wouldn't have occurred to me if there hadn't been something to the idea. A few years later, we ran into each other at a Misfits show. I was with Justin, and Bobby introduced the girl he was with as his fiancee. I couldn't help thinking, "you poor dear," but what's to say he hadn't finally met the right girl and settled down? I haven't seen him since, so I don't know. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Oct 3 2007, 12:47 PM Post #9 |
|
I haz powah!
|
So is the article with a big picture of Warnie (Shane Warne famous cricketer for those that don't live in Blighty or Oz who was recently found to be having an affair), supposed to absolve him of blame because he is the wandering type? I don't know, I watched a documentary of prostitution, interviewing the men as to why the use the services of one, and mainly it was because they were fed up of sleeping with the same woman for x years. They saw it as the only option to keep their marriage alive, in some cases, with women they loved but just didn't want to sleep with all the time. Money, sex, wham bang thank you ma'am. No affair, no cheating in their minds. Although I concede it is a very convenient way to think for the men. |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| Nibsi | Oct 3 2007, 02:18 PM Post #10 |
|
Te zijner tijd
|
While I would probably never cheat on a woman, Krazy's post did get me thinking. I can understand that a person would like to have sex with somebody else for a change, but this is not possible in a relationship. I think this is why it seems that swingers often have very good relationships together. |
| -Nibby | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Oct 3 2007, 04:31 PM Post #11 |
|
Reliant
|
I agree with Bex, relationships can be very complicated. My personal philosophy is not to cheat and I wouldn't enter into a new relationship unless I was willing to end the old. While having your cake and eating it too, is an evocative thought and one sadly we're all too willing to follow (especially when we are immature, no matter how old we might be), its not fair to cheat on someone. Not only do you have the very real risk of disease and infecting your unknowing spouse/s.o, you are also trying to circumvent their free will. By not telling a person, your tricking them. I find that egregious, unnecessary and unfair behavior. Imagine giving your spouse or significant other a incurable venereal disease! I'm not talking about AIDS, how about venereal warts? A gift that keeps on giving. ![]() As to sex can get boring with the same person, well, we're all the same in the dark, and all novelty becomes familar in the end. I think it's a little immature to think any aspect of a relationship is going to a 10+ experience everytime. Relationships ebb and flow and if you're willing to accept the natural flow, long term relationships can be very satisfying. I think people cheat for a lot of reasons and sure some might do it because they have a genetically high sex drive and unfortunately don't get their need met within the relationship. I doubt people (men or women) are genetically prediposed to cheating, I think its probably environment more than nature in this case. Cheating as opposed to having sex with multiple partners. Ultimately, I don't think it really matters how a relationship plays as long as both are in on the plan and agreeable. Many women don't want to have long term sexual relationships with their husbands but appreciate other aspects of the relationship. However to deceive is always wrong although I'm sure there are relationships where both partners prefer to ignore the infidelities rather than be confronted with the issue. I have a friend who has just discovered the boyfriend is cheating. She's upset and won't continue the relationship. Prior to the discovery which she sussed out pretty quick, he said he was feeling 'caged.' I don't know this guy well but in this case I think his feeling caged has more to do with his past experiences and frankly childhoood issues than reality. Obviously, he could have also mentioned he didn't want to be in an exclusive relationship. My husband's pov on my friend's situation is that she, "read the boyfriend's signals wrong." I agree with him but on the other hand I think she wouldn't have misinterpreted the signals unless the signals were ambiguous and he could have just said he wanted to see other people. That would have been pretty hard to misinterpret. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Oct 3 2007, 11:55 PM Post #12 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Krazy: they put Warney on tha page because he hadn't had any publicity for 5 minutes. :rolleyes: My friend's husband did pass a present from Bimbo: chlamydia. :angry: Relationships break down: feelings change:* men are irresponsible and immature and selfish *- there's lots of reasons. I can understand someone being afraid to break the news, and chickening out, preferring to let events unfold by themselves: but continuing to lie? Wanting the benefits of the relationship without the responsibilities? Deceiving someone who loves you? And two relationships?? One is hard work! The arrogance of the lying upsets me. In my friend's case, her husband was happily going to continue the relationship, once everything was back on an even keel with my friend. I don't know how he could look my friend in the eye every morning - but he did. Totally absorbed by his own wants. And now, it's up to my friend to react to the situation. As for needing some excitement in the bedroom: here's a radfem thought. If your partner is happy to live with you, but isn't interested in sex with you, it's because the sex isn't good. Make the sex good, she'll be much more enthusiastic. Those men visiting pros? Avoiding the sad truth they need to do a little work. "My wife is frigid" is so much easier to say than "I am not interested in giving her pleasure." <_< Women are still a commodity, not a partner. They provide a man with what he wants. http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/jakart...1091192300.html |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Oct 4 2007, 03:52 AM Post #13 |
|
puppet dictator
|
I'd be willing to concede this is true for most cases, but there are people, male and female, with little or no interest in sex, period. They might well be interested in other aspects of a relationship, and ideally, they'd end up married to each other, but things don't always work out ideally. The partner who is still interested in sex ends up writing to Dan Savage in desperation, and is given the advice to lay things on the line with their partner: either we work out a sexual compromise together, or I go elsewhere for sex and stop bothering you about it and you don't complain (taking all reasonable precautions, as Mr. Savage is not an idiot), or this relationship cannot continue. Like I said, these letters come from both male and female writers, those who say their partner is wonderful in every other way, and those who are less enthused but feel they need to stay together for the children. Communication is key. Deceit is not advocated, and the idea of an alternative sexual partner is really for after all other possible solutions have been explored. I think it's reasonable, because it's no more fair to cut someone off from the sex they desire than it is to keep pressuring someone who doesn't want it. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| lara | Oct 4 2007, 04:23 AM Post #14 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I love it when Bex quotes Dan Savage at us. |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Oct 4 2007, 08:58 AM Post #15 |
|
I haz powah!
|
A man using religion to try and justify it as well. Who'd have thought? Sorry, couldn't resist. |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Oct 4 2007, 10:43 AM Post #16 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Krazy, I am ignoring you. After you have differentiated between the cultural rather than religious mores, I'll get back to you. :lol: There is a difference between deciding your partner isn't giving you enough sex, and going on to root around: and having an understanding between you that one person's sexual needs are different to the other's, and that the sexual needs of one partner will need to be met elsewhere. I'm wondering how often it is the man who experiences the dysfunction, and his female partner engages in extra-relationship sex to compensate, and it is all OK. <_< How would I google that? |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Oct 4 2007, 02:19 PM Post #17 |
|
puppet dictator
|
With much fear and trepidation. Most of the search terms that I can think of right now will pretty much guaranteed conjure porn paysites. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Oct 4 2007, 02:41 PM Post #18 |
|
Reliant
|
In my friend's case, the boyfriend didn't use condoms when he slept with the other woman (women) and they had been together for a year and hadn't used condoms for a while. Yeah, she went and got tested for vds. Such a pleasant way to spend the time. What a nice guy! Yeah, such behavior is programmed into us. Of course. Here's a link somewhat related to the topic: Why do we always blame the other woman when men have an affair? Personally, I blame the cheater. Now if my best friend or a really good friend had an affair with my husband, I'd be pretty angry at both of them. 'Course, how good a friend could they be if they had an affair with your husband? A good friend wouldn't do it, neither would a good husband. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Oct 6 2007, 12:37 AM Post #19 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
The "man-stealer" epithet has always annoyed me - let's blame the real culprit, please. (Oh OK, I hate to miss an opportunity for man-bashing ) The explanation the author of that article gives is very reasonable. Maybe dismay at the lack of solidarity from the woman contributes: we expect men to treat us badly, but not women. radfem I have always wondered about people who take on someone who has been unfaithful to their spouse, or who has had a lot of other spouses. Are they thinking "this time for sure"? Or "s/he really loves me"? A woman I worked with was the third wife of her husband. I asked her if she ever had concerns that he might move on to wife no.4. She said, if she got ten years out of the relationship, she considered that to be pretty good. She loved him, wanted to be with him, and accepted that his attention span was not a long one. I imagine Angelina is taking the same attitude with Brad. |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Oct 6 2007, 01:36 AM Post #20 |
|
puppet dictator
|
I was at a concert last night, and was reminded of a song that seems appropriate to this thread. If only more men could be so incisive. On the subject of song lyrics, I've always found infidelity ballads intriguing, by which I mean they have a disturbing undercurrent. Probably just my tendency to overanalyze texts, but if you read the words of a song like "Over the Hills and Far Away" or "Long Black Veil," you really start to wonder about the backstory (well, I do). If this guy is doesn't want to hurt his friend, what's he doing fucking his wife behind his back? If he's worried that exposing the affair would lead to something like his best friend murdering the woman, why didn't he take her away from there? And if it's a case of true love, what kind of best friend would stand in their way, marriage vows be damned? Unless we're willing to admit that maybe she loves both men. Not that any of this is meant to be answerable, but I feel the questions are valid. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Oct 6 2007, 03:27 AM Post #21 |
|
Reliant
|
RE: Long Black Veil and Over The Hills And Far Away: I always think early 20th century, extreme societal prohibitions and arranged marriages. If you will, a type of 'noble' infidelity. My friend's ex - not so much. One thing I know about the guy is when he was young his father, a religious man, possibly a pastor of some sort? left the family for another woman and started a new family. As a result he rejects his father yet he emulates what he rejects. Classic, really. :rolleyes: As to multiple marriages, I used to think multiple marriages were kinda odd but today I believe the 'marrying kind' is a type of optimistic romantic and serial monagamist. Still, if you're working on your fourth marriage, well, it starts to look tacky, imo. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Oct 6 2007, 08:38 AM Post #22 |
|
I haz powah!
|
That article mentioned Anthea Turner, lulz, in the same article as Jennifer and Angelina. Talk about mismatch, but I guess since it's the Daily Mail it has to include a fallen British personality. Anthea ain't that good looking, got a very bad press for getting a £1m sponsor deal with a chocolate company for her wedding but had to pose eating chocolate as part of the deal. Never mind she was host of breakfast show GMTV, which affectionately stands for Give Me The Valium. But anyway I agree with Reg, blame the cheater whichever sex they are. But I guess getting you rocks off is easier than sorting out the problems in your relationship. ![]() With regards to that Over the Hills and Far Away, have any of you seen the TV Programme Sharpe, the adaptation of Bernard Cornwell's novels about a soldier turned riflemen in the British Army around 1790-1815? I mention it because they end each programme with a verse from an old War Song from the time, O'er the Hills and Far Away and some of the lyrics are similar. In fact the guy who sings it, John Tams, plays one of the characters in the show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_the_Hill...8traditional%29 Video where you can hear it sung. I find it very moving, and it is still relevant today with all the people going to war. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Za-GHtKFmfY |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Oct 6 2007, 02:32 PM Post #23 |
|
puppet dictator
|
Can't say I've seen the show, but "over the hills and far away" is a popular refrain in songs and rhymes dating very far back, sort of a stock phrase meaning to mean further than the average person has ever been from their birthplace, or can even imagine. The song I posted was originally written by Gary Moore. The (anti-)war song that gets me for relevance is by the Angelic Upstarts, "Last Night Another Soldier." They would have written it around 1980, but it's so applicable to the situation in the Middle East that it could have been written now. Recent live performance. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Oct 7 2007, 03:08 AM Post #24 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Re: Over the Hills/Long Black Veil. It's interesting that the protagonist is being noble in not dobbing in the wife. He's not a cad, exposing her adultery to the world. His reward is she will love him truly for ever. Though married to someone else. Is this the other side of the coin of "man stealing"? Men don't steal other men's wives, they fall in love with them, and therefore it is not cheating/betrayal, it's tragedy. In the tradition of Guinevere and Deirdre of the Sorrows, who are never considered evil for breaking their vows. Multiple marriages: Zsa Zsa Gabor once said she considered sex out of marriage to be wrong. Therefore, if she wanted to have sex with someone, she had to marry them. I guess if you think of marriage as a contractual arrangement, you are more likely to enter it more often than people who think it's a permanent commitment. An article that suggests people are really selfish and stupid and don't tell each other basic stuff and that's why marriages break up. :rolleyes: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the...1091426722.html An even stupider one, where they ask two newly weds if they think they will break up. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/thr...1091426728.html I hate my newspaper on Sundays. It's quite all right to go off topic once the thread has turned the page. The WWI poets were allowed to dissent against war, but I don't think musicians were. (I can safely google this, I think.) Really, anti-war songs only began with Vietnam. My favourite anti-war song is Elvis Costello's "King's Shilling" - a reference to the shilling that soldier's were paid in the 1800's. It captures the dilemma of the terrorist/freedom fighter. http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Any...82568B0000569BC |
![]() |
|
| lara | Oct 7 2007, 03:22 AM Post #25 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
So I have an acquaintance/friend, if you know what I mean - another mom in the park - and her husband, who I thought needed to grow up the first time I saw him and thought "Who's taking care of Tennyson's kid?" (yes, her name is Tennyson and she's appropriately flakey but still too good for that jerk), well, her husband, to get back to the subject, started having an affair with a coworker about six months before she found out. Now he thinks they can be best friends. Her response? "I don't do this sort of thing to my friends." Quite sensible, I think. She's bought a half-million-dollar house on our street with her alimony and child support payments to foot the bill. (Turns out he's a pseudo-celebrity. After all this broke, one of the other moms told me, "Yeah, I didn't know, but if you look at the Air Farce website, he's there." Pretty much sums up what everyone says about him. Bex, if anyone watches Air Farce anymore, I'll out him for you - he's Alan Park, child in a 44-year-old's body, and his "girlie," to quote his soon-to-be-ex-wife, is Penelope whosis.) He had the gall to ask that his name be put on the deed. (Apparently he's paying for it.) His logic? "What if something happens to me?" Her response? "Make us your beneficiaries." He said he wanted a key and she said no, he wasn't going to be welcome to waltz into the house the way he does now in what used to be their home (where he takes her food and walks into the bathroom while she's showering to ask questions). He said "So I won't be welcome in the house?" Some men simply need to grow up. I don't care what his personality type is, he's acting like a child. [/end rant] |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







) The explanation the author of that article gives is very reasonable. Maybe dismay at the lack of solidarity from the woman contributes:


8:40 AM Jul 11