Inspector went and looked up Leonard Peikoff's comment on masturbation as sex from his Love, Sex & Romance Q&A:

"Q: Is masturbation sex…?

A: Yes it is Sex; sex is any contact with and pleasure from the genitals. It does not say what form of contact – despite our president [Clinton] – and it does not say who or whether it’s you yourself. If you get pleasure from scratching your back, that is not sex… but if it’s the right area, it is!”

(note also that the "despite our president" comment got big laughs")

As a friend of mine in college used to say: "Don't be dumb. Get you some."

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 02:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: Romance
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't really regret dating any of the people I've dated although I do recognize that I could have exercised some better judgment in those I chose to date.

Well, remember my ex who did his cry- for- attention- faux- suicide attempt?

At the end of that incident, I told him to never speak to me again.

Last night, that fool sent me an instant message. I didn't save the conversation, but I wish I had so I could share it with you guys.

It went something like this:

Him: I got beat by a drag queen.
Me: Seriously, never talk to me again.
Him: Whatever.
Me: No, not whatever. You need to understand that I don't want you to ever talk to me again.
Me: Are we clear on this?

He also swore at me and called me ugly names. But he stopped talking to me.

I THINK I'm finally rid of him. Only time will tell.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 01:23 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Category: Romance
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

In my comments, Inspector left an eloquent description of sex that I think bears being highlighted:

Objectivism's view toward romantic and ideal sex is one of breathless reverence for a sublime greatness

YES.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 03:07 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: Romance
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

This weekend I ran into The Cuban. The Cuban and I dated for a while late last year. A couple three months, I think.

He was really sweet and sexy and I really enjoyed many things about him, but we had some ideological differences that really bothered me and I felt like we were lacking an intellectual connection. So, we broke up.

But I do miss him. I miss all the good things that made me date him in the first place.

I saw him Friday night while hunting for a bar that wasn't too dark, too loud, too crowded, or too expensive. And it was really nice to see him even if it was only for five seconds.

Well, that brief encounter then lead to a text message exchange on Saturday.

This will totally sound like a lie, but it's not, I actually thought he was someone else sending me a text message (one of the cute guys I met Friday), so I was kind of flirty. Even after I realized it was him, though the conversation continued a little longer. It was kind of hard to not respond when I had been texting him all evening.

Eventually, I did just stop responding, though. And today he sent me an email saying it was nice to "talk" to me.

I have to say: this is one of the more difficult aspects of my strict dating policies. I have good reasons for dating the people I've dated and I'm not confused or unclear about them. I also have good reasons for not dating them any more and they are equally clear.

The decision I make about the relationship is a direction function of my hierarchy of values and it wouldn't make any sense for me to try to go against that. But I still have a little internal conflict on the situation.

I mention all of this only to highlight the fact that being a rational human being doesn't mean that one has no conflict. Just because you know the moral thing to do doesn't mean that you are blind to the possible (limited-range) value of the alternative. The difference is that one recognizes the greater value in acting rationally and morally.

Sure, I could probably call up The Cuban and ask him for a date and he'd probably say yes. But that is obviously not the best decision to make. So, at this point I'm not even responding to his recent note. There's nothing to gain by it.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 05:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: Romance
Post contains 423 words, total size 2 kb.

So, I was recently introduced to this new Objectivist Sex/Love blog, Erosophia. Yeah, Objectivist sex. Fun, right? Trust me: it's not always crazy rough sex like between Dagny and my man, Hank Rearden -- but sometimes it is. Haaaaaayyyyy! (Say that as gay as you can and possibly snap your fingers over your head.)

Erosophia is written by a couple, Jason and Megan. It seems interesting, but I'd like to see where it goes. They seem like they're still trying to find their own style and voice.

Well!

Ergo of Ergosum is TOTALLY picking fights with them now. Or maybe Jason is picking fights with Ergo. I don't know.

I don't care to track down the timeline, but snarks have been fired. Check out the comments on Jason's post on threesomes. And look at the comments on Ergo's oft-misunderstood post on sex.

I don't know who started this but it's all I can do not to make jokes about Ergo and Jason settling their dispute by dousing themselves in baby oil and wrestling it out gentlemen, but I have no idea how anyone would take that so I have to content myself with making a list of ways to pick fights with Brad Pitt. Actually, the fight picking list goes with a separate list of which Brad Pitt is just one option.

I blogged on a portion of Ergo's post over on my other blog, but I haven't been able to migrate my old posts yet. Ergo and I are also in the middle of a little email conversation on the topic as well.

I will admit: when I first read his post on the topic, I really wasn't clear on Ergo's actual position. It appeared to me that he was advocating "friends with benefits." After mulling the topic over with my readers, I came to the conclusion that "f!bomb buddies" and the like are generally immoral.

But I've also had the benefit of Ergo's own clarifications and I don't think he actually supports that.

I believe his argument is simply that there isn't some sort of crazy categorical imperative against sex without Love. There are lots and lots of situations that one can imagine that one might be in that would make sex with someone one doesn't Love the perfectly moral thing to do.

One situation is the case of Kira and Andre in We the Living. Kira does not love Andre. I think she learns to admire him some, but her love goes to Leo. Her reason for having sex with Andre is so that she can save Leo's life. Given their situation, Kira's actions are moral.

Obviously, most people do not find themselves in an oppressive socialist system where their lover is dying and the only available means of saving them is prostituting themselves to a leader of that oppressive system of government. That, my friends, is drama. DRAMA.

A more common situation might be one where one lives in a community where none of the available mates are ideal, so one is left to choose someone who is as good as possible. It may be argued that such a situation represents the individual "settling" for a lesser value, but bear in mind that no higher value is present. It would be inhumane to subject one's self to a life of celibacy when there are willing, not-offensive partners available. Naturally, if the ideal person does show up, one would drop the lesser to have the better, but we can't possibly expect that poor person to know that their ideal would arrive when all signs point to lifelong loneliness. It would be moral given the context of the decision for such a person to choose a mate of the available partners knowing full well that the highest level of Love is not available to them.

We can also think of an even less depressing and far more common scenario: dating. Let's say you find someone who is attractive and willing. You start dating them and every sign indicates that this person is a wonderful person and your relationship may one day develop into one of mutual respect, admiration, love, and reverence. But prior to realizing this deep love, you might choose to have sex with that person. It's a risk because you might break up. They might turn out to be a schmuck. Obviously, you don't want them to be a schmuck and you wouldn't want to have sex with them if you know they'll reveal themselves to be a schmuck, but neither would you save yourself for marriage.

And before I wrap up, I want to mention another situation in which sex happens but you're not in love: masturbation. I count masturbation as sex. We might stretch the definition of Love to say that one is loving one's self, but throughout this discussion we haven't used the word in that way.

So, anyway, the point here is that there are lot of cases in which one might have sex without love and still not be immoral.

This doesn't mean that one is going to go about being a rapist or that one is being an intrinsicist for advocating sex with one's ideal partner.

From what I can tell we're all on the same page here, but if folks have to get rowdy about it, I guess that's what they'll do. Who needs more baby oil?

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 05:45 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Category: Romance
Post contains 900 words, total size 5 kb.

1 What I like about you, Flibbert, is that you are so very inductive. Even if someone were to disagree with you, which I don't, it would be over abstractions that you've already reduced to concretes - and that's a very pleasant disagreement indeed! (More like a mutually enjoyable search for truth. Which is, of course, obviously your intent.)

I, for one, am grateful, Flibby! (I hope you aren't put off by my intimate use of a diminutive.

Posted by: Rachel at June 25, 2007 09:02 AM (N9kTt)

2 I think that might be the best compliment I've received from my blog ever! Thank you!

And of course I don't mind the diminutive, especially when coupled with such kind words!

Posted by: Flibbert at June 25, 2007 09:28 AM (ErOeR)

3 Flib, you've come out of that mess smelling like a rose, it seems. I don't know if Jason means to endorse a Platonic denial view or if Ergo means to endorse hedonistic preversions, but it seems you've managed to avoid either.

Good for you!

As for your scenarios (dating mistakes and settling), they illustrate precisely how one would morally, although tragically, end up sleeping with less than one's ideal. (Drama!)

But I do disagree on one point: masturbation is not sex. Sex is between two people. Sex involves the process of selecting another person. That is philosophically meaningful. Because of that, it's in a different category. Peikoff had a good reason for putting it that way in his lecture. Does that make sense or am I being vague?

Posted by: Inspector at June 25, 2007 01:57 PM (ANSml)

4 As a clarification, the troubles I see with both sides:

On Ergo's side, I believe it is irresponsible, philosophically speaking, to simply declare that Objectivist morality allows sex "without love." If one means the full and total perfect romantic love that is often (though not always!) meant by "love" in Objectivism, then yes that can be true. But (und this is a BIG but) that is not a blank check, and there is quite a lot more to it then that.

For instance, Dr. Peikoff's recent Q&A speaks of how deeply one is in love, which definitely says there are levels of it. Certainly if one uses the latter definition of "love," then "sex without love" would mean sex totally without spiritual admiration, and that is definitely bad. Defining one's terms is critically important in this kind of discussion.

Furthermore, tearing down the structure of intrinsic thought without putting into place the structure of objective thought is helping subjectivism. It leaves one rudderless in the dark.

Highlighting the moral possibility of the lesser forms of sex without highlighting their total inferiority; i.e. what one gives up with them, and also clearly defining that hedonism is immoral is a de facto endorsement of hedonism. Kind of like damning with faint praise.

Jason's error is much simpler, if he indeed makes this error. If he's saying that morality never ever ever ever permits sex with less than the ideal then your examples just clearly blow that out of the water.

Don't let the size of those two arguments fool you. I don't have long arguments with religionists, either. There's nothing to argue. But because the subjectivists often cloak in reason, it takes more untangling. Not, again, that I am accusing either side of either of the former.

Posted by: Inspector at June 25, 2007 02:20 PM (ANSml)

5 I don't think Jason is saying that sex must always be predicated on some super-high-mega-holy-untouchable-ineffable love. I am extending him some benefit of the doubt, but it strikes me as odd that even an Objectivist noob would avoid that mistake and Jason's discourse seems mature, thoughtful, and developed enough for me to make that assumption.

I extend a similar benefit of the doubt to Ergo, while supporting your advice on how to best clarify and support his position.

As for masturbation, perhaps I am mistaken as it has been a while since I've listened to the Peikoff Q&A, but I thought that he offered a different definition of "sex," one that does subsume masturbation.

Based on what I've seen of the two of these gentlemen, I am more willing than usual to believe that this really is an innocent misunderstanding of the points the two are trying to make.

Even so, I will concede that it is a sex act of a rather different nature and should in most contexts be regarded as distinct from all those acts that do include other people. I offer the masturbation case as an outlier to consider in the discussion of sex as -- per our previous discussion -- it does offer a fair substitute for partnered sex, a means of satisfying one's biological need for sex, in absence of a partner.

Posted by: Flibbert at June 25, 2007 04:39 PM (9YicC)

6 Flibbert,

You have stated my position fairly; although I don't understand why people simply can't understand it directly from reading my post itself.

I wanted to point out that Rand's quote on sex (the often misunderstood quote) is an attack on *ideological* positions advocated by religious fundamentalists or by hedonists. She wants to attack those who adopt these views as their metaphysical view of sex and love, not of those who accept her position but find no other alternative than to have sex with people they don't really love (due to circumstancial issues or just pure bad luck in the dating market).

Rand did not intend to comment on *every* *single* *specific* individual case where a person is faced with engaging in sex or not.

I simply don't understand how people like Jason start out on a presumption and get all arrogant about it without first reading my post carefully and then thinking about the implications of their own logical propositions. He made it sound like Objectivism viewed sex without love as dogmatically anathema--and then rudely chided me for pointing out that it is not!

Daayyaamn!

P.S. Inspector, I thought my post amply clarified that sex without love is less than ideal, not perfect, etc. etc., and I also layed great emphasis in pointing out that Objectivism's union of sex and love is indisputable and should not be overlooked. However, my point was to caution people from holding it as a dogmatic and instrinsic principle, as value in itself, without understanding why, when, in whose context, and how.
Perhaps, you're saying I should have been even more forcefully explicit about these views.

Posted by: Ergo at June 25, 2007 07:44 PM (eEbFb)

7 P.P.S:

I agree with Inspector in that I don't consider masturbation (with one's own self) as sex--perhaps, I'd concede that masturbation with another (mutually or otherwise) may be considered sex. I'll have to think about it more though.

And what is Peikoff's view? I'm not aware of it. COuld you offer his definition of sex that makes you believe that masturbation is subsumed by it?

Posted by: Ergo at June 25, 2007 07:48 PM (eEbFb)

8 If I had my CD with Peikoff's Q&A handy, I would have listened to it and given you the definition, but I don't. (I'm not sure where it is.)

I personally count anything that satisfies the sexual need as sex, which subsumes masturbation. Peikoff's definition was formulated differently, though.

The reason I would argue that masturbation leverages the same basic values as sex with a partner is due to the role of fantasy involved in the act. While sex with a partner is a "celebration of [one]self and of existence" (Ayn Rand quoted in OPAR, p344 in my copy) projected outward, fantasy allows the individual to evince the same response internally.

You wouldn't masturbate thinking about someone or something you hate any more than you would marry someone or something you hate.

So, if someone could go look up what Peikoff says about masturbation in his Q&A, that would probably be most helpful to this discussion.

Posted by: Flibbert at June 26, 2007 12:26 AM (9YicC)

9 Ergo,

I think what would help your case is to define how you think people should have high and demanding (non-intrinsic) standards, why they should have them, give a condemnation of hedonism and the hedonistic side of the misinterpretations of Objectivism.

Take your language: "less than ideal" and "not perfect." That in reference to a life without love? To lowering your standard from "a perfect union of mind and body" to "you're the least despicable that I can find?" I'm sorry but that reminds me of a Penny Arcade comic where a man is being barbecued alive by a flamethrower and is saying, "things could be better."

Just because it isn't immoral doesn't mean that it doesn't, well... suck. Objectivism's view toward romantic and ideal sex is one of breathless reverence for a sublime greatness - the very best of what human life has to offer. When you talk about settling for sex as a loveless affair, you need to make it clear just how far from ideal this is. Not to morally condemn those who, tragically, can do no better, but rather to make sure that those who give up are fully aware of how much they stand to lose.

For the record, again, I'm giving both of you the benefit of the doubt and am not accusing either of anything. I'm saying, "well, if this is not your position, then let's hear it!"

Posted by: Inspector at June 26, 2007 01:31 AM (ztsup)

10 I love this:

"Objectivism's view toward romantic and ideal sex is one of breathless reverence for a sublime greatness."

Well put!

Posted by: Flibbert at June 26, 2007 03:05 AM (ErOeR)

11 "So, if someone could go look up what Peikoff says about masturbation in his Q&A, that would probably be most helpful to this discussion."

Well, I just looked it up and I was wrong!

You may want to savor that. It's the first time I've ever mis-remembered a point like that. I am usually uncannily accurate.

Anyhow, here:

"Q: Is masturbation sex…?

A: Yes it is Sex; sex is any contact with and pleasure from the genitals. It does not say what form of contact – despite our president [Clinton] – and it does not say who or whether it’s you yourself. If you get pleasure from scratching your back, that is not sex… but if it’s the right area, it is!”

(note also that the "despite our president" comment got big laughs")

Posted by: Inspector at June 28, 2007 01:30 AM (IVkaz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A few weeks ago a friend of mine invited me to go to this dating event here. It was to be facilitated by this guy who was supposed to teach us how to find and build relationships based on out deeply held values and some such. I don't think I really have a problem with that, but I thought I would go with my friend and -- who knows? -- maybe there would be someone interesting there.

It was... special.

At one point, we were arranged into two concentric circles where each circle would take turns asking each other questions like, "What's the last movie you saw that you enjoyed?" or "Tell me about your favorite pet or a pet that you'd like to have in the future."

Fracture. It's like a long episode of Law & Order and Anthony Hopkins reprises his Hannibal Lector persona this time as a man who plots to kill his wife. But it was interesting and I liked it better than Ocean 13, which I saw more recently.

In the future, I'd like a pet dinosaur. Any species would have its benefits, really, but I think I'd either like one that is big enough to carry me to work.

I was actually impressed with how insightful some people were. At one point, we were sitting in small groups and one guy observed that when it comes to finding men who share his values, he notices that some people share some of his values but often it turns out that they lack something important. He implied an understanding of the difference between essential and optional values. It turns out that he's a social worker. I don't know what values he was talking about, but I was still surprised.

The speaker was... special.

At one point he wanted to demonstrate that you can meet people with shared values by attending events and activities for gay men who share interests. The example he gave was going to a bath house.

I'm not SO interested in booty bumps and anonymous sex, but I really would like to know where the gay Objectivist nuclear physicist triathletes meet. I've begun scouring the internet, but I suspect that the only group probably meets in Switzerland. And I think it's a secret because I haven't found anything yet.

Another oddball activity was when he asked us to bow to one another instead of shaking hands.

He called two men to the center of our circles to demonstrate how people bow.

Thanks to my multiple post-graduate degrees in bending at the waist, I felt well prepared for any pop quizzes on this topic, but it was nice to have a little refresher. The two men opted for the prayer hands plus bow movement and showed the group. Most people imitated this, but I went with the far more advanced Japanese-style bow with my hands relaxed by my side. Once, I even had my hands clasped behind my back. I wowed everyone when I combined a handshake -- quite against the rules -- with a bow. I'm a bad boy.

The reason he wanted us to bow was because he said it was "more intimate." He asked the two men who demonstrated the yoga bow and they assured us all that it was "much more intimate" to not touch one another and perform a culturally foreign action as a means of greeting. I assured those who received my bow that I did not find it more intimate, but I was too pre-occupied thinking about how cool it would be to have a pet dinosaur to fuss over it.

I had fun at this event, but I felt bad for some of the people there. Many of them were older men who, I think, came to this event immediately following group therapy. There was a lot of talk of damaged self-esteem and most unfortunate family situations that I felt were out of place.

Later we were directed to give our phone number or email to people. I ended up with seven numbers and I gave my email to three people.

Since I was there with a couple of friends, we went for drinks afterward and we were joined by one of the guys I gave my number to. He's cute and funny, so we'll see.

All in all, it wasn't a complete waste of time, although I don't think I will do that again. But one of my friends who was with me there wants to go to Qwikdates now. Is that any worse than trolling the internet? I will say that it's a lot more engaging than sitting in a dark, crowded, noisy bar.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 05:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: Romance
Post contains 783 words, total size 4 kb.

I was just on gay.com chatting with folks and this one guy IMed me. He's attractive, professional, funny, polite, etc. I was really excited to talk to him.

But, of course, before I'd go out on a limb and ask him out, I had to ask him THE question. Here's the relevant excerpt:

Flibby: Do you believe in god?
Flibby: You haven't indicated your religion in your profile.

Attractive Stranger: oh yes but not in a very conventional sense of what that might mean to most people

Flibby: Oh?

Attractive Stranger: so not a christian
Attractive Stranger: and u

Flibby: No, I'm atheist.
Flibby: Which is why I asked.

Attractive Stranger: dont get me wrong christianity is really hot on the right guy

Flibby: HA!

Attractive Stranger: not to worry
Attractive Stranger: were u raised as a southern baptist

Flibby: No.
Flibby: I was raised Pentecostal.

Attractive Stranger: oh my goodness

Flibby: slash Methodist.

Attractive Stranger: as in the texas Chain saw Mnethodist

Flibby: Well, sort of.

Attractive Stranger: now that was funny right

Flibby: heh heh heh... yes.

Attractive Stranger: ok
Attractive Stranger: just checking

Flibby: So, tell me this unconventional definition of god that you use.

Attractive Stranger: well if i had been raised as a penbtacostal that would have turned me into an atheist

Flibby: hahahahaaa... that's not why I'm atheist.

Attractive Stranger: God is not a person
Attractive Stranger: God is not a personality

Flibby: uh huh...

Attractive Stranger: but there is a pwer that revelas a pressence in the unfolding of things

Flibby: ?

Attractive Stranger: u really want to know

Flibby: Yes.

Attractive Stranger: its very hard to explain

Flibby: I imagine so.

Attractive Stranger: i have experienced the pressence in the unfolding of my life

Flibby: hm.

Attractive Stranger: thus the power speaks into my life thru the venst of my life

Attractive Stranger: the events are the syllables
Attractive Stranger: the emssage is slowly unfolding
Attractive Stranger: and my typing sucks tonights
Attractive Stranger: sorry

Flibby: That seems like a sort of buddhist way of looking at things.

*sigh*

No matter how muddled one's definition of magic, these sorts of beliefs all amount to the same thing.

First, their view of the universe is precarious at best. Certainty, even in the basic facts of existence, is up for debate. Their ability to deal with the facts of reality is beyond their power.

Second, their method of coming to know anything is grasping at straws. When it comes to broad, foundational aspects of reality, they rely on faith. When it comes to facts outside of the range of their immediate experience, they rely primarily on authority, guessing, or probability and they often fail to integrate whatever facts they are pragmatically certain of with one another.

It's so frustrating to me.

Eran Dror recently advised me to constrain my search for romance to people in technical or scientific fields because of their reliance on rationality. In general, I think this is sound advice. I just wish it weren't so common everywhere else.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 06:01 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Category: Romance
Post contains 510 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I know you have it on a bookshelf somewhere, so go read The God Delusion. Now.

I'll throw a stapler at you if you don't.

Posted by: tonya at June 13, 2007 06:46 PM (/sWP0)

2 Yes, I have it among the other two dozen or so books I'm reading right now.

It's on the list, though. Don't worry!

Posted by: Flibby at June 14, 2007 02:43 AM (ErOeR)

3 i remember telling you the same thing about dating scientists and also that I thought you might be feeling a little down or something, but you soundly denied it. I guess frustration is a different beast, I'm scared of the dating pool myself as you know... Good luck, or random circumstance in any event.

Posted by: GREG at June 14, 2007 11:01 AM (5FIFn)

4 As an engineer, I just want to say... the package does not always reflect the contents. Maybe it's because I'm in the south, but I know a TON of evangelical Christian engineers and scientists, and then plenty of "spiritual" people who see know conflict between faith and reason. I am a PhD student, and my major advisor, when pushed into a philosophical corner will claim that he cannot say, with certainty, that rocks are not trying to communicate with him. And in his professional work, I look to him as inspiration in the amount of rationality and integration of his scientific knowledge he has and expects out of me.

So, anyways, I don't know if dating scientists will help any. But good luck.

And dude, I like "Flibbert" so much more than "Flibby." It reminds me of a cartoon character or British person, both of which make me happy.

Posted by: Justin at June 14, 2007 11:31 AM (icSl8)

5 Greg

I take "down" to mean depressed or desperate about the situation. It's a more reflexive mood. That I am not.

I do get disappointed and frustrated with people, though.

Posted by: Flibby at June 15, 2007 03:16 AM (ErOeR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So, tonight I had a date with a deaf guy that I've been chatting with recently. I "met" him on gay.com. Yeah, I know. Gay.com is not the place to meet homosexual Objectivists or really any homosexuals who aren't interested in just one thing. But there are some guys on there who are interested in somethings other than sex. I've made a couple of friends there. Anyway, I've been chatting with this guy and it turns out he's deaf.

For as much chatting as we've done, I haven't quizzed him yet on my requirements. Even so, I agreed to go to dinner with him this evening and then go with him to a party.

Dinner was nice, but the party was a lot of fun. I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

His friends are all fun, interesting, and very genuine.

It took a little bit to get used to the signing and the odd speech patterns, but I caught on before too long.

I thought it was funny how they would "whisper" by turning their back to you or stepping around a corner or in some cases just signing behind someone's head.

This guy I went on a date with speaks very well and there is only a slight imperfection.

Anyway, that was fun. At the party, there were many hilarious things that people said. This one lady was a real character. At one point, someone said that there is some sort of national championship for female ejaculation and she exclaimed, "You mean there is something else I could be winning?!?!"

It was disgusting and hilarious.

Well, she entered the party saying that she once threw a bowl of diarrhea from her window on the 10th floor. The followed that statement with: don't do drugs!

Later in the evening, we insisted that she explain.

To be continued...

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 06:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: Romance
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.