Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

New Perspectives on Polyamoury and Cheating

  • Feb. 18th, 2005 at 9:49 AM
smile
[index] Friday, February 18, 2005 - New Perspectives on Polyamoury and Cheating

My long standing policy regarding cheating has been that one should be upset with whomever made the promise to them. It seemed very irrational to me when I would observe a girl getting more mad at the girl her boyfriend messed around with than at the boyfriend himself.

While I still do find this a pretty good principle, I no longer see these issues so black and white.

Since we do have an open relationship and are open with each other, I've learned a lot about Patri's perspective on sex, which is much different than my own, and probably much more similar to that of many other guys (and perhaps some girls) than my own ;)

Basically, I tend to view mostly from a relationship perspective, constantly evaluating many different aspects, whereas Patri is mostly thinking about sex with new prospects and it doesn't even cross his mind to think further until the relationship has already started ;) He also has a very strong urge to have sex with any woman who is cute and seems interested, whereas I can easily look past good looks.

There have been a few women recently who seem to be showing some interest. I have mixed feelings about it. I doubt I'll ever be thrilled about the notion of his sleeping with someone else, but I know its something that's important to him and I've accepted that it will happen and have even made some efforts toward helping him out.

The idea of his sleeping with someone else doesn't really bother me in and of itself. The main thing that does concern me is his relationship with another woman interferring with his relationship with me.

This could take a few different forms. The two big ones as I see it currently are:

1) Time. He's already pretty busy as is, so I worry that he will not spend as much time with me as I like if he gets involved with someone else as well.

2) Babies. My biggest concern with another woman would be if she were to get pregnant with his baby and decide to keep it. Even if she did not try to make him responsible for it, things can go wrong at any time even with the best of plans, and regardless of his not wanting it, he would have feelings for any child of his, and that sort of situation would most likely cause a lot of stress for Patri, myself, our kids, our relationship, her kid, and her.

I also see many upsides to Patri having a relationship with another woman who is okay with what Patri and I want.

One that has come up recently, is giving him more willpower for turning down other women who might be after him and would like to break up our relationship.

I was talking to a friend the other day who noted that she was not so interested in sex upon getting pregnant, as with her husband.

Now, who knows what the case will be for myself and Patri, but if there's a girl that he comes into contact with regularly who is consistently flirty with him and I'm not so interested, that could make for a pretty frustrated guy!

So even though he may do a very good job at resisting, given that is drive is for sex rather than relationships, if sex is constantly being flaunted at him and he's not satisfied with what he's getting, he'll probably have a hard time resisting.

Hence, in that case I would be much angrier with the woman trying to break up our relationship in order to have him for herself than I would be with him for having a weak moment after being pursued with something he wants for an extended period of time.

It puts quite a different spin on cheating in such scenarios as well. If a relationship is not open or at least not communicative about such regards, especially if the couple get out of sync in regard to sexual desire, it probably gets more and more difficult to turn down another interested party, especially over a long period of time.

I can easily envision a scenario where the guy (or girl) loses his willpower and gives in to seduction, feels too guilty to tell his wife, he becomes close with his new mistress because she's the only one he can confide to, and eventually leaves the wife for her.

Although Patri has not had any such loss of willpower and also wishes very much to avoid getting involved with such women, I told him that should it ever be the case that he loses it, I want him to tell me about it, and that while I wouldn't be happy, I understand that he's only human. I want his secrets to be with me, not with some woman who traps him with guilt. Sex is just sex.

There are of course other reasons I think it would be good for Patri to have a relationship with another woman whom was respectful of our relationship and happy with the limited amount of time he'd have to give her.

The most obvious one is that he would like it. He enjoys the chase, variety, and is an extrovert who likes to spend time with many people.

What I want from marriage is a partnership. Someone who cares deeply for me as I am and vice-versa. Since Patri and I are rather unusual people in many aspects, we can't just go with the contemporary molds. A big part of who he is is not wanting to feel restrained. However, he's also an efficiency monger, and will restrain himself when he feels that it is worthwhile. He's also a hedonist, so the fact that something might be dangerous does not rule it out. Pleasure must be addressed and balanced as well as pain.

So, with the big tricky issues like polyamoury, we spend a lot of time considering various angles. Especially me ;) I often wish for a mold that I could follow, something easy, but to be bitter about the lack of its existance would be equivalent to being bitter about the lack of magical unicorns in the world ;)

And the freedom I get isn't so bad either ;) I'll probably want extramarital affairs myself eventually as well, although not for a very long time given my current baby focus.

Also, if I am pregant it would probably be good for Patri to have someone to go to for reassurance once in a while who is not insane from crazy hormones ;) Although these last few weeks have been crazy busy for both Patri and I, so I'm hoping that he doesn't hook up with anyone else until our lives become a little less hectic ;)

Comments

[info]triath wrote:
Feb. 18th, 2005 06:56 pm (UTC)
"...Patri's perspective on sex, which is much different than my own..."

What is your perspective on sex?
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 18th, 2005 09:10 pm (UTC)
Basically I'm generally only interested in people I'm attracted to mentally. It has often been the case that I'm initially very attracted to a guy based on physical appearance and presentation, and then decided that I can't stand the thought of messing around with him after one or two conversations ;) Also, when single I only go for prospects that I can foresee some relationship potential with (even if small): once I determine that it won't work I quickly lose all interest.
[info]madduckdes wrote:
Feb. 18th, 2005 07:18 pm (UTC)
Poly gets crazy because of all the damn variables. You've got your triads, your Vs... and if there's more than three folks? Shit. Never gonna be able to graph that!

But love can be confusing even with limiting things to two people. Anytime people have different perspectives, there's potential for butting heads. So is that an argument for eliminating as many potential variables as possible (i.e. two people is best) or, if we have to work through differing opinions anyway, then why not tackle poly issues at the same time? Argh, I'm not phrasing this very well. I guess I'm trying to say that I'm still confused about all the trappings involved with poly.

Re: The logic behind being okay with a situation or who it's "right" to be upset with ... logic does not always match one's emotional reaction. I would argue that a girl constantly flirting with Patri in the hopes that he'll leave you for her makes her kind of a bitch, but *logically* i think your original assertion about the relationship and all relationship agreements being between you and Patri is the correct one - hence you and the other girl have no agreement. Hence, why get angry with the person you weren't negotiating with in the first place? That being said, how logical must one really be about some ho trying to steal one's man, hmm? Especially if said man is one's baby's daddy.

I find that my willingness to consider extra variables (of whatever sort) and my emotional reactions to things that relate to Mark are often closely tied to how secure I feel in our relationship as a whole. Is he acting like he loves me? Is he still a man of his word worthy of my respect? Am I convinced that he's committed to sticking around? If I'm happy and he's happy and we're still having fun together, the odds of some girly stealing him away are pretty darn low (no matter who started the flirting).
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 18th, 2005 08:52 pm (UTC)
I would argue that a girl constantly flirting with Patri in the hopes that he'll leave you for her makes her kind of a bitch, but *logically* i think your original assertion about the relationship and all relationship agreements being between you and Patri is the correct one - hence you and the other girl have no agreement. Hence, why get angry with the person you weren't negotiating with in the first place? That being said, how logical must one really be about some ho trying to steal one's man, hmm?

Good points. I guess I would be getting mad at her for being a ho, which of course, as a ho she can't really help, so I suppose it would be irrational.

Although on the other hand, if she got some serious negative feedback maybe she'd change to a less stressful path, ie, not my fiance, which would make the response not irrational on my part ;)

I find that my willingness to consider extra variables (of whatever sort) and my emotional reactions to things that relate to Mark are often closely tied to how secure I feel in our relationship as a whole.

Agreed. This is related to why I'm a little hesitant about talking about poly stuff to begin with. I've had very bad experiences with it in the past with someone else, and therefore feel rather hesitant about endorsing the idea. The key difference is that Patri and I have a much happier, more fulfilling, balanced, and more stable relationship. And even now of course I don't expect it to be easy. As you say, there are plenty of complications with two people, let alone three or more, but we'll take it as it comes, baby steps ;)
[info]foolmonkey wrote:
Feb. 18th, 2005 09:06 pm (UTC)
I guess I would be getting mad at her for being a ho, which of course, as a ho she can't really help, so I suppose it would be irrational.

It isn't necessarily irrational to be angry with someone for being who they are. Who they are may very well suck. Just because they are acting in character doesn't mean that character is inherently good.
[info]madduckdes wrote:
Feb. 18th, 2005 09:27 pm (UTC)
hmm.

hmm.

this is indeed an interesting point. on the other hand, i find that i tend to get more angry at people over things that are changeable than over things that just "are." for example, if someone who is ordinarily nice is acting like an asshole, that makes me angry because i feel like i can and should expect better. if someone just *is* an asshole, 24/7, it seems like a waste of my energy to bother getting angry about it.
[info]foolmonkey wrote:
Feb. 18th, 2005 10:11 pm (UTC)
I was just railing against a typical liberal perspective that says that everyone is ok to be who they are, and there are no moral absolutes, and if one person is an asshole 24/7, that's just the way they are, and you have to accept their different lifestyle choice.

I'm not saying it isn't a waste of your energy to get mad at this person, but it isn't irrational to do so. Also, disappointment, or failure to meet standards shouldn't be the sole causes for anger. Some people you expect the worst from, and when they deliver, it is perfectly reasonable to be angry with them.

Oh, and I'm one of those typical liberals all too often. I just don't dogmatically embrace moral relativism.
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 18th, 2005 10:43 pm (UTC)
Yeah. I'm of the "its generally a waste of energy to get mad at someone/something for being who/what they are" camp, at least ideally speaking, although I do not think that acceptance that someone's character is not likely to change equates a moral imperative to accept them in your community or life. Often to the contrary.
[info]zuleikhajami wrote:
Feb. 20th, 2005 12:23 pm (UTC)
The whole "ho" "babydaddy" slang in the middle of this creates a very funny effect. :)

I think in terms of the "who's pursuing who" issue that it's like all things in life, very often without blacks and whites. I think if someone aggressively persues once S.O. when s/he knows it's outside the bounds of the rules of your relationship, then they're acting immorally. I think in that situation, I'd be mad at that person. I think I would also be mad at my S.O, too, though.
[info]patrissimo wrote:
Feb. 20th, 2005 08:28 pm (UTC)
what for?
wait, why would you be mad at the SO because someone aggressively pursued them? How is that their fault?
[info]chrysarose wrote:
Feb. 20th, 2005 11:21 pm (UTC)
Re: what for?
I think no matter how agressively our SO is pursued, we desperately want to believe that they are so strong and have so much self control that they will overcome the seduction. So one might get mad if they faltered and broke an agreement and gave into the agressor that pursuing them. It takes two to tango, and that whole thing.
[info]patrissimo wrote:
Feb. 20th, 2005 11:27 pm (UTC)
Re: what for?
I wasn't asking why you'd blame an SO for having an affair. I was asking why you'd blame them merely for being pursued. I thought that's what the comment said, but I could be wrong...
[info]zuleikhajami wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2005 12:01 pm (UTC)
Re: what for?
I meant if my S.O. hooked up with the person. I wouldn't be mad at them just for being pursued. :)
[info]patrissimo wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2005 05:48 pm (UTC)
Re: what for?
phew! It's not my fault I'm cute :).

I think I'd be a little mad too if my SO hooked up with the person, and so would she, but given my weak willpower I'm glad that she feels she'd be forgiving.
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2005 12:43 am (UTC)
I think I'm in agreement with you here: I interpretted this as your saying that you'd be mad at the SO if he acted on it, not just for his being pursued.

I certainly wouldn't be thrilled if he acted on it and would be somewhat upset with him, but the situation would make a big difference as to how upset. Since I know that if something happened it would probably be largely affected by mz. ho's work, I want to be sure that I am not so mad at him that he can't come to me for help to work things out. And I am pretty sympathetic to his end: I know what its like to want things and have to resist. Plus she's super nice to him of course, so its hard for him to think of her as "that bad" :P
[info]sunshine__girl wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2005 01:03 am (UTC)
I agree with this. I don't think people get a pass for doing awful things just because they're awful people. Awful behavior needs to be dealt with, regardless of whether or not the person does it once or all the time.

I just don't dogmatically embrace moral relativism.

I love that. Fabulous!

[info]capitalism_yeah wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2005 07:42 am (UTC)
How do you know the woman is "constantly flirting with Patri in the hopes that he'll leave you"? Have you spoken with her about it?
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2005 09:50 am (UTC)
I am being intentionally vague here, but would be happy to discuss over email.
[info]webnesto wrote:
Feb. 18th, 2005 10:37 pm (UTC)
Interesting
Interesting perspectives all.

Being that I'm extremely opinionated and this is a subject that I've got scads of opinions on, I'll weigh in:

If someone makes a commitment to me... let's go with a traditional monogamy commitment for simplicity's sake: They commit to have sex/intimate-relationship with only me, then they have committed to those things REGARDLESS of how good a job I'm doing in the relationship of being attentive to their sexual needs. As a matter of fact, I think that's the time it's most critical. To be relaxed/comfortable in a relationship you should not have to be scared that if you're not "on top of your game" that your partner is going to less faithful.

I also think there's an implied commitment to not supporting/allowing/enduring/etc. other relationships with people that do not respect this commitment. If the relationship is continued after a lack of respect has been established, I think that alone is breaking the spirit of your commitment if not the letter of the law.

I generally apply this dynamic even though I'm poly. The relationship(s) I have all have some sorts of commitments both vocalized and implied. And when I'm meeting someone new, and they show a lack of respect for my existing relationships/commitments (after I've made an effort to present the existance of said relationship and commitment, as well as my dedication to both), then I don't even have to make an effort to "stay away" from them, as my respect for them is immediately diminished. Any interest I might've had is usually dashed completely. Regardless of my interest level, if someone didn't respect my relationships, they're not respecting me and I don't need to be around them.

So, ultimately I agree that in the event of infidelity there is anger to be directed both places: both at the "invader" for not respecting your relationship and you as well as your partner for not living up to their commitments. And I think that in the context of a relationship, the betrayal by a loved one is more significant than the attack by a stranger.

Hope I made sense. Not really trying to impose anything on you, I just know that sense of "Well, this is great that I'm not being confined by TRADITIONAL VALUES, but... isn't there a guidebook around here somewhere?" and the best way I've found at addressing that stuff is talking to others trying similar stuff, communication with my partner, and experimentation (and isn't it fun when the stuff in the beakers blow up?).

Good luck on "figuring it all out!"
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2005 02:21 am (UTC)
Re: Interesting
Good stuff, thanks :)

And when I'm meeting someone new, and they show a lack of respect for my existing relationships/commitments (after I've made an effort to present the existance of said relationship and commitment, as well as my dedication to both), then I don't even have to make an effort to "stay away" from them, as my respect for them is immediately diminished. Any interest I might've had is usually dashed completely. Regardless of my interest level, if someone didn't respect my relationships, they're not respecting me and I don't need to be around them.

Yeah, I'm the same way. Unfortunately my boyfriend is not ;) Its very strange and hard to understand for me, but even when he agrees with me that someone has done things that are downright evil, he still won't cut contact with them and maintains friendships (although he does certainly put some amount of distance in). Despite the obvious downside, it does have the upside that a lot of people tend to really "be there at best" for him because me makes them feel good. I also don't think he realizes how good of a person he is, which makes him hesitant to judge others.

And I think that in the context of a relationship, the betrayal by a loved one is more significant than the attack by a stranger.

Definitely. Although more significant does not necessarily equate more anger. Also, I think its important to figure out how much of a betrayal something is. If its just the case of having a strong drive for sex but nothing more, while bad and while it would hurt me, I also know enough about him to know that its not meaningful in the same way to him as to me.

I honestly really strongly doubt it would come to that though. My main concern with the other girl is the ongoing stress it might put on our relationship. It makes one's relationship that much less attractive when dealing with day to day problem when there's this other person looking at you like you're shiny candy, always trying to convince you that the grass is greener over where she is.

There've been a couple of interesting studies done related to this principle. In one they had a bunch of men look at pictures of models and then rate how happy they were with their girlfriends. The selection was random but the ones who had just looked at attractive faces on averaged rated their girlfriends much lower than those who had looked at normal or unattractive pictures. It was also found that those men with jobs where they worked with a lot of young attractive women, such as university professors, had much higher divorce rates (and maybe rates of happiness as well, I'm not sure) than men who did not work with many attractive women.
[info]chrysarose wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2005 03:02 am (UTC)
Re: Interesting
while bad and while it would hurt me, I also know enough about him to know that its not meaningful in the same way to him as to me.

whoa. if it would hurt you, it would hurt you. that should be enough that it shouldn't happen. whether or not it is meaningful or means the same thing to him is not what this is about. i don't think you should compromise your feelings or rationalize a partner's behavior if it hurts you.
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2005 06:47 am (UTC)
Re: Interesting
Just thought of another perhaps more annoying thing about it. Its tough to have to be constantly turning down something you're interested in. Being a sugar junkie myself, I find it much easier to not eat the stuff if I don't have to look at it. Having to look at it and resist makes me feel resentful and causes other negative feelings.

It takes a lot of conscious effort to keep resisting, and I always end up breaking down after a while. At least thus far in my life ;) Although I think that for many reasons, this girl will be easier to resist for him than sugar is for me, it causes the same sorts of negativity to be constantly tempted and consciously working to restrain ones self.
[info]sunshine__girl wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2005 01:11 am (UTC)
Re: Interesting
These are some really good ideas. I think commitment, honesty, and communication are the most important things, especially when you are doing something "outside the book". I like the idea that breaking the spirit of a commitment is just as important as the letter. You have to actually *care* about the other person and what they want, to the best of your ever-expanding ability.

I think my ideal relationship would be primarily monogamous, a lot like [info]choiceful's ideas of partnership, with joint sexual experiments, and a sense of freedom, rather than being constrained by the relationship. I would never want the other person to feel trapped by me.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to interfere with anyone's existing relationship, even if I were interested in the person, for the reason you note above (that it doesn't show respect for them and their commitments), and also because I think it would make it harder for me to get what I want, which is that kind of partnership. I don't want to break someone's relationship up, even though I sometimes think that makes me a sap, because it might work out and I'm missing an opportunity (as is the other person) for something that might be wonderful. But I would never want a relationship to be founded on that kind of destruction. Too idealistic? I don't know.
[info]webnesto wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2005 01:18 am (UTC)
Re: Interesting
"On the other hand, I wouldn't want to interfere with anyone's existing relationship, even if I were interested in the person, for the reason you note above (that it doesn't show respect for them and their commitments), and also because I think it would make it harder for me to get what I want, which is that kind of partnership. I don't want to break someone's relationship up, even though I sometimes think that makes me a sap, because it might work out and I'm missing an opportunity (as is the other person) for something that might be wonderful. But I would never want a relationship to be founded on that kind of destruction. Too idealistic? I don't know."

I don't know if this is true of everyone, but as far as I'm concerned: the relationship(s) I am in are a HUGE part of who I am. So if you are interested in, or in love with: me, then you are interested in and in love with the relationship(s) I'm in. If you take me out of those, you'll wind up with a much different me. Probably not the one you wanted.

That right there is one of the main arguments, besides the respect issues, for not wanting someone to leave/betray/destroy a relationship with someone else to be with you. In my seldom humble opinion.
[info]sunshine__girl wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2005 01:26 am (UTC)
Re: Interesting
Also a very good point. Because what you get is not the person as you see them now; you get the person after you've destroyed a relationship they value. Which is horrible all around.

Of course, this is only considering it from the point of view of what (the ho, or whatever you want to call her) gets out of it, not the other person, whom you claim to love, and the people they love. So I agree it's a bad idea all around. It's especially bad if you come in with good intent, looking for your own happy partnership, not looking juts to hurt someone else.
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2005 05:30 am (UTC)
Re: Interesting
Yeah. Very simple. I've always thought that I would never want to date someone who would leave someone they made a promise to on my behalf, because I could not respect let alone trust them.

There are other reasons that I might be sympathetic to for changing one's mind on a promise: main reason being not having enough information when having made it. I personally try very hard to avoid such situations though myself by not making promises when there is substancial reason to question how I will feel about it in the future. Hence, I very rarely make promises ;)
[info]webnesto wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2005 10:04 am (UTC)
Re: Interesting
I'm notorious for saying "I'll do my best" rather than promising anything. ;)
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2005 05:38 am (UTC)
Re: Interesting
I think my ideal relationship would be primarily monogamous, a lot like [info]smileycynic's ideas of partnership, with joint sexual experiments, and a sense of freedom, rather than being constrained by the relationship. I would never want the other person to feel trapped by me.

I have many ideas for relationships, although I assume you're speaking more of the ideas Patri and I are actually attempting.

As far as that one goes, we are not aiming at monogamy primarily or no. It is true that we are currently primarily monogamous, but that is likely to change in the not so distant future, as we have an agreement for polyamoury. We do intend on keeping our relationship with each other as primary, hence the getting married bit ;)
[info]corwyn_ap wrote:
Feb. 19th, 2005 04:12 am (UTC)
I think it is very important, if you are going to extact an oath from someone, to:

1) Make sure it is one you can be happy with. If you require fidelity, you should get an oath which states it. If you require that other realtionships not interfere with yours, get that. Whatever you need.

2) Having gotten that oath you can't fault the oath giver for following it. In some senses this needs to include other parties that might be involved. If you allow Patri to flirt, you can't fault someone who flirts back. You don't allow interference, Patri needs to make that clear to them.

3) You have to be happy with the terms, not just accepting, but really happy, or it will eat at you little by little.

4) There is no need for equal oaths. You get what you need, he gets what he needs (from BOTH oaths). Don't allow the 'well you can do that too' to be used as a negotiating move. If you need to promise something, he doesn't require, it should still be in there (unless he actively doesn't want it).

Hope this helps.
[info]patrissimo wrote:
Feb. 20th, 2005 08:34 pm (UTC)
For clarification on #2, the issue here is not just flirting. It is that both of us get the sense that this girl is genuinely romantically interested in me. While I am always a little bit flirtatious, I also mention Shannon a lot, and have tried to keep things light.

If it was just flirting, that would be fine. If it was just physical interest, that would be fine (hell, it would be great!). It's the romantic interest that's creepy. (unless we're imagining it, which is always possible...)
[info]chrysarose wrote:
Feb. 20th, 2005 11:24 pm (UTC)
Romance?
umm. I'm confused. In "polyamory", isn't romance part of the whole equation? I thought "swingers" only had physical encounters outside their relationship but practicing polys let themselves take it a step further and fall in love (thus the amory...). This was always my impression of poly. What's the problem with being romantically involved and why is her interest creepy? Maybe I don't understand the guidelines and agreements between you and Shannon.
[info]patrissimo wrote:
Feb. 20th, 2005 11:34 pm (UTC)
Re: Romance?
romantic involvement with poly people is fine. Monogamous women who are after meis not. The feeling I get is the latter.
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2005 12:27 am (UTC)
Re: Romance?
What he said. She strikes me as wanting to possess him and competitive about it.
[info]chrysarose wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2005 02:57 am (UTC)
Re: Romance?
ok well then all all poly discussion about your relationship aside, this girl gives you the creeps and you don't think she's pursuing it with the right intention. sounds like you know its a bad idea that should be off limits. no questions asked, end of story, right?
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2005 05:07 am (UTC)
Re: Romance?
For the most part. Life's complicated though ;)
[info]chrysarose wrote:
Feb. 20th, 2005 12:29 pm (UTC)
The Poly Handbook
I often wish for a mold that I could follow, something easy, but to be bitter about the lack of its existance would be equivalent to being bitter about the lack of magical unicorns in the world

There isn't exactly an easy guide for all mono relationships either... heh. But as far as advice on the subject of polyamory, it's not as terribly rare as unicorns as one might think! :)

Here's some resources I use, and I would seriously consider posting this exact topic to one/either of them and seeing if any "old pro's" of poly have any advice to your concerns.

http://www.polymatchmaker.com/

http://www.livejournal.com/community/polyamory/
[info]choiceful wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2005 05:08 am (UTC)
Re: The Poly Handbook
Thanks! :)

Latest Month

July 2009
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Links

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Taylor Savvy