COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Poly ... amory and other things

KimGordon67 said:
I'm not sure what men you're talking about here, but this doesn't describe any guy I know - none of the men (or women) I know would hold a different set of standards or expectations for men and for women. Although I'm aware that could be because they're not a 'typical' group, I think we need to be careful about extrapolating from our own immediate knowledge to the population in general - before I attribute any perspective with any sort of 'universality', I'd want to see some research that demonstrated that any one of those perspectives were held by a representative sample of men/women.
Click to expand...


I am not sure either sample is based in research. I know lots (most) people who seek to hold the same standards for men and women. Most of us say we do because that is what is expected and many of us genuinely strive for that equality of expectations. But that is often different from reality when it comes right down to it.

My perception (and yes it is just that) is that men are judged more negatively as men for being with a women who fuck others guys. No doubt in the reverse situation women encounter their own judgment which they may see as more negative - fair enough. But it is not logical in our world to assume their are no differences until proven otherwise. Men and women, if for no other reason than society's pressure, live different experiences. That is the logical starting point. Maybe it isn't as different as it was 50 years ago but it still is - for that not to be the case is a laudable ideal not a provable fact.
 
SlutAddicted said:
I am not sure either sample is based in research. I know lots (most) people who seek to hold the same standards for men and women. Most of us say we do because that is what is expected and many of us genuinely strive for that equality of expectations. But that is often different from reality when it comes right down to it.

My perception (and yes it is just that) is that men are judged more negatively as men for being with a women who fuck others guys. No doubt in the reverse situation women encounter their own judgment which they may see as more negative - fair enough. But it is not logical in our world to assume their are no differences until proven otherwise. Men and women, if for no other reason than society's pressure, live different experiences. That is the logical starting point. Maybe it isn't as different as it was 50 years ago but it still is - for that not to be the case is a laudable ideal not a provable fact.
Click to expand...


I would say that your perspective on gender dynamics in this context is narrow and perhaps outdated. However, I agree that there are notable differences in the male and female experience, which I think is what you are addressing (different from whether we hold one another to the same standards). When it comes to evidence of this difference I would argue that it is supported by sufficient experiential and anecdotal evidence to suggest that is the starting assumption.

So how are our attitudes formed? Are we really open-minded and analytical or do we subscribe to prevalent philosophies. Personally I think that a substantial portion of people seek to be regarded as open-minded because that is deemed a "good thing" more so than because that is how they actually form their opinions - LGBT is in but poly is not so that is what they accept. Sometimes society reminds me of being back in high school. I was a punk and we all thought we were non-conformist - but our group was just as homogenous as any other and any deviation from the accepted attire or attitude was greeted with the same judgment. Back then the group told me what it meant to be individualistic and today the group tells us what it means to be open-minded.....in the process proving just how conformist and closed-minded many of us really are.

Kim is right in that it is all about the ethics of the situation. But didn't we long ago shift from a society where each person was expected to live their lives according to someone else's rule to one where we are each entitled to live our own lives as long as we aren't harming others? Keep the ethics but drop the moralizing so to speak? So why do we still cling to lingering moralizing attitudes about lots of things.....with monogamy very near the top of the list?

I have no solutions but I think group dynamics is a leading factor. Being open-minded is something we say more so than live because we are only open-minded about the things that our group tells us to be open-minded about. It is those group dynamics as much as any core belief set that affect perspectives on being poly. And given the deep connection to relationships and sexuality there is most certainly a gender aspect to those group dynamics. It isn't an ethical issue - or at least it shouldn't be - but people see it that way because the group says so. I think that the reason the group says so are largely unconnected to ethics but rather matters of status and security and power.

We should seek to change the system of what is deemed ideal or at least broaden it. But I think that to do that we need to address root causes of why people and groups seek to protect the status quo. Homosexuals did this by simply opting out of the accepted paradigm - of course there was nothing simple or easy about it.
 
Last edited:
policywank said:
I would say that your perspective on gender dynamics in this context is narrow and perhaps outdated. However, I agree that there are notable differences in the male and female experience, which I think is what you are addressing (different from whether we hold one another to the same standards). When it comes to evidence of this difference I would argue that it is supported by sufficient experiential and anecdotal evidence to suggest that is the starting assumption.

So how are our attitudes formed? Are we really open-minded and analytical or do we subscribe to prevalent philosophies. Personally I think that a substantial portion of people seek to be regarded as open-minded because that is deemed a "good thing" more so than because that is how they actually form their opinions - LGBT is in but poly is not so that is what they accept. Sometimes society reminds me of being back in high school. I was a punk and we all thought we were non-conformist - but our group was just as homogenous as any other and any deviation from the accepted attire or attitude was greeted with the same judgment. Back then the group told me what it meant to be individualistic and today the group tells us what it means to be open-minded.....in the process proving just how conformist and closed-minded many of us really are.

Kim is right in that it is all about the ethics of the situation. But didn't we long ago shift from a society where each person was expected to live their lives according to someone else's rule to one where we are each entitled to live our own lives as long as we aren't harming others? Keep the ethics but drop the moralizing so to speak? So why do we still cling to lingering moralizing attitudes about lots of things.....with monogamy very near the top of the list?

I have no solutions but I think group dynamics is a leading factor. Being open-minded is something we say more so than live because we are only open-minded about the things that our group tells us to be open-minded about. It is those group dynamics as much as any core belief set that affect perspectives on being poly. And given the deep connection to relationships and sexuality there is most certainly a gender aspect to those group dynamics. It isn't an ethical issue - or at least it shouldn't be - but people see it that way because the group says so. I think that the reason the group says so are largely unconnected to ethics but rather matters of status and security and power.

We should seek to change the system of what is deemed ideal or at least broaden it. But I think that to do that we need to address root causes of why people and groups seek to protect the status quo. Homosexuals did this by simply opting out of the accepted paradigm - of course there was nothing simple or easy about it.
Click to expand...

Haha - the punk comparison is brilliant. I grew up in a similar milieu and gravitated towards other very 'alternative' and 'edgy' groups in my 20s. Interestingly, a lot of the people from those groups who I've stayed friends are extremely conservative when it comes to things like sexuality and odd other areas, like parenting, and there that is especially around gender roles.

I think there's a lot to be said for the 'living our lives accordingly to our own rules so long as we're not harming others' argument, and ultimately I think that this is what anarchy is in it's purest form. But the problem with that is that it can easily end up with a further subclause that involves not caring about anyone else, and then we end up with a very individualistic society that has little concern for the wellbeing of others. There's two ethical approaches to this, really, which are quite applicable to the poly situation (and which I may have mentioned above) - either each individual works to maximise their own happiness, and assumes that everyone else is doing the same; or each individual works to maximise the total sum of happiness.

Re: the argument about gendered approaches to sexual behaviour - as SA points out, those attitudes do totally exist. I was being a little bit flippant before - I know this very well from actual research that I'm engaged in. But in my everyday life, I tend to work on the basis that if we just ignore them, they will eventually go away.
 
KimGordon67 said:
I think there's a lot to be said for the 'living our lives accordingly to our own rules so long as we're not harming others' argument, and ultimately I think that this is what anarchy is in it's purest form. But the problem with that is that it can easily end up with a further subclause that involves not caring about anyone else, and then we end up with a very individualistic society that has little concern for the wellbeing of others. There's two ethical approaches to this, really, which are quite applicable to the poly situation (and which I may have mentioned above) - either each individual works to maximise their own happiness, and assumes that everyone else is doing the same; or each individual works to maximise the total sum of happiness.
Click to expand...

Living to natural values (as opposed to religious/society's construct) doesn't mean we are stripped of honour, respect, dignity, care, thoughtfulness...etc. These are fundamental values of being human. And I think 'living our lives according to our own rules...' can translate to 'living true' or being true to your humanness which would include human values and creating bonds, making sacrifices, putting others first, choosing the best/right...etc. Human existence is an intertextual affair.

There was some discussion earlier about a book 'Sex at Dawn ' by Christopher Ryan but his TED talk has really made an impact on me as I study and ponder what it means to be truly polyamorous. (Link below.) I think his last statement is the crux:

  • And so what I'm arguing against is the shame that's associated with desires. It's the idea that if you love your husband or wife but you still are attracted to other people, there's something wrong with you, there's something wrong with your marriage, something wrong with your partner. I think a lot of families are fractured by unrealistic expectations that are based upon this false vision of human sexuality.

How can it ever be wrong to love? It doesn't make sense to me. Yet, society has rules on who we are allowed to love and how many. It's quiet tragic really. I think these rules are preventing humans to access their full potential.

Great topic by the way. I've been looking to talk about polyamory. I'm glad I found this thread.

:kiss:

https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omnivores#t-823718
 
RacyWilde said:
Living to natural values (as opposed to religious/society's construct) doesn't mean we are stripped of honour, respect, dignity, care, thoughtfulness...etc. These are fundamental values of being human. And I think 'living our lives according to our own rules...' can translate to 'living true' or being true to your humanness which would include human values and creating bonds, making sacrifices, putting others first, choosing the best/right...etc. Human existence is an intertextual affair.

There was some discussion earlier about a book 'Sex at Dawn ' by Christopher Ryan but his TED talk has really made an impact on me as I study and ponder what it means to be truly polyamorous. (Link below.) I think his last statement is the crux:

  • And so what I'm arguing against is the shame that's associated with desires. It's the idea that if you love your husband or wife but you still are attracted to other people, there's something wrong with you, there's something wrong with your marriage, something wrong with your partner. I think a lot of families are fractured by unrealistic expectations that are based upon this false vision of human sexuality.

How can it ever be wrong to love? It doesn't make sense to me. Yet, society has rules on who we are allowed to love and how many. It's quiet tragic really. I think these rules are preventing humans to access their full potential.

Great topic by the way. I've been looking to talk about polyamory. I'm glad I found this thread.

:kiss:

https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omnivores#t-823718
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure that there is a such a thing as 'natural values' - humans are social animals, and therefore the social constructs that we create ARE our values as humans. One could probably argue (although I'm not going to do so here) that's the creation of those social values that make us 'human' as opposed to anything else. However, just because they're constructs, it doesn't mean they're not real - and I think that's the important thing to remember when negotiating polyamorous relationships. The reactions one's partner/s has to the situation are real - they really feel those things. And our desires to love more than one person don't have to be 'natural' to the 'real' either.
What's significant about recognising these things as social constructs is not the fact that they're not 'real', but rather the fact that they are thus open to change. While I (probably) don't agree with a lot of Ryan's thesis, I think he's probably right when he states that shame is not a particularly useful way to construct sexuality (and we do construct our sexualities to a significant degree - they don't just arrive in a box, fully formed, when we turn 13). It doesn't mean the vision is 'false' though - just that there are ways of doing things that, if we shift our mindset a little, have the potential to increase the overall level of happiness.

I like your question 'How can it be wrong to love?'
 
Exactly that.

The arrangements we make (implied or otherwise) with the people we care for (which really should theoretically include all of humanity) are what should structure our behaviour, not bizarre appeals to our 'natural' selves. But that's not to say that those arrangements aren't open to (re)negotiation if the social norms which created the 'implied' contracts don't work for us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KimGordon67 said:
I'm not really sure that there is a such a thing as 'natural values' - humans are social animals, and therefore the social constructs that we create ARE our values as humans. One could probably argue (although I'm not going to do so here) that's the creation of those social values that make us 'human' as opposed to anything else. However, just because they're constructs, it doesn't mean they're not real - and I think that's the important thing to remember when negotiating polyamorous relationships. The reactions one's partner/s has to the situation are real - they really feel those things. And our desires to love more than one person don't have to be 'natural' to the 'real' either.
What's significant about recognising these things as social constructs is not the fact that they're not 'real', but rather the fact that they are thus open to change. While I (probably) don't agree with a lot of Ryan's thesis, I think he's probably right when he states that shame is not a particularly useful way to construct sexuality (and we do construct our sexualities to a significant degree - they don't just arrive in a box, fully formed, when we turn 13). It doesn't mean the vision is 'false' though - just that there are ways of doing things that, if we shift our mindset a little, have the potential to increase the overall level of happiness.

I like your question 'How can it be wrong to love?'
Click to expand...

I guess I need to be more precise. When I talk about 'natural values' I specifically mean looking to our own conscience. Yes, they are highly influenced by our ideologies that are imbedded in society and religion just because that is how we have grown up/where we live...etc - we can't get away from that... - but when one introspects themselves they can come to a point of truth (the human spirit) from within rather than from outside. So I don't mean natural as in caveman instincts - even though I did refer to a discussion on the 'natural man', I was actually referring to the last point about acceptance - and yes, shifting our mindset.

But that is all it is really isn't it, shifting our mindsets? It will take one society to be brave enough to do it first before real change can occur. I also never thought that constructs were not real, just that they were built to serve a narrow purpose, such as building a bridge over a river. The bridge is real enough and seems very handy to one way of living but yet it may in turn destroy the natural ecosystem around that area. Likewise with social/religious constructs.

:kiss:
 
RacyWilde said:
I guess I need to be more precise. When I talk about 'natural values' I specifically mean looking to our own conscience. Yes, they are highly influenced by our ideologies that are imbedded in society and religion just because that is how we have grown up/where we live...etc - we can't get away from that... - but when one introspects themselves they can come to a point of truth (the human spirit) from within rather than from outside. So I don't mean natural as in caveman instincts - even though I did refer to a discussion on the 'natural man', I was actually referring to the last point about acceptance - and yes, shifting our mindset.

But that is all it is really isn't it, shifting our mindsets? It will take one society to be brave enough to do it first before real change can occur. I also never thought that constructs were not real, just that they were built to serve a narrow purpose, such as building a bridge over a river. The bridge is real enough and seems very handy to one way of living but yet it may in turn destroy the natural ecosystem around that area. Likewise with social/religious constructs.

:kiss:
Click to expand...

LOL - I love the 'that's all it is' statement ... it's like my husband saying 'I could build us a deck - you JUST have have to do XYZ'. But yes, that is all it is ... it just happens to be one of the most difficult things there are. Although funnily enough I was have a chat with a colleague the other day, purely hypothetical, and she said 'I wonder if having more than one spouse will be acceptable one day, the way marrying the same sex has become acceptable now'. It's also surprising how many people actually DO have 'alternative' arrangements - it's just a topic that's so difficult to talk about that it's effectively invisible.
 
And, I think one of the hardest things about marriage is that it ties you into a set of (unchangeable) rules to live by. At the beginning you both agree to live and love a certain way and because (as people have a habit of clinging to the covenants made rather than organically shifting the rules to suit needs) of that it can prevent growth, direction and exploration.

For example, I've seen many on Lit who started out in a marriage that was fulfilling but over time the sex and intimacy disappeared. One partner is still willing but the other isn't. And because of the initial vows taken, which are traditionally set via monogamous ideals, the partner needing sex and intimacy is not 'allowed' to search for their fulfillment from others. They are either required to break up an otherwise loving and happy marriage (not including the ones in an unhappy/'stuck in circumstance' marriage), or live unfulfilled sexually and intimately for the rest of their lives in the marriage. When I think of that situation my mind explodes - WTF! Why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we make our lives so hard? A lot of the torture we feel in such a situation is just brought on by a certain mindset from the initial marriage covenant, and of course, societies ideals.

There is a much better way than how we are all doing it right now!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KimGordon67 said:
LOL - I love the 'that's all it is' statement ... it's like my husband saying 'I could build us a deck - you JUST have have to do XYZ'. But yes, that is all it is ... it just happens to be one of the most difficult things there are. Although funnily enough I was have a chat with a colleague the other day, purely hypothetical, and she said 'I wonder if having more than one spouse will be acceptable one day, the way marrying the same sex has become acceptable now'. It's also surprising how many people actually DO have 'alternative' arrangements - it's just a topic that's so difficult to talk about that it's effectively invisible.
Click to expand...

I know :D - so easy, yet so hard. It will likely take 100 years to even get the western world to think openly about open marriage and polyamorous relationships.

I think it would be very exciting if we moved in that direction. I really like the idea of polyamory of having a primary lover who is your life partner and then secondary lovers who may be with you throughout your life or may just intersect it for a short time. I so plan on having that!!! I don't care what the norm is... I'm doing it! (And apparently, in the US there are at least 500,000 people already living polyamorously - or so wiki says...lol.)

:heart:
 
RacyWilde said:
And, I think one of the hardest things about marriage is that it ties you into a set of (unchangeable) rules to live by. At the beginning you both agree to live and love a certain way and because (as people have a habit of clinging to the covenants made rather than organically shifting the rules to suit needs) of that it can prevent growth, direction and exploration.

For example, I've seen many on Lit who started out in a marriage that was fulfilling but over time the sex and intimacy disappeared. One partner is still willing but the other isn't. And because of the initial vows taken, which are traditionally set via monogamous ideals, the partner needing sex and intimacy is not 'allowed' to search for their fulfillment from others. They are either required to break up an otherwise loving and happy marriage (not including the ones in an unhappy/'stuck in circumstance' marriage), or live unfulfilled sexually and intimately for the rest of their lives in the marriage. When I think of that situation my mind explodes - WTF! Why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we make our lives so hard? A lot of the torture we feel in such a situation is just brought on by a certain mindset from the initial marriage covenant, and of course, societies ideals.

There is a much better way than how we are all doing it right now!
Click to expand...

The 'unhappy marriage' thing is a whole other debate ... but it's an institution that can also be changed. We never promised any of that 'forsaking all others' stuff, or even said 'for ever' anywhere, except that I did say I'd love him for ever, because I'm pretty confident about that - it just doesn't mean I have to stay married to him to do so.
 
RacyWilde said:
I know :D - so easy, yet so hard. It will likely take 100 years to even get the western world to think openly about open marriage and polyamorous relationships.

I think it would be very exciting if we moved in that direction. I really like the idea of polyamory of having a primary lover who is your life partner and then secondary lovers who may be with you throughout your life or may just intersect it for a short time. I so plan on having that!!! I don't care what the norm is... I'm doing it! (And apparently, in the US there are at least 500,000 people already living polyamorously - or so wiki says...lol.)

:heart:
Click to expand...

This is pretty much where I'm at right now. My husband is absolutely the love of my life, and if were we to ever separate, I don't think I'd ever want to live with anyone else again. He's my rock and my soul mate. But that doesn't make the love I have for my BF any less real ... it's just different. We couldn't live together - we'd kill each other within a month - but he gives me something that's different to my husband, and wouldn't be possible within my marriage, and that I don't think I'd even want in the context of my relationship with my husband, but that I really enjoy.
My husband is taking quite a while getting his head around it ... but I have so much respect for the fact that he's actually trying to at all.
 
Our plan is certainly to stay married; though I am not sure I have met anyone else I'd marry ever.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely this - I couldn't imagine want to marry or have children with anyone other than the person I did it with. And I can't see that changing in the foreseeable future (and my foreseeable future is dwindling now).
 
Also ...

... thanks everyone, even the people I don't necessarily agree with. It's so great being able to discuss and sometimes debate this stuff - I know from long experience that trying to explain something I think to others is the best way of clarifying the thoughts in my own head, and also getting a slightly different perspective on the thing.
 
KimGordon67 said:
This is pretty much where I'm at right now. My husband is absolutely the love of my life, and if were we to ever separate, I don't think I'd ever want to live with anyone else again. He's my rock and my soul mate. But that doesn't make the love I have for my BF any less real ... it's just different. We couldn't live together - we'd kill each other within a month - but he gives me something that's different to my husband, and wouldn't be possible within my marriage, and that I don't think I'd even want in the context of my relationship with my husband, but that I really enjoy.
My husband is taking quite a while getting his head around it ... but I have so much respect for the fact that he's actually trying to at all.
Click to expand...

Your situation describes mine perfectly. :heart:

I like the idea of responsibility, commitment and accountability of marriage - marriage definitely provides security - but I disagree with the general consensus of monogamy.

I always try to help people who don't understand polyamory by saying that when you have more than one intimate relationship, your love doesn't divide, it multiplies. That's pure polyamory.

I think one of the hardest things about polyamory is that not many people believe in it. They might believe in theory it could work, but they doubt the human spirit. They are all too aware that jealousy is too ingrained in the human psyche. For me this makes it hard to have relationships with the people I want to. It's heart wrenching to be polyamorous and fall for someone who is monogamous. I can understand and accept the monogamous, but it is rare to be accepted in return.

Jealousy has become a large part of how society has constructed intimate relationships - how you are to bind to one and one only, by law and religion. It's been said that this form of human bond - to restrict numbers - is meant to kerb jealousy, but I think it perpetuates it. If one partner falls for another outside the marriage, by todays relationship rules, the other partner is in their right to get jealous and also call a stop to it. This is usually because of fear - fear of losing, fear of shame and fear of loneliness, etc. Marriage is smothered by dependancy.

I think the biggest hurdle for people to understand polyamory is that they often believe that if you love one, the love is greater - of course, this is because they think love divides. Monogamous people get put out when I tell them I can have that great love of one with many. Somehow it seems they are jealous of that, or perhaps annoyed, as if it is unfair for me to be 'allowed' to. It's hard to explain - but you did it so well above...

My husband is absolutely the love of my life... But that doesn't make the love I have for my BF any less real ... it's just different.

Love... the feeling, the expressions... are never the same from person to person. I could fall madly overheels in a whirlwind romance or gently fall into a deep calming love. This usually depends on our personalities rubbing together. I think the thing with monogamous people is they value only one way to love. Polyamorous people value every way... all degrees and all lengths of time - shortness and intensity all have a place in the polyamorous experience.

These are just my personal thoughts from my own experience. ;)

:heart:
 
I'm not naive. I prefer relationships without jealousy - pure polyamory. Actually, I am very careful to choose people who don't have a bad jealousy trait. Though, I have been caught a couple of times building a relationship and then I find out the person is jealous of my other relationship/s. If they can't accept how I want to love, want me to give up everyone else for them, or want me to make them my primary without grounding, I say goodbye. Jealousy is ugly and rarely disappears once it has raised it's ugly head.

Yes, jealousy is a 'natural emotion' but it isn't all good, just like anger, it can get nasty and it is a emotion that all humans need to learn to control. Jealousy is only good when it motivates a person to become better. Though within a relationship this isn't usually the case. From my experience, jealousy creates insecurity resulting in blackmail, whinging, ultimatums, stubbornness, complaining, depression, revenge and a lot of other negatives.

I plan to live without jealousy in my life. To do that I must open my heart and not lay claim on anyone. I must also choose the right people

I did say that my comment was from my own experience - so it is fair and important and valuable to the conversation.

Obviously your husband is your primary and I'm sure he has first say. You will listen to him and what he wants more than your others. So at the moment he feels safe - and I presume he feels like he is 'allowing' you to explore/indulge. But, as soon as you don't want him to be your primary anymore then I'm sure his support will change and he will not want you to practice polyamory anymore. His security is based on him being the primary.


Again, as I said this is from my own experience, and I have yet to experience otherwise... (It is never good trying to argue experience and opinions as wrong. They are always personalised, not generalised - I just thought that understanding was a given. ;) Experience and opinions are never wrong - they are just different. ;) )

Yes, being in a one sided monogamous relationship means that you can only love and fall in love with others as long as your primary "maintains comfort". To me that is restricting. Yes, I care for my primary but I want to be able to love and be with anyone I want to. I demand it for myself. I don't want my primary to govern who, when and how I love. And through your example, it seems people in a one sided monogamous relationship are usually subject to what their primary wants.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jealousy

I've found that it's been really useful to have a proper conversation with my husband about why he's jealous and what he's jealous OF. So often someone just says 'I'm jealous' and that's sort of the end of that statement. If you can drill down a little bit, it helps address the things their jealous of, and if possible, reassure them. I've been able to do that with almost everything except the fact that he just doesn't like thinking about me have actual sex with another man ... I don't know that he'll ever really come to terms with that, but at least he's trying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TarnishedPenny
Popular Psychology article on Women and Porn
2 3
Replies
58
Views
1K
TheSpleen
TheSpleen
Sakura_seven
The Lit Personals Consensual/Ethical Nonmonogamy and Poly Thread!
Replies
17
Views
1K
MidwestMeg79
MidwestMeg79
P
Yes, Virginia (and other states), there is an American plutocracy
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
pecksniff
P
SEVERUSMAX
The Things We Do For Love (Incest, Trans, Poly)
Replies
0
Views
111
SEVERUSMAX
SEVERUSMAX
P
  • Poll
M32 submissive fantasy / Realationship, control, therapy
Replies
1
Views
612
peterikkk
P
Back
Top