Polyamory

[satindesire]

I bet it was a cool story, though, Bro.

It was awesome, sugar tits. I totally rocked and you...well...don't worry, you get a checkmark for trying.

Well, it's been fun, but willfully ignorant people just don't do it for me like they used to. Must be in the water, you all have been kind of sucking lately. *shrug*

It's been real. Ta.

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

Satindesire, I completely agree with what you're saying.

While I may have struggled with it in the past, I do not have low self esteem. I do happen to like being submissive in intimate relationships. It urks me that pharonsbrother seems to have all these parameters. You can't call yourself poly unless... you can't be dominant unless.... if you're this, you must be....

I just wanted good conversation, I didn't want some know it all to come on here and swear that none of us know what we're talking about because we don't fit into his mold.

I am perfectly poly-capable and I will use my own definition of what that means for me, kthxbye.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Satindesire, I completely agree with what you're saying.

While I may have struggled with it in the past, I do not have low self esteem. I do happen to like being submissive in intimate relationships. It urks me that pharonsbrother seems to have all these parameters. You can't call yourself poly unless... you can't be dominant unless.... if you're this, you must be....

I just wanted good conversation, I didn't want some know it all to come on here and swear that none of us know what we're talking about because we don't fit into his mold.

I am perfectly poly-capable and I will use my own definition of what that means for me, kthxbye.

In fantasy world everyone is poly-capable. How would you know you're suitable for a poly relationship unless you've tried it out? What happens if you try out a few poly relationships and discover you're not suited for poly relationships? Are you still poly-capable? Were you ever poly-capable? There are all sorts of labels, poly-curious seems more fitting for someone who hasn't actually experienced a relationship with multiple people. It's not that offensive, saying someone won't know if they're fit for a poly relationship unless they've actually experienced one for some amount of time.

I'm not in a poly relationship, yet I'm intimate with two women. For me to have success and actually be in a poly relationship each woman would have to accept the other. Any guy or girl can have a partner and a secret mistress, that's not a poly relationship.

I'm sorry I had to parrot a dictionary definition, but in all honesty I still don't think you or most people know what polyamory means:

Main Entry: polyamory
Part of Speech: n
Definition: participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships

'Participation' doesn't include fantasy world thoughts of another possible partner.

Also, submission is different than Submission. Most women are submissive in romantic relationships, these idiots wanted to pull me into their lunatic BDSM world and its anti-rigorous terminology.

 

[fuckmeat]

I assume to have a successful poly you'd need some combination of people with low self-esteem and one dominant personality. Whenever I'm with one they want to be assured they're superior to the other in every way, but I'm not really in a poly relationship.

You are quite spectacularly ignorant.

1. Poly relationships do not require power-exchange to be successful.

2. Submissives are not 'people with low self esteem.' They are people who enjoy service, control and sometimes masochism. Yes, some people seek that kind of dynamic for the wrong reasons but people all over the planet seek relationships that aren't necessarily in their best interest because they are wired a certain way by their life experiences. It's not an issue unique to BDSM, nor does the BDSM community condone dynamics that are unhealthy or abusive. There is tons of great literature on this, much of which can be found over in BDSM Talk.

Just to respond to you, FuckMeat. Polyamory has nothing to do with BDSM, my statement had nothing to do with BDSM context. But, Submissives are universally people with low self worth, self esteem, and most likely have intimacy issues, issues they deal with through a set of sex practices different from the way other people with the same issues use sex.

*raises eyebrow*

What conversation have you been having love? Cause it's not the one that's clearly documented here.

If you'd care to read the bolded part above, you'll see that you were the one who said it would only work if one person had authority over the others, which is BDSM poppet. I clearly stated in response that polyamory isn't a power thing. Yes, I'm submissive but that doesn't mean I need to 'change my lenses.'

Btw, do I strike you as having low self esteem? Because that's me and satin against your 'universal theory.'

GrnEyedGrl, it's not my intention to argue on your thread, I just felt misrepresented. I hope you get the answers you're looking for.

 

[fuckmeat]

I know others have stated their opinions on your comment, but I'm wondering if you know what the definition of polyAMOROUS is. It's being in love with multiple people in different ways. It is not to be confused with polygamy and has absolutely nothing to do with dominance and/or submissiveness.

To clarify, I am talking about polyamory. I am married, but also find the possibility in my heart to love other people. Not more than my husband, not less, just different. I admire and respect my husband and love him unconditionally. But I believe that I have the ability to love other people too. Some people think this is wrong, or defies the institution of marriage. To each their own. I'm just curious what others opinions are....that is, if you actually know anything about the subject I am referring to.

It's only wrong if you're religious and your religious text or community says that it's wrong. Aside from that, infidelity can be defined as something you do sexually with another behind your husband's back. If you and your husband can discuss this openly and agree ground rules for opening up your marriage, it's just an extension of the love you're both capable of. Polyamory doesn't solve marital issues though, it creates more. I'd only advise doing this if you and your husband are rock solid and in agreement about an open marriage.

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

In fantasy world everyone is poly-capable. How would you know you're suitable for a poly relationship unless you've tried it out? What happens if you try out a few poly relationships and discover you're not suited for poly relationships? Are you still poly-capable? Were you ever poly-capable? There are all sorts of labels, poly-curious seems more fitting for someone who hasn't actually experienced a relationship with multiple people. It's not that offensive, saying someone won't know if they're fit for a poly relationship unless they've actually experienced one for some amount of time.

I'm not in a poly relationship, yet I'm intimate with two women. For me to have success and actually be in a poly relationship each woman would have to accept the other. Any guy or girl can have a partner and a secret mistress, that's not a poly relationship.

I'm sorry I had to parrot a dictionary definition, but in all honesty I still don't think you or most people know what polyamory means:

Main Entry: polyamory
Part of Speech: n
Definition: participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships

'Participation' doesn't include fantasy world thoughts of another possible partner.

Also, submission is different than Submission. Most women are submissive in romantic relationships, these idiots wanted to pull me into their lunatic BDSM world and its anti-rigorous terminology.

But I HAVE and AM experiencing this right now. YOU made the assumption by coming on here and claiming that I hadn't just because I asked the question. Stop assuming.

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

It's only wrong if you're religious and your religious text or community says that it's wrong. Aside from that, infidelity can be defined as something you do sexually with another behind your husband's back. If you and your husband can discuss this openly and agree ground rules for opening up your marriage, it's just an extension of the love you're both capable of. Polyamory doesn't solve marital issues though, it creates more. I'd only advise doing this if you and your husband are rock solid and in agreement about an open marriage.

Right, thank you Fuckmeat. And my husband and I are. Rock solid and in complete agreement. I am aware of and supportive of his other woman and he is aware of and supportive of my other man.

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

Any guy or girl can have a partner and a secret mistress, that's not a poly relationship.

Furthermore, whoever said anywhere in this thread that the "other" person was a secret? I never did.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

*raises eyebrow*

What conversation have you been having love? Cause it's not the one that's clearly documented here.

If you'd care to read the bolded part above, you'll see that you were the one who said it would only work if one person had authority over the others, which is BDSM poppet. I clearly stated in response that polyamory isn't a power thing. Yes, I'm submissive but that doesn't mean I need to 'change my lenses.'

Btw, do I strike you as having low self esteem? Because that's me and satin against your 'universal theory.'

GrnEyedGrl, it's not my intention to argue on your thread, I just felt misrepresented. I hope you get the answers you're looking for.

Dominant personality is not automatically BDSM context. A Type A personality is not a psych category meaning: a 'D'om doing hokey sex games with a 'S'ub. That's a pretty narrow way of looking at the world. Actually, you and Satindesire, and the TS all strike me as folks with low self-esteem as you're continually seeking my approval for your worthiness as Subs in BDSM context, which is strange because TS assured me she isn't into BDSM. I don't care about your sex practices, what you are in real life is irrelevant to me because it's most likely lies and mischaracterization.

TS, you've accepted the definition I've provided for poly-capable and polyamorous then, haven't you?

 

[tenchikoi]

Personally, I don't like to share. The whole idea of the poly life always gave me the squicks anyway. The idea of being with two or more different people to meet different needs within yourself would make me feel like I'm using people. I also feel like if I can't love each of them with the same intensity as my primary mate then I have no business playing house, harem, or whatever you want to call it. I would feel like I'd be doing them a dishonorable service. But each to his own I suppose.

 

[littlebabyclit]

Personally, I don't like to share. The whole idea of the poly life always gave me the squicks anyway. The idea of being with two or more different people to meet different needs within yourself would make me feel like I'm using people. I also feel like if I can't love each of them with the same intensity as my primary mate then I have no business playing house, harem, or whatever you want to call it. I would feel like I'd be doing them a dishonorable service. But each to his own I suppose.

That's an interesting viewpoint, and I'm sure it's one many people share.

I don't think every person that's important in a romantic way has to be loved equally and with the same intensity. I also don't think people are solely loved because they meet different needs. Perhaps different people can be loved simply because each one has lovable qualities and it's not only related to how they fulfill one's needs.

If people are loved primarily by someone because they meet needs and not because of whom they are, then it doesn't matter if you love one or many, yes, you would be using them. One could be monogamous, polyamorous or polygamous and use people. Just my thoughts.

 

[Leopald]

I'm a little confused, PB. On one hand, you quote the definition of poly as "participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships" but then on the other hand claim that any guy or girl can have a significant other and a side piece of ass and not be involved in a poly relationship. By the definition you looked up and quoted, cheating on your spouse would be considered poly. Just wondering the point you're trying to get across here.

As for me, the whole idea of a poly relationship is frankly a little nerve-wracking. I've come from a long line of relationships where my SO was very insecure, and would get jealous if I even flirted with another woman. On a side note, having not experienced it, I would still wonder how low self esteem would work well in a poly relationship, given that insecurities are usually the first to cry foul when their loved ones are also loving others. By my own personal record, its tough to see it working for me.

The idea sounds like lots of fun in theory, but could I handle it? I have no idea. I don't know if I could handle their needs in all aspects, if I could balance time spent, etc. That doesn't mean I don't understand the concept, just don't know if I personally could do it.

 

[infinity706]

Poly relationships are awesome if you can handle it. Of course, I've never had the opening up the relationship talk, since it's always been that way from the beginning in all my romantic/sexual relationships. Needless to say, I've never had to deal with being cheated on or had anyone withold sexual favors. I also haven't had any of my partners get pregnant or get an STD either, though. I guess people that are sexually satisfied aren't exactly likely to take extra risks to get laid. Of course, it is important to be emotionally ready, to not be the center of attention.

 

[fuckmeat]

Dominant personality is not automatically BDSM context. A Type A personality is not a psych category meaning: a 'D'om doing hokey sex games with a 'S'ub. That's a pretty narrow way of looking at the world. Actually, you and Satindesire, and the TS all strike me as folks with low self-esteem as you're continually seeking my approval for your worthiness as Subs in BDSM context, which is strange because TS assured me she isn't into BDSM. I don't care about your sex practices, what you are in real life is irrelevant to me because it's most likely lies and mischaracterization.

TS, you've accepted the definition I've provided for poly-capable and polyamorous then, haven't you?

You know you're talking out your ass so you attack and insult me personally instead of debating my expressed viewpoint. Classy.

I'm not seeking approval for my worthiness poppet, I'm trying to engage in an adult discussion. You are an utter irrelevance to me but your ignorant views need addressing. If you choose to express them on a public forum, I get to disagree. Them's the rules. M'kay?

I know that an alpha personality type doesn't automatically mean a sexually dominant or sadistic personality. If it did, I'd have a far easier time trying to meet the kind of partner I need. A person's outward appearance and personality among peers has nothing to do with their sexual identity and urges. Similarly, low self esteem is not a pre-requisite for a sexual submissive and that's where you piss satin and I off. Guess what? You don't get to rubbish our deeply personal sexual natures as symptoms of psychiatric illness and not get challenged. Why don't you go google a definition for 'discussion.'

Now stop swinging your bruised little ego all over the thread and stick to the damn topic. GreenEyedGrl has already made it clear that she's not looking for any kind of power exchange.

 

[fuckmeat]

I'm a little confused, PB. On one hand, you quote the definition of poly as "participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships" but then on the other hand claim that any guy or girl can have a significant other and a side piece of ass and not be involved in a poly relationship. By the definition you looked up and quoted, cheating on your spouse would be considered poly. Just wondering the point you're trying to get across here.

As for me, the whole idea of a poly relationship is frankly a little nerve-wracking. I've come from a long line of relationships where my SO was very insecure, and would get jealous if I even flirted with another woman. On a side note, having not experienced it, I would still wonder how low self esteem would work well in a poly relationship, given that insecurities are usually the first to cry foul when their loved ones are also loving others. By my own personal record, its tough to see it working for me.

The idea sounds like lots of fun in theory, but could I handle it? I have no idea. I don't know if I could handle their needs in all aspects, if I could balance time spent, etc. That doesn't mean I don't understand the concept, just don't know if I personally could do it.

*sigh*

Disclaimer: Ok, for the record, I am going to speak from a BDSM viewpoint specifically because that is the context within which I have experienced real life polyamory. It does not mean I think poly dynamics can only thrive if one person has authority over the others. I am just relating my own experience as it was at the time.

That quite alright with you PB?

Like I care.

A couple of years back, my Mistress G clicked with another girl at a GLBT friendly pub we go to. We all played together a few times and G considered including this girl (who I'll call E) as a more permanent fixture. She lived a fair distance away and had a busy schedule but she and G chatted on the phone and online a lot. Sometimes I was included in those chats, sometimes not. We hooked up a few more times over the next few months, going out for meals/drinks and playing after. This girl was very new to the BDSM side of things and G was very gentle with her. It did smart to see her be so gentle with someone else and also to be relegated to doing chores or whatever while G chatted with her. It worked for us because I gave G the authority to make decisions like this when I became hers. It worked because my devotion to G made me passionately want to make it work. E thought she was being groomed to become a slave-like partner as I am, which wasn't something she wanted. That wasn't the case. She was exploring things with us and liking them, which freaked her out a little. E went quiet for a while and then told us she had met someone else. So that was that.

When there is another person in your relationship, they are always present in your mind. Even if they're not around much, you will have fits or paranoia and wonder how much time your husband spends time thinking about that person, whether there's contact between them you're not privy to, what they say about you when they're alone together. If you can get past those insecurities and jealousies, till you really know (and hopefully like) the other person, things settle down and get easier. The relationship H bomb you've been waiting for doesn't detonate and a new concept of what is normal and routine starts to develop. Once you're into that phase, that's when to sit down and ask yourself whether you're happy with the status quo and for things to continue as they are.

You and your husband will always be the primary dynamic because it's long standing and legally binding. You need to keep that in mind and preserve that but also ensure any other person you include doesn't feel unduly threatened or devalued by your marriage.

 

[infinity706]

I'm probably jaded more than anyone here, but I've never really had the jealously issue, since I've always done the poly thing. I've always just relegated sex down to the level of any other enjoyable activity and treated the people I've fucked just like any platonic friend. If people just treated sex like any other thing like watching a movie, playing tennis, talking, or anything else you'd enjoy doing with a friend, instead of the ultimate taboo, there wouldn't be so many issues.

Of course, that also brings up the issue of straight sex as defined by a dick in someone's pussy or ass. In the first place, it carries about as much risk as the most dangerous BDSM activities like fire play or beating the hell out of someone with a stick. (especially if pregnancy isn't intended) In the second place, it generally involves more intense exercise, at least for the penis user, and awkward positioning than just about anything else. Third, even though a dick in a cunt or ass is often enjoyable, I'd have to wonder if anyone could honestly say it's more pleasurable than up to 4 hands, a mouth, and possibly toys as well. That's not even considering the potential discomfort and time involved in getting the pussy or ass in question in shape to enjoyably accomodate the cock in question, when hands and toys come in adjustable size. Of course, the issue is pretty rare in the gay/lesbian community. Gay guys tend to be open to the idea of penis penetration, but just about all of them are fine with it not happening. Obviously, no sex between 2 women involves a penis, anyway. So, would it be fair to say that straight sex is dominated by some kind of penis fetish? Of course, it could also be that it guarantees at least some sexual playing for both the man and the woman, despite the fact that it probably only leads to an orgasm for the guy. Whatever it is, the majority of 'straight' guys I've had my hands on have been extremely selfish and demanding. I've never experienced such a problem with women or openly gay/bi guys, though. (not once has any woman and only one guy ever been upset by not getting my dick stuffed between their legs and it's been a rare exception that someone's objected to anything I asked them to try) It's not an issue with all 'straight' guys, though. I have to wonder if there's any women wouldn't give up the enjoyment of penis in vagina sex forever if they got all the other relatioship and sexual perks they wanted...

 

[SweetErika]

I'm probably jaded more than anyone here, but I've never really had the jealously issue, since I've always done the poly thing. I've always just relegated sex down to the level of any other enjoyable activity and treated the people I've fucked just like any platonic friend. If people just treated sex like any other thing like watching a movie, playing tennis, talking, or anything else you'd enjoy doing with a friend, instead of the ultimate taboo, there wouldn't be so many issues.

Of course, that also brings up the issue of straight sex as defined by a dick in someone's pussy or ass. In the first place, it carries about as much risk as the most dangerous BDSM activities like fire play or beating the hell out of someone with a stick. (especially if pregnancy isn't intended) In the second place, it generally involves more intense exercise, at least for the penis user, and awkward positioning than just about anything else. Third, even though a dick in a cunt or ass is often enjoyable, I'd have to wonder if anyone could honestly say it's more pleasurable than up to 4 hands, a mouth, and possibly toys as well. That's not even considering the potential discomfort and time involved in getting the pussy or ass in question in shape to enjoyably accomodate the cock in question, when hands and toys come in adjustable size. Of course, the issue is pretty rare in the gay/lesbian community. Gay guys tend to be open to the idea of penis penetration, but just about all of them are fine with it not happening. Obviously, no sex between 2 women involves a penis, anyway. So, would it be fair to say that straight sex is dominated by some kind of penis fetish? Of course, it could also be that it guarantees at least some sexual playing for both the man and the woman, despite the fact that it probably only leads to an orgasm for the guy. Whatever it is, the majority of 'straight' guys I've had my hands on have been extremely selfish and demanding. I've never experienced such a problem with women or openly gay/bi guys, though. (not once has any woman and only one guy ever been upset by not getting my dick stuffed between their legs and it's been a rare exception that someone's objected to anything I asked them to try) It's not an issue with all 'straight' guys, though. I have to wonder if there's any women wouldn't give up the enjoyment of penis in vagina sex forever if they got all the other relatioship and sexual perks they wanted...

What does any of that have to do with polyamory?

I don't recall ever seeing you talk about your experience with love, or any kind of romantic relationship that goes beyond sex. It might be interesting (and thread-appropriate) to hear how you balance multiple loving relationships simultaneously, if you in fact do.

 

[satindesire]

Satindesire, I completely agree with what you're saying.

While I may have struggled with it in the past, I do not have low self esteem. I do happen to like being submissive in intimate relationships. It urks me that pharonsbrother seems to have all these parameters. You can't call yourself poly unless... you can't be dominant unless.... if you're this, you must be....

I just wanted good conversation, I didn't want some know it all to come on here and swear that none of us know what we're talking about because we don't fit into his mold.

I am perfectly poly-capable and I will use my own definition of what that means for me, kthxbye.

4chan losers don't think with logic like the rest of the world, sweetie. Don't even worry about him or his ignorant-ass opinions, they aren't in line with reality anyway.

People like that are supremely arrogant and narcissistic enough to argue the fact that they truly believe they're right even after being proved wrong, SPECTACULARLY, and multiple times. It's called "Being A Prick". I believe they study it in college. This guy obviously got an A.

I STRONGLY suggest everyone just put this gentleman on ignore and go about their business. Logic and facts don't work to improve their intellect any as we can see from the first page of this fine thread.

 

[BiBunny]

I've been with my girlfriend for 7 years. I've been with my Owners (who are married) for nearly 2. They've recently collared her as well. I guess we're all living proof that it does work, the crap in this thread about subs aside.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

I'm a little confused, PB. On one hand, you quote the definition of poly as "participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships" but then on the other hand claim that any guy or girl can have a significant other and a side piece of ass and not be involved in a poly relationship. By the definition you looked up and quoted, cheating on your spouse would be considered poly. Just wondering the point you're trying to get across here.

As for me, the whole idea of a poly relationship is frankly a little nerve-wracking. I've come from a long line of relationships where my SO was very insecure, and would get jealous if I even flirted with another woman. On a side note, having not experienced it, I would still wonder how low self esteem would work well in a poly relationship, given that insecurities are usually the first to cry foul when their loved ones are also loving others. By my own personal record, its tough to see it working for me.

The idea sounds like lots of fun in theory, but could I handle it? I have no idea. I don't know if I could handle their needs in all aspects, if I could balance time spent, etc. That doesn't mean I don't understand the concept, just don't know if I personally could do it.

Cheating on your spouse with another isn't polyamorous. The key is participating in multiple 'loving and intimate' relationships. You can't be intimate with your spouse and with another if both aren't clued in and approving to some extant of each loving and intimate relationship. All three or four people will have to share intimacy at some point for the relationship to prosper. A piece of ass is just that, as opposed to polyAmor as someone hinted at earlier; it's really a complicated circumstance. Most likely no one who reads this will have been involved in a polyamorous relationship as it's incredibly rare in our culture.

The reason it doesn't work is because of the training from childhood about the one to one ratio of intimacy. Our word 'intimacy' was just another word for boning for centuries, sometime within the last hundred years, maybe sooner, it took on a whole other meaning. The current meaning can't contain more than two people. If you get three people you get a break in intimacy. I didn't write the rules, that's just how you, me, and everyone you know operates.

 

[infinity706]

What does any of that have to do with polyamory?

I don't recall ever seeing you talk about your experience with love, or any kind of romantic relationship that goes beyond sex. It might be interesting (and thread-appropriate) to hear how you balance multiple loving relationships simultaneously, if you in fact do.

That could be because it just never came up. I have a feeling that people just assumed because I've had lots of casual sex that it meant I couldn't love anyone or have real friends.

If you read the first part of my other post, though, that's part of it. I seperate the sex out, specifically so I can have real friendships and seperate lust from love better. The problem I see with true, loving friendships is that people take sex and make love a prerequisite. The whole having sex with multiple people thing is part of the issue too, though. When people can be honest and satisfied with the sex they're getting it takes away the lying and resentment that comes with either cheating or living with being unsatisfied, since no one will ever be able to meet all your needs. If you can love and trust someone enough to go out and do any other activity with other people, why should you have to have a monopoly on the sex? Just because I choose to call my favorite sexual partners fuck buddies doesn't mean I can't love them as much as all the monogamous people here love their one partner. I actually have quite a few really good friends that I love even though there's never been and probably never will be any sex.

It's also exactly the same reason why I've agreed to have affairs. Yes, it's less than ideal, but it's still the best option. It's not like I do it randomly, either. All of my affairs have been with good friends that I care about a lot. It's never been about just about sex, either. Yes, I fucked their brains out, but that was only a small part of it. I wanted them to learn how to communicate well with their partner, and in many cases, rebuild their sex life with said partner. I also didn't just go out and seduce them, either. I spent hours talking to them before I ultimately offered them an affair if and only if they were totally sure that's what they wanted. Sure, cheating is a bad thing, but I don't really see how letting them just go out and randomly hook up with someone, possibly get pregnant/contract a disease, and wreck their relationship is better. Really, I have very similar goals as you do. I just do a few things differently to accomplish them. The affairs I've had haven't really been any different than what goes on here in How To, other than the fact that they could choose to fulfil their fantasy with me if that's what they wanted.

I actually have decided in the last few weeks, though, that I'm not going to give out any more sex to people that I couldn't be friends with. I don't think it's inherently wrong, but it's almost never even resulted in good sex. Even though the risk is about the same, true, casual sex just didn't offer that much in the way of rewards.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

4chan losers don't think with logic like the rest of the world, sweetie. Don't even worry about him or his ignorant-ass opinions, they aren't in line with reality anyway.

People like that are supremely arrogant and narcissistic enough to argue the fact that they truly believe they're right even after being proved wrong, SPECTACULARLY, and multiple times. It's called "Being A Prick". I believe they study it in college. This guy obviously got an A.

I STRONGLY suggest everyone just put this gentleman on ignore and go about their business. Logic and facts don't work to improve their intellect any as we can see from the first page of this fine thread.

Special shout out to the queen of cool stories.

 

[satindesire]

Special shout out to the queen of cool stories.

You have no logical arguments to ANY of the facts you've been provided here on this thread, so you resort to trolling in a pseudo-nonchalant manner to try and prove you're 'too cool to care' about looking like an ignorant ass.

We see it all the time. You're about as transparent as window glass, Books.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

You have no logical arguments to ANY of the facts you've been provided here on this thread, so you resort to trolling in a pseudo-nonchalant manner to try and prove you're 'too cool to care' about looking like an ignorant ass.

We see it all the time. You're about as transparent as window glass, Books.

How are you going to tell everyone else to ignore me but not do it yourself? That's it, hypo-cat. Cut your hair.

 

[satindesire]

How are you going to tell everyone else to ignore me but not do it yourself? That's it, hypo-cat. Cut your hair.

Because I like sharpening my troll-busting skills on weaselly little punks like you. It's easy fun, and good practice for when the big boys roll into the forum.

If you can't take it, I suggest you step away from the computer and crack a book or two. Maybe you can learn something.