Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_TopicIcon
"What do you think this thing called romantic love is all about?"
January 26, 2000
8:29 pm
Avatar
VRJ
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think that romantic love is a form of love, perhaps the precurser or motivator, a part of love, a way of expressing yourself, the beginnings (maybe) of true pure love. But it could be an end in itself, sadly, or the beginning of an obsession. It would depend on a combination of the physiological, psychological, and circumstantial plus experiences, past and present. How's that for a start?

January 26, 2000
11:19 pm
Avatar
kitten
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Wow, pretty heady stuff!!!

January 27, 2000
5:56 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

VRJ.

I think that you have made an excellent start; a very good well thought out response to a very deep question.

Generally speaking, how do you think that the average person know that they are 'in love'?

January 27, 2000
8:06 pm
Avatar
VRJ
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,
First of all, you say 'average person' and 'in love' - do you mean real true love? I'll assume so. But I think that the word 'love' is used in a variety of circumstances ranging from romantic love to lust to true pure love. And I don't know if everyone has had the opportunity to receive and/or give real love. I think that many think and even say that they 'know' they are in love but not until they really do find love do they realize the difference. To quote from our guy's book, "love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." And "There is no fear in love, for true love casts out all fear". Now, I think this is an ideal to strive for and it's doubtful that any human can accomplish it in its entirety but as long as we keep aiming in the right direction and keep correcting our aim when it goes astray we will move closer to it. So, I think you could know that you are in love if you feel that these are things that you could have and want to have and are willing to strive for in your relationship. You can at least visualize them in the future. You are mutually in love when you no longer try to change your partner but find that the things that bothered you either no longer bother you or your partner has changed of their own free will. Although I've never experienced it, I think that there is a mature love you can feel of peace and contentment and joy, probably after you have accomplished much of the above. And, I don't think this can happen with a partner until it has happened within yourself.

January 28, 2000
5:05 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

VRJ.

An excellent insight into 'true love'. In a feeble attempt to illucidate the discriminating factor between 'true love' and the other forms that you mentioned, I would like to 'pull' the focus onto two crucial parts of your response.

They are:

"love... is not self seeking... " and

"There is no fear in love, for true love casts out all fear"

Fear is an emotion engineered by the evolutionary process to equip an individual and the group for survival. If one partner feels fear as a result of a perceived threat to their well being from the other partner, then that specific interaction cannot be loving. If the majority of interactions within a relationship are of a fear driven nature , then I believe the relationship to be based on survival needs rather than 'true love'.

Depending on the severity of the perceived threat, fear comes in many guises ranging from feeling ill at ease to stark terror. Depending upon a partner to overcome fear is not true love; neither is ensuring one's own needs fulfillment by exchanging 'protection' from threat in return.

The phrase 'emotional security' is often used within the context of a supposedly loving relationship. Such a relationship smacks of fulfilment of self focused survival needs.' I feel loved' seems to mean 'I feel that my man will always protect me and meet my needs' or 'I feel that my woman will always look after me no matter what'. "love... is not self seeking... " But what do the words 'I love you' really mean? I agree with you that the word " 'love' is used in a variety of circumstances ranging from romantic love to lust to true pure love." I would only add the survival needs fulfilment component into the range.

It seems to me that 'true love' within a relationship context can be defined as each partner seeking consensus into what intended outcome of and action is forseen as being in the best interests of both partners. In my opinion, reaching consensus on the defininition of 'best interests' in a mutually supportive environment is an act of true love in itself.

What kind of love is encompassing anothers within our own ego boundaries?

I suspect that the Hollywood version of romantic love is a mixture of sexually driven and individual survival driven emotions. The individual survival driven emotions are often well disguised as infant and childhood emotional memories in recall that feel like a craving for the other partner to 'love' them.

Even the drive to reproduce our own genes is evolutionally driven 'survival' of a part of the physical self within our descendents.

How unromantic of me to reduce the esctatic feelings and emotions of 'romantic love' to a mere drive for survival status. 🙂 I will duck my head from the incoming flack.

Can 'true love' be defined at all? Can we only say what the characteristics are as you have done?

January 28, 2000
11:25 pm
Avatar
VRJ
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You said, "If one partner feels fear as a result of a perceived threat to their well being from the other partner, then that specific interaction cannot be loving". Can you explain a bit more? Is it not loving on the part of the giver or the receiver? Say the threat is only perceived, not real. Should the 'giver' change their behaviour, or the 'receiver' change their perception, or both? Even if they understand the fear, should the 'giver' modify their behaviour if it means going against what they feel is right and perfectly innocent.

"Depending upon a partner to overcome fear is not true love" I agree but what is it? Inability to take responsibility, guilt?

"There is no fear in love, for true love casts out all fear" So if I decide that I will have no fear does that mean I am in love. It could be stupidity. Or it could be a maturing process. I think the phrase means that the 'healthy' interraction of two people in love with each other will make all fear about the relationship disappear and will promote the growth of the beforementioned things..

If I understand correctly "I love you" could be inwardly focussed or outwardly focussed meaning I want 'you' to be the one who fulfills my needs or I want to fulfill 'your' needs but should be more like a duet sung together to God, focussing on 'we' and 'he'.

You said, "How unromantic of me to reduce the esctatic feelings and emotions of 'romantic love' to a mere drive for survival status" and perhaps, if we don't get beyond this stage, that is all it is, useful to procreate but not to explore anything beyond. But it can also be the precurser to much more, and so, in itself be much more.

"Can 'true love' be defined at all? Can we only say what the characteristics are as you have done?" I think maybe it isn't something that can be put into words and even totally understood with human logic but is more of a feeling (womantalk).

January 30, 2000
5:43 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

VRJ.
I said, " If one partner feels fear as a result of a perceived threat to their well being from the other partner, then that specific interaction cannot be loving." You asked, "Is it not loving on the part of the giver or the receiver?" Yes, I agree. I am dead wrong. Feelings to not define an interaction as being love. Motives and intentions in people are the criteria for defining interactions as loving, not feelings. Mea culpa, mea culpa.

Within the context of my statement, 'Depending upon a partner to overcome fear is not true love' , you said, "I agree but what is it? Inability to take responsibility, guilt?" In my opinion, such dependency is an infantile fixation. It is the result of an unsuccessful negotiation of a childhood emotional developmental stage. The dependent one is left with a fearful emotional memory, a deep conviction of one's own inadequacy to take care of one's 'emotional' self.

You said, "So if I decide that I will have no fear does that mean I am in love. It could be stupidity...." I agree wholeheartedly. I suspect that the biblical phrase,"There is no fear in love, for true love casts out all fear" is talking about Agape; the love from the Supreme, as experienced in deep meditation, that obliterates all fear. Perhaps Agape is the only form of 'true' love; love spelt with a capital 'L'. Perhaps all human love is tainted in some degree by our illusions of vulnerability. I saw a mother giraffe, after a valiant defense against hungry lions, finally abandon her baby in the interests of her own survival. Motherly love seems as close as we get to Agape; that is unconditional and conditioning love. Yet even motherly love often fails to meet the test.

Speaking about romantic love you said, " But it can also be the precurser to much more, and so, in itself be much more. " Yes... you are right. The question is: what is the 'much more' to which it can lead?

In defining love you said,"I think maybe it isn't something that can be put into words and even totally understood with human logic but is more of a feeling (womantalk)." If you are talking in terms of emotional feelings, we are in a dilemma; back on the merry-go-round. If you are talking in terms of intuition then I agree. I think that the love experienced in meditation is very much a function of our 'intuitional' awareness. I am experiencing a paucity of words to illucidate this perception.

I think that right now we are at the crux of the misunderstandings behind this whole issue of what the word 'love' means. Maybe the word itself is both too general and totally inadequate to convey the true motive or intent of the partner.

January 30, 2000
7:25 pm
Avatar
VRJ
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,

You said "The dependent one is left with a fearful emotional memory, a deep conviction of one's own
inadequacy to take care of one's 'emotional' self."

This would be because the child wasn't looked after emotionally and/or wasn't modelled healthy emotional development and not taught how to do it themselves. This sound reasonable. So that would be why they look to others to 'fix' things. Because they don't know how. So, how do they teach themselves, or can they? Or can they be modelled healthy behaviour as adults and learn?

"Perhaps all human love is tainted in some degree by our illusions of vulnerability. I saw a mother giraffe, after a valiant defense against hungry lions, finally abandon her baby in the interests of her own survival. Motherly love seems as close as we get to Agape; that is unconditional and conditioning love. Yet even motherly love often fails to meet the test."

Your story made me sad but yet I'm sure you are right that we can never get it perfect here. We can only try. There is only one guy that I know of who did it.

The question was "Speaking about romantic love you said, " But it can also be the precurser to much more, and so, in itself be much more. " Yes... you are right. The question is: what is the 'much more' to which it can lead?"

I wonder if we asked a couple who had married young and were happily married all of their lives to define true love, what their answer would be? And would the couple who had difficulties during their marriage but got past them to be married a long time give the same answer? And what about the couple who married more than once but finally found 'true love'? Is there one answer only? Would they say the same thing?

"In defining love you said,"I think maybe it isn't something that can be put into words and even totally
understood with human logic but is more of a feeling (womantalk)." If you are talking in terms of emotional feelings, we are in a dilemma; back on the merry-go-round. If you are talking in terms of intuition then I agree. I think that the love experienced in meditation is very much a function of our 'intuitional' awareness. I am experiencing a paucity of words to illucidate this perception."

I was talking intuition, 'rightness'.

I think that right now we are at the crux of the misunderstandings behind this whole issue of what the word 'love' means. Maybe the word itself is both too general and totally inadequate to convey the true motive or intent of the partner."

I agree. The Inuit (Eskimos) have over a hundred words just to describe different types of snow. It's important to them. If they need so many words to describe a physical substance how can we even begin to describe, in words or physical constructs, something that includes the physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual? It will be but a poor scratching of the surface. It is maybe different for each individual. Perhaps the pure, white, warm, light that draws us closer into peace and joy and contentment, that banishes fear, the light of near death experiences comes closest. But I would imagine that isn't even descriptive enough. How can you describe that which you've never experienced. Or, it might be so simple. My guess is that it's another paradox and when we find it we will smack ourselves on the forehead and wonder what we were racking our brains over and why we couldn't see it. Or maybe at that point we will be physically dead, have transended our bodies, and understand why we didn't understand. Maybe the search has a point or maybe it doesn't.

January 31, 2000
4:43 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

VRJ.

Talking about people learning to take care of their own emotional selves, you said, "So, how do they teach themselves, or can they?" I don't think that once formed emotional memories of inadequacy - or anything else - are eraseable. However, such memories can be prevented from being triggered into recall. We can cognitively learn to nurture our emotional selves by developing a sensitivity to how we are feeling and by constantly monitoring those feelings. As soon as a 'hiccup' is detected, we can quickly fly into 'reassurance mode'. By using 'self talk', we can tell our emotional selves that everything is OK. We can 'reality check' the situation and explain to our emotional selves that there is really no 'threat out there'; that the perceived threat is coming from a past emotional memory that has been aroused and a memory cannot hurt us. With practice, this soon becomes a habit that keeps us on an emotionally even keel and far less prone to the triggering of old emotional memories into wakefulness. By not placing ourselves in the situations likely to trigger recall, we can learn to avoid the 'triggering events' as well . It's about cognitions 'nurturing' emotions.

Talking about the Darby and Joan's response to their assessment of a lifetime together, I think that they would just cherish the memories of the experiences. I think life is all about just experiencing as widely as possible. I suspect that the subjective judgements that we pass on the relative value of each experience is really irrelevant in the long run. I suspect that this is what we will realise after the 'final life review' regrets have passed. Of course this is only a 'gut feeling' belief and I may well be wrong.

Speaking of that one guy that got everything right, I seem to remember at least one time when he blew it. As I remember it, he 'lost it' in the temple with some ignorant money changers and flogged them with a whip. Hmmmm! Some need for anger management therapy there. It seems that he really was one of us after all. 🙂

About 'true love', you said, "Perhaps the pure, white, warm, light that draws us closer into peace and joy and contentment, that banishes fear, the light of near death experiences comes closest." Yes , this has been my experience; but only in deep meditation. I have never experienced an NDE.

February 4, 2000
8:04 pm
Avatar
VRJ
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez, I liked your ideas regarding taking care of our emotional selves. Recognition is the start. And looking after yourself, reassuring yourself. I'm going to try that. I will also try to base my emotional responses on truth by trying to wait and assess and do a 'reality check' before I react. Self love is good. I will try to look at my feelings as they arise. With interest. I know I start to 'see red' any time I feel like I'm being manipulated or told what to do, or when someone tries to make me feel guilty if I don't do what they want. It may be to the point where I get the feeling without assessing whether the intent is there. It sure doesn't feel like it but I think I'm willing to admit it is possible that I am very sensitive to this and jump to conclusions. I will investigate.

It is real easy to see it in others isn't it? When their reaction is way out of proportion or not even related to what is happening. And, this is interesting. It's easy to see and I notice it often in people close to me. But not so often in other people who aren't as close. And rarely in myself. So, what is this?

People who are close - Is it because you know them better? Or are concentrating on them? Or their response is more important to you? You know your intent and is wasn't to cause the reaction you got and you wanted the right reaction?

Other people - Don't see repetition of responses enough? Don't care as much? Aren't as observant?

Self - don't notice because it's normal? Don't know any other way? Are too outwardly focussed?

Or is this even normal? Does everyone do this or just me?

February 6, 2000
8:15 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

VRJ.

You said, "I start to 'see red' any time I feel like I'm being manipulated or told what to do, or when someone tries to make me feel guilty if I don't do what they want." So do I. But why? Why don’t we just observe the manipulation and then act in accordance with our cognitions without emotionally reacting?

Seeing ‘red’ is a response to fear! Fear is generally an emotional response to a potentially overpowering threat. A threat that we can deal with easily doesn’t generally evoke a fear response. So, it appears, that ‘unjustified’ manipulation by some ‘powerful’ person can make us ‘see red’. When we so resentfully feel obligated to please others, why do we so desperately need their ‘approval’? Are we not caught in a lose-lose situation? If we do what they want we displease ourselves; if we please ourselves we then displease them and then feel guilty. We resent others for ‘putting’ us in the ‘trap’. Where is the ‘trap’? I suggest that the ‘trap’ is an emotion memory. When mom and dad ‘manipulated’ us in childhood we were indeed trapped. The ‘trap’ was real. We literally needed our mom and dad to survive. But today…? This is why I asked you the questions about gain and loss. ‘Fear’ and it’s subsequent anger response is always about ‘survival’ in many disguises. I cannot stress this too highly. To make sense out of our present day ‘irrational’ fears, we are forced to look to our emotional past.

Talking about overreacting, you observed, "When their reaction is way out of proportion or not even related to what is happening." I understand you to mean when there is no real threat to bf, only a perception one. In regard to understand the nature of the ‘threat’ of loss of a romantically loved one in bf and his resultant fear, we are again forced to look to our remote emotional past and that of our loved one. In dealing with relationship issues, explanations such as ‘He loves me. That’s why he fears losing me’, have little practical value. In my opinion, as a first step, we need to get to and clearly see the origin of the perceived ‘threat’.

Talking about the dependency of our awareness levels of others on the closeness of relationships, you said, "People who are close - Is it because you know them better? Or are concentrating on them? Or their response is more important to you? You know your intent and is wasn't to cause the reaction you got and you wanted the right reaction?" And talking about being self unaware, you said "…Are too outwardly focussed" .

I see a lot of variance in the attribution of ‘blame’ for the response of others to our behaviours. I guess that psychologists would refer to our ‘locus of control’ as the determinant in this matter. In the attribution of causes for behavioural outcomes, they classify people as falling upon a spectrum somewhere between being externally focused and internally focused. They say that some look without for the causes of their situation; some look within. I am not sure that people are that consistent.

I am biased. I see that we are all unconsciously self-centred. Of course the degree varies. This variation between individuals is a function of the individual inherent emotional security levels. Those people most important in our perception of their potential to fulfil our ‘survival’ needs will have our closest attention. Knowing these people, close to us in our support network, is vital to us in ensuring harmonious interactions. So we build a ‘model’ of them in our head. That gives us a feeling of security in thinking that we can understand and predict their behaviour.

You said, "Self - don't notice because it's normal? Don't know any other way?…"
Most of us are very reluctant to allow ourselves to ‘see’ negative characteristics within us that are likely to evoke fears of rejection by others. This is what maintaining our self-image is about. How closely our self-image matches our ideal determines our level of self-esteem. We hate liars yet we hate people telling us the hard truth about ourselves. How many women, when asking their husbands how they look, want the truth? How many want lies? It’s a dilemma. Thus we construct and maintain the ‘persona’ to suit the occasion. This is why Jung advised embracing the ‘shadow’. It is only when we are free from the fear of rejection of self by ourself and by others that we can truly see ourselves and be free to be authentic. We are caught in the illusion of vulnerability and the subsequent game of denial. That is my understanding of the causes of ‘blindness’ to the self.

You asked, "Or is this even normal? Does everyone do this or just me?" What is normality? What 63% of the population does I guess. I suspect that most of your behaviour falls within this 63%. But I don’t really know.

February 8, 2000
9:26 pm
Avatar
VRJ
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You said," Most of us are very reluctant to allow ourselves to 'see' negative characteristics within us that are likely to evoke fears of rejection by others." Yes. I have seen that in myself and I take it even farther. When I was gambling, I didn't want to be seen so I didn't look. I could look right at people and not see them. The ostrich with its head in the sand thing. So, it is only with acceptance of self that you can really begin to see things as they really are. And it's also the only way to really see what you might want to work on or change about yourself.

You also said that "we need to get to and clearly see the origin of the perceived 'threat'." I see a lot of merit in this. I can see some improvement if we at least understand that there is an 'origin' outside of the current situation. I also see how it is impossible to do it for someone else. So if you love them, you would be loving if you first loved yourself, discovered your own triggers and dealt with them. As a healthy person you would then be able to accept or reject behaviours, attitudes, and actions based on reality and good judgment. Then you would no longer be an enabler and change and growth would be up to them

February 9, 2000
4:53 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

VRJ.
I agree with you in all the points made in your last posting.

In particular, you said, "So if you love them, you would be loving if you first loved yourself, discovered your own triggers and dealt with them." Yes, very important! This is a worthwhile goal of and by itself.

And, further, you said, " As a healthy person you would then be able to accept or reject behaviours, attitudes, and actions based on reality and good judgment." I agree. The key words here are 'healthy', 'reality' and 'good judgement'. All these words are very subjective in their meaning. I don't want to launch into a long winded philosophical discussion on symantics. But firstly, to me the problem in relationships seems to be the variances in people's views of 'reality'. Our individual views on what constitutes 'reality' heavily relies on our past experiences. As these experiences vary between people, so then does the individuals concept of 'reality'. I am not sure that absolute reality exists. If it does then it is in the 'eyes' of God.

Secondly interpreting the meaning of the phrase 'good judgement' infers a minefield of complexity. I think that judgement implies criteria. The meaning of the word good is very subjective. What criteria from amongst so many does one choose? This is where I harken back to one of my definitions of love; i.e. that of wanting what is in the mutual best interests of self and others. Here we have a very subjective concept of 'mutual best interests'. I suggest that good and informed communications between romantic lovers is a prerequisite in establishing consensus on what this means to and for both of you.

What is it that threatens 'good communications' between lovers, do you think?

Then you said, "Then you would no longer be an enabler and change and growth would be up to them" I am not sure about your meaning of the phrase 'an enabler'. If you mean 'a manipulator' then I would agree with this statement. Another good definition of love is 'allowing others to be themselves'. I also think that love entails 'enabling' others to reach their highest potential. I think that I have used the word 'enable' in a different sense to that done by you. You see, I purchased a home on acreage and against my 'emotionally based' better judgement moved in with my partner. My partner has an avid interest in a sustainable ecology and believes in the use of permaculture as a means of attaining same. I decided that I would 'enable' her to achieve her life's dream; to build a self-sustainable environment for herself and others. It felt good then and still feels good two years down the track. She is well on the way with her sustainable agriculture called permaculture. We have lots of organically grown, pesticide free food. This we agree is in our 'mutual best interests'.

Communications is not always easy or good for us but we are advancing. Love doesn't always feel good though. It is sometimes downright painful and frustrating for us both. It sometimes entails stepping back and allowing my partner to make her own mistakes. Enabling her often requires effort on my part; especially when I see no 'sense' in some of her objectives.

It seems to me that romantic love is a journey of intimacy that demands much tolerance, understanding, nurture and encouragement; and then some more of all of that for one's partner as well. 🙂

February 11, 2000
10:02 pm
Avatar
VRJ
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You asked "What is it that threatens 'good communications' between lovers, do you think?"

Fear, insecurity, fear

You said " I am not sure about your meaning of the phrase 'an enabler'.. . . I think that I have used the word 'enable' in a different sense to that done by you."

Yes, I meant it as in the enabler in alcoholism. By doing nothing or continueing the dance you enable the alcoholic to continue in the illness. If you stop enabling they are left on their own to continue or change depending on their desire and commitment.

Regarding your own life you said "Enabling her often requires effort on my part; especially when I see no 'sense' in some of her objectives." hahahahaha you're a good man!

" It seems to me that romantic love is a journey of intimacy that demands much tolerance, understanding, nurture and encouragement; and then some more of all of that for one's partner as well. :-)"

Would you still call it romantic love after all of that?

February 14, 2000
12:37 pm
Avatar
Ambrosia
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You both have defined the arenas of love. So let me ask you this... Does it mean that one does not love you if they take you for granted. What if one loves, but does not understand how to show it? Does this mean they can still truly love you? Or should these feelings and emotions cause natural reactions, words, looks, and such? Do you think someone can pretend they love you to satisfy a fear of realizing love is not in thier life, a fear of lonliness?

February 20, 2000
9:52 am
Avatar
VRJ
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Ambrosia,

Does it mean that one does not love
you if they take you for granted.
I guess that depends. It is fine to take some things for granted. It's called faith. But if they take for granted things that are not acceptable for the other person then it would have to be discussed and resolved.

What if one loves, but does not understand how to show it? Does this mean they can still truly love you? Or should these feelings and emotions cause natural reactions, words, looks, and such?
I guess it would depend on how you were taught to show and express your love. But I also think that love naturally prompts you to want to share what you have with the other.

Do you think someone can pretend they love you to satisfy a fear of realizing love is not in thier life, a fear of lonliness?
Absolutely

March 4, 2000
9:23 am
Avatar
janes
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

if one loves and doesn't know how to show it they may not have learned how as a child. Bottled up emotions may be the symptom of deeper problems or hangups. Or just a nondemonstrative family (if in U.S. we are very purtanical)
Yes I think love does naturally make you want to share. but learning how to is another thing.

Pretending to love to not be alone..Sure

But scary to be the receiver of such "love"

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 247
Currently Online:
29
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 110922
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38536
Posts: 714206
Newest Members:
Corties, patrickstayes, kevinkovalsky, izzy39, RoyFollman, kevin021
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer