• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Men Won't Marry You

Gathomas88 said:
No offense, but where, exactly?
Click to expand...

See that earlier study linked for you that you claimed didn't count because Millenials' weren't old enough or something? The behavior is real.

I mean... Really, if I were to choose an era that actually seemed to present some hope of genuine cultural reform, it probably would've been the late eighties and nineties. It certainly wasn't perfect, but the AIDs scare had actually frightened people into cleaning up their act a bit, the Reagan administration had breathed some new life into culturally Conservative ideals, the divorce and STD rates finally started to wind down a bit after hitting astronomical highs during the 1970s and early 1980s, more traditional family dynamics (most notably the 'stay at home mom') had something of a Renaissance, and there was even a miniature "baby boom" (though, obviously, not enough of one to make a lasting difference).

The Millennial generation, by way of contrast, almost seems like a backlash against that backlash. Promiscuity and general debauchery are more in vogue right now than they've ever been in recent memory, STDs are up again, marriage and birth rates (Hell! Even just positive attitudes relating to marriage and childrearing) are at the lowest they've ever been, single motherhood is at an all time high, and religiousity is drifting in the aether as well.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Millennials really seem to be the wrong group to look towards for any kind of "comeback" here. I'd look more towards the generation after.

They just might be disgusted enough to actually change something. :shrug:

Ever increasing influence from Catholic Latinos probably won't hurt matters either (provided they can avoid the pitfalls of American minority culture, of course).
Click to expand...

I think you are overemphasizing the recent. Sure, our generation is stupid and self destructive. We just don't seem to be as stupid and self destructive as the Boomers.
 
cpwill said:
See that earlier study linked for you that you claimed didn't count because Millenials' weren't old enough or something? The behavior is real.



I think you are overemphasizing the recent. Sure, our generation is stupid and self destructive. We just don't seem to be as stupid and self destructive as the Boomers.
Click to expand...

I don't think we have the same kind of ......flair (if that's a nice way of putting it) that the boomer counterculturalists did, but I'm not going to declare we are that much better than any other generation which came before us in handling ourselves.

To some extent this generational conflict is interesting and has some level of legitimacy, but I think in its current form in the thread, it is tending to serve as an ego booster to millennials more than it is a legitimate discussion of generational forms and norms.

I mean, it's 2-4 millennials discussing the relative greatness or superiority of the millennials. It's almost as silly as listening to Boomers talk about millenials in a negative light, but at least Boomers have some years on them when engaging in this one-direction dialogue.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
I don't think we have the same kind of ......flair (if that's a nice way of putting it) that the boomer counterculturalists did, but I'm not going to declare we are that much better than any other generation which came before us in handling ourselves.
Click to expand...

Not at all - it seems we barely edge the Boomers, and are far and away from the Great Generation.

To some extent this generational conflict is interesting and has some level of legitimacy, but I think in its current form in the thread, it is tending to serve as an ego booster to millennials more than it is a legitimate discussion of generational forms and norms.
Click to expand...

I don't really see much millennial chest-pumping in this thread. You've got Thomas, who thinks that we are a bunch of sunken moral degenerates, and me, who thinks that we are sunken moral degenerates who aren't the most sunk, and Smoke, who thinks that's fine.
 
cpwill said:
See that earlier study linked for you that you claimed didn't count because Millenials' weren't old enough or something? The behavior is real.
Click to expand...

Says what, exactly? I already pointed out the problems with that study.

Boomers didn't wrack up that 11 partner average by age 25 or 30, by and large. They did so over the course of a lifetime, through divorces and other life events.

I think you are overemphasizing the recent. Sure, our generation is stupid and self destructive. We just don't seem to be as stupid and self destructive as the Boomers.
Click to expand...

Well... Again, there have been other - far more substantial - turn abouts that ultimately wound up being false starts, so you'll have to forgive my skepticism.

Honestly, I don't even really see a Millennial "turn about" taking place at all. By all rights, we seem to be the most Liberal generation in recent memory.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Not at all - it seems we barely edge the Boomers, and are far and away from the Great Generation.



I don't really see much millennial chest-pumping in this thread. You've got Thomas, who thinks that we are a bunch of sunken moral degenerates, and me, who thinks that we are sunken moral degenerates who aren't the most sunk, and Smoke, who thinks that's fine.
Click to expand...

It's millennials discussing the historical greatness or deterioration of of multiple generations.

Now to some respect I'm saying Gath can probably calm down some, Smoke can probably stop indicting her parent's generation, and open up to the possibility it's a tish grayer than it is.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Says what, exactly? I already pointed out the problems with that study.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Smoke pointed out a major error in your critique. sexual partner growth diminishes sharply with age.

Boomers didn't wrack up that 11 partner average by age 25 or 30, by and large. They did so over the course of a lifetime, through divorces and other life events.
Click to expand...

The wide majority of your sexual partners you are going to have before you're thirty.

Well... Again, there have been other - far more substantial - turn abouts that ultimately wound up being false starts, so you'll have to forgive my skepticism.

Honestly, I don't even really see a Millennial "turn about" taking place at all. By all rights, we seem to be the most Liberal generation in recent memory.
Click to expand...

Again, I think you are engaging in the availability heuristic.
 
LowDown said:
Why men won't marry you | Fox News



The bottom line is that marriage is a very very bad deal for men. They are being smart to avoid it.
Click to expand...


I think she undercuts the value of marriage from the get-go.

Men used to marry to have sex and a family. They married for love, too, but they had to marry the girl before taking her to bed

When more women make themselves sexually available, the pool of marriageable men diminishes
Click to expand...

So in the past the only reason TO marry someone was to A) have sex, B) have them take care of you? That's some pretty ****ty, stupid ****ing reasons to marry someone and promise to be with them for the rest of your life, if you ask me. Because you'll spend a long time married and NOT having sex! I think that's just a silly and feeble thing to jump onto. Don't get married just for sex! Bull****!

Well that just screams of what the ****, to me. If that's all that people see marriage as then there never was any value in it - period. Maybe the article author lost sight of what marriage really is?

So - this is what is a truth behind why anyone doesn't want to get married: "[don't want to lose] their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family"

That statement applies to both men and women - and is behind every decision NOT to marry. People want to live their life as they see it and not compromise / marry / settle down / stop being 100% individual. People see marriage as a constraint that isn't worth it.

--

Now here, I don't agree with this either:
Unlike women, men lose all power after they say “I do.” Their masculinity dies, too.
Click to expand...

See - I do believe in a more traditional gender / marital balance. I've been a stay at home mom / work at home mom for a mighty long time. But as I learned with my ex husband - when you get married under belief in this traditional concept and he flakes out on you - YOU and the KIDS suffer . . . for the rest of your life.

So let's not pretend as if the traditional concepts / roles are all that stellar - they aren't. ANYTIME you're reliant on anyone else for your livelihood and food you're risking quite a bit. And this is part of the reason why our entire country is shifting away from co-operative reliance and, instead, relying on blood-line family bonded units (Self+ living single - or multi-generational communities with parents + children + grandparents - etc) to survive.

--

And this is tripe, too:

Eventually most women decide they want children, no matter how long they put it off to focus on their careers. So they often nab the best guy they can find, usually the one with whom they’re currently sleeping, and convince him to get married.
Click to expand...

Really? That sounds like utter and total bull****, to me.

So remind me, why would a man marry today?

No, really. What’s in it for him?
Click to expand...

Maybe we should ask why would ANYONE want to get married? Just to have kids? Just to have sex? Obviously we don't need marriage for any of that - so?

Well - that leaves us with commitment, relationship - people just wanting ot BE committed and together. How noble. Maybe more marriages would last if this was the utmost valued element behind the commitment.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
It's millennials discussing the historical greatness or deterioration of of multiple generations
Click to expand...

:shrug: so? We aren't singling ourselves out as some kind of awesome mcawesomesauce. The debate seems to be on whether or not we are the worst.

Now to some respect I'm saying Gath can probably calm down some, Smoke can probably stop indicting her parent's generation, and open up to the possibility it's a tish grayer than it is.
Click to expand...

true'nuff.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Men used to marry to have sex and a family. They married for love, too
Click to expand...
So in the past the only reason TO marry someone was to A) have sex, B) have them take care of you?
Click to expand...

Um. Maybe read that bit again?


That's some pretty ****ty, stupid ****ing reasons to marry someone and promise to be with them for the rest of your life, if you ask me. Because you'll spend a long time married and NOT having sex! I think that's just a silly and feeble thing to jump onto. Don't get married just for sex! Bull****!

Well that just screams of what the ****, to me. If that's all that people see marriage as then there never was any value in it - period. Maybe the article author lost sight of what marriage really is?
Click to expand...

For most of human history you didn't marry because you were "in love", you married and worked on love, hoping it would happen. Yes, sex is central to marriage - the point of marriage ("what it really is") being centered around the healthy creation and rearing of children. But this modern idea that marriage is supposed to be Because She Makes You Twitter-Pated or because He's Your Best Friend is modern emotionalism. It's wonderful that we have the luxury of it, but it's a new add-on, and we shouldn't confuse it with millennia of history.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah, and Smoke pointed out a major error in your critique. sexual partner growth diminishes sharply with age.

The wide majority of your sexual partners you are going to have before you're thirty.
Click to expand...

And quite a few people manage to tack a few more on to their overall number after thirty, particularly with infidelity, divorce, dating after divorce, and remarriage. Hell man, even nursing homes are regular hot spots of promiscuity these days, if some reports are to be believed. Lol

I don't see how it's at all out of the question to suggest that Millennials, who aren't even uniformly thirty yet, and are staying single and promiscuous well past thirty in many cases anyway, might tack another 3-5 partners (or more) on to their cumulative average before all is said and done. :shrug:

Again, I think you are engaging in the availability heuristic.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I don't think we're the "worst generation ever," or anything.

However, I certainly think it's a stretch to suggest that we're the one's to reverse the damage the Boomers caused. At the moment, we only seem to be pushing that agenda forward.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Um. Maybe read that bit again?
Click to expand...

No - Verkner demotes 'love' as a side-line interest. Sex first - gotta get married to have sex - and maybe get married because you love her.

For most of human history you didn't marry because you were "in love", you married and worked on love, hoping it would happen. Yes, sex is central to marriage - the point of marriage ("what it really is") being centered around the healthy creation and rearing of children. But this modern idea that marriage is supposed to be Because She Makes You Twitter-Pated or because He's Your Best Friend is modern emotionalism. It's wonderful that we have the luxury of it, but it's a new add-on, and we shouldn't confuse it with millennia of history.
Click to expand...

Well Verkner isn't addressing things THAT far in the past - she's still writing this all based on human-compulsions behind the decision. She's not addressing arranged marriages.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
No - Verkner demotes 'love' as a side-line interest. Sex first - gotta get married to have sex - and maybe get married because you love her.
Click to expand...

He lists it as an additional reason, and you responded as though he hadn't. At least address his full, actual argument.

Well Verkner isn't addressing things THAT far in the past - she's still writing this all based on human-compulsions behind the decision. She's not addressing arranged marriages.
Click to expand...

:shrug: And I think her descriptions sound pretty apt.

This:

...What’s left of it, that is. In the span of just a few decades, America has demoted men from respected providers and protectors of the family to superfluous buffoons. Today’s sitcoms and commercials routinely paint a portrait of the idiot husband whose wife is smarter and more capable than he.

There was a time when wives respected their husbands. There was a time when wives took care of their husbands as they expected their husbands to take care of them....
Click to expand...

I think is particularly well-stated. Women often do not realize how important respect is to men (men often do not realize how important love is to women), but it is critical.
 
cpwill said:
He lists it as an additional reason, and you responded as though he hadn't. At least address his full, actual argument.



:shrug: And I think her descriptions sound pretty apt.

This:



I think is particularly well-stated. Women often do not realize how important respect is to men (men often do not realize how important love is to women), but it is critical.
Click to expand...


I only addressed the things I took issue with or disagreed with - why would I debate something that I agree with her on?

I disagree with how significant sex WAS or IS now when it comes to getting married. Yet I noted that she listed it as the first element gone awry. She's thus asserting the point that men would be more willing to marry if women were less promiscuous? (Maybe I just don't think that anyone ever has valued sex THAT much)

How about these elements:

Men WANT to continue to sleep around - they don't want the restraint of monogamy. (beyond SEX, here - monogamy is being tied in with someone in all ways)
Men WANT to work and earn money which they don't have to apply toward family expenses like children and bills for a household.
Men WANT to stay single, free, and not become *****-whipped.

We don't need the excuse of sitcoms to explore this - men have opposed marriage for quite some time. Ever male comedian has made jokes about it for decades. She points fingers at women and feminism [it's all the woman's fault - these things] but doesn't explore - at all - that men might ENJOY not being married - pure and simple.

Just own up - marriage requires mutual respect of both sexes, maturity, and a willingness TO let go of frivolous behaviors for BOTH men and women.

And BOTH genders tend to avoid letting go of these things when they decide they don't want to be 'tied to someone for the rest of their life'.

Her argument is that men feel less valued / wanted / needed - so why bother?
My point is that men don't miss the responsibility or burden of marriage / family - so why would they bother?

It has nothing to do with sex or masculinity.
 
Last edited:
Ah - here we go:


Milennials Have Fewer Sex Partners Than Parents, Grandparents, Study : News : News Every Day

A new research has revealed that youngsters today have fewer sexual partners than those who were a part of Baby Boomers and Generation X during the 1950's and 1960's.


The study conducted by San Diego State University has stated that people from baby boomers and generation x had an average of 11 sexual partners while milennials born in the 1980's and 1990's have 8 sexual partners.

Millennials are more accepting of premarital sex than any previous generation, yet have had fewer sexual partners than GenX'ers. This is consistent with their image as a tolerant, individualistic generation accepting others' choices and making their own," Twenge emphasised.


"When the culture places more emphasis on the needs of the self and less on social rules, more relaxed attitudes toward sexuality are the almost inevitable result," Twenge said.
Click to expand...


So - according to this research, 'relaxed sex attitudes' doesn't necessarily equal and increase in partners - but just being more open minded about sexuality in general.

And I think that directly conflicts with Verkner's point in her opinion piece. This generation isn't as promiscuous as being made out to be.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Ah - here we go:


Milennials Have Fewer Sex Partners Than Parents, Grandparents, Study : News : News Every Day




So - according to this research, 'relaxed sex attitudes' doesn't necessarily equal and increase in partners - but just being more open minded about sexuality in general.

And I think that directly conflicts with Verkner's point in her opinion piece. This generation isn't as promiscuous as being made out to be.
Click to expand...

We've already been over this. :roll:

Comparing the lifetime total of someone in their fifties, sixties, or seventies with the total so far of someone just now hitting twenty, twenty five, or thirty is, simply speaking, bunk.

Boomers continued to add onto their number of partners well after thirty, and so will Millennials. They did so through infidelity, divorces, dating after divorce, and (sometimes multiple) remarriage.

If anything, the fact that the quarter life number for Millennials is so close to the lifetime number for far older groups means that they probably are just as promiscuous as everyone seems to think.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
Millennial Sex: More Tolerant of Premarital Sex, But Sleep Around Less


.
Click to expand...


Time magazine article and studies from older generations putting their perceptions of millennials into focus. (Totally biased crap)

Now that said, I DO think and agree (and my interactions with my generation overall make me conclude this) that overall most millennials are socially awkward, quasi hermits that aren't getting a lot of sex and have had less than 5 sexual partners and those were probably extremely awkward sexual encounters at that if actual sex even occurred. I'd agree and do agree with that 100%. I'd go so far as to even say that describes 50% of all millennial guys. Maybe even more. I'd also argue that previous generations had the same kind of stats just less so.


However, among millennials that are socially capable and outgoing their sexual activities and number of sex partners far exceeds previous generations and I know this for a tenured fact. There's no way previous generations were pulling in the numbers capable guys do now thanks to technology, primarily texting and 24/7 social media. At any time a capable guy has at minimum 5 quality lays in his phone (8's+) and another 15 that are past lays that still offer opportunity and for some those are small numbers even. My point is older generations don't like this (obviously, they sit around salivating over "Studies they paid for attacking millennials Sex Lives"). I have older friends and I know what they thought were "good" numbers in terms of women. Me and my friends cannot often bring ourselves to destroy their egos and open our phones but needless to say, men from previous generations did not have 5-20 8+ **** buddies in their phones. They simply didn't. The truth that older generations can't stand is millennials that are getting some are getting insanely more than they ever got or could have got and (obviously) that's not a popular truth to a 50 year old man who's trying to brag to millennials about his numbers.
 
RealDeal said:
Marriage has been declining for decades in the US and is declining in all Westernized nations world wide. Why? Feminism. Feminism removed the benefits of marriage for men, so fewer and fewer men want to marry. Feminism taught women that homemaking and caring for children was slavery, so fewer women want to marry or have children. What followed was women flooding the job market, making in necessary for both men and women to work to pay the bills. Children are now raised like farm animals. Now, both men and women are wage and tax slaves.

Japan, Singapore, the US, most of the EU, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Iran and soon India are all experiencing tanking marriage and birth rates. Where feminism goes, civilization declines. Japan faces the worst population decline because they're against mass immigration as a solution to replacement rates. Countries using mass immigration as a solution are/will experiencing increasing social upheaval due to culture clashes.

Feminists (and most especially the white knights that vote in feminist legislation - AKA NAIVE MEN) demanded no-fault divorce - and they got it. After four straight reporting periods of a 75% divorce rate following the implementation of no-fault divorce, California actually stopped reporting their divorce stats. They claim this was for budget reasons (LOL). Now, there's an effort underway at the Census Bureau to stop collecting marriage and divorce statistics in the US. Isn't' that convenient? Those that have a vested interest in promoting marriage use faulty statistics, claiming one in three rather than one in two marriage end in divorce. Many here will claim the joys of marriage only to one day find themselves divorced. They'll write things like, "I never thought this could happen to me. I can't believe I'm here writing about MY divorce."

Marriage, for the past several decades, has been a wealth redistribution scam from men to women. The reason women now hold the majority of US wealth is thanks to their dead husbands, fathers and divorce raped X husbands.

There has been zero benefit in marriage for men for many decades. Don't listen to those that say that marriage makes men live longer or make more money. Those statistics were genned up for the same reason the '1 in 5' rape stats were falsified. What's that reason? To push a highly corrupt, anti-male agenda. Over the past 40+ years, in the US alone, tens upon tens of millions of men have been financially destroyed through marriage and divorce. In that time, upon realizing they'd face homelessness as a result of their financial rape, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of those men have committed suicide (women's suicide rates don't go up following divorce). Those that promote marriage for men are (1) extremely naive or (2) deliberately trying to fool men, for personal gain, into making the biggest mistake of their lives.

I've been single, married and divorced. I've watched many of my friends and colleagues go from single to married to divorced. I've personally experienced the psychological, emotional, legal, financial, physical and spiritual terrorism of the man-hating family courts. As a man, my recommendation to other men is to avoid marriage like the plague.
Click to expand...
If you truly believe all this, maybe you should marry another man then?
 
lizzie said:
In retrospect, I must say that I think your point is very important, and although there aren't many things I regret with my marriage, that is one of the things I had little understanding or appreciation for. I have always been a woman who was fiercely independent, and was inclined toward always doing things for myself, rather than asking DH (or anyone else) to do things for me. I spent a good bit of time thinking about things like that after he died, and I came to the conclusion that he probably never really felt needed, having been married to a woman who was so inclined toward doing virtually anything considered a traditionally "man thing". As a woman, I think that my usefulness is automatically a part of my psyche- much of it being a natural result of being a mom, so some of us take that for granted, and we don't consider that feeling needed isn't always a given, when you're a man.
Click to expand...

I consider being needed and being valued two different things, myself. The line between being useful and being used can be a fine one, indeed, and I've always bristled at the suggestion that men need to be useful in order to be valued.

I would rather hear that I am valued, I am accepted for who I am, that my life revolves around her and her me, and not constrict a relationship by the roles that are expected of us in terms of male and female. Being useful in terms of physical actions is less important than being useful emotionally. It's that realm between the ears rather than that in the physical space that counts.
 
Gardener said:
I consider being needed and being valued two different things, myself. The line between being useful and being used can be a fine one, indeed, and I've always bristled at the suggestion that men need to be useful in order to be valued.
Click to expand...

I consider them two different things, but related, and think they are both important in a relationship. To me, simply valuing a person could conceivably compare to the appreciation that I have for a fine piece of artwork. I may think it's beautiful, and think it's worth a lot, but I may not necessarily want it. If it's something which would also be valuable as a part of my life, then that value enters the territory of being useful imo. As a mom, and because of my lifelong vocation, usefulness is a part of my very identity. I am frequently thought of as valuable, but it's often in the form of objectification, and is not based on any real knowledge of, or emotional attachment to me.
Iow, the value that is added, when someone becomes valuable for helping fill an emotional need, helps to solidify that relationship, and helps some people feel more valued. I think there is a fine line separating when someone is independent and determined not to need someone else, and when that independence is healthy for a relationship, and it has to do with trust.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
To be honest, in my own generation, it seems men want commitment more than women do. There is some preliminary research that actually supports that observation.
Click to expand...

I remembering reading that in our generation, more males are eager to have children versus women, and that seems very true based on my experiences. Perhaps that is the link. More males want families, so they are seeking commitment more than women do.
 
When I announced my recent engagement, I got a few negative responses from people who didn't know me very well. They were mostly people 40 or older, and had been though a divorce.

I was kind of offended. It felt like they thought I was stupid and naive for being in love.
 
SheWolf said:
When I announced my recent engagement, I got a few negative responses from people who didn't know me very well. They were mostly people 40 or older, and had been though a divorce.

I was kind of offended. It felt like they thought I was stupid and naive for being in love.
Click to expand...
Don't take it personally. It's not about you.
 
People are forgetting that marriage is a hash tag. It has legal attachments but beyond thst it comes down to your commitment level and willingness to practice love and work through anything. My perception of the younger generation, who I spend a lot of time with, is that beyond the persistent subconscious sexism, there is some cross over with consumerism and entertainment value. People are so engrossed in the media that the kinds of relationships being modeled to them are not realistic.

There is a lot of idealistic love happening, and when the high of the infatuation fades the relationship withers. There is a subtle entitlement culture that a relationship should just keep providing feel-good momentum without having to do personal inner work or develop conflict usefully with one's partner. In other words, the understanding of love is immature and somewhat dumbed down. I can understand this dynamic with inexperienced people in their 20s but as you get up to your 30s you should have some self awareness about where you're even coming from.

Forget marriage. Commitment on the whole is on the decline. People don't have time, prefer to have their cake and eat it too, want the benefits without the work, and it's a product of our staunch consumer individualist me me me era. It bleeds into everything, corroding communities. I believe he problem is much deeper than sexism.
 
Northern Light said:
People are forgetting that marriage is a hash tag. It has legal attachments but beyond thst it comes down to your commitment level and willingness to practice love and work through anything. My perception of the younger generation, who I spend a lot of time with, is that beyond the persistent subconscious sexism, there is some cross over with consumerism and entertainment value. People are so engrossed in the media that the kinds of relationships being modeled to them are not realistic.

There is a lot of idealistic love happening, and when the high of the infatuation fades the relationship withers. There is a subtle entitlement culture that a relationship should just keep providing feel-good momentum without having to do personal inner work or develop conflict usefully with one's partner. In other words, the understanding of love is immature and somewhat dumbed down. I can understand this dynamic with inexperienced people in their 20s but as you get up to your 30s you should have some self awareness about where you're even coming from.

Forget marriage. Commitment on the whole is on the decline. People don't have time, prefer to have their cake and eat it too, want the benefits without the work, and it's a product of our staunch consumer individualist me me me era. It bleeds into everything, corroding communities. I believe he problem is much deeper than sexism.
Click to expand...
Probably, since their isn't any. Persistent subconscious sexism? Seriously? Kids today entertain virtually no gender discrimination whatsoever. I think your personal issues have warped your perception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom