emanix: (emanix)


Polyamory is often defined as the practice of engaging in multiple romantic or sexual relationships with the consent of all the people involved.

I think that while that definition is a reasonable one, it doesn't convey the way that polyamory has, for me, opened up an entire new spectrum of potential relationships, of new ways to relate to other people.

Our 'monocentric' or monogamously oriented culture offers a fairly simple view of relationships. The path is laid out for us clearly by our friends, families and the media. We are expected to meet someone, fall in love, go on a few dates, move in together, settle down, get engaged, get married and live happily ever after. Some poly folks refer to this as the 'Relationship Escalator'. Once you are on the Relationship Escalator, a 'successful' relationship is defined as one that ends in marriage, and ideally children. According to this mythos, any relationship that falls outside this track is deemed a failure. For many polyamorous people, however, this is not the case. 'Success' in poly relationships is defined by the people in that relationship, and not necessarily by outside culture.

Just as the greeks had several different words for love, polyamorous people may find that they experience different kinds of relationship with different people. Certainly for some people, poly can offer opportunities for sexual exploration, but for others it can allow the building of close familial bonds, simply with more people. For yet others it can mean creating dispersed networks of long distance loves, and for some of us it means there is space for all of the above: Everything from occasional encounters and romantic but non-sexual friendships, all the way through to deeply committed live-in partnerships. The difference, for poly people, is that our relationship model doesn't tell us how to structure those relationships.

Some Different Styles of Polyamory



Some poly folks prefer to structure their relationships so that they still look very much like the Relationship Escalator model, only with more people in it. These people will still expect to meet someone new, fall in love, date for a period, and then consider adding that new partner to their existing household, before possibly making some sort of long term commitment or raising children together. In other words, it looks a lot like monogamy, only with more people. This is the version of polyamory most often seen in the media, since it is easier for those outside the community to understand and relate to, but it is far from the most common poly relationship structure.

More common in the polyamorous communities that I know is for poly people to form dynamic 'clusters', 'pods', 'polycules' or 'tribes' of interconnected singles, couples and smaller groups. Each relationship within that cluster may have different expectations. Some may be 'primary' style relationships with expectations about cohabiting, shared finances and child rearing (or as I sometimes call them 'Indoor Cat' relationships), some may be 'secondary' or 'satellite' relationships, or ('Outdoor Cats'), with romantic or sexual attachments but fewer shared commitments. Others may sit outside of those expectations entirely. Some poly people may share their living space with people who are not sexual partners, but who are still committed parts of their lives. Some folks may also choose to co-parent with people they are not romantically attached to, or with partners they are not cohabiting with, or pick and choose what aspects of a 'conventional' relationship structure they do and do not apply to each relationship.
Many polyamorous families with children are indistinguishable from the 'blended families' we are seeing more of in our society as a result of divorce (except usually less acrimonious!). Conversely, some monogamous divorced couples are nowadays choosing to build lifestyles that look remarkably similar to poly households, with ex spouses choosing to carry on house-sharing and co-parenting whilst dating other people. Labels, shmabels, eh!

Another, newer, phenomenon in the world of polyamory is the Solo Poly movement. Solo Poly people tend to live alone or cohabit with friends or roommates rather than with partners, and do so intentionally. Their relationships may be committed or not, sexual or not, romantic or not, independently of whether they are cohabiting with their partners. There is an excellent and more informative post about what Solo Poly is and is not here at http://solopoly.net/2014/12/05/what-is-solo-polyamory-my-take/

Where I personally stand is somewhere between those latter two styles of polyamory. Preferring something more akin to relationship anarchy to hierarchies, I like to let each of my relationships find its own level – looking for spaces to fit the people in my life rather than people to fill the preordained spaces. I tend towards the solo poly end of things philosophically. I prefer to keep my finances separate to those of my partners, to always have my own room and my own space. My relationships do not generally follow the Escalator model (several of the most important people in my life live in entirely different cities!). However I am not opposed to sharing living space with one or more partners, assuming we're compatible in that way, and I love the idea of one day building my own poly 'village' which I could share with lots of my partners and metamours. Experience has taught me that life rather often takes me in directions unexpected, however, so there is little I rule out, these days!

How Poly Can Make Different Kinds of Relationship Possible



For me personally, polyamory has made possible a number of relationships that simply could not have worked out in the world of monogamy, or at least with 'standard' relationship expectations.

Take my longest standing partner, for example: We're chalk and cheese in many ways. He is obsessively neat and ordered whereas I love my creative chaos, he loves to have the TV on all of the time whereas I find that it drives me nutty after only a short while, he wants to be interacting all of the time we're in the same building whereas I am more introverted and need to be left alone sometimes to work, or to think. He loves living in the city, whereas I'd rather be outside it these days. There are many ways, big and small, that we are not well suited to share space with each other, yet we have shared a deep, abiding and supportive love for the best part of a decade, have looked after each other financially, physically and most importantly emotionally. We have met each others' parents and colleagues and are firmly established as fixtures in each others' lives, but living together? The way I like to see it is that we love each other enough not to try to squeeze ourselves into that ill-fitting box.

Poly can also allow child-free people to maintain loving and supportive relationships with partners who want children, people with mismatched sex drives to stay in happy and fulfilling romantic relationships with partners they are otherwise perfectly suited with, and people in long distance relationships to find local companionship without harming their existing relationship. It certainly isn't a fix for every kind of relationship problem – far from it, but stepping outside the expectations of monogamy can make some things that would be 'deal-breakers' in a monogamous relationship much less of an issue.

I want to make it clear here that polyamory is NOT just about dating 'enough' people to make sure that all of your 'needs' are met. Known to some as 'Frankenpoly', the idea of adding all of one's partners together to create some sort of gestalt 'perfect poly partner' is flawed and somewhat objectifying. There are some important characteristics every relationship needs to have in order to be a functional and healthy relationship in itself, and the most important of these are compassion and a healthy respect for each other as human beings – not as 'needs fulfilment machines' as Tacit has often put it.

Polyamory has made it possible, too, for me and many other people to experience different sorts of relationships with people one might not normally be compatible with. Including, for me, an incredibly sweet ongoing connection with a young man who is otherwise only into men, and a cheerfully intimate friendship with a cheeky chap who tells me he is 'awful at relationships' mostly because of the nomadic nature of his work, but has been consistently lovely over 15 years of extremely intermittent occasional dates (I suppose I could call this man my longest standing partner but we have probably only spent a week together over that entire time, pleasant as it was).
Poly makes it possible to be a small-but-good thing in someone's life, and vice versa, without having to put any more expectations on that particular relationship. It has enabled me to play more relationships by ear, to 'see where things go', without feeling under pressure to find the one 'perfect' mate. With a rather beautiful irony, that has also allowed me to meet and develop strong relationships with people who turned out to be much larger features in my life than I expected them to be, whom I would have automatically discounted if I had been looking for a monogamous partnership, simply because I didn't believe we would turn out to be as compatible as we actually are.

Non-sexual Relationships and Poly



I want to add in a note here about asexuality and poly. It is an assumption often made by people outside of the polyamorous community – and even some people within our community - that poly is 'all about the sex'. The first page I came to when looking for a good definition of the word described polyamory as 'the practice of having multiple sexual relationships'. I personally would argue that the focus of polyamory, for myself and most of the folks that I know, is much more about the loving than about the sexual aspect of the relationship. Also while I do not in any way define myself as asexual, I have had (and still have) some incredibly satisfying romantic relationships that did not involve sex.
So I want to make it clear that yes, asexual people CAN have romantic relationships, which can also be poly relationships (although they don't have to be) – there is a lovely long 'manifesto' about asexuality and poly here by a blogger I just found when I was looking for references for this essay: https://transpolyasexual.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/my-ace-poly-manifesto/ - and polyamorous people can have romantic relationships that do not include sex. That too is another type of relationship that I firmly believe would not have been available to me if I had been monogamous, thanks to ideas about 'emotional infidelity'. As a sexual person, I could well have have had to choose between the deeper emotional connection on the one hand and a partner I could sleep with on the other. I am incredibly grateful that, thanks to poly, I do not have to make that choice.

I am clearly not the only poly person with a sexual orientation to appreciate the non-sexual opportunities my nonmonogamous relationship model allows me, as this post by The Ferrett shows too. http://www.theferrett.com/ferrettworks/2015/01/a-nice-thing-about-polyamory/

And last but most assuredly not least, there is another, more familial form of love I have found through poly: the love that I feel for my metamours, or my partners' partners. We may not have sexual chemistry (although the complexity of my network within the UK has before now resulted in the invention of the term 'lolomylo' or 'lover's lover who is also my lover'), but we invariably have more in common than just our mutual partner. We may not always agree on everything, but at the end of the day we are connected, by the community we are a part of, by ideology and by our love for our partners. Some of my metamours are also close friends, many of them are activists and, for me at least, being a part of my relationship network very often feels like being a member of a league of superheroes.

Much like this, in fact:



What About You?



In conclusion, being ethically non-monogamous has offered me and those close to me opportunities to build many different kinds of relationships and to tailor those relationships to suit our lives, our needs and our selves. Has poly opened up new kinds of love to you? If so, in what ways? Are there any kinds of love that I missed?

With love (of various sorts!),

Maxine.




[Edit 2015/03/06: Minor changes. Fixed a couple of typos and added in a couple of extra hyperlinks. Made headings more obvious.]
emanix: (emanix)
Inspired by far too many posts on social media in which guys worry about the size of their genitalia. This is a slightly edited version of something I posted as a comment on facebook last week, but felt it deserved to be preserved for posterity, or future referencing:

"Aaaaaaargh!! I think I just hit my final limit for guys imagining that having a massive cock is what makes for a good lay. It just plain isn't true. It's not length, it's not girth, it's not even what you do with it that matters. What makes you decent in bed, guys, is NOT BEING ALL ABOUT YOUR COCK.

Guys, I have got to tell you, your best tools for pleasing a woman are (1) Your hands*, (2) Your mouth*, (3) your brain, (4) whatever sex toys you happen to have lying around, and maybe if she's really worked up and horny for you then your dick might be a welcome addition, and when it is... guess what? The size of it isn't going to matter, because (unless you're painfully bashing her cervix, which is so not fun) she'll only be able to feel the first three inches and your pubic bone grinding against hers anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I love fucking. I've used strap-ons with my girlfriends too, on occasion (NB. Funnily enough, it's never the first thing we go for). When it's good, it's good. But when it's good, it's because someone's paying attention to the girl-bits it's going into, not just to the size of the damn tool.

This rant brought to you by the Horny Bisexual Women's Commission For Better Sex."

---

*Okay, female opinion may differ on the order of these. But hey, this is my rant. And for my money, hands are WAY more versatile, flexible, sensitive and effective than mouths. I've never yet had a tongue hit my g-spot.
emanix: (emanix)

Copied essentially verbatim from a Fetlife conversation thread about 'service tops' - this is not quite the essay I'd been intending to write on this topic, but I've had it on my mind for a while, so I'm going to preserve the best attempt I've made at it yet for posterity.

Much musing about kink, logic, diversity, and all of the gorgeous colours of the rainbow.

Something that drives me crazy about kink communities, which I suspect is the cause of LOT of unsatisfying relationships is this: The assumption that (bottom=submissive=masochist) and on the flip side, of course, that (top=dominant=sadist) - and anything else is not the One True Way. Hey look! A recipe for a lot of dissatisfied kinky folk!

In my time I've come across masochist doms (Hit me, slave! Harder!), subbie sadists, dominant sensation play bottoms who hated pain, brats, service tops, service submissives, maids and footmen, slaves, rope bunnies, do-me queens, dollies, nurturing daddies and mommies of both the dom and sub persuasion, emperors, goddesses, virtuoso performers and a whole bunch of others... to me they're all different, and while it might not be obvious to the community at large, it seems obvious to me that there's something missing from the traditional D/s=S/m scale.

Over time I've come up with my own way of observing these relationships, which I find makes it a lot easier to figure out who I want to scene with, or have a relationship with, and how. From my perspective as a switchier than switch 'universal adaptor' I see several different indices people vary on in kink terms, not one single spectrum, and I try to get away from using D or s in my name scheme, because I think that's a label for a combination of characteristics, not a single scale.

The categories I use are:

Leader or follower (i.e. who is guiding the path of the scene, and who is following),
Active or passive (who is doing the physical action),
Giver or receiver (who is receiving sensation - clearly this can vary within a scene for many people, but not everyone.)
Sadist or masochist or neither

These all spring out to me as all being different and unrelated scales of variance. I'm not going to draw a graph since I have no idea how to build a four dimensional matrix, but I hope it's fairly self-explanatory.

To illustrate, the traditional stereotype Dominant is expected to be an active sadistic leader who 'gives' submissives what he/she knows they need - "I feel like giving you a good beating and then fucking in the ass, clearly because this is what I want you want it too, so I'm going to give it to you", and the 'classic' submissive is a passive receiving follower & likely a masochist too - whereas a different Dominant might prefer to receive tribute from willing service submissives, and would be a passive receiving leader. But a bratty bottom, who knows exactly which way to misbehave to guarantee a spanking - well s/he's a leader too.

To my mind then, a service top = actively giving follower: "Tell me what you want, and I'll do it to you", and is well paired with an active or passive receiver who is willing to lead.

And yeah, I've noticed a lot of pairings over time that just don't work - our dominant who wants to be worshipped isn't going to get on well with the classic submissive I described above, or a passive rope bunny or dolly, but they might not realise why because the stories we're told, and the categories we're given are just so darned limited. A service sub paired with a sadist could end up feeling abused. A service top and a service submissive are just not going to know what to do with each other (though I've seen a couple of these relationship drag miserably on for years)... there are a lot of combinations in there.

And of course, nobody need be stuck in one category. I've been most of them at one point or other. My longest standing partner swings between classic Dom and service top depending on his mood. I've had submissive partners who wanted to be ordered to beat other slaves and then be 'punished' for it. I've seen die-hard tops turn to mush when given the right sort of stroking. It's amazing just how big and beautiful the rainbow can get when we're not stuck in black and white. We're multifarious, complicated and beautiful.


...Opinions, comments and questions if you will, below.

emanix: (Activist)
I've seen it in all sorts of places, the assumption that bisexuality has to mean that a person is equally attracted to both sexes, not notice the difference between, and so forth... Marcus Morgan has a lovely rebuttal to that one in this article: Bisexuals: putting the B back in LGBT and I also love The Bisexual Index's FAQ: Bisexuals don't have to be equally attracted to men and women.

This isn't the logic fail I'm going to address today though.

The logic fail that bugs me, and keeps on bugging me is this: the idea that if I am exactly equally attracted to both sexes, I will have had exactly the same numbers of male and female partners. Why does it bug me so? It fails to take into account the huge % of population that *aren't* bisexual.

So let's get this erm... 'straight':
even if I am EXACTLY equally attracted to men and women, I have NINE TIMES more chance of finding a compatible opposite-sex partner than a same-sex one*

Let's go through the workings:

I'm not going to hunt down stats and references right now, since the important bit here is the logic, which is flexible to whatever the exact statistics are, but of the research I have seen, the *highest* statistic for members of the general population who are interested in relationships with the same sex is roughly 10%

So working with that maximum statistic let's follow this through to work out my chances of getting a girlfriend, versus the chance of getting a boyfriend as a bisexual woman.

Now, we've been told that 10% of the male population is open to same-sex relationships. With a bit of give and take for bisexual guys, and for those not interested in relationships at all, we can assume that roughly 90% of the male population is interested in relationships with women. So my dating pool of guys is potentially 90% of the entire population of males.

On the other hand, the proportion of females interested in same sex relationships is only 10%, so oh look! -

% of males potentially interested in me: 90%
% of females potentially interested in me: 10%

Assuming roughly equal populations of men and women, and that roughly the same number of men and women share compatible views and interests with me, this means my dating pool for men is nine times larger than my dating pool of women.

So if I really want to date the same number of women as men, looks like I'd have to put nine times the effort into chasing them down - oh wait, wouldn't that necessitate being nine times *more* into women, if I was really willing to put that effort in? Well gee, I think that it would.

(Of course the same logic works perfectly well for bi guys, it was just easier to focus on one person to use as an example, so I picked on me)

This also handily refutes the all too common hypothesis that being bi 'doubles' ones chances of getting a date. Sure, it might increase a little bit - my pool of possible dates goes from 45% of the population overall to oh, about 50% - assuming that nobody is being bigoted or biphobic, of course. But since I have had both straight men and gay women tell me that they wouldn't date me because I'm bi, I suspect that any actual increase in number is cancelled out by the increase in prejudice.

Still, on the positive side of things, while being bi doesn't double my chances of getting a date, it *does* double the number of people I get to appreciate aesthetically - gay guys and straight women included. Since enjoying the eye-candy doesn't require mutual attraction, I guess I can check out twice as many people on the street, as long as it's look but don't touch.

Hey, you monosexuals?

Here's lookin' at you! ;)


___
*yes, yes, I know, this is referring to binary genders in order to keep the statistical workings simple - for the purpose of being inclusive, please assume that when I am talking about same-sex and opposite-sex I mean 'exactly like me' and 'not exactly like me', respectively
emanix: (restricted area)
I have just been reminded by a post of Joreth's, that this tab has been open in my browser for a couple of weeks now: Reuters article on incidence of STIs in prostitutes, swingers and 'straight' population.

Possibly the most poorly titled piece of science journalism EVER.

Take a look at the statistics quoted in the article: "Overall, combined rates of Chlamydia and gonorrhea were just over 10 percent among straight people, 14 percent among gay men, just under 5 percent in female prostitutes, and 10.4 percent among swingers, they found. And female swingers had higher infection rates than male swingers."

What Reuters managed to read from that: Shock, horror! Swingers have TWICE the infection rate of prostitutes!

With a more sex-positive eye, however, let's re-read that. Swingers overall had an infection rate of 10.4% over the period of the study. that's just 0.4% more than 'straight' (I assume this means heterosexual, serially monogamous - it's never actually defined in the article) people. So the straight folk and swingers had very similar infection rates, which were both DOUBLE the infection rate of the prostitutes.

What does this tell us?

First it tells us that Reuters journalists are so biased against sex-positive folk that they have to ignore an amazing statistic to twist their headline into something with enough shock value to please their readers.

Second, it tells us that monogamous people don't have all the answers on safety... who would have thought?

[livejournal.com profile] joreth hits the nail on the head: "The number of sexual partners is not the most important factor in a person's health risk profile. Using proper safety procedures, and exchanging accurate medical information between partners and with medical practitioners are more likely to keep you safe than just reducing the number of partners."

The take-home piece of information from this study is NOT that being a swinger is inherently unsafe, but that being 'straight' does not keep you safe.

Clearly the prostitutes in this study, working in a legal profession (bless the Netherlands for being open-minded enough for that) by being aware of risk and observing safer sex methods managed to reduce their risk to a level far below the general population. What might they be doing to reduce their risk? Getting checked regularly and using barrier protection are the most obvious. Being aware of how, for example, different lubricants can alter your risk of infection is another. Another less obvious one is this: not automatically assuming that your partner is clear of infection.

Assuming that your partner is clear of infection because they have slept only with one person at a time is a mistake made by so many of the straight, monogamous community – I mean come on guys, you're in the majority (for now). If it actually kept you safe, these diseases wouldn't exist! You don't have to assume that your partner is cheating on you for them (and you) to be at risk of having an STI – they may well have contracted something before you met. Sexual health clinics in the UK generally won't offer certification, but are you certain that every one of your partners had the all-clear before you played together? If you're monogamous and haven't done testing, are you certain that your partners exes had the all-clear before THEY slept together? Or if not, what precautions did/do you take? Crossing your fingers, closing your eyes and singing 'la la la' is not a precaution, by the way. Nor is a wedding ring.

Out of interest, I've visited one swing club in the netherlands, and would go so far as to hazard a guess that the reason why the infection rate was so similar between 'straight' folk and swingers would be because generally the swingers are using barrier methods with randoms they play with at clubs, but where it comes to their usual partner, make pretty much the same assumptions about safety that the general 'straight' population do – “well he/she uses barriers with everyone else, so we don't need to get tested”.

I'd love to see a study like this comparing mono and poly folk. My hunch is that the poly community in general has a % that's even lower, since there is a high level of safety-consciousness combined with a relatively small number of partners, at least as compared to Dutch prostitutes.

Now there's a line I never thought I'd use!
emanix: (emanix)
This will be the start in a short journal series defining the terms that are important to me. This one comes first, mainly because it was the first one I became aware of in myself. Also coincidentally a thread on the UK Poly mailing list today discussing bisexuality and its representation in the media reminded me of *why* I wanted to do this. The point of being open about what and who I am is to challenge stereotypes and misguided assumptions, and to reinforce positives instead of negatives.

So what is bisexuality? In the sense we're talking, the word means 'sexually attracted to both sexes' - To me this isn't entirely accurate as a description of my sexuality, because it's not a person's sex, or even their gender that I'm attracted to. In fact, in slightly over two and a half decades, I still entirely fail to comprehend how the shape of a person's genitalia could make the slightest difference to interpersonal relations. If I'm attracted to someone, my first thought is 'I want to connect with you and make you smile' and the 'how' of that comes much much later. Apparently though, I'm a freak - the majority of the population, be they gay or straight, seem to think that physical gender is important.

I think you're all weird.

Admittedly I did grow up with the usual expectations, and up to my teenage years went along with the default assumption that I was going to be straight and date boys. After all, I *liked* boys. Some of them were my best friends, and some of them I found pretty attractive too.
I was about 15 when I realised what should probably have been obvious sooner - having already had crushes on girls, and spent my playground years playing football with the boys and offering the girls piggyback rides and demonstrating my weightlifting talents in an attempt to impress them (aged ten years old and lifting more than double my bodyweight in the form of multiple wriggling young ladies - how baby-dyke can you get?!). The boy I was head over heels in love with at the time decided to break off our 'relationship' before it went further than holding hands and kissing, because he had a crush on another girl. I was devastated at the time, but I also realised something else. I had a crush on the same girl. I *liked* girls, too.

This scared me a bit at the time. The overarching image of bisexual people in the media was, and apparently still is about self-destructive sluts who can't control themselves: indiscriminate people of either gender who prey on innocent younger folk and end up in bad situations (a la Rocky Horror, if you will), married men who are 'really' gay and cheating on their wives with boys, and drunken college girls 'experimenting' with their friends and growing up to be traditional housewives after they outgrow their 'phase'. None of these things were exactly me.
Thankfully, I was lucky enough to grow up with a critical brain that said 'if these aren't me, then I can make my own niche' and a lovely accepting set of geek friends who didn't care if I had a fetish for space aliens as long as I was happy. So I did. I made my own niche, and got myself a full set: a boyfriend and a girlfriend (and this was a long long time before I heard the word 'polyamory') and that all made sense. Sort of.
Eventually I grew up a bit further, and refined my taste in people and realised that what I really wanted wasn't boobs or bum, dick or pussy, but a real mental connection with another intelligent human being, or maybe a few. And it didn't matter what shape the body was beyond that it was looked after. That's all there is to it.

Except the negative stereotyping, that is. I don't get it - just because I don't choose my lovers based on whether they have 'innies' or 'outies' or anything in-between for that matter, does that make me indiscriminate? Of course not. In fact, if anything it makes me more discriminating. If I have a larger percentage of the population to choose from, why would I settle for less?
When I was living in the 'Goldfish Bowl' (a small village in the mediterranean, with rather old fashioned attitudes) my partner asked me to remain in the closet about practically everything, except about being bi - but in the event I closeted myself over that too, when the rumours started flying about me and anyone I ever *spoke* to of the opposite sex, and I realised that if it came out that I was - shock - into women too, then nobody was safe from the rumour mill. I realised that the stereotype would stop me from being friends with anyone in the area - because apparently, I couldn't be trusted to not have sex with them.
It was only after I left the Goldfish Bowl that I realised there was a flip-side to that. I don't *have* to be a double-agent in the war of the sexes. Being bi not only means that I have a wider range of potential partners, but also that I have a wider range of potential friends.
I'm not bound to seeing one gender only as potential mates, and the other as allies, but I get to look at each and every person I meet and say 'where does this person fit best in my life?' I'm not subject to the broken logic mentioned in this post - and I'm better equipped for dealing with situations where I meet someone I'm potentially interested in sexually, and they're off-limits for whatever reason, including the reason 'I just don't want to, actually' - I get more practice. And yes, I do have friends that I don't sleep with who *aren't* off-limits. I have straight male friends, I have bi female ones. (I confess, for some reason I struggle to get along that well with the political sort of lesbians for any length of time - it's not because I accidentally sleep with them, though, we just seem to rub each other the wrong way. )

This shirt slogan just about sums it up:

Bisexual, Poly, Kinky, Horny, And I'm STILL not sleeping with you.

And handily enough, that also lists the topics I intend to cover later in this series, in roughly the right order.

Watch this space!

July 2015

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

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2017 02:43 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios