Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 81
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    There have been a lot of arguments on this site about zoophilia, defined as:

    an abnormal fondness or preference for animals.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zoophilia

    Interestingly, I have found a lot of support for it. Chalk it up to prudishness on my part, but I would have thought that support for zoophilia would have been an area which even the most amoral philosopher would fear to tread.

    This discussion is primarily targetted at the individuals who have defended zoophilia in either Wild Wolf's or Dogsup's debate or in any other debate for that matter:

    Should sexual contact with three year old children (in a way that does not physically harm them) be legalized in our society and should pedophilia be stricken from the psychological journals as a mental illness?

    Discuss.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    There have been a lot of arguments on this site about zoophilia, defined as:

    an abnormal fondness or preference for animals.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zoophilia

    Interestingly, I have found a lot of support for it. Chalk it up to prudishness on my part, but I would have thought that support for zoophilia would have been an area which even the most amoral philosopher would fear to tread.

    This discussion is primarily targetted at the individuals who have defended zoophilia in either Wild Wolf's or Dogsup's debate or in any other debate for that matter:

    Should sexual contact with three year old children (in a way that does not physically harm them) be legalized in our society and should pedophilia be stricken from the psychological journals as a mental illness?

    Discuss.
    There is plenty of evidence that having sex with children harms them. They end up having sexual, relationship and emotional problems for many years to come. This includes all sorts of contact, not just penetration. It's wrong to have sex with children.

    I can't say the same for animals. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that having sexual contact with animals results in any emotional, sexual or any other problems for them. And even if it did, what's wrong with causing animals problems?
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    There is plenty of evidence that having sex with children harms them. They end up having sexual, relationship and emotional problems for many years to come. This includes all sorts of contact, not just penetration. It's wrong to have sex with children.

    I can't say the same for animals. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that having sexual contact with animals results in any emotional, sexual or any other problems for them. And even if it did, what's wrong with causing animals problems?
    But what defines a sex act? For many people, sucking and groping a woman's breast would be a sex act. Yet babies do it all of the time, and (as far as I know) these children don't grow up with emotional or relationship problems.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    But what defines a sex act? For many people, sucking and groping a woman's breast would be a sex act. Yet babies do it all of the time, and (as far as I know) these children don't grow up with emotional or relationship problems.
    A baby sucking or groping a woman's breast is not a sex act, czahar. It's a natural instinct. It arises from the fact that we are mammals. Mammals use special glands and dispenser mechanisms to feed their young milk. In humans, these special glands and dispensers present themselves in the form of the woman's breasts.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    There have been a lot of arguments on this site about zoophilia, defined as:

    an abnormal fondness or preference for animals.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zoophilia

    Interestingly, I have found a lot of support for it. Chalk it up to prudishness on my part, but I would have thought that support for zoophilia would have been an area which even the most amoral philosopher would fear to tread.

    This discussion is primarily targetted at the individuals who have defended zoophilia in either Wild Wolf's or Dogsup's debate or in any other debate for that matter:

    Should sexual contact with three year old children (in a way that does not physically harm them) be legalized in our society and should pedophilia be stricken from the psychological journals as a mental illness?

    Discuss.
    I think it is a bit ridiculous to compare zoophilia with pedophilia.

    There is plenty of documentation that pedophilia which may not physically harm a child can cause lots of other issues developmentally in a young child who is still learning to interact with other human beings, adults, authority figures, and understanding their own body/sexuality. Moreover, children can be easily manipulated by adults do to their inherent trust of older people. The younger, the easier.

    For the potential harm caused to growing children, pedophilia should continue to be a mental illness, crime, and punished to the fullest extent totally regardless of one's feelings on zoophilia.

    As for zoophilia, while I find it be mysteriously left out of my "bucket list", I have a hard time finding an argument against it. My reason being is that we murder, torture, and disregard any rights of animals already, so why would this be any different? Now, if someone wants to argue about all the rights of animals then I can undestand but until I become a vegan, I would be a hypocrit to say that zoophilia is any worse than murder. So, while I won't be participating or watching anytime soon...my all means, go ape****!

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    A baby sucking or groping a woman's breast is not a sex act, czahar. It's a natural instinct. It arises from the fact that we are mammals. Mammals use special glands and dispenser mechanisms to feed their young milk. In humans, these special glands and dispensers present themselves in the form of the woman's breasts.
    1) Define sex act.

    2) Having sex is not a natural instinct?

    3) If I were to grope a woman's breast and suck on them, you would not consider that a sex act?

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    1) Define sex act.
    Ok, let's try this:
    An act that is associated with or leads to sexual stimulation, sexual pleasure or sexual intercourse.


    2) Having sex is not a natural instinct?
    That's a strawman, sir. I said that sucking on a woman's breasts is a natural thing FOR BABIES. No, having sex is not a natural thing for babies.

    3) If I were to grope a woman's breast and suck on them, you would not consider that a sex act?
    Depends.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    I think it is a bit ridiculous to compare zoophilia with pedophilia.

    There is plenty of documentation that pedophilia which may not physically harm a child can cause lots of other issues developmentally in a young child who is still learning to interact with other human beings, adults, authority figures, and understanding their own body/sexuality. Moreover, children can be easily manipulated by adults do to their inherent trust of older people. The younger, the easier.
    Please see my response to Allocutus.

    ---------- Post added at 10:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Ok, let's try this:
    An act that is associated with or leads to sexual stimulation, sexual pleasure or sexual intercourse.
    That works for me, but what is it exactly about a sex act that harms a child? Is it the fact that it is unnatural?

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    P
    That works for me, but what is it exactly about a sex act that harms a child? Is it the fact that it is unnatural?
    I haven't got a clue. But I do know that there is plenty of expert evidence that engaging in sexual activities with children tends to result in harm to them. Can we agree on this, or do you need me to look up solid evidence?
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    That works for me, but what is it exactly about a sex act that harms a child? Is it the fact that it is unnatural?
    No, it is because as a matter of empirical fact, children who are sexually exploited tend to grow up with psychological and emotional problems.

    Also, children are too immature to give proper consent to sex, so having sex with them - even with their ostensible consent - is tantamount to rape. However, the same reasoning does not apply to animals because animals are not accorded the same rights as humans are (e.g. we imprison animals, kill animals, etc).
    Trendem

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Please see my response to Allocutus.
    Please see Allo's response to you.

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem View Post
    No, it is because as a matter of empirical fact, children who are sexually exploited tend to grow up with psychological and emotional problems.
    How can you argue this when the very concept of "child" is not an empirical fact? What constitutes a child varies from civilization to civilization. In our society, a seventeen year old is a child and an eighteen year old is an adult. So, going by the logic that sexually exploiting a child will harm them, if I have sex with a seventeen year old, I am going to emotionally harm her. If I have sex with an eighteen year old, I am okay.

    Also, children are too immature to give proper consent to sex, so having sex with them - even with their ostensible consent - is tantamount to rape. However, the same reasoning does not apply to animals because animals are not accorded the same rights as humans are (e.g. we imprison animals, kill animals, etc).
    I don't see what this has to do with the OP.

    ---------- Post added at 11:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I haven't got a clue. But I do know that there is plenty of expert evidence that engaging in sexual activities with children tends to result in harm to them. Can we agree on this, or do you need me to look up solid evidence?
    I would be curious to know how and why. If it were simply social stigma (e.g., the embarrassment of having been part in a sex act which is so taboo in our culture) then why not simply remove the social stigma associated with it. So, if you were going to argue that having sex with children is somehow harmful in and of itself, then you would need to dig up evidence showing that the psychological trauma suffered from acts of pedophilia are due to pedophilia and not, say, from the environment these children grow up in and/or other forms of abuse which these kids may have suffered from.

    So, to answer your question, yes, you do need to look up solid evidence.
    Last edited by czahar; October 19th, 2009 at 09:16 AM.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    How can you argue this when the very concept of "child" is not an empirical fact? What constitutes a child varies from civilization to civilization.
    How society decides to define a "child" is irrelevant. Scientists can determine as a matter of empirical fact what are the ages where an individual, if sexually exploited, would likely be psychologically harmed. Whether the government decides to legislate based on scientific evidence is another question altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    I don't see what this has to do with the OP.
    I fail to see how you fail to see what this has to do with the OP.

    Your OP asks whether paedophilia should be legalised. I gave reasons why it shouldn't. Your OP also envisages a comparison with zoophilia. I gave reasons why the same reasons used to justify a ban on paedophilia do not apply to zoophilia.

    So how is what I said irrelevant?
    Trendem

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    How can you argue this when the very concept of "child" is not an empirical fact? What constitutes a child varies from civilization to civilization. In our society, a seventeen year old is a child and an eighteen year old is an adult. So, going by the logic that sexually exploiting a child will harm them, if I have sex with a seventeen year old, I am going to emotionally harm her. If I have sex with an eighteen year old, I am okay.
    Your OP clearly defines the question in regards to three year olds. If you wish to change that, then go right ahead.

    I would say that is a "child" in most, if not all, civilizations.

    Quote Originally Posted by your OP
    Should sexual contact with three year old children (in a way that does not physically harm them) be legalized in our society and should pedophilia be stricken from the psychological journals as a mental illness?

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem View Post
    No, it is because as a matter of empirical fact, children who are sexually exploited tend to grow up with psychological and emotional problems.
    I'll concede to the irrelevence of defining child primarily because I already addressed the age question in my OP. This thread is talking about three year olds and in this thread "child" will refer to people of this age. Now, do you want to show me evidence that a child who is three years old or younger will suffer when engaging in physical unharmful sex?

    Also, children are too immature to give proper consent to sex, so having sex with them - even with their ostensible consent - is tantamount to rape. However, the same reasoning does not apply to animals because animals are not accorded the same rights as humans are (e.g. we imprison animals, kill animals, etc).
    So let me get this straight: having sex with children should not be legalized because they are too immature to give consent. Animals, however, are also too immature to give consent, but because we kill them and imprison them anyway, it is okay to have sex with them? Is that what you are saying?

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    So let me get this straight: having sex with children should not be legalized because they are too immature to give consent. Animals, however, are also too immature to give consent, but because we kill them and imprison them anyway, it is okay to have sex with them? Is that what you are saying?
    My opinion, and I think tredem's as well (but i do not speak for him), is that we shouldn't be using the analogy to begin with. I fail to see why allowing sex with animals is any way related to having sex with children, EVEN IF there are no determintal effects to the child. You have simply created an analogy that has no real reason behind it.

    Animals are imprisoned, murdered, tortured, eaten, displayed as trophies, cover furniture, make shoes...I think you get my point. They are not given the same "rights" or are protected by the same laws as humans (even if we forget the pedophilia laws).

    So, by your analogy, would you also ask those who are proponents of killing calfs to make veal that if it is OK to kill babies to make tender baby meat? I doubt it.

    Comparing the two just doesn't work.

    Moreover, the reason against pedophilia is to protect the victim (child) whereas zoophilia would be to protect the human from doing wrong, considering no physical harm is done to the animal.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    My opinion, and I think tredem's as well (but i do not speak for him), is that we shouldn't be using the analogy to begin with. I fail to see why allowing sex with animals is any way related to having sex with children, EVEN IF there are no determintal effects to the child. You have simply created an analogy that has no real reason behind it.
    I am using the comparison because animals and three year old children have intelligence levels and therefore would have a similar ability to understand the act of sex and make a consensual aggreement to engage in it.

    Animals are imprisoned, murdered, tortured, eaten, displayed as trophies, cover furniture, make shoes...I think you get my point. They are not given the same "rights" or are protected by the same laws as humans (even if we forget the pedophilia laws).
    And I just do not understand this argument. You and Trendem both seem to be saying that, because we already do so much harm to animals, that having sex with them is okay. Jewish children were not given any rights in Nazi Germany. Was that a moral justification to have sex with them.

    So, by your analogy, would you also ask those who are proponents of killing calfs to make veal that if it is OK to kill babies to make tender baby meat? I doubt it.
    You are right, I would not. I would ask the proponent of killing calves for veal to stop killing calves for veal, as there is no moral justification for doing so.

    Moreover, the reason against pedophilia is to protect the victim (child) whereas zoophilia would be to protect the human from doing wrong, considering no physical harm is done to the animal.
    And I specifically said that the type of sex I was referring to would be a type of sex that would not result in any physical harm to the child.

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    I am using the comparison because animals and three year old children have intelligence levels and therefore would have a similar ability to understand the act of sex and make a consensual aggreement to engage in it.
    I understand that analogy; however, the reasons behind making pedophilia illegal are much greater than just consent. Your OP states nothing about this debate centering around consent and therefore the argument against pedophilia in most people's eyes is about much more than consent.

    Moreover, I would argue that we can actually determine consent between two humans and know that a 3 year old will not be able to give adequate consent; however, we cannot truly know whether an animal is consenting in a sexual act with a human.

    And I just do not understand this argument. You and Trendem both seem to be saying that, because we already do so much harm to animals, that having sex with them is okay. Jewish children were not given any rights in Nazi Germany. Was that a moral justification to have sex with them.
    No, nor was it a justified to take their rights away to begin with. there we can easily see how jewish children should be afforded the same rights as all other humans are entitled to...

    Animals, however, do not have equal protection in morality or law that humans do amongst other humans. They are subordinate to human will and we seem to have no problem treating them as we wish. So why would we start to be considered with consent about sex if we aren't concerned with consent about living or any other environment we decide to put them in?

    And I specifically said that the type of sex I was referring to would be a type of sex that would not result in any physical harm to the child.
    I understand that; however, there are direct consequence of child abuse that have to do with physical harm.

    Quote Originally Posted by the effects of Child Abuse on 3-5 year olds
    bstract

    This study examined the initial effects of sexual abuse on 70 girls aged 3 to 5 years. They were compared to a control group of 42 nonabused nonclinical girls matched for age. Of the 70 girls in the abused group, the 42 who had experienced intrafamilial abuse were also compared to the 28 who had experienced extrafamilial abuse. Evaluation of effects was based on maternal reports and very importantly, given this young age group, on direct observation. Children from both abuse groups displayed more evidence of distress on all measures. In particular, more sexual behaviors and more internalizing problem behaviors were reported and observed. Girls who were abused by a member of their family demonstrated some elevations in symptomatology, but generally there was not a significant difference between the two abuse groups. Poorer outcome was associated with a more noxious family environment and with repeated, more invasive abuse. The association of abuse and family characteristics that exacerbated the effects of sexual abuse on the child underscores the need for early detection and careful clinical assessment of the family as well as the child.
    I dont want to buy the paper; however, it seems to be a thorough study. This is the abstract.

    i'll be looking for more later.

    Again, abuse on a 3 year old has more than just physical consequences. the ban on pedophilia is strictly protect the child from such harm which 3 year olds don't know they may be exposing themselves to...

    Do animals have such consequences? I would say that this must be shown so for your analogy to work. Until then, the link between pedophilia and zoophilia is very weak, in my opinion.

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    I understand that analogy; however, the reasons behind making pedophilia illegal are much greater than just consent. Your OP states nothing about this debate centering around consent and therefore the argument against pedophilia in most people's eyes is about much more than consent.
    Run that by me again? Because my OP states nothing about consent the argument against pedophilia in most people's eyes is about much more than consent?

    Moreover, I would argue that we can actually determine consent between two humans and know that a 3 year old will not be able to give adequate consent; however, we cannot truly know whether an animal is consenting in a sexual act with a human.
    Wouldn't this be a reason to consider having sex with animals along the lines of rape? If I had sex with a woman who was paralzyed from head to toe and mute, I would be unable to determine whether she were consenting. But I would certainly not be able to say that having sex with her would be any more justifiable than having sex with the child on the basis that she could be consenting.

    Animals, however, do not have equal protection in morality or law that humans do amongst other humans.
    Have you heard the name Peter Singer? How about the term speciesism?

    They are subordinate to human will and we seem to have no problem treating them as we wish. So why would we start to be considered with consent about sex if we aren't concerned with consent about living or any other environment we decide to put them in?
    So, if humans all of a sudden adopted all of PETA and Peter Singer's views and treated their lives as being just as worthy as our lives, what would your argument be then?



    I understand that; however, there are direct consequence of child abuse that have to do with physical harm.



    I dont want to buy the paper; however, it seems to be a thorough study. This is the abstract.

    i'll be looking for more later.

    Again, abuse on a 3 year old has more than just physical consequences. the ban on pedophilia is strictly protect the child from such harm which 3 year olds don't know they may be exposing themselves to...

    Do animals have such consequences? I would say that this must be shown so for your analogy to work. Until then, the link between pedophilia and zoophilia is very weak, in my opinion.

    We don't know the effects of zoophilia on animals and therefore we can not discern whether such acts do/or do not psychologically harm animals in any way comparable to humans.

    However, being that there is significantly more evidence to justify the harms of pedophilia, due to an animals lack of communicative abilities and the near lack of study on the subject of the harms of zoophilia on animals I will concede my argument. Thank you.

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pedophilia vs. Zoophilia

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar
    Define sex act
    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Ok, let's try this:
    An act that is associated with or leads to sexual stimulation, sexual pleasure or sexual intercourse.
    Well....using the above definition, breastfeeding would technically qualify as a sex act:

    "Many women who breastfeed have the experience of feeling aroused, and even having an orgasm, while breastfeeding. But because this is something researchers haven’t studied, and it isn’t a regular part of the education of mothers-to-be, many women experience this and then feel silent shame or guilt, as if there is something wrong with them. But there is a very clear reason for the experience and women neither need to feel shame or embarrassment about it which is caused mostly by a lack of information.

    Oxytocin is a hormone that stimulates ejection of milk from the nipples, and its release is triggered by breast stimulation. But oxytocin is implicated in many other physiological processes. It is involved in contractions of the uterus (both during childbirth and during orgasm), as well as being associated with the feeling of relaxation and satiation following orgasm.

    It is thought that this is the reason that breastfeeding may produce feelings of sexual arousal and orgasm. And the experience is far from rare.

    In a 2000 study of breastfeeding women, 40.5% of the participants reported feeling sexually aroused at some point during infant suckling. 16.7% reported being aroused frequently during breastfeeding. "


    http://sexuality.about.com/od/anatom...eastfe.htm?p=1
    .
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 90
    Last Post: December 21st, 2012, 06:06 AM
  2. Pedophilia and Age of Consent
    By Autolykos in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: May 15th, 2008, 12:47 PM
  3. Are incestuous couples being discriminated against?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 287
    Last Post: January 9th, 2008, 09:13 PM
  4. NAMBLA makes me [Censored]ing Sick
    By SouthernDem in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: May 6th, 2005, 03:58 PM
  5. To Clarify.
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2005, 05:55 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •