Jump to content
polskieserce

Catholic Church needs a new plan to revive chastity and marriage

Recommended Posts

LittleWaySoul    1,009
LittleWaySoul
On 9/13/2016 at 4:15 AM, Jack4 said:

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but if someone says that I should get married soon to remain chaste, that person is actually saying that I think about s_x and only s_x all the time and will go any length for s_x. That is a rude, evil, judgemental insult to say (to put it lightly). 

lol you're allowed to say "sex," you know. It's not a dirty word. :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polskieserce    23
polskieserce
On 10/9/2016 at 11:42 PM, Socrates said:

I don't claim to have the keys to a utopia, or the answers to all life's problems, but I will say that the poor and marginalized are much worse off in actual socialist societies than in free societies.  There's a reason poor and marginalized people have flocked to "oppressive Capitalist" America, rather than to some Marxist socialist "worker's paradise."

As many Popes have pointed out, we need a strengthening of the family and genuine community - solidarity and subsidiarity - rather than a massive, centralized, ever-growing bureaucratic leviathon state.

Socialists always promise heaven on earth, but deliver hell when actually put in power.

A strong economy with a robust job market is necessary for people to be able to better themselves materially, not putting more and more people on the government dole.  At best, welfare is a temporary safety net to help people through hard times, at worst it traps people in a vicious cycle of poverty and dependency.  Vastly expanding the welfare state isn't a long-term permanent path to prosperity.  Our entitlement programs are now all broke and going broke, we're almost 20 trillion dollars in debt, and trillions more in unfunded liabilities, and a bankrupt nation won't be able to help anybody.  (And no, this problem won't be easily solved simply by making cuts in military spending, which only makes up about 16% of the budget.)

 

First of all, people aren't exactly flocking to liberal protestant denominations like the Episcopalians, but such groups are losing members faster than the Catholic Church.

And the reason people are leaving the Church has very little to do with economic theories, but with the rampant materialism and hedonism in our society, combined with lukewarmness, corruption, and poor catechesis within the Church.

The Church is not a political party or an economic think-tank, but primarily has the spiritual mission of saving souls.  It also has a rich tradition of social teaching, even if it may not be to your personal liking.  The Church should be preaching the Truth, whether it happens to be popular or not, not telling people what they want to hear in order to fill pews.

Besides, your plan of trying to make the Church "relevant" by merging Catholicism with leftist politics is hardly new, original or innovative.  There have been plenty of leftist Catholics preaching socialist politics, and have been since long before you or I was born.  Their efforts have hardly led to a widespread renewal or growth of the Church.  In fact, overall, more traditional or "conservative" parishes and communities have been in a more healthy condition than those focusing on trendy lefty politics over spiritual truths of the Faith.

In countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc the poor are much better off than they would be in the US.  Plenty of migrants have also flocked to democratic socialist countries as well (although I agree that some of those countries are taking in far too many people).  Your problem is that you see economic policies as black and white (you're either uber capitalist or you think Stalin was the man).  That's simply not true.  My original point still stands: many people will not benefit from the ultra-capitalistic economic system you are describing.

Those who wanted to leave the Church for its political reasons have already left.  Hedonism plays a major part in the decline of the Catholic Church, but so does a lack of a game-plan.  I am not saying people should get married right at 18, but if people have to delay marriage until their late 20s/early 30s, then the Church will get very poor results.  I still stand by my statement that a lot of unchaste behavior could be averted if people were not involuntarily delaying marriage for so long.

People who are fighting just to keep their head above water aren't necessarily going to be terribly interested in Catholicism.  If anything, they will be pressured into thinking that abortion is a "necessary evil".  A bunch of people doing "Jesus Talk" is just going to be background noise for extremely marginalized individuals.

 

On 10/15/2016 at 3:29 AM, Anastasia (L&T) said:

Umm, why should I, a woman, keep my legs shut if I am stuck with someone else's leftovers? Your wording sounds a bit sexist.

It is easier to find a male virgin that it is a female virgin.  Even when people of both sexes decide to let themselves go and sleep around, women tend to have a much higher body count since they don't really have to do much to get laid.  Men, on the other hand, have to do all the pursuing in order to get laid.  I still stand by my original statement that women need to stop sleeping around so much.  At the end of the day, a virgin is exponentially more desirable than a non-virgin.  For men, there is very little incentive to get married.  It should be no surprise that you see less of a certain behavior if there is little incentive for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polskieserce    23
polskieserce
19 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

5129607997_660a65a1fc_m.jpg

Highly unlikely that there will be any reliable academic sources on this subject.  People can be finicky with disclosing this type of information.  Secular and nominally religious guys won't want to admit they are virgins because that makes them look weak/socially incompetent.  Most girls may/may not be willing to address the issue, but will hide their number because they don't want to be seen as dumpster silly sallies.

The simple fact remains: guys have to do a lot more to get laid than girls.  As long as the girl isn't freakishly ugly and doesn't live in complete isolation, she will get offers for sex.  The bar is set much higher for guys.  It's common sense that most involuntary virgins will be male since there is a higher bar to clear.

It is difficult to find people who are willing to wait until marriage, regardless if they are male or female.  However, I heard plenty of stories about virgin Catholic guys marrying girls with checkered pasts.  Here and  especially on the other Catholic forum, people are always mentioning that Everett guy.  Personally, I think that guy is doing more harm than good to the Church.  He is basically telling secular society that in the Catholic Church, it's ok for a woman to get knocked up by a bunch of guys, cry about how she was young/dumb, and then get picked up by some Christian beta male who is too delusional to realize how badly he got screwed.  Not my cup of tea, but hey, if some guys are willing to settle for another dude's leftovers, then more power to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LittleWaySoul    1,009
LittleWaySoul
2 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Personally, I think that guy is doing more harm than good to the Church.  He is basically telling secular society that in the Catholic Church, it's ok for a woman to get knocked up by a bunch of guys, cry about how she was young/dumb, and then get picked up by some Christian beta male who is too delusional to realize how badly he got screwed.

Or, y'know, she confessed her actions, did her penance, was forgiven by God, and became a new creation through His mercy. Then Evert fell in love, discerned God's will, and started a life with a woman who is free from her past sins. "Merciful like the Father," ring any bells? How can their story be anything but a witness to God's love and mercy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polskieserce    23
polskieserce
3 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Or, y'know, she confessed her actions, did her penance, was forgiven by God, and became a new creation through His mercy. Then Evert fell in love, discerned God's will, and started a life with a woman who is free from her past sins. "Merciful like the Father," ring any bells? How can their story be anything but a witness to God's love and mercy?

She became a new creation in the spiritual realm, not the physical realm.  If I started shooting heroin and contracted HIV, I could always repent at any time and become a new spiritual creation.  However, that wouldn't cure me of HIV or change the fact that virtually no woman would want to marry me.

God is a forgiving creator, but God's forgiveness doesn't undo the damage done by sin.  It's only natural that people won't want to put up with the temporal consequences of certain sins, whether it be HIV, lack of virginity, a criminal record, extreme ridicule from the outside world, etc.  A person's allegiance to Christ doesn't oblige that person to marry someone whom they have no interest in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CountrySteve21    309
CountrySteve21
19 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

She became a new creation in the spiritual realm, not the physical realm.  If I started shooting heroin and contracted HIV, I could always repent at any time and become a new spiritual creation.  However, that wouldn't cure me of HIV or change the fact that virtually no woman would want to marry me.

God is a forgiving creator, but God's forgiveness doesn't undo the damage done by sin.  It's only natural that people won't want to put up with the temporal consequences of certain sins, whether it be HIV, lack of virginity, a criminal record, extreme ridicule from the outside world, etc.  A person's allegiance to Christ doesn't oblige that person to marry someone whom they have no interest in.

Nah bro, God's mercy does undo our damage (just takes some time and work on our part too.)

Have you ever read Love & Responsibility by St. John Paull II? Its changed by views on marriage drastically ( which at times can be a stumbling block to me)

Pax,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4    182
Jack4
On 10/16/2016 at 8:33 PM, LittleWaySoul said:

lol you're allowed to say "sex," you know. It's not a dirty word. :P 

I had a certain difficulty since I had not been part of the phamily for a day.  And I am young and most of you are, I suppose, (no offense) old. That, and my  culture.

Technically speaking, you make fair point.

On 10/16/2016 at 9:12 PM, CatherineM said:

If your'e not old enough to say it, you aren't old enough to do it. 

What about the converse?

-Me, born 2000, presumably unmarried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LittleWaySoul    1,009
LittleWaySoul
11 hours ago, Jack4 said:

I had a certain difficulty since I had not been part of the phamily for a day.  And I am young and most of you are, I suppose, (no offense) old. That, and my  culture.

Technically speaking, you make fair point.

What about the converse?

-Me, born 2000, presumably unmarried.

Oh my gosh. I was gonna say something about not being that much older than you (I'm only 22 after all) but I remember when I had friends with siblings getting born in 2000 and I was so impressed that some kids would have the millennial year as their birth year. I remember thinking they were so young. But you've gotta be 15-16, right? Wow, that's crazy. Time flies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anastasia (L&T)    1,882
Anastasia (L&T)

Highly unlikely that there will be any reliable academic sources on this subject.  People can be finicky with disclosing this type of information.  Secular and nominally religious guys won't want to admit they are virgins because that makes them look weak/socially incompetent.  Most girls may/may not be willing to address the issue, but will hide their number because they don't want to be seen as dumpster silly sallies.

The simple fact remains: guys have to do a lot more to get laid than girls.  As long as the girl isn't freakishly ugly and doesn't live in complete isolation, she will get offers for sex.  The bar is set much higher for guys.  It's common sense that most involuntary virgins will be male since there is a higher bar to clear.

It is difficult to find people who are willing to wait until marriage, regardless if they are male or female.  However, I heard plenty of stories about virgin Catholic guys marrying girls with checkered pasts.  Here and  especially on the other Catholic forum, people are always mentioning that Everett guy.  Personally, I think that guy is doing more harm than good to the Church.  He is basically telling secular society that in the Catholic Church, it's ok for a woman to get knocked up by a bunch of guys, cry about how she was young/dumb, and then get picked up by some Christian beta male who is too delusional to realize how badly he got screwed.  Not my cup of tea, but hey, if some guys are willing to settle for another dude's leftovers, then more power to them.

If there were 10 men, and only one had sex with 9 out of 10 women, if that 1 stopped trying to have sex with the 9 until he got married, then 0 guys would be having sex with women, which would mean that 0 of those women would be having sex with men. If either gender stopped fornicating, then there would be no heterosexual fornication. Also, that one man would have to learn to live with his pantaloons up around women. 

I've read different studies supporting both genders as the ones having fewer virgins, but regardless, you have already laid a framework for rejecting any scholarly studies opposing you and denying any responsibility to prove yourself in any scholarly way. Well play "I'm right, I don't have to prove it, and you have to accept me because nothing that would prove me wrong could possibly be valid."

Ergo it falls on logic, arguments can be made to support both sleeping around, but bottom line, unless you count masturbation, it takes two to fornicate. Ergo both genders need to keep their pantaloons on.

Edited by Anastasia (L&T)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4    182
Jack4
7 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

 I was gonna say something about not being that much older than you (I'm only 22 after all)

"We" consider that a slight adult. :hehe2:

Quote

 but I remember when I had friends with siblings getting born in 2000 and I was so impressed that some kids would have the millennial year as their birth year.

Hehehe... I would be among the last births of the second millennium. 

Here's something else you might find interesting. I turned one in 2001, two in 2002 and so on, 15 in 2015 and 16 in 2016. IOW if I know the year I know my age. 

Quote

I remember thinking they were so young. But you've gotta be 15-16, right? Wow, that's crazy. Time flies. 

Yes, I'm 16. 

PS People who've seen you grow up just can't believe it. Not that I don't always like it. Sometimes it's fun.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LittleWaySoul    1,009
LittleWaySoul
4 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Here's something else you might find interesting. I turned one in 2001, two in 2002 and so on, 15 in 2015 and 16 in 2016. IOW if I know the year I know my age. 

Yeah, that occurred to me! So cool. I've got something somewhat similar where I always know what grade I finished depending on the year. For example, I finished 1st grade in 2001, 5th grade in 2005, 12th grade in 2012, etc. It's pretty handy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polskieserce    23
polskieserce
On 10/20/2016 at 3:23 AM, Anastasia (L&T) said:

If there were 10 men, and only one had sex with 9 out of 10 women, if that 1 stopped trying to have sex with the 9 until he got married, then 0 guys would be having sex with women, which would mean that 0 of those women would be having sex with men. If either gender stopped fornicating, then there would be no heterosexual fornication. Also, that one man would have to learn to live with his pantaloons up around women. 

I've read different studies supporting both genders as the ones having fewer virgins, but regardless, you have already laid a framework for rejecting any scholarly studies opposing you and denying any responsibility to prove yourself in any scholarly way. Well play "I'm right, I don't have to prove it, and you have to accept me because nothing that would prove me wrong could possibly be valid."

Ergo it falls on logic, arguments can be made to support both sleeping around, but bottom line, unless you count masturbation, it takes two to fornicate. Ergo both genders need to keep their pantaloons on.

Yes it takes 2 to fornicate.  I agree that both sexes need to reform their views on sexuality.  But you are nevertheless dancing around the truth.  Even with the example you listed with 10 guys and 10 women, the women hold most of the blame (several women getting boned by one guy).  I still stand by my assessment that women tend to have uglier pasts than men because they don't have to do much to get laid.  You don't need academic research to see simple truths like this.  Keep in mind that any academic research on the topic probably won't be accurate due to the taboo nature of the subject.

 

On 10/18/2016 at 7:14 PM, CountrySteve21 said:

Nah bro, God's mercy does undo our damage (just takes some time and work on our part too.)

Have you ever read Love & Responsibility by St. John Paull II? Its changed by views on marriage drastically ( which at times can be a stumbling block to me)

Pax,

So god will cure ex-drug addicts of HIV if they repent?  Some of the damage can be undone but some of it cannot.

I never read Love and Responsibility by JPII but I will look into it and see what he had to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anastasia (L&T)    1,882
Anastasia (L&T)
4 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Keep in mind that any academic research on the topic probably won't be accurate due to the taboo nature of the subject.

Yes, yes. you are correct and no research that disagrees with you could possibly be right, therefore we should all believe you.

If fewer women are virgins than men are virgins, then those men who are not virgins have slept with more per-non-virgin male than have non-virgin females, and that seems uglier to me, and those men who do have sex without being married are more in need of keeping their pantaloons up. My experience has been the opposite of what you said, and I'm not trying to argue about who is right about exact percentages or anything like that as much as I am trying to say that we need to hold both gender's accountable (just like those non-virgins should have a reason to believe that men want more than just sex from them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anastasia (L&T)    1,882
Anastasia (L&T)

Polskieserce, you have a blindly determined insistence of a viewpoint with stated unwillingness to accept any possibility of research to the contrary. That is unscientific. If you base this on experience, others also have differing experiences. If you base this on one argument, there are other arguments to the opposite view, inclusive of homosexual behavior and the how one prostitute may have many johns being unchaste with her.

Further, of who must keep their legs shut, all need to choose to keep their legs shut when they should be, or they have already erred in their hearts regardless of penetration and have been unchaste. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socrates    1,983
Socrates
On 10/17/2016 at 10:49 AM, polskieserce said:

In countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc the poor are much better off than they would be in the US.  Plenty of migrants have also flocked to democratic socialist countries as well (although I agree that some of those countries are taking in far too many people).  Your problem is that you see economic policies as black and white (you're either uber capitalist or you think Stalin was the man).  That's simply not true.  My original point still stands: many people will not benefit from the ultra-capitalistic economic system you are describing.

Sweden and similar countries are not truly socialist, nor is their relative wealth (still considerably less per capita than the US), the result of their socialistic-leaning big tax-and-spend policies,  As pointed out earlier, the economy was actually stronger when these countries were solidly free-market "capitalist," and their people were better off, which is why the current government policies are being reconsidered by many there.

Regarding the poor, there are many factors at play besides socialism/capitalism.  Nordic countries have a fairly culturally homogenous well-educated population, do not have huge masses of poor illiterate foreigners pouring over their borders, and never had slavery (at least not since pagan Viking days).

The vast increases in welfare state socialism here in the states has not helped the poor, and it is the definition of insanity to think that a lot more of the same will have that result.

 

Quote

Those who wanted to leave the Church for its political reasons have already left.  Hedonism plays a major part in the decline of the Catholic Church, but so does a lack of a game-plan.  I am not saying people should get married right at 18, but if people have to delay marriage until their late 20s/early 30s, then the Church will get very poor results.  I still stand by my statement that a lot of unchaste behavior could be averted if people were not involuntarily delaying marriage for so long.

I have yet to see an actual real-world example of socialism or the welfare state actually improving sexual morality or increasing marriages, and until I do, I'll dismiss this notion as delusional fantasy.  

 

Quote

People who are fighting just to keep their head above water aren't necessarily going to be terribly interested in Catholicism.  If anything, they will be pressured into thinking that abortion is a "necessary evil".  A bunch of people doing "Jesus Talk" is just going to be background noise for extremely marginalized individuals.

Ironically, the Church is currently growing much faster in very poor African and Asian countries, than among comparatively wealthy (though self-absorbed and whiny) Westerners.

And, yes, Jesus should be the primary focus of the Church, uncool as that may be in certain circles.  Replacing "Jesus talk" with politicized socialist talk is not the answer.  And everyone should agree that mere talk is not enough; it needs to be backed up in action by love of God and charity toward neighbor.  And that means real, personal acts of self-giving love towards real people, not crying for a bigger government to spend more of other people's money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhiteLily    44
WhiteLily

In my opinion, it's the hardnes of hearts with people which has lead to the destruction to marriage and the family. The Catholic Church, in her Wisdom, has always had the answer. We just don't like the answer. Just like when Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts...but in the beginning it was not so...(Matthew 19:8)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polskieserce    23
polskieserce
On 10/24/2016 at 2:26 AM, Anastasia (L&T) said:

Polskieserce, you have a blindly determined insistence of a viewpoint with stated unwillingness to accept any possibility of research to the contrary. That is unscientific. If you base this on experience, others also have differing experiences. If you base this on one argument, there are other arguments to the opposite view, inclusive of homosexual behavior and the how one prostitute may have many johns being unchaste with her.

Further, of who must keep their legs shut, all need to choose to keep their legs shut when they should be, or they have already erred in their hearts regardless of penetration and have been unchaste. 

I am not blindly insisting on a viewpoint or my personal experience.  I am merely stating the realities of the world we live in.  In the real world, the more hoops one has to jump through to accomplish a goal, the higher the chance of failure gets.  It doesn't matter if it pertains to having sex, completing a Phd program, or climbing Mount Everest.  Men have a higher mountain to climb than women do when it comes to having sex.  A girl has to just make sure she looks good and doesn't live in isolation.  A guy has to make sure he looks great, doesn't live in isolation, has to be a decent conversationalist who is good at initiating social contact, has to be at least semi-financially stable, has some form of transportation, and has to be good at reading the "beat around the bush" communication style of most girls.  Yes, there are exceptions to each of the points I listed, but that's what's expected of guys for the most part.  More women are having premarital sex than men.  That's a bigger travesty than a handful of male players who are sleeping around with a bunch of girls.

 

On 10/24/2016 at 11:27 PM, Socrates said:

Sweden and similar countries are not truly socialist, nor is their relative wealth (still considerably less per capita than the US), the result of their socialistic-leaning big tax-and-spend policies,  As pointed out earlier, the economy was actually stronger when these countries were solidly free-market "capitalist," and their people were better off, which is why the current government policies are being reconsidered by many there.

Regarding the poor, there are many factors at play besides socialism/capitalism.  Nordic countries have a fairly culturally homogenous well-educated population, do not have huge masses of poor illiterate foreigners pouring over their borders, and never had slavery (at least not since pagan Viking days).

The vast increases in welfare state socialism here in the states has not helped the poor, and it is the definition of insanity to think that a lot more of the same will have that result.

 

I have yet to see an actual real-world example of socialism or the welfare state actually improving sexual morality or increasing marriages, and until I do, I'll dismiss this notion as delusional fantasy.  

 

Ironically, the Church is currently growing much faster in very poor African and Asian countries, than among comparatively wealthy (though self-absorbed and whiny) Westerners.

And, yes, Jesus should be the primary focus of the Church, uncool as that may be in certain circles.  Replacing "Jesus talk" with politicized socialist talk is not the answer.  And everyone should agree that mere talk is not enough; it needs to be backed up in action by love of God and charity toward neighbor.  And that means real, personal acts of self-giving love towards real people, not crying for a bigger government to spend more of other people's money.

Sweden is not fully socialized.  It is partially socialized.  No country on Earth is ready for full socialism just yet, not until automation takes over most of the economy and science has progressed significantly.  The conventional argument against socialism made by you right-wingers is that full socialism has always failed, therefore it's impossible.  At one time, people thought it would be impossible for humans to explore space.  However, massive government funding and scientific advancement made that dream a reality.  Let's say you found a random kid who lives in the jungle of a war-torn, 3rd world country.  If you took that kid and put him in a class at MIT, I bet that kid will fail.  Why?  Because he doesn't have any background knowledge required to succeed at one of the world's most elite institutions.  The same is true about the Soviet Union and Communist China.  Both of those systems failed because they lacked the technology to execute full scale socialism.  They relied far too heavily on the human element.  But as humanity advances more and more, today's fantasies will become tomorrow's realities.

The strength of the economy and well-being of the poor are two separate issues that you continue to intertwine.  For the poor, the strength of the economy doesn't have much affect on their daily lives.  Regardless if the economy is good or bad, they can't afford all the stuff they need and that's a fact of life.  If the government gives a poor person money to buy what he/she needs, then that is already making that poor person's life better.  Does wealth redistribution slow the pace of growth?  Yes, but that's a trade-off I'm willing to make if it helps the poor.  The human rights of the poor take priority over a wealthy person's desires for unnecessary material luxuries.  You are delusional to think that giving the poor resources doesn't help them.  It most certainly does.  Does it make them self-sufficient? No.  But in many cases, the poor are not going to be self-sufficient under any circumstances and will require lifelong assistance.

There are plenty of instances where women had abortions because they were living on the margins of society and had no real means of caring for the child.  Yes, they could have chosen adoption.  Yes, there are women who have abortions just because it's an inconvenience to them.  But it still doesn't change the fact that there would be fewer abortions if a woman's world wasn't so grim.

The Church may be growing fast in the 3rd world, but how long do you think that will last?  In the West, the Church is become irrelevant in everyday life because there aren't many practical earthly benefits to being Catholic.  I never said that Jesus should be replaced with socialism, I said the Church should merge Jesus with socialism.  Small scale charity is only putting a small dent into the problems facing society.  The large multinational corporations, as well as Westerners addicted to materialism, need to be reigned in by a strong, centralized government.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LittleWaySoul    1,009
LittleWaySoul
28 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

I am not blindly insisting on a viewpoint or my personal experience.  I am merely stating the realities of the world we live in.  In the real world, the more hoops one has to jump through to accomplish a goal, the higher the chance of failure gets.  It doesn't matter if it pertains to having sex, completing a Phd program, or climbing Mount Everest.  Men have a higher mountain to climb than women do when it comes to having sex.  A girl has to just make sure she looks good and doesn't live in isolation.  A guy has to make sure he looks great, doesn't live in isolation, has to be a decent conversationalist who is good at initiating social contact, has to be at least semi-financially stable, has some form of transportation, and has to be good at reading the "beat around the bush" communication style of most girls.  Yes, there are exceptions to each of the points I listed, but that's what's expected of guys for the most part.  More women are having premarital sex than men.  That's a bigger travesty than a handful of male players who are sleeping around with a bunch of girls.

 

IMG_7991.GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×