Romance and the Ego

Talk about relationships in the context of Spiritual Enlightenment
User avatar
merlin41
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:33 am
Location: Worcester UK

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by merlin41 » Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:50 pm

Enlightened2B wrote:
I'm beginning to agree that although I do believe there is a lot of ego involved with romance and I'm not entirely sold on monogamy, I do think that relationships (romantic ones) can really bring one INTO presence. I'm seeing this now with the person I'm involved with. We're going on four dates now, and spending an incredible amount of time together....just getting to know each other (no sex yet). I immediately notice that I stray from presence and start to become sucked into this "force" of this "relationship" the more involved I get with her. I notice some anxiety as well as there is a 'wanting' to make this work. Then, the heavens open up once again.... I realize.....I am merely trying to control the outcome and not allowing what is....to be....and everything becomes peaceful again. It seems that romance triggers some sort of painbody I'm learning within me probably from past experiences which I think even relate back to my childhood. Really powerful stuff.
I believe monogamy is a mind creation, it is an attempt to avoid the possible/probable suffering created through the attachment to another being in a sexual/romantic relationship.
I sense that you will find the "force" you mention become extreme if/when sex does occur, and a test of your ability to remain in presence. :!:

Personally I don't think romantic relationships bring you into presence, more an opportunity and a test at the same time.

My advice is to enjoy the play of it all and let go of the control, it will all turn out as its meant to as we say :)
“I would like my life to be a statement of love and compassion--and where it isn't, that's where my work lies.”
― Ram Dass

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1904
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by Enlightened2B » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:28 pm

merlin41 wrote: I believe monogamy is a mind creation, it is an attempt to avoid the possible/probable suffering created through the attachment to another being in a sexual/romantic relationship.
I sense that you will find the "force" you mention become extreme if/when sex does occur, and a test of your ability to remain in presence. :!:

Personally I don't think romantic relationships bring you into presence, more an opportunity and a test at the same time.

My advice is to enjoy the play of it all and let go of the control, it will all turn out as its meant to as we say :)
Wow, Merlin, I could not agree more. I think what I meant is that romantic relationships can allow you to be more aware of things such as ego/painbody because those things VERY often show up during periods of romantic relationships while they might NOT show up in other areas of your life. But, of course, the reason for this is going back to the same notion that romance brings OUT the ego in many cases because monogamy/romance, I would agree, is a mind creation like you said and attachment/suffering is almost always a factor when it comes to romance even before sex comes into play. It's the attachment factor which is the tough part because attachment is inevitable in romance. It's the reason why we want to see this ONE person over and over and again and not see other people. We become involved with ONE person rather than multiple people because we start to grow "attached".

Like you said, it's a challenge and that's how I'm looking at it now. Enjoying the challenge, enjoying the confusion that might come along as it's all part of us.... which is mere presence.

User avatar
TemporalDissonance
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 3:41 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by TemporalDissonance » Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:50 pm

I am a little surprised that this hasn't been talked about. That if one truly loves or cares for another, one can willingly let go of another. It doesnt even need to be romantic love, but mere respect as individuals. There needs to be no attachment at all throughout monogamous relationships.

I am in a monogamous romantic relationship where if and when the time comes when being together doesn't makes sense, I would gracefully and gratefully move on. We both now that. And that possibility is always there. This isn't the first of such relationships I have been in, and all times the other isn't spiritually inclined either. Actually, I have maintained good relations if not friendships if the relationship doesn't work out. Yes, I have been told that "isn't normal", which I think is another conditioning altogether.

It's a matter of recognizing a relationship to be what it is in the first place, a decision of two to be together. It is a choice. What you make of that relationship or how you define or mold it is up to both parties involved.

User avatar
merlin41
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:33 am
Location: Worcester UK

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by merlin41 » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:13 pm

TemporalDissonance wrote:I am a little surprised that this hasn't been talked about. That if one truly loves or cares for another, one can willingly let go of another. It doesnt even need to be romantic love, but mere respect as individuals. There needs to be no attachment at all throughout monogamous relationships.
Like you I have maintained a friendship with my ex, after the breakdowns, but its always been me that has decided to end them, and my partner has suffered some loss as a result of her attachment to me, and I have also faced some pain on seeing this person suffering.
I think its rare unless both people are awakened, for a romantic relationship to be completely without attachment.
“I would like my life to be a statement of love and compassion--and where it isn't, that's where my work lies.”
― Ram Dass

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1904
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by Enlightened2B » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:26 pm

TemporalDissonance wrote:I am a little surprised that this hasn't been talked about. That if one truly loves or cares for another, one can willingly let go of another. It doesnt even need to be romantic love, but mere respect as individuals. There needs to be no attachment at all throughout monogamous relationships.

I am in a monogamous romantic relationship where if and when the time comes when being together doesn't makes sense, I would gracefully and gratefully move on. We both now that. And that possibility is always there. This isn't the first of such relationships I have been in, and all times the other isn't spiritually inclined either. Actually, I have maintained good relations if not friendships if the relationship doesn't work out. Yes, I have been told that "isn't normal", which I think is another conditioning altogether.

It's a matter of recognizing a relationship to be what it is in the first place, a decision of two to be together. It is a choice. What you make of that relationship or how you define or mold it is up to both parties involved.
The highlighted text above is the part that I don't see how it could be. I agree with you completely that if there is true love (which there ALWAYS is when ego is not clouding the way), there is no control over what happens and we willingly let go when needed. But, when you spend so much with another, getting to know them, I find it's inevitable to become attached. When I say "attached", I mean....involved. There's a reason again why we are with THIS person rather than anyone else or multiple people. There's something about THIS person alone that drives us towards them, that leads us to the state of monogamy with THEM and not anyone else. You think about this person when you're not with them, you plan for future events with that person and there is a sense of "happiness" when thinking about them. Ultimately, you acknowledge that this is all happening within awareness and none of it is REAL in itself. Yet, at the same time, you are playing this part of the one "involved". I do feel that if you are monogamous with this person, and this person ultimately out of the blue leaves you, cheats on you, etc, there would be suffering on some level to come along with that because of the involvement you felt with that person. With all of the time spent with this person, there's always SOME build up or even MINOR expectations. Otherwise, we'd be seeing multiple people at once. But, again there is something about THIS person rather than ANOTHER that drives us to pursuing monogamy with them.

Like I said, it's all part of what we are. These are all merely experiences. Take it or leave it. As others have said...."enjoy the dance" and "enjoy the confusion that comes along with it all" because it's all a play that we are projecting.

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1904
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by Enlightened2B » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:30 pm

merlin41 wrote:
TemporalDissonance wrote:I am a little surprised that this hasn't been talked about. That if one truly loves or cares for another, one can willingly let go of another. It doesnt even need to be romantic love, but mere respect as individuals. There needs to be no attachment at all throughout monogamous relationships.
Like you I have maintained a friendship with my ex, after the breakdowns, but its always been me that has decided to end them, and my partner has suffered some loss as a result of her attachment to me, and I have also faced some pain on seeing this person suffering.
I think its rare unless both people are awakened, for a romantic relationship to be completely without attachment.
Exactly what I was getting at initially. I think my words were lost a bit in my writing. I was implying in my earlier posts in this thread comparing the relationships of Adya and ET, that unless both parties are literally COMPLETELY awakened on some level, there will always be some level of attachment either by one partner or both.

User avatar
smiileyjen101
Posts: 3712
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by smiileyjen101 » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:53 am

I find it's inevitable to become attached. When I say "attached", I mean....involved.
hehehe... it's maybe why they say 'Falling in love'....

Could it be that you're talking about Enthusiasm for, enjoyment with, acceptance of, relating with a particular person
- rather than egoic attachment which would be more about making a means to an end of the person for the experience of relating?

I'm with TD that there need be no egoic attachment, and I like your cultural explanation too TD, let alone the forces of biological attraction that we culturally try to dress up in 'romance'.

--------

- for me egoic attachment is the bit where one, using things, people or circumstances as a means to an end - having imagined/written, or writing their fairy story says this will happen, like this, and if it doesn't I'm going to hang onto what I 'believe' rather than the reality'. or this has happened and I am just not going to accept it!!

For me, and not just in romantic relationships, but in and with everything - Honesty is the highest form of love.

If one loves, honours, cherishes and respects oneself, one would (hopefully) learn in honesty with self, holding on to false notions where expectation and reality are at a distance - one of them needs to move. The more graciously/gracefully it does move the less resistance and suffering.

In awareness one would recognise opportunities to be love - gratitude and generosity, and move within acceptance, enjoyment and enthusiasm in the 'doing' parts of relating. If one starts to make enemy, obstacle or means to an end then absolutely yes there is the indication that ego is involved - but that's okay too!! Love is big enough!!!

In honesty with others, creating a space for love in which there is no need for fear, and also okay if fear arises, because one can fluidly move with the reality, rather than the expectations.

In this way one lives fully and with no regrets, nor do they place restrictions or limitations (or rigid expectations) on another.

If one enters any agreement one can only do so in the 'good faith' of their knowledge of self and other and agreement 'details', at the time. If something changes in the material details of an agreement or the parties to it, this too can be adjusted to in terms of moving expectation. It would probably be foolhardy to think there won't be movement and change and growth in any long term agreement.

I find the learning where expectation, or understanding perspective, is flawed, to be immense in terms of being love.
The equilibrium of gratitude and generosity.

When dealing with self and others, I really love the notion of asking - is this true? is this kind? is this necessary?
The key is also to understand what a 'thing' means to another. Ask, don't assume.

Falling into.. another... is ... another wonderful adventure :D
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1904
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by Enlightened2B » Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:37 am

Could it be that you're talking about Enthusiasm for, enjoyment with, acceptance of, relating with a particular person
- rather than egoic attachment which would be more about making a means to an end of the person for the experience of relating?
Yes. I'm not talking about "neediness". That's a whole separate kind of "attachment" which is clearly filled with ego. I'm referring to the basic notion of being "involved" when two people realize there is "something" there that makes them decide to be monogamous. Involvement or attachment are the best words I can find.

- for me egoic attachment is the bit where one, using things, people or circumstances as a means to an end - having imagined/written, or writing their fairy story says this will happen, like this, and if it doesn't I'm going to hang onto what I 'believe' rather than the reality'. or this has happened and I am just not going to accept it!!
Yes, this is REAL ego what you are referring to. That's another level I believe that I am not referring to.

If one enters any agreement one can only do so in the 'good faith' of their knowledge of self and other and agreement 'details', at the time.
And that brings me to the exact point of my initial post. How many people in relationships actually DO have this knowledge? I have NEVER been involved romantically with someone with a spiritual outlook or any kind of "awakened" knowledge of their self. I just haven't met females like this for whatever reason. As Merlin indicated, the same things have happened to me, when relationships have ended in the past with us, there has been INCREDIBLE suffering on their part because of the attachment they felt AND some suffering as well on my part before I understood who and what I really was. Most of my friends and family members have NO clue who and what they are. I spend enough time with these people that I can say this. They all brush off concepts of "spirituality" as mumbo jumbo. They are so identified with personality/body/mind/thoughts and materialism that attachment to another in a romantic relationship is considered very normal. What happens when their relationships end? Intense suffering because of the identification with the "other"....ATTACHMENT.

I mean....look at a large portion of relationships in the USA. From viewing family members and friends who are considered to be in "healthy" relationships, spending a day in their household would really tell wonders. Some of the things I've encountered literally.....

"You told me you'd be home by THIS time for dinner and you came home late. Why can't you clue me in on your plans with your friends?". "You promised you'd watch "True Blood" with me on our "date night" and instead you're playing a computer game". "Why do you spend so much time with your mother when she only is using you?" "We went away to North Carolina for our last vacation to see your friends, shouldn't we go on the vacation that I wanted to do next?

These are all expectations. Expectations are considered ORDINARY in mainstream relationships. Here are other scenarios I have encountered almost word for word......

"My better half is over there mixing a drink. I'll introduce you". "My girl is away on business. The apartment is so empty and lonely without her". "I don't care if you check out other girls because I know you're all mine at the end of the night".

These are examples of "attachment or identification with other". These are considered "normal" in the context of the mainstream based on people I am friends with and family members. This is your average American relationship. I'm not saying EVERYONE is like this, but this is what is considered "normal" in the MAINSTREAM world, just based on people I know and what is portrayed through media as well. Where do these expectations come from? Rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.

Like Merlin indicated in his last post, when you yourself have knowledge of your true self, your outlook on a relationship can be COMPLETELY different than someone who still associates with mind/body/personality and materialism because relationships cannot be taken in the same light as they were prior to awakening. There is no attachment between two AWAKENED beings because both parties are aware of what the relationship really is....a play in non-duality. There is essentially nothing really "serious" about the relationship and it's merely fun and love (and I mean true love which is our nature) with the time spent together because monogamy while it still can exist to some degree, can't exist in the same light or have the same control over people....based on "agreements". Otherwise, vows/agreements and conditions essentially lead to suffering.

Ultimately, it's all about experience. I realize now that there is no right or wrong and I'm going to enjoy this experience knowing full well that it is just that.....an experience. I'm having a blast dating this woman right now. When ego comes in to play, I notice that I am trying to control the outcome and it's all part of what's happening right now. This is merely another temporary experience for me that "too shall pass". However, does my partner know this as well? Or will she associate me as "her other half".

Falling into.. another... is ... another wonderful adventure :D]
Totally agree. Isn't this what it all comes down to? We're all discussing concepts here and analyzing "thoughts". That's all it is. My perspective of a concept versus yours. What does it mean in the long run?

tod
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by tod » Sun Jul 28, 2013 7:53 am

Enlightened2B wrote: Like Merlin indicated in his last post, when you yourself have knowledge of your true self, your outlook on a relationship can be COMPLETELY different than someone who still associates with mind/body/personality and materialism because relationships cannot be taken in the same light as they were prior to awakening. There is no attachment between two AWAKENED beings because both parties are aware of what the relationship really is....a play in non-duality. There is essentially nothing really "serious" about the relationship and it's merely fun and love (and I mean true love which is our nature) with the time spent together because monogamy while it still can exist to some degree, can't exist in the same light or have the same control over people....based on "agreements". Otherwise, vows/agreements and conditions essentially lead to suffering.
The bolded words are a good description of conventional existence that was being talked of in another thread.

In my estimation, conventional attachment/relationship between awakened or awakening individuals is simply to further their mutual exploration and enjoyment of the possibilities of life.

IOW, their mutual agreements are conventional only. This does not make them worthless, it just shows them to be conventional. Conventions are ongoingly convened, modified, explored in our journey through life. For the awakened or awakening one, what else to explore...

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1904
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by Enlightened2B » Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:47 am

IOW, their mutual agreements are conventional only. This does not make them worthless, it just shows them to be conventional. Conventions are ongongly convened, modified, explored in our journey through life. For the awakened or awakening one, what else to explore...
I wouldn't call anything worthless. However, based on the conventional idea of attachment, is this conventional idea of attachment merely a part of experience or part of the unconscious mind? Can we not explore relationships without the same attachments/expectations from the examples I posted above? I believe we can. However, it takes two beings who understand they are NOT their minds/personalities/bodies to explore this. Otherwise, there will always be suffering even if one partner is still believing themselves to be mind/body/personality.

I've heard people indicate that they would "give their life" for their spouse. Yet, would they give their lives for the man standing behind them in line at the supermarket? Some people would, while many others would not. What makes this man any different than the man you are currently romantically involved with? Simple.....identification that the romantic partner is once again.....along the lines of...."MY Partner" which is another term for attachment.

It's only when the appearance of separateness and duality are perceived where we label someone as "my partner" while someone else is "NOT my partner". Otherwise, it's merely an experience and nothing more. I agree that it's definitely worth the enjoyment and exploration and as long as we can see it as that while we pursue this idea of romance, we can remain as presence.

User avatar
smiileyjen101
Posts: 3712
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by smiileyjen101 » Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:10 am

I'm referring to the basic notion of being "involved" when two people realize there is "something" there that makes them decide to be monogamous. Involvement or attachment are the best words I can find.

The 'something' is a shared - two way - connection, or willingness and awareness of connection, maybe. And, absolutely one can and does have different sorts of connections. Those that form in intimacy at a deep level of acceptance, enjoyment, enthusiasm are different at their core to how they are in external behaviours - now I don't know if I can explain that. Some of the 'from the outside' judging you are doing of others in their intimate relationships you are only privy to the external behaviours and expressions of them.

There is no attachment between two AWAKENED beings because both parties are aware of what the relationship really is....a play in non-duality.
There is connection, and within relative connection there will still be consulting and negotiating elements of the relationship, which is 'shared' by us.

Pretty much inter-relationally there is you + me +the relationship when/where you and me come closer together.
I just haven't met females like this for whatever reason. As Merlin indicated, the same things have happened to me, when relationships have ended in the past with us, there has been INCREDIBLE suffering on their part because of the attachment they felt AND some suffering as well on my part before I understood who and what I really was.
Change is the violence that throws us headlong into our future when something 'changes' particularly when it is outside of our expectations it takes us on that journey of reconciling the difference/distance. Now, generically speaking females may be more comfortable expressing feelings/emotions and playing out the resistances.

I can assure you, no one is irreplaceable in the end. So in a sense I'm saying you are not responsible (response able) to limit or create the journey of reconciliation that another must travel.
A deep sense of connection, of oneness even, is a blessing, not something to be feared.

A distortion of the connection can only occur if one or both fails to hold honesty as the highest form of love.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com

User avatar
TemporalDissonance
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 3:41 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by TemporalDissonance » Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:21 am

Enlightened2B wrote:
merlin41 wrote:Like you I have maintained a friendship with my ex, after the breakdowns, but its always been me that has decided to end them, and my partner has suffered some loss as a result of her attachment to me, and I have also faced some pain on seeing this person suffering.
I think its rare unless both people are awakened, for a romantic relationship to be completely without attachment.
Exactly what I was getting at initially. I think my words were lost a bit in my writing. I was implying in my earlier posts in this thread comparing the relationships of Adya and ET, that unless both parties are literally COMPLETELY awakened on some level, there will always be some level of attachment either by one partner or both.
I empathize where Enlightend2B and merlin41 are coming from. Each relationship is different, and hence their beauty. Yet, I sense perhaps we may be projecting an image of what an "awakened" relationship is.

Adya and ET's personal relationships are as fictional as that of any celebrity's.
Enlightened2B wrote:I wouldn't call anything worthless. However, based on the conventional idea of attachment, is this conventional idea of attachment merely a part of experience or part of the unconscious mind? Can we not explore relationships without the same attachments/expectations from the examples I posted above? I believe we can. However, it takes two beings who understand they are NOT their minds/personalities/bodies to explore this. Otherwise, there will always be suffering even if one partner is still believing themselves to be mind/body/personality.
How does suffering fit into this? Is the "ideal/aim" to not have any suffering in a relationship? And are we in assumption that such relationship without suffering can only exist between two people who understand they are not their minds/personalities/bodies?
Enlightened2B wrote:I've heard people indicate that they would "give their life" for their spouse. Yet, would they give their lives for the man standing behind them in line at the supermarket? Some people would, while many others would not. What makes this man any different than the man you are currently romantically involved with? Simple.....identification that the romantic partner is once again.....along the lines of...."MY Partner" which is another term for attachment.

It's only when the appearance of separateness and duality are perceived where we label someone as "my partner" while someone else is "NOT my partner". Otherwise, it's merely an experience and nothing more. I agree that it's definitely worth the enjoyment and exploration and as long as we can see it as that while we pursue this idea of romance, we can remain as presence.
From the position of the Absolute, yes, there are no separation between the man standing behind in line in supermarket and the "spouse". From the position of the Relative, there is. However, in nonduality are the Absolute and Relative separated?

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1904
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by Enlightened2B » Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:34 pm

I think it's really important to experience the ups and downs of relationships (romantically speaking). I think before one discovers any kind of "spiritual" path, relationships can provide such an incredible amount of growth. I have learned so much from my previous relationships and suffered incredibly as well due to association with the relationship in general. However, I wouldn't have it any other way. It has helped shape this personality on so many levels.

I don't feel the same desire anymore for a partner that I once felt because I already feel complete. However, would it be nice to have someone to enjoy this life with? Sure, why not?

There seems to be a difference of opinions between the common idea of a "dual, back and forth, give and take relationship" between two.....and a ANOTHER type of monogamous relationship that is NOT based on ego that is being talked about in this thread by TD and others. In my interpretation, love is the true essence of what we are. It's literally ALWAYS there and ALWAYS extended to others in presence when ego is not clouding its view. We have opportunities to extend love anywhere and everywhere. Relationships ARE a great way to extend love to another especially the act of letting go of control.

With that said, what is YOUR monogamous relationship based on if it is indeed NOT based on give and take, needs being satisfied? Clearly, as Jen pointed out, we enjoy the company of this person, we can relate to them on some level and there is enthusiasm about seeing them.

But, what else is there that makes you say, THIS is the person I am in a monogamous relationship with as opposed to THIS person? Let's take sex COMPLETELY out of the equation for a second because often times we confuse this with "love". Why do you choose monogamy with THIS person as opposed to THIS person? I ask this question in a serious manner and would love to hear other's responses.

magicbutterfly
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:32 am

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by magicbutterfly » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:16 pm

But, what else is there that makes you say, THIS is the person I am in a monogamous relationship with as opposed to THIS person? Let's take sex COMPLETELY out of the equation for a second because often times we confuse this with "love". Why do you choose monogamy with THIS person as opposed to THIS person? I ask this question in a serious manner and would love to hear other's responses.
Because sex is good! :D
Also, because my partner loves, honours and cherishes me the way I love honour and cherish myself. This is actually tricky, because if he doesn't, it means that I don't on some level either and he is showing me where I need to look more closely. I think we are mirrors to each other and we look for someone similar in some way to ourselves so that we can see ourselves more clearly.
"As soon as you honor the present moment, all unhappiness and struggle dissolve, and life begins to flow with joy and ease." Ekhart Tolle, The Power of Now

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1904
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Romance and the Ego

Post by Enlightened2B » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:19 pm

magicbutterfly wrote:
But, what else is there that makes you say, THIS is the person I am in a monogamous relationship with as opposed to THIS person? Let's take sex COMPLETELY out of the equation for a second because often times we confuse this with "love". Why do you choose monogamy with THIS person as opposed to THIS person? I ask this question in a serious manner and would love to hear other's responses.
Because sex is good! :D
Also, because my partner loves, honours and cherishes me the way I love honour and cherish myself. This is actually tricky, because if he doesn't, it means that I don't on some level either and he is showing me where I need to look more closely. I think we are mirrors to each other and we look for someone similar in some way to ourselves so that we can see ourselves more clearly.
I posted the same thing twice....with edits to the second post which is on the next page.
Last edited by Enlightened2B on Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply