Would polyamory satisfy you?

[Cognisant]

I don't think that love of a certain degree can be shared, it's like having a "best friend" you can't have multiple best friends because then none of them are your best friend they're just good friends, now there's nothing wrong with having good friends but when it comes to a best friend there can only be one.

Spoiler

Just to be funny

Likewise I'm not going to say you can't be polyamorous if you want to but still quantity is no substitute for quality, intimacy (in the platonic sense) isn't a group activity indeed the very defining point of an intimate moment is the exclusivity, furthermore there are times when choices have to be made. Historically the priority problem is solved in one of two ways, either you have some polygamous king or whatever who has a number of wives in a linear rank (which among other things decides whose offspring inherits the throne) or some sheik running around prioritising whichever of his wives is least happy.

The only historical occurrences of mixed gender polygamy I know of are barbarian tribes in which women either serviced everybody or got raped and bonobos, which aren't even human, but by all means please educate me.

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm not a poly.

I can definitely have deep relationships with multiple people, but I tend to look to bond completely with one person. I want that level of not just intimacy but secrecy/specialness; I like knowing there is just one person who knows me in a way others might not.

I've also done the marriage thing long-term, and realistically the energy investment can be immense. I really don't know how deep one can go with multiple partners, there just isn't enough time and energy between relationships, a job, and maybe children. How would one pull that off satisfyingly?

My other concern is that maybe ideally polyamory can be fulfilling, but it's no better than monogamy in the sense of easily being abused by people focused on what amounts to self-gratification. it's easy to flit and not stick out difficult but formative moments in personal growth. Monogamists can abuse their system, just in other ways.

--

It looks like you're equating polyamorous with polygamous here. Or are those meant to be two separate ideas?

At what degree does polyamory become "too shallow" for you and a matter of quantity over quality? Could you handle having two partners? Three? Five? Or is the delineation between a set of "one" and of " two -> infinity" for you?

 

[Cognisant]

It looks like you're equating polyamorous with polygamous here. Or are those meant to be two separate ideas?

It's like the best friend thing, just as saying someone can't have good friends because they have a best friend is nonsense so too do I think that having many good friends dosen't necessarily exclude there being a best friend.

I'd be fine with a sexually open relationship and I can love many people in the non-romantic sense but when it comes to romantic love I don't think that's even something that can be shared, like the title of best friend, to try would just devalue it into irrelevance.

At what degree does polyamory become "too shallow" for you and a matter of quantity over quality? Could you handle having two partners? Three? Five? Or is the delineation between a set of "one" and of " two -> infinity" for you?

I am only one person, how can I give myself to two people?

Without resorting to mad science that is

 

[Grayman]

I am very introverted and enjoy social isolation to an extent. I so like being around one or two people. Having to spread around my intimacy to a larger group would be disastrous for me and those who rely on me as I can barely accomidate one and then children in the future. I like my isolation too much.

Yes, in families and groups people are bound to feel left out or less important than someone else. This is a downside. An upside? So many adults in a houshold who can support eachother and raise children. It is certainly an attractive idea to have so much support and security from those around you.

 

[StevenM]

I've never had a "best friend" before. I have, however, had a few great friends who I share a part of my life with.

I'm not sure how polyamory would satisfy me. But I am certain, for now, that monogomy would suffice. I don't have a need for extra partners, if a current one is healthy and sustaining fruitfully.

 

[Jennywocky]

I am only one person, how can I give myself to two people?

Without resorting to mad science that is

yes, that's ST Replicator talk!

Spoiler

An upside? So many adults in a houshold who can support eachother and raise children. It is certainly an attractive idea to have so much support and security from those around you.

I think that's the aspect that people mean when they say "it takes a village." But it does create a lot of logistical issues when multiple people are involved. Typically there still has to be a unique authority, or (1) it's difficult to have consistent rules and consistent enforcement of rules and (2) children are great at finding the weakest link to exploit. As numbers increase, also, the Bystander Effect can start to filter in.

Just general things to think about.

(Negatives for the other side, of course, having just 1-2 parents can mean limited energy, time, and focus as x grows larger where x is # of kids.)

 

[Grayman]

yes, that's ST Replicator talk!

Spoiler

I think that's the aspect that people mean when they say "it takes a village." But it does create a lot of logistical issues when multiple people are involved. Typically there still has to be a unique authority, or (1) it's difficult to have consistent rules and consistent enforcement of rules and (2) children are great at finding the weakest link to exploit. As numbers increase, also, the Bystander Effect can start to filter in.

Just general things to think about.

(Negatives for the other side, of course, having just 1-2 parents can mean limited energy, time, and focus as x grows larger where x is # of kids.)

I don't think A leader is needed. Leadership through skills and roles derived from those skills is also effective. Everyone can lead, all that matters is the situation and who is most capable of handling it.

 

[Cognisant]

Spoiler

That is such a Noddy moment.

 

[Jennywocky]

I don't think A leader is needed. Leadership through skills and roles derived from those skills is also effective. Everyone can lead, all that matters is the situation and who is most capable of handling it.

Interesting.

I'll say that doesn't fit with my experience in groups of larger than 2 people. But they weren't always self-selected in the ways an official polyamory group might be.

That is such a Noddy moment.

Oh Noddy....

Tagline: "I'd go poly for Noddy."

 

[Red myst]

The short answer is no. It is totally incongruent with my lifestyle. Only possably under ideal circumstances could such a thing exist. And since circumstances are subject to change, I suspect the arraignment would be short lived. Perhaps I don't understand the concept of introversion, but I would think most introverts would be adverse to the idea of polyamory. Not as a moral issue, but that it just is not in ones nature.
On a side note, a poll would have been interesting. Especially one with factors for introvert or extrovert and thinking or feeling.

 

[Cavallier]

Oh Noddy....

Tagline: "I'd go poly for Noddy."

I would have thought a thread like this would be like a disturbance in the force for him. How is it he has not simply popped back into existance on the forum yet?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Shortver:No, it might be possible, but is a great unknown and its successful version looks no different from a successful monogamy.

I don't think I can be the same person for one partner and remain as genuine and involved with the others.

If it is difficult to maintain balance and communication with one person, then it is as difficult or more with a number of people.

The concept of being intimate and/or sexually active in a group is not appealing, seems to have more vulnerable spots, has a much lower probability of a lasting success, because of the multiple parties and because it is generally less common for others to enter polyamory as compared to monogamy.

 

[Cognisant]

How is it he has not simply popped back into existance on the forum yet?

We must gather together to perform a summoning ritual and sacrifice a noob.

 

[Jennywocky]

We must gather together to perform a summoning ritual and sacrifice a noob.

Don't the recent two exterminations count?

 

[Cavallier]

We must gather together to perform a summoning ritual and sacrifice a noob.

Ummm....yeah. About that...

Don't the recent two exterminations count?

<.< >.>

As for the OP:

The idea of being polyamorous sounds exhausting for someone as introverted as I am. I have no moral, philosophical, or logistical objections to polyamory though. Given the right people and the right circumstances I could see it working but where my life is right now? I just don't have any desire for a polyamorous relationship at the moment. I am very happy with what I have right now.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

So much poly-oriented conversation on the forum lately. It's not particularly constructive or revolutionary talk, but perhaps some people will at least correct their definitions and tame their kneejerk responses.


Perhaps polyamory is an orientation. Why are so many people hardline about monogamy? Is it simply societal brainwashing meets personal idealization? I find it exceptionally difficult to address the issue, with the more obnoxious monogamists, without becoming prejudiced. It's hard not to think of them as possessive, domineering, and phenomenally insecure. To be charitable instead, perhaps there's simply no other way for them to be. Hardwired. Or perhaps they're simply like all those brainwashed homophobes, who are still inherently homosexual/bisexual, but often aggressively contain their sexuality and that of others.

I'm equally uncompromising though. I could never be happy in a monogamous relationship. I'd rather be completely alone. I will not own or be owned. It's that simple. I'm not inherently compatible with serial monogamy. I never have been. It conflicts with my basic nature. For me personally, it has little to do with getting extra ass on the side, or even meeting some sort of bisexual desire for both genders. It's about personal and emotional freedom. Love and affection need not be finite. I feel it grows as it is shared; openness, understanding, and trust foster an intimacy that few couples know of or understand.

I suppose you have to be fairly secure in yourself to be comfortable in such arrangements. I do not understand why so many people are quick to confine themselves to painful (and shallow) monogamous relationships, just for the sake of sex. For straight men especially, the other person involved frequently seems incidental. It doesn't matter who they actually are, just that they were just the first, attractive enough one, to say 'yes' and they stuck around long enough for marriage to seem logical. To me, this is bewilderingly shallow. Overall, unnecessary heartache seems to plague most monogamous relationships and in general they seem reliant on both parties being mired in selective obliviousness and cognitive dissonance.

I'm fairly prejudiced though. It sucks being a minority.

 

[Grayman]

So much poly-oriented conversation on the forum lately. It's not particularly constructive or revolutionary talk, but perhaps some people will at least correct their definitions and tame their kneejerk responses.

Luckily this particular thread is about ourselves and our own satisfactions and less about evolution, morality, or other people. As long as it stays on topic we should have some constructive insights.

 

[redbaron]

I don't really understand the question to be honest. People should be satisfied with themselves irrespective of any kind of relationship they're in. If you're relying on a relationship for satisfaction then you're already missing the point.

I'm equally uncompromising though. I could never be happy in a monogamous relationship. I'd rather be completely alone. I will not own or be owned. It's that simple. I'm not inherently compatible with serial monogamy. I never have been. It conflicts with my basic nature. For me personally, it has little to do with getting extra ass on the side, or even meeting some sort of bisexual desire for both genders. It's about personal and emotional freedom. Love and affection need not be finite. I feel it grows as it is shared; openness, understanding, and trust foster an intimacy that few couples know of or understand.

All of this too.

 

[Grayman]

I don't really understand the question to be honest. People should be satisfied with themselves irrespective of any kind of relationship they're in. If you're relying on a relationship for satisfaction then you're already missing the point.



All of this too.

'Relying', yes I agree. I think this discussion is more about the extra satisfaction. Does it add to the happiness in life for you? Where does it succeed and where does it fail?

 

[scorpiomover]

Doubt so. Tried dating more than one person at a time once. Messed with my head. Felt like I had several people in there all at once.

 

[Pyropyro]

It's illegal here unless you're a Muslim man so I think I won't be able to find out.

 

[Base groove]

It's illegal here unless you're a Muslim man so I think I won't be able to find out.

DEONTOLOGICAL BULLCRAP

It's a thought experiment and you should know the answer based on what you believe to be right.

 

[Pyropyro]

DEONTOLOGICAL BULLCRAP

It's a thought experiment and you should know the answer based on what you believe to be right.

No need to be rude. I can be convinced by your second sentence alone.

I believe I posted on a thread before that I find polygamy emotionally "expensive".

 

[Base groove]

No need to be rude. I can be convinced by your second sentence alone.

I believe I posted on a thread before that I find polygamy emotionally "expensive".

Sorry I was eating a chili pepper.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I can be attracted to multiple people but overall I doubt that polyamory would be satisfying. We only have a limited time on this Earth and there's not enough to spend it juggling various partners while still developing deep connections.

Plus, whether or not mono-amory is entirely an instilled behavior, I realize humans are still vulnerable to emotions and I know I would not be emotionally comfortable in any kind of poly setup.

I do like this song though:
Jefferson Airplane - Triad

 

[PhoenixRising]

^ what @EyeSeeCold said.

I did try a polyamorous set of relationships once and found that I can't handle that much attention (nor the fits of jealousy that inevitably break out between partners) XP

I've concluded that I happen to be intrinsically monogamous, partly due to my introversion, I think. Although I do admire the ideal of a mature connection between several transcendent beings.. if I were capable of such a thing, I think it could be a beautiful experience. Perhaps someday I will be able to evolve past my finite form to embrace the entirety of the human race as a part of myself, and then I could be more expansive in all aspects of human interaction ^^ *just dreaming*

 

[kora]

Been in an open relationship for almost 2 years.

My choice for many of the reasons Adaire listed. Having never been in a relationship before, I upheld this point of view very strongly, why should love be degraded by petty feelings of possession and jealousy? It's a good relationship, ups and downs like the rest but mostly ups, a bit dramatic because I'm obsessively in love, and therefore have to regularly crush upsurges of jealousy, it seems that love goes hand in hand with feelings of possession and insecurities, which makes monogamy the easiest choice, but in the end it is just a label with a supposed set of rules that will will not control any urges of the people within the couple. By forbidding a desire you do not eradicate it. jealousy and feelings of insecurity are easier and easier to ignore if partners talk them over, I think there is something so much more reasonable about working on your own problems with yourself instead of demanding your partner accommodates them. I actually feel like the whole situation is good, giving me self control, forcing me to rationalize insecurities. Making me a better person.

 

[Cognisant]

That lampshade is a poor disguise for your own prejudice Adaire.

For me personally, it has little to do with getting extra ass on the side, or even meeting some sort of bisexual desire for both genders. It's about personal and emotional freedom. Love and affection need not be finite. I feel it grows as it is shared; openness, understanding, and trust foster an intimacy that few couples know of or understand.

You never miss an opportunity to disparage non-polyamorus relationships and I seriously doubt it's because you think polyamory is more intimate and you're most certainly not some sugar sweet hippy who can't bear to restrict your boundless love.

Polyamory appeals to you because intimacy scares you.

 

[Grayman]

Been in an open relationship for almost 2 years.

I think it is a lot deeper than an open relationship. From what RB was saying, every shares the same deep connection. It is still closed but with more people.

 

[kora]

I think it is a lot deeper than an open relationship. From what RB was saying, every shares the same deep connection. It is still closed but with more people.

Should have detailed that there was a stable 3rd party for the first 6 months. Gone now, because jealousy.

 

[Cognisant]

I think jealousy just goes to show how unnatural polyamory is, it's natural for us to love our tribe/clan/family/etc but lets face it the whole pair bonding thing is based on reproduction and that isn't something that works that way. Sure polygamy works and you see it in nature, one dominant male chimp/gorilla reserves breeding rights with all the females by beating the crap out of anyone that challenges him, or in hyenas and meerkats the dominant female reserves the right to bear the pack's offspring by killing the offspring of lesser ranking females.

I'm not saying polyamory wouldn't be ideal from a sexual freedom standpoint but that's not all there is to it and frankly people's brains (at least mine) aren't wired to accept emotional attachments of that kind. I'm happy to ride the village bicycle and be one myself, that's fine as long as it is about sexual gratification and nothing else because when it comes love if someone is already loved by others then why do they need me?

Maybe that is insecurity on my part but it is legitimate insecurity because I am legitimately insecure about being loved, perhaps if I felt more loved I'd think differently.

 

[Grayman]

I think jealousy just goes to show how unnatural polyamory is, it's natural for us to love our tribe/clan/family/etc but lets face it the whole pair bonding thing is based on reproduction and that isn't something that works that way. Sure polygamy works and you see it in nature, one dominant male chimp/gorilla reserves breeding rights with all the females by beating the crap out of anyone that challenges him, or in hyenas and meerkats the dominant female reserves the right to bear the pack's offspring by killing the offspring of lesser ranking females.

I'm not saying polyamory wouldn't be ideal from a sexual freedom standpoint but that's not all there is to it and frankly people's brains (at least mine) aren't wired to accept emotional attachments of that kind. I'm happy to ride the village bicycle and be one myself, that's fine as long as it is about sexual gratification and nothing else because when it comes love if someone is already loved by others then why do they need me?

Maybe that is insecurity on my part but it is legitimate insecurity because I am legitimately insecure about being loved, perhaps if I felt more loved I'd think differently.

I don't get jealous or at least I cannot remember the last time I was... By this standard I would be included in the unnatural. I dont mind being a supernatural being but I have a hard believing it.

 

[The Gopher]

I wonder if it would be easier with incest involved. Not to be That Guy but if there was a connection between say brothers or twins already existing it might help with jealousy? It could also make it much worse depending on the people. One of each would be interesting but personally I don't know if I would be up to the task.... At least not on an intimate level.

 

[Puffy]

The idea of being polyamorous sounds exhausting for someone as introverted as I am. I have no moral, philosophical, or logistical objections to polyamory though. Given the right people and the right circumstances I could see it working but where my life is right now? I just don't have any desire for a polyamorous relationship at the moment. I am very happy with what I have right now.

To be honest, that's the crux for me. I've never really maintained more than a few friends and see them about once a week as I need lots of recharge time. I'm not even in a committed relationship now, so I don't know what polyamory would be like or if I'd have the energy or time.

I see polyamory more as a mindset anyway. One could be in a single-single romantic relationship their whole life and still basically maintain the idea that that relationship doesn't bar them from exploring any other friendship as openly as works with the mutual consensus.

 

[Red myst]

I do not get how the logistics of a polyamory relationship work. How does the emotional investment, time management, tangible resource sharing, come into play?
I am sure there are various scenarios that can play out, but it all seems so complicated. I think it takes some very unique individuals to engage in this, and the pool of such possible individuals seems like it would be small.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Polyamory appeals to you because intimacy scares you.

God you're dense. Even the most basic things elude you completely.

Yes. Intimacy terrifies me. I openly admit it. It should terrify everyone. It goes wrong with most people.

Now, let me walk you through this; baby steps. Where do you think all my relational terror comes from? I know you have some kneejerk, half thought, armchair philosophical musing you can vomit up on cue about my psychological state, but, logically, don't you think it might have a little something to do with being fundamentally uncomfortable with monogamous relationships? Or maybe it's that a lot of people have tried to force it on me? Do you not perceive how this could affect me on multiple levels? It's the cause, cog, not the symptom.

I've lived in my brain all my life; I've always been this way. Even when I was a horrifically devout, brainwashed, christian child, I knew that marriage or pair bonding, owning/being owned was utterly repellent to me. I even tried monogamy out a few times to be sure. I was good and faithful, but that incompatibility never goes away. Plus the last thing you can expect is for a monogamously oriented partner to understand. Majorities don't need to understand anything. As I said before, I'd rather be alone. It's so much better. So don't discount me with your fucking stupidity and inability to abstract to people different from you.

 

[Cognisant]

I'd be amazed if anyone could force anything upon you.

Or maybe it's that a lot of people have tried to force it on me? Do you not perceive how this could affect me on multiple levels?

No, so what was that like?

Seriously, you're right I'm not perceptive I'm denser than unobtainium, but I do listen.
Not that you divulge much, it's like talking to a wall except at least with a wall there's an echo.

 

[StevenM]

I think it takes some very unique individuals to engage in this, and the pool of such possible individuals seems like it would be small.

I have a theory, yet it's based on limited observation. Also considering that we are talking about poly amory, which is a deep love for a number of people.

What I have found in my observation, is that, perhaps, poly amorous people have little to none insecurity. They have extremely healthy confidence in themselves, and are very self-reliant. They also may receive tons of admiration and likableness from other people, and others have generally been turned on by them. They also have a great open mind when it comes to loving other people. In essence, they don't mind sharing and giving love to a more variety of people than what is typically found in monogamous people. It is very rare that they put anyone on a high pedestal, perhaps viewing and regarding other lovers as something similar as a "little sister/brother", or someone as a great friend.

In essence, they may feel they need little love in return, and just get a good satisfaction in making the other happy, and feel loved. Basically, they have no insecurity.

Then again, there may be something inconsistent with my theory. Other poly amorous people, let me know.

 

[Red myst]

I have a theory, yet it's based on limited observation. Also considering that we are talking about poly amory, which is a deep love for a number of people.

What I have found in my observation, is that, perhaps, poly amorous people have little to none insecurity. They have extremely healthy confidence in themselves, and are very self-reliant. They also may receive tons of admiration and likableness from other people, and others have generally been turned on by them. They also have a great open mind when it comes to loving other people. In essence, they don't mind sharing and giving love to a more variety of people than what is typically found in monogamous people. It is very rare that they put anyone on a high pedestal, perhaps viewing and regarding other lovers as something similar as a "little sister/brother", or someone as a great friend.

In essence, they may feel they need little love in return, and just get a good satisfaction in making the other happy, and feel loved. Basically, they have no insecurity.

Then again, there may be something inconsistent with my theory. Other poly amorous people, let me know.

Or..... they could have a lot of insecurities. Just like monogamous types can cling to one person because they are so insecure about themselves or, can commit to one person because they are secure about themselves. After Adaire's last post, I see there is much more to the picture than I care to consider.

 

[StevenM]

My observation was based on only one person . I was probably just aiming in the dark with my theory.

 

[Base groove]

I see there is much more to the picture than I care to consider.

I think I see what you're saying. You were inferring another possibility.

My observation was based on only one person . I was probably just aiming in the dark with my theory.

No way dude! You have to expect people to test your ideas without retreating. I'm more interested in the logical steps you took to arrive at that idea. Don't back away from it, explain it.

It reminds me very much of something that somebody else has said which I really agreed with and it also contradicts it at the same time I think so with all due respect... please continue with your theorizing.

 

[Red myst]

I think I see what you're saying. You were inferring another possibility.

Yes, thats about it. TMills27 observation is just as sound as well. I was simply pointing out that just as some people may cling to a monogamous lifestyle because of personal issues, there are others who would reject monogamy because of personal issues ..... such as Fear if intimacy. But of course this makes me wonder about the definition of Polyamorus. Because it seems avoiding monogamy, and favoring polyamorus relationships in part, or in whole, because of fear of intimacy is not the same thing as having multiple intimate relationships. But real life never fits into nice neat definitions so I will let it rest.

 

[Base groove]

But real life never fits into nice neat definitions so I will let it rest.

It does! It just takes work and effort to discover and define them.

 

[Grayman]

It does! It just takes work and effort to discover and define them.

Imagine a sheet of an impossible number of shades of colors starting from an obvious orange to one side and an obvious red on the other. The other colors between are the many shades of red and orange that transition you from the two extremes. Now lets argue where we draw the line specifically were the color orange changes to red.

You may say the middle but what about all the different collors between them with different names? They cannot be orange or red also? Were do we decide those start and end?

True understanding of reality trancends definition. Definition is only to communicate a thread of that understanding.

 

[StevenM]

Perhaps, monogamous people are much more selective. It may be very rare for the monogamous to actually find someone who they can really trust, and someone who they have a passion to get to know well. Because finding such a person is very rare, when they do encounter one, it is considered "one and only"; something that is priceless and worth a high value.

Now it seems easier to acknowledge why some people restrict this 'perfect' person's freedom, in an irrational attempt to never lose them.

If one is in the extremes with this, perhaps practicing giving some more people trust, and being open minded to more different possibilities would help dampen the strong feelings.

 

[Cavallier]

I do not get how the logistics of a polyamory relationship work. How does the emotional investment, time management, tangible resource sharing, come into play?

What I have found in my observation, is that, perhaps, poly amorous people have little to none insecurity. They have extremely healthy confidence in themselves, and are very self-reliant.

My knee jerk reaction is that all people involved in a polyamorous relationship would have to be very secure in themselves. For it to be stable they would all need to be in the relationship because they loved one another or wanted one another but do not need one another. If three or more people could be that mature and actually found each other at the same time I'd count them all lucky and bless their enclave of love.

I fear most people are far too insecure to make for a stable relationship either of a monogamous or polyamorous nature.

However, I've known people who I would call free spirits. People whose lives pulls them around the world. People who have a long term open relationship with one person. But they have different lifestyles, jobs, or whatever that they are not willing to compromise for each other. So they spend time together when the opportunity arises but other wise have other relationships with other people.

Does that count as polyamorous? I assume in polyamory if you have three people then the three people are in love with each other.

I think of love, sexuality, and gender as each being its own gradient scale.

 

[Polaris]

^ Good points here. If you go to the multiple of more serious poly sites where polymory is discussed properly, you'll see the general consensus is that polyrelationships work best when the above conditions you outlined are fulfilled.

(I'm on my phone so will try to link some good sites later)

I am not sure yet what that says about people psychology or emotional motivations....but it's certainly interesting. Which is why I am still open to the idea. However, as other people have stated, I'm inclined to feel drained quickly by giving myself emotionally to anyone, so the concept of multiple partners is emotionally intimidating to me. I do not give emotionally to people very easily. I have experienced poly relationships where there was a two-partner emotional exclusivity, which rendered the third party of a lower 'status', or priority. It did not work out which seems like a very likely outcome over time for most dynamics of this kind.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

*thirds cavallier*

 

[Base groove]

Imagine a sheet of an impossible number of shades of colors starting from an obvious orange to one side and an obvious red on the other. The other colors between are the many shades of red and orange that transition you from the two extremes. Now lets argue where we draw the line specifically were the color orange changes to red.

You may say the middle but what about all the different collors between them with different names? They cannot be orange or red also? Were do we decide those start and end?

True understanding of reality trancends definition. Definition is only to communicate a thread of that understanding.

[bimgx=330]http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/256/a/6/wise_old_man_by_poeheej-d2ynanw.jpg[/bimgx]

Grayman. BAP just texted me this selfie. He wants you to use it as your avatar.

 

[redbaron]

*hugs Cavallier*