Psychology of Women in Religion
20 Jun 2006, 6:04 pm
This is a psychological question. But first, some background information:
The Christian religion is extremely insulting towards women. At best, it treats them as second-class citizens. For a list of no less than THREE HUNDRED sexist and anti-female quotes from the christian bible, have a look at:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
Additionally, the Christian bible contains passages where girls are raped in the name of God (Numbers 31:7-18 ), and the unborn babies of pregnant women are killed (Hosea 9:14-17). Christianity has a deeply immoral attitude towards women.
My question is this: Despite the fact that Christianity heavily denigrates women, there are still plenty of women who identify themselves as Christian. From a psychological perspective, why do you think this is so? Psychologically, how can a woman be part of a religion that insults her?
It is obviously some kind of psychological malfunction or disorder, but can we be more specific about the cause?
20 Jun 2006, 9:14 pm
The fact that you only seem to be talking about Christianity as religion says something.
And you seem to be obsessed with one particularly kind of Christian too. Not that you probably understand that their is a lot of varity.
There are many religions which did value women.
And oh hey guess what, some of those where early versions of Christianity.
You're buying into the same reasoning that many groups do that allows them to hate each other. You know, like how some of those Christians hate the homosexuals? Which you've made statements in the past about bothering you?
Of course, there's also the distinct possibility that you don't actually hold any real beliefs at all, and you're just saying things to piss people off. Either way seems to heavily involve a lot of easy thinking ("Christians are horrible people" or "I'm going to entertain myself by enraging people. And it just so happens that my victims are going to be people really easy to enrage, and thus requires no effort.")
Not that I think that my telling you this is going to stop you from spamming up the forums with your nonsense.
21 Jun 2006, 3:19 am
What point are you trying to make there?
What kind is that?
I know that there are all different types of Christians. For example, they range from the horribly unethical, to the mildly unethical, to the ethical, to the good. What is your point?
Please provide a list of these many religions which valued women. I am genuinely interested to know. However I am fairly certain that you will be unable to provide a list of *many* religions which valued women. Prove me wrong, if you can. I WILL acknowledge your point if you can credibly demonstrate that I am wrong.
However note that even if I do acknowledge your point, it is a different point to the topic of this thread. i.e. you are going off topic. This thread is about why women participate in a religion that insults them, not whether there are any religions which value women.
So, what is your point? You are waaay off topic. All you are doing there is proving that Christianity has been perverted beyond recognition, but that is off topic.
Note that it is acceptable to hate some groups of people. For example, I hate pedophiles, rapists, murderers, and criminals, and there is nothing wrong with that.
No, I intended this thread as a legitimate question.
My thread here is not nonsense. It is a legitimate question about psychology, for intelligent minds to ponder. I do not know if there are any professional psychologists amongst the WP users, but this is a topic they could study. It would be interesting to hear a professional psychologist's opinion.
21 Jun 2006, 5:11 am
I think that a large part of it is that people do not literally apply every single detail of every part of religion into their beliefs, as you have pointed out before. Also, the attitude of women in general has changed dramatically in the past 2000 years, and people (women especially) recognize that fact, so it may be that women are able to brush off the discrimination a little easier because they recognize the time and place that its coming from, and that things are different today (not a lot, especially in the clergy, but still, different). I know of women who study Nietzche, and he is downright brutal on the subject of female intelligence and equality, but he was a genius and they appreciate his thoughts in other areas.
A very short, undetailed description, but i think there may be points of interest here.
21 Jun 2006, 9:04 am
I think that is different because they may say, "I like what Nietzsche said about this and this, but I dislike that he was sexist". i.e. they actually critique him, praising certain things he said and disagreeing with others.
Whereas for christian women, usually it seems that they are unable to critique christianity in the way that a rational woman can critique Nietzsche. Often they seem incapable of saying ANYTHING negative about their religion. i.e. christian women do not typically say, "I like this and this in the bible, but all the sexist stuff is clearly wrong".
They do not seem capable of saying that any part of the bible is wrong. It is all right in their eyes, even the sexist and female hatred parts. They typically refuse to acknowledge that even part of their bible is wrong. They find any possible excuse they can to avoid saying, "That part of the bible is wrong".
Whereas the woman who likes Nietzsche handles it simply by saying, "He was wrong about women, but insightful on other topics". She acknowledge some points of his and disagree with other points of his. Christians usually do not do that with their religion, in fact they often frown upon any kind of questioning of any part of their religion. So I think it is different.
21 Jun 2006, 11:53 am
Some of it seems like the women that become born-again christians are just looking for something, anything, to latch onto. They may get more and more involved with a church because of the community, fellowship, shared interests, and lifestyles. It seems as though the weaker of them can get absorbed into what appears to me as collective insanity...and then want to spread it by claiming it as the "Word of God." And if you don't subscribe to the beliefs, their own beliefs are shaken and it angers them. This is from experience I've had with a few born-again christian women. Their belief in a god (if it wasn’t christianity, it’d be something else equally as distasteful) makes them feel more empowered...like they have this judgmental, militant god backing them up in everything they do. Like it gives them this pass to spread their collective, irrational insanity to other weak-minded people and forcing them into signing up to be a born-again christian. They get a feeling of self-satisfaction when they "save" someone. Save someone from what? Rationality? (As a side note: You can only be born once and you are born without god. No rebirth. And no birth gives you a religion.) And instead of telling their converts that their god is judgmental and militant, they say he is righteous. I have a hard time believing in anything other than my own self that ANYTHING is as powerful as their ideas of god.
So I think it's the women using the strength of the idea that their god is strong in order to make them feel more powerful rather than looking inward and finding their own strength inside them. The fact that the bible has these barbaric accounts towards women doesn't concern them. It's the power of the idea, not of the “Word of God.” The idea that there is something all-powerful watching over you is more sensational than coming to terms with the fact that you are in control of yourself and your own life. It’s an idea that can be used whenever something happens out of your control. It’s an idea that allows people (not just women) to think of themselves as the passenger with god at the wheel in the journey of their life. It's easier to place supernormal strength and knowledge on something that doesn't exist in the realm of what is real on earth rather than trying to test the boundaries and limitation of your own humanity and personal strength.
I know some of these comments will pi$$ some of ya’ll off, but they’re just my own opinions, not to be taken as a personal attack.
-Ann-
21 Jun 2006, 12:32 pm
I think that is different because they may say, "I like what Nietzsche said about this and this, but I dislike that he was sexist". i.e. they actually critique him, praising certain things he said and disagreeing with others.
Whereas for christian women, usually it seems that they are unable to critique christianity in the way that a rational woman can critique Nietzsche. Often they seem incapable of saying ANYTHING negative about their religion. i.e. christian women do not typically say, "I like this and this in the bible, but all the sexist stuff is clearly wrong".
They do not seem capable of saying that any part of the bible is wrong. It is all right in their eyes, even the sexist and female hatred parts. They typically refuse to acknowledge that even part of their bible is wrong. They find any possible excuse they can to avoid saying, "That part of the bible is wrong".
Whereas the woman who likes Nietzsche handles it simply by saying, "He was wrong about women, but insightful on other topics". She acknowledge some points of his and disagree with other points of his. Christians usually do not do that with their religion, in fact they often frown upon any kind of questioning of any part of their religion. So I think it is different.
Funny how you start making generalizations about women like some other guys on this site when you write about religion. You don't like Christianity. I get it. But you don't have to insult us by saying we are incapable of any negative discussion of the bible. I know several women that do, and a simple google search would bring you to sites where such conversations occur. If you actually cared about women's roles in the bible you would have done that, but since you couldn't even do something that simple I'll just assume that you're using women as a means of further bashing christianity.
21 Jun 2006, 2:32 pm
Please provide a list of these many religions which valued women. I am genuinely interested to know. However I am fairly certain that you will be unable to provide a list of *many* religions which valued women. Prove me wrong, if you can. I WILL acknowledge your point if you can credibly demonstrate that I am wrong.
However note that even if I do acknowledge your point, it is a different point to the topic of this thread. i.e. you are going off topic. This thread is about why women participate in a religion that insults them, not whether there are any religions which value women.
Actually emp, Xuincherguixe is right. The Gnostic Christians did value women as evidenced in the Gospel of Mary. Gnostic christianity was perhaps the most enlightened version of christianity. Early leaders of what became the Caotholic church saw it as a threat though, and persecuted them.
_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !
21 Jun 2006, 2:44 pm
Personally, I think that women are sexist against their fellow women on the first place. I would even say even more sexist then men are. In case of men, being or not being sexist depends on their "views" that evolved over time, which means it is statistics. But in case of women it is not statistics. Rather, it is their sexual attraction. The fact that they are attracted to men rather than women makes them sexist against their fellow women.
The reason I am not making similar argument about men being sexist against men is that sexual attraction in men and women work differently. In case of men, sexual attraction and admiration are two different things; in case of women they are one and the same. Consequently, it is possible for men to admire their own gender and still be straight; but such is not possible for women. In fact, most of the men admire their fellow men, whether it be famous sports star or political figure of whatever. Personally, I admire Albert Einstein, but it doesn't make me want to have sex with him. On the other hand, I don't have anything to admire about my girlfriend, but I am attached to her very much because she offers me emotional comfort and I feel like she is the person I can share all my thoughts with, etc.
FOr girls it is quite the opposite. On the one hand nice guys finish last. But on the other hand, nice guys can always be their friends. And women share far more things with their friends than with their boyfriends -- they even go as far as sharing with their friends how they are so sick of the rud behavior of their boyfriends -- at least thats what I read on some of the dating tips that I received. To make it worth, one of these dating tips indicated that when woman shares too much with you it is a red flag that you are going to be great friend but NOT a boyfriend! So, for a woman, a friend is someone to be attached to emotionally. On the other hand, the function of a boyfirend is someone to ADMIRE -- which is why toughness always takes precedence over niceness when it comes to choosing who the boyfriend is.
In other words I can summarize it as follows:
MEN:
successful fellow men ==> admire
Girlfriend ==>relate emotionally
WOMEN:
boyfriend ==> admire
Friend (whether men or women) ==> relate emotionally
As you can see from abouve diagram, both men and women end up admiring men, which makes it a no-win situation for women in terms of being admired.
I am going to bring two women who LJBF-ed me to back off my case:
Anne
http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=
http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=
Katie
http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=
In case of Anne, she met me in math class and she obviously liked me a lot. However, she didn't want to be in a relationship with me due to the fact that she looks for confidence in her boyfriend and the fact that I am so influenced by my mom implies that this just isn't me. HOwever, despite all that, she was seeing me every day and we were studying together all day long. She was cooking for me, inviting me to see a movie with her, to run with her, and even offered to go to California with me during the two weeks I was going to visit my mom. Given the fact that I don't believe in pre-marital sex for religious reasons, I simply can't see ONE SINGLE DIFFERENCE between this kind of friendship verses relationship. In fact, when she was trying to make me feel better, she asked me herself "how would our relationship be any different if we were in a relationship?" She also said that "you are my bestest friend, I would be devastated if I lost you as a friend, etc" SO the only way I can make sense of it is that she simply didn't want to give me a title of a "boyfriend" in order not to "give me credit" for being "independant" or "confident" which I am not. In other words, the word "boyfriend" for her is just a title of someone she is to admire, which has nothing to do with emotional attachment. IN OTHER WORDS WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT AS FAR AS ANNE IS CONCERNED, BOYFRIEND IS SIMPLY A TITLE, HTAT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN, SAY, A TITLE OF CHESS CHAMPION.
Moving on to Katie. In her case, when we just met she turned me down from a relationship on a basis that I should be happy with myself before I can be happy with others. However, she was more than willing to be my friend. In fact, she have said that this is exactly what friends are for, to provide me emotional happiness. THis is something relationship can't do because of potential problems while the two are together. In her own words "relationships are meant to come and go; friends are meant to last"; and when I am upset "friends are the ones to tell me that I am absolutely wonderful", on the other hand, relationship would be just the opposite -- it would require me to be happy with myself in order ot be "qualified". So in other words relationship is like a prise in some kind of sport to which I should be qualified. Friendship, on the other hand, is emotional support. SO far this is VERY similar to what happened with Anne.
Now, half a year later, I told her that I was no longer as upset as I used to be, and now I wanted a second chance for relationship because I was finally "happy with myself". After she have avoided the topic for a while, she have eventually told me that the other thing that turned her off is that when i was describing my ex as being "fat" I un-intentiallly implied negative connotation which turned her off since she is overweight herself. Then I corrected her misunderstanding that this wasn't what I meant and in fact it was an opposite statement, I was trying to say that being fat is fine with me since otherwise the other fat girl won't be my ex since she won't be my partner to start with. THE KEY POINT IS THAT SHE BELIEVED ME -- IN FACT SHE APPOLOGISED FOR HAVING BEEN IMMATURE (NOTICE PAST TENSE). Nevertheless she still only wanted to be my friend. Why? Again, because being boyfriend is equilvalent to winning a type of a medal. So, by "rules of dating game" I have already "striked out". So even though she admitted that she was immature DURING the time that I striked out, there is nothing she can do about the fact that I already have done it. That is, DATING GAME HAS A RULES. In fact she still kept telling me that the friendship that we had was trully great and if some time down the road it will lead to anything it would be "more than any relationship would ever bring". So yes she liked me. BUT ... she can't bend the RULES. Can't call me "boyfriend" after I "striked out".
In other words, I have two findings so far:
a)Friends= emotional support. Boyfriend = someone to admire
b)Dating game has RULES and once you strike out you are out
Now the summary of both parts is that
boyfriend = champion
So, going back to original topic, this would imply that BY DEFINITION women admire men and men alone. If they EVER admired women, then they would of had women for their boyfriends, given that their definition of boyfriend is a champion. So why won't they want their own to win the game???
By the way another interesting observation that I had is that I saw a lot of women hugging other women, while there is no such thing as men hugging other men. So who knows perhaps women LIKE hugging other women ... BUT, they can't call their fellow women their "boyfriends" because they always lose to men in all the competitions of strenghth, confidence, etc.
In much teh same way that women are looking for emotional support to males whom they have LJBF-ed, they do even more so with their fellow girlfriends. In other words, LJBF-ed males, as well as their female freinds are both in the same category. Both are excelent sources of emotional support, yet both lost in the "game" to their partners. So, the very fact that women LJBF ALL of their female freinds, 100% of them, alone would speak for the idea that they are sexist against women. THis implies that they would have no problem with bible having anti-woman prejudice since they are guilty of the same thing.
I know I got long winded and you might not keep track of it, so let me summarize
What I read in dating tips plus the two examples of women I have dealt with ==> Women define their boyfriend based on winning the game as opposed to emotional connection ==> The fact that women don't choose their fellow women for their partners implies that they believe that their fellow women are inferior to men ==> They won't have any problem with bible teaching female inferiority
21 Jun 2006, 3:06 pm
The reason I am not making similar argument about men being sexist against men is that sexual attraction in men and women work differently. In case of men, sexual attraction and admiration are two different things; in case of women they are one and the same. Consequently, it is possible for men to admire their own gender and still be straight; but such is not possible for women. In fact, most of the men admire their fellow men, whether it be famous sports star or political figure of whatever. Personally, I admire Albert Einstein, but it doesn't make me want to have sex with him. On the other hand, I don't have anything to admire about my girlfriend, but I am attached to her very much because she offers me emotional comfort and I feel like she is the person I can share all my thoughts with, etc.
FOr girls it is quite the opposite. On the one hand nice guys finish last. But on the other hand, nice guys can always be their friends. And women share far more things with their friends than with their boyfriends -- they even go as far as sharing with their friends how they are so sick of the rud behavior of their boyfriends -- at least thats what I read on some of the dating tips that I received. To make it worth, one of these dating tips indicated that when woman shares too much with you it is a red flag that you are going to be great friend but NOT a boyfriend! So, for a woman, a friend is someone to be attached to emotionally. On the other hand, the function of a boyfirend is someone to ADMIRE -- which is why toughness always takes precedence over niceness when it comes to choosing who the boyfriend is.
In other words I can summarize it as follows:
MEN:
successful fellow men ==> admire
Girlfriend ==>relate emotionally
WOMEN:
boyfriend ==> admire
Friend (whether men or women) ==> relate emotionally
As you can see from abouve diagram, both men and women end up admiring men, which makes it a no-win situation for women in terms of being admired.
I am going to bring two women who LJBF-ed me to back off my case:
Anne
http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=
http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=
Katie
http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=
In case of Anne, she met me in math class and she obviously liked me a lot. However, she didn't want to be in a relationship with me due to the fact that she looks for confidence in her boyfriend and the fact that I am so influenced by my mom implies that this just isn't me. HOwever, despite all that, she was seeing me every day and we were studying together all day long. She was cooking for me, inviting me to see a movie with her, to run with her, and even offered to go to California with me during the two weeks I was going to visit my mom. Given the fact that I don't believe in pre-marital sex for religious reasons, I simply can't see ONE SINGLE DIFFERENCE between this kind of friendship verses relationship. In fact, when she was trying to make me feel better, she asked me herself "how would our relationship be any different if we were in a relationship?" She also said that "you are my bestest friend, I would be devastated if I lost you as a friend, etc" SO the only way I can make sense of it is that she simply didn't want to give me a title of a "boyfriend" in order not to "give me credit" for being "independant" or "confident" which I am not. In other words, the word "boyfriend" for her is just a title of someone she is to admire, which has nothing to do with emotional attachment. IN OTHER WORDS WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT AS FAR AS ANNE IS CONCERNED, BOYFRIEND IS SIMPLY A TITLE, HTAT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN, SAY, A TITLE OF CHESS CHAMPION.
Moving on to Katie. In her case, when we just met she turned me down from a relationship on a basis that I should be happy with myself before I can be happy with others. However, she was more than willing to be my friend. In fact, she have said that this is exactly what friends are for, to provide me emotional happiness. THis is something relationship can't do because of potential problems while the two are together. In her own words "relationships are meant to come and go; friends are meant to last"; and when I am upset "friends are the ones to tell me that I am absolutely wonderful", on the other hand, relationship would be just the opposite -- it would require me to be happy with myself in order ot be "qualified". So in other words relationship is like a prise in some kind of sport to which I should be qualified. Friendship, on the other hand, is emotional support. SO far this is VERY similar to what happened with Anne.
Now, half a year later, I told her that I was no longer as upset as I used to be, and now I wanted a second chance for relationship because I was finally "happy with myself". After she have avoided the topic for a while, she have eventually told me that the other thing that turned her off is that when i was describing my ex as being "fat" I un-intentiallly implied negative connotation which turned her off since she is overweight herself. Then I corrected her misunderstanding that this wasn't what I meant and in fact it was an opposite statement, I was trying to say that being fat is fine with me since otherwise the other fat girl won't be my ex since she won't be my partner to start with. THE KEY POINT IS THAT SHE BELIEVED ME -- IN FACT SHE APPOLOGISED FOR HAVING BEEN IMMATURE (NOTICE PAST TENSE). Nevertheless she still only wanted to be my friend. Why? Again, because being boyfriend is equilvalent to winning a type of a medal. So, by "rules of dating game" I have already "striked out". So even though she admitted that she was immature DURING the time that I striked out, there is nothing she can do about the fact that I already have done it. That is, DATING GAME HAS A RULES. In fact she still kept telling me that the friendship that we had was trully great and if some time down the road it will lead to anything it would be "more than any relationship would ever bring". So yes she liked me. BUT ... she can't bend the RULES. Can't call me "boyfriend" after I "striked out".
In other words, I have two findings so far:
a)Friends= emotional support. Boyfriend = someone to admire
b)Dating game has RULES and once you strike out you are out
Now the summary of both parts is that
boyfriend = champion
So, going back to original topic, this would imply that BY DEFINITION women admire men and men alone. If they EVER admired women, then they would of had women for their boyfriends, given that their definition of boyfriend is a champion. So why won't they want their own to win the game???
By the way another interesting observation that I had is that I saw a lot of women hugging other women, while there is no such thing as men hugging other men. So who knows perhaps women LIKE hugging other women ... BUT, they can't call their fellow women their "boyfriends" because they always lose to men in all the competitions of strenghth, confidence, etc.
In much teh same way that women are looking for emotional support to males whom they have LJBF-ed, they do even more so with their fellow girlfriends. In other words, LJBF-ed males, as well as their female freinds are both in the same category. Both are excelent sources of emotional support, yet both lost in the "game" to their partners. So, the very fact that women LJBF ALL of their female freinds, 100% of them, alone would speak for the idea that they are sexist against women. THis implies that they would have no problem with bible having anti-woman prejudice since they are guilty of the same thing.
I know I got long winded and you might not keep track of it, so let me summarize
What I read in dating tips plus the two examples of women I have dealt with ==> Women define their boyfriend based on winning the game as opposed to emotional connection ==> The fact that women don't choose their fellow women for their partners implies that they believe that their fellow women are inferior to men ==> They won't have any problem with bible teaching female inferiority
I'll come back to this post later when I can figure out if this fills me with mirth or anger. You seem to be quite impressionable so I'll leave this to someone with much more patience and calm than I possess. I would suggest that the person whom replies to his post first should be female. An initial male response from this board would probably only make it worse.
21 Jun 2006, 8:38 pm
I think Sundy hit the nail on the head.
-------
I disagree with what Roman wrote. Please no-one think that I share Roman's views about women. Also, most of what he wrote has little or no relevance to or connection with this topic, in my opinion.
-------
You seem to think that generalizations are automatically wrong/bad. Some generalizations about women are correct. For example, women typically have bigger hips than men. Women typically choose to grow their hair longer than men.
I said TYPICALLY. I did NOT say ALL christian women.
-------
I already agreed with him on that point, but it is not directly relevant to this topic.
21 Jun 2006, 8:47 pm
Further to the discussion about Nietzsche and why I think it is a different situation than that of christian women:
Nietzsche gave us pearls of wisdom. You can admire him for his pearls of wisdom (without agreeing with EVERYTHING he wrote).
Whereas the Christian bible does not contain any pearls of wisdom. Actually, that is not entirely true, it DOES contain some pearls of wisdom, but in the entire christian bible, the number of pearls of wisdom I can count on 1 hand.
Furthermore, most of these few bits of wisdom in their bible are very basic/primitive and not particularly insightful. It is debatable whether they should be called "wisdom" or "obvious common sense". The Christian bible contains little or nothing that is insightful on the level that Nietzsche was.
Nietzsche was far, far more intelligent than the authors of the christian bible. If you read their bible, it is pretty obvious that the authors were little more than primitive savages with poor literary skills, who rambled on and on saying one obscene and unintelligent thing after the next (with some exceptions).
To quote the author of the S.A.B., talking about the christian bible:
Such an approach would result in a much better, but much smaller book. To make it a truly good book, though, would require massive surgery, and little would remain. For nearly all passages in the Bible are objectionable in one way or another. But with a little luck and much careful editing, perhaps a small pamphlet could be produced from the Bible -- one that could honestly be called good.
SAB
21 Jun 2006, 8:59 pm
Nietzsche gave us pearls of wisdom. You can admire him for his pearls of wisdom (without agreeing with EVERYTHING he wrote).
Whereas the Christian bible does not contain any pearls of wisdom. Actually, that is not entirely true, it DOES contain some pearls of wisdom, but in the entire christian bible, the number of pearls of wisdom I can count on 1 hand.
Furthermore, most of these few bits of wisdom in their bible are very basic/primitive and not particularly insightful. It is debatable whether they should be called "wisdom" or "obvious common sense". The Christian bible contains little or nothing that is insightful on the level that Nietzsche was.
To quote the author of the S.A.B., talking about the christian bible:
Such an approach would result in a much better, but much smaller book. To make it a truly good book, though, would require massive surgery, and little would remain. For nearly all passages in the Bible are objectionable in one way or another. But with a little luck and much careful editing, perhaps a small pamphlet could be produced from the Bible -- one that could honestly be called good.
SAB
Wait... I just noticed something... you just completely downed the bible again. I think we all get your point by now.
I am sorry if this is coming off as rude; I am tired right now.
21 Jun 2006, 9:12 pm
Barracuda -- Ah yes, how could I forget the wisdom of Proverbs:
* Beating your children with a rod is a sure sign of parental love. (Prov 13:24)
* Beating your children will make them less foolish. (Prov 22:15)
* Stay away from "strange women". (Prov 2:16-19).
* Virtuous woman are difficult to find. (Prov 31:10)
* Bad things only happen to bad people. (Prov 12:21)
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Women's pronouns |
20 Nov 2024, 3:16 pm |
| Where to meet women irl who are single |
Today, 1:47 pm |
| Struggling to attract women |
Today, 10:57 am |
| Link between Hernias and Autism in Women? |
24 Oct 2024, 11:33 am |
