LGBT Smashers

[Xsyven]

Dump his ***, and find someone better for you. Tell him you're looking to be more than someone else's plaything.

 

[Daysoo]

Dump his ***, and find someone better for you. Tell him you're looking to be more than someone else's plaything.

I've been seriously considering it, but the thing is, being with him has made me immensely happy.
I enjoy his company, his companionship.
I'd be lying if I said I was getting nothing out of the relationship.
He's fun, handsome, smart, and he has a great personality.
I've grown attached to him, if nothing else.
I'm seriously torn, because I really do want him to feel the same way about me as I feel about him. ;~;

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

talking to him about it is always an option don'tcha know

 

[Timbers]

I would definitely talk to him about it and how you feel. It might not get him to feel the same way about you (although it'd be awesome) but it'll hopefully draw some closure on the subject and maybe make a decision of whether or not to stay with him a little more easier to bare.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

i think i agree w/ Xsyven on this one. after hearing that i'd just leave or make him leave

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

i think i agree w/ Xsyven on this one. after hearing that i'd just leave or make him leave

we don't try speach first anymore?

 

[JigglyZelda003]

i think its an insult that i've been w/ said person, literally poured out my heart and soul for them then find im no different that our buddies in the relationship? at that point im gone before i do something bad.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

i think its an insult that i've been w/ said person, literally poured out my heart and soul for them then find im no different that our buddies in the relationship? at that point im gone before i do something bad.

possible he doesn't see it from your point of view, but that he can.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

well he went back to Desu promising momogomy though.......... but w/e thats just my view. in reality i probably would attempt talking, but it seems pointless after hearing that and you can't make people change so i don't think he can go to being the way Desu was hoping even if talked too.

 

[bored]

Well, at least he has someone to call a 'boyfriend.'

I saw my friend today with his boyfriend and it made me realize how lonely I am. I mean, I've always wanted a boyfriend, but seeing them together gave me a whole new perspective on having a relationship.

Oh college, please hurry!

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I'd dump his sorry *** too.

Smooth Criminal

 

[JigglyZelda003]

Well, at least he has someone to call a 'boyfriend.'

I saw my friend today with his boyfriend and it made me realize how lonely I am. I mean, I've always wanted a boyfriend, but seeing them together gave me a whole new perspective on having a relationship.

Oh college, please hurry!

meh i've given up on relationships mostly. blind hope is getting very irritating

 

[Timbers]

i think its an insult that i've been w/ said person, literally poured out my heart and soul for them then find im no different that our buddies in the relationship? at that point im gone before i do something bad.

well he went back to Desu promising momogomy though.......... but w/e thats just my view. in reality i probably would attempt talking, but it seems pointless after hearing that and you can't make people change so i don't think he can go to being the way Desu was hoping even if talked too.

I'd dump his sorry *** too.

Smooth Criminal

well you have to think about the kind of position he's in. Desu kinda already explained that it's not a one-sided relationship, and he does get something out of it from being with him. I think it'd be a mistake if he just up and left a potentially good thing.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

well you have to think about the kind of position he's in. Desu kinda already explained that it's not a one-sided relationship, and he does get something out of it from being with him. I think it'd be a mistake if he just up and left a potentially good thing.

Yeah, but at what cost? I don't think you would want to be reduced to little more than a ****-buddy if you were looking for an honest relationship with someone else. Would you? Judging from what Desu mentioned, it sounds like the guy wants to reduce him to little more than a side-order while compounding main dish after main dish. That doesn't bode well for either side of the equation; one will be insatiable and the other will be miserable because the other is insatiable.

Tell me how this is a good thing, bro.

This is just my opinion.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Ryusuta]

I think too many people are in a rush to take action based on what is clearly very limited knowledge of the situation Jiggly is in.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

>_> You mean Desu, Mr. O. Desu.

It's easy for me to say something like this because I was objectified in a similar fashion by someone I was supposed to ****ing marry. Imagine being used in every respect, INCLUDING sex, for two years straight.

I really don't want to talk about it, so I'll leave it at that. Again, Desu can make his own decisions. I just don't think it's fair for the guy to be head over feet in love with someone who sees him as little more than an entertaining diversion.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Xsyven]

Desu has posted the same sort of sad stories before, all about the same guy. I'm assuming Desu has tried talking to him. This doesn't seem like its a one-time thing. If Desu likes this guy as much as he says he does, I'm assuming he's already tried anything he could possibly do to keep it together. So I'm gonna guess that telling him to "talk to him about it" isn't really gonna help much. Been there, done that.

You deserve better. As tempting as it is, just to be close to him, being in a one-sided relationship is the worst feeling ever. It's not worth the emotional damage, the constant wishing for something more. There's nothing more emotionally damaging than giving your heart to someone, but getting nothing in return but pleasuring him more, on his own terms. I've had the experience. I see it as a red flag now. Quit while your ahead.

If you still have strong feelings for someone who doesn't share them back, and you keep seeing them, it's just gonna reopen old wounds every time.

Find someone you don't have to convince into a relationship.

 

[Timbers]

Yeah, but at what cost? I don't think you would want to be reduced to little more than a ****-buddy if you were looking for an honest relationship with someone else. Would you? Judging from what Desu mentioned, it sounds like the guy wants to reduce him to little more than a side-order while compounding main dish after main dish. That doesn't bode well for either side of the equation; one will be insatiable and the other will be miserable because the other is insatiable.

Tell me how this is a good thing, bro.

This is just my opinion.

Smooth Criminal

it's why i said to talk and get some **** straightened out. The guy doesn't seem too bright to say stuff like that but without actually knowing the guy (like Desu does) I can't say for certain that he actually meant what he said.

It's just my take on it, I don't know if this has been a grueling one-sided relationship but Desu hasn't really made it seem that way.

You deserve better. As tempting as it is, just to be close to him, being in a one-sided relationship is the worst feeling ever. It's not worth the emotional damage, the constant wishing for something more. There's nothing more emotionally damaging than giving your heart to someone, but getting nothing in return but pleasuring him more, on his own terms. I've had the experience. I see it as a red flag now. Quit while your ahead.

It doesn't seem like it's too one-sided from what Desu has said, it's just the guy's idea of a relationship seems to be different than Desu's. If he hasn't already, it should just be a talk to get the all the cards on the table. Not a "lets help mend our relationship" talk, but just to see where they both stand in this. I'm confident in saying that things will go much smoother if there aren't questions left unanswered if he sincerely feels there's nothing between them anymore.

 

[Ryusuta]

>_> You mean Desu, Mr. O. Desu.

It's easy for me to say something like this because I was objectified in a similar fashion by someone I was supposed to ****ing marry.

And that's exactly why you're not qualified to make the judgment call in this case. You're too eager to equate his scenario with your own. You want to see the similarities so that you can feel good about dumping someone by proxy.

You're not looking at the scenario objectively, and that is where you are making your mistake. People are unique and no two relationships are the same.

For one thing, we only have the information that Jiggly has given us. And while I have no reason to believe that he'd lie about anything, we also have to face the fact that he's going to tell the story as HE sees it, which might or might not be the way things are.

As such, any advice we give would only serve to reinforce what he already wants to do, but wants to justify.

Different people have different perspectives on life and love. Isn't that why we're here?

 

[Xsyven]

People are unique and no two relationships are the same.

Rofl, no they aren't, and yeah they are. Sure, specifics are all different, but that's about it.

Love is simple, which is what makes it so complicated. It boils down to two things. Sex, and commitment. Without both of them in tact, things fall apart. Two people on different pages just don't work. After a while, you realize that you're just fighting the same battles over and over again.

But honestly, who are any of us to say anything. Do what makes you happy. Just make sure to think of how happy it makes you, and how you think you'll be feeling in the long run. If you don't see a future, don't waste your time perusing the inevitable.

 

[Ryusuta]

Rofl, no they aren't, and yeah they are. Sure, specifics are all different, but that's about it.

Love is simple, which is what makes it so complicated. It boils down to two things. Sex, and commitment.

Technically speaking, neither one of those things are required for love. This is just the westernized, clean-cut perception of what love is, which is anything but accurate.

Without getting too philosophical, who is to say that polygamy is immoral? For that matter, since when was sexual attraction the only basis for affection?

There are many, MANY faces to love, and none of them are the same.

 

[Red Arremer]

But honestly, who are any of us to say anything. Do what makes you happy. Just make sure to think of how happy it makes you, and how you think you'll be feeling in the long run. If you don't see a future, don't waste your time perusing the inevitable.

You're posting what I wanted to say... I wasn't sure if I should, so I kinda didn't say anything on that matter. I wanted to post twice already about it, haha.

Anyway yea... It may sound awkward, but maybe you should give your relationship a more rational look. Be objective: is there a chance he will ever return your feelings; if no, then why bother with continous emotional pain? If there is a chance, then you might want to put the cards on the table, as Timbers said, and talk with him about your positions on how a relationship looks like. If he still won't respond, dump him. Also, think about your own personal gains: Temporary happiness, but at the cost of strong pain in the long run aren't gonna go to be good. Especially not if he suddenly presents you his "real" boyfriend he got to know, if you catch my drift.

I know it sounds a bit strange because rationality and emotions normally don't go too well together, but it's definitely giving a base to plan on further.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

Sir Orion you might want to reedit and put Desus name in those post, not mine >.>

Technically speaking, neither one of those things are required for love. This is just the westernized, clean-cut perception of what love is, which is anything but accurate.

Without getting too philosophical, who is to say that polygamy is immoral? For that matter, since when was sexual attraction the only basis for affection?

There are many, MANY faces to love, and none of them are the same.

while Sex is overated a bit, but commitment is important otherwise people wouldn't mind being cheated on now would they?. polygamy, i'll let others interperate that as it is.

but Desu wants monogomy, the guy came back promising monogomy then wanted to go back to "friends w/ benefit" and even looped him in that group knowing what he, Desu, wanted.

 

[Ryusuta]

while Sex is overated a bit, but commitment is important otherwise people wouldn't mind being cheated on now would they?

Let me put it to you this way - what about people that don't? When you use terms that are deliberately anathema like "cheated on" in order to put a negative twist on an idea, of COURSE you're going to dislike it. But I'm going to surprise you a little bit with some things: first, humans aren't naturally monogamous. It is, in fact, an unintelligent instinct that stifles relationships, harbors resentment and jealousy, creates selfishness and insecurity, and is generally inefficient.

I'm not advocating dating multiple people at once if exclusivity is agreed upon. I'm saying don't take it as a given that it should be implied for everyone. I would actually put forth to you that open marriages (and I know you're not married, but I'm setting an example) can actually be more stable than marriages to single spouses.

It's even more important to have a clear understanding of what lines are drawn where when you're dating someone, for this very reason. If you HAVE specifically pledged to only see each other, that's one thing. He is then breaking his word to you and is a liar with no regard to your relationship, and more weight could be given to the consideration to dump him (though discussion should still take place).

What I'm saying is that you are making too many unquestioned assumptions about life and love, and you need to step back and think bout them for a bit.

Best of luck to you no matter what. I really do hope things turn out alright for both of you.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

i think most humans are more monogomous when it comes to more intimate relations thats why most polygamous ideas and relations don't really come up very often, sans "friends w/ benefits" otherwise people wouldn't look for one person to be with at all.

im not really seeing the benefit of open marriages. when you marry someone you make a commitment to one person theoretically right? otherwise the whole point of marrying is kinda silly when you could just stay best friends w/ benefits.

i am not implying it should be for everyone, some people can't just stay w/ one person, thats why i said take polygamy as w/e they/you see it.

but im not one w/ a bf problem though.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

humans ARE monogomous by nature because they are greedy by nature. They find a person they love and they want that person all to themselves. There are varying degrees of this want. Some people are just happy if the other person comes home to him at night even if he sows his wild oats all over the place. Some (like my roommate and his girlfriend) aren't comfortable if the other is more than 3 feet away from them for more than a couple minutes at a time.

(happy mediums tend to be the best)

oh and, cheated on has a negative connotation because it IS negative. You can't cheat when you are in an open relationship, but if it's NOT an open relationship then, yes, you are betraying trust... which is a bad thing.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

i like the use of "wild oats" Sonic lol

oh and since its next weekend what is anyone planning to do for easter, if anything? i had to move my birthday party over cause its on easter sunday again.... D:<

 

[Smooth Criminal]

And that's exactly why you're not qualified to make the judgment call in this case. You're too eager to equate his scenario with your own. You want to see the similarities so that you can feel good about dumping someone by proxy.

Well, I really hate to sound like a ****, but what gives you the right to tell me I'm not qualified for something?

That's part and parcel to dispensing an opinion, Orion. Basing it off your own personal experiences. I've been in a similar situation, one where my lover had made it abundantly clear that she was just using me to get by. Throw her kid into that equation and I was little more than a *** dispenser, a small bankroll, and a babysitter. It wasn't the best two years of my god**** life and I knew it, but I persisted anyway because I felt I couldn't go anywhere else or be with anyone else.

Sitting back and musing like an existentialist doesn't achieve anything. Love is what you make it, sure, but if Desu says something along the lines of "gee, my boyfriend just said that I'm nothing but a **** buddy and that he wants to pursue other people, That hurts me a little" then there's something wrong. And I'm sure as hell not going to stand here and give him a lecture about Zen philosophy or some other bull****, to tell him that even though his feelings are valid that he should open up his mind when it's his heart that's getting ****ed over. I'm going to tell him as I see it.

Again, personally, I don't care. I'm just dispensing my opinion on the account that Desu volunteered this information for the purpose of ascertaining an opinion. I agree with what Xsyven said: Do whatever it is that makes you happy. But don't do it without asking yourself a couple of questions first.

We're nothing but signs sticking out of the ground somewhere on the interstate of your life, to be either dismissed casually or to be followed loosely.

Edit: Oh, and don't ever imply that I wanna dump someone by proxy just to make my sorry *** feel good. I was the one who was kicked to the curb in that relationship I draw parallels to, not the other way around. I'm a firm believer in hashing out problems through talking, but there are some things that you can't absolve. You can't change people and you certainly can't change what they want.

Smooth Criminal

 

[JigglyZelda003]

humans ARE monogomous by nature because they are greedy by nature. They find a person they love and they want that person all to themselves.

Since people are greedy by nature wouldn't that mean some want multiple people too cause they are greedy and unsatisfied by one?

 

[1048576]

Humans are also naturally heterosexual and not transgendered. The argument holds no water. There are always exceptions. I would not mind a polygamous relationship, for example. For me, honestly, the only reason I care about marriage is the economic and legal/social benefits.

 

[Red Arremer]

Humans are also naturally heterosexual

This is wrong. Humans are, like every other animal, naturally bisexual. <_<

It's the (mainly Western) society that makes such a big deal out of homosexual interactions.

 

[Teran]

This is wrong. Humans are, like every other animal, naturally bisexual. <_<

Scientific evidence please otherwise that's nothing but idle chatter.

 

[Morrigan]

IMO humans are born asexual. They develop their sexual preferences through time.

 

[Red Arremer]

Scientific evidence please otherwise that's nothing but idle chatter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68_vlLD60Y

Edit:
There's no such thing as "predestination" when it comes to nature. Nature loves to play a lot, and there's so much things that aren't there for efficiency. I just don't see how homosexuality should be the only exception.

 

[Teran]

Interesting.

I'd still rather some kind of scientific journal than a National Geographic program though >_<

 

[Red Arremer]

I could only offer you a German book about it. lol

Written by a zoologist. So he kinda knows what he's talking about. =P

As said, nature is odd. There are things which just aren't explainable other than Mother Nature fooling around.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

Since people are greedy by nature wouldn't that mean some want multiple people too cause they are greedy and unsatisfied by one?

that operates under a few assumptions:
a- that all other benefits of the relationship would remain intact.
i.e. if I sleep with 3 other people becuase once person can't satisfy me, will that first person still maintain the other things he does because he's my boyfriend? I.e., will he care about me when I'm having a bad day? Will he take me out once in a while? Will he hold my hand while we're walking? Will he even stay with me? Etc.

b- that more=better.
Who says getting it from 3 discrete sources is even going to be much better than getting it from only one?

c- that these other sources would give me what I want.
booty calls =/= relationships.



basically if you want a relationship, and you know that "branching out" is going to hurt your relationship, you need to ask yourself "Is it really worth it?" Psychological needs (companionship) are ranked higher than physical needs (sex). Which is to say that, while sex is more basic, and probably needs to be met FIRST, as long as that desire is being met ENOUGH, then the companionship is more important and it would be foolish to throw away companionship for extra sex when you're getting enough as it is. the Nymphomaniac may disagree, but the normal psyche does not.... hence monogomous relationships.

 

[deepseadiva]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68_vlLD60Y

The music to that video was incredibly chirpy.

I had to quite once it started getting into the intricacies of gay orangutan sex.

 

[Ryusuta]

(I hope you guys don't mind if I do a little skipping around as I address these points. There's several things that I wish to catch up on, and I wanted to change the order - while keeping the individual points in context - in order to address these things more fluidly.)

humans ARE monogomous by nature because they are greedy by nature. They find a person they love and they want that person all to themselves.

Let me put this another way: if you are in an agreeably open relationship, then there's no need to put your paw over your metaphorical bone and growl at anyone that gets too close, simply because you don't perceive of the other person as a threat, the way we're conditioned to now.

It does raise an interesting point, however, that I wish to address. In today's society in which sexual dichotomy is kept to a minimum, it should be noted that open relationships work best if all parties involved come to know each other and understand the complexities of each relationship.

Once two or more people come together, the other people are no longer thought of as outsiders. It's not "them, over there." It's "us, in this relationship." Does that mean that jealousy and distrust and everything else that come with human nature is suddenly thrown out the window? Of course not. It simply means that our way of associating relationships with other people has changed.

basically if you want a relationship, and you know that "branching out" is going to hurt your relationship, you need to ask yourself "Is it really worth it?" Psychological needs (companionship) are ranked higher than physical needs (sex). Which is to say that, while sex is more basic, and probably needs to be met FIRST, as long as that desire is being met ENOUGH, then the companionship is more important and it would be foolish to throw away companionship for extra sex when you're getting enough as it is. the Nymphomaniac may disagree, but the normal psyche does not.... hence monogomous relationships.

For accusing a person of making assumptions, it's actually you that's making an awful lot of silly assumptions, here.

The first is that polygamy is based entirely on sexual/physical desire. In actuality, a person with multiple lovers is actually in a BETTER position to receive emotional security because they have different people that appeal to different aspects of their personality. In monogamous relationships, people fall into a rut because they find that there are certain things they dislike about each other and tend to avoid those things in favor of relatively neutral "safe" activities like sitting and home and watching TV; feeling they're doing each other a favor by doing so. Even more importantly, they know what things will set the other person off if they say them, so they keep them to themselves to spare them. But the person getting "spared" from this anger actually winds up more upset because their partner won't speak to them. And so on and so forth it goes.

We've all been there. You can have the truest, most reliable friend in the world, and yet know that there are just some things you can't discuss with that person. Not discussing those things could lead to repressing them, which in turn could cause other psychological difficulties down the line.

And getting back to the original point, while monogamous marriages certain CAN work over a long period of time, the problem is that the single-minded dedication to one person is exactly what causes most relationships to flounder anyway. It's not that either one is a bad person, it's just that humans can't do the exact same things every single day and continue to attach the same emotions to it. Thus, love becomes automatic, mechanical. To recycle an old cliche, the "spark" goes out of things. Then when they again feel emotion towards someone, they are made to feel bad about it. Not because they're doing anything different toward their spouse, mind you. In this hypothetical case, the person still does the same things they did before for their spouse.

And whether the person decides to cheat or not, both of them are meanwhile finding the time to harbor suspicion towards each other. The mindset is "This person is MINE. Love only works with TWO PEOPLE, and I think he's breaking the rules." They become selfish kids with a brand new toy. And why? Because western society (and I won't indicate the true sources of blame, but we know what they are) arbitrarily came in and said "Even though it's emotionally crippling and stifling for two people to see only each other; and even though most such relationships fail, this is the only good, pure way to do things." And people, not wanting to offend The Great Society(TM) believe it.

Even you, whom I am addressing this to, automatically make these connections between open relationships and sexual, unthinking, lust. To wit:

that operates under a few assumptions:
a- that all other benefits of the relationship would remain intact.
i.e. if I sleep with 3 other people becuase once person can't satisfy me, will that first person still maintain the other things he does because he's my boyfriend? I.e., will he care about me when I'm having a bad day? Will he take me out once in a while? Will he hold my hand while we're walking? Will he even stay with me? Etc.

Tell me this: why WOULDN'T he? Even though you're allowed to be with other people, you're still in a dedicated, caring relationship with him.

Let me put it another way: what if there was a relationship in which sex wasn't a factor, and yet you held close to someone for support and love? And what if they didn't mind that you had this same relationship with other people because they know that how you feel towards other people in no way affects how you feel towards them? That's called friendship.

The involvement of sex can indeed create new rules responsibilities for two consenting adult parties for the risks associated with the practice. Therefore, you do indeed need to have an increased commitment to your lover when you begin having physical sex, as a societal imperative. Assuming you fill this role properly, however, it would be selfish and unnecessary to ask anything more.

Our implanted desire to be with a single spouse also stems from our basic distrust of people. We assume that if we only love ONE person, the chances that they won't turn out to be a freak that tries to hurt you will be a lot better. The more people you trust and love, though, the more likely it will be that one of them is insane and want to hurt you. Let's look at that, though. Say that you're in a committed relationship with three people. One of them turns out to be a hateful person that only wants you for sex and constantly curses you out. Therefore you tell him you no longer want to be with him and want him out of your life. In this case, you have the emotional safety net of two other lovers that can help you through the difficult time and protect you in your time of weakness and loneliness.

In single-lover relationships, when one of the people breaks things off? What happens? We should all KNOW what happens. You feel vulnerable, unloved, scared, and constantly wonder what you did wrong. And that's just the person that DUMPED the other person. The closest thing you have to that emotional safety net is close friends and family, many of which could be in their own relationships and therefore not have the dedication needed to help you through your crippling emotional state. The stronger people can pick up the pieces and seek out new love (with the same possibility for failure now looming even closer overhead). This leads to "bounce-back" relationships where a person dates someone not because they want a real relationship but because they want to feel loved and lovable (tell me, where's the honor in THAT?). The weaker ones? Well... we know what happens to them.

b- that more=better.
Who says getting it from 3 discrete sources is even going to be much better than getting it from only one?

I do, for one. Again, I've never come across a relationship that was an exact match. They don't even do that in most storybooks, it's just that implausible. At the risk of sounding crass (and I'm risking that a lot for people that aren't taking time to heed the logic of my words), you don't wear the same clothes every day, and you don't eat the same food every day. There are certain clothes, foods, and people that all complement various different moods and aspects of one's personality and physical desire. I know from personal experience (and you'll notice that I have done everything possible to avoid anecdotal discussion up to this point for fear that it would taint my perspective on things) that the single person that satisfied even all of my PHYSICAL desires would look freakish, because some of those desires aren't even compatible with each other. I could toss some of those desires by the wayside in favor of fulfilling other desires as dictated by society, but why not satisfy as many of them as I can if I'm able to do so without harming anyone?

c- that these other sources would give me what I want.

booty calls =/= relationships.

You're right. Booty calls AREN'T relationships. As such, this really has no bearing on this conversation, because we're not talking about booty calls, here. We're not talking about eople that just like to have random flings and then ignore people. What you did was ASSOCIATE the two ideas with each other, when they're two completely different things. What we're discussing is committed, loving relationships involving any number of people. It could be two. If all needs are truly met and no further desire is held by either party, then there is nothing wrong with that. For that matter, though, it could be six. Why not? The love's still there. The commitment is still there. The only thing that's missing is the arbitrary exclusivity.

Well, I really hate to sound like a ****, but what gives you the right to tell me I'm not qualified for something?

That's part and parcel to dispensing an opinion, Orion. Basing it off your own personal experiences.

While you're right that I might have come down too hard on you, my fundamental point still stands. It wasn't your opinion that bothered me, in and of itself. It was the suggestion that you gave as relates to your opinion, which is something different entirely.

You'll notice that the only suggestion I've offered so far has been - in essence - to think about what they're doing and understand the possible motivations and consequences of those actions.

You're right that I'm no more qualified to judge on this situation than you are. I'm also no less qualified. As such, I think it prudent to recommend AGAINST hasty and irresponsible actions, don't you?

 

[Xsyven]

Orion, have you ever been in a long lasting relationship with someone you loved, then been dumped?