Comments on: Better late than never, Kandinsky Beaumont http://islandofpain.com/2009/02/17/better-late-than-never-kandinsky-beaumont/ Living BDSM as a Second Life and in Real Life Wed, 16 May 2012 17:17:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Happy New Year – How has your year been? – Island of Pain http://islandofpain.com/2009/02/17/better-late-than-never-kandinsky-beaumont/comment-page-1/#comment-3970 Happy New Year – How has your year been? – Island of Pain Tue, 05 Jan 2010 06:59:35 +0000 http://islandofpain.com/?p=458#comment-3970 [...] really good discussions during the past year, who will ever forget the wonderful statement made by Kandinsky Beaumont who claimed, without any doubt, that people into BDSM are more accepting towards Trafficking. Not a [...] [...] really good discussions during the past year, who will ever forget the wonderful statement made by Kandinsky Beaumont who claimed, without any doubt, that people into BDSM are more accepting towards Trafficking. Not a [...]

]]> By: LordSir Ninetails http://islandofpain.com/2009/02/17/better-late-than-never-kandinsky-beaumont/comment-page-1/#comment-3201 LordSir Ninetails Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:05:03 +0000 http://islandofpain.com/?p=458#comment-3201 Oh God, for a moment Cloud, I thought I was reading Jankowiak again. LordSir smiles. Nevertheless, I do think you have hit upon a subject that could use a little more light shed on it. It has me thinking that sexual desire could be the "be all" to a short-term, say one-night stand, type of BDSM relationship or it could simply be the beginning of a long-term BDSM relationship in which it could go through stages to include the initial attraction of two(or more) BDSM people by sexual desire and then go on to a passionate love of the couple/group which then matures into a companionate love within the group. I can also see the possibility of just the initial sexual desire and then the following of a companionate love between the couple/group, bypassing a romantic/passionate stage. I also see some scenarios where the short-term sexual desire coupling is continuosly repeated with a complete break from one another each time. It really depends on what the mental makeup of the couple/group is and what each is really looking for. Another aspect to ponder is how does the couple/group retrace their stages so as not to lose their passion or sexual desire for one another once they have moved on to a latter stage such as the companionate love? I think we could agree that we often play on the edge with one anothers emotions-its what really makes the scene hot and pushes our boundaries a little further than was thought to be comfortable. But, in that moment, as you push past your comfort zone, is that passionate love you feel? Is that what gets you past it? Not just sexual desire? At that point, can you ever go back to wanting only sexual desire sated? And then, when its all over, and your thinking about what a great experience you just had, do you not crave the companionate love, to share in the knowing with the only other person/s that know what you achieved? The tripartite tension is shown in the microcosm of a BDSM scene: The Initial Attraction, The Passionate Play, and the Aftercare. It also works as an outline to different types of BDSM relationships: The overnight fucktoy, the initial 24/7 live-in relationship, and the been-there/done-that relationship. Okay, so I am making fun of my own various relationships, but you kind of get the point I think. Uh-oh, did I hear the whistle of a mortar coming my way? -LordSir Ninetails Oh God, for a moment Cloud, I thought I was reading Jankowiak again. LordSir smiles.
Nevertheless, I do think you have hit upon a subject that could use a little more light shed on it. It has me thinking that sexual desire could be the “be all” to a short-term, say one-night stand, type of BDSM relationship or it could simply be the beginning of a long-term BDSM relationship in which it could go through stages to include the initial attraction of two(or more) BDSM people by sexual desire and then go on to a passionate love of the couple/group which then matures into a companionate love within the group. I can also see the possibility of just the initial sexual desire and then the following of a companionate love between the couple/group, bypassing a romantic/passionate stage. I also see some scenarios where the short-term sexual desire coupling is continuosly repeated with a complete break from one another each time. It really depends on what the mental makeup of the couple/group is and what each is really looking for. Another aspect to ponder is how does the couple/group retrace their stages so as not to lose their passion or sexual desire for one another once they have moved on to a latter stage such as the companionate love? I think we could agree that we often play on the edge with one anothers emotions-its what really makes the scene hot and pushes our boundaries a little further than was thought to be comfortable. But, in that moment, as you push past your comfort zone, is that passionate love you feel? Is that what gets you past it? Not just sexual desire? At that point, can you ever go back to wanting only sexual desire sated? And then, when its all over, and your thinking about what a great experience you just had, do you not crave the companionate love, to share in the knowing with the only other person/s that know what you achieved? The tripartite tension is shown in the microcosm of a BDSM scene: The Initial Attraction, The Passionate Play, and the Aftercare.
It also works as an outline to different types of BDSM relationships: The overnight fucktoy, the initial 24/7 live-in relationship, and the been-there/done-that relationship.
Okay, so I am making fun of my own various relationships, but you kind of get the point I think. Uh-oh, did I hear the whistle of a mortar coming my way? -LordSir Ninetails

]]> By: Cloud http://islandofpain.com/2009/02/17/better-late-than-never-kandinsky-beaumont/comment-page-1/#comment-3200 Cloud Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:30:55 +0000 http://islandofpain.com/?p=458#comment-3200 I think the tension between “sexual desire, passionate/romantic love, and companion/comfort love” is relevant to boundaries, roles and ritualizations in BDSM, absolutely. BDSM is, of those, sexual desire - though it is more than that, else non-sexual D/s would not be so commonly satisfying. BDSM involves play with self, relationship, eroticism, and power in ways many vanilla people are un-comfortable to analyze themselves or their sexuality. Yet as a limited relationship, if those are the choices, the most healthy and safe categorization of BDSM play is "sexual desire" in my opinion. I think this is especially true for beginners, whether they are relative strangers, or an established couple starting with BDSM, because I think establishing mental separation of BDSM space and time from all else serves to protect one from the surprises one may run into. Safety is not just physical; it is relational and psychological. There's considerable realism and realistic appraisal of ourselves and situations in BDSM, even if it also involves healthy active imagination. In my primary BDSM relationship - well, the relationship is not just BDSM. I am lucky enough that my partner is as kinky as I am, and we do not suffer the tension a vanilla and kinky couple do. In other BDSM relationships I might enjoy, I would have to say sexual desire - but self aware and empathetic sexual desire. I could relax with a play partner who understood that we play with our sexuality, without it necessarily mandating a romantic idealized forever-paired context to avoid being sinful or nasty. Yet I could not relax with an insistance that emotions could be entirely uninvolved, either; I don't think people work that way either psychologically or physically (hormones, endorphins etc affect the brain after all). What makes the paradox work for me, of BDSM being just, and NOT just, sex, is discipline; one's own internal and the shared and honored ritualized definitions of boundaries, responsibilities, roles, and explicitly articulated limits. Ideally, both dominants and submissives are experts in being aware of and articulating all this. Realistically, it is always a shared effort, and that's one reason delayed gratification and anticipation become very familiar to both Doms and subs. To me, BDSM is very sophisicated, disciplined social interaction, as well as something that taps primal, primitive raw eroticism. I think the tension between “sexual desire, passionate/romantic love, and companion/comfort love” is relevant to boundaries, roles and ritualizations in BDSM, absolutely. BDSM is, of those, sexual desire – though it is more than that, else non-sexual D/s would not be so commonly satisfying. BDSM involves play with self, relationship, eroticism, and power in ways many vanilla people are un-comfortable to analyze themselves or their sexuality. Yet as a limited relationship, if those are the choices, the most healthy and safe categorization of BDSM play is “sexual desire” in my opinion. I think this is especially true for beginners, whether they are relative strangers, or an established couple starting with BDSM, because I think establishing mental separation of BDSM space and time from all else serves to protect one from the surprises one may run into. Safety is not just physical; it is relational and psychological. There’s considerable realism and realistic appraisal of ourselves and situations in BDSM, even if it also involves healthy active imagination.

In my primary BDSM relationship – well, the relationship is not just BDSM. I am lucky enough that my partner is as kinky as I am, and we do not suffer the tension a vanilla and kinky couple do. In other BDSM relationships I might enjoy, I would have to say sexual desire – but self aware and empathetic sexual desire. I could relax with a play partner who understood that we play with our sexuality, without it necessarily mandating a romantic idealized forever-paired context to avoid being sinful or nasty. Yet I could not relax with an insistance that emotions could be entirely uninvolved, either; I don’t think people work that way either psychologically or physically (hormones, endorphins etc affect the brain after all).

What makes the paradox work for me, of BDSM being just, and NOT just, sex, is discipline; one’s own internal and the shared and honored ritualized definitions of boundaries, responsibilities, roles, and explicitly articulated limits. Ideally, both dominants and submissives are experts in being aware of and articulating all this. Realistically, it is always a shared effort, and that’s one reason delayed gratification and anticipation become very familiar to both Doms and subs. To me, BDSM is very sophisicated, disciplined social interaction, as well as something that taps primal, primitive raw eroticism.

]]> By: LordSir Ninetails http://islandofpain.com/2009/02/17/better-late-than-never-kandinsky-beaumont/comment-page-1/#comment-3199 LordSir Ninetails Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:57:18 +0000 http://islandofpain.com/?p=458#comment-3199 Cloud, I see you went back and edited your earlier post with the inclusion of the article from William Jankowiak. It was a nice article. The question is which of these "loves" do you think has the most importance in, or relevance to, a BDSM relationship? Yes, in some BDSM relationships all three are present to one degree or another, but which one do you personally use the most and which one do you look for the most in a play partner? This question is intended for anyone who wishes to respond to it (and for anyone who wants to analyze their current BDSM relationship). -LordSir Ninetails Cloud, I see you went back and edited your earlier post with the inclusion of the article from William Jankowiak. It was a nice article. The question is which of these “loves” do you think has the most importance in, or relevance to, a BDSM relationship? Yes, in some BDSM relationships all three are present to one degree or another, but which one do you personally use the most and which one do you look for the most in a play partner? This question is intended for anyone who wishes to respond to it (and for anyone who wants to analyze their current BDSM relationship). -LordSir Ninetails

]]> By: LordSir Ninetails http://islandofpain.com/2009/02/17/better-late-than-never-kandinsky-beaumont/comment-page-1/#comment-3195 LordSir Ninetails Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:59:22 +0000 http://islandofpain.com/?p=458#comment-3195 Perhaps I should expound upon what I mean by adoring my pets. It means to show affection and love for who they are, what they are, and for the gift they give in their submission. It means a shared euphoria in those moments of BDSM perfection. It means an exclusive personal experience with one another. It means a retained inner knowing of some of what lies within both of our souls. It means finding a fundamental element of our being and of what is really important in our lives. It means we are both there for the other when we shed off our masks of identity and are naked to the light of truth about ourselves. And so on. As you can see from this however, it can overwhelm the senses and ones sensibility and be easily mistaken for being "in love" with someone. I really like the responses Delicia and Cloud gave and welcome all other points of view.-LordSir Ninetails Perhaps I should expound upon what I mean by adoring my pets. It means to show affection and love for who they are, what they are, and for the gift they give in their submission. It means a shared euphoria in those moments of BDSM perfection. It means an exclusive personal experience with one another. It means a retained inner knowing of some of what lies within both of our souls. It means finding a fundamental element of our being and of what is really important in our lives. It means we are both there for the other when we shed off our masks of identity and are naked to the light of truth about ourselves. And so on.
As you can see from this however, it can overwhelm the senses and ones sensibility and be easily mistaken for being “in love” with someone. I really like the responses Delicia and Cloud gave and welcome all other points of view.-LordSir Ninetails

]]> By: Cloud http://islandofpain.com/2009/02/17/better-late-than-never-kandinsky-beaumont/comment-page-1/#comment-3194 Cloud Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:00:55 +0000 http://islandofpain.com/?p=458#comment-3194 LordSir Ninetails, I think partly you are talking about boundaries in BDSM relationships. It makes me think of a continuing theme of the television show "Sex in the City" - can a woman have sex like a man? Or what the writers really meant - can women OR men or anyone ever "just" have sex? We ritualize BDSM interactions and relationships, not only because it's fun, but to protect all parties from confusion of fantasy and reality. We do this partly due to our self interest but also due to our ethics - we desire to avoid harm to ourselves and also to our playmates. That care, that concern, that mutual exchange of responsibility for the other, for the well being of our playmates could be called a form of love. Love comes in as many forms as does relationship itself; parent-child, siblings, friends, fuck-buddies, lifemates... For me, recognizing the boundaries in relationships means I take the word "love" very seriously, but I do not avoid it. Like Delicia, I am not sure I could have a BDSM relationship, even a passing one, without some sense of trust, respect, and personal interest in the particular person I wanted to play with; I'd need to have some sense that I saw part of the essence of the other. My relationship limits might not be as exclusive as a monogamous pair bonding, but Delicia I agree, I could not submit to OR dominate long term someone for whom I did not have affection, respect, trust, appreciation, enjoyment. I am trusting the other, as either a domme or a sub, with my sexual expression; and in RL I am also trusting them, one way or another, with my physical well being and safety. That's not a small thing; if it were, I probably not be so turned on by the exchange of trust (as well as of power). My love for my Master is enjoyably part of the love I share with the entire man; it has facets and levels I cannot share with any other being. But I also genuinely care for, love, all those I choose to play with, even if the relationship is limited to interaction online in SL. It doesn't mean I am in love with them or want to have their babies, be their therapist, or even see them outside of the safe negotiated boundaries of BDSM; not all can become friends. But I care for them more and in particular ways that I do not care for those I do NOT choose to play with, and I allow them to care for me, and to express this if they choose, even as honesty requires also explicit acknowledgement of play/real boundaries. The games we play affect our minds, partly because they affect our brains, chemically; that, and the independent reality of the person one plays with, is always something to respect. You might find of interest "Are Sex and Love Mutually Exclusive?" By William Jankowiak http://www.alternet.org/sex/126539/are_sex_and_love_mutually_exclusive/?page=1 ; it considers from non-BDSM context tensions perhaps inherent between "sexual desire, passionate/romantic love, and companion/comfort love". LordSir Ninetails, I think partly you are talking about boundaries in BDSM relationships. It makes me think of a continuing theme of the television show “Sex in the City” – can a woman have sex like a man? Or what the writers really meant – can women OR men or anyone ever “just” have sex?

We ritualize BDSM interactions and relationships, not only because it’s fun, but to protect all parties from confusion of fantasy and reality. We do this partly due to our self interest but also due to our ethics – we desire to avoid harm to ourselves and also to our playmates. That care, that concern, that mutual exchange of responsibility for the other, for the well being of our playmates could be called a form of love. Love comes in as many forms as does relationship itself; parent-child, siblings, friends, fuck-buddies, lifemates…

For me, recognizing the boundaries in relationships means I take the word “love” very seriously, but I do not avoid it. Like Delicia, I am not sure I could have a BDSM relationship, even a passing one, without some sense of trust, respect, and personal interest in the particular person I wanted to play with; I’d need to have some sense that I saw part of the essence of the other. My relationship limits might not be as exclusive as a monogamous pair bonding, but Delicia I agree, I could not submit to OR dominate long term someone for whom I did not have affection, respect, trust, appreciation, enjoyment. I am trusting the other, as either a domme or a sub, with my sexual expression; and in RL I am also trusting them, one way or another, with my physical well being and safety. That’s not a small thing; if it were, I probably not be so turned on by the exchange of trust (as well as of power).

My love for my Master is enjoyably part of the love I share with the entire man; it has facets and levels I cannot share with any other being. But I also genuinely care for, love, all those I choose to play with, even if the relationship is limited to interaction online in SL. It doesn’t mean I am in love with them or want to have their babies, be their therapist, or even see them outside of the safe negotiated boundaries of BDSM; not all can become friends. But I care for them more and in particular ways that I do not care for those I do NOT choose to play with, and I allow them to care for me, and to express this if they choose, even as honesty requires also explicit acknowledgement of play/real boundaries. The games we play affect our minds, partly because they affect our brains, chemically; that, and the independent reality of the person one plays with, is always something to respect.

You might find of interest “Are Sex and Love Mutually Exclusive?” By William Jankowiak http://www.alternet.org/sex/126539/are_sex_and_love_mutually_exclusive/?page=1 ; it considers from non-BDSM context tensions perhaps inherent between “sexual desire, passionate/romantic love, and companion/comfort love”.

]]> By: Delicia http://islandofpain.com/2009/02/17/better-late-than-never-kandinsky-beaumont/comment-page-1/#comment-3193 Delicia Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:49:18 +0000 http://islandofpain.com/?p=458#comment-3193 responding to LordSir Nine tails previous response i find quite fascinating how each person explores relationships and hence BDSM, we really are all so diverse as a submissive myself the love within the relationship heightens the BDSM experience for me and hopefully for my Master. Personally i would find it difficult i think to submit on a long term basis to a Dominent where there was no love and affection within the relationship. My submission is tightly tied up (scuse the pun :) ) within my love for my Master its how i show my love for him, and i feel loved by him when he Dominates me. I find BDSM endlessly fascinating and try to respect how others 'play'. I know this is slightly going of the track of the origanal subject but i thought it important to document especially for the likes of Kandinsky how diverse BDSM can be (same within the diversity of 'vanilla' relatonships). Also the fact as in the bill of human rights i have the right to a sexual life as a consenting adult. I also see myself as a feminist as only as a educated, consenting, and reasonably sane adult can i have the capacity to explore my femininity as i wish, surely as a woman i have the right to choose to be a submissive if i so choose :) That after all is what the feminist movement was about to give equality to choose the same as men can? Lots of thoughts to ponder on this subject and i would like to thank Kadinsky for opening her 'can of worms' so we can all debate this issue, hopefully both sides of the debate may learn something from each other. Who knows :) responding to LordSir Nine tails previous response i find quite fascinating how each person explores relationships and hence BDSM, we really are all so diverse as a submissive myself the love within the relationship heightens the BDSM experience for me and hopefully for my Master. Personally i would find it difficult i think to submit on a long term basis to a Dominent where there was no love and affection within the relationship. My submission is tightly tied up (scuse the pun :) ) within my love for my Master its how i show my love for him, and i feel loved by him when he Dominates me. I find BDSM endlessly fascinating and try to respect how others ‘play’. I know this is slightly going of the track of the origanal subject but i thought it important to document especially for the likes of Kandinsky how diverse BDSM can be (same within the diversity of ‘vanilla’ relatonships). Also the fact as in the bill of human rights i have the right to a sexual life as a consenting adult. I also see myself as a feminist as only as a educated, consenting, and reasonably sane adult can i have the capacity to explore my femininity as i wish, surely as a woman i have the right to choose to be a submissive if i so choose :) That after all is what the feminist movement was about to give equality to choose the same as men can? Lots of thoughts to ponder on this subject and i would like to thank Kadinsky for opening her ‘can of worms’ so we can all debate this issue, hopefully both sides of the debate may learn something from each other. Who knows :)

]]> By: LordSir Ninetails http://islandofpain.com/2009/02/17/better-late-than-never-kandinsky-beaumont/comment-page-1/#comment-3192 LordSir Ninetails Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:49:46 +0000 http://islandofpain.com/?p=458#comment-3192 As I reread your response, Sir Stoltz, it occurs to me that there may be some confusing ideas in it. I did some cross-referencing against some earlier articles you and Cloud have written and I am now still wondering about some of these ideas. The ideas I am referring to are the ones of Love and Care for the submissive and vice versa. My confusion comes in the way of understanding exactly what you mean by these. What exactly does Loving the submissive, or your submissive, really mean? For me, for instance, this would mean that I love the submissive as I would any other non-anti-species human being. They are not less than or more than any other person in our world. They are simply different in their own way from other human beings and are deserving of every precious bit of compassion as any other. I do not demand nor expect that they be "in love" with me, further, I let them know not to expect it from me. In my experience being "in love" with the submissive leads to clouded judgement. The same can be said for the reverse role. As for Caring for the submissive, I do indeed Care for the submissive's well-being. Aftercare to a "scene" is essential to that well-being but so is the pre-scene interview process, and the training leading up to a "scene". Evaluation of the prospective submissives well- being should always be at the forefront of the Dominant's mindset. Too many "submissives" are in actuality not submissives but instead depressed, lonely, people with poor self-esteem (and in some cases, just plain messed up inside). They need help from you but not as your submissive. Finally, let me add to the Love part of this response; I do allow myself the luxury of adoring my pets but it is never to be confused with being "in love" with them. I do understand the great sacrifices they make for me as I try to bring them the fulfillment they desire. I feel it within me very deeply and I try to express this to them. Sometimes that expression is misunderstood and requires a redirection or correction to get the relationship back on the right track. I am interested in knowing what you consider to be Love and Care for a submissive as well as any others who wish to respond. -LordSir Ninetails As I reread your response, Sir Stoltz, it occurs to me that there may be some confusing ideas in it. I did some cross-referencing against some earlier articles you and Cloud have written and I am now still wondering about some of these ideas. The ideas I am referring to are the ones of Love and Care for the submissive and vice versa. My confusion comes in the way of understanding exactly what you mean by these. What exactly does Loving the submissive, or your submissive, really mean? For me, for instance, this would mean that I love the submissive as I would any other non-anti-species human being. They are not less than or more than any other person in our world. They are simply different in their own way from other human beings and are deserving of every precious bit of compassion as any other.
I do not demand nor expect that they be “in love” with me, further, I let them know not to expect it from me. In my experience being “in love” with the submissive leads to clouded judgement. The same can be said for the reverse role. As for Caring for the submissive, I do indeed Care for the submissive’s well-being. Aftercare to a “scene” is essential to that well-being but so is the pre-scene interview process, and the training leading up to a “scene”. Evaluation of the prospective submissives well- being should always be at the forefront of the Dominant’s mindset. Too many “submissives” are in actuality not submissives but instead depressed, lonely, people with poor self-esteem (and in some cases, just plain messed up inside). They need help from you but not as your submissive. Finally, let me add to the Love part of this response; I do allow myself the luxury of adoring my pets but it is never to be confused with being “in love” with them. I do understand the great sacrifices they make for me as I try to bring them the fulfillment they desire. I feel it within me very deeply and I try to express this to them. Sometimes that expression is misunderstood and requires a redirection or correction to get the relationship back on the right track. I am interested in knowing what you consider to be Love and Care for a submissive as well as any others who wish to respond. -LordSir Ninetails

]]> By: LordSir Ninetails http://islandofpain.com/2009/02/17/better-late-than-never-kandinsky-beaumont/comment-page-1/#comment-3191 LordSir Ninetails Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:18:57 +0000 http://islandofpain.com/?p=458#comment-3191 Good response, Sir Stoltz. I find it difficult to expand upon it. I can understand part of her surprise with how SL is turning out as I too was surprised by the disproportional numbers of people, sims, etc who were into BDSM on it compared to the real world proportional statistics of the BDSM population versus the rest of the population. In fact, I was even more surprised at how large a contingent the GOR population is, considering how small it is even within the BDSM community in real life. However, SL is a first-come, first-served based enterprise and at this point in its development it is mostly populated by the sex-sim (which BDSM is a subcategory of) and the war-game sim developers. Perhaps, in time, this will shift towards more real-world like numbers. Who knows? I would be curious as to what Kadinsky thinks SL would and should be like if the sex-sims and the war-game sims were abolished on it? I have a feeling that SL would never have gotten off the ground or be financially viable. Perhaps that is the real target of Kadinsky: maybe Kadinsky doesn't think SL should have survived in this manner. It is a valid opinion. Still, it is only an opinion and one that only begs the question: why are you still here supporting it? Why not go and support another virtual world enterprise and give them some good ink and money towards creating a virtual world utopia (OpenLife?) you would like to be a part of and find some inner happiness for yourself? Its just a thought. -LordSir Ninetails Good response, Sir Stoltz. I find it difficult to expand upon it. I can understand part of her surprise with how SL is turning out as I too was surprised by the disproportional numbers of people, sims, etc who were into BDSM on it compared to the real world proportional statistics of the BDSM population versus the rest of the population. In fact, I was even more surprised at how large a contingent the GOR population is, considering how small it is even within the BDSM community in real life. However, SL is a first-come, first-served based enterprise and at this point in its development it is mostly populated by the sex-sim (which BDSM is a subcategory of) and the war-game sim developers. Perhaps, in time, this will shift towards more real-world like numbers. Who knows? I would be curious as to what Kadinsky thinks SL would and should be like if the sex-sims and the war-game sims were abolished on it? I have a feeling that SL would never have gotten off the ground or be financially viable. Perhaps that is the real target of Kadinsky: maybe Kadinsky doesn’t think SL should have survived in this manner. It is a valid opinion. Still, it is only an opinion and one that only begs the question: why are you still here supporting it? Why not go and support another virtual world enterprise and give them some good ink and money towards creating a virtual world utopia (OpenLife?) you would like to be a part of and find some inner happiness for yourself? Its just a thought. -LordSir Ninetails

]]>