Jump to content
  • entries
    6
  • comments
    134
  • views
    1708

Monogamy privilege; eroge are kinda poly-friendly


*anoyoruniyakusokushita

1279 views

My last post about privilege was removed due to being labeled as offensive by the mods. However, this time, as I'll be addressing a specific kind of privilege, I believe there won't be any problems of that sort. I'm still waiting for more people to vote at the poll, as it's currently at a draw. If you haven't yet, please do.

All our lives, we're flooded with this notion that love can only exist towards one person at a time. And that is not true. The jail that are closed relationships usually lead to sorrow and regret. Just because people aren't allowed to have a bigger heart. While very few people nowadays are openly polyamorous, I believe there are much more closeted ones hiding out there. Seriously, just think about it. How many people would be much happier today if "monogamy" weren't considered the norm?

As pointed out by @Chronopolis, some assumptions are preferred or necessary. I, however, don't believe this is the case when it comes to someone's relationship orientation. A relationship orientation doesn't involve pronouns or sex preferences. It's something that may or may not come up in a conversation. That's why we can all easily avoid making assumptions about it. But still, the vast majority of society is still very conservative on that sense, thus, monogamous people are privileged in the sense that the whole notion society has of love and sex is a part of their life. The following is a list of examples of monogamy privilege you've probably never realized they were: (Note that I'm not saying monogamous people do not exist or that they are all polyphobic. Yes, there are lots of people who genuinely prefer only one partner, but there are also lots who don't)

1. Your family is legally recognized and you can enjoy all the benefits that come with it.

2. The validity of my love is never questioned.

3. Full representation of my relationship orientation in media.

4. In daily conversations, people don't use monophobic concepts of certain words (like family is always two partners and kids)

5. I can walk with my partner without having people staring at us with weird looks

6. I am not identified by my relationship orientation.

 

Now, the second thing about this issue: eroge. Honestly, among all the media, eroge deserves praise for this. And that's kind of sad, considering eroge doesn't portray those relationships realistically and it's usually confined to a single model: one man and women. But as this post is focusing on the positive aspects, I'll leave the negative ones for a later occasion. Western media almost never features polyamorous relationships (except porn). When it comes anime, manga and LNs, even the harem ones who could really use a nice harem ending, mostly choose not to. But hey, at least the harem genre itself is some kind of progress, isn't it? VNs, on the other hand, present much more cases of polyamory. Usually, it comes in two ways: harem endings and shimaidon routes. I think this is great because, even if just by a little, it shows people that polyamory isn't this monster society says it is, and that people can love more than one person at the same time.

a58ad9b16c051a554e535a15eb6bccd9.jpg

See you next time!

14 Comments


Recommended Comments

Are you familiar with what marriage is about? Marriage is a possessive system invented so men to keep track of their possessions, like wives and any offspring they may bear. It’s part of what makes the concept of ‘marriage’ obsolete. In the olden days polygamy was completely natural, as was monogamy, but it was a possessive system.

We're not flooded with the concept of ‘love’ being possible between only 2 people, but rather that marriage is only possible between 2 people. Which is why you see all those stories involving love triangles, cheating, revenge and whatever. If you aren’t counting your partners as possessions, then does it matter if your partner is seeing other people? Adultery is only a thing because of the concept of one partner belonging to another.

But monogamy - why did it come about? Many people think it’s because of Christianity, but monogamy was running rampant before this. In Ancient Greece for example. That doesn’t mean Christianity didn’t help this, but it’s suggested the truth lies elsewhere.

Think about it a little. If women and their children were treated as possessions who weren’t allowed to take multiple husbands, but men could take multiple wives as possessions, then there’s a pretty obvious limitation isn't there? Some men will be left out in the cold. These men will often leave, meaning a smaller army, meaning less tax revenue. Which results in monogamous cultures, in a world where women were viewed as possessions, being superior militarily and growth wise, or would inevitably prove themselves to be better superior militarily and growth wise. That is, monogamous culture would eventually prove to be the stronger culture. Over time people then came to view this as the norm, and because stronger cultures conquer weaker cultures, would spread over much of the globe.

Which meant that monogamy, under a male possessive marriage structure, was a superior scheme idealised by society. Polygamy under current marriage norms doesn’t work. So before we talk about ‘monogamy privilege’ you first need to provide an environment for polygamy to thrive, and that’s still a ways away from happening.

That eroge is poly friendly doesn’t define progress, although it does challenge some of today’s norms. What would make eroge progressive would be if they demonstrated poly relationships where the women weren’t treated like the possessions of the male. And I can’t say that it is. So I don’t really see a need for praise, yet.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

Are you familiar with what marriage is about? Marriage is a possessive system invented so men to keep track of their possessions, like wives and any offspring they may bear. It’s part of what makes the concept of ‘marriage’ obsolete. In the olden days polygamy was completely natural, as was monogamy, but it was a possessive system.

Well, that concept is pretty harmful for people that don't see their partners as possessions, because they can't have the legal advantages that come with marriage. That's why people need to change their view about marriage.

Nowadays marriage doesn't work that way. It's no longer a system for men to keep track of their possessions. A very easy way to prove that is just looking at lesbian marriages, which are legally recognized. Today marriage is a system for families receiving the benefits of legal recognition.

11 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

We're not flooded with the concept of ‘love’ being possible between only 2 people, but rather that marriage is only possible between 2 people.

You rarely see people dating with more than two partners at once in media either. It's not only marriage. If a person is in love with someone else, it's gotta be just that someone else. 

11 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

Think about it a little. If women and their children were treated as possessions who weren’t allowed to take multiple husbands, but men could take multiple wives as possessions, then there’s a pretty obvious limitation isn't there? Some men will be left out in the cold. These men will often leave, meaning a smaller army, meaning less tax revenue. Which results in monogamous cultures, in a world where women were viewed as possessions, being superior militarily and growth wise, or would inevitably prove themselves to be better superior militarily and growth wise. That is, monogamous culture would eventually prove to be the stronger culture. Over time people then came to view this as the norm, and because stronger cultures conquer weaker cultures, would spread over much of the globe.

Which meant that monogamy, under a male possessive marriage structure, was a superior scheme idealised by society. Polygamy under current marriage norms doesn’t work. So before we talk about ‘monogamy privilege’ you first need to provide an environment for polygamy to thrive, and that’s still a ways away from happening.

I don't believe our society demands monogamy for it to work nowadays. Back then, sure, but not now. And one of the ways to create a better environment for polygamy to work is giving it more media coverage, so that society can view it as normal.

11 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

That eroge is poly friendly doesn’t define progress, although it does challenge some of today’s norms. What would make eroge progressive would be if they demonstrated poly relationships where the women weren’t treated like the possessions of the male. And I can’t say that it is. So I don’t really see a need for praise, yet.

As I said, there is still a long way to go when it comes to poly representation in eroge. However, the mere fact that poly relationships are being featured is already a progress, because the same almost never happens in other media.

9 hours ago, Funnerific said:

Look at it another way, are you completely fine with your girl(s) being banged by other men? I wouldn't be.

I'm not a man, but sure. You probably aren't fine because since you were born society planted that worldview on you.

Edited by *anoyoruniyakusokushita
Link to comment

Marriage won’t change. It will die.

7 hours ago, *anoyoruniyakusokushita said:

Well, that concept is pretty harmful for people that don't see their partners as possessions, because they can't have the legal advantages that come with marriage. That's why people need to change their view about marriage.

Nowadays marriage doesn't work that way. It's no longer a system for men to keep track of their possessions. A very easy way to prove that is just looking at lesbian marriages, which are legally recognized. Today marriage is a system for families receiving the benefits of legal recognition.

How does the recognition of lesbian marriages show that marriage isn’t an institution possessive in nature? Seems to me it has little to do with the concept. Furthermore explain how marriage being a system about families receiving legal recognition negates its possessive nature, Marriages were always about families receiving recognition, but it was about legally locking those families into the possession of the male.

If marriage were no longer about keeping track of their possessions, then people would no longer be upset when partners ‘cheat’ on them. Alas private investigators are currently making a fortune going around and catching partners being ‘unfaithful’. Explain the concept of remaining ‘sexually faithful’ to someone without relying on the idea that one person belongs to another.

Marriage will break down in the future because they weren’t built to be flexible in nature, it’s too ingrained an institution to change, and society will soon move past this outdated institution. How can the Government, for example, encourage both parents to join the workforce while still expecting the child to have been given a quality upbringing? With a nuclear family (and marriage is about nuclear families) it’s becoming too hard, which is part of the reason they’ll break down, and part of the reason marriage will too (because there’ll be too much opposition to change.) Women used to get married for security, but they no longer need that and in fact it will harm their careers. People used to see kids as security that would provide for them in old age, but these days the Government does all this heavy lifting with social security. The idea of tying yourself to one person FOREVER is becoming increasingly distasteful, especially considering we're all living longer. In the past, the idea of tying yourself to someone for 20 years didn't seem that bad, now you have to put up with their bad habits for 60, 70, 80 years. Some people believe humans will soon live to 150, just how long must you suffer your partner's snoring? New reports are coming out saying a third or a quarter of millenials will never marry.

In 2014 in England, only 50% of people were currently married. 28% of men lived alone and had never married. 22% of women lived alone and had never married.

usyoungadultmarriage.gif 

Marriage is on the way out, and pretty soon society will drive media to show more types of relationships to the people. Properly also, NOT the half-hearted way eroge does it. But we should give it a little time, it’s only been since the last half of last century that marriage started to no longer be useful.

7 hours ago, *anoyoruniyakusokushita said:

You rarely see people dating with more than two partners at once in media either. It's not only marriage. If a person is in love with someone else, it's gotta be just that someone else. 

I often see movies where people date more than one partner at a time. I often see shows where people date more than one person at a time. Pffft, in my opinion Jennifer Aniston has built a career on it. The romance genre is filled with love triangles. Of one person being ‘torn’ between 2 lovers.  

7 hours ago, *anoyoruniyakusokushita said:

I don't believe our society demands monogamy for it to work nowadays. Back then, sure, but not now. And one of the ways to create a better environment for polygamy to work is giving it more media coverage, so that society can view it as normal.

It’s an explanation of where that privilege arose. Modern talk of privilege is about equality, and yet societies emphasise growth. If you ask a Government what’s more important, growth and strength or equality, they’ll say growth and strength because they could then use that to provide for their people. Equality means little without first having the resources to make your people comfortable. Recently countries have been in a position where the majority of people no longer had to worry about starving and could then fight for social justice, and that’s a good thing because it shows countries are in a good space. But institutions which have entrenched for thousands of years does take a little time to unravel. Give it some time :) 

Link to comment

The vast majority of us are not suited to polygamy, especially not the females of the species but even to a large extent, neither are the males. I think what's missing is understanding that humans as a species are best designated as being predominantly serial monogamist. Romanticising polygay usually happens by those (males) who have never been in a series relationship. Whilst casual sex is not uncommon when not in a relationship, most people do not feel inclined to do so once in a ~monogamous relationship.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

How does the recognition of lesbian marriages show that marriage isn’t an institution possessive in nature?

I mentioned lesbian marriages because you said this:

20 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

Marriage is a possessive system invented so men to keep track of their possessions, like wives and any offspring they may bear.

 

2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

If marriage were no longer about keeping track of their possessions, then people would no longer be upset when partners ‘cheat’ on them. Alas private investigators are currently making a fortune going around and catching partners being ‘unfaithful’. Explain the concept of remaining ‘sexually faithful’ to someone without relying on the idea that one person belongs to another.

Yeah, except that not only spouses are upset when their significant other cheats on them, gf/bf/dates get upset as well. Also, many married poly people do not get upset when their partner has another partner. The problem is not marriage itself, but the way people see romantic/sexual relationships in general.

2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

Marriage will break down in the future because they weren’t built to be flexible in nature, it’s too ingrained an institution to change, and society will soon move past this outdated institution. How can the Government, for example, encourage both parents to join the workforce while still expecting the child to have been given a quality upbringing? With a nuclear family (and marriage is about nuclear families) it’s becoming too hard, which is part of the reason they’ll break down, and part of the reason marriage will too (because there’ll be too much opposition to change.) Women used to get married for security, but they no longer need that and in fact it will harm their careers. People used to see kids as security that would provide for them in old age, but these days the Government does all this heavy lifting with social security. The idea of tying yourself to one person FOREVER is becoming increasingly distasteful, especially considering we're all living longer. In the past, the idea of tying yourself to someone for 20 years didn't seem that bad, now you have to put up with their bad habits for 60, 70, 80 years. Some people believe humans will soon live to 150, just how long must you suffer your partner's snoring? New reports are coming out saying a third or a quarter of millenials will never marry.

In 2014 in England, only 50% of people were currently married. 28% of men lived alone and had never married. 22% of women lived alone and had never married.

usyoungadultmarriage.gif 

Marriage is on the way out, and pretty soon society will drive media to show more types of relationships to the people. Properly also, NOT the half-hearted way eroge does it. But we should give it a little time, it’s only been since the last half of last century that marriage started to no longer be useful.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here. Even though the end of marriage would probably bring severe legal consequences, I believe, by then, we will have already solved those issues. However, I don't think we should just sit and wait for marriage to disrupt. We can't keep watching poly people being discriminated while we do absolutely nothing to stop it. That's why I think we should all do as best we can to decrease such a discrimination.

2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

I often see movies where people date more than one partner at a time. I often see shows where people date more than one person at a time. Pffft, in my opinion Jennifer Aniston has built a career on it. The romance genre is filled with love triangles. Of one person being ‘torn’ between 2 lovers.  

Well, I don't. The movies and shows you're referring to are probably niche ones, that don't have a stronger social effect like the mainstream ones do. Plus, love triangles are not poly relationships; after all the whole concept of a love triangle is deciding between two potential love interests. Rarely they choose the third option, which is the poly-friendly one.

2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

It’s an explanation of where that privilege arose. Modern talk of privilege is about equality, and yet societies emphasise growth. If you ask a Government what’s more important, growth and strength or equality, they’ll say growth and strength because they could then use that to provide for their people. Equality means little without first having the resources to make your people comfortable. Recently countries have been in a position where the majority of people no longer had to worry about starving and could then fight for social justice, and that’s a good thing because it shows countries are in a good space. But institutions which have entrenched for thousands of years does take a little time to unravel. Give it some time :) 

I do not expect to disrupt a very old and powerful institution. I'm just doing what I can to raise awareness and make some people's lives better. Even though I may not succeed, there's nothing wrong with trying.

2 hours ago, ittaku said:

The vast majority of us are not suited to polygamy, especially not the females of the species but even to a large extent, neither are the males. I think what's missing is understanding that humans as a species are best designated as being predominantly serial monogamist. Romanticising polygay usually happens by those (males) who have never been in a series relationship. Whilst casual sex is not uncommon when not in a relationship, most people do not feel inclined to do so once in a ~monogamous relationship.

You probably believe that "humans as a species are best designated as being predominantly serial monogamist" because your entire life you've seen lots of people in monogamous relationships, many who seem very happy. However, how many actual poly relationships have you seen? Very few, I assume. That's why you can't say humans are most suited for monogamy, when most of them haven't even experimented polygamy. What you believe to be something inborn to humans, I believe to be a socially constructed phenomenon. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, *anoyoruniyakusokushita said:

Yeah, except that not only spouses are upset when their significant other cheats on them, gf/bf/dates get upset as well. Also, many married poly people do not get upset when their partner has another partner. The problem is not marriage itself, but the way people see romantic/sexual relationships in general.

Gf/bf/dates get upset because people view the ultimate end of a relationship is marriage, and they view marriage as a possession system. In the olden days it used to be that women belonged to men, these days it's progressed to one spouse belonging to another. It's in no way better, and it restricts polygamy just as much.

In the future things will probably be a lot more casual and informal, where people live their own lives and sort of duck in and out of each other's. Wellll, other people believe things will be a lot more communal in nature, but I don't like that sort of future. Either way, I just don't see how the concept of marriage and relationships as they are now will work.

Once we do away with the idea of people belonging to one another, then it starts opening up the idea that people can have relationships with as many people as they want, because it's their life and their choice.

7 hours ago, *anoyoruniyakusokushita said:

I do not expect to disrupt a very old and powerful institution. I'm just doing what I can to raise awareness and make some people's lives better. Even though I may not succeed, there's nothing wrong with trying.

People's lives are much better than they used to be. Things are already progressing, no need to force issues into people's faces. It won't do much, TBH.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, *anoyoruniyakusokushita said:

Well, I don't. The movies and shows you're referring to are probably niche ones, that don't have a stronger social effect like the mainstream ones do. Plus, love triangles are not poly relationships; after all the whole concept of a love triangle is deciding between two potential love interests. Rarely they choose the third option, which is the poly-friendly one.

The concept of a love triangle is deciding between two potential love interests that you are already in a relationship with. They are not poly relationships, but they are relationships concerning love between more than 2 people. So while you're right on this point, you're still wrong with your original point that "You rarely see people dating with more than two partners at once in media either. It's not only marriage. If a person is in love with someone else, it's gotta be just that someone else." Don't know why you said 'more than 2 partners' then later qualified it to be 'just someone else', but lets take the essence of what this is all about - multiple partners. As I said before, you see it quite often provided you aren't just watching blokey action flicks. Friends, the most popular sitcom in the 90s and early 00s had Phoebe dating 2 guys at one point. Big Bang Theory, the most popular sitcom today had Raj dating 2 girls at some point. I really don't see how you've never seen it. Movies, shows, novels, it's not a rare phenomenon. 

I can't help what you do or do not see, but it's a well known phenomena spawning many articles: https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2015/feb/13/love-triangles-why-are-there-so-many-teen-fiction which cite many examples, like the very popular Twilight novels. A good number of novels in the romance genre have people in a relationship with more than 2 people at once. Guys fighting over girls. Girl friendships breaking up over a guy. Bandit, the movie with Bruce Willis, had the lady ending up IN a poly relationship with the 2 guys. An excellent and hilarious movie which unfortunately didn't do that well probably because society just doesn't want to see that stuff (I presume.)

We are not bombarded with media that state love is only possible between 2 people, we are always bombarded with media that says marriage is only possible between two people and therefore you have to choose if you want to take that final step.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

Gf/bf/dates get upset because people view the ultimate end of a relationship is marriage, and they view marriage as a possession system. 

That statement is pretty questionable, tbh. As time goes one, more and more people aren't really thinking marriage when they're dating, specially when it comes to young people. But even so they get upset when their partner cheats on them.

9 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

People's lives are much better than they used to be. Things are already progressing, no need to force issues into people's faces. It won't do much, TBH.

I'm not forcing any issues into people's faces. If they want to know my opinion, they check my blog posts, but if they don't, they can just not read them. I don't see how that is forcing issues. It might not do much, but the little it does makes me feel happy, as I could help some people, even if it was just a tiny bit.

6 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

The concept of a love triangle is deciding between two potential love interests that you are already in a relationship with. They are not poly relationships, but they are relationships concerning love between more than 2 people.

I can't help what you do or do not see, but it's a well known phenomena spawning many articles: https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2015/feb/13/love-triangles-why-are-there-so-many-teen-fiction which cite many examples, like the very popular Twilight novels. A good number of novels in the romance genre have people in a relationship with more than 2 people at once. Guys fighting over girls. Girl friendships breaking up over a guy. Bandit, the movie with Bruce Willis, had the lady ending up IN a poly relationship with the 2 guys. An excellent and hilarious movie which unfortunately didn't do that well probably because society just doesn't want to see that stuff (I presume.)

However, think about what that decision involves. Usually, it's about finding out the one you love the most or the one you truly love. And that concept itself is pretty polyphobic. In the end, they're saying even if you seem to love two people, there is just one who you truly love. Since you mentioned YA novels, I'll use them as an example. In many of them, the girl has to decide between the hot guy, who gives her the most sexual pleasure, and the romantic guy, who gives her affection and love. Those cases only emphasize how her apparent "two loves" are not on the same plan. They're saying she loves one in a sexual way, and the other in a romantic way. The choice, in this case, is not really between two people, it's actually about two kinds of love, which one is the most important to her. Yes, I'm aware some choose the third option as you mentioned, and that's great, but unfortunately very few do.

6 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

As I said before, you see it quite often provided you aren't just watching blokey action flicks. Friends, the most popular sitcom in the 90s and early 00s had Phoebe dating 2 guys at one point. Big Bang Theory, the most popular sitcom today had Raj dating 2 girls at some point. I really don't see how you've never seen it. Movies, shows, novels, it's not a rare phenomenon. 

That's great, then. Guess I'll have to diversify the content I see. But this doesn't change the fact that there are still lots of grounds to go through. If things are the way you say, then Western media is more or less in the same position eroge is when it comes to poly relationships. I would like, for example, to see a poly superhero, a poly disney princess, poly-friendly cartoons, a poly family raising a child, etc. As marriage will still take some time to end, I presume those things will appear in the future. Let us wait, then. 

Link to comment

I've no idea why you're assuming marriage is going away. Its importance might be decreasing in places, but it's here to stay, you'll have to come to terms with that.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Funnerific said:

I've no idea why you're assuming marriage is going away. Its importance might be decreasing in places, but it's here to stay, you'll have to come to terms with that.

I have no idea why you're assuming marriage is going to stay. Its importance might still be widely emphasized, but it's going to go away, you'll have to come to terms with that.

note how your sentence had no supporting arguments, not that I'm sure the opposition is better (I have more entertaining things to do than remember any argument made here)

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Zakamutt said:

I have no idea why you're assuming marriage is going to stay. Its importance might still be widely emphasized, but it's going to go away, you'll have to come to terms with that.

note how your sentence had no supporting arguments, not that I'm sure the opposition is better (I have more entertaining things to do than remember any argument made here)

I feel like you're only looking at western cultures. There's no sign of marriage going away where I live, and I'm sure that's the case in many countries around the globe.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Funnerific said:

I feel like you're only looking at western cultures. There's no sign of marriage going away where I live, and I'm sure that's the case in many countries around the globe.

The importance of marriage will decrease once societies hit a certain point. A certain point in terms of equality between the sexes, a certain point in terms of freedom and exposure to new ideas, and a certain point where Governments can provide security for its citizens. Then marriage will start to be seen as a lifestyle choice, instead of ‘we need to get married because the woman has no career prospects and the children need to support us into old age.’

Even China has started to turn its back on marriage:

Quote

But young people follow their own mind. And while romance and coupledom are much endorsed by both men and women in their 20s and 30s, marriage as a legal institution is no longer a must.

Growing up with more diverse values than previous generations, Chinese youth born in the 1980s and 1990s see options beyond the linear life path leading up to the baby carriage. Many prioritise work over partnership - either willingly or with reluctance.

Government statistics also suggest that more than 85% of both male and female migrant workers – a third of whom are at marrying age – work more than 44 hours a week, which leaves them little time and energy to build relationships.

Others are simply exploring alternative lifestyles – with or without a romantic partner. Cohabitation is increasingly commonplace. And thanks to affordable technology, casual sex is also easier to access than ever.

Then, there’s the sea of books, films and television series that portray other ways to live. For young, professional Chinese urbanites who have access to modern entertainment, a cool, an enriched life can well be spouse-free.

Gender disparity

Young Chinese women are particularly vocal about the institution of marriage. An advertisement by cosmetic company SK-II, showing young women voicing their protest against parental and social pressure, for instance, went viral in China.

It’s not that single women are uninterested in having a love life – many are actually keen to get married – but too much is at stake. In a country where gender equality has been stalling, if not deteriorating, over the past decade, women face enduring discrimination in education and the workplace.

Unlike their counterparts in the developed world, Chinese women receive no effective protection from the law in case their marriage dissolves. Knowing that bleak career prospects and a non-existent safety net await them, these women have every reason not to trade their career or personal freedom for a wedding.

Empowered urban Chinese women have a tough choice to make between intimacy and autonomy - but at least they still have a choice. Behind them are their rural sisters, who have much less control over their own fates.

https://theconversation.com/chinas-marriage-rate-is-plummeting-and-its-because-of-gender-inequality-66027

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...