Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[LGBT]: Bigots can go eat a bag of [Chick-Fil-A]

14950525455101

Posts

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    Zxerol wrote: »
    Wait, so you instantly stop having the capability to be attracted to the other gender because you "picked a side" by virtue of engaging in a monogamous relationship? This is new to me.

    That attraction ceases to be meaningful since it is not acted upon.

    "I"m always only ever going to have sex with this female, and this vagina, but I totally still love the cocks."

    That's a very strange statement, given that one will never act upon one's cock-loving. It doesn't seem to be a relevant or viable self-description since one has chosen "vagina" rather than "cock".

    It's not that one "loses the ability to be attracted to other genders" but, rather, the attraction is quite meaningless, insofar as it has no consequences, insofar as one has chosen "vagina" rather than "cock".


    If they get divorced or something later? Ok, sure. But we aren't talking about that.

    We're talking about a person who chooses to be monogamous with one individual, and always only ever has sex with one vagina, but who claims to love the cock.

    That's a strange thing.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    1) If you plan to be in a monogamous relationship, then you're ultimately going to have to pick one. Marrying one individual, yet claiming to be bisexual, is quite odd.

    Why is it odd? Let's say bisexuality is simply being sexually attracted to/aroused by both male and female. This can still occur even if someone ends up with a long term partner that is either male or female.

    Also, I think what Dan Savage may be missing in regards to this matter, is that one can be in an open marriage. A circumstance probably more likely than the never marrying bisexual. Perhaps not common, but not unheard of either.

    To the open marriage: He admitted that this sort of thing can happen, but that it's a very very small part of the population. He wasn't denying that it happens. He was saying that it doesn't happen very often.

    Edit: I think his point, again, is that people who self-describe as bisexual in their early 20s aren't going to remain that way, in a meaningful sense, for the rest of their lives. Homosexuals and heterosexuals, on the other hand, tend to stay that way over a long duration of their life.


    If a person is with a long term partner, and they are monogamous marriage, and they still claim to be bisexual? It seems like they've picked one.

    If you never act on it, then in what sense is it a meaningful description of your person? "I'm totally bisexual, but I only ever have sex with females who have vaginas."

    It seems strange for that person to self-describe as "bisexual".

    If someone had never had any sexual partners, could they not still describe themselves as being attracted to/aroused by male or female?

    A bisexual certainly could have had either sex as partner before choosing to enter a long term commitment with one. Even after 'choosing' as such, they'd still be doing what a non bi would be doing, cutting off future sexual contact with desired mates for the sake of commitment. This doesn't mean they wouldn't still be sexually aroused by both, just as a hetero or homo sexual would still be aroused by those they're attracted to while maintaining a relationship.

    Perhaps you could say there's a somewhat more significant sacrifice being made for commitment in that the bisexual is denying future relations with two sexes, instead of one, but I don't think this necessarily implies the lack of attraction through the choice they end up making of who to stay with.

    I think circumstance have to be taken into account here as well, in that picking somebody to stay with involves more than sexual attraction.

    Lucid on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    If someone had never had any sexual partners, could they not still describe themselves as being attracted to/aroused by male or female?

    Do you mean an individual who in their entire life never had sex, ever? And now we're looking at their life in hindsight? I just want to be clear before I answer.

    Lucid wrote: »
    A bisexual certainly could have had either sex as partner before choosing to enter a long term commitment with one. Even after 'choosing' as such, they'd still be doing what a non bi would be doing, cutting off future sexual contact with desired mates for the sake of commitment. This doesn't mean they wouldn't still be sexually aroused by both, just as a hetero or homo sexual would still be aroused by those they're attracted to while maintaining a relationship.

    Perhaps you could say there's a somewhat more significant sacrifice being made for commitment in that the bisexual is denying future relations with two sexes, instead of one, but I don't think this necessarily implies the lack of attraction through the choice they end up making of who to stay with.

    I think circumstance had to be taken into account here as well, in that picking somebody to stay with involves more than sexual attraction.

    Player-A self-describes as bisexual. On M,W,F they have sex with males. On T,Th,Sa,Su they have sex with females.
    Player-B self-describes as bisexual. They always only ever have sex with males.

    You don't find those to be significantly different?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Player-A self-describes as bisexual. On M,W,F they have sex with males. On T,Th,Sa,Su they have sex with females.
    Player-B self-describes as bisexual. They always only ever have sex with males.

    You don't find those to be significantly different?

    Uh, dude, being bisexual does not mean having sex with both sexes anymore than being straight means having sex with the opposite sex. It means that you would be willing if the right situation came about.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    I suppose we could use either/or for the first case of sexual contact I posed.

    Let's look at it in terms of hindsight, say the circumstances of their life prevented them from finding sexual partners(for whatever reason), could they not still identify as hetero/homo? I mean, they can masturbate, even if their sexual contact with other people isn't working out.

    Looking at the two players, I'd say they're different in terms of circumstance, but we can't really prove that they don't feel an attraction to the other sex. I don't believe the act is the sole indicator of sexual preference, if they can still become aroused by the thought of sexual contact with the other sex, it seems that they're attracted to them sexually.

    Let's say our bisexual person doesn't have sex with males/females yet still pictures the act in their mind while being aroused and/or coming to sexual climax on their own accord. Why does this not construct(or play a part in) meaningful attraction? Is attraction only meaningful if it is acted upon with another person?

  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    never mind

    The Green Eyed Monster on
    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    ^^^^hells yes^^^^

    I don't know is going on in this conversation , but I just wanted to point the above out

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Podly wrote: »
    ^^^^hells yes^^^^

    I don't know is going on in this conversation , but I just wanted to point the above out

    Fixed it, wrong thread lol

    The Green Eyed Monster on
    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    I suppose we could use either/or for the first case of sexual contact I posed.

    Let's look at it in terms of hindsight, say the circumstances of their life prevented them from finding sexual partners(for whatever reason), could they not still identify as hetero/homo? I mean, they can masturbate, even if their sexual contact with other people isn't working out.

    Looking at the two players, I'd say they're different in terms of circumstance, but we can't really prove that they don't feel an attraction to the other sex. I don't believe the act is the sole indicator of sexual preference, if they can still become aroused by the thought of sexual contact with the other sex, it seems that they're attracted to them sexually.

    Let's say our bisexual person doesn't have sex with males/females yet still pictures the act in their mind while being aroused and/or coming to sexual climax on their own accord. Why does this not construct(or play a part in) meaningful attraction? Is attraction only meaningful if it is acted upon with another person?

    My worry with drawing a distinction between "sexual acts" and "sexual desire" in terms of discerning whether hetero/homo/bi applies to a person's sexuality is that...well, a few things.

    1) It renders the definition to be entirely subjective. Each individual can declare their own sexual identity and no one can externally critique them.

    To the reply of, "Well of course they get to do that!" think of Larry Craig. Dude claims to be heterosexual. Dude gets busted for having a wide stance in an airport bathroom stall. He says he's heterosexual. We say he's repressed. Under the rubric we're articulating, we have absolutely no grounds for making our claim, since his "sexual desire" is completely internal and not indicated by his acts. This goes to problem 2.

    2) Sexual acts are not indicative of sexual preference.

    If a person born with a penis only ever puts that penis into vaginas, then we would usually claim that the individual is heterosexual. But on the rubric being proposed, that person could claim to be bisexual or, hell, even homosexual. The problem of the internal subjective application of the label, discussed in point 1, is multiplied since there is a radical disconnect between the self-description of sexual preference and one's acts.


    I'm not sure how to deal with these issues. We can solve the problem by defining sexuality (hetero/homo/bi) in terms of acts, so there is something objective to it. But if we abandon that option since it hurts people's feelings, or something, then we're in realm where anyone can claim to be anything that they want and

    here's the important part

    we cannot take their linguistic articulation of sexual prefernce to indicate what we initially conceived of.

    It ultimately renders hetero / homo / bi to be meaningless terms. If I ask a woman her sexual prefernce, and she says "hetero", I then have to ask, "ok, well, what does that mean to you and how does that relate to my desire to fuck you?"


    And, sure, that conversation probably ought to occur anyway. But it seems like we've rendered the labels to be hollow and meaningless to the point where it isn't sensible to talk about them. Instead, we just need to have very long conversations with individuals regarding how they would react in numerous hypothetical sexual situations.

  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    both the straights and the gays need to know the trans-sexual awesomeness of stereolab

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    But by the way, thus quoth @ConspiracyKeano:
    If god has a plan for everyone... and a fetus is a person... can't abortion just be "their plan"?

    I mean, right? Jesus people, back me up here.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    But by the way, thus quoth @ConspiracyKeano:
    If god has a plan for everyone... and a fetus is a person... can't abortion just be "their plan"?

    I mean, right? Jesus people, back me up here.

    Claiming that X happened, but it was not in accord with God's plan, is, indeed, problematic.

    Preventing someone from doing X, because X totally isn't what God wants them to do, is, also, problematic.

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    is it discrimination to fire the gay campaigner? i might have missed this. But like, actual punishable workplace discrimination

    They didn't fire him, he resigned. But he resigned after getting a ton of shit from Romney's base, with no support from Romney. They also basically gagged him. When foreign policy came up (he was the foreign policy spokesman for the campaign), they had him arrange the calls, then sit there at a remote connection, listening but forbidden to talk.

    In other words, they wanted the world to forget he existed.

    steam_sig.png
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    The objective measure is whether or not someone is sexually attracted to someone that fulfills certain traits.

    Someone can be in denial of their sexual attraction, and someone can not act on their sexual attraction, but that attraction is still there and is likely measurable. It is, too, something that is on a somewhat arbitrary scale, as we can be attracted and repulsed at the same time, or simply not attracted to a person because, while they fulfill some traits, they do not fulfill others.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Someone can be in denial of their sexual attraction

    How could you discern that, given that outward sexual activity does not indicate internal sexual desire?

    Incenjucar wrote: »
    and someone can not act on their sexual attraction, but that attraction is still there and is likely measurable.

    Measurable in terms of "If we hook them up to an FMRI..."?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    _J_ wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Someone can be in denial of their sexual attraction

    How could you discern that, given that outward sexual activity does not indicate internal sexual desire?

    Incenjucar wrote: »
    and someone can not act on their sexual attraction, but that attraction is still there and is likely measurable.

    Measurable in terms of "If we hook them up to an FMRI..."?

    Yep. Your body tends to do a lot of fun things when it wants to fuck someone's brains out. For MOST people you can just ask, though. When there are psychological barriers, things get trickier.

    Incenjucar on
    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Someone can be in denial of their sexual attraction

    How could you discern that, given that outward sexual activity does not indicate internal sexual desire?

    Incenjucar wrote: »
    and someone can not act on their sexual attraction, but that attraction is still there and is likely measurable.

    Measurable in terms of "If we hook them up to an FMRI..."?

    Yep. Your body tends to do a lot of fun things when it wants to fuck someone's brains out. For MOST people you can just ask, though. When there are psychological barriers, things get trickier.

    So heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual are all reducible to "This part of the screen lights up when we stick them in an FMRI and show them porn"?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    So heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual are all reducible to "This part of the screen lights up when we stick them in an FMRI and show them porn"?

    No, but it works most of the time. People are attracted to more than a person's sex or gender, but their sex or gender are usually a very significant part of that.

    If I showed you a picture of your mother and you didn't get an instant erection it doesn't mean you aren't attracted to women, it highlights that your attraction to women has limits.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    I'm surprised to learn a former family friend (former due to the whole 'abandoning his family' thing) who came out of the closet after being married and having three kids (presumably through sticking his penis in a vagina at least three times) was actually heterosexual by some definitions.

    Are virgins automatically asexual, then? Pretty sure I was straight before I had sex but maybe my memory is slipping.

    Disappointed to learn that Savage is kind of an idiot about bisexuals.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Registered User regular
    dan savage recanted and said he was being silly about bisexuals but again changing one's mind seems to be frowned upon here

    speaking of which - it's on. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/04/confidential-to-noms-brian-brown-youre-on-motherfucker

    Dan Savage has accepted NOM's Brian Brown's request for a duel, errr debate in maybe not the best language possible. I wonder if it will actually happen.

  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Registered User regular
    I came out before I laid a finger on anyone sexually. As per usual I don't know what _J_'s talking about.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    I came out before I laid a finger on anyone sexually.

    Man, that's not how you do it.







    Spoiler:

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    You can be a virgin or celibate and still be straight.
    You can be a virgin or celibate and still be gay.

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    dan savage recanted and said he was being silly about bisexuals but again changing one's mind seems to be frowned upon here

    "Pretending you never said [thing], especially when you keep saying [thing lite]"? Yeah, I know, how meaniepants to get on anyone's case about that.

    _J_, not quite sure what you're saying. The labels are clunky? Well, yeah. It's not unusual for people to be in denial or flat-out dishonest about their sexual attraction and activities? Sure. I'm not confident you can go from there to "the label never means a thing, ever." When someone's actions are in direct contradiction to their self-professed identity, it makes sense to wonder why. I'm not really getting how we extrapolate from there to bisexuals lying unless they're sleeping with both males and females. If I marry a blonde, am I full of shit if I say that I think redheads are cute?


    MuddBudd wrote: »
    is it discrimination to fire the gay campaigner? i might have missed this. But like, actual punishable workplace discrimination

    They didn't fire him, he resigned. But he resigned after getting a ton of shit from Romney's base, with no support from Romney. They also basically gagged him. When foreign policy came up (he was the foreign policy spokesman for the campaign), they had him arrange the calls, then sit there at a remote connection, listening but forbidden to talk.

    In other words, they wanted the world to forget he existed.

    One of the reasons he got no support from Romney is that he was making an ass of himself and pissed off anyone who would have supported him against the conservatives. The homophobic base seized on that as their excuse for getting rid of him, since "OMG TEH GAY" didn't work. Really, it was the right action taken for the wrong reasons.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Registered User regular
    when does he keep saying it?

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    when does he keep saying it?

    when did he change his mind?

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    What the fuck? How can someone be that fucking stupid, and yet competent enough to run for state office?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    The sad thing is, she isn't some kind of outlier. There are plenty of completely ignorant, willfully or otherwise, politicians in the south.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    The sad thing is, she isn't some kind of outlier. There are plenty of completely ignorant, willfully or otherwise, politicians in the south.

    Trust me, they're everywhere. Congress is completely fucking nuts, state legislators are considerably worse.

  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    The sad thing is, she isn't some kind of outlier. There are plenty of completely ignorant, willfully or otherwise, politicians in the south.

    Trust me, they're everywhere. Congress is completely fucking nuts, state legislators are considerably worse.

    It's true, but I find the ones up here that are nuts are at least nuts towards my political spectrum... albeit, sometimes too far out there. When I lived in Texas, the nuts politicians scared me more because they were not only extreme and nuts, but extreme and nuts in the opposite political direction. It's bias as hell, but it is what it is.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    I don't even care about the being nuts part. How do you not grasp that you cannot sue someone for something that is not illegal?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    I dunno,man, but I hear it all the time.

    "Well you can just sue them!"

    "What are you going to sue them *for*?"

    "Uh...durrrrrrr......."

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    This is American, Land of Litigation. People have been conditioned to think you can sue people for anything. You hear it all the time, people talking about suing somebody for the most menial of shit, that wouldn't even make it through small-claims.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    I suppose we could use either/or for the first case of sexual contact I posed.

    Let's look at it in terms of hindsight, say the circumstances of their life prevented them from finding sexual partners(for whatever reason), could they not still identify as hetero/homo? I mean, they can masturbate, even if their sexual contact with other people isn't working out.

    Looking at the two players, I'd say they're different in terms of circumstance, but we can't really prove that they don't feel an attraction to the other sex. I don't believe the act is the sole indicator of sexual preference, if they can still become aroused by the thought of sexual contact with the other sex, it seems that they're attracted to them sexually.

    Let's say our bisexual person doesn't have sex with males/females yet still pictures the act in their mind while being aroused and/or coming to sexual climax on their own accord. Why does this not construct(or play a part in) meaningful attraction? Is attraction only meaningful if it is acted upon with another person?

    My worry with drawing a distinction between "sexual acts" and "sexual desire" in terms of discerning whether hetero/homo/bi applies to a person's sexuality is that...well, a few things.

    1) It renders the definition to be entirely subjective. Each individual can declare their own sexual identity and no one can externally critique them.

    To the reply of, "Well of course they get to do that!" think of Larry Craig. Dude claims to be heterosexual. Dude gets busted for having a wide stance in an airport bathroom stall. He says he's heterosexual. We say he's repressed. Under the rubric we're articulating, we have absolutely no grounds for making our claim, since his "sexual desire" is completely internal and not indicated by his acts. This goes to problem 2.

    2) Sexual acts are not indicative of sexual preference.

    If a person born with a penis only ever puts that penis into vaginas, then we would usually claim that the individual is heterosexual. But on the rubric being proposed, that person could claim to be bisexual or, hell, even homosexual. The problem of the internal subjective application of the label, discussed in point 1, is multiplied since there is a radical disconnect between the self-description of sexual preference and one's acts.


    I'm not sure how to deal with these issues. We can solve the problem by defining sexuality (hetero/homo/bi) in terms of acts, so there is something objective to it. But if we abandon that option since it hurts people's feelings, or something, then we're in realm where anyone can claim to be anything that they want and

    here's the important part

    we cannot take their linguistic articulation of sexual prefernce to indicate what we initially conceived of.

    It ultimately renders hetero / homo / bi to be meaningless terms. If I ask a woman her sexual prefernce, and she says "hetero", I then have to ask, "ok, well, what does that mean to you and how does that relate to my desire to fuck you?"


    And, sure, that conversation probably ought to occur anyway. But it seems like we've rendered the labels to be hollow and meaningless to the point where it isn't sensible to talk about them. Instead, we just need to have very long conversations with individuals regarding how they would react in numerous hypothetical sexual situations.

    I'm sympathetic to basing sexual preference on acts, but I feel like you're limiting the sexual acts immensely.

    If a guy only ever has actual sex with his wife but fantasises about gay sex and/or watches it on his computer some times wouldn't it be fitting to label him bi-sexual?

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    If a guy only ever has actual sex with his wife but fantasises about gay sex and/or watches it on his computer some times wouldn't it be fitting to label him bi-sexual?

    Bi-curious?

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    Why does only bi have a "curious" suffix? I've never heard someone say he's gay-curious, or she's lesbian-curious, or they are homo-curious. Why are only bi-sexuals labeled to be "curious"?

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    This is American, Land of Litigation. People have been conditioned to think you can sue people for anything. You hear it all the time, people talking about suing somebody for the most menial of shit, that wouldn't even make it through small-claims.

    Yeah, I know. Usually the same type of people who screech about the McDonald's lawsuit are the ones who hit me up at parties asking for free legal advice, like, can they sue their boss because he's about to fire them for an "unfair" reason.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    This is American, Land of Litigation. People have been conditioned to think you can sue people for anything. You hear it all the time, people talking about suing somebody for the most menial of shit, that wouldn't even make it through small-claims.

    Yeah, I know. Usually the same type of people who screech about the McDonald's lawsuit are the ones who hit me up at parties asking for free legal advice, like, can they sue their boss because he's about to fire them for an "unfair" reason.

    I love these when it's in a right to work state. It's like no....your boss can fire you because you had a stray hair on your head this morning. As long as it's not obvious discrimination (which they'll lie about anyway, it's easy to make shit up to fire someone), you're screwed. One of my ex co-workers wives was a labor attorney in Texas. Yeah, it sounds almost as hellish as it is.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
This discussion has been closed.