The one liked less
D | Monday, July 25, 2005

---

"One person in the relationship always loves the other person more."

We've all heard it before. I wrote this big long post about Crappy Situation X and Bullshit Predicament Y and Bunch of Horseshit Z. How do you best deal with A, while not hurting B? Can A really still be friends with B, without leading him on? Not that those aren't valid questions, but that is just me doing what I always do. I had an ex who often accused me of trying to fix things without simply feeling things. Guilty. I think my huge post of gibberish was another shot at doing just that.

Without going totally off the deep end, there is still a valid issue here. I believe that in striving for a balanced relationship we get glimpses of relationship perfection. But that never really happens, and when it does happen it lasts for about 3 seconds. Even in friendship, typically there is one friend who cares more, one who tries harder, one who will always be there, one who will never say "No." And Lord knows that I am often the friend who care less, so people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, but here I go anyway...

How can you achieve the balance? What do you need to do to make sure you and your friend/lover/spouse/whatever are on equal footing? If this is impossible, how do we cope? What can the powerful person do to acknowledge and combat this imbalance? And what can the one with less power do to take control? Or perhaps more realisticly, What can the caring person do to "care less"? Can we temper our feelings? Or should we just give up and yield to those things that we can never change?

The very first line in my original draft was, "This is a Ruvym style post/topic, so I'll be looking to hear what you have to say about this R." And although I didn't write the post I intended to, I'd still be interested in an educated opinion from any of my readers. Comments are welcome as always.

D | 7/25/2005 06:59:00 PM |   Post your comment

---

Comments:

First of all, I find it pretty pathetic that you pose this question:

Or perhaps more realisticly, What can the caring person do to "care less"?

D, at least you could say more pessimistically. Let me give some faith-filled response, then you can attack that or just choose to ignore.

Our relationships were designed to be filled with love. Not the "in love" I want to jump you feeling that most people would consider love, but a true love that is modeled in God. That love is selfless and sacrificing. It puts you to the point of being what you would consider "powerless" or the one who "cares more." A lot of the time you get screwed, but their are rewards beyond your imagination (wow that sounds cheesy and trite - nonetheless it is true). From that perspective, there is nothing to be done.

Apart from God, I find it hard to see a reason not to be the "powerful person" or the one who "cares less." I see those in the as being equal, so correct me if you see them as opposites. Why would you want to put yourself at that position of vulnerability?
Chris Welter | July 26, 2005 8:54 AM | permalink
 

---

Sorry to post twice, but I'm sort of shooting off of your topic on my blog. Have fun with either, and thanks for making me think...
Chris Welter | July 26, 2005 9:27 AM | permalink
 

---

W,
I followed you right up until the last paragraph. I agree that true love is self-sacrificing and will take you to the point of caring for someone without limit (i.e. becoming the one who cares more). So I think we agree there. Also we agree that the rewards found in a succesful relationship are beyond imagination. So there's that too. Sounds like we are both romantic idealist (which I always think is a good thing, even though our idealism may be grounded in different bases).

While I always appreciate your views on God, religion, and spirituality, and while I think we would find that we agree on "the big picture", you and I seem to disagree on the "details." So, I'll leave my response to the God aspects of your arguement at that. Maybe I just didn't get the message of the last paragraph; please feel free to try it again.

To answer your question, explain romantic love to me apart from any belief in God, let me respond with this... I believe in God, so I personally can stop right there. The way I would rebute your contention that God is necessary for love is to simply deny your premise. I do not believe God is necessary for love to exist. Many people love one and other with no relation to God. For arguement's sake, lets take a ridculously extreme example: My dog loves me. He would jump in front of a train to save me. And I love my dog (again, not in the West Virgina kind of way). He loves me, I love him, he (most likely) has no relation to God or experiencing God's grace. So there's an example of love (and a relatively pure and untarnished type of love, no jealousy or anger or greed) without God.

I will yeild to you this: For those individuals who believe in God, relationships in their lives where God is a participant will be more valuable, and for them, generate more true love. How about that?

BUT let's all note that you did not answer MY questions!!! Are relationship inherently unbalanced? Can they be placed back into balance, and if so how do we work to do this (from either point of view)? I want to hear what you've got to say on those questions. A God-based argument is fine, but I challenge you to present an argument without invoking God. Enjoy!
D | July 26, 2005 3:18 PM | permalink
 

---

OK, first, the confusion over the last paragraph explains why you believe that I didn't answer your questions. Well that and the fact that I drew on two or three corrolaries and assumptions and made no mention of those anywhere. I figured you were more prophetic. Oh well, I guess I'll explain in a way where most people can understand...

Before that though, it's more the romantic love apart from God I want to understand. Yes your dog loves you, but you don't love him romantically (at least we all hope not). He may love your knee romantically, but we're talking a different level here. [Aside: how do you know your dog loves you and it's not just trained responses of 'love'?]

OK, your questions aside from God. Here we go 100 words later. Without God I see relationships as a matter of commerce. Inherently, we ought to only invest in relationships as far as they are beneficial to us. At the point where they stop being beneficial is the point where we stop investing. We should try to, in essence, buy low and sell high.

For example, if I can find a girl who is willing to give everything she has for me, while I only need to give a little of myself to her, then I am ahead of the curve. I should, in cold hard terms, be striving for that imbalance of power where I get what I want with the least amount of effort. The only balance will be reached as the two parties to the relationship dive towards that lowest common denominator of relational investment. It's possible to reach that equal ground, but any depth of relationship makes that equality quite tenuous. In my mind, apart from God, relationships are utility.
Chris Welter | July 26, 2005 3:47 PM | permalink
 

---

I don't have a dog. I was speaking hypothetically. Assume your dog loves you in more than a trained kind of way. Moving on...

Relationships are utility.
-Welter

You heard it here first ladies. Don't all flock to him at once...

You must be joking? Relationships outside of God are simply utility? Correct me if I am wrong here, but you believe that someone is justified in putting forth as little effort as possible to "stay ahead of the curve." What ever happen to do unto others as you would have them do unto you? How can I embrace that philosophy when I am going through life viewing relationships as a cost-benefits analysis. Won't this lead to me trying to "screw" people as long as it maximizes my happiness? I am not entirely sure you are advocating this postion, but either way, I think we are going to need a better working definition of "relationship apart or with) God."

Welter, it is possible that you have become a totally different guy since I knew you in collge, but I seriously doubt that. As I recall, you are one of the most compassionate and kind-hearted people I have had the pleasure to meet. So what's the deal with this viewpoint? Are you expousing a view you do not subscribe to? Or do you combat this view by trying to bring God into every relationship you are involved?

Also, I have understood your view to be that relationship outside of God will be inherently unblanced (as both parties strive to put forth minimal effort). Have I understood you correctly?
D | July 26, 2005 4:29 PM | permalink
 

---

I'm going to jump in here and offer a different perspective. My impression is that people think relationships are unbalanced more than they are. Let me explain.

At one point I posted about something similar to this myself, but I'll try to reiterate in a simpler fashion and with less intensity since the last time I wrote about this - everyone has a unique love. Because we are all individuals, we are often incapable of fully appreciating the love others have for us. It's an inescapable aspect of life. For instance, your love might be the "stand on a rooftop and sing like Ewan McGregor in 'Moulin Rouge'" kind of love, while mine might be the more private type of love, where I deeply and passionately care for you even though you don't see me screaming it at the top of my lungs every chance I get.

Most people see their love as the only way to love, and as a result, are often unhappy unless they get that sort of love back. They want to see a mirror image of their behavior, and if they don't get it, they feel unloved. People often fail to appreciate the different ways people express their love.

Part of this is unfair because, hey, why can't I love you the way I know how? Why can't I love you in my own way? In a way that feels more natural to me? Love can become fake if a person tries to express it in a way they're not used to, just to make the other person happy.

Maybe the answer is not to date people that don't express themselves the same way as you, at least then you never have a problem figuring out how they feel, and you're never annoyed with them for not acting the way you want. But that's also stupid, because than you close yourself off to a lot of people that are still capable of intense love, just not in the form you're used to.

That said, many relationships still come out imbalanced. It's an inevitable part of life that someone can sometimes like the other person more, or as we've all experienced, you get completely rejected from the start because the other person doesn't like you at all. As far as I'm concerned, a real imbalance (vs. one caused by a faulty perception of the situation) is a sign that the relationship is not meant to be. Small imbalances can be fixed, people start liking and appreciating each other more with time, but large ones should indicate incompatbility.

Still, as a closing note, I believe true love is something that grows with time. You meet someone, you like them, maybe you think you "love" them, but you only really start appreciating them when you've been with them for some time. I think most relationships can work, even when they start off imbalanced to a small degree, and even when there's miscommunication in the beginning, if people care about each other and invest the time and patience to make it work.
Ruvym | July 26, 2005 7:47 PM | permalink
 

---

Ruvym, glad to see you weigh in...

I agree that often times we are loved by someone yet fail to appreciate their form of love because it differs from our own type. I will also agree that true love only grows out of time and patience. But leaving those issues aside...

Small imbalances can be fixed, but large ones are signs that the relationship is not destined to work out. I agree with that statement. Small imbalances are typical and often times go back and forth, with one person liking more one month only to reverse roles the next month. The large imbalances are truly problematic. My next question is what to do about it?

Either we stay or we go. But at some point there has to be some sort of evaluation where you determine if the relationship is worth continuing to deal with the "liking disparity" or give up and walk away. How do you make the evaluation?
D | July 26, 2005 8:40 PM | permalink
 

---

I think it's all about what it's worth to you. If you're totally chill and feel like your too young to deal with getting over major imbalances, then get out as soon as you can. If you can't help but think back to that initial excitement and promise that the relationship offered, and you feel sad to just abandon it because of disparaties that have developed, then I say work at it. Chances are that if the relationship continues to be unbalanced, with you the one whose beghind, the other person may be the one who eventually tells you its over, because they're likely more fed up than you. Then again, sometimes you get someone whose scared to take that step, even though it may be the right one, so then it's left to you to come to a point where you realize that nothing is going to change.

I'm hesitant though to put an exact time frame on it. Part of me thinks that if you're with someone for a year, at the most, and there's still constant imbalance that never goes away, that's a pretty clear sign that another year won't make a damn difference. Then again, there are people who stay together for years, and their relationship goes through so many evolutions that it's hardly recognizable from the beginning. Take my parents for example, they fought for the first 14 years of marriage but now they just have this understanding that makes them work so well together. I think they're love for each other is stronger than it's ever been, but they never would have gotten there if they quit.

This presents a new question - does giving a relationship time really lead to removing imbalances or does time simply make us used to the other person so that eventually it's more about needing them than actually loving them more? I really don't know the answer to that one.
Ruvym | July 26, 2005 11:53 PM | permalink
 

---

Oh, Derek. "I believe that in striving for a balanced relationship we get glimses of relationship perfection. But that never really happens, and when it does happen it lasts for about 3 seconds." I think your attitude is pessimistic, babe - but then again, maybe it's easier for me to be optimistic, having never been "in love" myself.

Yet, I think it's possible to achieve balance. Let's start with friendship - yours and mine, for example. I just really don't believe that one of us cares more than the other - unless you care a lot less for me than you appear to, lol - because I feel our level of concern and affection for the other is equal. You appreciate me, I appreciate you, and we meet the friendship needs of the other. Sometimes we may have failed to show it enough, but we make up for it. And we both have a line where we would say, "no." Am I wrong?

I don't think I am (but if I am, we need to have a chat). Believing that, I also believe that it's possible to achieve similar balance in a love relationship. And to respond to Ruvym's questions about time: I don't think it's a matter of time - more on that in a minute. And to respond to Welter, while I have every respect for your beliefs, I think that love relationships have very little to do with one's belief in God as it does with the type of person you are. I believe that achieving a true, honest love in a healthy, balanced relationship is a matter of you and your partner opening yourselves up to it. The deepest kind of love will exist from those that recognize its rarity, its beauty, and its purity. The two that do, I think, will in fact have a balanced relationship. They could have this realization at any point; I know couples who recognized each other as life partners in a matter of months, and I know my parents, for which I believe it took a while. And those couples that I know? They each make sacrifices. They each show love in different ways. The key is that each understand the other's sacrifices and understand how the other shows their love, even though it's different from the way they do it.

There are lots of transactions in life - and a great number of people ARE in relationships of transactions: he gives this, she gives that. These relationships may last, if both of the parties are willing to put up with it (likely believing they aren't capable of achieving anything more) - and in some cases, these may develop into true, honest, deep love, as it did in the case of my parents. But the point is, Derek, is that true, deep, honest love is possible, if you want it. You just have to be willing not to settle. If you feel that you are ok in a relationship where you are giving more or she is giving more (and she's ok with that) - and you feel that you are happy enough with that or that that's enough love for you, than go with it. But if you find that such a relationship doesn't make you as happy as you could possibly be - and feeling that way makes you unhappy - move on. I can say this, because I'm an optimist. I believe that there is at least one right person out there for everyone (hence my frequent personal struggles over dating) - it's just a matter of crashing into them.

And you, Derek? I don't think you'd be truly happy just settling, when it comes to the long term. You might, but I have serious doubts. Same with myself. I'm counting on finding the deepest, truest, purest love I can - regardless of how long it takes.

Alright, that's all for now. I'm sure I'll be back to defend myself. :) Love you.
Kate | July 27, 2005 1:45 AM | permalink
 

---

My apologies; I really didn't respond to Ruvym's question on time at all. I'll have to come back to it, it's late.
Kate | July 27, 2005 1:47 AM | permalink
 

---

Ooh, one more.

First, I meant, "The deepest kind of love will exist FOR those that recognize its rarity, its beauty, and its purity."

Second, I realize I don't sound as I meant when I said, "But if you find that such a relationship doesn't make you as happy as you could possibly be - and feeling that way makes you unhappy - move on." Maybe it's better to explain that if a transaction/cost-analysis relationship doesn't make you as happy as you WANT to be, then move on. By using "possibly" I realize I may have hit incorrectly on the concept of satisfaction - it might be true to say that we may always be able to say we COULD BE happier.

Now I'm done. For now.
Kate | July 27, 2005 1:55 AM | permalink
 

---

To jump back a few posts, D, I am espousing a belief not my own, but you asked me to respond, apart from God. You start there by leading me away from my beliefs. Apart from God I am very pessimistic, egoistic (even moreso somehow), prideful, arrogant SOB.

I always want to come back to root cause. Why do we love, or try to love? Where did that come from? We do have an urge for the relational balance where we feel as invested as our othere, but why? What was the evolutionary purpose in that? What part of survival of the fittest made me desire to do things for a woman I care about and make her feel wonderful, not just use and go to sleep? Without God, I don't know where to start.
Chris Welter | July 27, 2005 8:26 AM | permalink
 

---

Interesting discussion, all. Word up, D - good to finally post on you're site. I've heard good things.

My take on imbalances in relationships is that they are representative of nature itself. We are not all meant to be equals. In every facet of life there are people on top of us and below us, whether we are discussing careers, grades in school, power in friendships, or how much love is given in a relationship. It's part of our animal nature, I believe, to have this disparity between individuals. Without it we would have no structure, no understanding of where we stand in relation to everyone else, and we need to know where we stand so that we may strive to be somewhere we are not currently.

Now, I realize that applying this theory to work and school is easier than applying it to friendships and relationships, yet it works for both the former and the later hypotheticals. See, for friendships and relationships, like for anything else in life, we need to know what we want in order to strive for it. If we are always content with what we currently have, we won't know what is possible. By noting disparities between the amount of love (or in how we show this love) we are able to see the kind of love we, ourselves, need. The same goes for levels of honesty, trust, and commitment.

For example, I know that while I am easily distracted by a pretty face, I simply cannot be with a girl who isn't entirely straightforward with me all the time (well, nearly all the time). It could be that this girl is absolutely in love with me, and I with her, but without her laying all of her cards on the table, I just can't be with her. As I am infinitely more open with what I am thinking and how I am feeling, I simply must have that same level of openness in someone I date. I didn’t realize this when I was younger, but have learned it through, for a lack of a better term, trial and error.

So while I have, in the past, cared more about someone, or cared for them in a different way then they have for me, that's all right, so long as I've learned from my experience and moved on (read: not settled) so that I may search for what I *think* I need. What I *think* I need will undoubtedly change, yet the only reason I think I understand what I *think* I need is because I've experienced what wasn't right before.
Ari-Jo-Knachi | July 27, 2005 10:20 AM | permalink
 

---

R,
Does time remove the imbalance or only makes us want the person more? I think it depends on the relationship. If it is a serious and committed relationship where the gap is small to begin with, then yes time will help. But if the gap is huge and permanent or the relationship is overly casual, then no, time will not matter.

K,
You do make a good point - our relationship is pretty equal. When I wrote this post I was talking about the imbalances in a friendship (not a romantic relationship). But you pointed out that indeed, it doesn't always have to be that way. I would suggest that we have achieved this level of balance through many years of friendship. But let's note, for the record, that there was a good deal of time when our relationship was UNbalanced, with both parties being "on the bottom" at some point. Remember?

And I am confident that neither you nor I will "settle." I think we are noth much too stuborn to give up on love. I do like how you always describe love in words that could be equally used to describe Bumper Cars at an amusement park - "crash into" for example. Your ideal of finding love isn't some smooth guided path to the man you are intended to be with, it is a crazy topsy turvy rollercoaster derailment. And that cracks me up about you.

W,
Ok, good point. I encouraged you to make an argument without God, and you did, and it was not reflective of what you truly believe. All your questions are good ones, and I don't have a solid answer. Why do people love? I don't know. I would say that is it an inherent aspect of human nature (which you would attribute to God). So maybe we do love because of our relationship with God. I don't know.

A,
Welcome, welcome. I am a big fan of your work on Ruvym's blog. I am going to start reading your blog on a regular basis. The posts I've read so far have been enjoyable.

As per your comments, I like the thought you've got running here. Our relationship matching what we see everywhere else in the world provides an explaantion as to why things are unbalanced, and I like the explanation. It makes sense to me. Being unbalanced is natural and is the only way we will know what we need to do better. If things were balanced we would never strive to be better. To a point, I agree with that. Nice work.

Learning from your relationship "mistakes" is always a plus in my life, although, to be perfectly honest, I don't think I am taking note of any of the lessons I've learned. Tell me if you ever do this - Yeah, wow, that was an important lesson. I should remember that. What's your name? What, you're totally a mistake for me? Um sure let's go out and date!
D | July 27, 2005 12:21 PM | permalink
 

---

I guess what it comes down to is, how do you get yourself to care less about anything? Don't be around it. Start caring about something else. Start an argument with it. Find its flaws.

For example:
If you really wanted to go to "so and so school for the performing arts" in "California" - but you believe your chances of getting in are about 1 in a 100,000 - you may do the following things to subsidize that dream. You may stop browsing their internet website on an hourly basis. You might start looking at other wonderful choices. You might call up the admissions boards and instigate an argument so that you can think of their staff as "imbeciles" and transfer that to all of their other employees and courses. You might make a list of cons about the school, like "costs too much" "no close camping grounds" "bad traffic" "gas prices too high" "not enough members of the opposite sex"

Will you ever forget about the school completely? Probably not. Will you care less if you never get in? Probably.
Anonymous | July 27, 2005 1:31 PM | permalink
 

---

Ariel, nice to see you found your way. In terms of mistakes, I made a pact with Ariel yesterday that we will try to avoid the women we know we shouldn't be with. Like you say Derek, we "learn" from our mistakes only to turn around and be seduced by the next one that comes along. Usually it's our lust that drags us into hell because it co-opts everything rational. But enough with excuses. Sure, let's have fun, but when it comes to getting into a relationship with someone, I'm tired of being sucked into something I know won't work. Sure, easier said than done, but we can attempt to live more principles lives.

As for removing yourself from a situation, Anon is right, you have to start caring about it less. But I think it's shitty when someone tries to take these steps while still in the relationship. Still I find that a lot of people do it that way because they're cowards, too afraid to be alone while they figure things out for themselves. No offense ladies, but you're a lot more likely to be prone to the "Tarzan" syndrome. If you know you want to leave a relationship, for whatever reason, try to be decent about it, and get out when you know you're done, rather than sticking with it until you've totally sucked all the life out of it and the other person.
Ruvym | July 27, 2005 3:01 PM | permalink
 

---

Anon,
I liked the analogy. Is this the voice of experience?

I do think you are correct and I am glad to hear someone say it. If you are the person who cares more then try to care less. The examples you gave were funny, yet basically accurate. Force yourself to spend time away from that which you care about most. Replace it with something better/comprable. At the extreme end of the spectrum, go ahead and concoct a reason to dislike what you once loved. It works well for things and places, but that process gets ugly with people (as R points out..)

R,
Tarzan syndrome is good. I called her a "monkey," refusing to let go of one branch til she had a firm grasp on the next branch. Same concept, and I like your name better so I am stealing it.

When I am the one who is liked less, I become resentful and angry. Why doesn't this other person like me as much as I like them? That pisses me off. So yeah, it becomes a real drag on any relationship - freinds or romantic. I think what you are saying is that we should strive for a "clean break." Yes?

As for trying to live life by principals (not dating the ones I know I should not date, for example). I say Bah!
D | July 27, 2005 4:15 PM | permalink
 

---

Ok, after having read through a ton of comments on this subject, and still seeing that there is no finite answer to this age-old question....it seems to be a matter of semantics.
HM | July 27, 2005 8:46 PM | permalink
 

---

Yes, I'm talking about a clean break although of course it never is.
Ruvym | July 27, 2005 9:11 PM | permalink
 

---

Wow, the 20th comment! That's awesome!
Ruvym | July 27, 2005 9:11 PM | permalink
 

---

commented on Welter's LJ (7/26)

Turner
Anonymous | July 28, 2005 12:57 PM | permalink
 

---

In case anyone is looking for what I really was thinking as I was writing this post...

Ruvym nailed it on his own blog

Enjoy!
D | July 28, 2005 3:17 PM | permalink
 

---

This is a good topic of discussion, and arriving late I can't do much to improve upon what has already been said. Therefore, rather than rehash what's already been written, I'll just leave a couple of notes. If you want to hear me wax philosophical on this subject later, we should do so over a beer. This is the kind of topic that just seems to need that kind of ambiance.

1. I'm not an advocate of ever "caring less" while still in the relationship. That move should only be contemplated after the relationship when you're trying to get over someone.

2. The amount people love or care is hard to quantify, especially when (as Ruvym pointed out) people may express their feelings in different ways. That's not an argument against the premise, as there frequently is some type of imbalance. Just be careful in comparing apples to oranges or wildebeasts.

3. Relationships can be grounded in God. They can be grounded in commerce. They can be grounded in biological drive and instinct. Relationships can be grounded in societal norms and customs. They can be grounded in personal ideals. Basically, I think it's different depending on the person and their outlook. In a sense, perception defines reality.

4. How to achieve balance? First I think you need to look at what you mean by balance. Assuming that you could quantify the amount of caring/loving/effort/whatever; we'll call this variable 'C'. Do you mean balance in a 1:1 ratio, such that C(one partner) = C(other partner) [5 units = 5 units, for example]? I don't know if this is the proper way to look at balance. Perhaps there is a certain amount of caring/love/effort/whatever that a person needs (and can give), and this amount is different for each person. In order for there to be balance, each person only needs to receive the amount that they need to be happy; therefore a ratio other than 1:1 can achieve balance. Think of it like a see-saw with different length boards on either end of the fulcrum. To balance the see-saw, you would not place an equal amount of weight on the end of each board. (I hope this is coming across; it'd be easier with diagrams, props, or even hand gestures.) Still, this analogy is imperfect, because I think that if either side receives more than s/he needs, it does not create a true imbalance.

Basically, you need to know how much you need to be happy, and seek out someone who can give that amount or more. If you are not receiving the amount of C that you need to be happy, there are basically several three options: 1) determine whether the other person is willing and able to increase the amount of C they give, and/or whether things may improve over time; 2) end things with the other person; 3) reevaluate your assessment of your need - it is possible that your expectations are not realistic. Naturally the greater the disparity between the C you need and the C you receive, the more difficult it may be to "fix," and may leave no other recourse than ending it. Option 3 should be exercised with caution, for all the reasons illustrated in Ruvym's most recent post. In particular, you shouldn't settle; but it is important to be realistic.

5. As for the issue of the effect of time... time may help to achieve balance, as both sides may begin to understand the needs of the other. Time can also lead to better individual assessments of how much C is personally required. I think it is quite possible that needs may change over time. Finally, in time the manifestation of C may change. For example, early on in a relationship, one may need certain reassurances of the other's feelings whereas over time we may come to accept how much the other cares/etc without continuous proof.

Okay, I've obviously gone way beyond what I intended to write so I'll quit now while I'm ahead. Or rather, before getting too much more behind. If anyone has gotten this far through my incoherent ramblings, I applaud you. I feel like I may be onto something, but can't seem to phrase it quite right. Maybe it'd be better after a beer or two...
Alex | July 28, 2005 5:09 PM | permalink
 

---

Post your comment