Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rape and evolution
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 16 of 84 (368377)
12-08-2006 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
12-07-2006 7:01 PM


Lets look at cats for a moment, since my un-neutered cat is trying to molest the other cats in the house. The male bites at the neck, forcibly pinning the female while he does his thing. (I'm sure I don't need to go into great detail about cat sex).
This is nonsense. Not only is cat sex (usually) consentual, but it is impossible for cats to concieve without it. Queens only ovulate after their first sexual encounter, when the backward facing spines on his penis rake across her vaginal walls. Thus Cats will usually meet and copulate more than once, roughly 24 hours apart. Queens not only solicit sex but are well capable of rebuffing the efforts of Tom cats over whom they are dominant in cat society. Toms do, indeed, grip the back of the neck and need the back and shoudlers of Queens during mating; but your description of it as forceful penetration is simply projection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-07-2006 7:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2006 1:54 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 84 (368378)
12-08-2006 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Archer Opteryx
12-08-2006 5:28 AM


quote:
These longstanding numbers exercise their influence on any sexual phenomenon we want to consider
Oh, sure, there are a host of biological and physical facts that can be used to justify any cultural tradition. In anthropology, the cultural materialists do it without resort to biology at all. It's a fun game to play. Take any tradition from any culture you want. Come up with a biological explanation for it -- hey, you're a psychobiologist! Now come up with a non-biological economic reason for it. Hey, now you're a cultural materialist! Find a passage in the Bible that justifies it. Hey, now you're a religious scholar!

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-08-2006 5:28 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 12-08-2006 10:01 AM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 20 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-08-2006 11:11 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 18 of 84 (368390)
12-08-2006 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Chiroptera
12-08-2006 12:43 AM


Re: Some points.
Chiro writes:
Is there statistical evidence that these people are producing more children
I don't have any statistical evidence with me for now. However, do you agree that the undeveloped countries are the countries with the biggest population increase rates out there? Do you agree that most of these countries have cultures that undervalue women and overvalue men?
or that more of their children are surviving to adulthood than other people?
This is the wrong question, I think. In this day and age, it's not that hard to live to adulthood and breed ferociously while still being dirt poor and starving.

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 12-08-2006 12:43 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 19 of 84 (368406)
12-08-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Chiroptera
12-08-2006 7:54 AM


Lol, you're right of course. Sometimes we can get carried away with social evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 12-08-2006 7:54 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 20 of 84 (368424)
12-08-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Chiroptera
12-08-2006 7:54 AM


Chiroptera:
Oh, sure, there are a host of biological and physical facts that can be used to justify any cultural tradition.
And you've already touched on a few of the more cringe-inducing ones, defended through (faulty) appeals to evolutionary theory.
I wasn't interested in rationalizing this or that local tradition, though. I'm far more interested in the patterns that underlie all traditions--the big tectonic plates on which all the more recent structures rest. From there one is in a better position to explore how different cultures deal with the realities of the landscape.
100% to 0% is a hell of a ratio. Not one you see every day. And to have it apply globally?
That will affect a lot of things. Profoundly.
__
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 12-08-2006 7:54 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 84 (368448)
12-08-2006 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Modulous
12-07-2006 7:53 PM


There is an evolutionary explanation for why people do bad things, just as there is one for why people don't. But being social animals with the ability to communicate over many many generations means we have a lot of cultural baggage which plays a much bigger role than our genetics.
Well, can you imagine the defense attorney paying thousands of dollars to get a geneticist to map out the specific locus in order to sway the jury. This seems like too convenient an excuse to chalk it up as some biological function.
I guess the next question is, since you say that we are hardwired in many ways, particularly as it relates to sexual desires, how much affect does sociology play? Where should we divide the line between nature and nurture in a case like rape?
Rape is not objectively bad, or evil. However, it is undesirable and we pursue and punish those that commit such acts.
Yeah, but why?-- is my point. If we can't blame somebody for being born a certain color or can't blame them for having certain color eyes, why blame them for their behavior? (Please note that I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate here. Of course I think we are accountable for our behavior. I'm just taking the position of the power attorney for a moment).

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2006 7:53 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Sour, posted 12-08-2006 12:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2006 2:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 84 (368459)
12-08-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
12-07-2006 8:24 PM


Evolution and rape
quote:
I've heard some evolutionists attempt to exonerate rape because they see it as a natural part of biology.
Quote them.
1. Craig Palmer: director of anthropology at the University of Colorado and the U. of Missouri at Columbia
2. Randy Thornhill: biology professor at the University of New Mexico
You can read about their controversial topic in this book.
These are just two that openly speak about it.
quote:
Can an evolutionist make moral pronouncements, such as "rape is bad," while still clinging to his or her beliefs in evolution?
Of course. Just as I can believe that killing people is bad while, ahem, "clinging to my beliefs" in gravity.
But gravity wouldn't affect, ahem, one's disposition, but evolution would. That's the problem.

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2006 8:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by iceage, posted 12-08-2006 5:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2006 1:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Sour
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 63
From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK)
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 23 of 84 (368462)
12-08-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
12-08-2006 12:10 PM


Rape is not objectively bad, or evil. However, it is undesirable and we pursue and punish those that commit such acts.
Yeah, but why?-- is my point. If we can't blame somebody for being born a certain color or can't blame them for having certain color eyes, why blame them for their behavior? (Please note that I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate here. Of course I think we are accountable for our behavior. I'm just taking the position of the power attorney for a moment).
It needn't be about blame, or individuals for that matter. It could just be society removing a threat to stability in order to protect itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2006 12:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 84 (368463)
12-08-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
12-07-2006 8:33 PM


Morality and biology are almost completely nonrelated.
I would agree, personally, but you and I are in the minority. There is an entire field, sociobiology, which advances this concept.
Simply put, morality is how we as humans try to define appropriate behaviors and inappropriate behaviors to stabilize society and hopefully make life more comfortable for people. Biology is simply a field of science that studies interactions between organic beings and describes how these interactions come about. I don't know if this is the official definition or not and I don't care. It just came off the top of my head.
While appreciate your explanation, it doesn't offer us much to the topic. If evolution is certainly true, then evolution is intimately tied into everything in the biological world. Its funny how in one instance, people will casually mention that we acquire predatory and sexual instincts, via evolutionary, biological advances, but not rape. That doesn't make any sense, which is why I am advancing this argument.

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 12-07-2006 8:33 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Chiroptera, posted 12-08-2006 1:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 84 (368472)
12-08-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chiroptera
12-07-2006 8:36 PM


Re: Some points.
Heh. You like walking on the edge, don't you, nem?
*sings Johnny Cash: "I walk the line."*
A few points. First, we don't know that there is an innate drive in human males toward rape. Personally, I suspect that there isn't, although these things are hard to determine.
Many sociologists and psychologists posit that rape has less to do about sexuality than it does about asserting dominance over a person. I happen to agree. Now, some people, through years of dehumanizing themselves, seem to become sexually aroused at the thought of subjecting someone else to their power by humiliating them.
So, in a sense, I don't believe rape is about sexuality, per say, but rather that its a crime of deep hatred in most cases. We also know of men and some women who molest people while they are inebriated. This certainly constitutes rape, however, I'd like to focus on violent rape. Again, a violent rapist somehow equates violence and sex to be synonymous. This kind of behavior doesn't happen over night. Its likely a slow progression that progessively gets worse over time.
Second, if there is an innate biological drive in human males toward rape, there is no reason to accept that it was directly selected because it provided some sort of reproductive benefit to those who had the trait. It may be the result of other aspects of human neurology that were directly selected for.
I'm saying that if you look at how bovine operate, for instance, the way in which they have copulate could be construed in human terms as rape. There is no sexual ritual involved. The bull is pretty much primed to go all the time as long as a cow is present. Without question, every time I've seen cows and bulls together, the female is never happy about it. The cows are always trying to run away while the male pursues her. She never "presents" like we see in other animals. She';s usually just eating some grass when he decides to accost her. Of course, they are just animals and that's how they do things. We can't call it rape because it is natural occurrence and they don't exhibit any kind of understanding for morality. In a sense, it is what it is.
Now, how does this relate to humans? Humans are referred to as animals, no different from our amphibious brothers and reptilian sisters, right? And if evolutionists insist that we are the products of our baser appetites (instincts) and there is no objective morals, as Modulous asserts, then how can view rape as a crime? (Again to clarify, I'm not advocating rape in any way I'm just playing the D.A.).
Third, even if a biological tendency toward rape were selected for because it provided a reproductive benefit in our ancestors, it may, like the modern human appendix, serve little or no purpose in modern humans. Since, like all human drives, it is rather weak and flexible, it is possible that it has been selected against in recent human evolutionary history.
Forget about a rape gene or anything remotely akin to that. That's an absurd concept. The only predilection I'm referring to is sexuality, period. The whole point of life for an evolutionist seems to be sex, but more specifically, procreation. If this is esteemed so highly, then what is wrong with rape from an evolutionary perspective? If sex and procreation are such a high virtues in the natural order of things, then why are controversial topics, like abortion, homosexuality, and rape an issue of either support or contention?
Finally, even if modern human males have an inherited tendency toward rape because it has given our recent ancestors a reproductive benefit, there is no moral conclusion we can draw from it. Just like the law of gravity requires things to fall down, there is nothing morally superior to keeping to the valleys and nothing immoral about flying in airplanes or living on hilltops.
Then there is nothing wrong with pinning down whom ever you want to forcibly molest without some sense of right and wrong. You could assign to it something as arbitrary as gravity and say that it is what is. Where, then, does this sense of violation come from? It seems that you want your cake and eat it too.

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 12-07-2006 8:36 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kuresu, posted 12-08-2006 5:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 12-08-2006 7:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 38 by nator, posted 12-08-2006 7:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 84 (368477)
12-08-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
12-08-2006 12:41 PM


quote:
people will casually mention that we acquire predatory and sexual instincts, via evolutionary, biological advances, but not rape.
Well, people will, do, and have claimed that all sorts of human behaviors were acquired through natural selection. However, it is still a matter a great controversy which, if any, behaviors are innate.
-
quote:
That doesn't make any sense,
Sure it does. Even if some behaviors are determined to be innate doesn't mean that all have to be. Driving automobiles, for example. That is definitely not an innate behavior. So there are definitely some behaviors that are not innate.
-
quote:
which is why I am advancing this argument.
Actually, how people would react if it were scientifically deteremined that human males do have a natural, innate instinct to rape is itself an interesting question to ponder, even without the questions about evolution. That might be off-topic, though.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2006 12:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 84 (368481)
12-08-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
12-07-2006 10:08 PM


Primate females have clitorises, for instance, and experience the same pleasurable sensation of orgasm that males do, which they can achieve at any time, even during their non-fertile period.
I've only seen a handful of clips of primates mating, but it seems pretty impersonal to me, and it sure doesn't appear that either are in throes of passion. That seems to be uniquely human to me. But, I have not studied primate mating rituals in depth, so I can't say with certainty. I tried looking for some clips on the web, but of course, 90% of the info was related to beastiality. (Seriously, what the hell is wrong those people)?
Therefore, since the purpose of sex in primates is not reproduction but rather fostering social unity, rape as a behavior works against the rapist and costs him far more in the loss of social resources than he gains in terms of producing more offspring. After all, the rapist has absolutely no idea when the woman is actually fertile. He's literally taking a shot in the dark, if you will. (Not to make light of the tragedy of rape, of course.)
This is, by far, the best explanation that I've heard because at least it makes sense. Primates certainly are very social animals, but at the same time, so are many animals. You can see the same behavior in a lion pride or in elephants and dolphins, etc. Even though this sounds reasonable, I have seen a few primates in action. And what I see in their culture is that there is still at least one dominant male in the fray. He controls all the shots. He allows members of the group to eat or not. He mates with whomever he wants, whenever he wants. If this is the case for our supposed closest ancestors, then how much more or less could we attribute the same behavior to humans?
Gasby makes a good point about human society. Women seem to want to be cared for. She wants stability and she wants somebody who is going to take control of a situation for her benefit and the benefit of her children. And we see many women drawn to, (for lack of a better word), pricks-- jerks-- a-holes. Now, no woman wants to be raped. So, where is this line in the sand demarcate as far as it would relate in evolutionary terms?

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2006 10:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 3:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 84 (368483)
12-08-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Jack
12-08-2006 7:41 AM


Sexual behavior of felines
Not only is cat sex (usually) consentual, but it is impossible for cats to concieve without it.
First of all, I didn't mention consent. Secondly, certainly is not always consensual and I don't know how you could possibly quantify feline sexual behavior to know whether or not consent is the norm. Thirdly, are you suggesting that felines don't need to procreate in order to conceive?
Queens only ovulate after their first sexual encounter, when the backward facing spines on his penis rake across her vaginal walls. Thus Cats will usually meet and copulate more than once, roughly 24 hours apart. Queens not only solicit sex but are well capable of rebuffing the efforts of Tom cats over whom they are dominant in cat society.
Females are dominant in cat society, but I would agree they are capable of rebuffing. What I was alluding to is that cat sex is very aggressive, where the male bites at the neck of the female to hold her down. I also mentioned that the yowls you hear at night are not always cats fighting somewhere in the neighborhood, but rather, that's the sound of a female cat having sex. She is in pain. Its not a pleasurable experience for her.

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 12-08-2006 7:41 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 2:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 70 by Dr Jack, posted 03-28-2007 7:07 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 29 of 84 (368486)
12-08-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
12-08-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Sexual behavior of felines
Rape exists in all human cultures to some extent or other.
Can we therefore say that rape is natural?
Probably we can. However being natural does not necessarily make it good or right and I would argue, as an atheist and firm advocate of evolution, that rape is in fact morally wrong and that rapists should be punished by society.
Are humans endowed with sexual urges and are these urges genetic in basis? Certainly, although looking for a "rape gene" is almost certainly a pointless task as a complex interraction of genetics and social experience is almost certainly at play in such cases.
As well as complex sexual urges we also have evolved the intellect and unique ability to empathise with others. This allows us to understand anothers suffering and to appreciate the consequences of our actions on others. This in turn enables us to understand that it is not "right" to inflict on others atrocities that we would hate to be inflicted upon ourselves or those that we love.
Our ability to empathise is what makes us moral animals, is what guides the rules on which societies are formed and is the basis for rape being considered wrong in any civilised society.
That will not stop rape occurring, especially in dehumanising situations such as war, but it does mean we can morally condemn those who commit it regardless of any reference to some sort of natural or evolutionary based argument for it's proliferation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2006 1:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2006 6:13 PM Straggler has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 84 (368504)
12-08-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hyroglyphx
12-08-2006 1:43 PM


I've only seen a handful of clips of primates mating, but it seems pretty impersonal to me, and it sure doesn't appear that either are in throes of passion.
Bonobos, my friend. Seriously. You won't be able to watch the clips in mixed company, let's just say that.
I tried looking for some clips on the web, but of course, 90% of the info was related to beastiality.
As a suggestion - this is not "research" you probably want to do at work.
Primates certainly are very social animals, but at the same time, so are many animals.
Yeah, but they're not using sex to enforce social contracts or to promote pair-bonding and unity. In fact relatively few animals pair-bond at all, or have any use for the male as parent after mating.
Primates are social in a much more complex way than other mammals. Part of that is sex. Another part of it is our expressive faces, and our facility with communication and with handling financial transactions. (Recent research has shown that bonobos and other chimpanzees percieve a sense of fairness in transactions, reacting negatively when they observe another individual getting a better deal for a trade - say, a wooden token for a grape or piece of banana - than they themselves got.)
And what I see in their culture is that there is still at least one dominant male in the fray. He controls all the shots. He allows members of the group to eat or not. He mates with whomever he wants, whenever he wants.
It's not clear to me which primate species you're referring to. And it would probably be better for the discussion if we weren't simply relying on behaviors you saw at the zoo, but rather, actual peer-reviewed research in primate ethology. I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, or that you're lying - simply that you're not approaching these matters with the trained eye of a primate anthropologist. It can be difficult to really understand the social structure of a species from the observations of a layperson. I mean, if somebody came to your job, wouldn't they see that there's an alpha male who tells everybody what to do, when to eat, and has his pick of secretaries to mate with? Would it be accurate to extend from that fact that you and your wife don't have consensual, mutually pleasurable sex?
Probably not. (I hope not.)
And we see many women drawn to, (for lack of a better word), pricks-- jerks-- a-holes.
I'm wary about accepting this assumption as true with no corroborating evidence. I certainly wouldn't attempt to derive some kind of universal truth from it. I mean, what's the scientific definition of a guy who's an asshole? How would you measure assholeness?
Moreover - what makes you think you have to be an asshole to commit rape? The nice guys can be rapists too - in fact I'd say that happens more often.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2006 1:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 4:22 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2006 6:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024