Welcome to Gaia! ::

GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Christ the Holy Son
GunsmithKitten
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
Seduction was and will always remain the female form of power

So I have to whore myself to even be remotely comparable to a man?



biggrin

Nope, as a woman you've got MANY more options. The two emotions that almost every male felt in the presence of Lou Andreas-Salomé were confusion and excitement—the two prerequisite feelings for any successful seduction. People were intoxicated by her strange mix of the masculine and the feminine; she was beautiful, with a radiant smile and a graceful, flirtatious manner, but her independence and her intensely analytical nature made her seem oddly male. This ambiguity was expressed in her eyes, which were both coquettish and probing. It was confusion that kept men interested and curious: no other woman was like this.They wanted to know more. The excitement stemmed from her ability to stir up repressed desires. She was a complete nonconformist, and to be involved with her was to break all kinds of taboos. Her masculinity made the relationship seem vaguely homosexual; her slightly cruel, slightly domineering streak could stir up masochistic yearnings, as it did in Nietzsche. Salomé radiated a forbidden sexuality. Her powerful effect on men—the lifelong infatuations, the suicides (there were several), the periods of intense creativity, the descriptions of her as a vampire or a devil—attest to the obscure depths of the psyche that she was able to reach and disturb. The woman who succeeds by reversing the normal pattern of male taking the risky initiative in matters of love and seduction will have untold powers. A man's apparent independence, his capacity for detachment, often seems to give him the upperhand in the dynamic between men and women. A purely feminine woman will arouse desire, but is always vulnerable to the man's capricious loss of interest; a purely masculine woman, on the other hand, will not arouse that interest at all. Follow the path of the woman who reverses the traditional dynamic, however, and you neutralize all a man's powers. Never give completely of yourself; while you are passionate and sexual, always retain an air of independence and self-possession. You might move on to the next man, or so he will think. You have other, more important matters to concern yourself with, such as your work. Men do not know how to fight women who use their own weapons against them; they are intrigued, aroused, and disarmed. Few men can resist the taboo pleasures offered up to them by such a woman.


Or, I can forget all that s**t, and take what I want the same way the men not only do, but are honored for.

All that talk of seduction, yet such tactics are why women are chided as decietful, weak, and evil. That woman you talked about was portrayed as EVIL. She was not celebrated, she was reviled and scorned.

The Radical's strength, but also the Radical's problem, is that he or she often works through transgressive feelings relating to sex roles. Although this activity is highly charged and seductive, it is also dangerous,since it touches on a source of great anxiety and insecurity. The greater dangers will often come from your own sex. Lord Byron had immense appeal for women, but men hated him. He was constantly dogged with accusations of being perversely unmasculine. Salomé was equally disliked by women; Nietzsche's sister, and perhaps his closest friend, considered her an evil witch, and led a virulent campaign against her in the press long after the philosopher's death(Which increased her fame and made her desirable). There is little to be done in the face of resentment like this. Some Radicals try to fight the image they themselves have created to please people, but this is unwise: to prove his masculinity, Lord Byron would engage in a boxing and fencing, anything to prove his masculinity. He wound up looking only desperate. Better to accept society's occasional gibes with grace and insolence. After all, the Radical's charm isthat they don't really care what people think of them. That is how Andy Warhol played the game: when people tired of his antics or some scandal erupted, instead of trying to defend himself he would simply move on to some new image—decadent bohemian, high-society portraitist, etc.—as if to say, with a hint of disdain, that the problem lay not with him but with other people's attention span.Another danger for the Radical is the fact that insolence has its limits. Beau Brummel prided himself on two things: his trimness of figure and his acerbic wit. His main social patron was the Prince of Wales, who, in later years, grew plump. One night at dinner, the prince rang for the butler, and Brummel snidely remarked, "Do ring, Big Ben." The prince did not appreciate the joke, had Brummel shown out, and never spoke to him again.Without royal patronage, Brummel fell into poverty and madness.Even a Radical, then, must measure out his impudence. A true Radical knows the difference between a theatrically staged teasing of the powerful and a remark that will truly hurt, offend, or insult. It is particularly important to avoid insulting those in a position to injure you. In fact the pose may work best for those who can afford to offend—artists, bohemians, etc. In the work world, you will probably have to modify and tone down your Radical image. Be pleasantly different, an amusement, rather than a person who challenges the group's conventions and makes others feel insecure.


Once again, you encourage me to continue the behavior that is unrewarded and that the very MRA's and people like GirlWritesWhat condemns in the first ******** place. No win situation with you punks, so guess what; I go with what I want to do and feels right anyway.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Christ the Holy Son


I mean...don't rapists tend to look for specific traits in victims?


Hey sunshine, Law and Order SVU and James Patterson books are not substitutes for legitimate criminology. Good fun, yes, but not very educational.
GunsmithKitten
Christ the Holy Son
GunsmithKitten
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
Seduction was and will always remain the female form of power

So I have to whore myself to even be remotely comparable to a man?



biggrin

Nope, as a woman you've got MANY more options. The two emotions that almost every male felt in the presence of Lou Andreas-Salomé were confusion and excitement—the two prerequisite feelings for any successful seduction. People were intoxicated by her strange mix of the masculine and the feminine; she was beautiful, with a radiant smile and a graceful, flirtatious manner, but her independence and her intensely analytical nature made her seem oddly male. This ambiguity was expressed in her eyes, which were both coquettish and probing. It was confusion that kept men interested and curious: no other woman was like this.They wanted to know more. The excitement stemmed from her ability to stir up repressed desires. She was a complete nonconformist, and to be involved with her was to break all kinds of taboos. Her masculinity made the relationship seem vaguely homosexual; her slightly cruel, slightly domineering streak could stir up masochistic yearnings, as it did in Nietzsche. Salomé radiated a forbidden sexuality. Her powerful effect on men—the lifelong infatuations, the suicides (there were several), the periods of intense creativity, the descriptions of her as a vampire or a devil—attest to the obscure depths of the psyche that she was able to reach and disturb. The woman who succeeds by reversing the normal pattern of male taking the risky initiative in matters of love and seduction will have untold powers. A man's apparent independence, his capacity for detachment, often seems to give him the upperhand in the dynamic between men and women. A purely feminine woman will arouse desire, but is always vulnerable to the man's capricious loss of interest; a purely masculine woman, on the other hand, will not arouse that interest at all. Follow the path of the woman who reverses the traditional dynamic, however, and you neutralize all a man's powers. Never give completely of yourself; while you are passionate and sexual, always retain an air of independence and self-possession. You might move on to the next man, or so he will think. You have other, more important matters to concern yourself with, such as your work. Men do not know how to fight women who use their own weapons against them; they are intrigued, aroused, and disarmed. Few men can resist the taboo pleasures offered up to them by such a woman.


Or, I can forget all that s**t, and take what I want the same way the men not only do, but are honored for.

All that talk of seduction, yet such tactics are why women are chided as decietful, weak, and evil. That woman you talked about was portrayed as EVIL. She was not celebrated, she was reviled and scorned.

The Radical's strength, but also the Radical's problem, is that he or she often works through transgressive feelings relating to sex roles. Although this activity is highly charged and seductive, it is also dangerous,since it touches on a source of great anxiety and insecurity. The greater dangers will often come from your own sex. Lord Byron had immense appeal for women, but men hated him. He was constantly dogged with accusations of being perversely unmasculine. Salomé was equally disliked by women; Nietzsche's sister, and perhaps his closest friend, considered her an evil witch, and led a virulent campaign against her in the press long after the philosopher's death(Which increased her fame and made her desirable). There is little to be done in the face of resentment like this. Some Radicals try to fight the image they themselves have created to please people, but this is unwise: to prove his masculinity, Lord Byron would engage in a boxing and fencing, anything to prove his masculinity. He wound up looking only desperate. Better to accept society's occasional gibes with grace and insolence. After all, the Radical's charm isthat they don't really care what people think of them. That is how Andy Warhol played the game: when people tired of his antics or some scandal erupted, instead of trying to defend himself he would simply move on to some new image—decadent bohemian, high-society portraitist, etc.—as if to say, with a hint of disdain, that the problem lay not with him but with other people's attention span.Another danger for the Radical is the fact that insolence has its limits. Beau Brummel prided himself on two things: his trimness of figure and his acerbic wit. His main social patron was the Prince of Wales, who, in later years, grew plump. One night at dinner, the prince rang for the butler, and Brummel snidely remarked, "Do ring, Big Ben." The prince did not appreciate the joke, had Brummel shown out, and never spoke to him again.Without royal patronage, Brummel fell into poverty and madness.Even a Radical, then, must measure out his impudence. A true Radical knows the difference between a theatrically staged teasing of the powerful and a remark that will truly hurt, offend, or insult. It is particularly important to avoid insulting those in a position to injure you. In fact the pose may work best for those who can afford to offend—artists, bohemians, etc. In the work world, you will probably have to modify and tone down your Radical image. Be pleasantly different, an amusement, rather than a person who challenges the group's conventions and makes others feel insecure.


Once again, you encourage me to continue the behavior that is unrewarded and that the very MRA's and people like GirlWritesWhat condemns in the first ******** place. No win situation with you punks, so guess what; I go with what I want to do and feels right anyway.


That's exactly what I wanted you to say because a society full of "radicals" lacks the charm it had. When Beau Brummel created this dandies weren't big anymore....D:


A quality that stands out can be charming but it can also be irritating because total difference can quickly grate, the most seductive Radicals are those who, like Josephine Baker, combine adult experience and wisdom with a childlike manner. It is this mixture of qualities that is most alluring. Society cannot tolerate too many Radicals. Given a crowd of Cora Pearls or Charlie Chaplins, their charm would quickly wear off. In any case it is usually only artists, or people with abundant leisure time, who can afford to go all the way. Cleopatra had a devastating effect on every man who crossed her path. Octavius—the future Emperor Augustus, and the man who would defeat and destroy Cleopatra's lover Mark Antony—was well aware of her power, and defended himself against it by being always extremely amiable with her, courteous to the extreme, but never showing the slightest emotion, whether of interest or dislike. In other words, he treated her as if she were any other woman. Facing this front, she could not sink her hooks into him. Once Feminism becomes a common state of affairs, we'll have many a future Augustus.

I want you to inspire more women to become Feminists. For a male to identify as a Feminist is the greatest aphrodisiac and it can be exploited because Seduction was and will always remain the female form of power and warfare. It was originally the antidote to rape and violence. The man who uses this form of power on a woman is in essence turning the game around employing feminine weapons against her; without losing my masculine identity, the more subtly feminine I become the more effective the seduction. Do not be one of those who believe that what is most seductive is being devastatingly masculine. The Feminine Male Radical has a much more sinister effect. I lure the woman in with exactly what she wants—a familiar,pleasing, graceful presence. Mirroring feminine psychology, I display attention to my appearance, a sensitivity to detail, a slight coquettishness—but also a hint of male cruelty. Women are narcissists, in love with the charms of their own sex. By showing them feminine charm, a man can mesmerize and disarm them, leaving them vulnerable to a bold, masculine move. The "Feminine" Man can seduce on a mass scale. No single woman really possess me-I am too elusive—but all can fantasize about doing so.The key is ambiguity: my sexuality is decidedly heterosexual, but my body and psychology float delightfully back and forth between the two poles.

Thanks, in the End!

I win.
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Christ the Holy Son

That's exactly what I wanted you to say because a society full of "radicals" lacks the charm it had. When Beau Brummel created this dandies weren't big anymore....D:


A quality that stands out can be charming but it can also be irritating because total difference can quickly grate, the most seductive Radicals are those who, like Josephine Baker, combine adult experience and wisdom with a childlike manner. It is this mixture of qualities that is most alluring. Society cannot tolerate too many Radicals. Given a crowd of Cora Pearls or Charlie Chaplins, their charm would quickly wear off. In any case it is usually only artists, or people with abundant leisure time, who can afford to go all the way. Cleopatra had a devastating effect on every man who crossed her path. Octavius—the future Emperor Augustus, and the man who would defeat and destroy Cleopatra's lover Mark Antony—was well aware of her power, and defended himself against it by being always extremely amiable with her, courteous to the extreme, but never showing the slightest emotion, whether of interest or dislike. In other words, he treated her as if she were any other woman. Facing this front, she could not sink her hooks into him. Once Feminism becomes a common state of affairs, we'll have many a future Augustus.

I want you to inspire more women to become Feminists. For a male to identify as a Feminist is the greatest aphrodisiac and it can be exploited because Seduction was and will always remain the female form of power and warfare. It was originally the antidote to rape and violence. The man who uses this form of power on a woman is in essence turning the game around employing feminine weapons against her; without losing my masculine identity, the more subtly feminine I become the more effective the seduction. Do not be one of those who believe that what is most seductive is being devastatingly masculine. The Feminine Male Radical has a much more sinister effect. I lure the woman in with exactly what she wants—a familiar,pleasing, graceful presence. Mirroring feminine psychology, I display attention to my appearance, a sensitivity to detail, a slight coquettishness—but also a hint of male cruelty. Women are narcissists, in love with the charms of their own sex. By showing them feminine charm, a man can mesmerize and disarm them, leaving them vulnerable to a bold, masculine move. The "Feminine" Man can seduce on a mass scale. No single woman really possess me-I am too elusive—but all can fantasize about doing so.The key is ambiguity: my sexuality is decidedly heterosexual, but my body and psychology float delightfully back and forth between the two poles.

Thanks, in the End!

I win.

So is this book that you're quoting is the force behind the 'metrosexual' movement? I'm a bit curious.
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son

That's exactly what I wanted you to say because a society full of "radicals" lacks the charm it had. When Beau Brummel created this dandies weren't big anymore....D:


A quality that stands out can be charming but it can also be irritating because total difference can quickly grate, the most seductive Radicals are those who, like Josephine Baker, combine adult experience and wisdom with a childlike manner. It is this mixture of qualities that is most alluring. Society cannot tolerate too many Radicals. Given a crowd of Cora Pearls or Charlie Chaplins, their charm would quickly wear off. In any case it is usually only artists, or people with abundant leisure time, who can afford to go all the way. Cleopatra had a devastating effect on every man who crossed her path. Octavius—the future Emperor Augustus, and the man who would defeat and destroy Cleopatra's lover Mark Antony—was well aware of her power, and defended himself against it by being always extremely amiable with her, courteous to the extreme, but never showing the slightest emotion, whether of interest or dislike. In other words, he treated her as if she were any other woman. Facing this front, she could not sink her hooks into him. Once Feminism becomes a common state of affairs, we'll have many a future Augustus.

I want you to inspire more women to become Feminists. For a male to identify as a Feminist is the greatest aphrodisiac and it can be exploited because Seduction was and will always remain the female form of power and warfare. It was originally the antidote to rape and violence. The man who uses this form of power on a woman is in essence turning the game around employing feminine weapons against her; without losing my masculine identity, the more subtly feminine I become the more effective the seduction. Do not be one of those who believe that what is most seductive is being devastatingly masculine. The Feminine Male Radical has a much more sinister effect. I lure the woman in with exactly what she wants—a familiar,pleasing, graceful presence. Mirroring feminine psychology, I display attention to my appearance, a sensitivity to detail, a slight coquettishness—but also a hint of male cruelty. Women are narcissists, in love with the charms of their own sex. By showing them feminine charm, a man can mesmerize and disarm them, leaving them vulnerable to a bold, masculine move. The "Feminine" Man can seduce on a mass scale. No single woman really possess me-I am too elusive—but all can fantasize about doing so.The key is ambiguity: my sexuality is decidedly heterosexual, but my body and psychology float delightfully back and forth between the two poles.

Thanks, in the End!

I win.

So is this book that you're quoting is the force behind the 'metrosexual' movement? I'm a bit curious.



The "Metrosexuals" are downright lovely, probably the only sexuallity I've not got a problem with.

-chuckles-

Sexuality has always puzzled me, when i'm alone...I'm up for it, when i'm around you...I want something sentimental.

Personally, I don't like to be touched though so I prefer keeping a distance.
Tarako6's avatar

Blessed Lunatic

8,100 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Forum Regular 100
Christ the Holy Son

Ah, comparing women to slaves! Excellent "appeal to emotion".

You almost had me there.

Seduction is a psychological process that transcends gender, except in a few key areas where each gender has its own weakness. The male is traditionally vulnerable to the visual. The Woman who can concoct the right physical appearance will seduce in large numbers. For women the weakness is language and words: as was written by one of D'Annunzio's lovers, the French actress Simone, "How can one explain his conquests except by his extraordinary verbal power, and the musical timbre of his voice, put to the service of exceptional eloquence? For my sex is susceptible to words, bewitched by them, longing to be dominated by them."

Seduction was and will always remain the female form of power and warfare and was originally the antidote to rape and violence.

I'ma go with a specific semantic and point out that if you have to manipulate someone to get something, you don't have "true power" as it seems you're implying. If you control the money of the person, and they can't do something without your money-whether you are male or female-then you directly hold the position of power. In the case of the timid man who is a house-hubby, some guys are retardedly good at the art of puppy eyes, then even if he got her to do what he wanted she would still hold the power. Similarly, some women can be seduced by arnold swartzenator type guys simply because they have big muscles. Even if you assume that a person can be a "puppeteer" it all varies on a case to case basis. Not all men are controlled by visuals, and some even have an extra chromosome, just as we have bearded/muscular ladies who have too much testosterone and some guys who actually like those things and vise versa.

'Ell...since I'm here, I guess my question is- Why do we, as a society, keep trying to enforce gender roles period? When it has been established that everyone varies depending on how they have been raised as well as their genetics. Then we also have gays/lesbians/transvestites which are never mentioned in our 'equations', among infinite other variables.
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Christ the Holy Son
The "Metrosexuals" are downright lovely, probably the only sexuallity I've not got a problem with.

-chuckles-

Sexuality has always puzzled me, when i'm alone...I'm up for it, when i'm around you...I want something sentimental.

Personally, I don't like to be touched though so I prefer keeping a distance.

Why don't you like to be touched?

If this is too personal, you don't have to answer or we could take it to PMs.
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
The "Metrosexuals" are downright lovely, probably the only sexuallity I've not got a problem with.

-chuckles-

Sexuality has always puzzled me, when i'm alone...I'm up for it, when i'm around you...I want something sentimental.

Personally, I don't like to be touched though so I prefer keeping a distance.

Why don't you like to be touched?


Because...

You can't touch a fantasy.

Fantasies are unconscious. The most eloquent expression of the unconscious is the dream, which is intricately connected to myth; waking from a dream, we are often haunted by its images and ambiguous messages. Dreams obsess us because they mix the real and the unreal. They are filled with real characters, and often deal with real situations, yet they are delightfully irrational , pushing realities to the extremes of delirium. If everything in a dream were realistic, it would have no power over us; if everything were unreal, we would feel less involved in its pleasures and fears. Its fusion of the two is what makes it haunting. This is what Freud called the "uncanny": some-thing that seems simultaneously strange and familiar. We sometimes experience the uncanny in waking life—in a déjà vu, amiraculous coincidence, a weird event that recalls a childhood experience. People can have a similar effect. The gestures, the words, the very being of men like Michael Jackson or Andy Warhol, for example, evoke both the real and the unreal: we may not realize it (and how could we, really), but they are like dream figures to us. They have qualities that anchor them in reality—sincerity, playfulness, sensuality—but at the same time their aloofness, their superiority, their almost surreal quality makes them seem like something out of a movie.




Andy Warhol.
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
The "Metrosexuals" are downright lovely, probably the only sexuallity I've not got a problem with.

-chuckles-

Sexuality has always puzzled me, when i'm alone...I'm up for it, when i'm around you...I want something sentimental.

Personally, I don't like to be touched though so I prefer keeping a distance.

Why don't you like to be touched?


Because...

You can't touch a fantasy.

Fantasies are unconscious. The most eloquent expression of the unconscious is the dream, which is intricately connected to myth; waking from a dream, we are often haunted by its images and ambiguous messages. Dreams obsess us because they mix the real and the unreal. They are filled with real characters, and often deal with real situations, yet they are delightfully irrational , pushing realities to the extremes of delirium. If everything in a dream were realistic, it would have no power over us; if everything were unreal, we would feel less involved in its pleasures and fears. Its fusion of the two is what makes it haunting. This is what Freud called the "uncanny": some-thing that seems simultaneously strange and familiar. We sometimes experience the uncanny in waking life—in a déjà vu, amiraculous coincidence, a weird event that recalls a childhood experience. People can have a similar effect. The gestures, the words, the very being of men like Michael Jackson or Andy Warhol, for example, evoke both the real and the unreal: we may not realize it (and how could we, really), but they are like dream figures to us. They have qualities that anchor them in reality—sincerity, playfulness, sensuality—but at the same time their aloofness, their superiority, their almost surreal quality makes them seem like something out of a movie.




Andy Warhol.

Okay, but really. Is it out of some misguided need to be emotionally independent from everyone else? Is it due to some kind of trauma? Is your skin hypersensitive?
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
The "Metrosexuals" are downright lovely, probably the only sexuallity I've not got a problem with.

-chuckles-

Sexuality has always puzzled me, when i'm alone...I'm up for it, when i'm around you...I want something sentimental.

Personally, I don't like to be touched though so I prefer keeping a distance.

Why don't you like to be touched?


Because...

You can't touch a fantasy.

Fantasies are unconscious. The most eloquent expression of the unconscious is the dream, which is intricately connected to myth; waking from a dream, we are often haunted by its images and ambiguous messages. Dreams obsess us because they mix the real and the unreal. They are filled with real characters, and often deal with real situations, yet they are delightfully irrational , pushing realities to the extremes of delirium. If everything in a dream were realistic, it would have no power over us; if everything were unreal, we would feel less involved in its pleasures and fears. Its fusion of the two is what makes it haunting. This is what Freud called the "uncanny": some-thing that seems simultaneously strange and familiar. We sometimes experience the uncanny in waking life—in a déjà vu, amiraculous coincidence, a weird event that recalls a childhood experience. People can have a similar effect. The gestures, the words, the very being of men like Michael Jackson or Andy Warhol, for example, evoke both the real and the unreal: we may not realize it (and how could we, really), but they are like dream figures to us. They have qualities that anchor them in reality—sincerity, playfulness, sensuality—but at the same time their aloofness, their superiority, their almost surreal quality makes them seem like something out of a movie.




Andy Warhol.

Okay, but really. Is it out of some misguided need to be emotionally independent from everyone else? Is it due to some kind of trauma? Is your skin hypersensitive?
Yes, I hate being ordinary. I like being ambiguous and profound. You could say some "misguided need to be emotionally independent from everyone else"
Yoshpet's avatar

Dedicated Loiterer

4,100 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Forum Regular 100
Christ the Holy Son
Yes, I hate being ordinary. I like being ambiguous and profound. You could say some "misguided need to be emotionally independent from everyone else"


Attempting to make oneself appear ambiguous and profound is actually quite ordinary behavior. confused
Yoshpet
Christ the Holy Son
Okay, but really. Is it out of some misguided need to be emotionally independent from everyone else? Is it due to some kind of trauma? Is your skin hypersensitive?
Yes, I hate being ordinary. I like being ambiguous and profound. You could say some "misguided need to be emotionally independent from everyone else"


Attempting to make oneself appear ambiguous and profound is actually quite ordinary behavior. confused


At least i'm honest about it.
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Christ the Holy Son
Yes, I hate being ordinary. I like being ambiguous and profound. You could say some "misguided need to be emotionally independent from everyone else"

That's why you don't like being touched?

It doesn't strike me as ambiguous and profound, it strikes me as damaged and sad and in need of TLC.
Yoshpet's avatar

Dedicated Loiterer

4,100 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Forum Regular 100
Christ the Holy Son
At least i'm honest about it.


It's not immoral, by any means, but it's sort of self-defeating when you look at your peers.
Yoshpet
Christ the Holy Son
At least i'm honest about it.


It's not immoral, by any means, but it's sort of self-defeating when you look at your peers.


How's it self-defeating?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games