|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/24/2007 3:10:01 AM | Ah yes, the much ballyhooed "chemistry" that is touted and promoted like it is an immutable law of the universe like gravity, yet is responsible for untold millions of failed relationships and marriages. Yep, chemistry, there is no way that could ever be wrong or let you down. It is also a good substitute for having a brain, too.
I suppose it depends on what one seeks in a relationship, how important one views chemistry to be. That's not to say that chemistry alone makes for a good relationship, nor is it to say that everyone with whom there's initial chemistry, is going to be a long time match. However, without chemistry, what do you have? Friendship, at best, and a relationship that might, over time, include some level of sexuality, but it will never be the "grand passion" or "great love".
Almost everyone on this site has made fatal mistakes in relationships. There are very few, like Alexandria-gal, who are widowed. From failures, great and small, comes wisdom. It is, in fact, from life wisdom that I have learned the futility of trying to "see what develops over time" with someone, if there isn't chemistry. As I mentioned before, the best possible outcome of that is friendship.
Why would two self-sufficient adults, with satisfactory lives in the day to day, with interesting jobs, friends, and family consider disrupting that, to move towards a serious relationship? If it weren't for strong, nearly irresistable chemistry, there would be no reason that I could see, to make the changes and accomodations in one's life, that are required to build a relationship.
For me, it HAD to come the other way around. To have such strong chemistry, that there was an overwhelming sense of need to be with her, and to come from a perspective of viewing the changes required for a relationship to be things I want and need to do, in order to be with "the one". That's intense romantic love, that is very different from the "agape" love of friends.
What life wisdom has taught me is that great lovers CAN, and usually do, become great friends. Great friends, without the chemistry, will never become the "grand passion". So, yes, the irresistable need, with Heidi, to move faster to be inexorably closer, started out with "chemistry". To me, that's a good thing. It also includes a level of compatibility that is unparalleled, and life wisdom gives me a basis for comparison, and ability to recognize how rare that is. That's another reason, for us at least, not to artificially impose some paradigm of "taking things slow". | |
|
| |
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/24/2007 8:06:40 AM | I would consider taking it slow, cuz you want to avoid possible heartaches if things start to crash. You need to be sure he's the one and trust is set in where you want it. It'd would be wise to be very careful at some point so you won't get hurt along the way.
If you feel comfortable with him and you spent quality time with him, you would know he's the one for you. Communication is very important too, I'd keep that wide open and see where it all goes. Maybe the bond would be stronger and trustworthy for you both then perhaps you can move forward but wisely.
Good luck. | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/24/2007 8:12:14 AM |
(Msg 352) Ah yes, the much ballyhooed "chemistry" that is touted and promoted like it is an immutable law of the universe like gravity, yet is responsible for untold millions of failed relationships and marriages.
I believe it's because there isn't sufficient chemistry that marriages fail. Up until what I refer to as the "freedom revolution" of the 6Os most people were the same. By that I mean if Betty-Sue married Bob she'd live in the white house and go to the lake for summer vacation and if she married Bill she'd live in the green house and go to the lake for summer vacation.
If Bob married Betty-Sue he'd have a wife who cooked and cleaned and raised the children. If he married Mary-Lou he'd also have wife who cooked and cleaned and raised the children. The point is with all things being equal chemistry was the deciding factor.
Today, as witnessed by the profiles and "must have" list chemistry is one of the last things considered. Today, we look for the "lifestyle" of the person first. What do they enjoy? What is their thinking/views on different things? Golf and scubadiving and political activism were not things considered in our grandparents time. People didn't concern themselves about the possibility of being transferred due to their job. With the abundance of opportunities today everyone is different so we look for people who "fit in" with our lifestyle rather than go with the chemistry. We look for a friend, a companion, a buddy as opposed to a lover.
Such ideas are continually pounded into our youth. "Don't let hormones sway you." "What are their goals?" "Where does he want to be in 10 years, career-wise?" "Has she expressed interest in children?"
Today, relationships are based on similarities as opposed to feelings. As soon as activities and interests change we hear the familar refrain, "We grew apart."
How the hell can two people living together, supposedly in love, grow apart? Logic and common sesne dictate they would grow together because they would be spending time together because they love each other. The point being they would be doing similar activities not because of the enjoyment of the activity but because of the enjoyment of being together. Their being together make the activity fun, not the activity making being together fun. IMO, people have confused the two.
In an activity/interest based relationship the relationship falls apart as soon as activities/interests change because there is nothing else there. They are with their partner not because of love or chemistry but because they're having a good time similar to a friendship. Just as we changed friends from high school to university to our first job to moving to a new community the same happens with partners.
Any long married couple I have spoken with all say pretty much the same thing. They had no idea where life would take them but they wanted to be with each other for the journey. There was no such thing as "fitting in". They started a whole new life. Being with their partner was their priority. That appears to be what is missing, quite often, today. | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/24/2007 11:16:34 PM | I've read the entire thread over the last several days as I've had a little spare time here and there. It has been very interesting, but surprisingly I've seen very few people mention what seems to me to be extremely important, especially when one of the mature adults in the dynamic has children.
In the choice to move quickly or more slowly, has proper due diligence been undertaken? Has Melo been given a criminal and background check? Has his full name been run through a sex offender data base since Heidi has kids and Melo has been staying over on weekends and is going to be pretty much moving in real soon, in Oct? I'm not sure of Heidi's kid's current ages nor how many she has, but still the point remains. I really think it's important to stress this. It's a well known fact that sex offenders (registered and unregistered) will seek out single mothers. Moving more slowly gives one time to exercise caution in order to be sure that one's children are protected.
And how about STDS? One cannot adequately test for these and be truly safe without taking the necessary time to make a trip to the doctor and get desired test results, presenting their future sex partner with the green slip of health and safety in terms of AIDS, Herpes, Hep B and C, genital warts/HPV, etc. Isn't this something one would want to know about someone they're about to become sexually intimate with? How can one discover their partner is safe if they rush into bed fairly immediately? When there is the possibility of disease (which there pretty much is these days when you can contact STDS from just skin to skin contact alone) I think it's pretty foolish to slide between the sheets without knowing exactly what you're getting into bed with.
Basically there needs to be a period of time to check the other person thoroughly out, in my opinion, but I'm really keen on the idea of attempting some kind of reasonable balance. When there are children involved though, I think it's best to err on the side of caution and well thought out safety practices. When exposing children to a virtual stranger, slow is the best and safest for all concerned. Kids also don't need the drama and trauma if they quickly become attached while two people are playing house together and the house goes tumbling down when one or the other possibly gets tired of playing. Personally I think people in this era should go as fast or slow as they desire, bearing upon what's best for the children exposed to the relationship first and foremost. After that, fast or slow is all a subjective, very individual personal choice. | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/24/2007 11:34:40 PM | "And how about STDS? One cannot adequately test for these and be truly safe without taking the necessary time to make a trip to the doctor and get desired test results, presenting their future sex partner with the green slip of health and safety in terms of AIDS, Herpes, Hep B and C, genital warts/HPV, etc. Isn't this something one would want to know about someone they're about to become sexually intimate with? How can one discover their partner is safe if they rush into bed fairly immediately?"
Who said immediately? Not the OP. Not me either.
Yet. even then, there are precautions: A good quality condom, no kissing in the mouth, full body condoms, etc.
And how about flying, driving, walking in the streets, etc. That is risky too. And all those viruses one can pick up by shaking hands or breathing? How about those? Any suggestions?
"When there is the possibility of disease (which there pretty much is these days when you can contact STDS from just skin to skin contact alone)"
Again, that applies, even more so, to non-sexually transmitted diseases too. Wear gloves, not drive or take cars, not fly, not eat in restaurants or bring one's one untensils, not visit friends in hospitals, etc, etc! And sex is not involved in activities, so only risk, no benefit!.........................
"I think it's pretty foolish to slide between the sheets without knowing exactly what you're getting into bed with."
When does one ACTUALLY do? A tad over-zealous. maybe? Perception of safety is nto the same as safety. And what is 100% safe in life? Taxes and death, in the words of Woody Allen?
"Basically there needs to be a period of time to check the other person thoroughly out, in my opinion, but I'm really keen on the idea of attempting some kind of reasonable balance. "
Yes, the time it takes to have PIs do a background check and finding a partner who is as afraid of such things as his/her partner, so that a) they are cautious b) agree to the unreasonable amount of tests and waiting periods required for the safety levels the fellow poster suggests.
I personally ask for a pilot's full record and CV before I board on plane to fly. And the plane's make, maintenance record, etc. One can never be too safe! Since we live forever otherwise, we have to be careful to preserve our "Highlander" status. Indeed! | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/25/2007 5:31:57 AM | To respond to Nick Cosmopolite:
There's an attempt at reasonable safety and then there's stupid.
Stupid is taking unnecessary risk when one doesn't need to. Stupid is one in four or five Americans with Herpes, Clamydia, and god knows what else at this point because they trusted a new partner who says they've only slept with a few people when they've actually slept with over fifty and they are diseased. Stupid is risking your life when you're a single mother and have a child or children depending on you. Your children are supposed to be your first priority.
Stupid is allowing any person you haven't thoroughly checked out in advance to have access to your kids. You know, kids can't consent to stupid. They depend on their parents to have a brain or two in their heads.. | |
|
Diva64
|
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 359 | |
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/25/2007 5:59:19 AM | YEOOWZA!!! I just came back to read and realized that your definition of "jump" was not what I thought your definition of "jump" was. I thought you were referring to JUMPING INTO A RELATION ....period.........I was not thinking SEX at the time of my writings here. I was simply talking about making that move into a relationship from just dating.....and that doesn't have to entail sex......there is no time line.........it might be first date............it might be 4 months down the line for some.
So I just wanted to clear that up......I didn't realize that by "jump" you meant into sex! whew! I missed that one!
Diva | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/25/2007 6:26:52 AM | Just had to add my two cents:These forums are usually poorly written greasy kid stuff but for whatever reason,there some really well written posts here.
That being said,a relationship can fail if there is no chemistry,and can also(and likely will) fail if it's only based on sex.
"Chemistry" to me is the combination of sex and intellect.The "sparks" we desire when we meet someone has,in my opinion,to be fueled by some intellect;some important things in common,similar humor styles,etc.That intangible thing that makes you feel as though you've known the person.
I've met some really attractive women in my life that I wasn't attracted too.
I've been in relationships where there was ots of great sex,but little else and it failed,and in sexless relationships.
The trick is balance and patience and being very,very,honest with yourself.
If it's "been a long time" and you're with someone you find very sexy,it's awful hard not to overlook that person has never opened a book or has an original opinion.
In that case be honest and mature and either just have sex or move on.
Same with someone who you find intellectually stimulating but unappealing sexually.
Perhaps some day we'll all get it right,
Ciao | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/25/2007 8:09:58 AM | when someone tells me to take something slow...they are usually expressing that they care about me and dont want to see me hurt...again..but yanno, i never learnt to walk without getting booboos on my knees and i wont learn about love without having a few heartbreaks....
i also cant tell ya how someone elses experiences feel.......
what i can do is tell em thankya fer caring .....and do things at the speed that best suits me personally......
sometimes true maturity is not about recognizing whats best for someone else...its recognizing whats best for me! | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/25/2007 11:19:43 AM |
All that time spent getting to know each other, learning about likes and dislikes and yet in the end I cannot say it was a meaningful relationship for both of us.
I think what's being confused here is that building a stronger foundation by "taking it slow" is not the same thing as making a relationship last.
Also what's not being factored is that two people may go slowly into building a relationship, but still enter a relationship that's doomed from the start because they're just not right for the long haul.
"taking it slow" meaning evaluating the long term potential on a realistic, not fantasy, basis, discerning possible problems, deciding if they're detrimental or not, not ignoring red flags but knowing if they are truly relationship killers or not. As they say, "fools rush in where angels dare to tread" and this goes for matters of love as well.
You should know the other person well enough that, if and when you commit, there aren't any surprises to come. It's about knowing how to best tell who would be a good partner, and being one yourself.
How often do people, infatuated with a new person in their life, enter relationships, move in together, even marry, and then later comes the twists and turns when they're in deep.
Read a post the other day where a guy writes how he's not known the woman long at all and doesn't know that much about her, but already claims to know how special and wonderful a woman she is. That's contradictory. What's really happening is that he's infatuated, and because of his infatuation, crediting her with all sorts of positive things.
You read the threads that begin with "everything was wonderful, we were making plans for the future, we were both crazy about the other, we were together for two years and then, one day, it all went wrong..."
So it becomes a matter of once finding a suitable partner and committing, that each partner not let their guard down and get into bad habits and patterns as so often happens that erode and destroy the relationship, but nurturing the relationship. It requires skills, it never happens by itself. We either learn how from good role models and examples, or by trial and error. And some people never learn at all. | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/25/2007 11:39:09 AM | "There's an attempt at reasonable safety and then there's stupid. "
I agree, but I propose that we do not turn this thread into a "how to have as safe a sex as reasonably possible" manual. Using a condom and thinking while we have sex is IMO a good way to. Testing only shows how effective the previous is. Testing is ex post facto evaluation and it is not a means of prevention. Using one's mind andnot losing it during sex is. Nuff said.
The issue is deeper/meaningful rel and throwing in safety at will is a common attempt, for some, at introducing fear rather then ideologically based "morality". A deeper relationship has nothing to do, IMO, with morality. It is a philosophical choice in one's love life.
| |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/25/2007 5:49:47 PM | Nick Cosmopolite and I haven't always agreed in other threads. His most recent poist in this thread, though, brings back a point that I've been thinking about, for which I'm grateful.
Since it comes up from time to time, when Heidi started this thread 5 weeks ago, we had first come into touch 2 months prior. It had more to do with "letting go" of those barriers that people have, to allowing themselves to be emotionally vulnerable, to dare to dream, to imagine the possibilities; as opposed to fearing the worst, dismissing feelings by "labeling" them "infatuation" or falling into pessimistic belief that feelings "fade" in time.
It really wasn't about the "sex question". Anyone who had seen either of us post, prior to this one, might have picked up on the fact, that that question was not "the issue".
In a sense, the OP and the original topic have often been ignored. Instead, many have argued why the proper course is to put fears first, to adopt a pessimistic view is "wiser", and that to be "vulnerable" is foolish.
So, while the OP asked what is the benefit, if the goal is to have a deep, intimate, and long lasting relationship, the responses give rise to another question for me. That is, for those who choose to be cautious, and take things slow, what sort of relationship do you think possible, as a result? What is a relationship for, and why would you want one? Is it to be friends who, after a long time, are occasionally lovers, when both are sufficiently "in the mood"? I'm not being snide or critical. I am simply curious. I know, for me, if it isn't the "grand passion and great love", it wouldn't be worth what it takes to have a relationship, but when it is a "great love and grand passion", then whatever it takes to be together, seems a small price to pay. I'm curious abou tthe equation and the goals for the "naysayers". | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/25/2007 8:24:43 PM |
That is, for those who choose to be cautious, and take things slow, what sort of relationship do you think possible, as a result? What is a relationship for, and why would you want one? Is it to be friends who, after a long time, are occasionally lovers, when both are sufficiently "in the mood"? I'm not being snide or critical. I am simply curious. I know, for me, if it isn't the "grand passion and great love", it wouldn't be worth what it takes to have a relationship, but when it is a "great love and grand passion", then whatever it takes to be together, seems a small price to pay. I'm curious abou tthe equation and the goals for the "naysayers".
My relationship with my SO mirrors yours with Heidi, Melo, in that my guy and I got together pretty quickly after we met on a personals site. We started communicating via email and telephone and about a month later met in person. He lived six hours away in a little town and we got together every weekend thereafter. Within another month and a half, he had relocated to my property and was renting a room addition from me on the property in another building on the property. In other words, though technically we live on the same property, we don't actually live in the same home where my child and I reside and probably won't until we officially tie the knot.
Steve relocated to me quickly for one reason and one reason only. We didn't want the hassle of a long distance relationship because with my schedule as it is we wouldn't have been able to properly date or learn about each other any other way. The long distance deal and commuting just wouldn't have been feasible for us.
Now where we're different than you and Heidi potentially, is that I promptly ran a background check on Steve BEFORE he began to reside overnight here. I promptly ran his name through the sex offender data base as well. Obviously he passed on all fronts but again where I believe we're different, is that the two of us did not engage in any physical intimacy that involved exchanges of bodily fluids until we had our STD testing out of the way. This we went and did together. Was it easy to wait? Not only no, but hell no, but I'm really glad we did. I feel that it was a responsible, wise decision to do so. So does he.
Perhaps the most important thing of all is that while Steve and I definitely have a grand passion and the love of a lifetime, we are putting my daughter's best interests and needs before our own whenever possible. I know that ours is a love that will last a lifetime if we continue to work at it, but I can also honestly say that it never would have gotten off the ground if I hadn't seen Steve show respect for my little one and I by insisting that I check him out thoroughly before we became physically and emotionally intimate and before allowing him around my child. HE insisted that I do these things! I think that proves that he was on the level and that I could trust him implicitly and that has continued to be the case over the last year and a half.
Steve and I love one another deeply and we are passionate as often as we're both willing; however there are changes going on within me and my body related to peri-menopause and sometimes I'm honestly just not in the mood for sexual intimacy. Steve is loving about this and understanding. He doesn't demand anything or make me feel badly about what's happening to my body and sometimes topsy turvy emotions. He stands by me even when it's tough and the majority of the time we are about "true partners" more than we're about anything else. We're are honestly attempting to be the whole package of best friends, lovers, eventual husband and wife, etc. We're taking it slow though because we don't want to risk hurting my little girl and because we want to teach her to respect the institution of marriage and the traditional beliefs that go along with that.
This may not be a way for everyone to live but going slowly and carefully at a pace that allows for caution and reasonable balance makes it worth it in the end, from where I'm sitting. And I think my child is safe and happy too, as a direct result of this. | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/25/2007 8:35:31 PM | Southernlass, the reality is that things with Heidi were not that much different. Some have made some assumptions on this thread, that leave me scratching my head, because I can't recognize who they're talking about. Some cautions, too, are reasonable.
The sex offender, and criminal background check, for example, are easy to do, especially for someone in a management capacity with the state government, as Heidi is. She also knew where I worked, prior to meeting, and I had been checked for STDs 2 months earlier.
Obviously, there are differences in some ways, based on real life circumstances of having a relationship that is "doable", in terms of geography, but not right next door either. Otherwise, though, the relationship process that you describe, is one that would, in my view, be one that you both let follow a natural course, and it went "fast" by some standards. It sounds like you, too, have found a solid connection, and I wish you the best as you go forward. | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/25/2007 10:05:45 PM | southernlass.....I must applaud you and your SO in the manner you have moved forward to having it ALL. You both have shown exceptional respect for each other and most importantly your daughter. The avanue the two of you have taken has also taught your daugher intregrety, morals and value. We teach by example.
You have built a solid foundation for your future together and are an example of use of intelligence over irritational grand passion---(sex) being the most important aspect of your lives together. Strong intimacy between two loving people is one of the grandest most wonderful intimacies two people can share together, but so is building a strong foundation of respect, emotional bonding, compassion and bonding strength in other areas.
Again, you have my utmost respect and congratulations in the maturity in which you have worked to share your lives together as lovers, mates and family. | |
|
| |
.Lisa
|
Joined: 8/25/2007
Msg: 369 | |
| |
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/26/2007 3:48:34 PM |
So please help me to understand why so many mature adults think "taking it slow" lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
LOL! Puts me in mind of the time I watched a man (obvious graduate of Evelyn Woods) speed reading The Sound and the Fury on the DC subway -- thought then, and still do, that perhaps he was losing some of the essence. . . .
That said, my little sister met her husband on a Friday night, and they told the family Sunday night they were getting married in January (4 months). They did. They have 11 kids, and one of the best marriages I've ever been honored to observe. So far, it's been 30 odd years. I have no doubt it'll last till one of them dies. In other words (Faulkner's), they have not only endured, but prevailed.
BUT. People in general move as quickly as they are able. Sometimes the opacity of the partner slows them down, sometimes it's money or time or distance, or fear. If none of those are operating, I think things happen very quickly indeed.
 | |
|
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 9/28/2007 2:00:47 PM | They probably mean that you should get to know someone, and not fall in love too quickly, since you may end up hurt if you let your emotions cloud your judgment. It seems like many are rushing into relationships only to find out months later that they were not compatible, had different values, different views on important life issues, different interests, hopes and dreams.
Some might even change their personality completely a couple of months into a serious relationship, leaving you confused and bewildered. If you are in love with that person but realize you can't be with them for whatever reason you are bound to be hurt if you are an emotional person. It is hard not to quickly give yourself completely when you feel in love, but the truth is you have to know that he or she is worthy of your feelings, too. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Why do mature adults think taking it slow lends itself to a deeper/more meaningful relationship?
Posted: 10/1/2007 8:31:26 PM | """"In a sense, the OP and the original topic have often been ignored. Instead, many have argued why the proper course is to put fears first, to adopt a pessimistic view is "wiser", and that to be "vulnerable" is foolish.
So, while the OP asked what is the benefit, if the goal is to have a deep, intimate, and long lasting relationship, the responses give rise to another question for me. That is, for those who choose to be cautious, and take things slow, what sort of relationship do you think possible, as a result? What is a relationship for, and why would you want one? Is it to be friends who, after a long time, are occasionally lovers, when both are sufficiently "in the mood"? I'm not being snide or critical. I am simply curious. I know, for me, if it isn't the "grand passion and great love", it wouldn't be worth what it takes to have a relationship, but when it is a "great love and grand passion", then whatever it takes to be together, seems a small price to pay. I'm curious abou tthe equation and the goals for the "naysayers"."""
Actually who is being a NAYSAYER? The "normal" course of human relations in civil societyi is " to take it slow". But people who naysay that and use negative words like"ignored"..."fears"..."pessimistic".."vulnerable"..."foolish"..."what sort of a relationship do you think is possible" (how about a fantastic relationship is possible!!!)..."after a long time are occassionally lovers" (emphasis not put on occassionally).."when both are 'sufficiently' in the mood".."snide"..."critical"..."equation..for the naysers".
This reminds me of a couple other threads where this idea gets thrown in. And someone said she has never seen this idea in other threads. We are all entitled to different opinions, especially in the bedroom. But using words like those above, to describe WHAT IS THE TRADITIONAL Western model (and many other cultures) of courtship is disengenous debate. PEOPLE TAKE IT SLOW FOR MANY REASONS AT ANY AGE. Women because of their biological role, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC doubt about that (Ok so women get old....biologically they are still women understand??? Maybe not...).
So the real NAYSAYERS are not those women who follow their 22 million years of biology and mating needs. The real nayser is anyone who would describe that biological instinct as "ignored".."fears"..."pessimistic"..."vulnerable"..."foolish". I don't need to go on do I? Have you ever thought, maybe women in general and a few men who aren't ignorant like taking it slow, that "fear" is not what drives them at all (maybe FEAR DRIVES YOU?), normal healthy men and women ARE NOT PESSIMISTIC, and by taking it "slow are more secure AND LESS VULNERABLE". That too has been true for 22 million years.
If you have better sources of facts, please post them here. | |
|
|
| Page 15 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
)
