Agreements & Couples' Privilege?

https://solopoly.net/2013/01/10/rules-for-myself-what-makes-solo-polyamory-work-for-me/
Have others here read some of the posts of this solo poly person? I found their "personal" rules resonated with me, especially points 7, 8 and 9.
Do any of you have personal "Rules" like this? I think I'd call them my "code of conduct"? ;-)
I skimmed it quickly. They seem fine, in general, for any poly person, not just solo polys.

However, I do not require open communication with my metamours. In fact, I rarely see my metamours. My bf has had a few dates with other people, and they live over an hour away each. I have not met them. Occasionally one asks to meet me. I don't really worry about meeting metas until my partner has been seeing them regularly for a good 8 months to a year. If the r'ship isn't going to work out, why bother?

My gf's bf is extremely introverted. Believe it or not, I didn't meet him until they'd been dating for 7 years, even though he lives 10 minutes away (other than 2-3 times at the door in passing). I didn't start actually spending time with him until the pandemic, when we were a closed unit for a couple years (him, me, my gf and my son). It was then that we started socializing every few months, for dinner, just because we all needed social contact! Since then, we have continued to meet a bit more regularly. But we never need to talk about "the relationships," agreements, or anything like that. My gf, our hinge, deals with all that, as it is her job.
 
Ways boundaries can change

Yes, he lets me know if she is asking for a call.
He doesn’t need to tell you anything SHE wants. He decides if she gets a phone call. Then he tells you that HE wants to give her a call now, every so often, etc.

When he is with you, he doesn’t answer calls, but sets aside a time that works for him to call her. (This time can be negotiated with her beforehand.) The same goes for you when he is with her. He is the hinge-- he decides.

He needs to stop blaming his other partners for his actions and start accepting that he wants to call her, you, family, etc. I think HE is making it difficult between you and Blue by blaming his actions to fulfill both of your needs on each other, rather than taking ownership of his relationships. He has set you two up to be jealous, angry, resentful of each other.
I have been angry with him *answering*, over and over, as it happened during one visit, as you say.
This you can institute a boundary about, but you have to be willing to enforce it.

It might look like, “When I’m with you, I will not tolerate more than 1 received EMERGENCY call. If repeated calls are answered it will be the end of our time together.” (Let them figure out how they can communicate emergency. I use Do not disturb" which can be overridden by repeated calls in a row.)

When he is with you, he will call her at a time he finds appropriate. She doesn’t need to interrupt you. If she calls and he answers, and it’s not an emergency, he should politely say, “I’m busy right now and unable to talk. I’ll call you back at X time," then not answer his phone until he can get time to make that call. People do not HAVE to talk daily. It’s a WANT. Sometimes what is wanted doesn’t pan out. As adults, we all need to learn to accept and deal with disappointment.

if you are having multiple days together, then it might be harder to work out a timeline that matches up. He might tell you ahead of time that her schedule is tight and he is expecting one call from her when she gets a chance and ask for your understanding during this conflict of time.

At the same time, that should be planned between him and her. She shouldn’t be calling him whenever, or vice versa, when he is out with company. He needs to communicate his schedule and when he will be unavailable.
 
https://solopoly.net/2013/01/10/rules-for-myself-what-makes-solo-polyamory-work-for-me/
Have others here read some of the posts of this solo poly person? I found their "personal" rules resonated with me, especially points 7, 8 and 9.
Do any of you have personal "Rules" like this? I think I'd call them my "code of conduct"? ;-)
I follow all of these except 8 and 9. I don’t need to have relationship with metas. I like to meet a primary (if there is one) enough to know they know about me but nothing more is required. If they are interested in more, I’m not against it.

for 9, im not keen on others putting rules on my relationship. If my partner has agreed something with other partner , he needs to own it as his own.
Ex. They have a special restaurant clause. I want to go to that restaurant. He should say “I don’t want to go there, how about this place instead?”

Or they have a condom policy. I want to ditch condoms. He says, “I want to use condoms.” He can add that “he will consider my request“ if he is interested in renegotiating with primary partner about me only. If primary is willing to open things to no condoms with me after testing he can then say “I have thought about your request and am open to it after we both get fully tested and we discuss and come to an agreement.” If primary says no then he can say “I’ve considered your request and I want to continue using condoms.”

in both of these examples, they have agreements, but HE takes responsibility for their agreement instead of imposing their rule on you. It looks the same but how it’s handled makes a HUGE difference.

it’s easy to accept that he doesn’t want to do that vs. he wants to but can’t because of this “rule” making you angry at the rule and even the partner.
 
Ways boundaries can change


He doesn’t need to tell you anything SHE wants. He decides if she gets a phone call. Then he tells you that HE wants to give her a call now, every so often, etc.

When he is with you, he doesn’t answer calls, but sets aside a time that works for him to call her. (This time can be negotiated with her beforehand.) The same goes for you when he is with her. He is the hinge-- he decides.

He needs to stop blaming his other partners for his actions and start accepting that he wants to call her, you, family, etc. I think HE is making it difficult between you and Blue by blaming his actions to fulfill both of your needs on each other, rather than taking ownership of his relationships. He has set you two up to be jealous, angry, resentful of each other.

This you can institute a boundary about, but you have to be willing to enforce it.

It might look like, “When I’m with you, I will not tolerate more than 1 received EMERGENCY call. If repeated calls are answered it will be the end of our time together.” (Let them figure out how they can communicate emergency. I use Do not disturb" which can be overridden by repeated calls in a row.)
Yes! Thank you! That is exactly the kind of boundary I can work with. You are right - I don't have to put up with it, I can end our time together. With him knowing way ahead of time that this *is* my personal boundary, so he can decide if he wants to take the calls (and leave), or ignore them and be with me. If she is that in need during our time, then maybe he should go deal with that instead and leave me out of that drama.
When he is with you, he will call her at a time he finds appropriate. She doesn’t need to interrupt you. If she calls and he answers, and it’s not an emergency, he should politely say, “I’m busy right now and unable to talk. I’ll call you back at X time," then not answer his phone until he can get time to make that call. People do not HAVE to talk daily. It’s a WANT. Sometimes what is wanted doesn’t pan out. As adults, we all need to learn to accept and deal with disappointment.

if you are having multiple days together, then it might be harder to work out a timeline that matches up. He might tell you ahead of time that her schedule is tight and he is expecting one call from her when she gets a chance and ask for your understanding during this conflict of time.

At the same time, that should be planned between him and her. She shouldn’t be calling him whenever, or vice versa, when he is out with company. He needs to communicate his schedule and when he will be unavailable.
Scheduled calls are usually what is done, or something similar. She doesn't just cold call without him knowing or planning for, thankfully.
 
I follow all of these except 8 and 9. I don’t need to have relationship with metas. I like to meet a primary (if there is one) enough to know they know about me but nothing more is required. If they are interested in more, I’m not against it.

for 9, im not keen on others putting rules on my relationship. If my partner has agreed something with other partner , he needs to own it as his own.
Ex. They have a special restaurant clause. I want to go to that restaurant. He should say “I don’t want to go there, how about this place instead?”

Or they have a condom policy. I want to ditch condoms. He says, “I want to use condoms.” He can add that “he will consider my request“ if he is interested in renegotiating with primary partner about me only. If primary is willing to open things to no condoms with me after testing he can then say “I have thought about your request and am open to it after we both get fully tested and we discuss and come to an agreement.” If primary says no then he can say “I’ve considered your request and I want to continue using condoms.”

in both of these examples, they have agreements, but HE takes responsibility for their agreement instead of imposing their rule on you. It looks the same but how it’s handled makes a HUGE difference.

it’s easy to accept that he doesn’t want to do that vs. he wants to but can’t because of this “rule” making you angry at the rule and even the partner.
Thank you for explaining this. I am confused thought and trying to fit your framework over their agreement made before I came into his life. He told me that after his ex wife ended their marriage, he and Blue could now speak much more freely. He asked her how often she'd like to talk (phone calls), and she said every 2-3 days,. He said he could do that. How does that look under your framework? That agreement has been imposed on me, so that's why I'm trying to sort how to move forward with that.

And you are right - he doest tend to make it about the other partner's needs/wants instead of his own part/responsibility. Some "hinge" work likely needs to be done. Just because he has been a hinge for a very long time, doesn't mean it's always going to be done ethically/healthily.
 
Again, what does that look like? I'm honestly feeling so confused as to what to create that way.

To Pisces you can say, "Would you be willing to be PRESENT during dates? Can we agree to both puts phones away/on mute during dates?"

He could still decline, but if he does, you can rethink if you want to go on dates with him, if he's gonna have his head in the phone.

This is framed as a REQUEST.

The PERSONAL BOUNDARY behind that might be, "I don't go on dates with people who are gonna be all up in their phone the whole time. If they do that, I will end the date early." It defines what you will and will not put up with, and what you plan to do to enforce the boundary if the situation arises.

To Pisces you can say, "No, thanks. This is oversharing TMI details about Blue. Can we change the topic to be something we both can talk about?"

This is framed as a REQUEST.

The PERSONAL BOUNDARY behind that might be, "I want my dates to be about (me + Pisces) and not Pisces going on and about Blue this and Blue that. That's a boring date to me. If they do that, I will remind them and ask to change topics. 3 strikes on the same date, I end the date early." It defines what you will and will not put up with, and what you plan to do to enforce the boundary if the situation arises.

Neither is an instant break-up. Neither is an ultimatum. But if this keeps going, on and on and on, what is wrong with having a dealbreaker or ultimatum? People can have those!

No, you don't do ultimatums over low-level stuff, like: "Make me a sandwich, or I will dump you." But you ARE allowed to have a limit of tolerance. If they spend your dates REPEATEDLY up in their phone, not being present, and you have asked for changes several times, you can be at the final-straw dealbreaker place. You can say, "It has been 3 times now with the same thing, and you keep doing it. I asked you to be present on our dates and you got sucked up in your phone. I prefer to break up and not deal with this any more." And then you are just done.

If you prefer 5 chances, do 5. If you want 10 chances (I'd find that excessive) do 10. That would be super generous. But have a number for your limit of tolerance. It cannot be 100, 1000, 1 million times on the same issue, over and over and over. After a point, it's just you being a doormat.

Consider reading more about personal boundaries. If you struggle to set them/enforce them, maybe you want to talk to a counselor about it.

Galagirl
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To Pisces you say "Could you be willing to be PRESENT during dates? Can we agree we both puts phones away/on mute during dates?"

He could still decline, but if so? You rethink if you want to go out on dates with him if he's gonna have his head in the phone.

That is framed as a REQUEST.

The PERSONAL BOUNDARY behind that might be "I don't go out on dates with people who are gonna be all up in their phone during the whole date. If they do that? I end the date early. " It defines what you will and will not put up with. And what you plan to do to enforce the boundary if the situation arises.

To Pisces you say "No, thanks. This is oversharing TMI details about Blue. Can we change the topic to be something we both can talk about?"

That is framed as a REQUEST.

The PERSONAL BOUNDARY behind that might be "I want my dates to be about (me + Pisces) and not Pisces going on and on at me about Blue this and Blue that. That's a boring date to me. If they do that? I remind them and ask to change topics. 3 strikes on the same date? I end the date early. " It defines what you will and will not put up with. And what you plan to do to enforce the boundary if the situation arises.

Neither is an instant break up.

Neither is an ultimatum.

But if this keeps on and on and on? What is wrong with having a dealbreaker or ultimatum? People can have those!

No, you don't do ultimatums over low level stuff.

"Make me a sandwich, or I dump you"

But you ARE allowed to have a limit of tolerance and if dates are REPEATEDLY spent all up in a phone? Not being present? You have asked for changes several times? You can be at the final straw dealbreaker place. You can say "It has been 3 times now on the same thing and you keep doing it. I ask you to be present on our dates and you get sucked up in your phone. I prefer to break up and not deal with this any more."

And then you are just done. If you prefer 5? Go 5 chances. You want 10? I find that excessive for me but fine. Do 10 chances. Be super generous.

But have a number for your limit of tolerance. It cannot be 100, 1000, 1 million times on the same issue over and over and over. After a point it's just you being a doormat.

Consider reading more about personal boundaries and if you struggle to set them /enforce them, maybe you want to talk to a counselor about it?

Galagirl
Thank you! This is very helpful, and makes a lot of sense. I'll make notes on this.
 
Thank you for explaining this. I am confused thought and trying to fit your framework over their agreement made before I came into his life. He told me that after his ex wife ended their marriage, he and Blue could now speak much more freely. He asked her how often she'd like to talk (phone calls), and she said every 2-3 days,. He said he could do that. How does that look under your framework? That agreement has been imposed on me, so that's why I'm trying to sort how to move forward with that.
I could be off, but I think you are getting stuck on WHEN this agreement was made. You feel like because it was made BEFORE you came along, that it is imposed upon you.

You also seem to be stuck on thinking this agreement has anything to do with you, when it doesn’t. It may affect your time with him, as an interruption, but it doesn’t require you to do anything. You aren’t required to sit and listen to the calls, be a part of the calls, or even tolerate the calls.

If he wants to call her every 3 days and you don’t like that, then you can choose to see him no more than 2 days in a row so you aren’t exposed to these calls. Or, maybe every 3 days you could go to the gym or grocery store while he makes his call.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Would you like calls every 3 days? I get the feeling you get a lot of communication from him daily (I could be wrong). Do you want him to want to talk with you often? Shouldn’t he want that with her too? As arms, could both you and Blue be sensitive to each other’s needs, if they aren’t excessive?

I'm just giving examples, of course.

In this case, I’d encourage you to dig deep to find out exactly why a call every 3 days bothers you so much. Are you two together every hour during that time? Is there no time apart at all, like maybe while you are getting ready or showering?

It’s amazing when you finally get to the bottom of the feeling. You’ll suddenly get relief. It won’t bother you anymore, most of the time.

Multiple calls daily could rile you up, but a call every 3 days shouldn’t. There’s something deeper going on; insecurity, trauma, monogamous programming (it’s almost always this for me), etc.

The most difficult things to get out of my head were:
If he loved me, he would text and call me daily, ignore his other friends, family, partner when with me, put me first, love me more, want to be with me more, want to spend all his spare time with me, reply to my texts right away, think of me first when traveling or trying new things, consider my feelings before making plans with others, etc.

This stuff is rooted in monogamous-couple culture, where individuality is gone and entitlement is rampant. It’s difficult to unlearn this stuff, but essential if you want to be successful at poly.

For me, this still seeps in and I have to remind myself that I don’t own him and he is free to do what he wants. In the beginning, I had to have self-talk conversations daily and ask myself if this was really what I wanted, and talk myself off a ledge and into feeling the amazing love that I have. I also had to start dating others. This helped a ton, as I now had more than one person to fill my time and wasn’t as bothered by hiccups. And I learned what it was like to be a hinge.

For me, it’s also easier to be parallel. I’m not advanced enough to explore being more entwined with metas. I know I’ll get there, but one step at a time.
 
The most difficult things to get out of my head were:
If he loved me, he would text and call me daily, ignore his other (friends, family, partner) when with me, put me first, love me more, want to be with me more, want to spend spare time with me, reply to texts right away, think of me first when traveling or trying new things, consider my feelings before making plans with others, etc
To add to this, for me, the reality of these statements was:

I feel more secure when he texts or calls me daily
I feel more secure and important when he ignores his others when with me
I feel more secure in our relationship when he puts me first
I feel most confident when he loves me most
I feel more secure when he wants to spend all of his free time with me
I feel more secure when he answers my texts right away
I feel most important when he thinks of me first when traveling
I feel loved when he considers my feelings before making plans with others

None of these things actually has anything to do with how much he loves me, but everything to do with trying to satisfy MY insecurity. I want HIM to make me feel secure. It’s too bad, but he cannot make me feel secure, as my feeling of security or insecurity comes from within. Him bending over backward to try to make me feel secure is like taking caffeine instead of sleeping. Might work for an hour but that sleep keeps creeping back in until it’s dealt with.
 
Hi WestCoastRedhead,

If a couple has an agreement, and then someone new comes into the picture, then the new person should have a say in whether and what kind of adjustments should be made to the agreement -- otherwise I would consider the agreement to be a couple privilege. And let me clarify that by saying that maybe a couple should have such privileges -- at least until the new person has been around for quite a while. But no matter what, the new person should at least be informed of the agreement, right from the beginning. The new person should have the means to consent (or not) to the agreements as currently constituted.

Just my perspective,
Kevin T.
 
If a couple has an agreement, and then someone new comes into the picture, then the new person should have a say in whether and what kind of adjustments should be made to the agreement -- otherwise I would consider the agreement to be a couple privilege.
I want to give an "on the other hand" perspective to this. My admittedly extremely-parallel-poly attitude is, if I start dating someone, I don't want or need to know what agreements they have with their other partners. So I can't possibly evaluate whether those agreements are "couple's privilege," which is probably for the best, because that term has no agreed-upon definition. 😇

All I need to know is what agreements my partner and I have, and can my partner uphold them? And if they're not upholding our agreements, regardless of the reason (demanding job, existing partner of 10 years, exciting video game collection, whatever), we need to discuss that lack.

I'm not saying there's no value in asking these sort of questions, @WestCoastRedhead, and if you want to have less-parallel relationships (as you seem to), that's your valid choice. But I can't help thinking a lot of the angst expressed in your recent threads might be lessened if you had less exposure to your partner's other relationships.
 
Hi WestCoastRedhead,

If a couple has an agreement, and then someone new comes into the picture, then the new person should have a say in whether and what kind of adjustments should be made to the agreement -- otherwise I would consider the agreement to be a couple privilege. And let me clarify that by saying that maybe a couple should have such privileges -- at least until the new person has been around for quite a while. But no matter what, the new person should at least be informed of the agreement, right from the beginning. The new person should have the means to consent (or not) to the agreements as currently constituted.

Just my perspective,
Kevin T.
That's silly, Kevin. Nobody can come into my relationship and tell me that we will be adjusting the "no more kids" rule.

But @WestCoastRedhead , can you see why that would never work? Imagine a couple have married and decided never to leave their city, where all their family lives, etc. I start dating the guy, and then say that I expect us to "adjust the agreement" now that I'm around, and move across the country. It just doesn't work.

So, people who are new partners to people with established relationships have to accept that there will be things in place that occurred before them, but may work to exclude them, in whatever way.
I want to go to that restaurant. He should say “I don’t want to go there. How about this place instead?”

This can work, as in, the part where he doesn't reveal the why. But it means you have to never, ever ask, or he has to lie to you. It's never worked for me, because people ask why so much. And I have to say that women tend to ask more than men. Not in a boundary-pushing way, like they're trying to make you do the thing, but they want to know what makes you tick. So why you don't like something or don't want to do something is as interesting to them as why you do want to do it.

And then there is the other side. Some people quite understandably want to avoid relationships with people who are enmeshed in couple's privilege in a hierarchical relationship with someone else. Asking why helps to establish whether they are or not. Someone might say "no kissing" because they hate kissing, find it gross, and you're okay with that. Someone else might restrict kissing because they keep it exclusive to their primary partner, and you might feel differently about that.
 
Any agreement, regardless, should always be open for renegotiation. If you have valid needs that don’t work with the current agreement, it should be discussed and see if a compromise and new agreement can be made. Nothing should ever be set in stone for eternity
 
Any agreement, regardless, should always be open for renegotiation. If you have valid needs that don’t work with the current agreement, it should be discussed and see if a compromise and new agreement can be made. Nothing should ever be set in stone for eternity
Hard disagree. There are some things that aren't up for renegotiation and should be accepted as such. It doesn't matter how valid the other person's need is.

Imagine I'm in my late thirties, I'm a single mother to three children, I'm done with kids. I'm also dating a guy who doesn't have kids. He wants kids. That's a valid need. Are you saying I have to be up for renegotiation? Or a compromise? What would that compromise be?

If I'm done with kids (including having a nesting partner with young kids to raise in a poly situation), then this discussion is just going to be me reiterating my original stance on "no more kids'.

Sure, there is a point in being flexible to the evolving needs of a partner, but there are some big things that are set in stone. Things like housing, money, kids, retirement plans, personal dealbreakers, quite a few things when you list them. They don't have to be up for renegotiation with a new partner. They aren't owed that.
 
Hard disagree. There are some things that aren't up for renegotiation and should be accepted as such. It doesn't matter how valid the other person's need is.

Imagine I'm in my late thirties, I'm a single mother to three children, I'm done with kids. I'm also dating a guy who doesn't have kids. He wants kids. That's a valid need. Are you saying I have to be up for renegotiation? Or a compromise? What would that compromise be?

If I'm done with kids (including having a nesting partner with young kids to raise in a poly situation), then this discussion is just going to be me reiterating my original stance on "no more kids'.

Sure, there is a point in being flexible to the evolving needs of a partner, but there are some big things that are set in stone. Things like housing, money, kids, retirement plans, personal dealbreakers, quite a few things when you list them. They don't have to be up for renegotiation with a new partner. They aren't owed that.
The "no more kids" sounds like a personal boundary you have, rather than an agreement. When I'm on the dating apps, I say, "I won't date a smoker" - that's a personal boundary that someone has to take or leave before even meeting me.
 
Hard disagree. There are some things that aren't up for renegotiation and should be accepted as such. It doesn't matter how valid the other person's need is.

Imagine I'm in my late thirties, I'm a single mother to three children, I'm done with kids. I'm also dating a guy who doesn't have kids. He wants kids. That's a valid need. Are you saying I have to be up for renegotiation? Or a compromise? What would that compromise be?

If I'm done with kids (including having a nesting partner with young kids to raise in a poly situation), then this discussion is just going to be me reiterating my original stance on "no more kids'.

Sure, there is a point in being flexible to the evolving needs of a partner, but there are some big things that are set in stone. Things like housing, money, kids, retirement plans, personal dealbreakers, quite a few things when you list them. They don't have to be up for renegotiation with a new partner. They aren't owed that.
To me the negotiation is a conversation involving all parties where each is heard. It doesn’t mean anything has to change. It’s a chance for everyone to be part of the conversation and understanding of the situation if it is inflexible.

For me, I can be very understanding of others needs if I can relate with them. I tend to rebel when I’m told the Rules and that I must follow them, no questions asked.

1. the kids thing should have been understood before the first date
2. This was not an agreement made between two people.

A better example is a couple agreed that they wouldn’t have any children in their lives, and one of them starts dating someone who has or wants children. Are they open to dating someone with kids? Would they be okay if that partner had a child? What roles would they play, if any? Hence, a conversation could be had and maybe new agreements could be made, maybe they stay childless.
 
@WestCoastRedhead @Bobbi

I'm focusing on this statement:

Any agreement, regardless, should always be open for renegotiation.

What I did is give a general (and fundamentally monogamous) example because I find people can be inconsistent about their expectations of poly vs mono partners.

In a poly situation, "no more kids" can most certainly be an agreement between a couple. Maybe one would be more open than the other to having more kids if it wasn't such a problem for their spouse. Nevertheless, that's presented to new people as "no more kids".

In any case, I don't think absolutely any agreement has to be up for renegotiation in the way stated. Maybe it's a semantic thing, but to me, renegotiation says that at least one person has to budge to compromise.

If it's simply listening to the person stating their need, then I agree you need to hear them and hopefully express some compassion. But even that has its limits. For instance, I'd be willing to hear someone profess a desire to nest with me on occasion. But if we know I'd have to swap the nesting situation I have now for what they desire, there would be a limit to how frequently I'm willing to entertain this conversation. That can get unhealthy really quickly.
 
A better example is a couple agreed that they wouldn’t have any children in their lives, and one of them starts dating someone who has or wants children. Are they open to dating someone with kids? Would they be okay if that partner had a child? What roles would they play, if any? Hence, a conversation could be had and maybe new agreements could be made, maybe they stay childless.
To be specific about the semantics thing, to me, renegotiation means that the childfree person has to consider ways their partner can get their need met and still stay in the relationship. So they have to consider supporting them in having children with someone else, or having kids with them. So, to me, if all agreements have to be up for renegotiation, saying it's non-negotiable and the only choice is to split would somehow be against what is right.
 
I think poly relationships will be really difficult for you if you feel that even the most minor agreements between Pisces and Blue are rules that are "imposed on you."

If they've decided that talking on the phone every three days is what works for them, that's not something that's "imposed on you." It's just how frequently they communicate by phone.

If, before you came along, Blue had made a rule that Pisces can't talk to his other partners more than once a week, that would indeed be a rule imposed on you. It would be a rule that affects and restricts your relationship with Pisces.

Pisces and Blue talking on the phone very three days does not restrict your ability to have and develop a relationship with Pisces. It only affects you if you are unwilling to allow Pisces to schedule time to talk to Blue while he's with you.

If I'm dating someone and they tell me that they call their mom every 2-3 days and will need to schedule time to do that when he's visiting me, I'm not going to be mad that he and his mom made an agreement that's "imposed on me." Even if I think his mom is super annoying.
 
Back
Top