Last visit was: It is currently Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:01 pm


All times are UTC - 4 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:46 am 
admin goddess from hell
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:10 am
Posts: 12363
What do you think?

Attachment:
Victorias Secret.jpg
Victorias Secret.jpg [ 126.58 KiB | Viewed 19077 times ]


Quote:
Victoria’s Secret is coming for your Middle Schooler
By Amy Gerwing

I should have seen this one coming. My first red flag went up last November when Justin Beiber, the teen icon that’s worshiped by nearly every American girl under the age of 14, tweeted that he was getting ready to sing at the highly provocative Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.

Within minutes, Beiber was on stage performing alongside scantily-dressed Victoria Secret Angels, while millions of young girls – 80 % of whom struggle with body image – eagerly watched at home. The not-so-subliminal marketing message was sent: I like Justin Beiber, Justin Beiber likes Victoria’s Secret, and therefore I should buy Victoria’s Secret.

However it would be years before these young Beiber fanatics, with their tiny pre-puberty frames, could indulge in Victoria’s Secret sexy lingerie…at least that’s what America believed…until now. As of this spring, the risqué brand will launch an undergarment line aimed specifically at pre-teens and young teen age girls. And lest you think that Victoria’s Secret has toned down their recognizably racy style to appeal to this younger demographic, think again.

The new brand called, “Bright Young Things,” includes lace black cheeksters with the word “Wild” emblazoned on it, green and white polka-dot hipsters screen printed with “Feeling Lucky?” and a lace trim thong with the words, “Call me” on the front.

Chief Financial Officer Stuart Burgdoerfer of Limited Brands, of which Victoria’s Secret is a subsidiary, announced the company’s new marketing demographic at a recent conference, claiming about younger girls:

Quote:
“They want to be older, and they want to be cool like the girl in college, and that’s part of the magic.”


So based on Burgdoerfer’s logic, would it also be “magical” to make alcohol available to our preteens so that they can be “cool like the girl in college?” What about condoms, co-ed showers, and marijuana? While it’s true our young girls do observe older teens for social cues and trends, does that obligate us to gratify their curiosity with content that’s mature beyond their years?

While Burgdoerfer may try to sell the notion that Victoria’s Secret is only responding to market demands for middle school lingerie, it was just a few years ago, that Victoria’s Secret claimed they would never try to appeal to a pre-adolescent market. “We don’t market to that age group,” said Anthony Hebron, a Victoria’s Secret spokesman. David A Morrision, who at the time was President of Twentysomething, a company focused on marketing to young people, and had studied the Victoria’s Secret product line reassured concerned parents, “If Victoria’s Secret is blatantly catering to 7th and 8th graders, that might be considered exploitative.”

But that was then and this is now. With young teens representing about $335 billion worth of spending power, according to Retail Analyst Hitha Prabhakar, there is money to be made, loyalty to be won, and an entire consumer group to milk and manipulate. Apparently, exploiting young girls with beginner-level lingerie in hopes that they will deliver a lifetime of loyalty to Victoria’s Secret was too big a temptation for Burdfoerfer to refuse – dollar signs overrode decency.

While Victoria’s Secret isn’t the first retailer to peddle sexy undergarments to young girls, their line is perhaps the most sophisticated, resembling more closely the lingerie that these girls might see in their moms’ closets. In fact, when NBC’s TODAY show reported on the “Bright Young Things” product launch, the reporter admitted, “The latest campaign features underwear too racy to show here.”

If it’s too inappropriate for NBC to show on their morning program, that’s probably a good indication that our young girls shouldn’t be wearing it…and moreover, Victoria’s Secret shouldn’t be selling it. As a mom of a 14 year old, I’m wondering where are the cries of moral responsibility and societal ethics. We certainly hear our fair share about corporate responsibility when it comes to the food and drinks marketed to our children, why does that same principle not apply to what apparel we peddle to our tweens?

Our country is replete with an unprecedented number of young girls suffering from eating disorders and body mutilation, while pushing the limits of sexual promiscuity. Is this racy underwear modeled by unrealistically thin girls really the best that we have to offer our girls? In this age when female sex trafficking is becoming a wide-spread crisis, reaching into the depths of our inner cities, is it really responsible for Victoria’s Secret to entice our impressionable young girls with this “come hither” message?

Underwear that reads, “Call me” does nothing but cheapen a girl’s self-esteem while exacerbating the objectification of her God-given femininity. Our children are being objectified by retailers who see them as nothing more than a path to increased profits.

Victoria’s Secret is ready to sacrifice our daughters’ innocence, compress their childhood, and devalue their self-worth all for the purpose of bolstering their bottom line.

Our daughters are precious, intrinsically valuable and deserve better — they deserve to be cherished and protected.

The Black Sphere

_________________
Whispered words of wisdom,
Let it be.

~~ John Lennon


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:52 am 
post-mod squad
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:12 pm
Posts: 3475
This is outragious I would not allow my daughters to wear this type of thing

_________________
"We have nothing to fear, but fear itself"


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:22 am 
i bite back hardcore

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:40 am
Posts: 412
Location: Ireland
My husband and I were talking about this type of thing yesterday. Even though our daughter is just four, I have already started stressing to her that she doesn't need to do something just because all her friends are. Luckily she seems to have her own unique sense of style.
There were padded bras designed for 8-10 year old's here a few years ago. I haven't seen them lately so hopefully they've been pulled. It's awful what people do to make a profit.

_________________
... participating in such an odyssey involves a willingness to travel like Dante or Persephone into and through the dark unknown, and only then to emerge into a previously unsuspected fullness.

Saki Santorelli


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:07 am 
power lies within
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 9:00 pm
Posts: 6147
This is one of those things I'm really mixed about.... kids are growing up faster. I see preteen girls dressed waaaaay more stylishly than I am now, let alone at 12 years old. So if 12 year olds want to suffer the uncomfortableness of having a bit of string wedged up their ass, let them. By saying, "no" to them, we're telling them it's wrong to be sexualizing themselves, because that is what adults do. And there is nothing 12-17 year olds hate more than being told they can't do it because it's for adults only.

That being said, if we're going to be so open in providing our teenagers with underpants that say "I dare you" or "feeling lucky?", they damn well better come with a free package of condoms.

So no, I wouldn't buy this product for my daughter, but I wouldn't stop her from wearing it, either. At 14, I was buying all my own clothes and I got to make my own decisions around what kind of underwear I wore.

_________________
bubbles to the chandelier


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:52 am 
orange is a state of mind
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:24 pm
Posts: 2285
Location: N/E England
urgh same ! this is disgusting !
-its wrong-

I mean at 14 most know what decision to make, but this is kinda more pressure for the young girls out there who are insecure and feel the need to conform to their peers.

I really hope this line doesn't do well to be honest.

Anyhow they can get this anywhere,
anyone been to primark lately?
Enough said!

_________________
All flowers in time bend towards the sun ♥♡♥

Life is what you make it :)


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:34 pm 
orange you prolific
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:20 pm
Posts: 3559
Location: SE Michigan
This sort of thing is just so odd to me....I can't even understand the pressure to wear it! I just am branching into sexier underwear at 29 because I'm engaged. If I were still a single lady I'd probably still be going for granny panties!

That said I don't think this is a look anyone should be going for. Just my two cents.

_________________
(((hugs))),

Kelly

-*-*-*-*-*
My cats think I'm perfect just the way I am!

Your feelings will not kill you, engaging in disordered behaviors could.

“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:52 pm 
orange you prolific
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:42 pm
Posts: 3972
Location: US
Meanwhile, this article has sparked many companies to sell superhero underwear for girls, teens, and women:

Quote:
I can’t imagine that any dad is entirely comfortable taking their daughter underwear shopping. Blogger Jim Higley did a great article back in April about taking his older daughter on shopping “dates” to Victoria’s Secret, and Higley really conveyed that wonderful, uncomfortable panic that can overcome a dad who’s forced to stand too long in the lingerie and unmentionables section.

While moms have their own unique on-the-job difficulties, I know way too many dads who are perpetually nervous about unwittingly coming across as a pervert or a pedophile, thanks to stupid societal prejudices about the perceived dangers of men interacting with children. And, though I disagree with all of those stereotypes, I will admit -- when I linger in the girls’ underwear section at Target, my personal levels of social anxiety go off the charts.

Fortunately, unlike Higley, at the moment, I’m getting off fairly easily when it comes to taking my daughter underwear shopping. She’s only 5 years old, so I’m (hopefully) years away from flop-sweating and avoiding eye contact while I hold a purse next to the Victoria’s Secret changing rooms in the mall. Right now, we just go to Target or Kohl’s, she sees a six-pack of underwear with her favorite characters on it, I toss it in the cart, and we’re good to go. Character underwear makes undergarment shopping super-easy and predictable for the parents of young children.

Or so I thought.

Our underwear shopping system seemed to be going fine until my daughter discovered the existence of the boys’ underwear aisle.

“Dad! Come over here!”

I followed her voice and found my daughter standing, slack-jawed and indignant, looking at the much, much larger and more varied selection of character underwear in the boys’ aisle.


“They have LEGO 'Star Wars' underwear! And superheroes! OH! And 'Phineas and Ferb!' Dad, can I get these? Do they have girl ones?”

And I had to stand and tell her that no, no, they didn’t make girl versions of these brands of character underwear and I didn’t really have a good explanation why.

If you’re unfamiliar with the world of children’s character underwear, here’s a quick breakdown:

In the girls’ aisle, they have underwear featuring Disney princesses, Hello Kitty, Monster High (a goth-themed toy line), and maybe a few Nickelodeon-branded kids shows ("iCarly," for example). That’s it.

In the boys’ aisle, they have underwear featuring 'Star Wars' (both LEGO and regular versions), DC Superheroes, "Phineas and Ferb," "Toy Story," "Batman," "Transformers," "The Avengers" –- it’s a much larger character pool.

And, while I might (might!) begrudgingly admit that a majority of girls might not care for "Transformers" underwear, a LOT of the other so-called “boy” characters really do appeal to a wide cross section of children, both boys and girls.

For starters, "Phineas and Ferb." EVERY kid I know loves this show and, even though the two title characters are boys, I don’t think the show has a gender-specific appeal at all. "Phineas and Ferb" actually has a nice selection of active female characters. And "Toy Story?" It’s one of the most successful children’s film franchises of all time and, while yes, it didn’t feature any sparkly princesses, I’m pretty sure that young girls made up a huge portion of its audience.

We did actually once find a pack of Pixar-themed underwear for my daughter, but even that was a little weird. They couldn’t just have WALL-E. They had to have WALL-E hugging EVE with a big red heart behind them. And Buzz and Woody couldn’t appear on any of the underwear, but Jessie and Bullseye could.

Do kids’ underwear manufacturers think that, if they put an image of a male character on girls’ underwear, that it will somehow turn the girls into boy-crazy sex maniacs? The logic completely escapes me.

My big issue is that my daughter is a huge comic book, "Star Wars," and superhero fan, and, in my vast shopping experience, I have never found any girls’ character underwear that spoke to any of those creative properties. Fine -- If you think that having Anakin Skywalker on her undies will turn my daughter into a lusty, inhibition-challenged Jedi-chaser, then just let her have some underwear with Princess Leia or Ahsoka Tano on it, OK? But none exists.

There’s a pack of boys’ DC Superhero underwear that only has the logos of various superheroes on them. Why couldn’t they make those for girls? If the Superman “S” or the Batman bat symbol can appear on boys’ undies, why can’t you stick the same logo on girls’ undies and just call them Supergirl and Batgirl underwear? I couldn’t even find her any Wonder Woman underwear, even though I know my sister was the proud owner of Wonder Woman Underoos back in the ‘80s.

Yes, it’s sexist, but it’s also just weird and sad. Why can a boy walk around with Yoda on his underwear, but a young female "Star Wars" fan can’t? It’s gender marketing at its very worst.

So, what did I do? I let her buy and wear the boys’ underwear.

Why not? Yes, it hangs a little low in the back and, yeah, there’s the front flap, but, c’mon, NO kid (and barely any adults) ever uses that flap anyway.

And she absolutely loves them. Now she has LEGO "Star Wars" undies (some of the boys’ ones do come with images of Princess Leia on the butt), "Toy Story" undies, and a nice selection of DC Superhero underwear.

She adores the variety of her new character underwear and she definitely switches back and forth between brands – one day, she’ll rock the Disney princesses underwear followed by Chewbacca underwear the next day.

In her mind, "Star Wars," Pixar, and superheroes aren’t just for boys, so wearing them on her underwear doesn’t feel odd at all. But, thanks to stupid gender marketing, there are whole generations of girls being told that these creative properties that they love are not for them. And, again, that’s sad and strange and seems to be leaving a whole lot of money on the table for the underwear manufacturers.

Believe me, sinister masters of the character underwear industrial complex, if you make "Star Wars" and superhero underwear for girls, they will sell. Because a) Young girls don’t view those as boy-only properties and b) As a parent, I will force my daughter to buy them if it means I get to leave the underwear section of Target any sooner, preferably without a pack of Miley Cyrus or "iCarly" underwear in my cart.


Huffington Post

_________________
-she learned a simple, obvious thing she had always known, and everyone knew. that a person is, among all else, a material thing, easily torn, not easily mended.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:08 pm 
orange you prolific
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:20 pm
Posts: 3559
Location: SE Michigan
^ This. My four year old niece loves Spiderman. I'm betting she'd love some Spiderman undies. Girls like superheros too.

_________________
(((hugs))),

Kelly

-*-*-*-*-*
My cats think I'm perfect just the way I am!

Your feelings will not kill you, engaging in disordered behaviors could.

“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:33 pm 
orange is a state of mind

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:55 pm
Posts: 2530
I am mixed about this as well. I do not support the messages/words written on the underwear, but I know that at 13, I was already wearing thongs and the like and it was fine. I don't see a problem with thongs/g-string underwear for a preteen/teenager girl. I just don't see the need to write provocative saying on them. That's just ridiculous. I think they should rethink that strategy and just leave the undies blank and colorful.

that being said, I also won't boycott VS because their thongs are probably the most comfortable ones on the market and seeing as the only time I wear regular undies instead of thongs is when I am working out, I like to have on some nice VS PINK brand thongs.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:58 pm 
i bite back hardcore

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:40 am
Posts: 412
Location: Ireland
Fame wrote:
I am mixed about this as well. I do not support the messages/words written on the underwear, but I know that at 13, I was already wearing thongs and the like and it was fine. I don't see a problem with thongs/g-string underwear for a preteen/teenager girl. I just don't see the need to write provocative saying on them. That's just ridiculous. I think they should rethink that strategy and just leave the undies blank and colorful.

that being said, I also won't boycott VS because their thongs are probably the most comfortable ones on the market and seeing as the only time I wear regular undies instead of thongs is when I am working out, I like to have on some nice VS PINK brand thongs.


I'd be a hypocrite to ban VS as most of my undies are that brand. Not thongs but comfy panties in plain colours, but VS nonetheless. I find them very good quality and the ones I have are 15 years old at this stage! Need to replace them b/c I've grown out of them at last but not because they've worn out.
Yes, for me it's not the actual thong style that bothers me, it's the messages on them. But I think if my daughter wanted them, I'd have a discussion with her as to why she wanted them. But I know her well enough to know that if she really wanted them, she'd end up with them. I'd rather have the dialogue though.

_________________
... participating in such an odyssey involves a willingness to travel like Dante or Persephone into and through the dark unknown, and only then to emerge into a previously unsuspected fullness.

Saki Santorelli


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:40 pm 
orange is a state of mind
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:24 pm
Posts: 2285
Location: N/E England
I havn't wore a thong in my life o.0 I must be a prude!

_________________
All flowers in time bend towards the sun ♥♡♥

Life is what you make it :)


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:22 pm 
orange you prolific
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:20 pm
Posts: 3559
Location: SE Michigan
eniebee wrote:
I havn't wore a thong in my life o.0 I must be a prude!

Nor have I and it's not likely I will. They seem uncomfortable looking...

_________________
(((hugs))),

Kelly

-*-*-*-*-*
My cats think I'm perfect just the way I am!

Your feelings will not kill you, engaging in disordered behaviors could.

“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:42 pm 
orange you prolific
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:42 pm
Posts: 3972
Location: US
komich wrote:
eniebee wrote:
I havn't wore a thong in my life o.0 I must be a prude!

Nor have I and it's not likely I will. They seem uncomfortable looking...

Me either. They look extremely uncomfortable.

_________________
-she learned a simple, obvious thing she had always known, and everyone knew. that a person is, among all else, a material thing, easily torn, not easily mended.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:07 pm 
admin goddess from hell
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:10 am
Posts: 12363
Just my opinion, but "thong = buttfloss".

I am finding this issue hard to pin down in my own head. I'm not prudish, but I have issues with the sexualising of young girls, and marketing sexually suggestive products to that market. It's not that I don't like sexy underwear, per se (I do, but really as a way of self-affirmation: "I am beautiful", I deserve lacey and pretty undergarments even if no one else ever sees them), but underwear for tweens and young teens with messages like "Let's make out" and "Call me"? That crosses a line.

A deeper question is whether any undergarments with those kinds of messages are appropriate; the objectification of females as sex objects plays hugely into the rape culture and also impacts women's careers, pay equality and treatment, among other things. I can't stop my views in one place about whether certain styles, like thongs, are axiomatically sexualising in nature, due to the increased baring of skin - but only when revealed. Many women wear them to work out so they don't show panty lines, and I can understand that (although after my one disasterous experience at wearing a thong during a karate class, I divested myself of the very small number of such items that adorned my lingerie drawers). But what about push-up bras? Is not their main purpose to create cleavage, and if so, are they sexualising? How would we feel about tweens and young teens wearing those? Or even older women (again, not a successful experiment on my part - I'll spare you the details...).

I think sometimes we get distracted by the age issue - good or not good for young people - when there may be a larger issue to be discussed, including, beyond the issue of sexualisation, the promotion of unrealistic body image, which is demonstrably a problem in promoting dieting behaviour, one of the leading catalysts in developing an eating disorder.

Some more grist for the mill in the next post.

_________________
Whispered words of wisdom,
Let it be.

~~ John Lennon


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:14 pm 
admin goddess from hell
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:10 am
Posts: 12363
From Miss Representation facebook page:

Quote:
"But while staunchly defending its brand, Victoria’s Secret is apparently quietly removing the worst offending items from its online store...On the Victoria’s Secret Web site, at least, “Bright Young Things” seems to be gone...But even without the words, the message of PINK comes through loud and clear in that “date night” panty, and it’s still a message that’s ill-suited to tweens and young teens...The company’s job is to sell a “cheeky little bikini” definition of what it means to be young, cool and fun, and our job is to convince our daughters and sons not to buy it." - The New York Times (see below) reports that Victoria's Secret has responded to consumer pressure regarding some of their clothing marketed to teens.


Article from NY Times:

Quote:
MOTHERLODE
Adventures in Parenting


Does Victoria’s Secret Care That Parents Hate Pink?
By KJ DELL'ANTONIA
March 26, 2013

Victoria’s Secret manufactures, markets and sells clothes and lingerie intended to make women look and feel sexy. That’s its mission (if not its formal mission statement): to sell more stuff to more people.

Many parents are less than thrilled with the Pink extension of the brand, which targets high school and college girls but holds spillover appeal for the younger girls who emulate them. Few mothers and fathers want their 14-year-old to sport a thong that says “Surf’s Up,” or many of the products offered by Pink, like “The Date Panty,” which is “perfect” for the date that you really don’t want your young teen to have. Pink is a brand that holds zero appeal for a certain kind of parent (me), but occasionally it takes its modus operandi of marketing sexy clothes to an expanding field so far that it provokes a larger protest.

After the appearance of ads for a “Bright Young Things” spring break line, some parents protested the way Pink appeals to ever-younger girls, and urged the company to pull a number of more-than-usually-inappropriate selections from its shelves.

While Victoria’s Secret officially says that “‘Bright Young Things’ was a slogan used in conjunction with the college spring break tradition” and that it does not, and has no plans to, market its clothes to “younger women,” some parents point to a quote attributed to the Limited Brands chief financial officer to suggest otherwise: “When somebody’s 15 or 16 years old, what do they want to be? They want to be older, and they want to be cool like the girl in college, and that’s part of the magic of what we do at Pink.”

Who would be surprised if the company wanted to sell its wares as widely as possible? Limited, via Victoria’s Secret and Pink, has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to outfit the world in cheap lace, and surely knows that what appeals to the 20-year-old will rarely repel her younger sisters.

But while staunchly defending its brand, Victoria’s Secret is apparently quietly removing the worst offending items from its online store. Click through the links in articles from The Huffington Post and The Telegraph, and instead of “underwear with the word ‘Wild,’” you find a demure flowered print (on a less-than-demure garment). The “Kiss Me” beach towel is gone, and I can find no sign — online — of “Feeling Lucky?” thongs or the “Call Me” item pictured on the petition. On the Victoria’s Secret Web site, at least, “Bright Young Things” seems to be gone.

Can you still pick up a set of rebelliously worded hipsters in brick-and-mortar stores? I don’t know. But online, at least, Victoria’s Secret has quietly spoken. It is no longer encouraging young women, or their even younger counterparts, to actively emblazon inviting phrases across their beachwear and underclothing (a poor idea under many circumstances, although certainly I would defend a woman’s right to do so if she chooses). The words are gone.

But even without the words, the message of Pink comes through loud and clear in that “date night” panty, and it’s still a message that’s ill-suited to tweens and young teens. Victoria’s Secret may care what parents think, but ultimately, we’re neither the customer nor (in most cases) the shareholders. The company’s job is to sell a “cheeky little bikini” definition of what it means to be young, cool and fun, and our job is to convince our daughters and sons not to buy it.

The New York Times

_________________
Whispered words of wisdom,
Let it be.

~~ John Lennon


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Moderator: post-mods Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net & kodeki