[HN Gopher] Kokuhaku: Japan's Love Confessing Culture (2013)
___________________________________________________________________
Kokuhaku: Japan's Love Confessing Culture (2013)
Author : xyzzy3000
Score : 99 points
Date : 2023-07-02 10:25 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tofugu.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tofugu.com)
| cubefox wrote:
| I find it really lame that this article includes a long list of
| "fails" instead of successful examples.
| resolutebat wrote:
| Successful confessions are all alike; every unsuccessful
| confession is unsuccessful in its own way.
|
| Slightly more seriously, the format of a confession is pretty
| basic ("I like you, wanna hang?") and the article does include
| several canonical versions. But at the end of day it's just
| confirming that the attraction is mutual, and most of the fails
| are about randos totally failing this part.
| cubefox wrote:
| I think the article implied pretty clearly that some things
| which count as successful confessions in Japan would be
| viewed as awkward or otherwise inappropriate in Western
| countries. It would have been interesting to see a list of
| such examples in order to see the difference in culture.
| theogravity wrote:
| I read carefully the first half of the article then scanned the
| rest, so I may have missed it; it didn't seem to also mention
| "The moon is beautiful, isn't it?", which is a poetic way of
| saying I love you as well:
|
| https://www.tsuki.world/world/the-moon-is-beautiful-isnt-it
|
| https://www.wikihow.com/The-Moon-Is-Beautiful-Isn%27t-It
| jareklupinski wrote:
| the second half is where the gold is imo
| bluepizza wrote:
| That's extremely archaic and specific, and most people wouldn't
| know about it. I suspect that, if explained, most people would
| find it off putting.
| bmoxb wrote:
| Based on my (somewhat limited) experience, most people are
| familiar with the phrase but wouldn't use it in any serious
| context.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| As mentioned in the link, that comes from classic literature so
| it might not be super common knowledge. Looking it up turns up
| a bunch of "what does it mean" articles.
|
| https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Yue gaQi Li desune&kl=jp-
| jp&kp=-1&ia=web
| arrakeen wrote:
| i find it hard to accept that the origin of the phrase has
| nothing to do with the fact that Yue (tsuki, moon) sounds
| similar to Hao ki (suki, like/love). can any native speakers
| chime in?
| bluepizza wrote:
| Soseki was very refined and wouldn't go for such a pun.
| linguae wrote:
| As an American who spends a lot of time traveling to Japan and
| who had experience living there (and who has dreams of moving
| back there once I pay off my student loans), I've done this type
| of confession twice; it's quite different from the ambiguity that
| often occurs with forming relationships in America where people
| don't know exactly where they stand. While it doesn't remove all
| ambiguity (does she like me? Why is she holding my arm?), I like
| the being able to clearly articulate my feelings, and I also like
| the clear understanding from both parties not to behave like a
| couple until we mutually agree to become a couple. I generally
| find this aspect of Japanese dating culture remarkably refreshing
| compared to America.
| gautamcgoel wrote:
| Did the girls accept?
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| The same perspective exists in multiple places in Europe as far
| as I can tell. It certainly does where I come from.
| 331c8c71 wrote:
| Surprising for me. Can you maybe share some links?
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Not really, just some anecdotes.
| MikeTheGreat wrote:
| > Not really, just some anecdotes.
|
| He said, not sharing the anecdotes :)
|
| Having lived in the US all my life I'd love to hear more.
| Even if you don't want to share the anecdotes I'd be
| curious to know which European countries do this.
|
| And if you don't want to share that's fine, too. If I
| want 'slice of life' anecdotes there's always This
| American Life :)
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| > In Western culture, if someone suddenly and unexpectedly
| confessed this to you so quickly you would start running, I
| think.
|
| As a Chinese I can't wrap my head around the concept of running
| away because someone loves you. So to enter a relationship with
| someone you have to _not_ love them while still loving them...?!
| Do western people all have fear of commitment?
|
| I'm just glad I'm married now (to a Chinese girl) and not having
| to deal with this mess.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Surely you can think of some example of coming on too strong.
| girvo wrote:
| The article itself even has a half dozen examples of
| (Japanese) men doing exactly that.
| neel_k wrote:
| Actually, there are very similar situations in Chinese culture!
|
| My understanding is that when someone gives you a gift, in
| Chinese culture there is a social obligation to give them a
| gift of similar value at some point in the future. So giving a
| very expensive gift can be a very rude gesture, because it
| effectively inflicts a large, unexpected expense on the
| recipient.
|
| In Western culture, there is a similar dynamic when it comes to
| dating and courtship. The general expectation is that men will
| ask the women they are interested in, and the women will then
| accept or refuse the offer. The difficulty with this is that it
| puts women in the position of having to reject someone who is
| 20 cm taller/20 kg heavier than them -- this can be very scary.
|
| So it is artful/polite for a man asking a woman out, especially
| in the initial stages, to do so in a way that is ambiguous
| enough that if she decides she doesn't want to continue, she
| can back away without having to forcefully reject him. An
| overly strong confession of love removes this ambiguity, and
| thereby forces a woman into the uncomfortable position of
| having to directly reject the man. This is rude, in exactly the
| same way that giving someone an overly-expensive gift is rude
| in Chinese culture.
|
| Naturally, though, in China very close friends wouldn't be
| bothered by how expensive gifts are, and that in the West, a
| woman pining for a particular man would be delighted if he
| directly declared his love for her. But we have etiquette to
| handle the failure cases, not the success cases!
|
| Anyway, I'm always surprised how even though people are
| basically the same everywhere, and share the same desires and
| impulses, we end up building very different cultures. It's just
| amazing how situations can be radically different and utterly
| familiar at the same time.
| tel wrote:
| In my understanding of culture, native born American, to tell
| someone you "love" them implies a great deal of intimacy and
| trust. The word implies something that must be built over time
| and is unique and lasting. It often has an implication of
| confirmation after you've dated someone long enough to re-
| affirm that you want an even more serious relationship.
|
| There are lots of variations on that theme, but the point is
| that when it's offered without the backing of a safe and
| intimate, developed relationship, it reads more like "I am
| obsessed with you". It can suggest a failure to be in touch
| with your own emotions and/or a gigantic failure to see and
| appreciate the recipient as an individual. An obsession with
| surface appearance or even the speaker's own fantasy about the
| recipient.
|
| "How can you love me? We barely know one another. I don't know
| that I currently trust you enough to have even shown the parts
| of me you could claim to love. You must love your own
| conception of me and I don't trust that."
|
| That said, variations on "I like you" are basically the same
| sort of relationship-opening confession and are often welcome.
| It's considered normal to "like" someone's public and non-
| intimate social identity enough to want to get to know them
| more (through more intimate dating).
|
| The other big confession to note is "can we be exclusive/go
| steady?" This one implies you like someone enough that you'd
| prefer if you and they focus exclusively on this relationship.
| Its rejection may end the relationship (or may not, it can be
| done lightly) and usually comes between "like" and "love", if
| it comes at all. Not everyone practices dating non-exclusively.
| 331c8c71 wrote:
| > So to enter a relationship with someone you have to not love
| them while still loving them...?
|
| It's weird and even offending to hear "I love you" (said
| seriously) from a person who doesn't know you well.
|
| My take is that you can say you are _in_ love and this may
| sound fine if delivered right. Still, better be sure that there
| is at least some mutual sympathy. Also highly language-specific
| I guess.
|
| EDIT: I personally find the non-verbal communication preceding
| the relationships much more fascinating.
|
| I am also curious if there are cultures with a polite probing
| mechanism which are not humiliating for both parties regardless
| of the outcome (reciprocity or the lack of such).
| [deleted]
| geraldwhen wrote:
| Yes, many westerners, at least in America, fear commitment.
| There is a doomed generation that believes they will find their
| soulmate in their mid 30s and start a family in their mid 40s,
| despite this being a biological delusion.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Try explaining much lower birth rates in China then
| vore wrote:
| I love you.
|
| There, did I scare you?
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I'm a native English speaker and I think it's at least partly a
| translation issue; if you translate "Hao kidesu" as "I like
| you" then it is completely normal to confess that way.
| Translating it as "I love you" makes it a lot more weighty and
| creepy. I don't really speak Japanese, but it seems like Hao ki
| is somewhere between "like" and "love."
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| If you actually have a relationship it wouldn't be surprising.
| Although it would be surprising to develop such a relationship
| without formally starting it earlier.
|
| The implication is that someone telling you they love you out
| of the blue implies they very likely do not know you well
| enough to justify such a sentiment.
| imbnwa wrote:
| Mainstream American culture conceives of amorous relationships
| as fundamentally a fantasy of fortunate spontaneity, "the stars
| and planets coming into alignment", rather than something
| explicitly worked at formally; formalism, explicit terms, these
| are antagonistic and disrupt this fantasy of things 'just
| happening', and so have to be carefully approached, if at all.
|
| This is not exhaustive, America is a big place, but in the
| major cities and on social media you will more often than not
| come upon this. Hence why you'll hear terms like 'chemistry',
| 'rizz', 'ick', etc amongst Millennials and Gen Z at least, as
| these terms describe positive and negative attenuations of the
| fantasy of spontaneity.
|
| The majority of my co-workers are Tamil and Kaneda folk from
| India, many of whom are women, who're all in arranged
| marriages. I learned a lot talking to them about this
| experience as its mere existence is anathema in mainstream
| American culture.
| crazygringo wrote:
| It seems very clear which version you prefer, but why do you
| call it a "fantasy" of spontaneity?
|
| Because it happens all the time, it's no fantasy at all. You
| might not like it, but it very much exists. It's not just
| something from the movies, it's how basically everyone I know
| who's married got started.
|
| You're right that arranged marriage is very much anathema to
| mainstream American culture, since arguably the most central
| value of the country is that of individual choice/liberty.
| imbnwa wrote:
| >It seems very clear which version you prefer, but why do
| you call it a "fantasy" of spontaneity?
|
| I should've been clearer: 'fantasy' doesn't mean 'false'
| here. More like 'embellishment', an additive, framing, to
| reality that makes it more palatable and exchangeable
| (symbolically). The point of bringing up arranged marriage
| demonstrates spontaneity itself is more radical than is
| framed in the case of mainstream rhetoric around amorous
| relationships rather than a partisan approval.
| scubbo wrote:
| > it was kind of rude to send a text to people while they are
| probably sleeping
|
| Not the point of the article, but this is a personal bugbear of
| mine - no it wasn't. Text-based communication is asynchronous.
| It's rude to _expect_ that someone is present and available if
| you message them out of the blue (or, rather - rude to get upset
| if they don't immediately reply), but it's not rude to send the
| message in the first place. Particularly - it is never correct to
| send a Delayed Message on Slack "because it's the evening/weekend
| and I don't want to bother them". The four possible outcomes are:
|
| * You send delayed; they could have benefitted from the
| information earlier (e.g. there's an outage overnight and your
| delayed message contained helpful information) -> your delay had
| a negative effect
|
| * You send delayed; they read the message when they come online
| again during business hours -> your delayed message had no impact
| (assuming you correctly guessed their business hours)
|
| The only situation where "sending delayed" has a positive impact
| is where there is a culture whereby a message _must_ be replied
| to at the time it's sent. In such a situation, you need to fix
| that broken culture rather than working around it with delay-
| hacks.
| cj wrote:
| Whenever I use delayed send at work, it's for optics.
|
| If I'm working outside of business hours (a few instances per
| week) I don't like to slack my direct reports because I
| personally don't want to create an "always on" culture at our
| company.
|
| If your manager messages you at all hours of the day and on
| weekends, it can become unclear whether the same is expected of
| you. So, I like to delay messages to 8am the next morning,
| especially if they're not time sensitive.
|
| Imagine a message "Just a quick reminder that project X is due
| next week" sent at 7pm on Friday. Unless the person is expected
| to work over the weekend, why not delay it to 8am Monday?
| eszed wrote:
| Indeed. My circadian rhythm is set later than some of my
| colleagues, so if I'm working on something between 2200 and
| 2400, I set emails to be sent at ~0700 - 0800, when I know
| they'll be starting work.
|
| I get no sort of he's-a-hard-worker credit for working late,
| but plenty of up-and-at-'em plaudits when they receive an
| email at what they think of as the "correct" time of day.
| Meanwhile, I'm asleep, and catch their first round of replies
| when I wake up. It's somewhat ridiculous, but not a big deal.
| kbenson wrote:
| Yes, where there's a large power imbalance, you have to take
| that into consideration. I manage people, and if I message
| one in their off time and it's not an emergency or something
| I really need them to answer if they see, I'll be careful to
| state clearly that no reply is needed or we can follow up on
| Monday or whenever they are next on.
|
| Its the same reason I don't make jokes deprecating them to
| them within a group (and try not to in private with them).
| What can be a joint form of bonding where you make light fun
| of each other can start becoming bullying (even if
| inadvertently) when one party feels like they aren't free to
| fire back anymore. I've witnessed that dynamic before, where
| childhood friends worked with each other and one was the
| owner and continued the familiar personal reactions while the
| other started feeling less and less able to interact that way
| (at least in group settings).
|
| Many of us are somewhat blind to certain power imbalances,
| others of us are very aware because they deal with it in many
| aspects of our lives. In any case, it usually matters if
| there's an imbalance, whether we want it to or not.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think it doesn't even need to be a large power imbalance.
| It is probably best for the longest-serving worker (aka,
| someone with only social seniority) to set a good example
| by making sure routine communications only show up during
| the work week.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| No, I think it's inconsiderate to text people when they are
| likely sleeping. If you have kids/family you typically don't
| silence your phone at night in case there's an emergency. So if
| I get a text at 03:00 I'm likely to wake up and look at it.
|
| You're the one sending the message, so you're the one who
| should wait to do it when it it will be convenient for the
| recipient. If you're texting me in the middle of sleeping
| hours, you're telling me that your convenience is more
| important to you than mine.
| jtriangle wrote:
| 'Do not disturb' settings have been granular enough for
| awhile now, such that this is no longer a problem unless you
| want it to be.
| layer8 wrote:
| Note that the article is ten years old, and the recounted
| event would have been even longer ago.
| eredengrin wrote:
| I think you're probably overestimating how much most people
| know or care to worry about setting custom do not disturb
| settings, although that's just my anecdotal guess based on
| interactions with friends outside the tech space. Also, I'd
| consider myself pretty on top of tech (enough to run
| cyanogenmod/lineageos/grapheneos) and have a custom DnD
| schedule, but I had no idea setting it per contact was an
| option until you hinted that it might be. I've been wanting
| that for a while so thanks for letting me know, but also
| I'd imagine most people are very unaware of that option
| still.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| It might surprise you how many people don't know how to, or
| don't bother with, setting DnD. Or they simply forgot this
| time to enable it.
|
| Sure you can blame the other person. But what good outcome
| do you gain by such an attitude?
| userbinator wrote:
| _Sure you can blame the other person. But what good
| outcome do you gain by such an attitude?_
|
| People need to learn to take control of their situation
| and not rely on others to do it for them? That seems to
| be the norm in Western cultures, at least.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Not the point of the article, but this is a personal bugbear
| of mine - no it wasn 't. Text-based communication is
| asynchronous._
|
| That's irrelevant. They still get a notification to disturb
| them, they still can see it when looking at their phone, they
| can still be concerned about the content and how to respond
| later even if they don't answer, they can still be concerned
| about the content even if they don't read it, they could very
| well be waiting an important message at the time, they might
| have an experience with other people/ex-partners/etc pressuring
| them to answer immediately, and so on.
|
| Technical terms like "asynchronous" don't mean anything to how
| people use a technology. Common social expectations do.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| They get a notification if they have chosen to receive
| notifications. It's not like the sender forces themselves
| upon someone else.
| userbinator wrote:
| I think this and the other comments here show an important
| cultural difference: Western culture places more emphasis
| on personal responsibility: if you don't want to be
| disturbed, the expectation is that you turn off
| notifications. Japanese culture seems to be the opposite,
| in that you expect others to know you do not want to be
| disturbed, and thus you don't bother with turning off
| notifications.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| My wife is incredibly western and low-context. She still
| gets pissed off when friends and/or family in different
| timezones wake her up in the middle of the night with
| text messages.
| bluepizza wrote:
| Western culture is not an unified blob, as it encompasses
| wildly different languages, customs, and peoples, ranging
| from Sweden to Mexico.
|
| And just the same, Japanese people are not one unified
| blob and each have their own preferences regarding
| texting, just like the rest of us.
| coldtea wrote:
| Doesn't matter, we can still talk about Western culture
| (meaning mostly Anglosaxon in this context, and including
| Europe in others) and Japanese culture.
|
| It's about defaults and majority/average preferences, not
| about "every single one does this" and it gets tiring to
| remind people otherwise, as if they don't know.
| bluepizza wrote:
| It does matter, because the conversation is inaccurate at
| best when one tries to generalize their own personal
| experiences as the whole Western spectrum. Dating in
| Alabama is quite different from Rhode Island. We don't
| hold enough information to understand "defaults" or
| "majorities". Heck, we are at Hacker News, hardly the
| epicenter of social butterflies.
|
| So even if there was such a thing as default, we wouldn't
| know it. Let alone from a foreign country that most
| natives don't speak a foreign language. How many Japanese
| relationships did you have to form such knowledge on the
| majority?
|
| Last, but not least, it is not tiring to remind people to
| reframe the conversation. It is healthy and constructive.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| They get a notification if they haven't _actively opted
| out_ of notifications. I think there is an important
| distinction between "not opting out" and "choosing to"
| layer8 wrote:
| Note that the article is from 2013, when automatic
| silencing of notifications at night was still relatively
| new. Do Not Disturb on iOS was just introduced one year
| prior. Previously you wouldn't message someone at
| inappropriate hours, just like you wouldn't call them.
| coldtea wrote:
| Now on top of annoying them, now you're dictating their
| phone settings too?
|
| What if they don't want to stop notifications?
|
| What if they don't know how to do it?
|
| What if they want to still get one from the child or
| partner or friend who's travelling if anything happens to
| them?
|
| Should they turn it on and off for your convenience, lest
| you have to forego sending a non-essential text at night?
| rowanG077 wrote:
| I'm not dictating anything. You don't want notifications?
| Great! You can disable them. You want notifications only
| between these sets of timespans? No problem! Oh you want
| blacklist/whitelist certain groups/people? Can do!
|
| The receiver has full agency of when they receive
| notifications and of whom. In fact a person NOT sending a
| message and keeping it stored later is, in fact, taking
| away agency of the receiver. The sender assumes he knows
| better then the receivers.
| em-bee wrote:
| my phone allows me to set who i get notifications from.
| (my settings are to silence everyone except immediate
| family)
|
| if they don't know how, the first time they bring up this
| issue, i'll help them change their settings.
|
| yes, there are always corner cases, and there may be a
| situation where it is necessary to avoid sending messages
| at certain times. but this can be communicated. what
| bothers me is people getting upset if they receive a
| message at the wrong time as if it was the senders fault.
| blown_gasket wrote:
| I hold the opposite opinion to most of this.
|
| Text messaging, yes is asynchronous - but you don't know what
| the settings of the persons device are. They could have
| forgotten or not have quite hours set and now it is very much a
| synchronous notification even if it's not synchronous
| communication.
|
| Sending delayed - again things happen. I would rather send a
| delayed message when I am in full control of the situation
| rather than possibly not the next morning due to any chain of
| events from weather, traffic, family, etc.
|
| I feel like this comes from my philosophy of even if
| individuals are correct, it doesn't mean they are kind. We live
| in a community with individuals and we should compromise and
| balance things where needed.
| zen928 wrote:
| Kindness starts by not immediately assuming the motivations
| of others to be malicious, and to understand why someone else
| would perform their actions. Here, it's very clear from how
| all paths are laid out that sending messages to you early
| even if you won't act on them is only ever a net-benefit if
| you remove your ego from the equation. Soothing fragile minds
| and compromise aren't the same thing.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| _but you don 't know what the settings of the persons device
| are. They could have forgotten or not have quite hours set_
|
| FWIW, this is the prevailing opinion of almost everyone I
| know. The only question is what is the appropriate window
| when you should text. 8-22? 10-22?
| lb4r wrote:
| I'd say it's up to the individual whether they find something
| rude or not. It's not an objective truth, and it certainly
| varies between cultures. On top of that, different forms of
| communication have different conventions and practices. Slack
| is different from normal texts, which are different from
| emails, and so on, and they permeate your life to various
| degrees.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| It's rather meaningless to let the receiver decide. It means
| that the only safe-not-to-be-rude option is to adhere to the
| strictest interpretation of rudeness. At the extreme
| sensitivity, you basically can't communicate with anyone
| unless you ask their preferences beforehand over a confirmed-
| not-rude channel.
|
| Following this direction puts the default for each medium,
| regardless of its properties, into "it's rude to attempt
| communication".
|
| IMO, it's overkill. We invented communication to communicate,
| and we built in things like being asynchronous to some forms
| of communication. So we should not give them up just because
| someone might find it rude. There's a level after which the
| sender should have more say over what is rude than the
| receiver.
| smallnix wrote:
| I perceive it as rude to get messages in the middle of the
| night.
| em-bee wrote:
| you missed one outcome: the message is buried under a bunch of
| other messages, or even ignored because it didn't come during
| work hours. (assuming both sides know each others work hours)
|
| yes, i agree that getting upset when you get a message while
| sleeping is not right, but sending a delayed message when you
| have the option to can be a good idea.
| golemiprague wrote:
| [dead]
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Is it like or is it love?_
|
| It's definitely just like.
|
| Sure, we say "I loved that donut" or "I love her personality!"
| but you'd never just straight-up say "I love you" with that
| meaning because it would be completely misunderstood.
|
| So this whole article seems premised on a mistranslation that the
| author brings up but never actually admits.
| franciscop wrote:
| Coming from Spain we have a similar difference between like and
| love that you don't in English so it might be difficult to
| grasp. Basically we have a middle-level between both of them:
|
| 1. I like you. Me gustas. Suki-desu -> very early in the
| relationship, or to start off
|
| 2. [blank]. Te quiero. Daisuki-desu -> formal couple, to
| express feelings of love
|
| 2.5 I love you -> formal couple after long time dating I
| believe, a bit stronger than those two terms above
|
| 3. [blank]. Te amo. Aishiteru -> poetic, life-partners,
| basically we can get married
|
| The "I love you" in English sits somewhere between those two in
| Spanish/Japanese. If forced to put it in a group, probably the
| second one would be better and I'd say there's no 3rd one
| equivalent, since it's really not as strong as the 3rd one, but
| stronger than the 2nd one.
| gryson wrote:
| Agreed. The author's interpretation is unconventional. Hao
| kidesu (suki desu) is clearly closer to the English "I like
| you" than "I love you" in this context.
|
| Japanese people would be just as put off by someone confessing
| with the loftier Ai shiteiru (ai siteiru) "I love you" as
| someone saying "I love you" in English.
| minikomi wrote:
| I'm just shocked they didn't use the Shinjuku edition "LOVE"
| sculpture. Missed opportunity!
|
| https://maps.app.goo.gl/JGE9smpyCJte7p5z8
| [deleted]
| jonjon16 wrote:
| I know the grass seems always greener on the other side and this
| culture has its own set of problems but I still think I would
| prefer this over what the west has to offer in the dating market.
| I absolutely hate the ambiguity of the relationship in the west,
| "Dating? I'm not sure, we have only started sleeping together a
| month ago. They might still be seeing other people." And yes, not
| everywhere is like this but around my parts, seeking a serious
| relationship is a recipe for disaster and not something worth
| spending any sort of asset for.
| crazygringo wrote:
| This feels very similar to _namorar_ in Brazilian culture, which
| is a verb that is basically means "become/be an exclusive
| couple".
|
| If you've started going on dates, then at some point someone will
| ask the other to _namorar_. It 's a very explicit ask, e.g.
| "let's be boyfriend/girlfriend".
|
| While in the US it's not unusual to just organically become a
| couple and never actually discuss it "officially", the official
| ask is usually a really meaningful event in a relationship in
| Brazil. Technically it means that hooking up with someone else
| before it wasn't cheating, but afterwards it definitely is.
|
| But _namorar_ is definitely not "love". And you'd never declare
| it _before_ going on a first date. Usually it would be after
| several weeks /months of dating, depending on how serious you
| felt about each other.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-02 23:00 UTC)