Hitting a glorified nerve at Patheos

The world’s largest multi-religious website takes aim at Σ Frame.

Readership: Regulars


A week ago, Σ Frame posted the firebrand article, Why do Christian women have the reputation of being whores? (February 23, 2019). I knew this post would spark a controversy, because it is an unseemly characterization that no Churchian person wants to consider.

The article has apparently hit a nerve with Suzanne Titkemeyer, a writer at Patheos who penned a criticism, Christian women are whores? (February 26, 2019)

Instead of honestly contemplating the question I posed in the title of that post, she resorted to the point and shriek reaction instead, much like Warhorn did with Dalrock.

Well, I can understand such a reaction, although the reasons a woman could have that reaction are many. I’ll politely refrain from speculating about Titkemeyer’s personal motivations for writing her article. Instead, I’d like to express my gratitude to the editors at Patheos for bestowing such an honor on me. Also, my daily viewership has doubled, so thanks for the traffic! I’m glad to have you as a partner in getting the RP gospel out to those searching for spiritual substance on Patheos. Hallelujah!

To be honest, I felt a little ashamed for stating that question in the title of the post, because I knew it wasn’t going to glorify Christ. But on the other hand, it does crucify the flesh. This is something that we’ve grown unaccustomed to in the age of instant digital gratification.


Some TV series, like The Affair, glorify the glorification of women having glorious affairs. Producers cash in on SAHM’s desire for vicarious fornication by broadcasting female pornography directly into millions of living rooms across the nation. It’s Showtime!

The drama has grown so titillatingly good, that it’s hard to deny it any longer. It’s time to separate the sheep from the goats. Some anonymous Christian RP blogger needs to finger this out – that among Christians, sexual purity should be important!

6 “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?”

9 “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.” ~ 1st Corinthians 5 (NKJV)

Here, the apostle Paul makes it clear that sexual immorality in the church is unacceptable. Yet Christian women, as much as Christians are inclined to deny it, are known to the world as being looser than the norm. I covered three case studies in the other post, just to illustrate this very point. The question is, why has this impression reached phenomenological proportions?

A review of the criticism

I’ll respond to a few statements in Titkemeyer’s article.

“…many of the female cultural enforcers have started to embrace these men devoid of any morals. I didn’t quote the parts where he called Christian women demeaning names like whore and worse.”

Female cultural enforcers are beginning to wake up to the fact that if they don’t have men on board, then their enterprises won’t go very far.

As to the charge of being a man devoid of any morals, I won’t deny that I’ve been immoral in the past, especially in my search for a Christian wife, but that doesn’t change the truth of what I’m saying. In fact, it confirms it. To be clear, I am certainly not endorsing sex before marriage as the way to go, if that’s what Titkemeyer means by immoral. I’m just pointing out that this is the norm for most people everywhere, including those in the church. Personally, I tried to avoid premarital sex as much as possible, but after many years, I had to face the fact that it’s essentially a prerequisite for marriage. I say this to the shame of western society.

But perhaps Titkemeyer thinks something else is immoral about my post – namely that I had the gall to bring such things to light, and label it for what it is. Surely, no one likes their sins to be exposed, and women are certainly no exception.

But which is more immoral? An immoral person pointing out immorality and saying it’s a problem, or a pretentious person pointing out that it’s immoral for the immoral person to point out immorality?

If someone really wanted to make the case that I am immoral, I think the best way to go about that, would be to argue that I am being legalistic, ungraceful, and profane. But that still doesn’t affect the truth of what I’m saying.


Please keep your sheeple trimmed and tidy in preparation for glorification… or slaughter!

“…he is arguing that Christian women are more likely to have an affair during marriage.”

She’s not reading well here. I didn’t make the claim (in that article) that Christian women are more (or less) likely to have an extramarital affair. I think this is largely determined by personal characteristics and context. I only posed the question of why Christian women have the reputation of being easy, and gave some anecdotal examples of how or why people might think so. I didn’t offer a conclusive answer to the question in the title of that post, but instead left it open for readers to reflect on.

The answer to why Christian women are thought to be easier is complicated, and is further complicated by context, but in general, I think it’s about values and having a sense of life purpose. Feminist culture has hijacked both of these. In the conclusions, I pointed out that modern western culture has removed all consequences of illicit sex. There definitely needs to be a “coming out” from the culture, but since most churches are converged, there is no place for marriage minded people to congregate.

“He claims as many as 65%, based on the figures by another guy. I don’t know if it’s that high.”

She obviously misunderstood the meaning of the 65% figure as representing the number of Christian women who have had an extramarital affair. But according to another guy’s post, 65% is the number of regular church-going women who say they had premarital sex. The figures don’t say how many men those women slept with before marriage, but with a figure that high, it’s reasonable to assume that for many, or even most of these women, their eventual husband wasn’t even their first partner. That’s where Cane came up with the label of whore.

Since this is a slippery slope assumption, I’ll go into a bit more detail to show why it’s reasonable.

First, there’s this data from a scientific study, showing that the number of premarital sex partners is going up on the average.


Secondly, there’s this grain of salt from Ask Men: Science Discovers Strange Link Between Promiscuity and Divorce (June 17, 2016). This is actually a concise summary of many issues discussed around the ‘sphere.

Third, we consider the sex selective dickotomy of self-perception. In a couple previous posts, Hamster’s Hierarchy of Sluts (October 11, 2017), and Bon Mot of Slut Science (October 13, 2017), I examined how men and women have different definitions for a slut. If a woman has more than three to five lifetime partners, a typical man would consider her to be venturing into slut territory. Whether she is a Christian or not, doesn’t make any difference at all to men in determining this label. This is because this assessment is rightfully based on the information previously mentioned, and how one’s sexual history affects the marital relationship. Women, on the other hand, use the term slut loosely, and their appraisal is largely based on their personal experience relative to their social standing. Consequences be sheared!

For example, a woman who has had 5 partners would think that another woman who has had 30 partners is a slut. Through this comparison, she can avoid considering herself to be a slut, but nevertheless, a man would. The same thing goes for the N = 30 woman when she judges a woman who has had a hundred partners. To men, they are all sluts. But from a woman’s viewpoint, it’s relatively immoral for any man to call a woman a slut, regardless of her N count. This is partly because the feminine imperative requires women to have the sole voice concerning their own bodies, and however they may choose to use them. Never mind that a Christian woman’s body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Men are not allowed to have any opinion about women’s sexuality or reproductive potential.

Furthermore, the terms, slut and whore, are generally synonymous, but there is a slight difference. Oholah whores are slightly better than Oholibah sluts. Sluts do it just because they can, or just for the fun of it, whereas whores expect some kind of return investment from the man. For example, prostitutes are whores that do it for the money. We can assume that a Christian woman who had sex with a man before marriage did so because she expected to receive that man’s commitment, possibly a marital commitment. So you see, Cane and I are being generous in generalizing these women as whores and not sluts.


Continuing on…

“Seems to me that infidelity across religious/non-religious lines might be similar.”

Yes, we agree on this point. But surprisingly, she makes her own case for Christian adulteresses next.

“The statistics I keep finding cited at both legitimate studies, several books and in newspaper articles on the subject put women’s infidelity at about 33%, or as high as 40% depending on which study you cite. It’s not 65% cheating, unless something has changed drastically in the church.”

I don’t know what sources she is citing, but I presume she is readily admitting to 33 to 40% infidelity of Christian women, after marriage! These figures actually suggest that Cane’s claim of 65% having premarital sex is reasonably accurate.

This really turns my tripe!

In my earlier post, I made the offhoof comment,

“…the only times I have ever seen women spiritually glorified is when they were having an affair, or were just about to. I’ve seen this so often, that now, whenever I see a woman glorified, I automatically jump to this conclusion.”

Titkemeyer responded to this point as follows.

“This seems so wrong!

So if you seem happy, or glorified, or spiritually fulfilled you are either having an affair, or will have one. How is he determining this? Is he aware that personal observations without empirical studies and peer reviews are relatively meaningless.”

I am a professor who is very familiar with research methods, so my personal observation of 4 women revealing this phenomena is worth 4 data points. My pastor’s opinion could be considered a peer review, because in addition to being an ordained minister, he is a professional psychologist and counselor. Well, he actually agreed with me on this. (He added the “…or are just about to” addendum.) So I think his observation is worth at least 5 points, maybe more. So how much data do we need to form a predictive model?

“This is like looking outside at twilight, with the sun sinking while bathing the green grass with a reddish hue. You might momentarily see ‘red’ grass, but that is not proof that the grass is actually red. It’s still green.”

I appreciate the meditative pastoral reflection based on the 23rd Psalm.

1 The Lord is my shepherd;
I shall not [remain in a state of] want.
He makes me to lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside the still waters.
He restores my soul;

According to additive and subtractive color theory, green grass in red light would appear mostly black, with only a little red light reflected. (See photo below.) An object that appears green in white light (which contains green light) cannot appear green in the absence of green light. Moreover, the visual appearance of an object’s color depends on a particular color of light being present (additive color theory), and the ability of that object to reflect that color (subtractive color theory).

I’m not sure how this analogy supports her argument, because the church should not be a red light district. Maybe she is hinting at the allegory of Christians being in the light, as 1st John 1:5 says,

“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”

Well now, if you can’t see the true color of objects, then you’re not experiencing the full spectrum of God’s light of Truth. BTW, black is pretty dark, and black sheep appear black, even in white light.

plants in red light

“While I don’t doubt there are more very unhappy marriages with spouses thinking about cheating in Quiverfull and Evangelicalism I do doubt that more of them take that step. That is another one of the very harmful things taught in religion, that you’re somehow sinful if your mind strays or you glimpse someone else you find attractive in a sexual way.”

Yes, religion does have an effect. As Cane reported, those who never attend church have a 96% occurrence of premarital sex, while 88% of those who occasionally attend church put their spoons in the haggis pudding before dinner is served. So 65% among the fully churched is indeed lower. My original question still stands, but reviewing this statistic just makes the incongruity more glaring. If regular churchgoers are less likely to have premarital sex, then why do they have the reputation of being more likely to get on down and party?


Figure 12.2 Premarital sex by religious service attendance. Image taken from Relationships in America: How common is premarital sex?

“I am skipping a great deal of this man’s post because he is using words unprintable on Patheos.”

Translation: “I can’t wrap my head around many of the questions he poses because he’s speaking an unregulated, non-PC dialect.”

“Here he goes on to brag that if you want to find someone to have sex with find a Christian women.” [sic.]

I’m not bragging. Laaamenting would be a better characterization. As I mentioned earlier, I’m rather ashamed to have to point out that Christian women have a reputation of being easy, and that my personal experience tends to confirm this notion.

“I cannot believe I’m having to defend the notion of Christian women being more likely to cheat. But this is telling, this is exactly the kind of men that The Transformed Wife’s Lori Alexander purposely chooses to quote and hang around with on Dalrock’s blog.”

Again, this statement is more evidence that she misread the discussion of premarital sex as being one about adultery, instead of premarital sex. Furthermore, she clearly wishes to distance herself from others who are verbalizing uncomfortable truths, or else, maybe the Indignation™ is intended to be an authoritative literary effect of superiority.

The comments section is mostly comprised of presumptions that I am a basement dwelling incel who’s down with yellow fever. ***Sighing with a smile***

They took particular issue with my statement,

“If a man wants to have a “Christian marriage”, he’s wiser to marry a thin, mature, submissive, respectful, Buddhist woman, and lead her to Christ in the process.”

Of note, the descriptors “thin” and “submissive” received considerable criticism, which is predictable.

A couple of them did pick up on the irony of the term, “vertical dance” in my post, but they didn’t get the meaning that vertical comes before horizontal. They thought it should read “horizontal dance” instead.


Overall, Titkemeyer’s article leaves me with the impression that she’s feigning shock that I violated a feminist taboo, and that this is what makes me and my blog worthy of being labeled immoral. This confusion redefines a moral conscript according to a Power vs. Fear ethical structure. Let’s not forget that true morality is determined by one’s ability to discern right from wrong, and to take the most appropriate action determined by the situation.

Also, Titkemeyer doesn’t really come out and say this, but I get the impression that by highlighting the 33-40% adultery marker as a fact, her article is normalizing Christian women having affairs. I’m afraid that this may be empowering to any sheared ewes who are on the sledge of glorification.


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Asia, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Churchianity, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Discernment, Wisdom, Purpose, Reviews, Satire, Society, The Hamster and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Hitting a glorified nerve at Patheos

  1. Lexet Blog says:

    Table 1 shows a regression that indicates there are more female homosexuals than women who are virgins at marriage.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Ame says:

    i just spent a little bit looking around at Patheos … it claims to be a NLQ or No Longer Quiverfull blog.

    the quiverfull movement and it’s ‘style’ of ‘patriarchy’ are, imo, abusive and even cultish. it’s a form of spiritual abuse.

    therefore, it is difficult if not near impossible for women, and probably men, who have experienced that life to understand TRP and what you write out here.

    though my ex-in-laws do not promote the quiverfull movement, they most definitely live and promote that kind of patriarchy. i understand spiritual abuse. i lived with it. my daughters experienced it with their dad.

    it took many, many years after not being a part of all of that for me to be able to step back and see the Truth of God’s Holy Word.

    apart from all that … from what i have heard over the years, church singles groups (at least in my large area) are, indeed, viewed by men as great places to find single women with whom to hook up and have sex without commitment.

    i went to a christian college, and the town was known for having a very high abortion rate b/c if a woman became pregnant, she was expelled from the school.

    i would guess that a significant number of married women in the church had sex with at least one man, who was not the man she married, before her wedding day.

    i have a friend who was on the front lines of the abortion industry, fighting for the life of babies, for many years. he said that it was the christians, and particularly the christian women, who were keeping abortion legal. they publicly spoke against it but privately voted for it … just in case they, or their daughter, or their niece, etc, ever needed it.

    i think that as more people use the dna testing, we’ll see more and more who learn there’s at least one sibling who is not a bio child and was a product of Mama having an affair.

    i think the church does not speak the truth nor do they expect or accept others speaking the truth.

    if one sins, one does not have to own that sin unless it becomes public … ie, she gets pregnant and carries the baby at least long enough to be showing.

    the church is great about teaching that God forgives our sins … after all, “he who casts the first stone …” and all that. but i think it totally misses the part where we have to own our sins, deal with them, seek forgiveness from God and others we have wronged, REPENT, and then go and sin no more. never does it say that we are to justify our sin … ignore our sin … or even to forget our sin. repentance in the church is treated flippantly. my guess as to the reason for that is that the church is mostly influenced by women, funded by women, and women don’t like to be called out on their sin. we don’t like to be shamed.

    it takes a lot of work to get to a humble place where one can say, “I sinned. Yes, that is my sin. I was wrong. I am sorry. I have to live with the consequences for the rest of my life, and others have to live with the consequences of my sin, too. I have confessed my sin before Holy God, and He has forgiven me. I have repented of my sin and am intentionally living a different lifestyle. I know that God has forgiven me, so I am free of guilt. I willingly accept the consequences of my sin even though I have been forgiven. I believe that God can take my life, even my sins, and turn them around for His glory and my good if I allow Him to do so, and when He does, I will give Him ALL the glory and honor and praise forever and ever. That does not mean my sin is erased as if it never happened. It does not mean people have to see me as pure and holy before God. It simply means that I acknowledge my sin, I own my sin, I accept the consequences of my sin, I accept God’s forgiveness of my sin, and I choose to honor God through repentance and going and sinning no more.”

    imo … marriage begins when a woman loses her virginity. so … if you were to walk into a church and say that women are married to the man to whom they gave their virginity . . . . . it’d be interesting, to say the least. i know not every christian believes as i do. that’s okay. i’m not going to debate it; there are others who have debated it much better than i ever could.

    the point of bringing that up, though, is that the teaching about sex in the church is such that it’s completely ineffective. why is that? imo its b/c the teaching is false. whether you agree or not as to why, it’s quite clear, at least imo, that the teaching is ineffective.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Quiverfull and whatever is hawked at Patheos are extremes on either end.

      Most of the leaders of quiverfull have disgraced themselves publicly a long time ago. However, many will be walking wounded from that experience for many many years.


      • Ame says:

        what they lived through is very extreme. yes, they will be walking wounded for many, many years. it will be their ‘thorn in their side.’

        which is why they are very unlikely to be able to see clearly enough to understand TRP. it took me many years to be able to accept the term, “patriarchy,’ because i couldn’t think of it in sincere, biblical terms. all i had was my experience, which was extreme and very negative and wounding.

        to my knowledge, though, the actual term, ‘patriarchy,’ is not found in the bible. it is used to describe what the bible supports. yet those who have come from the QF/P background have experienced that term in a whole different light.

        so, i think a lot is lost in ‘translation’ and ‘perception’ and ‘definition’ out here. that’s neither bad not good; it just is. however, in light of that, we need to acknowledge that we’re reacting to things completely differently.

        it took me really getting to know people out here to understand that, although it sometimes ‘sounds’ like we’re talking about the same thing, we’re actually not. the people out here, for the most part, who support the patriarch model, do not support what happens in the QF/P cult even though the language is often similar.

        when we’re abused, we often go to another extreme to protect ourselves without understanding that other extreme is often just as toxic.

        anyway … having any kind of discussion with QF/P people is likely to end up just talking past each other. neither side is capable of understanding where the other is coming from, and often both will believe the same things and agree on the same things once the issue of terminology is cleared up and defensiveness is neutralized.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. ramman3000 says:

    So 33-40% of women commit adultery while 65% of Christian women and 96% of all women are promiscuous before marriage. If you extrapolate the ratio of promiscuity (32%) onto the adultery, you’d expect Christian women to be unfaithful at a 22-27% rate.

    With this hypothesis in mind, consider the pro-religion study done by W. Bradford Wilcox on Divorce (link). Here we note that among active conservative protestants, the rate of divorce is 35% lower than the general population. This is almost exactly the same ratio as the ratio for adultery (32% vs 35%). Women are slightly more likely to be unfaithful then they are to divorce. This makes sense.

    So active faithful conservative protestant Christian women are promiscuous 65% of the time, unfaithful to their husbands in 22-27% of marriages, and divorce 21-26% of the time. It is vitally important to note that people will not be able to detect the slight difference between Christians and non-Christians. If 1 in 4 women at the average church is divorced and 3 in 5 of the unmarried are not virgins, this is certainly going to gain them the reputation of whores, because Christians are expected to be significantly superior to non-Christians.

    Liked by 2 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      There is an psychological adage that you need to say something positive 10 times to make up for 1 negative statement. This is an order of magnitude. For Christians to be salt-and-light, they need to be an order of magnitude better (at least) than the general population. This means their premarital promiscuity rate must be < 10%, and their infidelity and divorce rates < 3%.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Ame says:

    when the only thing you’ve ever known of men in ‘authority’ over you is evil, it is very, very difficult to believe that men in authority can also be loving and can ‘rule’ from a heart that truly loves God and not one that uses God to advance their own purposes.

    on the flip side, those of you men out here who have pure hearts and who long to simply be who God created you to be cannot even begin to understand abusing that to the depths of those who have.

    i could tell you personal stories that would make you cringe b/c you simply cannot think like that. and that’s a VERY good thing 🙂

    in the middle, though, we use the same terminology … so those who have been abused by that terminology will, naturally, rebel against it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      My time spent with those who came out of QF was brief, but I recognized several interesting things. One of them was that the men were very insecure and controlling.

      “anyway … having any kind of discussion with QF/P people is likely to end up just talking past each other. neither side is capable of understanding where the other is coming from, and often both will believe the same things and agree on the same things once the issue of terminology is cleared up and defensiveness is neutralized.”

      It is very very hard to have any theological discussion online without speaking past each other. Many denominations use the same terminology, but they have varying definitions.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ame says:

        Lexet – My time spent with those who came out of QF was brief, but I recognized several interesting things. One of them was that the men were very insecure and controlling.

        that is very interesting and is what i’ve also experienced. what is even more interesting is that Jesus was never controlling. Authoritative, yes; controlling, never. it takes confidence to be authoritative. without confidence, one is lowered to controlling. and since they purport to believe the bible, they do so in the name of God with tragic consequences.

        i’m thankful they’re able to find support.

        Swinging to the opposite extreme without eventually finding center isn’t beneficial, either.


      • Stephanie says:

        I’ve found the Pearls to be less controlling than some of the bloggers out there insisting women all need to be covered to be acceptable Christians.

        Here’s where Michael Pearl kind of laughs at that kind of legalistic approach:


      • Lexet Blog says:

        Interesting. I agree that they shouldn’t be worn at all times. However, if you look at an inter linear dictionary (free on bible hub), there are two specific Greek terms being used in 1 Corinthians 11, that have both been translated into 1 English word. That causes confusion.

        Paul is making a parallel argument: from nature, and as a Christian, and discusses 2 types of covering.

        The term used to describe a woman’s hair is not the same term describing the covering during prayer.

        I have a bunch of material on this that I’ll post at some point. First, I need to run it by my elders. (RebAnything I post on my page on theological interpretation, I am willing to submit it to my elders for review).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ame says:

        Lexet – do you have your own blog?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Stephanie says:

        I’m sure your material will be well-researched.
        I think women wearing a head covering is a beautiful symbol of submission. I just think the authority for that decision most likely belongs to each woman’s husband.


      • Jack says:

        @Ame, Stephanie,
        Lexet’s blog is here…

        Insert a link to your blog in your Gravatar icon!


      • Lexet Blog says:

        Lol. Yet another WP function you cant do on mobile. Try it now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ame says:

        it worked!


      • Lexet Blog says:

        sweet. Thanks for letting me know

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Ed Hurst says:

    As Derek says above, at the least we should expect a difference between church folks and the regular run of society, and we aren’t getting it. But I sense many of us are working from the basis of having already been rejected by the mainstream of Christian religion, so we aren’t concerned with what they think. For myself, I’ve been seeking to build something outside the mainstream altogether. I like the kindness and patience you display in your response, Jack.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Stephanie says:

    LOL… Oh Titkemeyer…. She has written a few times about me and my posts, too. I consider it somewhat of a fun thing to be mischaracterized in the ways she does, plus it shows how much we utterly and explicitly “BOTHER” her. 😀 😉

    On the QF thing, her and many of the authors at Patheos link ALL Christians who take the Bible seriously with things that have come out of QF that proved to be abusive. On a more serious note, people like her really would have our children taken away just for being Bible believing Christians. I do like the Pearls, but I’ve read cases where people took their teachings to the extreme and killed their children.

    Titkemeyer also has a very personal, diary-style blog where she chronicles all the daily misfortunes that happen to her and her husband since they’ve moved to Costa Rica (to get away from America & us Trumpers LOL). She’s always upset about something 😀 always wanting to kill her poor husband, and to be honest, it’s a great read if you’re looking for something laugh about.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: Authoritative Love, Marital Discipline, and BDSM | Σ Frame

  8. Pingback: Irrelevancy of the manosphere – v5k2c2.com

  9. Pingback: How is illicit sex related to one’s spiritual state? | Σ Frame

  10. Pingback: Moon Day Review – The Hall of Frame Control | Σ Frame

  11. Pingback: 2019 Sigma Frame Performance Report | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: Patheological Weddingsday – Did Purity Culture Undermine Christian Identity? | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: Carousel Widow in Decline – Part 1 | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: Carousel Widow in Decline – Part 2 | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Carousel Widow in Decline – Part 3 | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: Carousel Widow in Decline – Part 4 | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: Carousel Widow in Decline – Part 5 | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s