Small Schisms and Large Schisms

Within Red Pill discussions, there needs to be a distinction of the Christian ideal.

Readership: Men; Red Pilled readers; Christians;


  1. A separation or division into factions.
  2. A formal breach of union within a religious body, especially a Christian church.

Small Schisms

In a previous post, The Overton Shake (2019 September 30), I examined how the Overton window has divided to form two distinctly separate Overton windows within the Left and Right factions.  I gave two examples of this phenomena, one on the Left (Facebook) and another on the Right.  For the latter, I described how Dalrock was taking issue with various manifestations of Feminism within the Church and society, while Boxer was pointing out how Dalrock’s efforts might be counterproductive – or worse.  The schism between Dalrock and Boxer illustrated how the Overton window has split even within the Right wing.  This post also offered a theoretical analysis of Boxer’s motivations for doing so, which was intentionally mimetic of the way Boxer had assessed Dalrock.

Boxer didn’t respond to the gibe until he wrote this seething post four months later.

v5k2c2: A Homeless Shelter for Castoffs and Misfits (2020 January 28)

Jack’s overarching contention seems to be an attempt at a defense of his religion: Christianity.  Jack is offended by my lack of faith, and my propensity to criticize Christianity when its adherents make fools of themselves.  Jack is absolutely correct, that I consider the average Christian to be an immoral scumbag, and given that Jack has volunteered himself as a typical Christian, we can immediately segue into a list of his lies:

  1. Jack suggests that I am an agent provocateur, who tries to get men in the manosphere into legal trouble.
  2. Jack suggests that I am attempting to get Dalrock’s real-world contact information, for publication on the internet.
  3. Jack claims that I have been banned from the Dalrock blog.
  4. Jack claims that I resent people for their anonymity.

I won’t get into a detailed rebuttal on each point, because it was not my intention to use this parody to defame him, but only to provoke a critical thought experiment.  The thought experiment was whether these things could be true about Boxer.  I left that question out for the reader to ponder.

From a wider perspective, we can see how my discussion of Boxer and Dalrock in The Overton Shake could illustrate how easy it is to recast the character of a blogger and to create schisms.  Boxer illustrated this again in his response, which makes the point obvious.  I’ll call this kind of response, “Stoking the Fire”.

More recently, Boxer offered yet another example of Stoking the Fire in his post, Aesthetic Theory and Rape Porn (2020-5-27), in which he has come up with more things to throw at me.  Now, Boxer thinks I’m into bondage porn, and if that were not funny enough, he is (ostensibly) offended by it.  LMAO!!!

On an opportune tangent, I’ll answer a couple questions he poses in this post.

  1. Boxer asks whether Derek (ramman3000) is an author at Σ Frame.  To answer Boxer’s question, Derek is the fourth top commenter, and a valued commenter at that, but he doesn’t have an account as a contributing author.
  2. Boxer also asked whether Jason (lastmod) had been banned from Σ Frame.  Jason has been put into moderation because of repeated violations to the comment policy, most notably are (1) crass sarcasm which comes across as trolling, and (2) attacks on other commenters.  Furthermore, at the time I put him on moderation, he was the number one top commenter, and had almost twice as many comments as the next most prolific commenter, and nearly all his comments were filled with vitriolic jabs.  I just decided it was enough.  Jason is still welcome to leave comments, and when I review the comment folder (about once a week), if I find that his comments have everlasting value, then I’ll be happy to approve them.

Jasons fluff

Back to the topic of schisms, it should be obvious by now that this is how schisms can contribute to the split in the Overton window.

  1. Take snippets of quotes.
  2. Make extraneous assumptions that suit one’s particular viewpoints.
  3. Recast quotes in a different context.
  4. Assume a cause and effect relationship.
  5. Assign blame accordingly.

In the past, points 1 through 3 were called a “spin”.  Stoking the fire builds on a spin by adding points 4 and 5 with the intent of making the target appear egregious.  To offer some other unrelated examples, Dalrock stoked the fire with feminism and churchianity.  Sharkly is stoking the fire with Whitewater Community Church.  The MGM nooz networks also stoke the political fires by spinning tales regularly.

In conclusion of this schism, it is clear that Boxer took it personally, and was offended by my cross examination.  I interpreted this offense as evidence that the allegations are probably not true, which is good news.

Nevertheless, he has since made it clear that I am not welcome to comment on his blog.  That’s fine.  I’ll respect his request.  But his offense presents a secondary evidence that Boxer and I have less in common than what I had previously supposed, which is not very good news.  Boxer has stated that he thinks I am offended by his lack of faith, but I think it’s closer to the truth to say that his lack of faith is offended by my presumption of faith.  I still read his blog regularly, and v5k2c2 continues to be listed on my sidebar.

No hard feelings.  Come Home brother!

Boxer evicts Jack

Note to the reader: Screen shots are only used as evidence when you think the author might change the text for some reason.

But Boxer wasn’t the only one offended by this illustration.

Free Matt Podcast: Choosing To Not Give In To Schisms (January 31, 2020)

[It weighs] heavy on my heart that people I know from the blogging world, especially people within the sphere of writers that can be considered “red pillesque”, pro male, or even the red pill adjacent religious types.  I have seen informative and entertaining works from many.  But I have also seen “unpurposeful” attacks on each other.  I have two people whose works that I subscribe to that have started their own schisms, including individual “soldiers” lining up for an occasional skirmish.

I don’t take sides.  I wish these people would quash their beefs like it was “olden times” and be gentleman.  I have seen shitty feminists (and astrocucks) fund huge failing websites with horrific writing while quality writing from our side of the culture war dies because of infighting.  I would rather be the guy that tells you that you are both being assholes than a person who picks sides.

Let’s get back to work.  The shittiest people in history are winning because we squabble.  If we are going to be separate entities; put our “hate” into our work and leave folks on our side out of it.  Go back to helping men and living better lives.  Men on the margins and younger impressionable men need the help.

Sadly, I concur with Matt.  But sometimes schisms are necessary.

Derek on Vox Dalrock_LI

Big Schisms

There is a schism going on, but it’s not (really) between me and Boxer.  The schism that has developed is a secession of Christian Red Pill from secular Red Pill.

In recent posts this year, I have found the need to write with more clarity regarding certain differences between Red Pill lore and Christian ideologies.

Biblical Gender Roles has also recognized this need, and has spearheaded a study that compares the Red Pill to Scripture.  He has found that although there is a lot of agreement, there is a fundamental difference in methods and purposes.

Under BGR’s post, Is the Red Pill Concept of Game Biblical? (January 31, 2020), Jonadab the Rechabite and Sharkly have captured these differences succinctly in two comments.

Jonadab the Rechabite wrote,

I wonder how deeply our presumptions are programmed by the frame of romance.  We swim in an ocean that treats the feelings of passion and romance as the highest form of human bliss.  Movies, books, music and art all seem to elevate romance above virtues like truth, justice and beauty.  Yet it is the same pursuit of the feelings of passion that lead to fornication, adultery and ironically sexual denial.  This is because the feelings of passion and romance are the context for sex – not a covenant.  Of course this exalted view of romance is so nineteen eighty; no longer is simply romance the context of sex but consent.  Consent is based on the same premise as abortion, “our bodies, our selves”.  If a woman can do whatever she chooses with her body, then the sin of a wife sexually withholding, and the sin of the murder of her unborn children, are subject to her whims and caprice.  My point is that Biblical ethics regarding sex are occluded by an overwhelming acceptance of romance culture.

man woman medieval sword fight

Part of [Blue Pill] romance culture is of course chivalry.  The term has been used in many ways but the most widely understood use is the image of the white knight fighting for the princess; either defending her honor, her life, or her sins.  In the culturally defining tale of Lancelot, he fought for the honor of Guinevere which he knew was a lie.  He himself was the adulterer who betrayed his king.  Yet he fights against truth and justice.  Lancelot is not viewed, even in the church, as a villain but as a handsome warrior who made the ladies of court swoon.  In other words, a white-knight to be emulated.  In Biblical jurisprudence both he and Guinevere committed a capital offense.

If not romance, then what? Nature abhors a vacuum and something will fill the void.

Of course the answer is covenant.  Marriage is a type of God’s relationship with His people, His elect.  The biblical word for this relationship is covenant.  Sex according to scripture is not predicated on romance or consent, but covenant.  Now sex is union, being made one.  As the church is to seek union with Christ so a husband and wife seek union through sex.  Denial of sex is the picture of the elect rejecting union with the Lord.

The “Red Pill” picture is one of Christ manipulating the church to desire Him more than their idolatrous inclinations.  Those idolatrous inclinations in women are called hypergamy.  Red Pill men seek to manipulate women to desire him more than their hypergamous inclinations.  That picture is perverted.  Yet it is consistent with the teachings of the church.  I have had so called Biblical marriage counselors tell me “happy wife – happy life”, and if my wife is sexually withholding then “God has called me to be celibate”.  They are like Lancelot defending the dishonor of a sinning wife and projecting themselves as virtuous men.  It seemed to me that these counselors were more concerned with their own SMV than with biblical ethics.  I attribute this to the zeitgeist of romance culture and willful ignorance of the ethics of a Biblical covenant.

Jonadab summarizes these differences concisely as follows.

Blue pill denies the fallen nature of women.
Red pill seeks to exploit the fallen nature of women.
Biblical covenant seeks to sanctify fallen women as Christ sanctifies His church.

Blue pill men worship women.
Red pill men seek [to be worshipped by] women.
Covenant men seek to bring their women with them to worship almighty God.

These differences are depicted in the following image.

RP BP Covenant Hierarchy Comparison

Sharkly emphasized one similarity between the Red Pill and Covenant relationship, namely that both structures have the man in the place of authority over the woman.

I don’t think that one should be ignorant of how to harness a woman’s nature.  We are to be wise as serpents and to live with our wives according to knowledge.  Although it is best if you can just tell her to show you more respect, and she does it, sometimes it is also handy to know a few other methods to assist her to see to it that she reverences her husband, when she might be struggling to do that.


In many of my past posts, I (as well as Deep Strength) have alluded to these differences between the secular Red Pill, and the Christianized Red Pill, but I haven’t analyzed the differences point by point as well as BGR has in his series.

The separation and distinction of the Christian Covenant structure from the Red Pill praxeology is an important and pivotal development.  The Red Pill is largely an amoral description of human psychology and behavior, whereas the Christian Covenant recognizes human psychology and behavior, but adds to this awareness an aspiration to a God-ordained ideal.

I propose that the Christian exegesis of Red Pill precepts should be called something else, just to be more specific and to avoid confusion in future discussions.  Maybe “the White Pill”, or “the God Pill”, or something else would do.  Readers may offer suggestions.


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 Conflict Management, Conspiracy Theories, Culture Wars, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Handling Rejection, Holding Frame, Personal Presentation, Questions from Readers and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Small Schisms and Large Schisms

  1. elizaphanian says:

    Call it the Trad Pill


  2. ramman3000 says:

    I’ve called out many (including some here) for lying/dishonesty/falsehood (e.g. here), as well as opposing anonymity as being dishonest and non-Christian. Unity is important, but it is secondary to other things.

    I am anti-censorship. I wouldn’t have soft-banned Jason on SF or banned him on Dalrock. I wouldn’t have banned Jack on v5k2c5. I wouldn’t have soft-banned myself on Dalrock. But I acknowledge that everyone has their own moderation/editorial standards and a right to apply them as they see fit. This does not necessarily indicate lack of unity.

    I am okay when bloggers spar at each other. I want to see argument and reason used and then let everyone make up their own mind. Stating your case is great (e.g. Boxer and Jack), but not hard feelings. If someone is hostile towards you, even unfairly, returning anger is its own kind of ad hominem. Conflict doesn’t require a lack of unity.

    The Christian and non-Christian red pill are not the same. I read both, but they can never be completely unified. As for a new name, Christians should strive to be like Christ, no other label is required or desired.


    • Re: WinteryKnight lying topic. I didn’t read through all of it, but I think I got the gist. I’m surprised no one brought up the example from Exodus.

      Exodus 1:15 Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom [l]was named Shiphrah and the other was named Puah; 16 and he said, “When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live. 18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and let the boys live?” 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife can get to them.” 20 So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. 21 Because the midwives feared God, He established households for them. 22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you are to cast into the Nile, and every daughter you are to keep alive.”

      It’s literally the Nazi/Hitler scenario. God was good to the midwives either lying or at least telling half truths (selective truths?) to prevent murder. Not looking to debate this or anything though as I don’t have extra time, but it’s another scenario worth considering.

      I am anti-censorship. I wouldn’t have soft-banned Jason on SF or banned him on Dalrock. I wouldn’t have banned Jack on v5k2c5. I wouldn’t have soft-banned myself on Dalrock. But I acknowledge that everyone has their own moderation/editorial standards and a right to apply them as they see fit. This does not necessarily indicate lack of unity.

      I warned Jason to stop misrepresenting and attacking me and other commenters. He didn’t. He got banned. He’s not the only one I’ve warned and banned for similar things.

      I’m all for hearing different points of view and debating them as I’ve done with you on several occasions, but mindless repetition about how terrible a Christian you are when you’re trying to help them is pointless.

      As for a new name, Christians should strive to be like Christ, no other label is required or desired.

      Agreed. I think most Christians who read these parts fail to understand this. There is no such thing as a red pill Christian.

      The Church has fallen to culture in a lot of the relationship and marriage. It’s sad and ironic that you see some of the truth (and obviously sin) revealed by the secular manosphere in their quest to find out what works. This doesn’t mean we approve of sin. However, the Bible on the truths of the nature of men and women and marriage if we obeyed it. You don’t need the RP or manosphere to have a godly marriage, but you do need to avoid the culture especially if the Church is pushing the same things.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Jason, boxer, and the ilk that run in that crew are toxic people always looking for a fight. Boxer is the narcissist leader of a miserable band of codependents. For anyone wanting to know more, just go to boxers page and select 5 random articles and read them. See his delusions for yourself


      • h0neyc0mb says:

        miserable band of codependents

        🤣 .. I’ve never been called a “co-dependent” ..

        I’ll add that to the list ..

        Thank you for your feedback.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. AngloSaxon says:

    “Jack is absolutely correct, that I consider the average Christian to be an immoral scumbag, and given that Jack has volunteered himself as a typical Christian, we can immediately segue into a list of his lies:”

    Interested as to why you want to engage with someone who refers to Christians as scumbags! And even refers to yourself as a scumbag!

    Liked by 1 person

    • ramman3000 says:

      “Interested as to why you want to engage with someone who refers to Christians as scumbags! And even refers to yourself as a scumbag!”

      Consider two facts: (1) Boxer likes to engage in hyperbolic trolling; (2) a large portion of his readership are Christians.

      For this case in particular, Boxer is criticizing Christianity in general by ‘attacking’ individuals who defend it. He’s done the same to me on a number of occasions. This figure-of-speech is a commonly used rhetorical tactic. But underlying the criticisms he has about Christianity are more-or-less legitimate. Christianity on the whole is sick and we who call ourselves Christians have failed to repair it.

      I believe, on some level, Jack gets this, which is one reason there are no hard feelings. The other reason is that, as Christians, if we got angry and had hard feelings, we’d perhaps be living up to the accusation of being a scumbag. I personally view Boxer’s insults as a challenge to not be what he claims we are, a challenge to do better.

      Liked by 2 people

      • AngloSaxon says:

        He insults us and if we are offended we fail a test?

        What is the prize if we pass.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “He insults us and if we are offended we fail a test?

        What is the prize if we pass?

        There are several prizes.
        1. You’re not wasting time and emotional energy being butthurt and bitter.
        2. You don’t give him the schadenfreudian satisfaction of having made you butthurt and bitter.
        3. Without the satisfaction, he’ll probably resort to insulting you less often.
        4. He might get the idea that he figured you out wrongly.
        5. It deescalates the conflict.
        6. It is a show of resiliency that attracts respect.
        7. You give God the chance to work through the situation and do something you might not expect.

        Liked by 1 person

      • AngloSaxon says:

        I hope you enjoy continuing to interact with him.


      • Lexet Blog says:

        Spending time and energy responding to boxer is a foolish waste of time

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Ed Hurst says:

    I’ll vote with the preference for not calling our approach anything in particular beyond the various terms already in use among Christians. I use several: biblical manhood/womanhood, covenant marriage, etc. I realize I have to define those terms in order to avoid the trap of churchians assuming I’m walking their path, but that’s another issue I deal with all the time. I have no real interest at all in “unity” with the manosphere or whatever it is we call it. I already have a calling and message. I admit some Red Pill lore correctly identifies the problems, but by no means do I have any interest in saving Western Civilization.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. bee123456 says:

    I don’t think we should use the terms “manipulate” or “exploit” when discussing the red pill mans effect on women. Using these two terms reinforces the white knight and churchian view that women are pure and get tricked into sinning with men who know “Jedi mind tricks”.

    The reality is that, nowadays, most women want to sin. The red pill just helps a man stand out from the crowd and be the one she chooses to sin with for that night, that week, or that season.

    There are other women who choose to sin because they arrogantly think that their vagina and personality are so special that they can use it to snag a top tier man.

    There are exceptions to the above, but I don’t think we should emphasize the exceptions.

    I vote not to use the term, ‘white pill”. It sounds too much like a theory for white knights.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Sharkly says:

    A citizen of Zion is described as one:
    Psalm 15:4 In whose eyes a reprobate is despised, But who honors those who fear the Lord; He swears to his own hurt and does not change;

    We are to love and honor our true brethren:
    Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

    We, like Jesus, are also to be hospitable to those who are unreligious:
    Luke 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

    However, we are to disown and purge ourselves of the false brethren:
    1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

    So, love and honor your Godfearing brethren who obey God’s word, be hospitable to the unreligious, and despise and avoid all immoral Christians conspicuously, making it clear that you do not associate with them or consider them a Christian brother.

    Liked by 3 people

    • h0neyc0mb says:

      So, love and honor your Godfearing brethren who obey God’s word, be hospitable to the unreligious, and despise and avoid all immoral Christians conspicuously, making it clear that you do not associate with them or consider them a Christian brother.

      No disagreement.

      But, yenz are taking Boxer to seriously .. He’s a Master Troll .. and for that I can respect his behavior.

      No one forces you or anyone else to adhere to his principles or behaviors .. he does a great service for the anti-fem-bot community ..

      If you don’t approve of his behavior / methods don’t visit.

      He does do hi-brow stuff .. but .. as he has said no one seems to like that so he writes other content.

      He and I are a lot alike and a lot different .. it’s never caused me any problems.


      Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        Who’s y’uns? LOL I have a link to Boxer on my site, not because I agree with many of his moral choices, or Karl Marx, but specifically for the reasons you have stated. And he is the one who most encouraged me to start blogging against evil Feminism.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. Scott says:

    I have never been able to put my finger on what Boxer is all about. In cases like that I just tend to disengage. Maybe the joke is on me. Maybe its 4D chess or whatever. Just don’t have time for it.

    On the matter of Christian vs Secular Red pill, I have been struggling with that problem since the beginning. I have several ongoing incongruencies that swirl around in my head about the red pill.

    1. I have trouble with the Greek alphabet nomenclature. Do certain men turn most women on? Sure. Does another, larger segment of men do almost nothing for most women? Yep. Is there some list of traits and behaviors and looks that can account for this, and even hang together like factors in a multiple regression correlation? Probably. But it hasn’t been studied adequately enough to be useful and generalizable. And around every turn there is some exception to the rule.
    2. “Game” seems inherently deceitful and therefore seems like sin most of the time. It looks like a trained monkey trying to fool a woman into thinking he is something he is not.
    3. Related to #2. I think most of what makes coupling more likely is inherited/biological. Sorry, guys. I’m an HBDer all the way. But this makes me “black pill” because I am seen as having a “sucks to be you dudes” attitude, even though I discuss solutions all the time.
    4. The secular red pill denies promoting any particular lifestyle. But for every morally conscious article I might find, I can go find 10 youtube videos from the main secular red pill gurus endorsing plate spinning, ONS, etc. It is a function of the content, not “we didn’t tell you to use it like that.”

    I think that the red pill gives us a great place to start when it comes to understanding the inherent weaknesses and difficulties that women struggle with–when absolutely no other framework is free to discuss this. Because any commentary on the limitations or innate pitfalls of femininity are immediately dismissed as “misogyny” which, over the long haul which ultimately hurts women by not allowing them to be confronted. Not even the church is comfortable with this.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sharkly says:

      “Game” seems inherently deceitful and therefore seems like sin most of the time. It looks like a trained monkey trying to fool a woman into thinking he is something he is not.

      Ah you are getting so close Grasshopper!
      1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

      Early church father Ambrosiaster wrote: Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.

      If the man does not realize that men alone are in the matchless image of God Most High, and that consequently no woman can ever be his equal, then he is deceived and stuck prancing and pretending, trying to appear to be something special and superior, when in fact he is already innately special and unassailably superior. That should give confidence to the man, and create attraction in the woman. How much better to teach young girls and boys about the innate superiority of men, and then most any man can satisfy a Godfearing woman’s hypergamy, like men once did, when their superiority went unquestioned.

      Liked by 1 person

    • AngloSaxon says:

      Red pill orthodoxy is avoid marriage like the plague and shag random bitches.


      • h0neyc0mb says:

        I disagree.

        Red-Pill is how you view things (e.g. human nature, etc.) .. it doesn’t promote sin ..

        Humans do that no matter what pill they (prescribe /) swallow.


      • AngloSaxon says:

        Secular red pill does this – 9/10 red pillers on youtube advise rejecting marriage.


      • h0neyc0mb says:

        I agree .. for RP MGTOW type channels (re: rejecting marriage).

        Not all RP men / channels are that way .. they explore the nature of our feminist environment and women.

        My main disagreement with you is regarding this commemt .. shag random bitches. [sic] .. you’ve been listening to another RP group for that info (aka PUA’s).

        I think your opinion is biased on the channels you watch. And not ALL RP channels.


      • AngloSaxon says:

        Oh yes I’m biased based on the channels I’ve watched certainly. Do you have any RP channels which are different?


  8. Pingback: The Narrow Way | Σ Frame

  9. Pingback: Moon Day Review – The Manosphere Reshuffles its Deck | Σ Frame

  10. Pingback: The state of things (Thanks Jack) – Dark Brightness

  11. Pingback: Frauds in Christ’s Name | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: Progressive | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: What would the world be like if everyone was Red Pilled? | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: Red Pill Blog Roll | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Identity Politics | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: 5 Years with Σ Frame | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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