Yes or No. In average - wives dictate the success of a marriage/husband-wife relationship.

messaggera

Pelican
Woman
Other Christian
But what about in situations more serious, where a woman is acting out over something more serious than the laundry.
I don't see how you are supposed to just "take it on the chin" in these instances. Even a good woman will be tempted from time to time, so then what?

Asking in a theoretical sense, but also would like practical answers as well from married men.

A man, courting a woman, should set the tone of expectation for his prospective wife. Expectation in behaviour and appearance creates the foundation for confidence found in a marriage. “She brings him good, not harm.”

A husband has every right to objective to what his wife will publicly wear, because she is not only representing herself she is representing the family name. The feminist will shout he is controlling and jealous, and a woman has every right to wear what SHE WANTS.

Feminist [crass] idiosyncrasy argues men sexual objectify women; as where it is women who often indirectly set themselves for sexual objectification based on self-presentation.

Men lust with their eyes and thoughts.
A lady can dress feminine allowing eyes seeing class and respect - rather than lust.

Given Depp and Heard have already been introduced to this topic it is easy to use as an example:

Heard’s recent argument is that Depp was controlling and jealous: “controlled what actress wore and rowed with her over new film roles, etc.” Call it traditional perhaps, but it seems Depp “discouraged her from working as an actress,” even to the extent of stating she did not have to work at all, and he would take care of her needs. Her response “it was preposterous for her not to work.” Preposterous.​
 

NotaBene

 
Banned
Protestant
it is women who often indirectly set themselves for sexual objectification based on self-presentation

A lady can dress feminine allowing eyes seeing class and respect - rather than lust.

This gets way deeper. My wife and I talk a lot about this (and related) issues. A lot of them came up because we started taking things like head coverings and silence in church more literally, which means my wife has made decisions to look a bit odd compared to other women.

But the deeper you look in issues of modesty and clothing, and the messages we send with how we dress, the more you will learn about human nature. Some of the conclusions I've come to are rather dark and pessimistic. Sometimes "church uniforms" start to make a lot of sense.

For instance, why do women wear makeup? I did a whole blog recently on just this topic. What does it mean to "dress feminine" without looking like a slut? Where is the line? How short is too short for a skirt? Does Paul's list of things like braided hair and gold jewelry apply today? Is that list exhaustive? I could go on and on.

she is representing the family name

There was a time where I used to want to "show off" my wife. The more beautiful she dressed, the better I look. You know, a beautiful woman on your arm kind of thing. I was basically advertising how great I was because I had a pretty wife who dressed a bit sexy (not sluttish, but not quite 100% modest either) on outings.

I now think a bit differently and don't want to show her off quite so much. But I admit the tendency is there. It's basically vanity I guess.
 

Cynllo

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
jPhJh9JLX6aN.jpeg
 

NotaBene

 
Banned
Protestant
"Hey girls, today we're gonna try on SHOES so I can teach you this Bible thing!" <--- instant win for women?

Also I noticed not one of those women has a skirt or dress on. They all look frumpy and so typically American. I've all but banned pants on my wife, except for outdoor sports.

Looks like that should be the next thing they try on, heh. "Hey girls, today we're gonna try on your husband's underwear!" Keep those object lessons coming I guess.
 

The Penitent Man

Pelican
Protestant
have successfully avoided watching or listening to anything about this trial and still am not sure what it's about but Johnny Depp is a creepy, creepy man

I didn’t know what thread to move this to but this one seemed to have a lot of Johnny Depp trial discussion, which was the topic of your post. I thought this response may have been a bit too off topic for the original marriage article.

Anyway, I note the article you linked to featured Depp buddying up with a convicted and released child murderer (in this context a teenager who murdered a child in a Satanic ritual). I mention this only because there was a good stream about this a few months ago detailing the crime of Damien Echols and other child murderers who were not only given the old sympathy treatment by the media, but also by the American “justice” system and many of whom were later released.

Echols (pictured with Depp) was convicted (he confessed), sentenced to death, and later released. While still in prison, he had an outside female admirer whom he married while still incarcerated. Once released, he became a celebrity and wrote a book about how occult practices helped him get out prison. Stream below:




Anyhow, in loose relation to the topic at hand, it’s been posited on this forum that you attract your moral equivalent. I’m inclined to agree. Who is worse, the man who murders a child or the woman who marries him?
 

Ah_Tibor

Pelican
Woman
Orthodox
I didn’t know what thread to move this to but this one seemed to have a lot of Johnny Depp trial discussion, which was the topic of your post. I thought this response may have been a bit too off topic for the original marriage article.

Thanks for the post. The only reason why I mention it is because I see a lot of men projecting their own situations onto a PR stunt trial-- Johnny Depp is manipulating the public into supporting him by appearing to be innocent. (Also some women in my age group are like "ooh i still love him :)" which I guess ties into the kind of women who fall for the incarcerated because they're just misunderstood)
 

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Trad Catholic
My point was that a wife should be *modest* outside the home, but often *immodest* inside, in private with her husband. She should understand what her husband likes for "dates" and wear those outfits, in private for his eyes only.
If my husband wanted me to wear "OUTFITS" of any particular "sexy" variety in the bedroom, my immediate response would be to wonder what it was that conditioned him to like those "OUTFITS" in the first place. What set this expectation? What degenerate imagery was consumed prior to the marriage (or is still being consumed?) in order to establish this preference?

"I want you to look like the people I lusted after before we were together" - or worse, "I want you to look like these other people I am still currently lusting over in spite of being married to you" are highly disordered sentiments.

You should not need to fetishize your spouse in order to be satisfied in your marital union. There should be no need for the immodesty of stripper/porn/fetish-esque "outfits."

If I asked my husband to grease himself up, put on a banana hammock and gyrate for me -- I would hope he'd be OFFENDED and demand to know how much filth I had been watching, to think that this request was healthy or reasonable.

If you need or have a strong preference for that kind of "extra," it is because you are jaded and desensitized to the normal, natural, god-given beauty and sensuality of the opposite sex.

It is the imposition of lust where only love should be acceptable.
 

NotaBene

 
Banned
Protestant
my immediate response would be to wonder what it was that conditioned him to like those "OUTFITS" in the first place

Your immediate response would be foolish, that's the defensive, knee-jerk reaction of most wives. The same women who put on makeup and a fancy dress to impress people in public cannot fathom why they would dress to impress their own husbands.

If I asked my husband to grease himself up, put on a banana hammock and gyrate for me -- I would hope he'd be OFFENDED and demand to know how much filth I had been watching, to think that this request was healthy or reasonable.

You're taking my thoughts to silly conclusions here. If we can be a bit more moderate for a second - do you think your husband looks good in a suit? Have you ever asked him to dress nice on a date - nicer than usual? I know my wife likes these things. If I'm wearing sweat pants and a t-shirt, she usually asks me to change to something slightly nicer. Is there really a problem with her being attracted to me in certain clothing? I don't immediately assume she's been looking at other men and comparing me to them.

I do not like my wife in certain "sexy" outfits because I look at porn. For the record, I have never been a porn consumer. But my wife's body belongs to me, and I often find it more attractive in certain outfits than naked. She is happy to oblige, not because I've been looking at other women but because she wants to please me. Why does this bother you? What is my sin?

If you need or have a strong preference for that kind of "extra," it is because you are jaded and desensitized to the normal, natural, god-given beauty and sensuality of the opposite sex.

I do not think you understand attraction from a man's point of view. Do you walk around naked for your husband all day because that's "normal" and "God-given"? Why would you hide your "beauty" from him? What did you wear for him before you were married? Why?

I know that you are not as ignorant as you sound here. A wise wife will use marital "immodesty" as yet another tool to please her husband (and therefore herself), not get all defensive and accuse her husband of infidelity because he asks her to wear a sexy dress for his eyes only.

"I want you to look like the people I lusted after before we were together" - or worse, "I want you to look like these other people I am still currently lusting over in spite of being married to you" are highly disordered sentiments.

I never said this or promoted it, and I agree, that is disordered.
 
Last edited:

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Trad Catholic
I do not like my wife in certain "sexy" outfits because I look at porn. For the record, I have never been a porn consumer. But my wife's body belongs to me, and I often find it more attractive in certain outfits than naked.
Well of course you find "sexy outfits" more attractive than her plain old naked body. Those outfits were designed for whoring and stripping. They were designed to make the whore and the stripper more appealing to the average man than the chaste woman. Their normalization by degenerate society and the fact that they can now be seen on display anywhere and everywhere, does not change this.

I'm guessing you did not go through your pre-marriage life ONLY EVER SEEING modestly dressed women, and then after you married, out of the blue, decide you wanted your wife to wear such-and-such "sexy outfit" that you had never seen before.

Movies. Television. Advertisements. Store displays. Whorish women dressed immodestly in public. You do not have to be a "porn consumer," in the narrowest sense, to have had your lust/arousal piqued in such a way as to influence your preferences.

do you think your husband looks good in a suit? Have you ever asked him to dress nice on a date - nicer than usual?
My own preferences aside for the sake of the argument (because I love to look at my husband's body, makes me all kinds of :love::oops::kiss:;), and the imposition of any contrived aesthetic over his masculine form has no appeal to me), this is apples and oranges. Suits are modest public attire. There is nothing at all inappropriate about a woman having been exposed to countless men wearing suits over the course of her life. You were not talking about preferences for attire that falls within the acceptable parameters of public wear. The corollary to this would be requesting that your wife wear a nicer-than-usual but modest dress.

You were talking about things that women should not be wearing in public.

A woman can develop a preference for men wearing suits from having grown up around her father, uncles, brothers, and every man in her church wearing one.

A man does not develop a preference for, say, "sexy schoolgirl outfits," (to cite one of the most common examples I've noted) because it is normal to see his mother, aunts, sisters, and women at church wearing plaid micro-mini skirts that show the bottoms of their buttcheeks and white tie-front blouses that show all of their cleavage and midriff.

Now, perhaps I AM way off-base and you're the kind of guy who thinks women should only wear ankle-length skirts and dresses in public, and it really gets you going when your wife wears anything shorter. But it certainly SOUNDS like you have bought into hyper-sexualized aesthetics that were marketed to you by the forces of cultural subversion.

The implication seems to be that this "sexy" aesthetic goes above and beyond anything made for practical wear. "Plain" undergarments made to be worn under clothing do not offer the "extra" appeal of the extremely scanty "outfits" that were designed to package women as a sexual commodity. Simply undressing is "not enough."

How did you know you wanted to see your wife in certain specific "sexy outfits" that are not appropriate for public wear, unless you had seen them before?

Or if SHE is the one who introduced those "sexy outfits" to you - how did SHE come up with them, if not through exposure to and normalization of indecent/hyper-sexualized imagery?

Why does this bother you? What is my sin?
I never said it was a sin, and I am not qualified to make such assertions.

(Although it is interesting that you jumped right into defending yourself against an assertion I never made, might want to think about why that is.)

I am bothered by the notion that women "should" dress like whores and strippers in the bedroom to "measure up" to the standard of visual sexual stimulation established by pornified culture and marketing that has jaded/desensitized their husbands.

I do not think you understand attraction from a man's point of view. Do you walk around naked for your husband all day because that's "normal" and "God-given"? Why would you hide your "beauty" from him? What did you wear for him before you were married? Why?
This is silly. It would not be appropriate at all for me to walk around naked all day, because we have children and other family members in our home. I do not "hide" anything from him; he can undress me to whatever degree he likes so long as we are assuredly alone together. My wardrobe now is exactly the same as it was when we met, excepting the pieces that have worn out and been replaced with similar things. None of it is "sexy." I wear clothes and undergarments that are modest and practical and comfortable - made from fabrics that I find beautiful to look at and pleasing to touch.

My husband is older and did not come of age at a time or in a culture where it was normalized to see women everywhere dressed like sluts. In the seven years we've been together, there has been no indication whatsoever that he would prefer to have me change into something else to wear in the bedroom, rather than simply enjoying the process of the undressing.

I certainly don't speak from ignorance. I have dipped my toes in the pool of degeneracy and sexual liberation (and "sexy outfits"), because while I was quite young and naive and still with my first husband, I bought into the notion that because he was my husband and I belonged to him, everything he wanted must be okay. I started learning to pole dance for him. I let him lead me into an open marriage. I have enough experience with these things, and with men of different generations, to have observed that the preference for "sexy outfits" comes from immersion in pornified culture. As a rule, older men were interested in my actual body. Men closer to my own age were interested in particular aesthetics (schoolgirl, dominatrix, playboy bunny, goth girl, cheerleader, nightclub dress girl, etc.) which could easily be traced to their exposure to specific trends in sexualized/pornified advertising and media.

I understand why you are so defensive about this issue. But I stand by everything I said.
 

NotaBene

 
Banned
Protestant
simply enjoying the process of the undressing

Well, that's actually exactly what I'm talking about. I think you understand. "Enjoying the process of undressing" is a wonderful, repeatable marital drama and dance. It's certainly way more fun than just jumping out of separate closets on a date completely naked :) So perhaps you agree with me more than you think. All I'm doing is focusing on the fun being had in the undressing, and saying more wives should simply ask their husbands what is attractive and wear that - nothing wrong with that.

My wife has a bunch of outfits that are for my eyes only, and I think every wife should. These are outfits I find attractive on HER, not on some other woman. I'm not comparing her to anyone. She is the only woman on earth that God has authorized me to lust over, so by golly I'm gonna dress her up and do that. It's MY fault if I look at other women, but she makes it easier, bless her, and has fun doing it too.

I have dipped my toes in the pool of degeneracy and sexual liberation

Ok, so knowing where you are coming from I see why you are sensitive to this issue. You have to realize I'm coming from a... sheltered and innocent past. I've never done pole dancing for my wife. We don't even have a pole in our house :)

So when I say something you consider shocking you should realize I'm advocating for marital purity/fidelity, but also just plain sexual fun in marriage. It's something I feel passionate about because I know a ton of my brothers out there have wives who never put out, never have fun in the bedroom, and never even consider dressing nice or sexy for their own husbands (but will dress up for other men in public). It really makes me sad.

I do not condone any sinful things your husband asked of you, but part of me feels that if husbands all had wives like mine they would have less reason to engage in that kind of degeneracy and adultery. In other words, it's a two-way street. I'm not blaming you of course, without knowing your exact situation, but I'm speaking in general. A wife's sacred role is helping her husband avoid the temptation of lust outside marriage.
 

NotaBene

 
Banned
Protestant
Do you have any outfits that are "for her eyes only" that you would be embarrassed and ashamed if anybody else saw you in?

Not sure why this matters? Women are generally turned on more by words, feelings, and actions, which is why romance novels are porn for women, so it's not quite apples to apples. But yes, my wife has certain visual preferences too on private dates, and I'm happy to oblige. Nothing nearly like what was mentioned earlier, no need to go there.

I don't consider that to be my wife's sacred role, not in the least.

"Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

It's pretty clear from that passage that one of the functions of "not depriving each other" in the sexual realm is that we make it easier for each other to avoid temptation. So yes, we obey God when we fulfill this command to our spouses.

What's with all the emojis?

I block all extraneous scripts and ads on every website by default, so they don't appear for me. I'll try to fix it.
 
Last edited:

BasilSeal

Kingfisher
Trad Catholic
Gold Member
Fair enough. When the focus is off of what women should or shouldn't wear in the bedroom, and shifted back to "coming together" as Paul writes as an equal part of life of a Christian among sinners (the other aspect being abstinence and prayer), then I can appreciate that welcoming intimacy and children within marriage is an important sacred duty of husband and wife.
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
I think we just have to agree to disagree as lame as that sounds. Kitty did make some good points. First, the suit example was silly since that’s normal appropriate attire and men are completely covered up. Second, if someone uses a term like “slut” that term can be replaced with whore, hussy, harlot, skank, streetwalker etc etc etc. Those words mean not appropriate, looked down upon in society and unrighteousness, so why would someone want their spouse to “look” like that. Every time the word whore is in the Bible it is never good. Ever. It doesn’t matter if it’s for your eyes only. If the word that describes what that person wears or looks like is slutty, that is inappropriate and degenerate and came from a place of ungodliness. Whether or not someone says porn is involved, it is to a degree. People don’t realize “porn” is everywhere. Third, why do people still think women can’t be visual and only men are. If I see what I deem as an attractive man in a sharp suit I end up sinning with lustful thoughts. All from being covered up from neck to toe. But the suit looks sharp and the face looks good, and then I have repenting to do so women can be visual as well. Yes we react to emotions and words BUT as far as I’m concerned also very visual. So maybe women just have more options in being turned on? I don’t see this disagreement ever ending especially on a Christian forum. So I’ll just “circle back” lolololol and say agree to disagree!
 

NotaBene

 
Banned
Protestant
First, the suit example was silly since that’s normal appropriate attire and men are completely covered up.

But then you go and say that you are attracted to a man in a "sharp suit" as you put it. So I see this as a valid comparison. A man overtly displaying his wealth and status by wearing an expensive suit or driving a fancy car is just the male version of immodesty.

Men in suits can be attractive (I guess), but I think a good way around this problem is by dressing your husband up in a suit you find attractive on him. Because then it is not immodest, in fact it cannot be, because it is for your eyes only, not other women.

Those words mean not appropriate, looked down upon in society and unrighteousness, so why would someone want their spouse to “look” like that. Every time the word whore is in the Bible it is never good.

Ok I get it, but hear me out. If you dress in a skimpy outfit and walk around in public, this is whorish and slutty behavior because this is the female version of immodesty. The sin is in the purpose/intent, which is to lead lots of men to lust over you and/or increase your social standing with other women in the beauty rat race.

What I am trying to say is that this kind of behavior cannot, by definition, be "slutty" in marriage because attempting to "lure" your spouse into bed is a *good* and blessed thing.

So when I say my wife is wearing a "slutty" outfit I do not mean she is acting like an actual whore, standing on a street corner to sell her body, but that she is attempting to make herself attractive to me, and that I find it a wonderful thing. I may be fumbling with words here but I hope you understand what I mean. I go for shock value in words to make people think about underlying issues.

Do you think it's permissible for a wife to do some kind of "strip tease" for her husband? Is that "slutty" or permissible?

Whether or not someone says porn is involved, it is to a degree.

You're going to blast me for this, but I don't believe porn is the problem. Lust is the problem and the deeper heart issue. Lust is when we want something God does not want us to have. But God has given me a wife. Therefore, there is no lust, but only enjoyment of what is mine and what God DOES intend for me to have.

In other words, if I had a picture of my scantily clad or naked wife that's not wrong. Pornography is not the problem, it's who you are looking at.

I don’t see this disagreement ever ending especially on a Christian forum.

It is not my place to tell you what you are attracted by, but I know that it is different between men and women.
 

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Trad Catholic
So perhaps you agree with me more than you think.
Perhaps so? Still unclear.

I guess when I hear "sexy outfit," I automatically picture outfits that look like they literally belong on a stripper. And I don't want any impressionable woman out there coming away with the idea that she is "supposed to" dress like THAT anywhere for anyone.

I AM incredibly particular about everything I wear - but I wear things that I find "pretty" or "beautiful" or "cute" and not things that are made specifically to be "sexy." My husband thinks I'M sexy, but nobody would ever look at ANY of the clothes or undergarments I wear, hanging on a hanger or displayed on a mannequin, and be like "that is a SEXY OUTFIT."

I would also just be kind of annoyed in general if my husband and I went out on a "date" and came home "in the mood" and then he wanted me to actually take the time to go and take off what I was wearing before and put on something else (micro-mini skirts, "babydolls," tiny dresses, whatever). In addition to finding the appearance of such things generally distasteful and whorish.

Or if he wanted me to wear underwear that looks "sexy" hanging on a hanger, stuff that was designed more to be worn and viewed AS an "outfit" than worn under clothing (underwear sets with rhinestones/"bling," scratchy fragile transparent lace, extraneous "strappy" features, etc.). Those things were adopted for widespread use from the adult entertainment/sex work marketing department.

In short, if he was dissatisfied with "underwear" and wanted me to change into what is more commonly called "lingerie," I'd be like "ew."

The "outfits" that are "for his eyes only" are what I wear under my clothes every day.

The word "immodest" used in the context of the marriage bed suggests a lot more than a simple state of undress. It would be very immodest if I went out in public naked or in my underwear. But it is not at all immodest to be undressed to any degree in front of my husband only. So for an outfit to be considered "immodest" while my husband and I are alone in intimate privacy, in my mind, it would be something flashy, showy, hyper-sexualized, costume-like, etc.

Is it a SIN for a wife to wear those things or for her husband to enjoy them? I don't know. Perhaps not. But I find it distasteful, and I absolutely feel a need to clarify to other women that just because something pleases your husband, does NOT mean it necessarily pleases God for you to go along with it.

I had to search pretty hard for examples to illustrate what I'm talking about that are NOT modeled/pictured on mostly-naked women or sexualized mannequins - and this is a big part of what I'm talking about. One cannot obtain such outfits without being exposed to indecent imagery. Period.

Basically my rule of thumb for what is acceptable involves asking myself: "would I be embarrassed if my teenage son found this accidentally dropped on the laundry room floor?"

Here is something that I would consider completely immodest to wear in public. Also wouldn't just lounge around the house in it as-is, but I might wear something like that as a nightgown (or as a slip under a dress), and put a robe or a sweater over it to sneak downstairs and turn the espresso machine on in the morning before getting dressed - and not really care if my whole family sees it. It would not phase me or embarrass me if one of my boys came up and handed to me like "you dropped this."

Pink-Floral-Chemise-Sleepwear-Lingerie-Nightgown-1.jpg


ON THE OTHER HAND, here are some things I would NEVER:

productimg
81Tr0S+TBNL._AC_UL604_SR604,400_.jpg
lingerie-500x500.jpg
2d849954-7879-4452-ba55-9799a0a6e471.jpeg
7qgze53mv6551.jpg
71DiY65ONtL._AC_UL320_.jpg
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
But then you go and say that you are attracted to a man in a "sharp suit" as you put it. So I see this as a valid comparison. A man overtly displaying his wealth and status by wearing an expensive suit or driving a fancy car is just the male version of immodesty.

Men in suits can be attractive (I guess), but I think a good way around this problem is by dressing your husband up in a suit you find attractive on him. Because then it is not immodest, in fact it cannot be, because it is for your eyes only, not other women.



Ok I get it, but hear me out. If you dress in a skimpy outfit and walk around in public, this is whorish and slutty behavior because this is the female version of immodesty. The sin is in the purpose/intent, which is to lead lots of men to lust over you and/or increase your social standing with other women in the beauty rat race.

What I am trying to say is that this kind of behavior cannot, by definition, be "slutty" in marriage because attempting to "lure" your spouse into bed is a *good* and blessed thing.

So when I say my wife is wearing a "slutty" outfit I do not mean she is acting like an actual whore, standing on a street corner to sell her body, but that she is attempting to make herself attractive to me, and that I find it a wonderful thing. I may be fumbling with words here but I hope you understand what I mean. I go for shock value in words to make people think about underlying issues.

Do you think it's permissible for a wife to do some kind of "strip tease" for her husband? Is that "slutty" or permissible?



You're going to blast me for this, but I don't believe porn is the problem. Lust is the problem and the deeper heart issue. Lust is when we want something God does not want us to have. But God has given me a wife. Therefore, there is no lust, but only enjoyment of what is mine and what God DOES intend for me to have.

In other words, if I had a picture of my scantily clad or naked wife that's not wrong. Pornography is not the problem, it's who you are looking at.



It is not my place to tell you what you are attracted by, but I know that it is different between men and women.
The suit thing didn’t make sense cause I thought you were comparing it to a woman looking “slutty”. There is a difference cause one is appropriate attire and the other isn’t. If the strip tease is her slowly taking off her beautiful dress that appropriately covers her body yes that’s fine. I understand the need for shock value sometimes but using those words to describe anything about the person you became one flesh with doesn’t seem appropriate. It’s all about that word…. Appropriate. I agree with you that lust is a problem. However porn and anything related to it is thrust in everyone’s face so yes that is also part of the problem. You can lust after someone in a little house on the prairie dress. Why does it have to go a step further and be slutty attire? Yes men and women are different but sometimes people get it wrong. Woman can definitely be visual. We can take it a step further though and over time be attracted to someone not pleasant looking due to his personality and character.
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
Also wealth never crossed my mind or the type of car someone drives if they wear a suit. Back in the day even poor folks had one nice suit. That’s weird. It’s about looking appropriate and nice. When I say sharp suit I mean well fitted cause a poor fitting suit makes a man look ridiculous.
 
Top