|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:02 AM December 6th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Why blame only men for violence, then send so many men to be killed, and maimed in combat? Bone head articles like this one are the #1 reason why America must overcome its gender hypocrisy (and prejudice) and send radical/gender feminists and femi-supremacists (exclusively) to pay their dues combating terrorism, etc. Let American men set at home and enjoy the fat of the land (privileges) and write articles finding faults with women's reactions to the responsibilities and abuses that men have borne so disproportionately throughout history.
The only thing that radical/gender feminists have proven by their ideology is that any bigot can criticize others without actually knowing what their talking about.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:33 AM December 6th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's time — no, past time — to redefine what it means to be a man."
It's time for intolerant, man-hating radical/gender feminist bigots to stop destroying men's lives with their prejudice and hate. The vast majority of men are good men who only use violence in self defense (contrary to gender feminist lies). This constant attack by radical/ gender feminists, vilifing men, must end.
What can radical/gender feminists do to stop their bigoted lies about what the majority of men do for exercise and fun (normally in a sportsmanlike manner)?
You will also notice that radical/gender feminist bigots always want to define violence by sex, but never take the next step to define violence by race. Why, if they are truly interested in all factors of violence in our society? Of course, any violence women commit like the majority of child abuse is completely taboo for them to mention. Not only are radical/gender feminists prejudiced, they are hypocritical in their prejudice.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Is this hateful monster the typical American womyn?"
Yeah, close to about 3/4 of American and Western World 'womyn'. But at least Hitler had charisma and could hide his vile belligerent bigotry with romanticism (not lovey-dovey romance, I mean political wooing romance). But it was perverse, pseudo-romanticism. With Feminism, it's *just* vile belligerent bigotry meant to use the irrational rage of insecure, vindictive, and embittered women and girls to push their blatantly misandric gendercidal agenda.
Apparently this typically misandric bigotted mouth-piece for the Feminazi regime has never heard or refuse to acknowledge the toxic results of femininity? We all know them but let's review for the hell of it:
Abusive mothers can hide the fact that they abuse their children and husbands through the chivalrous and pro-maternalistic attitude of the courts and mass media that pampers women and girls because femininity and maternalism are seen as oh so morally superior, benevolent, and saintly.
Female students can play the feminine victimology card in order to get back at a male teacher who gave them an F on a test (and rightfully so because more often than not, the girl was a bimbo who never studied or pay attention in class), and use the chivalrous mass media and court system that caters to all things feminine and maligns all things masculine.
Women and girls can cry and get anything they want because males are taught to be chivalrous and always yield to whatever the female demands of him.
Wives can use their femininity and maternalism, and even their own children as if they were mere objects, to elicit more money, assets, and financial victimizing punishment of their husbands.
Women and girls can use the helpless feminine damsel manipulation to prevent themselves from being prosecuted for false allegations or physical abuse toward a male and shift the blame towards the male who will ultimately become defendant standing trial for crimes and abuse he did NOT commit.
Women and girls can use their femininity to sway a jury and court to their favor with their tears, words, dress, and body language.
Women and girls can use their oh so helpless and vulnerable femininity to exploit and elicit any damn thing they want through body language, lies, emotional manipulation, and sexploitation of our chivalrous and feminine-catering society. Obviously, there's more toxicity spewing from femininity these days because Feminism uses it to its advantage, even though they supposedly condem traditional femininity and chivalry. Oh but how they play it like a harp whenever they need some more power and influence within our society. Hypocrisy anyone?
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:31 PM December 6th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and blah.
This fembot has nothing either useful or new to say. Just write her off as the hysterical, toxic, megalomaniacal, anti-male bigot that she is.
"And God made man in his own image..."
And now, Feminists will make man into her own image...,
No thanks, "ladies". Un-like you fembots, I don't think you can do a better job than God.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:44 PM December 6th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:54 AM December 6th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Editor:
What can radical/gender feminists do to stop their bigoted lies about what the majority of men do for exercise and fun (normally in a sportsmanlike manner)? It is time for the misandry that passes for education in taxpayer funded women's studies programs on college campuses to cease. It is time to stop taxpayer funding of those women's studies programs that work incessantly to destroy men's lives with their prejudice and hate. The vast majority of American men are good men who only use violence in self defense (contrary to radical/gender feminist lies). This constant attack by radical/gender feminists, vilifying men, must end.
Why should anyone in America blame only men for violence, when America sends so many men to be killed, and maimed in combat? Over 97% of those killed and maimed in Iraq are men. Why must men bear the oppression of that double standard for even one more day, when it is clear that they are only going to be rewarded with vilification for their patriotic service to their country. Bone head articles like "The Problem With Men" are the #1 reason why I advocate for America to overcome its gender hypocrisy (and prejudice) and send radical/gender feminists and femi-supremacists (exclusively) to pay their dues in combat before any other men are called on. Let men sit at home and enjoy the fat of the land (privileges) and write articles, finding faults with women's reactions to the responsibilities and abuses that men have borne so disproportionately throughout history. Let women find out what real oppression is by seeing what men have been asked to do.
Lastly, please notice that intolerant, radical/gender feminists always want to define violence by sex, but never take the next step to define violence by race. Why, if they are truly interested in all factors of violence in our society? Of course, any violence women commit like the majority of child abuse is completely taboo for them to discuss. Not only are radical/gender feminists prejudiced, they are hypocritical in their prejudice.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:44 AM December 6th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Editor:
Why have you printed the article "The Problem With Men," where the author maligns "all men" as a group, when it is clear that only "some men" have engaged in the behavior that she considers unacceptable? Would you have used the same standards for "all Women," or "all Blacks," or "all Hispanics," or "all any other group?" I doubt it, for to accept the use of similar language for "all any other group" when only some have engaged in unacceptable behavior, would be to clearly identify yourselves as stereotyping sexists or racists.
If then, that is not acceptable, why then, is it acceptable for the author and the Houston Chronicle to prejudicially stereotype "all males" in a defamatory manner as being linked to violence? I believe that you owe the entire male sex an apology.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:20 AM December 6th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Editor:
I find this story coming out of Texas, of all places, a real joke, considering the disproportionately high number of Texas women convicted, involved, or associated with bizarre violent crimes: Andrea Yates, Dena Schlosser, Piper A. Rountree, Chante Mallard, Deborah Geisler, Deanna LaJune Laney. Let's not forget Clara Harris, or the Texas copycat, whose name I forget, who went after a man with her car, but only injured him slightly. There are others too, but it's just hard to keep track of them all.
Clearly, the author of this article needs to look into her own gender's glass house in Texas, and do her homework, before throwing stones at any men, let alone "all men."
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:56 AM December 6th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Compared to "some" Texas women: drowning kids in a bathtub, beating kids in the head with a rock until dead, cutting off kids arms, running over a man with a car like he was a speed bump, driving home with a man stuck in the windsheild, then leaving him there until dead, etc. - a Pistons/Pacers brawl looks like a Sunday School meeting.
Sincerely, Ray
Please feel free to borrow anything I've written on this posting and send it to the editor of the Houston Chronicle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The day will come - let's make it sooner rather than later - when everyone will recognise this stuff as the nonsensical bigotry that it really is.
The Poverty of Social Constructionism (again)
"the dangers of masculinity as it is presently constructed"
McPhail is quick to demonstrate her social constructionist credentials - no mention of the Y-chromosome here. Not only is social constructionism false, but it would not serve her political purposes even if it were true. There is no reason to think that something is easier to change just because it is a cultural artefact, or more difficult to change because it is a natural phenomenon. This is simply a misunderstanding (see 'Human Nature After Darwin: A Philosophical Introduction', Janet Radcliffe Richards, Routledge)
Furthermore, masculinity and femininity are complementary opposites, like left and right. It does not make any sense - even if biology was irrelevant, which it isn't - to talk of reconstructing masculinity while leaving femininity unchanged. It is like trying to change the meaning of the word 'up' while leaving the word 'down' unchanged. It just doesn't really make sense. It would make more sense if she talked about reconstructing 'gender'. However, it is not about making sense, it is about apportioning blame and moral authority. Men get the blame and women get the moral authority. There is no need to change femininity because women are already perfect. This is an arrogant, smug, self-serving (and nonsensical) position.
Denial of female complicity
"the struggle to avoid being called a wimp"
Not only does she neglect to mention violence committed by women, but she also neglects to mention women's role in the 'construction' of masculinity and male violence. Who is it that call men wimps? It is women. Each time a woman uses shaming language to humiliate a man, she is reinforcing 'masculine' stereotypes, yet I do not hear feminists advocate that women give up shaming language - in fact, they encourage it. Of course, feminists will never admit this - the unofficial doctrine is that although men are complicit in the construction of women's social role, women are somehow not complicit in the construction of men's social role.
Whose fault is it?
The question of blame is an interesting one.
(1) The problems of the world are caused by men, so it is men's fault.
(2) But it is not men themselves that are the problem, it is the way that masculinity has been socially constructed, so it is not men's fault, it is society's fault.
(3) However, only men are responsible for socially constructing masculinity (and society), so it is their fault after all.
Feminists are teasing us with an intellectual Dance of the Seven Veils.
Still more problems
However, if we are all blank slates, then how strange it is that only male blank slates are responsible for the problems of the world. This means that there are two groups of blank slates - those to blame (which strangely happens to be all the males), and those not to blame (which strangely happens to be all the females). Yet, if there are different groups among the blank slates, then they cannot be blank slates after all.
Once you start thinking it through, you quickly realise that feminist theory is an absolute mess. A complete and utter dog's breakfast. Perhaps it just looks that way to me because I am a nasty, horrible 'separate knower', not a cool, groovy 'connected knower'.
Selfless nobility
McPhail tries to inoculate herself against charges of hate-speech and bigotry: "it is not about hating men to point out the dangers of masculinity as it is presently constructed. In fact, it is done out of a caring for men and the desire for them to escape from an oppressive masculine script "
How noble she is. She only wants to help.
The Lunatics have taken over the Asylum
the desire for them to escape from an oppressive masculine script
This is a curious aspect of the feminazi mythology: Men have had all the power for the last few thousand years, and all they have done with it is to construct a prison for themselves. The poor misguided fools have locked themselves in a mental prison called masculinity, from which feminists only want to rescue them. Feminists nobly ask nothing for themselves, they only wish to selflessly help others.
The psychopathology of masculinity
"The underlying issue for men is fear and hatred of the feminine...Such attitudes underlie ... domestic violence and rape.
Christina Hoff Sommers commented on feminism's connection to the 'self-help/personal development' pop psychology movement - a very American phenomonon if I may say so - and that as a consequence, feminism prefers pop psychotherapeutic solutions to serious political debate. This is a good example.
All the problems in the world are apparently due to men's self-esteem problems, and if these are addressed, then, presumably, all the problems of the world will disappear. If only men would stop trying to win at basketball and learned to feel good about themselves, everything would be fine.
There are two things that strike me about feminism.
(1) What a hopelessly naive, over-simplistic world-view it is. Its only value is to make middle-class women feel cosy.
(2) The authoritarian rigour with which it is enforced.
It is the new religion in the Western world, and you will obey or else. Anyone who criticises it in any way will be made to suffer. This is the situation we live under. Bizarre, isn't it?
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AngryMan,
Nice writing! Perhaps the best-reasoned post/brief analysis of feminism's psychotic "logic" I've ever read. Printed it out and will pass it around.
Dr. McPhail is apparently a gender-fascist of the first order. I Googled her name and turned up a few interesting references.
She co-authored a textbook titled "Confronting Sexism and Violence Against Women," excerpts can be read on amazon.com. The usual rad feminist dogma.
She authored a paper called "Questioning Gender and Sexual Binaries: Queer Theory." Link broken, so can't read how she proposes to "socially reconstruct" oppressive male/female biological distinctions.
She's made numerous presentations in the Houston area on abortion rights, domestic violence (against women only..), and more generally on the status of women.
Her U. of Houston course syllabus reads like a cookie-cutter version of classic mid-70's feminism. Nothing remotely creative or current.
Ms. McPhail is quoted in this gem of an article, also courtesy of the Houston Chronicle paper --
IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AN EPIDEMIC IN U.S.?
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/features/95 /11/12/domestic.html
While not a McPhail quote - this example of delusional fem-anthropology from the brief article might tweak your interest in reading the whole travesty -- it ties in directly with the assault on masculinity, and reveals part of the mythology that fems have conjured:
"She and others have documented a long span of pre-history in which men and women lived together in peace and equality and worshiped female gods. But about 7,000 years ago, hordes of invading nomads toppled the goddesses and instituted male rule. The subjugation of women commenced. It hasn't stopped since."
I guess the first generation of baby "hordes" must have had some very poor mothers, who somehow slipped up on the suppression of masculinity.
The unavoidable conclusion of reading all this screed is that feminism is a cognitive/ behavioral disorder so pervasive that we now deserve a national commission to examine its causes and recommend appropriate and massive therapeutic interventions...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:29 PM December 6th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"She and others have documented a long span of pre-history in which men and women lived together in peace and equality and worshiped female gods. But about 7,000 years ago, hordes of invading nomads toppled the goddesses and instituted male rule. The subjugation of women commenced. It hasn't stopped since."
I guess the first generation of baby "hordes" must have had some very poor mothers, who somehow slipped up on the suppression of masculinity."
We really have to make a movie out of this plot. I don't know a true historian who wouldn't be rolling in the aisles at this ridiculous fiction.
"The unavoidable conclusion of reading all this screed is that feminism is a cognitive/ behavioral disorder so pervasive that we now deserve a national commission to examine its causes and recommend appropriate and massive therapeutic interventions..."
Perhaps we could prescribe massive doses of Ritalin for anyone seriously spouting women's studies theories. Wait a minute, wrong drug, forget the Ritalin. Make that the strongest anti-psychotic on the market.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roy,
Thanks for the link. It's a useful article which I'll take time to read in full.
I find the 'noble cavewoman' myth really interesting. There is some useful dicussion about it in 'The New Victorians' by Rene Denfeld.
There is no scientific evidence for a pre-historic Matriarchal Golden Age, but that doesn't bother the feminists. It is a comforting little myth they can use to make themselves feel all cosy and warm.
Sad, really.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read in that article that McPhail is the mother of sons...
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:32 PM December 6th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
A.M.
Beautifully reasoned. No doubt your logic and common sense will be despised in women's studies circles. Keep up the good work. I loved reading it.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed the article "The Problem with Men" in your Dec. 4 editorial section. I would ask, why is this anti-male drivel still welcome in your paper? I suppose it's not surprising to find such a diatribe of the "dangers of masculinity" coming from a local women's studies professor - especially in a city that produced Clara Harris.
Yes, whether she openly admits it or not, Beverly McPhail is a man hater. Attacking "masculinity" instead of "men" is a poor attempt at slight-of-hand. It's a way to lump us all in with the Detroit Pistons, though most men have never been in a fight in their entire adult lives. And haven't we all heard the lame excuse for excluding women from equal participation in wars and draft registration? "It's men who start wars, so men should fight them." So, if Hillary gets elected I expect her first act as president will be to release all men from the military and replace them with women - just in case she starts a war.
If nothing else, this editorial offers an insight into what is being taught to young women in women's studies courses. It is nothing short of pseudo-scientific justification of the feminist hatred of all things male. It should serve as another warning to men everywhere to wake up and oppose this ideological war that is being waged against us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:53 PM December 6th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"The Problem with Men," (op-ed, Dec. 4) read like a review of race relations by a member of the KKK. This sort of crap has been published in newspapers for the past thirty years. It time to move on to reality.
Start with the grossly underreported problem of domestic violence against men, a problem that persons like Ms. McFail have been doing their best to obscure and ignore. But real journalist are started to report reality. See e.g. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1353322, 00.html
Then move on to reproductive rights. The story is simple: men don't have any, while persons like Ms. McFail act as if a restriction on partial birth abortion has huge implications for "reproductive rights," which, in her view, are for women only. For the young man who just had sex, unplanned parenthood and life-shaping "child support" payments are just a government-created risk that he has to face.
And does anyone care that the life expectancy of white woman like Ms. McFail is more than a decade greater than that of black men? But of course, their social security retirement payments are the same. Insurance is disaggregated by sex only when, as for car insurance, males have to pay higher rates.
I could go on and on. I'd like to see your paper just start to publish some interesting opinions, instead of the standard anti-male hate that bigots like Ms. McFail have been peddling for years.
For her next assignment, I suggest that you send Ms. McFaul out to crawl around caves in Afganistan looking for heavily armed terrorists. It's women's turn to do that duty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:58 AM December 7th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's women's turn..."
Very nice. I wonder if the Houston Chronicle will print any of these responses. At least they are getting an earfull of the truth for a change.
I love the sound of radical/gender feminists getting heavy criticism for their abuses. It sounds like justice.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Masculinity is so closely tied to violence, she reasons, that it must be re-invented for the good of all, most especially men.
If the above held legitimacy . . . one is brought to wonder about the near equal levels of violence from women - from whom it is not expected, nor conditioned in their play ?
Evidently, even raising boys more like girls . . . would 'not' alter matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:24 PM December 7th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
I admit that I origionaly came to this website to "educate" you men about women. I thought that all I'd find here are the stereotypical males who sit around in muscle shirts swilling beer, watching football and beating their wives.
But after being here a while, now, I think I'm the one learning things.
I'm begining to think that it is we women who need to start listening.
Phaedra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:39 PM December 7th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
"stereotypical males who sit around in muscle shirts swilling beer, watching football and beating their wives."
# anything Cotton is my favorite
# a Merlot is more to my pallet, when I imbibe with a meal
# I like football, but probably enjoy watching animal planet, or the history channel as much
# Sorry, the batterer got away with it. In fact she was handsomely rewarded and now is out there beyond the bounds of all reasonable constraints, proving to me beyond any doubt, that gender feminist crime pays
Sincerely, Ray
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s) All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:26 AM December 8th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you mean that sincerly, Phaedra.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:48 PM December 8th, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phaedra wrote: "stereotypical males who sit around in muscle shirts swilling beer, watching football and beating their wives"
That stereotype, of course, has about as much validity as any other preconceived, negative, stereotype.
I realize it must be painful coming face-to-face with, and admitting to, your own prejudices, and the realization that so much of what you've been told, and have accepted as truth, is wrong. And in many cases outright malice and lies.
I congratulate you on your growing enlightenment, and wish you steady progress. Please try to enlighten others -- though you can expect to become reviled by your feminist sisters for challenging their preconceived, prejudiced world-view.
I wish you luck and strength. You'll need them.
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I appreciate your concern in the article "The Problem With Men" I must say that you are entirely one-sided, which doesn't surprise me, since any modern follower of women's studies has become nothing more but a smug self-righteous victim of their own ill minds.
I don't want to get off on a rant if I haven't already, but women are just as guilty as men. As a man myself, I am constantly rejected by women who have higher standards of masculinity in the men they seek for partners, lovers, and potential father of their children. Maybe you have to be a MAN to understand where I'm coming from.
The last person I want advice on how to be a man is a feminist. That's like a fish trying to swim with a bicycle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jname967 ,
Have you checked out the No More Mr. Nice Guy website? You sound like you might belong there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:25 PM December 7th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"No More Mr. Nice Guy"
“Very provocative.” Bill O’Reilly, Fox News Channel"
Wow, chivalrous Bill Orielly read a men's issues book. Astounding!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:47 AM December 8th, 2004 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
>"No more Mr. Nice guy"
Wow, even the NEW YORK TIMES had something good to say about this book! That says something.
Of course we haven't seen and won't see it plugged in the mainstream TV news media. But notice that female equivilent books get plugged on all net works, generaly speaking. Especialy by Oprah, Lifetime, Oxygen, etc., etc.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am constantly rejected by women who have higher standards of masculinity in the men they seek for partners, lovers, and potential father of their children
This is what sticks in my throat the most - the hypocrisy of it.
The fact is that for all their posturing, these women like masculinity, can't get enough of it, spend half their time complaining about how there aren't any masculine men around any more.
The rest of the time, they spit hatred against manhood and masculinity, and do their utmost to discredit and undermine masculinity.
WTF?
The only way I can make sense of this is to see it as manipulation. The idea is to constantly keep men on the defensive, keep them guessing, keep them squirming, keep them ashamed. That way you can control them and maximise your own power.
There are many issues facing men today, fathers' rights, false accusations and so on, but I sometimes think that nothing is more urgent than understanding and exposing psychological and emotional manipulation. It is ubiquitous, and under-recognised.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:31 AM December 8th, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Again, that is why I NEVER associate with women, for the most part, unless I absolutely have no other choice.
And Pheadra, before you say I am "lumping all women together", or something like that, I KNOW there are good honest women out there. You just can't tell WHICH ONES.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:50 PM December 8th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't gonna say that.
I understand where you're comeing from.
Phaedra
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
