You Are Free

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.fimoculous.com/photos/catpower_newyorker.jpg

― Ben Boyer, Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:22 (twenty-two years ago)

you're a week late.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry... mine just came in the mail. I think there must be worse transgressions than re-posting this, though.

― Ben Boyer, Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:25 (twenty-two years ago)

i think i'm just wary of hearing male ilx's sub-paedo fear of women's pubic hair again.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:26 (twenty-two years ago)

never underestimate the powers of disdainment wielded by strongo hulkington.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:27 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, when will my terrible, oppressive disdain for thinly disguised misogyny end

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:28 (twenty-two years ago)

roughly equivalent to the dismemberment capacity of an inflatable mallet

(xp)

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:28 (twenty-two years ago)

how is posting that picture misogynistic?

I think it's a pretty good pic, btw.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:34 (twenty-two years ago)

did i say posting the pic was misogynistic?

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Incidentally, I lived on the edge and did an advanced search for the week-old thread, and it didn't include the photograph. So now the picture can be seen for those who don't have the New Yorker. Sorry to revive such a tempestuous shitstorm... I just thought, as a thinly veiled misogynist, that it was notable.

― Ben Boyer, Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:35 (twenty-two years ago)

cough, cough: i think i'm just wary of hearing male ilx's sub-paedo fear of women's pubic hair again.

christ you people can be dense, sometimes.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:36 (twenty-two years ago)

no, you said it was a week late, then I posted something about your powers of disdain, then you went off about misogyny and fear of pubic hair. I've no idea where that last bit came from. I haven't been around much so I don't know if there's been another thread about this photo, but why is it so off-limits for it to be posted?

― hstencil, Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:37 (twenty-two years ago)

uh, again, the only one who brought up a fear of women's pubic hair is you, jess.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:38 (twenty-two years ago)

stencil, i'm not chuck eddy, and i don't care to take your sub-troll pedantry baiting. if you weren't around to read the other threads and related, then don't come fucking crying to me about not knowing what i'm talking about.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not fucking baiting! I'm not crying to you either, I just wish you'd drop the tough-guy bullshit every once in a while. It gets fucking old.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:42 (twenty-two years ago)

and actually, it's really got nothing to do with misogyny, again at least not overtly. it's just got to do with stupidity, with the testosteronification of ilx, with the 1000 threads in the last 12 months about how hot "chick X" from "band X" is or what a bowser she is. and before you decide to shoot yr mouth off again, i'm not accusing ben of any of this; i have no idea what his motives were for posting the picture, other than what he said. i just know "the vibe" of this place lately, and i don't like it.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:43 (twenty-two years ago)

well then wouldn't it make more sense to complain to the dudes who are posting stuff like that?

― hstencil, Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:44 (twenty-two years ago)

i used to come to ilx to avoid the sub-blender bullshit. i guess it's just inescapable after a while.

xp: look, i don't know why you feel the need to adopt this den mother persona...no shit, i should be complaining to the dudes who are posting stuff like that? (i do, if you care to check.) griping about something doesn't equal attacking anyone in particular. when someone shows up to make a stupid comment i'll be sure to single them out for public derision directly, as you seem to be requesting.

anyway, i meant what i said about not rising to the bait. i'm out.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 01:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Thanks strongo!

― m.s (m .s), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean not for leaving, I mean for what you said, I suppose that's obvious.

― m.s (m .s), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:06 (twenty-two years ago)

well then wouldn't it make more sense to complain to the dudes who are posting stuff like that?
-- hstencil (hstenci...), August 19th, 2003.

What about all 'the dudes' who say nothing about it and attack those who do?

― m.s (m .s), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:09 (twenty-two years ago)

It really is so weirdly brave of you to say all this stuff in this environment. I wonder though whether the whole culture of criticism and consumption here (note the thread at the beginning of the page was 'how many records have you bought in one day') would sort of ... always drift towards rejecting 'weak' kind feminine principles. You know, principles of giving away rather than collecting, things or affection or whatever. When you read individual record collecting sites, like Mark Prindle's or similar, there seems to be plenty of room for humour and generosity but in a community like this, maybe it's more about measuring things than about exposing your own humiliating obsessions.

― m.s (m .s), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:19 (twenty-two years ago)

i can't work out if i've just been insulted or not

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:21 (twenty-two years ago)

you did mention buying 50 records at one sitting, you could have fed a family of four in burundi for a month.

― keith (keithmcl), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:25 (twenty-two years ago)

for $10? really?

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not saying that most of the people who write here are horrible or anything. It's just that the people who complain about sexism or racism or whatever always seem to fall off! It's like there are these representatives of mass culture slowly and mercilessly increasing in number here and just as it would be pointless to waste your venom on the TV for playing Baywatch you have to resign yourself to seeing the silent increase of the number of threads that ridicule opponents of simplified sexualised consumerism. But it's such a loss to this forum if all the weedy academics feel so uncomfortable here that they leave, because there are a million forums on the net, no lack of them, where you can read short confusing posts from people who love and embrace Playboy culture, in fact the internet seems to largely consist of boys attempting to prove that they're not weak, although I wonder why they're not out kicking someone if the thought of cruelty is so amusing to them, ... etc etc

― m.s (m .s), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:33 (twenty-two years ago)

i think maybe the problem is a little bit to do with the majority of the moral-high-grounding contingent on ILX showing heroic levels hypocrisy on a regular basis

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:35 (twenty-two years ago)

levels OF

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:35 (twenty-two years ago)

jim getting into arguments with other people, even nasty ones != racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:38 (twenty-two years ago)

i don't disagree, but what's your point?

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:38 (twenty-two years ago)

if you agree, then how does it follow that people who take issue with those practices are hypocrites? i mean, i don't think i regularly engage in any of them, at least consciously.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:39 (twenty-two years ago)

which would be the only way i could be hypocritical about them, as is my understanding.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:40 (twenty-two years ago)

unless people who take issue with those acts have to be little mary sunshine 24-7 to fufill some moral quota, and fuck that noise.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:40 (twenty-two years ago)

argh i don't want this to get messy. ok i'll admit i took something you said upthread and projected wildly and took offense at that and then extrapolated that to compare it with something you've said and came out the other end with a diluted lukewarm hypocrisy and can we drop it now?

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:42 (twenty-two years ago)

C/D: men arguing about which one of them is sexist. (sorry, couldn't resist)

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:50 (twenty-two years ago)

erm, so is that actually chan marshall?

― glenny g2003 (glenny g2003), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 02:54 (twenty-two years ago)

c/d: di as the feminist marcus garvey.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 03:31 (twenty-two years ago)

me, I'm just glad to finally know what the fuss was about. (that's how sad my life has become, I get ALL my info from ILx now on the rare occasions I'm on it since I'm so busy lately)

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 03:42 (twenty-two years ago)

it really doesn't look much like her, does it? she looks like she lost a lot of weight (and she didn't have much to lose in the first place.)

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 03:45 (twenty-two years ago)

i for one are glad that i've seen that photo. (xpost with matos)

thanks.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 03:46 (twenty-two years ago)

i thought we were going to talk about you are free!!!
:(

― meghan, Tuesday, 19 August 2003 03:47 (twenty-two years ago)

why does the one guy only respond to the posters that seem to criticize him? And whats with the overattachment to the phrase 'sub-X'??

― B. Michael Payne (This Isnt That), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 05:20 (twenty-two years ago)

that's a question for the philosophers

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 05:21 (twenty-two years ago)

why does that one guy say that stuff?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 05:22 (twenty-two years ago)

why you always gotta be sayin stuff?

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 05:24 (twenty-two years ago)

< /my next door neighbors>

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 05:25 (twenty-two years ago)

The point about that photo is not that the photo itself is sexist or anything. It's kind of startling, on one level, given the "persona" we've built in our collective unconscious of what Chan Marshall is or is not supposed to be/look like.

But the sexism that jess mentioned -- as far as I can tell -- is the "scared little (net geek) indie boy" fear of women's real bodies -- ie/ in this case, a genuine pubic thatch, etc. How dare anyone portray women's bodies as real? As outside the commercially mediated American terror of physicality, with its coarseness, its odours, its disconcerting reality! I mean, why didn't they get her to shave, for fuck's sake?

I think that's what jess was alluding to, anyway. Otherwise, I'm all over the map here.

― David A. (Davant), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 07:06 (twenty-two years ago)

in fact the internet seems to largely consist of boys attempting to prove that they're not weak, although I wonder why they're not out kicking someone if the thought of cruelty is so amusing to them, ... etc etc

i'm perfectly aware that the way i talk about sex makes me sound completely weak, and i don't really care, cos i am, and its pretty obvious anyway.

as for the pube talk and the "sub paedo" stuff i didnt really notice that in the first thread. i think the shock at the pubes was more directed at the fact that it is in the New Yorker, and therefore unexpected (american media still doubtless has to contend with a lot of crap from hyper-moral groups and such). calling it "sexist" and "sub paedo" and indicative of the "testosteronification of ilx" sounds like a projection of someones own issues and fears to me anyway. which is fine, my issues and fears are projected all over a lot of what i say, but im not trying to pass off what i say as some sort of moral truth.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 07:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Fuckin' hell ppl it's not like it's a 'lippage' pic

― dave q, Tuesday, 19 August 2003 08:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Her pubes aren't thick enough for my liking, and her outfit's hideous.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 19 August 2003 09:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 102 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

At the Straw Man Rugby Club FC, the problem is how they treat the women they become involved with much more than how they view them, not that they're saints with regard to the latter by any means.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 20 August 2003 10:35 (twenty-two years ago)

sure i can see people need to be careful with what they say as it can all be googled up, but all we are talking about just a few comments on the original chan marshall thread, i dont see how this is indicative of an epidemic of misogyny on ilx. if anything things go pretty much both ways on this board. and the use of words like "sub paedo" is plain over the top, IMHO.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Wednesday, 20 August 2003 11:44 (twenty-two years ago)

dude read the howard stern newsgroup and then read ilm.

― chaki (chaki), Wednesday, 20 August 2003 13:11 (twenty-two years ago)

"It's not as bad as the Howard Stern newsgroup" = "It's not as bad as the DMB"

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 20 August 2003 13:21 (twenty-two years ago)

some of the original reactions to a glimpse of (to my eyes) CP's not exceptionally bushy bush were just abt the creepiest things I've ever read on ILX

seconded, but it's the interweb after all. i think it's a great photo, dylan "t-shirt" included. american pop culture needs someone like cat power so badly right about now. i love _free_.

― disco stu (disco stu), Wednesday, 20 August 2003 14:19 (twenty-two years ago)

i didnt say the howard stern ng was bad.

― chaki (chaki), Wednesday, 20 August 2003 14:34 (twenty-two years ago)

haha - that 'american pop culture needs cat power' remark is now the most offensive remark on any of these threads

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 20 August 2003 18:11 (twenty-two years ago)

why?

― disco stu (disco stu), Wednesday, 20 August 2003 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, why?

― dave q, Thursday, 21 August 2003 09:52 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm totally for jumping on people when they're being sexist/racist/homophobic whatever. but there are ways of acting like a jock which don't necessarily involve those things, and they make the boards just as inhospitable. being a bully is a pretty good example. sycophantism is another example (this isn't entirely the subject of worship's fault but theres usually a fair amount of playing on it and encouraging it).

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Thursday, 21 August 2003 10:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Ms Lurex very very much OTM.

― MikeB, Thursday, 21 August 2003 10:14 (twenty-two years ago)

oh yes - i second that! (and i'm not being sycophantic!)

― jed_e_3 (jed_e_3), Thursday, 21 August 2003 11:05 (twenty-two years ago)

the threads in question have made me sad because - granted i know fuck all about chan, i only know her from some of her albums - the photo strikes me as being very pisstakey of "erotic" photogrpahy. no-one has examined it as a photo on here. the uncomfortable way she is holding the cigarette and the t shirt. and who forgets to put their undies on under their jeans??!!

what makes me sad is that every comment on the photo is re: her pubes or how much viewer finds her attractive. am i to deduce that no matter HOW women fuck with the conventions of "erotic" photogrpahy/film/whatever, Woman will always be The Object? (serious question - i'm not decided on this issue at all and probably never will be)

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Thursday, 21 August 2003 11:50 (twenty-two years ago)

well the problem with the original post was that it was just the pic and no comment or anything so what exactly was the purpose of it, which is why the thread went on the tangent that it did.

that's a great post di.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 21 August 2003 12:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Blount's comment is such a 'blank' and I'd like him to back it up (but i'm not surprised really). I'd say the remark that prompted could be wrong but hardly offensive.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 21 August 2003 12:11 (twenty-two years ago)

http://members.tripod.com/goodcleanfun78/id16.htm

― kephm, Thursday, 21 August 2003 12:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I can definitely see where Strongo is coming from. It would be nice to read a thread on ILM about a female artist that doesn't devolve into whether she's fuckable or not.

― Larcole (Nicole), Thursday, 21 August 2003 12:14 (twenty-two years ago)

"all the things that people do in winter
they all melt down in summer"

― kephm, Thursday, 21 August 2003 12:34 (twenty-two years ago)

should i start a separate thread on ile to get my question attended to?

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Thursday, 21 August 2003 22:56 (twenty-two years ago)

yes

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Thursday, 21 August 2003 23:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I really need to start using emoticons

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Thursday, 21 August 2003 23:34 (twenty-two years ago)

am i to deduce that no matter HOW women fuck with the conventions of "erotic" photogrpahy/film/whatever, Woman will always be The Object?

More like no matter how women fuck with conventions of whatever, I will always be heterosexual. Any advice on how to turn that off is welcome (I can fake it though).

If my appreciating someone's appearance turns them into an Object, then both the Object and I are in deep shit, I think.

― Patrick (Patrick), Thursday, 21 August 2003 23:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Note - that was not any kind of endorsement of people talking shit about Chan Marshall's pubes.

― Patrick (Patrick), Thursday, 21 August 2003 23:41 (twenty-two years ago)

haha!

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Thursday, 21 August 2003 23:44 (twenty-two years ago)

i am not free ... but i am cheap!

― Tad (llamasfur), Thursday, 21 August 2003 23:47 (twenty-two years ago)

haha!

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Thursday, 21 August 2003 23:49 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah james. i was readying a dissertation on what in my comments could be construed as offensive. it wasn't that difficult actually, but that's probably the booze talking

― disco stu (disco stu), Thursday, 21 August 2003 23:57 (twenty-two years ago)

patrick you don't have to be heterosexual to reduce a woman to object status. and i don't think that being a heterosexual male necessarily means you will view a similar picture (or a more explicit one) primarily in those terms. the issue doesn't necessarily pertain to sexual attraction. think of how women of diverse sexualities talk about other womens' bodies. think of the comments on this thread about chan's weight.

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Friday, 22 August 2003 00:11 (twenty-two years ago)

disco stu - I was joking ie. what american pop culture needs right is totally not chan marshall (did "foolish games" teach us nothing?)

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Friday, 22 August 2003 00:26 (twenty-two years ago)

gotcha, but it looks like she's entrenched nonetheless

― disco stu (disco stu), Friday, 22 August 2003 00:54 (twenty-two years ago)

if anyone gives a fuck, here's my realted thread on ile.

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Friday, 22 August 2003 00:56 (twenty-two years ago)

maybe this is the wrong time to ask if anyone seen the link to blu cantrell's porn pics on popbitch...?

― jed_e_3 (jed_e_3), Friday, 22 August 2003 01:27 (twenty-two years ago)

urgh god no thanks

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Friday, 22 August 2003 01:28 (twenty-two years ago)

i think popstars should be subversive by keeping their damn kit on

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Friday, 22 August 2003 01:28 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the great thing about this picture (and why Avedon's so good a portraitist) is that it makes us all wonder what the fuck's going on. He's really good at getting good material from his subjects, even with much less expressive people (think Henry Kissinger), and this photo's no different.

And c'mon, let's be serious, you can't see that much in the way of pubes. No big deal, really.

― hstencil, Friday, 22 August 2003 01:39 (twenty-two years ago)

cat power has a Sargasso Sea of Love!

― Tad (llamasfur), Friday, 22 August 2003 03:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Shaved pubes are a novelty act.

― Salmon Pink (Salmon Pink), Friday, 22 August 2003 19:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Mmmm there's a few random things I think about this. I know nothing about the photographer and I'm not a Chan/Cat fan, though I've heard Moonpix a few times.

No one's directly stated that Chan and the photographer are joint authors of this photograph. It's about them both.

First thing I noticed is how unlike the other pictures I've seen of her it is. I wouldn't have known it was her.

She looks ten years older. The cigarette, jewelery and haircut contribute far more to an unwholesomeness than the low riding jeans do.

To me she looks like a Rolling Stones groupie from the 70s, or what I think one would look like.

Other people have mentioned that context is important, the fact that it's in a certain publication and by a certain photographer, but can someone answer the vital question, was it the only photo of her that went with the article? Or was there a more 'usual' representation of her there too? To us who've seen her before that picture will have a totally different impact to those who see her here for the first time.

TLML said:
. am i to deduce that no matter HOW women fuck with the conventions of "erotic" photogrpahy/film/whatever, Woman will always be The Object? (serious question - i'm not decided on this issue at all and probably never will be)

Surely in this case Chan is aking that we pay particular attention to an object, a photograph, rather than her inner person. She dressed and posed in a certain way for this photo but I bet she didn't adopt the persona for her day to day life.

― mei (mei), Monday, 25 August 2003 13:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, it was the only photo of her that went with the article. It takes up a full page towards the back of the magazine.

― Ben Boyer (Ben Boyer), Monday, 25 August 2003 14:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Interesting statement, esp. considering how most critics consider Avedon's skill lies in taking ugly pictures of beautiful people and in so doing draws attention away from the cult of personality.

Consider Avedon v. Mark Selinger v. LaChapelle

Though I suppose a real test would be finding subjects that all three have shot. Like Jonze and Cunningham and Gondry with Bjork.

― ModJ, Monday, 25 August 2003 19:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Avedon's skill lies in taking ugly pictures of beautiful people and in so doing draws attention away from the cult of personality.

this surely adds to the cult, though? i don't think avedon would be such a success if his knack was truly for undercutting the foundations of celebrity. in some ways the idea that these celebrities are somehow being "revealed" via a photo by a celebrity photographer is itself more dependent on the cult of personality than anything.

sort of like how celebrities poking gentle fun at themselves adds to their allure, feeds back into the "just a regular guy"/"fascinating celebrity" loop.

― amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 25 August 2003 20:36 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm open to the idea that some celebrities might have mixed motives in collaborating on these sort of pictures--a simultaneous desire to efface their public image, but an equal desire to reveal themselves yet again in a new guise (and also the pressures of careerism: stay in the spotlight, reinvent yourself so as to maintain a saleable product). see kate moss in this month's "w," and many other shoots besides.

― amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 25 August 2003 20:38 (twenty-two years ago)

finally (phew) based on what i know of chan's public persona (comprised of concert appearances, interviews, her music, etc.), she doesn't seem particularly media savvy so i wonder how her complicity in this particular reinvention differs from similar reinventions on the part of media darlings like moss, or whomever. but of course that impression (of her flakiness) is itself a function of publicity, so who knows? (does anyone know where is the exit in this house of mirrors?)

― amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 25 August 2003 20:39 (twenty-two years ago)

THERE IS NO EXIT.

― disco stu (disco stu), Monday, 25 August 2003 23:22 (twenty-two years ago)

one year passes...

BEST TOPIC EVER.

― The Brainwasher (Twilight), Friday, 17 June 2005 19:10 (twenty years ago)

The idea that flakey Chan M (flakey as in her control of her own chosen medium's pretty variable, let alone any possible input into this pic) was as involved in the direction of this image as professional and hugelylauded photographer of like 80 years R Avedon is pretty funny

― A Viking of Some Note (Andrew Thames), Friday, 17 June 2005 20:40 (twenty years ago)

Of course knowing about Richard Avedon is entirely irrelevant, all viewings're equal, etc. I know who Marcus Garvey is! That was quite funny Jess!

― A Viking of Some Note (Andrew Thames), Friday, 17 June 2005 20:41 (twenty years ago)

I remember this!

― the Stanmore signal (nordicskilla), Friday, 17 June 2005 21:08 (twenty years ago)

the idea that a WOMAN had anything to do with a picture of her is PREPOSTEROUS!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 17 June 2005 21:10 (twenty years ago)

Chan, she looks like a good time there she does

― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Friday, 17 June 2005 21:12 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.