Visual representations of female techno/house producers

I recently acquired this album by the Argentinian/German techo producer Dinky:

http://images.hhv.de/catalog/detail_big/00176/176422.jpg

Now, the music on the album is experimental techno, so I was kinda perplexed why it was marketed with a cleavage pic of the artist. (Incidentally, this is what Dinky's breakthrough album from 2003 looked like - what happened in between?)

Then I was reminded of Nina Kraviz, who was similarly marketed with her good looks, even though her music is mostly rough and minimal house:

http://images.hhv.de/catalog/detail_big/00264/264781.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=605bwlAz_iQ

With producers like Kraviz or Ellen Allien there have been accusations that their talents are second to their pretty faces, which are used to market music that wouldn't get so much attention if it was done by a guy. Personally I still think their music's great, but it seems pretty obvious that gender and femininity is used as a selling point for many female and techno artists.

With male techno/house producers, it's pretty much the rule that their faces don't appear on their record covers, except for superstars like Moby. But with female producers it seems to be other way around: it's an exception if their face doesn't appear in the cover. And if you're being cynical, you could say that in some cases, such as with K-Hand or Steffi, it's because the artist isn't stereotypically good-looking and/or feminine.

So why does this happen? Is it because female producers are still so rare that their mere gender is a selling point? Is it because the audience for techno is predominantly male and straight, so the good looks of these women are used to market stuff for that audience. Do these artists themselves feel that their gender and feminity is important in representations of their music, and if so, why is that different from the traditionally gender neutral visuals of techno produced by males?

http://sexymusicians.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/sexydj-girl1.jpg

With male techno/house producers, it's pretty much the rule that their faces don't appear on their record covers

don't think this is the case at all tbh. might have been more so 15-20 years ago

(Incidentally, this is what Dinky's breakthrough album from 2003 looked like - what happened in between?)

someone took at least one more photo of her in the intervening 6 years

http://static.boomkat.com/images/143230/333.jpg

NB. the excursions into found sound chamber pop a la Psapp on that Dinky album rather more surprising than the pretty cover.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/Cream_sandra_collins.jpg

With male techno/house producers, it's pretty much the rule that their faces don't appear on their record covers

don't think this is the case at all tbh. might have been more so 15-20 years ago

Really? I admit I'm not following techno as closely as I did in the 90s, but I'm not sure if this has changed so much. Let's take a small selection of male techno/house producers from the 00s (I'm just gonna pick random names that come to my mind):

Ricardo Villalobos: 5 albums, no face on any of their covers.

Nicolas Jaar: one album, no face on cover.

Deepchord: 5 albums, no faces.

Paul Kalkbrenner: 6 albums, face in 2 of them.

Modeselektor: 4 albums, faces in 1 of them.

Luomo: 5 albums, no faces.

Omar S: 2 albums, face in both of them.

Matthew Herbert: 8 albums in the 00s, no faces.

Metro Area: 1 album, no faces.

Pantha du Prince: 3 albums, no faces.

Âme: 2 albums, no faces.

Booka Shade: 4 albums, faces in 2 of them.

Burial: 2 albums, one has a cartoon figure that apparently is a pic of the man himself, though this wasn't known when the album was released.

Vitalic: 3 albums, no faces.

I remember reading about how she'd been spending a lot of time studying music and learning more about playing piano and guitar. What did you think of it, Tim? Any good? That album cover is a bit at odds with how she (I assume) chooses to portray herself through her website etc.

xposts

So yeah, to me it looks like "no faces on male album covers" still seems to be the rule. Even in the cases where the faces do appear, they aren't commonly depicted in ways that would make them look attractive. (Then only exception to this on my list is Paul Kalkbrenner, who I think is, perhaps not coincidentally, gay.)

(x-post)

http://ecards.k7-de.com/k7/DJ-Kicks/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/K7270CD.jpg

Yeah, that Dinky album is really good. It has an almost psych trancey way of juxtaposing high-pitched riffs and loops in a "busy" manner (though the beats are housey); she did the same thing on her previous album too, but I think it's more successful on Anemik.

(x-post)

Yeah, I'm sure you can find counter-examples; I didn't say it's an absolute rule with no exceptions, but it still appears to be the rule. (Also, DJ Kicks always has the face of the artist on cover, doesn't it?)

When you consider some of the really overt Sex Sells stuff that has been used to flog dance music over the years the Dinky and Nina Kraviz covers are pretty tasteful and restrained by comparison.

Nina Kraviz stans I know tend to describe her music as sensual deep house rather than rough and minimal, although I'd imagine the image does filter back into that perception. And Ellen Allien owns the label she releases her records on and presumably has control over sleeves and marketing.

Is it because female producers are still so rare that their mere gender is a selling point?

In the sort of techno and house scenes we're talking about they're not particularly rare.

Is it because the audience for techno is predominantly male and straight

It's a LOT less boys club than, say, the 90s techno scene, or the current post-dubstep scene. And a very significant proportion of that audience is gay.

so the good looks of these women are used to market stuff for that audience

Yes and no, depending on who it is.

Do these artists themselves feel that their gender and feminity is important in representations of their music

Probably, how do we know?

And Ellen Allien owns the record she releases her records on and presumably has control over sleeves and marketing.

Yes, I wasn't saying that the artists themselves aren't in control of how they're represented; I think most of them are. But regardless of that, their representations still seems to be gendered in ways that those of male artists usually aren't.

I mean, Ellen Allien owns Bpitch Control, but the albums on the label by male artists usually don't feature their faces on the covers, whereas 4 of her 5 albums do.

Yeah, I'm sure you can find counter-examples; I didn't say it's an absolute rule with no exceptions, but it still appears to be the rule. (Also, DJ Kicks always has the face of the artist on cover, doesn't it?)

using the highly scientific methods of scooting around Discogs and using my ailing memory, I think "the rule" is stretching it a bit. the 'big boring photo of the DJ' motif is a lot more prevalent in mix albums as you say, but if anything I think that counters your point rather than supports it. anyway I think this is an interesting topic in its own way but I'm not convinced that house/techno enacts it in an especially different way to eg punk or metal

I think there's is a difference, because in punk/metal, as well as pop, it's the vocalist who's usually given a polished and gendered representation; though this may have its own problematics, it doesn't strike me as that odd, as the vocalist is usually the figurehead of the act, so it's so weird that she's represented strongly. But the types of music that I'm discussing here are not vocal-driven, and therefore not gendered by the vocalist, which with male artists has corresponded with non-gendered record covers. But with these female artists that doesn't seem to be the case, despite them being producers first and foremost, not singers. (For example, on that Dinky album the only singing is done by a male guest artist.)

I could cynically assume it's due to the fact attractive pictures of women sell, but at the same time, are men more or less likely to buy something from a female artist?

I'd like to think it's because women are more likely comfortable or invested in self-image and personal presentation and want to have their picture indicating the music therein in a further representation of their personas, but that's probably wishful thinking.

I'd imagine there to be perfectly good reasons why someone like Dinky, whose artist name doesn't give you any her gender, might want a picture of herself on her album sleeve. and why X producer dude who is part of the 95%* of house/techno producers who are male wouldn't consider this to be quite as urgent. whether this came into play wrt the Dinky album cover I wouldn't presume to say

*actual stats may vary

I'd like to think it's because women are more likely comfortable or invested in self-image and personal presentation and want to have their picture indicating the music therein in a further representation of their personas

Funniest thing I've read all day, seriously.

:(

if you wanna know why xyz is on the sleeve of their record, best thing to do is ask them

frowny face indicative of the popping of my idealistic utopian vision balloon

Awww, sorry for disillusionment, mh.

Suare - that actually isn't true, especially not when it comes to something quite so structurally biased as gender presentation.

Masonic Boom made some good & thoughtful posts on the subject of Nina Kraviz on this thread:

Electronic Artist You'd Most Like To Put In Your... Y'Know

If they make a conscious decision to put themselves on the record cover it's probably because they feel it's important you know what they look like. or perhaps that they don't feel there's an active perception of ANY women producing this type of music so they want people who flip through albums to think "I guess women do this too"

more depressing answer is "boobs sell" which is why they seem to appear in every advertisement for every product ever

* flies off in my boob-shaped utopian balloon *

I've noticed before that photos of female producers too often don't convey a very strong sense of "this is an artist who makes stuff." I don't think it's realistic to expect attractiveness to be downplayed, per se, but with attractive male producers there's still this sense of "here's an agent who does things" and with women I think they're too often made to look like cover models. I don't think it's that men's faces aren't put on their records, it's just the WAY they're put on the records.

I think that the way they're portrayed has a lot more to do with the way women and men are photographed rather than what an artist is supposed to look like. Is there a field where pictures of men are more free-form and more fashionable/whimsical/emotional? Certainly not compared to pictures of women in the same field.

I mean, unless an artist is supposed to look like a man

Suare - that actually isn't true, especially not when it comes to something quite so structurally biased as gender presentation.

― emil.y,

Fair point, I was being somewhat flip - just a little wary of ascribing motivations towards any specific individual artist without asking them.

I've noticed before that photos of female producers too often don't convey a very strong sense of "this is an artist who makes stuff." I don't think it's realistic to expect attractiveness to be downplayed, per se, but with attractive male producers there's still this sense of "here's an agent who does things" and with women I think they're too often made to look like cover models. I don't think it's that men's faces aren't put on their records, it's just the WAY they're put on the records.

This may be true of other genres, but in electronic music there's a long and prevalent tradition of not putting the photo of the (male) artist on the cover or album sleeve at all, possibly because of the machinistic/robotic aesthetic assumed by many people in the scene, the idea that this music isn't "personal expression" as idealized by rock, rather than a product (hence the preferred label used by these people is "producer", rather than the more individualistic-sounding "artist" or "composer" or "musician") designed to be consumed by the dancefloor. I still don't know how many of my favourite techno artists look like, because their photos have never appeared in their records. And the question I'm asking is, why does this aesthetic seem to be less prevalent when it comes to female producers?

lol still asserting this "rule"

http://ebenezergo.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/lindstrom.jpg

http://www.residentadvisor.net/images/reviews/2010/sasha-involver-global-under.jpg

http://newsflash.bigshotmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Prins-Thomas-album-AC121675-300.jpg

http://img2.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/e/h/ehgmmxh8v5bn5vnx.jpg

"traditionally, house and techno record covers usually don't feature images of the artist"
"but here are some cases where they do!"
"traditionally, house and techno record covers usually don't feature images of the artist"
"but here are some cases where they do!"
"traditionally, house and techno record covers usually don't feature images of the artist"
"but here are some cases where they do!"

I don't think Tuomas is claiming that males aren't ever featured on their release covers, and he's right that female producers have their images used to sell their music more often, even in more underground dance music scenes that are much less driven by the kind of imagery more common to the commercial dance music scene. That doesn't say anything about the decisions that go into any individual cover but on the whole I don't think it's something that can be explained away with counterexamples.

lol@the idea that even half the people who consume techno buy any, or know what's on the sleeves.

Pretty sure house & techno lads are familiar with how Nina Kraviz looks. And plenty of other female techno / house artists. Went to Hot Creations / Paradise closing at DC10 the other week and was saddened to see writhing female podium dancers everywhere..

I think that dance/electronic artists, especially with dj mixes, are much more likely than rock bands to have their own image on the cover.

a solo record is much more likely to have a photo of the artist on the cover than a record made by two or more people is to have a photo of the band members

yes!

people may well know what the artist looks like, but the idea of the "cover" being important or indicative of anything is haywire, not least since actual dance music is still driven by singles, either digital or vinyl, and mixes (mostly digital) and i'm not sure many artists are slapping their faces on 12-inch sleeves or attaching jpgs to mixes.

http://www.residentadvisor.net/images/reviews/2011/ostgutcd17.jpg

compare and contrast with this cover, though, gender differences ahoy:
http://ostgut.de/media/image/resize/L/Record-9-8e177a3718b63b192d282c119bb39026.jpg

note that it may actually be a better indicator of the real panoramabar if prosumer was stretched out naked, according to my limited knowledge

If I could make any of the men on this thread saying this stuff doesn't matter feel any of the alienation I grew up with as a female dance music listener reading e.g. Mixmag, seeing that for men in dance music it is cool to be just some balding guy in jeans and a t-shirt who wants to talk about hi-hat patterns, but the only women in the magazine are the hott semi-naked teenage model pouting on the front cover and the skinny young things on the street fashion page. I seriously got the message that I would not be welcome in a club since I didn't and couldn't look like those women - a feeling not dispelled by trying it out a few times.

So I thought I'd post this and get clowned for not belonging on a dance music thread on the internet instead. Have at it.

mixmag's actual title was "tits and e, guvnor", you have to remember that

not sure who was saying "this doesn't matter" or words to that effect, with the exception of Ronan's last post; I think these things 'matter' a lot but bits of what Tuomas was saying struck me as kind of unrepresentative and/or outdated

But, caustic joking aside, the mixmag/"club" scene always seemed (from my regional, secluded, not actually able to go to events of the time) perspective as the club-led, commercialized, overground image of electronic dance music as it became in the late 90s. I have no doubt that this included good clubs and some people with a genuine love of the music, but it also has all the image-led baggage connected to that, including misogyny, entry/denial based on looks (both to venues and to making music), and the need for a saleable image.

I don't think that's the case for the music scene at large, but it definitely exists and a lot of musicians have to cross back and forth between friendlier spaces and a more commercial world.

I think Tuomas's point is very valid, but to the extent that women are marginalized and more likely to feel pressure to look attractive in a stereotypical way, or "fun," or strike sort of sexy pose or dress stylishly compared to the army of men in trim t-shirts staring straight-faced at the camera

i figured the sex & glamour angle had to be delivered with an awareness of prevailing genre/gender expectations. like that lingering shot of her crouching down, carefully applying and checking her makeup while someone else works the decks. something almost challenging about it: "yes, this is what i do. why, do you have a problem with it?"

http://www.factmag.com/2013/04/11/bathgate-what-the-nina-kraviz-furore-tells-us-about-sexism-in-dance-music/

That was a bad response. This is especially offtm:

If Nina Kraviz wants to dance during her DJ sets, take bubble baths on camera and discuss her appearance and sexuality in an open and honest way, then no one has the right to look down on her for doing so.

This is just libertarianism. Everyone can do everything, no one has the right to critisize.

eh, it's hardly presenting it as a universal principle. If it had said "If Nina Kraviz wants to dance during her DJ sets, take bubble baths on camera and promote the core principles of fascism, then no one has the right to look down on her for doing so", then okay, but it's about a wholesale dismissal of traditionally feminine traits.

lol frederik b, just no

yours is a terrible fucking response

i have had enough of MEN ON THE INTERNET WHO WILL NOT STFU ABOUT THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO COMMENT ON ISSUES OF PRIVILEGE AND SEXISM today

sit down all of you

just sit the fuck down and learn something

every word of lauren's article = bang on

I had only heard heard music in passing and had never seen a picture of her and now I am interested in checking out more music, so there's something positive coming out of this

that article downplays the fact that nina herself talked about the myth/illusion she purposely creates, djing as performance and all that. also nina approved of wilson's article and linked to it on facebook.

i have had enough of MEN ON THE INTERNET WHO WILL NOT STFU ABOUT THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO COMMENT ON ISSUES OF PRIVILEGE AND SEXISM today

have a look in the mirror.

thanks for linking the factmag piece, lex. good read.

Lol my phone is not allowing me to read any of the text at that most recent FACT link

I am having a hard time phrasing this, and I want to preface it by saying that I have no criticism of Nina Kraviz for doing this or anything else she wants in a video.

I think, however, that we live in a time when sexuality is more on display in media than ever, and yet men are also becoming increasingly aware of (or at least people are trying to make them increasingly aware of) the inapprorpriateness of certain kinds of comments about women, their sexuality, their bodies, etc. So I think a lot of men are confused by, on one hand, seeing videos where the camera lingers sensually on a female artist's body in a way that very obviously contains an element of objectification, and where that video gives the impression that it is exactly how the artist wants to present herself (which is a complicated and not necessarily correct assumption of course), and on the other hand are given the message "you shouldn't focus on women's bodies, you shouldn't comment on women's bodies, etc." Open to anyone pointing out how this post is in itself wrongheaded and oblivious to privilege, etc.

no, that's a very good point. it can be hard to square the idea that the sexual exploitation of women is a problem with the idea that women should be entirely free to present themselves in any manner they wish, even when it comes to what might resemble sexual exploitation. my solution is to simply leave the policing of women's self-presentation to somebody else.

It's only hard if you treat "women" as a monolithic group who all think the same thing.

sure, but my point was that even in trying to be feminist, progressive sorts sometimes get trapped in overly simplistic and proscriptive analyses like "sexualized image of woman = exploitative & sexist". this causes cognitive dissonance when they try to make room for self-determination.

who is "they"

"progressive sorts"

not to appropriate it, but I feel like Tim's thoughts from before are still pretty great (and he mentioned Nina Kraviz, particularly):

Not surprisingly, this practice of female producers using their bodies as a canvas can sometimes lead to these ultra-refined image of image of image of woman depictions - the way that Cassy and Nina Kraviz appear on their album covers it's like it's not even them, but a kind of hyper-abstracted depiction of the feeling-woman that just happens to use their own body (in other senses of course these two photos are very different from one another). But (in contrast to the effect when men use photos of women in this way) I think it's often expressive of this kind of double-role that female producers can inhabit, and actually works to create a sense of commonality with the audience; that sense that they already dancing beside us. This is probably also at least part of the motivation for some of the more mystical/spiritual fetishes that some people have for female producers; the imagined warmth of their work (vis a vis comparable male artists) grounded in the notion that their bodies are intricately connected in with the brain/machine loop of the creative process.

"progressive sorts"

eh, maybe i'm expressing too much sympathy for the enemy in saying i can say why the integration of these ideas gives some people trouble. i dunno, it reminds me of the turmoil that accompanied the shift between second and third wave feminism, but maybe it's just dorks being dorks.

"progressive sorts" "they" "some people"

jesus christ we are discussing this issue. "some people" is _us_

stop trying to weed yourself out of a well-meaning group

uh, i was responding to something hurting said:

so I think a lot of men are confused by, on one hand, seeing videos where the camera lingers sensually on a female artist's body in a way that very obviously contains an element of objectification, and where that video gives the impression that it is exactly how the artist wants to present herself (which is a complicated and not necessarily correct assumption of course), and on the other hand are given the message "you shouldn't focus on women's bodies, you shouldn't comment on women's bodies, etc."

and i thought, "yeah, otm, i suspect that does confuse a lot of people." hell, i've known otherwise generally well-meaning guys complain about the seeming paradox. so i agreed, and elaborated a bit (perhaps clumsily, and if so, i apologize).

tbf there are plenty of things that are not confusing, like "don't talk at work with your co-workers about how hot your female co-worker is" "don't make comments to a woman about her looks in really any setting other than one where it's normal to make an overture to someone for a number/date/whatever, and even there tread carefully," "don't be the president and say in a speech that an Attorney General is "good-looking." These things are or should be no-brainers. What is less clear is when a female artist presents herself in a very sexual way how you're supposed to talk about it and what lines you shouldn't cross. And again, some of these lines are obvious too, like you don't "call a woman out" for the fact that she presents her sexuality in a video, as though that were somehow corrupt. But there's still this attractive woman in front of you making her physical attractiveness a big part of her performance, and it's hard to know how to talk about it, like I feel super hemmy and hawy even writing this.

just be a bit embarrassed all the time

eh, it's hardly presenting it as a universal principle. If it had said "If Nina Kraviz wants to dance during her DJ sets, take bubble baths on camera and promote the core principles of fascism, then no one has the right to look down on her for doing so", then okay, but it's about a wholesale dismissal of traditionally feminine traits.

― a similar stunt failed to work with a cow (Merdeyeux), 11. april 2013 15:28 (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So if I claimed that talking shit about women was a typically masciline trait - and there are loads of empirical evidence to back this up - then it would be okay?

Look, I'm all for Nina Kraviz, I think she seems like a cool, intelligent person, all in all. And I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to do what she wants to do. But I think she comes off as shallow and vapid in that video - and I assume it's mainly due to the editing, as she seemed much more intelligent in her own response - and I don't think I'm a misogynist for saying that, even though it might seem like I'm 'looking down on her'

i think she mostly looks like she's having a good time

Yeah, but she is also constantly complaining about how tough her life is...

So if I claimed that talking shit about women was a typically masciline trait - and there are loads of empirical evidence to back this up - then it would be okay?

sounds pretty reasonable tbh. but that aside, i don't see why you honed in on that sentence, why you would think that its message - that dancing, having a bath, and talking about your sexuality aren't negative things - is a disastrous step into moral relativism. i suppose i don't know what point you were making?

I feel that she has created a sexually-charged persona and while I haven't evaluated her music on this, I kind of find that enticing

^^ don't think this is particularly sexist but implies I find her attractive?

I mean, there is a wide range of commentary that is pretty ok before you get into really messed up comments like "whoa I'd hit it"

had to stop myself earlier from making a monolith joke

for the record, though, I was having a pretty silly conversation with a friend where he was talking about wanting to get all over some male musician (which was mostly ok), and we were watching an all woman-band (cool), and this somehow translated (several beers later) into me sticking my foot way down my throat in some color commentary about my own impulses I cannot fucking believe I made via text message, so I am most definitely prone to stating stupid ideas re: artists and sexual attractiveness

artists: some of them are hott

ok, I am actually watching this RA video and giggling because it really does have all the DJ flying around cliches and it's silly as hell

I mean, I love going to the types of events and clubs shown but outside of that context the little dance moves or talking about how uplifting it is just always seems so awkward or silly. Like British movies of the 90s/early 00s with characters delivering monologues to the camera about how intense the experience of raving or clubbing is.

Also, we almost need a thread on how fucking nice that hotel room looked and how sweet that bathtub was. designerspotter me is trying to figure out what kind of fixtures those were

i don't see why you honed in on that sentence, why you would think that its message - that dancing, having a bath, and talking about your sexuality aren't negative things - is a disastrous step into moral relativism. i suppose i don't know what point you were making?

― a similar stunt failed to work with a cow (Merdeyeux), 12. april 2013 02:36 (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, I should probably have said that there are two things wrong with the sentence. First, it's misrepresenting what is in the video. Specifically, saying that Nina Kraviz speaks in an 'open and honest way' about herself is quite... In the scene in the bathtub she is spouting platitudes about male djs and their one night stands. It's honestly quite dumb. And there are loads of other things about the video: The way she is never shown to work, the way she is always being taken around to where she is supposed to be, that she talks about listening a lot to her father. So I think the sentence is distorting the thing people complain about. And then, after having made that distortion, she is trying to shot down the discussion by saying that 'no one has the right to look down on her.' Like, if she wrote that her opponents were idiots, that would be okay, that would be a discussion. But she is saying that we aren't allowed to discuss it, right after she made several wrong statements. It's just bad.

Fundamentally, I don't think it's good to say that she can't be critisized because she is just 'being woman'. I mean, in dubstep 'fratboy' is used as a pejorative all the time, and fratboys are quite clearly a typical way of 'being man', right? It's quite close to that old thing, where women are natural while men are reflective. Which is probably one of the main factors behind the idea that men are better at thoughtful pursuits, such as being artists...

just be a bit embarrassed all the time

― ogmor, Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:35 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

don't worry, got that covered

women act all fratty to dubstep, too. or sorority-ish, I have no idea

I mean, it doesn't take a penis to drink from a beer bong

And it doesn't take a vagina to take a bubble bath...

no one ever said it did!

ugh, all of you

i don't really understand this conversation. i think it's obvious to everyone that nina kraviz is a fox and she is also a talented musician, and one thing shouldn't be seen to take away from the other. if she comes across as not very articulate in that video, or something, than that can be expressed, but never in terms of her being "too feminine" or something because that is a really bad and offensive way of stating whatever issue it is people have with her.

exactly

frederik b is not reading any of these arguments particularly well

also it's not actually hard to talk about sexual attractiveness - eg what tim wrote! - so it's not the fault of nina kraviz, or women generally, if str8 men seem unable to do it without being creepy or confused. that problem is yours, not hers.

Well, I pretty much made Pat Finn's argument at the beginning of this discussion, so perhaps is you who don't read really well? But anyway, having problems reading arguments is a typical trait of the non-native english speaker, so no one has the right to look down on me for that.

I love bubble baths!

I mean this thread.I love this thread.

Nina Kraviz is hot, I wanna do her, ok?

sweet. i think we just have to be honest about these kinds of things.

that's not cool hurting

http://www.mixmag.net/words/features/seth-troxler-nina-kraviz-and-getting-naked