HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Women's self-loathing is ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:15 AM

Women's self-loathing is big business and supports a global capitalist system

Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Moral panic? No. We are resisting the pornification of women

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/01/feminists-pornification-of-women


Women's self-loathing is big business, and supports a global capitalist system that, ironically, depends heavily on the exploitation of women's labour in developing countries. Adding insult to injury, many of these underpaid women are spending a significant proportion of their wages on skin-whitening products that promise social mobility out of the sweatshops...

...An American Psychological Association study on girls' sexualisation found that it "has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality, and attitudes and beliefs". Some of these effects include risky sexual behaviour, higher rates of eating disorders, depression and low self-esteem, and reduced academic performance. Of course, there are girls who resist, but there are real social penalties to be paid by those who do not conform to acceptable feminine appearance...

...To suggest feminists who oppose the pornification of society are stirring up a moral panic is to confuse a politically progressive movement with rightwing attempts to police sexual behaviour. We can, of course, identify just such a conservative strand in current debates in Britain: interventions of the coalition government include calls for girls to be given lessons in how to practise abstinence and attacks on abortion rights. But feminists who organise against pornification are not arguing that sexualised images of women cause moral decay; rather that they perpetuate myths of women's unconditional sexual availability and object status, and thus undermine women's rights to sexual autonomy, physical safety and economic and social equality. The harm done to women is not a moral harm but a political one, and any analysis must be grounded in a critique of the corporate control of our visual landscape...

(see the rest of the article at the link above)

-----------------------------------------

This article explains how the sexual objectification of women is a real profit-maker for capitalists.

43 replies, 4176 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Women's self-loathing is big business and supports a global capitalist system (Original post)
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 OP
seabeyond Dec 2011 #1
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #2
JustAnotherGen Dec 2011 #4
seabeyond Dec 2011 #7
whathehell Dec 2011 #14
seabeyond Dec 2011 #25
whathehell Dec 2011 #33
seabeyond Dec 2011 #35
whathehell Dec 2011 #36
seabeyond Dec 2011 #37
JustAnotherGen Dec 2011 #43
left coaster Dec 2011 #3
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #5
RobinA Dec 2011 #10
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #18
MineralMan Dec 2011 #12
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #23
MineralMan Dec 2011 #28
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #32
seabeyond Dec 2011 #30
obamanut2012 Dec 2011 #6
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #8
obamanut2012 Dec 2011 #9
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #11
MineralMan Dec 2011 #13
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #16
MineralMan Dec 2011 #19
obamanut2012 Dec 2011 #15
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #17
MineralMan Dec 2011 #20
obamanut2012 Dec 2011 #21
MineralMan Dec 2011 #26
obamanut2012 Dec 2011 #27
redqueen Dec 2011 #22
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #24
msongs Dec 2011 #29
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #31
seabeyond Dec 2011 #34
retread Dec 2011 #38
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #39
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #40
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #41
Starry Messenger Dec 2011 #42

Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:22 AM

1. dehumanizes. my half mexican niece, had a choice of 8 girls. 7 darker hair, darker eyes. ONE

blonde, blue eye girl.

the question with the photo, and the question i asked is which one most describes YOU. as in personality and character. she kept pointing to the ONLY blonde and blue eye saying how pretty she is. i kept asking the question, explaining it and she could not get past the looks.

4 yrs old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:26 AM

2. Pretty awful. It's horrible that kids are exposed to these messages from the media and society. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:45 AM

4. See if you can follow this

My great niece - who is part Vietnames (her father) and parts Puerto Rican (my brother's ex wife) and part Black/Irish/German/French/Cherokee Indian (my brothers genetic ancestry) . . .

Saw a Corolle(sp?) Asian baby Doll (she's 2.5 - but speaks very well) and begged her Papa (my brother) to get it for her. He gave me that 'tip' for Christmas.

I bought it for her . . . because I think she needs to be supported in her belief that the 'prettiest' baby doll should reflect the shape of her eyes and face. Looks focused? Maybe.

But I have distinctly Native American shaped eyes - with my ancestry (european and african mixed in there) - I always wanted a doll that 'looked like me' as a kid. My one great grandmother spent BIG bugs hunting down dolls that looked 'like me' - because she - even though she could count back 10 generations in Germany and was born at the turn of the last century . . . she 'got it' in the 1970's.

Eh? But she and my mom's other grandmother were the daughters of suffragists so what else would one expect. Their 'feminism' was different than ours is today - but they also both became young women in the early 1920's when the clothing got daring, the hemlines shorter, the boobs flattened, the hair cut, and the shoulders revealed.

Once upon a time - feminism had a 'piece' to it that included women being able to show off thier bodies, paint their lips, and do whatever they wanted.

I'm kind of rambling here - forgive me. . .but when did we give up the power of our sexuality and self-image to Hugh Hefner and Bob Guccione?

Was it forced out of the hands of grandmothers in the 1940's? Was it the return to sexual liberation in the 1970's by our mothers? Where is the balance from owning our 'It' and being a tool for a societal perception of what 'beauty' entails? My maternal Great Grandmother's owned their 'it'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:09 PM

7. when did we give up the power of our sexuality and self-image to Hugh Hefner

this is my issue. in my mind, it is MINE. lol. and i dont give it away. lol. i mean, the guys get to keep theirs. you can damn well bet i am keeping mine.

and it makes for great sex, too. for both of us. way beyond giving it to another.

in the 70's as a teen, we would inevitably end up somewhere skiny dipping. i grew up as a competitive swimmer. we were nigh naked all the time. male/female team. naked was not an issue. and naked wasnt not about me entertaining the guys. when skinny dipping, we as a group would strip down and play. it was a blast. it was all about naked and free and fun.

today.... that guys stand in a group clothed, clapping hands, jumping up and down on tippy toes, yelling boobies, boobies and the girls strip FOR them.

that is not the girls owning it. that is all about the male being empowered.

it. is. bullshit.

and i wish our girls knew a difference. because there is nothing like the experience i got to have, walking my sexual journey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:26 PM

14. I think they pretty much took it, don't you think?

Being disempowered socially, physically, & economically doesn't generally

allow you to "give up" much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:02 PM

25. if the guys are yelling boobies, boobies, strip for me and the girl says

fuck you

then i think the guys will quit acting like asses and the girls would own it. when the girls say, want to play, .... it is about both of us, not me handing it to you, the guys will be as thrilled, but my belief, MORE thrilled with the outcome.

guys are learning this along with the gals.

it is not an innate part of boys. it is learned. we might ask, where is this learned behavior.

oh, i know.... the OP, lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 06:02 PM

33. Well, that's the way I used to respond to guys when I was young

and I dated guys who respected me or I sat home, and that was that.


I just assumed that, witht the women's movement, the younger women would follow suit.

I'm often APPALLED by the clueless "I'll do anything for you" attitude

of some young women, including this silly assed practice of calling

each other "sluts"....I did like the reaction of the Tina Fey character

in her film "Mean Girls" when she told the girls to "Stop calling

each other sluts, it just makes it easier for guys to call girls that".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 06:07 PM

35. you have to look at their environment today. they have been raised being pornified.

the stripper is held up as womans sexuality. the porn actress is used by guys everywhere. these girls are learning this is their role. the boys are learning, this is a girls role.

you and i would not have allowed it in our lives, because we were raised to say.... fuck you. not that a guy would have behaved that way, cause they were not raised to pornify girls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 06:15 PM

36. Yes, you certainly have a point there....EVERYTHING was different then

and I think I'm a bit older than you, so that's very much the case with me.

I'm an older boomer -- and old hippy, really, so no one can exactly

call me a "prude"...But, I grew up with

Donna Reed on television......

Now I see Victoria's Secret ads on TV in the DAYTIME that

are really nothing but soft porn ...I certainly wouldn't want my little kids (if I had any)

watching it.

EVERYTHING today is sexualized and then they wonder why kids are having sex at younger

and younger ages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 06:30 PM

37. a couple things. VS use to be about the woman and empowering her sexuality. it was all about her.

in the 90's (which you perfect illustrate my point) VS went in the direction of being soft porn to men. directing men to make the decision. VS HANDED women's sexuality to the men. i stopped buying VS. was a huge, fuck you to the company. when it was about me, and empowering my sexuality, i gave them my money. when they took my sexuality and empowered the men, they no longer get my money.

they dont get it or care. but they sold women out.

and statistically i dont think the kids are having sex younger. the last couple years it has shifted. bring the adult sex world to our kids at younger and younger ages is effecting their sexuality which pisses me off. again, let them alone to figure out their own sexual journey and leave the adult world out of it. more and more teenage kids are fuckin sick and tired of it all (already) and are not showing interest in sex. so it is causing the opposite. plus, there is the consideration that more and more of our young guys are so busy jacking off to airbrush that a regular girl doesnt hold the interest. will see how this huge boiling vat of experiment on our children, goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 06:36 AM

43. Good point

I love Southern France. Been topless many time on Pampelonne Beach. I'm talk in - just in the past 7 years too. No one is paying attention. Men or women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:35 AM

3. Thanks for sharing this article, Sarah. The articles nails it.

The fight for women to be treated as equal human beings, is a political one. Sexually objectifying women is at the core of why violence against women is so rampant globally, and is, and let's be honest here, virtually ignored by most every culture on the planet.

Women's rights, in all of its facets, should be of interest and concern to us all, as human beings. It's not just a case of it being "women's issues". ALL progressive minded people need to understand this, and actively support the cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left coaster (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:50 AM

5. Quite true. Unfortunately, unless it gets pointed out to us we often don't notice it.

I actually had a conversation with a man I really like who said (and not in a mean way, either), that women 'like' calling attention to themselves by dressing provocatively. I was left dumbfounded. I couldn't exactly disagree because I had to think about it for a while. It made me realize that often we women sexually objectify ourselves even more than men do.

Of course, girls are raised this way and no one ever tells them otherwise, so they just behave the way they've watched other women behave.

I wonder... does it take more courage, or more self-esteem for women to not sexually objectify themselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:20 PM

10. One Reason Women

like to dress provocatively is because sex is their (our) source of power. Or we think it is. Look how powerful women are projected on TV or the movies. TV female CEO or hot shot lawyer - severe (sexy) suit often short, 4 inch heals, cute hair, immaculately lined eyes...

Ever seen these creatures in powerful positions in real life? Don't think so. Hillary Clinton? Madeline Albright? Margaret Thatcher? Indira Ghandi? Golda Meir? Dumpy women in flats, every one of them. No tottering around on spikes when there is real work to be done. Yes, women are sold a bill of goods, but yes, we ARE buying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:40 PM

18. Very true. And we buy it because the media does have an influence upon our thinking

There have been plenty of studies and books written on the subject of how media influences thinking. In order to not allow it to do so, one has to be very aware and conscious. That's not always easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:22 PM

12. That's interesting. Sometimes, it's hard to define the difference between

wanting to look one's best and wanting to attract sexual attention. Often, the two things merge, I think. There's a line somewhere, but it's not a bright, well-defined line, in my opinion. It's not a clearly gender-based thing, either. Men try to dress and groom to look their best, too.

Part of it is a business and general social thing, but part of it, especially among younger people, is based on the whole mating game, even for those who are in relationships. Every situation has different expectations and challenges. For me, it's hard to criticize people for wanting to be attractive to others. Yes, there's a lot of pressure from those who sell products and services, but there's also a lot of personal pressure from inside people to maximize their impact on others, and for a lot of reasons.

I'm long out of the game of trying to attract sexual partners, but I still check the mirror before I leave my house. When I have an appointment with a potential client, I always think about who that client is, and dress and groom myself to present an image that will accomplish my goal of getting work from that client. If the client's business is something like a fence company, I know I'll be meeting with someone who isn't wearing a suit and tie. If the business has other characteristics, I tailor my appearance to meet the expectations I'm likely to encounter at that business. I'm a blue jeans and plaid shirt kind of guy, but, I can clean up well. I can show up in whatever role I think I need to present, from blue collar manual labor to suit and tie banker. I can't count the number of times, I've looked in the mirror before one of those appointments, and headed for the barber shop to make my hair and full beard a bit less prominent. I'll dress differently if I'm meeting a guy who works with his hands or a woman who owns a business that runs out of an office building. I need to make a good impression with either, and appearance is the very first thing they see. As the meeting progresses, they'll discover other aspects of my skills and attitudes, but when I walk in the door, how I look is important.

Do I wish I didn't have to do that? Not really. I live in society, and work in society. Meeting the expectations of society is just part of the mix. It's not a simple equation. I don't think it ever has been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:58 PM

23. I agree with you Mineral Man. People want to look nice to the opposite sex. The problem is...

Everyone wants to look nice when trying to impress. Men and women, both.

However, when men and women dress up, women are generally depicted under-dressed, whereas men are depicted nicely dressed, but covered up. And as they grow up surrounded by these messages, when children grow up, males will continue to be covered up, while women will continue to expose their nude bodies.

The thing is this: women will have breasts whether they're exposed or covered, and women with a good shape will have a good shape whether they're wearing a dress that covers it or exposes it. Women can be VERY sexy and attractive without being half-nude.

The media, Hollywood, advertisements, magazines, books, etc., generally depict women under-dressed and exposed. There's absolutely no need to wear a hijab to look nice, but there's also no need to have the underwear peeking out from under a skirt that doesn't really even cover it.

There's also the fact that there's a rejection of women that don't fit the Hollywood stereotype of 'Hollywood female beauty.' I was discussing this with someone the other day. The Barbara Walters of the world are no longer acceptable even in the evening news. Now it must be women with the look of Hollywood star wannabes, and/or women who have undergone 'the knife.' Some female anchors even have cleavage. I used to watch the news from France (France 24???). Anyway, the anchors there look like ordinary women, some are in their 50s, and don't expose parts of their bodies.

Of course, since we're surrounded by all this here, it's hard to notice it. We've all grown accustomed to surgically-altered, exposed women, and have come to think of it as the norm. The problem is that little girls are growing up with this surrounding them. It's a very bad aspect of unbridled capitalism, that unless we make a point of noticing, will sit in our brains as the norm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:10 PM

28. You're right. The evening news, especially on

local stations is bizarre. I want to hear the news, not look at cleavage. It's an inappropriate situation for that. A nightclub, on the other hand isn't an inappropriate situation for it. Why would I care if the person reading the news is sexually attractive or not? I've never understood that one.

I do notice it. I always have. It just seems so out of place a lot of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 02:19 PM

32. So true, Mineral Man, it's so out of place. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left coaster (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:25 PM

30. everyone of my conversations conclude, though an issue for women, it is mans, too. human issue

they feed on each other and a unit and a whole.

i agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:54 AM

6. Just like that stupid Piperline Ad

There's a thread about it on here. I'm glad you posted it, because it was interesting that some posters didn't feel like it was a big deal. Your OP helps explain why it is.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:09 PM

8. Thanks! Which Piperline ad? I don't think I saw it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:21 PM

11. Interesting. And women are supposed to take that lightly and not get upset by it.

And if they do, they're labeled as humorless, or ooh, even FEMINIST (heaven help us! How simply horrific! Puts fear in my heart! NOT).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:26 PM

13. I think women should take that seriously, and communicate their frustration with that ad

with the company that paid for it. I doubt that the parent company, The Gap, however, will pay much attention. Their target market is young people who are still dressing to attract potential mates. They're using a demographic model to reach that target market. I agree that their advertising focuses too much on stereotypes, but I don't expect them to listen to a 66 year old man about that. I won't ever be in their store, anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:34 PM

16. Thank you, Mineral Man. It's good to see when someone gets it. We're so inundated by

sexually objectified images of women, that we no longer notice them. I would love it if fathers would step outside their thrill in watching the total sexualization of women by the media, and really notice how these things affect their daughters and future grandbabies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:44 PM

19. I'm not a father, so I can't speak to my own reaction, but

I've certainly heard a lot of fathers talk about this in relation to their own daughters. It's very troubling for them, and they aren't sure what to do about it, either. "You're not leaving the house dressed like that" is pretty ineffectual today, just as it has been in the past. Fathers stress about this stuff a lot when it comes to their own daughters. Sadly, the issue is often complicated by those same fathers having their eye caught by a woman who is dressed to attract attention.

We're awfully complicated, we humans. There's so much situational complexity to our reactions.

And then there are adolescents and 20-somethings. For many of them, all of this is ridiculous. Their priorities are sometimes quite different from those of an older generation. Personally, I remember being in that age group, and appearances were far more important to me at the time than they are now. If I think back on that earlier time, I can clearly see what the motivations of me and my peers were, and of both sexes. They were different than they are now.

I'm just not sure what the answer is, to be frank. I'm really not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:28 PM

15. Yup

It's just an ad.

We need to lighten up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:38 PM

17. Yeah! We need to be happy and smile through it all! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:46 PM

20. I didn't say that we needed to lighten up.

I said that the response needed to be to the company that was advertising in that way. General complaints about the nature of advertising do no good. The only thing that does is to address specific instances. Only direct communication with that company will have any chance of changing their policies. They're not reading DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:48 PM

21. I never said you did, nor even mentioned you

I wasn't even THINKING of you.

Honest question: why are you accusing me of something I didn't do??? I don;t get it at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:05 PM

26. Sorry. I thought you were referring to one of my posts

in the other thread. My apologies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:10 PM

27. Okay

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:53 PM

22. Love this piece...

thanks for posting it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:01 PM

24. You're welcome, Redqueen! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:16 PM

29. women smear their faces with colored mud...errr...makeup. Why? cost $$ billions a year nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 02:18 PM

31. It's very expensive! The beauty industry makes a mint off women. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 06:04 PM

34. i am bummed. this was a very good OP. can you edit and put it back in?

i was able to get my back because i edited the post. so i had edit show me. and it was all there to copy and paste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 06:45 PM

38. I would love to read this OP. While I'm sure I'd agree with the case being made,

the term "self-loathing" bothers me for some reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 07:38 PM

39. I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll be glad to do it, if you explain lol

Sorry, I'm not sure what you meant. Does it go back in by editing something in it??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 07:39 PM

40. NEVER MIND! I SAW IT! I'll edit. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 07:45 PM

41. I edited it and put it back, then I recommended it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 08:00 PM

42. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread