Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Victims Gone Wild: How Feminism Has Messed Up Relationships
That's the title of the piece I wrote for the 20th anniversary edition of the alt weekly, the San Jose Metro. Dan Pulcrano, the editor, who also designed and built my Web site (but not my blog), asked for something on how love, dating, sex, and/or relationships have changed in the past 20 years. Obviously, AIDS has had a major, major impact, and the Internet and other technology has had a big influence as well. But, I think what I call "victim feminism" has had a huge impact -- and I think few people realize exactly how damaging it's been. Here's an excerpt:

"IN SEDUCTION, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine," proclaimed radical feminist Andrea Dworkin in 1976. If you're a woman born 20 years ago, you probably don't even recognize Dworkin's name. Yet, there's a good chance you've had some seriously frustrating dates with her unwitting progeny: the guy who waits until date three or four—not to grab you, throw you up against the wall and suck face—but to politely inquire, "May I kiss you?"

Equal pay for equal work? It's a beautiful thing. Equal opportunity? Thrilled to have it. We women owe an enormous debt to Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and all who followed in their footsteps, fighting the righteous fight against sex-based discrimination.

Unfortunately, in the late '70s and early '80s, feminism got hijacked by a small but vocal gang of Victims Gone Wild. Leading the band with Dworkin was anti-porn harpy and law professor Catherine MacKinnon (most of whose outrageous, but now commonly accepted, claims about the damage done to women by pornography were neatly debunked in a 2004 analysis by psych professor Catherine Salmon).

Dworkin, MacKinnon and their hairy-armpitted underbosses gave the order to the "victimized"—women, largely privileged and white, on campuses across America—to crawl out from under the boot of "male oppression." In reality, what they were fighting wasn't male oppression, but maleness of any kind—based on the erroneous feminist notion that equality means sameness.

In their eyes, male sexuality isn't just different. It's WRONG. Penetration is a form of rape, don'tcha know? Ultimately, these femi-fascists sought to re-create men in their own image and to reshape sexual expression into something kinder, gentler and more "egalitarian." (Personally, I have no idea what more "egalitarian" sex is—and I hope I never find out.)

The rest of the piece is at the link above. The brilliant meta-analysis (study of a bunch of studies) by Catherine Salmon is in the book, Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy, and Personal Decisions. P.S. If someone asks me if I am a feminist, I generally respond, "I'm an Elizabeth Cady Stanton feminist" (i.e., for equal treatment, not special treatment) to disassociate myself from all the weepy, jack-booted man-haters and all the women shouting about their vaginas onstage.

Posted by aalkon at February 11, 2005 8:23 AM

Comments

Wow, what an incredibly timely commentary==for 1994.
Far from girding themselves in sex-repelling sartorial armour, young women seem more than willing to use their sexuality and wiles unreservedly and unabashedly to achieve what they want, in the business world, in their pesonal lives, every place but at the ballot box where thry're needed.
Which of us men hasn't dated that promising sex bomb, the one all teasingly tarted up, who makes as much money as we do yet insists upon being bought for, wined, dined etc. For what? For the promise of sex to come.
The syndrome you describe is long over. Women, particularly younger women, are upfont about using their bodies and wiles to get what they want. Is this progress? Some argue it might be. But I think it's open to question.

Posted by: Mao Z. Tungkis at February 11, 2005 12:06 PM

'If someone asks me if I am a feminist, I generally respond, "I'm an Elizabeth Cady Stanton feminist"'

And if someone asks me if I'M a feminist, I generally respond "I'm a Lena Cuisina, Bend-Me-Over-and-Fuck-The-Daylights-Out-of-Me Feminist."

Posted by: Lena at February 11, 2005 3:04 PM

Some young women, Mao, are comfortable with this. You'll note that I said it's women in their 30s and 40s who dress like they're on their way to repair somebody's septic tank. And younger guys as well as guys in their 30s who look down in terror if a girl so much as smiles at them. I get over a hundred letters a week from people having relationship problems, as well as being a lifelong snoop. My piece is accurate. Unfortunately.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 11, 2005 3:46 PM

Yes, and the latest insanity seems to be feminists disparaging stay-at-home moms for betraying the feminist cause and for conforming to the male-oriented female gender role. Idiots.

http://www.enlightenedcaveman.com/2005/01/bullets-versus-bombs-feminism-for.html

EC

Posted by: Chris Wilson at February 11, 2005 6:45 PM

Unfortunately, many people (men and women) give away their power to create their own realities and subscribe to societal ideals without giving it much thought, falling into the roles they believe they should. People set marriage as a goal, then feel obligated to have children, instead of being true to themselves by thinking about what they want instead of what is expected of them. As for these femi-fascist misanthropes, they are what they have learned to hate because they attempt to subjugate and belittle men as though men do not deserve an equal place in society. I think we should see all as we wish to be seen: as individuals, embracing the diversity that makes this world so beautiful, while celebrating those things we have in common. If these so-called *feminists* became *humanists*, maybe they could let go of their bitterness and learn to love themselves and others.

Posted by: Goddyss at February 11, 2005 8:59 PM

I don't think your piece is accurate. I blogged about it at http://redneckfeminist.blogspot.com/.

Is it possible that the only people who would tell their problems to an "advice goddess" are psychos anyway? These wimps need to deal with it. I don't run to my supervisor every time a guy grabs my ass. I know how to deal with it. They should too.

Besides, why do you care what *other women* look like? IMO, you should be happy they are making you look a lot better.

Please read my blog. It would make me happy.

Posted by: Redneck Feminist at February 12, 2005 12:56 AM

I care because they are aggrieved that they aren't able to attract men. I had a woman stand in front of me, in the ugliest, baggiest, most mannish clothes, and plaintively wonder why, why, why she couldn't attract a boyfriend. Where does one begin?

"the only people who would tell their problems to an "advice goddess" are psychos anyway""

That's mature. I don't think reading your blog would be a positive use of my time.

As far as sexual harrassment goes, because you don't run to your supervisor doesn't change a thing for millions of (mostly) men, vis a vis sexual harrassment as a workplace weapon. Heard of Amaani Lyle? The "Friends" hostile workplace suit?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 12, 2005 1:40 AM

How mature was your "harry armpit" comment? I'm not an old lady anyway, so I have an excuse to me immature.

And, are you saying that when a man grabs my ass, I SHOULDN'T tell my supervisor? I've had my ass grabbed many times, been told I have nice boobs, and had guys proposition me right at work. Give me some evidence that your situation is MORE common than the one I'm speaking of. Give me comparative numbers, not one isolated case.

And why do you think these "poor women" you speak of have been influenced by feminists? Do they TELL you they've been reading Dworkin or something? Maybe they just don't know how to put an outfit together. Why must you blame feminists? Don't you believe in personal responsibility?

Besides, I don't think you should be talking about the unattractiveness of other women when it's obvious from your pictures that you need some help yourself.

If you don't want to deal with personal attacks, you shouldn't dish them out.

Posted by: Redneck Feminist at February 12, 2005 2:06 AM

"How mature was your "harry armpit" comment? I'm not an old lady anyway, so I have an excuse to me immature."

It's called humor. Your remark wasn't funny.

Harrassment suits aren't typically about ass-grabbing or somebody saying "fuck me or you lose your job." I don't have a problem in the world with coming down hard on a real harrasser. But Amaani Lyle calling "Friends" a hostile workplace because the writers there used sexual cracks while brainstorming -- that's the kind of stuff that's way wrong.

I see a connection -- a trickle-down -- from talking to women who dress this way, and from all my correspondence and discussion with men who are afraid to ask women out, afraid to act sexually aggressive, think they're wrong and awful for doing so.

My unattractiveness? Oh, do tell.

The difference is, I don't attack you personally for your looks. I'm not attacking any specific person. I'm merely addressing a problem that I see that is leading men and women in general to be unhappy.

Your remark isn't about the issues. It's about trying to "get" me. Well, it's mild compared to the hateful mail I've gotten from women who are angry that I wrote, about a wife who went from a size 3 to a size 14, "a guy doesn't buy a sports car expecting it to morph into a cargo van." Again, specifically related to the issue -- and in response to an anonymous woman.

But, bring it on. I'm dying to hear your makeover.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 12, 2005 2:13 AM

Meeeeoowwwww!!! Friday night, baby! Might I suggest a nude mud wrestling match between you two? Red, if guys are propositioning you at work (assuming you don't work at a strip bar), this should be worth watching. Who am I kidding, if you work at a strip club, it'll definitely be worth watching. And Amy, well, for my part, you get thumbs up from me - you've got that sophisticated Molly Ringwald thing going.

Oh yes, and for the record, if you both worked for me, I'd fire you if you didn't agree to this.

EC

Posted by: Chris Wilson at February 12, 2005 2:38 AM

Well, you attacked Dworkin and MacKinnon. MacKinnon is actually quite hot, btw. I don't agree with those two particular feminists, but I don't go around bashing feminists in general for it.

I don't have any makeover tips. Unlike most young women, I don't spend my time reading Cosmo to learn how to be insecure. I merely noticed that you shouldn't really be telling other women they're not good looking. That's all. I wouldn't have mentioned it had you not thrown the first stone.

I can admit I might be bitter about our beauty-obsessed culture. I was a teen model and felt that I was indeed exploited. I have found being pretty to be a hindrance more than an asset for me personally. I get sick of having beauty pushed on me, so your essay rather ticked me off.

I don't think feminism has messed up relationships. If it wasn't for feminism, I wouldn't be in the good relationship I'm in now (and have been for four years). That's because feminism taught me that I'm an actual *person*-- not just a piece of ass.

Posted by: Redneck Feminist at February 12, 2005 2:40 AM

Chris Wilson, quit making me laugh when I'm trying to be tough.

Posted by: Redneck Feminist at February 12, 2005 2:43 AM

No -- don't hold back. You said my pictures show that I "need help." Bluffing, huh?

Women who understand that it's in their best interest to look the best they possibly can aren't insecure. They're smart. Men go for beautiful women, and women go for men of status and power. The biological realities. Unemployed men and women who need to cut back on their Dorito consumption do poorly in the mating market and in many other spheres.

Why be bitter about our culture. That's irrational thinking. See Albert Ellis on "musturbation," and Karen Horney on "tyranny of the shoulds." You assume that our culture "should" be different. Well, it isn't. There's no such thing as should. Your irrational thinking that there is such a thing is what's getting you in trouble. A rational person accepts reality as a fact, and then decides how to respond to it -- by bowing out, by staying in but being tough in some way...etc.

The day my boyfriend stops seeing me as a piece of ass, I'm in deep shit. That's not all I am, but it's damn important to be that.

I'm waiting for my makeover tips. Feel free to contribute with that paypal button so I can buy Chanel makeup and Leonor Greyl shampoo.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 12, 2005 3:12 AM

Love it, and so true. Just read this after getting dolled up to the nines to go to dinner, tight dress, knee-high boots, a ton of eye make-up applied by my daughter. Why? Because it's fun; because I am going to dinner with three men; because we four hung out all day, me in a fleece jacket and Merrells and now it's time to do something a little different because I can, and because I am imaginitive and curious enough to do so and because I like feeling like a woman in contrast to their dudeness. Gotta go apply some perfume...

Posted by: nancy at February 12, 2005 3:20 AM

Well, notice I said I'm not JUST a piece of ass. I of course want my guy to want to have sex with me. But I expect him to be attractive as well. I know women in general go for money/power, but I am different. I go for someone who is similar to me in education, ideology, attractiveness, and even height. I don't believe in the "blank slate" theory, but I do believe there are variations to just how "male" or "female" one naturally is. Even conservative writer Steven Rhoads agrees with me on that.

College women today are soooo insecure. They don't want to look their best; that's not good enough. They want to be *perfect*. That's what Cosmo teaches them. It becomes an obsession. Here's what I said about it on my blog:
"And in college, it's exactly the opposite. It's more like you BETTER be looking at a woman, or she'll bend over and lift her skirt in front of your face. If you still don't look, she'll run back to her dorm bawling because she thinks she's fat or ugly."

That's not the sign of a secure woman, if you ask me. A secure woman doesn't need to be validated by running around half-naked and seeing if everyone approves of her bod. She isn't ashamed to be seen without makeup. She dresses with class. True, she doesn't have to dress like a plumber (unless she is one). But hey, if she's brave enough to buck the beauty system, I say good for her. I know I'm not secure enough to do that. I'd be too afraid of what other people thought. And I do realize I'm not going to get an awesome high-paying job unless I dress the part. That's the realist in me overcoming the idealist.

I also realize there's no such thing as should, as far as collective ideology goes. But I'm a strong believer in individualism, as is my fiancee. We can't change the world, but we can change how we live our personal lives. I could have gotten engaged to other guys, but I chose a guy who doesn't place such high value on beauty. Those types of guys might not be the norm, but they do exist.

Furthermore, I think maybe the guys you're talking about might have some victim ideology going on themselves. I think feminists have become "bogeymen" for these guys to rally against so they can play the victim too. I don't think it's as bad as they think it is. There are tons of women just waiting to be complemented on their hair.

Okay, you want makeover tips? Maybe I was just being a catty bitch. Maybe I know that women tend to be insecure about their looks, so I hit below the belt. The truth is that you look pretty hot on the homepage, but pretty average on the about page. That's the truth, not sugar-coated. I think it's the change of hairstyle that is the difference. And the pinkish/purple lipstick instead of red. God, it killed me to do that.

Posted by: Redneck Feminist at February 12, 2005 4:10 AM

Ugh. I feel like joining a monastery after reading all this stuff. Having to be any gender at all just seems like a fucking drag at this point.

Posted by: Lena at February 12, 2005 7:17 AM

Dude, what happened to the catfight? I go out for a few beers with friends, get roped into getting on stage at an open mike night, one where the norm is Jimmy Buffet, rock the fucking house, unexpectedly, bask in the adulation, but all the while - I'm wondering: what's going on with the catfight? Has a venue been chosen? Will I get to judge? And then this bullshit, this backtracking, civilized arguing rationally bullshit. Damn you all.

EC

Posted by: Chris Wilson at February 12, 2005 7:59 AM

BTW - not trying to be the blogosphere equivalent of a spammer, but...

My past post was all about the role of appearances in society today. Seems to fit right into this.

http://www.enlightenedcaveman.com/2005/02/appearance-delta-and-gimmick-theory.html

EC

Posted by: Chris Wilson at February 12, 2005 8:03 AM

"The song of heaven, the marching of men. Slaves, let us not curse life." A. Rimbaud

Posted by: Lena, sans genitalia at February 12, 2005 8:45 AM

Who knew that a piece about Tom Cruise would contain such wisdom?

“[...] with the development of communication technologies like email and blogging: "People are expressing themselves to the point of nausea."’

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.09.05/cruise-0506.html

Posted by: Lena Cuisina, Embittered Gender Retard at February 12, 2005 9:08 AM

Lena the leveler. You sure now how to lop off the ends of the bell curve on this topic. As to the mud wrestling. Wouldn't care to watch it, but would love to jump in given the chance.

From my position way out here in left field, everyone has their points well taken...from their own perspectives. Especially Chris. Amy is creatively, comedically, offering solutions to problems she is handed, or she perceives. The big Red one is coping with her natural attractiveness juxtaposed with her need to be a regular civilian just doing the civilian thing. Both are obviously strong-minded and outspoken bitches..oops...women who get my male attention and approval.

Posted by: allan at February 12, 2005 10:19 AM

Well, notice I said I'm not JUST a piece of ass. I of course want my guy to want to have sex with me. But I expect him to be attractive as well. I know women in general go for money/power, but I am different. I go for someone who is similar to me in education, ideology, attractiveness, and even height. I don't believe in the "blank slate" theory, but I do believe there are variations to just how "male" or "female" one naturally is. Even conservative writer Steven Rhoads agrees with me on that.

College women today are soooo insecure. They don't want to look their best; that's not good enough. They want to be *perfect*. That's what Cosmo teaches them. It becomes an obsession. Here's what I said about it on my blog:
"And in college, it's exactly the opposite. It's more like you BETTER be looking at a woman, or she'll bend over and lift her skirt in front of your face. If you still don't look, she'll run back to her dorm bawling because she thinks she's fat or ugly."

That's not the sign of a secure woman, if you ask me. A secure woman doesn't need to be validated by running around half-naked and seeing if everyone approves of her bod. She isn't ashamed to be seen without makeup. She dresses with class. True, she doesn't have to dress like a plumber (unless she is one). But hey, if she's brave enough to buck the beauty system, I say good for her. I know I'm not secure enough to do that. I'd be too afraid of what other people thought. And I do realize I'm not going to get an awesome high-paying job unless I dress the part. That's the realist in me overcoming the idealist.

I also realize there's no such thing as should, as far as collective ideology goes. But I'm a strong believer in individualism, as is my fiancee. We can't change the world, but we can change how we live our personal lives. I could have gotten engaged to other guys, but I chose a guy who doesn't place such high value on beauty. Those types of guys might not be the norm, but they do exist.

Furthermore, I think maybe the guys you're talking about might have some victim ideology going on themselves. I think feminists have become "bogeymen" for these guys to rally against so they can play the victim too. I don't think it's as bad as they think it is. There are tons of women just waiting to be complemented on their hair.

Okay, you want makeover tips? Maybe I was just being a catty bitch. Maybe I know that women tend to be insecure about their looks, so I hit below the belt. The truth is that you look pretty hot on the homepage, but pretty average on the about page. That's the truth, not sugar-coated. I think it's the change of hairstyle that is the difference. And the pinkish/purple lipstick instead of red. God, it killed me to do that.

Posted by: Redneck Feminist at February 12, 2005 9:09 PM

I think I'm starting to like you.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 12, 2005 9:19 PM

Does this mean mud wrestling is out?

Posted by: Chris Wilson at February 12, 2005 9:38 PM

Redneck, Alkon, let's make peace. My suggestion for armistice involves the two of you, me and a heart shape tub full of yummy vannila puddin'.

Posted by: Mao C. Tung-kiss at February 13, 2005 6:56 AM

Hello !



"A secure woman doesn't need to be validated
by running around half-naked and seeing if
everyone approves of her bod. She isn't
ashamed to be seen without makeup.
She dresses with class."



Ummmmm ... sounds quite a bit like an awful lot of women here in France ... (smile) ...


L'Amerloque (smiling, as he pours oil on the flames)

Posted by: L'Amerloque at February 13, 2005 9:42 AM

Oh gosh Amy, don't say that! It makes it much harder to be mean!!!!

I thought of something else about the 30/40-somethings. Maybe they don't know the grunge era is over? People tend to think that whatever was in fashion in their teens/20's is fashionable their whole lives. I remember in middle school even the popular girls wore big ugly boots and had chain wallets so they would look "alternative". Kind of like how Gwen Stefani used to dress in 1995. I don't know, it's just a theory, haha.

Also, I think men sometimes hit on the wrong women. They often go way out of their league, as far as attractiveness goes. The demand can only be met if there is a supply (which, I think, is what you're trying to increase). That can work. But if the supply still isn't there, the demand side of the equation (men) might have to give a little too. And of course, it's the same vice versa (women might have to give up some demands if the supply of acceptable men isn't there).

Posted by: Redneck Feminist at February 14, 2005 7:37 AM

"People tend to think that whatever was in fashion in their teens/20's is fashionable their whole lives."

You're absolutely right about that, except I don't think it's because we think it's "fashionable." Old hippies keep their hair long because they think it's "natural," and aging punk rockers like me keep our hair cropped short because it seems like a "no nonsense" style. People often try to wear their values, which fluctuate less than fashion, I think.

Posted by: Lena-doodle-doo at February 14, 2005 9:56 AM

Lena, that is so true! I'm a metal/rock drummer, and I at one time had all of my hair braided (too much of a wimp to do dreadlocks). I didn't really think it was fashionable, it was more like, "Hey, I'm a rocker chick and I look like a badass with this hair" sort of thing.

Posted by: Redneck Feminist at February 14, 2005 11:13 AM

It sounds like you're on your way to becoming a Metal Rock Economist, and I don't think you'll have too many predecessors to model your look after for that gig!

Posted by: Lena at February 14, 2005 1:48 PM

Dude!!! I saw the Metal Rock Economists at Davos. It was so peaced out. But I didn't see any Predecessors. So you're probably right about the hair thing.

Posted by: allan at February 15, 2005 8:25 PM

HEy people

MACKINNON IS GOOD.

PORNOGRAPHY IS BAD...

BAN PORN ALL THE WAY>

FROM A DUDE,,, who has surely suffered.

Is it good for a boy to dream that he can get shagged everywhere he goes. when the reality is quite different.

I wish i never wacthed it, and you should neither,

Posted by: truthsayer at February 23, 2005 1:57 PM

"Truth"sayer? Please.

You can become addicted to looking at pictures of Jesus. Go look at peele.net

The problem isn't with porn, it's with your own lack of self-discipline.

There's plenty of heroin to be had out there. But I'd rather live without the oozing sores and all, thank you very much. It's about short-term gratification vs. holding out for long-term gain. (ie, living like an adult, not an indulgent four-year-old child.)

Too bad you weren't obsessed with studying grammar and syntax.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 23, 2005 2:13 PM

Hi Amy,

I've been a longtime admirer of your columns. It's nice to see a fellow crusader against the cloying ooze of romantic idealism.

Amy said:
I see a connection -- a trickle-down -- from talking to women who dress this way, and from all my correspondence and discussion with men who are afraid to ask women out, afraid to act sexually aggressive, think they're wrong and awful for doing so.

I used to be like this, and it really sucked. I'll recommend you the book "Love and Shyness" by psychologist Brian Gilmartin. I found a free version of the book as a pdf here. You probably get a lot of guys asking for advice that are "love-shy" to some degree, so perhaps this book will be useful for you.

I been considering the idea of whether feminism is partly to blame for this, and there may be some truth in it. I've suggested it to some feminists, but of course they deny it. They either say that MacKinnon and Dworkin are extremists who do not represent feminists as a whole, or they say that even if some guys have are walking on eggshells because of feminist messages, that it is their fault for taking things the wrong way.

I think that is irresponsible. They are expecting guys to be omniscient and have some kind of bullshit detector to know which messages to follow, and how far to go in following those messages. But common sense in what messages to follow is something that can only be built with time and experience. And a guy who is shy, young, or inexperienced is not going to be able to tell which messages to listen to. So it should be no suprise that some guys might hear feminist messages and think they should act like eunuchs.

I do think feminism is some kind of a factor in the passivity and shyness that many men display towards females, and the shame they feel towards their desires. Though it certainly isn't the only factor. Feminist messages seem to get combined with a lot of chivalrous romantic bullshit that leads guys to think that women are frail porcelain statues. It also gets combined with the Victorian belief that men are just horny beasts. This places the expectation on guys to prove that they are not just horny beasts who are out to "use women for sex," and some guys are naturally going to go way overboard with this because they don't know any better.

When I was a sophomore in highschool, we had a date rape seminar. The speaker went over her rape in graphic detail, breaking down and crying several times and describing how she had chewed out the inside of her cheek. I can understand the need for some kind of seminar, but this was overkill.

It's funny that the only sexual experience deemed fit for a high school assembly is one where sex goes wrong. At one point, someone asked her how a guy should initiate sex properly. She said she didn't know. What do you think that did for my confidence with women?! If she didn't know what guys were supposed to do, how the hell was I supposed to figure it out for myself?? I'm not saying that the seminar single-handedly made me think of women as frail porcelain statues, or feel shame towards my desires as a man, but it helped cement some of those beliefs in my head.

Date rape seminars aside, I think that just hearing about concepts like "sexual harrassment" or "patronizing women" has an effect of how young men perceive women. Maybe some men do need to hear it and tone down their behavior, but that is not the case for all men. For guys who are already respectful of everyone and careful not to offend, hearing those messages will just make them paranoid about being seen as a "male chauvinist pig."

Feminism has also given a lot of sting to negative labels against men. Guys don't want to be labelled as male chauvinist pigs, jerks, wimps, or creeps (or as "sketchy," the slang at my college for creepy/weird). Maybe these labels do help keep some men in line who actually are aggressive, rude, or passive-aggressively manipulative towards women. Unfortunately, other guys might go overboard in trying to avoid being seen as "jerks."

Ironically, one of the reasons that some guys might come off as "creepy" is because they are worried and insecure about being branded with the scarlet letter of sketchiness! Hence, the suspicion that guys who approach women with an "agenda" are "creeps" can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by: Aegis at February 24, 2005 5:30 PM

This is a wonderful wealth of information! Thanks! animated post card

Posted by: Daron at March 8, 2006 4:48 PM

Leave a comment