Because of the recent Dragoncon experience where I brought my Slave Leia out of retirement for one final appearance, the issue of feminism and objectification with regards to the Slave outfit has come up in several different recent conversations. I was asked to participate in an interview about the costume (although apparently the email was delayed and I missed the deadline) and I'm sitting here listening to the visitor call-in comments. I have to say I'm quite disappointed in the ladies and I have to give some props to the male host.
A scantily-clad woman, particularly in an outfit called "slave" anything, seems to offend a lot of people, most of whom don't really understand what a "slave" is in this context. Slavery, the treating of humans as property with no basic rights to their own lives, is a horrible tragedy. Playing a "slave" has absolutely nothing in common with that.
First, let's address the character of Slave Leia. Princess Leia Organa is one of our society's leading ladies. She is strong, independent. She is a leader of men (and by "men", I mean the more proper usage of "man" being a suffix for "human" which includes both genders). She fights oppression and tyranny and will throw herself on the front lines, expecting nothing less of herself than she expects of her fellow rebels.
In Episode VI, The Empire Strikes Back, Leia is captured by a known gang boss. A creature who treats sentient species as property. Here he finds this upstart invading his turf and trying to steal his "property" in the person of Han Solo. So he captures her and makes her another piece of property. All of Leia's clothing so far has been very modest and mostly practical. But he puts her in, what becomes known as the "slave harness", the copper bra that denotes her position on his staff. She is forced to wear a chain and submit to his demands. Yes, it is true that the barely-there bikini is meant to be demeaning, and one can run with the idea that showing a woman's body is therefore thought of as objectifying her. But I see it not that showing skin in general is the offensive part, but making her wear an outfit she would not choose for herself as "demeaning". Women forced to wear a burkha, I would find that equally "demeaning" because both situations involve assigning negative sexual connotations to a woman's body that she is not choosing for herself.
But back to the story. So Jabba enslaves her. She refuses to be broken, she does not submit, even though she is forced through superior strength and firepower. Then, when the time is right, she takes her chains, the very symbols of her slavery, and slays her captor.
The slave harness then becomes not a symbol of female oppression, but of female empowerment. Even against the odds, against larger numbers and physically stronger adversaries, she takes those items designed to oppress her, designed to strip her of her dignity and strength, and instead uses them to oppress her oppressors, to free herself from captivity and she retains her dignity throughout, even during her captivity.
So, within the Star Wars universe, the Slave Leia outfit symbolizes strength and independence for women. You can argue that Lucas clothed her in modest clothing up to that point and the bikini was chosen because the idea of stripping her was a demeaning act. But Lucas also wrote in the part where she strangles Jabba with her chains, thereby taking back her strength and independence with these same tools. Lucas could have made someone else save her, reducing her to the victim, the oppressed female she was turned into by Jabba. He could have shown her as strong only while modestly covered and weak only when sexy. But he continued to show her strength no matter what she was wearing, elevating her above her clothing and separating her personality and her character from the associations of her clothing, or rather imbuing her attire with the force of her character in the entire gamut from modest to sexy.
Now, outside the Star Wars universe, I want to address the idea of nudity and then I'll tackle the idea of fantasy slavery.
Our society seems to insist on placing a negative value on the human body and on sexuality. If woman shows off her body, she's slutty. If a man admires a woman's body, he's an asshole. A woman is either forced to cover her skin to protect her reputation and/or avoid unwanted advances, or if she chooses to show her skin she has to defend herself from people drooling all over her and treating her like a sex object.
But what about the women who enjoy their bodies? Why should we feel shame at how we look? And if we show off our bodies, why should we then be offended at people who appreciate looking at us?
In this radio talk show, a couple of women were upset that the Slave Leia costumers were being admired for their lack of clothing and they perceived that no attention was being paid to the actual costume itself. This, apparently, is a bad thing.
Now, as a costumer who put a lot of effort into making a Slave Leia outfit, I will agree that it is upsetting to have the costume (and hence, my effort in making it) go completely unnoticed because my admirer is somehow blinded by the amount of skin showing. Anyone who has read my Online Skeezballs rants should know that I absolutely hate it when people contact me online with nothing more than "nice pics, hot body!" But having my physical body admired while wearing the costume is not offensive to me. It's flattering. Having someone say "that's an amazing costume, and you look very good in it" is a nice compliment.
When I put on the Slave Leia outfit, I know I am putting on a costume that generates sexual fantasies. I go into the situation with that in mind. I can't possibly hope to monitor people's thoughts. If I let the idea other people's fantasies bother me, I would spend a great deal of my time pissed off (no, contrary to my journal posts, I'm not angry all the time). It also wouldn't matter what I wear. I went to a private school and wore a uniform. In an effort to control modesty in the students, the school board managed to create a tailor-made sexual fantasy for just about every boyfriend I've had since I was 14, and pretty much every male stranger on the public bus that I had to ride home every day. On Friday at Dragoncon, I was covered chin to toe, and I guarantee that I still managed to fulfill *someone's* sexual fantasy, and I would guess more than just a few, based on the comments I've gotten. Most of the time I wear wife-beaters and military pants. There is a large population of men who get off on the whole "tough chick with weapons" idea. It doesn't matter WHAT I wear ... someone will be thinking sexual thoughts about me somewhere at some time. We really need to let go of the idea that someone thinking sexual thoughts about us is a bad thing. Hell, it can't even be helped sometimes. All sorts of interesting people have popped up in my dreams at night and I had no control over that.
I can't be worried about what people think about me, it's how they treat me that is important and that I can have some control over. I do not think that appreciating, even ogling from afar, a half-naked woman is inherently a bad thing. Growing up believing that women are there for a man's visual pleasure is the problem, and we can solve that without resorting to covering the women. Several societies have tried the cover-up method and I don't think it prevented women from being sex objects. It is my opinion that it turned them into sex objects by making such a big deal about the female body that no attention at all is paid to the mind because everyone is overly-concerned with the body. Anytime a society makes a taboo about a part of the body, we turn our attention to the body and it then becomes *more* important than before. We need to address the more relevant issue that is not shame and guilt over having a corporeal body, but treating people with respect regardless of what they look like or what arbitrary body part is visible.
Now, about the slavery issue. In this radio talk show, the women callers are often upset at the "submissive" position the women put themselves in while wearing the slave harness. The host points out (referencing a video on the website) that the Slave Leia in question is in complete control of the situation. She keeps the fans at bay and poses for pictures that *she* wants to pose in. She puts a hand on her male companion to guide him to what she wants to do next. When she has had enough, she covers up and indicates to her companion that she is ready to leave, and she leaves. She is wearing an outfit that happens to have the word "slave" in the title, but she is clearly not submissive.
I also have this issue come up in conversations about BDSM. People who don't understand BDSM often point to the submissive positioning of women and cry "slavery" and "oppression". The thing here is that everything about BDSM is consensual, just as wearing this costume is consensual. As one female caller pointed out, nobody pointed a gun to our heads and said "You will wear this slave outfit and parade yourself at a sci-fi con for our pleasure" - no, us women are the ones making the costume and we are the ones choosing to wear it and we are the ones who choose to attend a heavily-attended convention filled with men who we know have been fantasizing over for the last 25 years.
Any woman who is forced or coerced into doing ANYTHING is not participating in BDSM, by definition. That's abuse. When a woman (since we're talking about feminist issues and female oppression here, I'm going to ignore the male subs) becomes someone's slave, she is voluntarily placing herself in that position. She negotiates the rules and the boundaries so that she never actually does anything she doesn't want to do. If part of her negotiations include giving up her right to choose for herself or allowing her master to dictate her options for her ... that's still her choice to engage in that relationship with those rules. Even being "forced" to do something she doesn't want to do is part of the game, part of what she OK'd.
Human sexuality is very complex. There are a lot of different things that get people off. Some women really do get off on being dominated, forced, humiliated, objectified. The key here is that those women ENJOY it and those women CHOOSE it. Speaking as a woman who enjoys coercion games, let me tell you how frustrating it is to have to "reprogram" men who come to me with the idea that spanking me is not "respectful". It is respectful because it is doing something I WANT HIM TO DO. Within the context of consensual sex and BDSM, spanking, humiliation, objectification, submission, coercion, all of that are the absolute height of respect because those are acts that a woman wants to do. They also all require a level of trust because we're playing with psychologically-charged activities, so the woman is putting her trust in her partner to do these things because she wants them to and to stay within whatever rules she has negotiated and to not actually damage her physically or emotionally. It just doesn't get any more respectful than accepting responsibility for someone's trust and honoring their trust and their person by participating in these acts that the woman wants to participate in.
Basically, the bottom line is that I do not find wearing a Slave Harness voluntarily to be demeaning to women when the women wearing it are choosing to do it. Even if, let's say, the character the women are dressing as is totally objectified and has no moments of strength or independence or freedom, I still don't see it as oppression.
I wasn't paying attention to how this tangent started because I was already writing this post, but somehow the host and a caller got on the subject of Pamela Anderson and using one's body to bring awareness to other issues. The host said something about how he would never have known about PETA (the animal-rights organization) if it weren't for hot actresses using the attention they gained as hot actresses. Angelina Jolie was brought up for visiting the senate and making speeches and being political. The caller interrupted and said it was different because Angelina was not appearing at the senate meetings in her Tomb Raider outfit, she was using her mind to bring attention to her causes.
I'm a bit conflicted here. On the one had, I get irritated at using sex in advertising if the sex has nothing at all to do with the product one is trying to sell. I also get irritated when people treat me as an object for the sexual desire that is interchangeable for anyone else because there is nothing about *me* that makes me worthwhile, I am merely a receptacle for their lust. On the other hand, I have no problem with, say, strippers or prostitutes who use their bodies to make money and I don't really understand why trading dancing for money is somehow worse than trading my ability to stand and push buttons on a cash register. Before anyone argues that standing there and looking hot is different from learning a "skill" that one can trade for money, let me tell you that strippers and prostitutes do indeed learn "skills". We all use our bodies all the time to trade for money that can be used to buy food and shelter. Dancing on a broadway stage doesn't seem any different to me than dancing on a stage with a pole. Both dancers are using their bodies to trade for money. The only difference I can see is that dancing with a pole is being obvious that there is a sexual content. But you can't tell me that dancing on Broadway never includes a sexual content or that audience members aren't objectifying those dancers or even fantasizing about them.
What I disapprove of in the adult entertainment industry is the mistreatment of the employees. Drug abuse, unwanted advances, blackmail, poor working conditions, this kind of thing is unacceptable no matter what industry they're in. But simply the act of trading one set of skills (that happen to include some form of sexual content) for money is not offensive, nor is it automatically demeaning to women. When the women choose to be there, it is their CHOICE. When they work hard and improve their skills, they can make a shitload of money and really contribute to their independence.
The Slave Leia costume is not demeaning to women. It depicts a very strong female character at the height of her power as she is thrust into an oppressive situation and she triumphs using her own abilities with the odds stacked against her. The women who wear the costume are not being oppressed because they are voluntarily choosing to wear the costume. The men who appreciate these women are not being oppressive towards the women because it is a totally natural reaction to appreciate the physical beauty of a half-naked women and they are not in a situation that even allows them the opportunity to get to know these women as complete individuals. We cannot police other people's thoughts and many of these men do understand that the Slave fans have brains in addition to their bodies, but the situation is designed strictly for enhancing the visual aspect of the woman. The position of a "slave" or emulating submission in a more abstract sense as the Slave ladies get into "character" is also not demeaning because the women voluntarily get into those positions (or roles) and they get something out of being in that position or role. Imposing one's own value system onto another's is the more oppressive act here. Not everyone enjoys the slave or submissive role and that's fine, but not allowing other women to express themselves when they *do* enjoy it because your own personal sense of values doesn't agree falls under "oppression", IMO, far more than the women who voluntarily choose to be dominated because they get something out of it.
*EDIT* I just had a conversation with my sweetie![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
tacit, and we were talking about something related but not this specifically, and the way he phrased it was (as usual) very simple and got the point across so I want to copy and paste it here:
Context is king. And there is a difference between finding some attitude or behavior offensive, and finding a parody of that behavior or attitude offensive. ... The fine distinction [is] the ability to find humor in prevalent social attitudes even when the attitude itself is offensive
And I think this quite nicely sums up what my huge long rambling rant was about. It's about making our own choices and poking fun at attitudes and being comfortable and secure with ourselves. Just because it superficially resembles actions that are otherwise offensive, rude, cruel, etc., doesn't mean that, taken out of that context, we can't enjoy it when it is done respectfully or voluntarily.
I think too much is made sometimes about the overall "message" that's being sent and the hidden meaning behind things when really, it's just a bunch of girls having a good time and enjoying looking sexy. So a few guys get off when the girls voluntarily and happily enjoy acting that way. What we need to be concerned about is the guys who get off when the girls aren't consenting, and preventing those who do consent from participating is not the answer. Teaching our boys to learn the difference is the answer and teaching our girls the ability to be clear on the difference will go a long way towards that.
First, let's address the character of Slave Leia. Princess Leia Organa is one of our society's leading ladies. She is strong, independent. She is a leader of men (and by "men", I mean the more proper usage of "man" being a suffix for "human" which includes both genders). She fights oppression and tyranny and will throw herself on the front lines, expecting nothing less of herself than she expects of her fellow rebels.
In Episode VI, The Empire Strikes Back, Leia is captured by a known gang boss. A creature who treats sentient species as property. Here he finds this upstart invading his turf and trying to steal his "property" in the person of Han Solo. So he captures her and makes her another piece of property. All of Leia's clothing so far has been very modest and mostly practical. But he puts her in, what becomes known as the "slave harness", the copper bra that denotes her position on his staff. She is forced to wear a chain and submit to his demands. Yes, it is true that the barely-there bikini is meant to be demeaning, and one can run with the idea that showing a woman's body is therefore thought of as objectifying her. But I see it not that showing skin in general is the offensive part, but making her wear an outfit she would not choose for herself as "demeaning". Women forced to wear a burkha, I would find that equally "demeaning" because both situations involve assigning negative sexual connotations to a woman's body that she is not choosing for herself.
But back to the story. So Jabba enslaves her. She refuses to be broken, she does not submit, even though she is forced through superior strength and firepower. Then, when the time is right, she takes her chains, the very symbols of her slavery, and slays her captor.
The slave harness then becomes not a symbol of female oppression, but of female empowerment. Even against the odds, against larger numbers and physically stronger adversaries, she takes those items designed to oppress her, designed to strip her of her dignity and strength, and instead uses them to oppress her oppressors, to free herself from captivity and she retains her dignity throughout, even during her captivity.
So, within the Star Wars universe, the Slave Leia outfit symbolizes strength and independence for women. You can argue that Lucas clothed her in modest clothing up to that point and the bikini was chosen because the idea of stripping her was a demeaning act. But Lucas also wrote in the part where she strangles Jabba with her chains, thereby taking back her strength and independence with these same tools. Lucas could have made someone else save her, reducing her to the victim, the oppressed female she was turned into by Jabba. He could have shown her as strong only while modestly covered and weak only when sexy. But he continued to show her strength no matter what she was wearing, elevating her above her clothing and separating her personality and her character from the associations of her clothing, or rather imbuing her attire with the force of her character in the entire gamut from modest to sexy.
Now, outside the Star Wars universe, I want to address the idea of nudity and then I'll tackle the idea of fantasy slavery.
Our society seems to insist on placing a negative value on the human body and on sexuality. If woman shows off her body, she's slutty. If a man admires a woman's body, he's an asshole. A woman is either forced to cover her skin to protect her reputation and/or avoid unwanted advances, or if she chooses to show her skin she has to defend herself from people drooling all over her and treating her like a sex object.
But what about the women who enjoy their bodies? Why should we feel shame at how we look? And if we show off our bodies, why should we then be offended at people who appreciate looking at us?
In this radio talk show, a couple of women were upset that the Slave Leia costumers were being admired for their lack of clothing and they perceived that no attention was being paid to the actual costume itself. This, apparently, is a bad thing.
Now, as a costumer who put a lot of effort into making a Slave Leia outfit, I will agree that it is upsetting to have the costume (and hence, my effort in making it) go completely unnoticed because my admirer is somehow blinded by the amount of skin showing. Anyone who has read my Online Skeezballs rants should know that I absolutely hate it when people contact me online with nothing more than "nice pics, hot body!" But having my physical body admired while wearing the costume is not offensive to me. It's flattering. Having someone say "that's an amazing costume, and you look very good in it" is a nice compliment.
When I put on the Slave Leia outfit, I know I am putting on a costume that generates sexual fantasies. I go into the situation with that in mind. I can't possibly hope to monitor people's thoughts. If I let the idea other people's fantasies bother me, I would spend a great deal of my time pissed off (no, contrary to my journal posts, I'm not angry all the time). It also wouldn't matter what I wear. I went to a private school and wore a uniform. In an effort to control modesty in the students, the school board managed to create a tailor-made sexual fantasy for just about every boyfriend I've had since I was 14, and pretty much every male stranger on the public bus that I had to ride home every day. On Friday at Dragoncon, I was covered chin to toe, and I guarantee that I still managed to fulfill *someone's* sexual fantasy, and I would guess more than just a few, based on the comments I've gotten. Most of the time I wear wife-beaters and military pants. There is a large population of men who get off on the whole "tough chick with weapons" idea. It doesn't matter WHAT I wear ... someone will be thinking sexual thoughts about me somewhere at some time. We really need to let go of the idea that someone thinking sexual thoughts about us is a bad thing. Hell, it can't even be helped sometimes. All sorts of interesting people have popped up in my dreams at night and I had no control over that.
I can't be worried about what people think about me, it's how they treat me that is important and that I can have some control over. I do not think that appreciating, even ogling from afar, a half-naked woman is inherently a bad thing. Growing up believing that women are there for a man's visual pleasure is the problem, and we can solve that without resorting to covering the women. Several societies have tried the cover-up method and I don't think it prevented women from being sex objects. It is my opinion that it turned them into sex objects by making such a big deal about the female body that no attention at all is paid to the mind because everyone is overly-concerned with the body. Anytime a society makes a taboo about a part of the body, we turn our attention to the body and it then becomes *more* important than before. We need to address the more relevant issue that is not shame and guilt over having a corporeal body, but treating people with respect regardless of what they look like or what arbitrary body part is visible.
Now, about the slavery issue. In this radio talk show, the women callers are often upset at the "submissive" position the women put themselves in while wearing the slave harness. The host points out (referencing a video on the website) that the Slave Leia in question is in complete control of the situation. She keeps the fans at bay and poses for pictures that *she* wants to pose in. She puts a hand on her male companion to guide him to what she wants to do next. When she has had enough, she covers up and indicates to her companion that she is ready to leave, and she leaves. She is wearing an outfit that happens to have the word "slave" in the title, but she is clearly not submissive.
I also have this issue come up in conversations about BDSM. People who don't understand BDSM often point to the submissive positioning of women and cry "slavery" and "oppression". The thing here is that everything about BDSM is consensual, just as wearing this costume is consensual. As one female caller pointed out, nobody pointed a gun to our heads and said "You will wear this slave outfit and parade yourself at a sci-fi con for our pleasure" - no, us women are the ones making the costume and we are the ones choosing to wear it and we are the ones who choose to attend a heavily-attended convention filled with men who we know have been fantasizing over for the last 25 years.
Any woman who is forced or coerced into doing ANYTHING is not participating in BDSM, by definition. That's abuse. When a woman (since we're talking about feminist issues and female oppression here, I'm going to ignore the male subs) becomes someone's slave, she is voluntarily placing herself in that position. She negotiates the rules and the boundaries so that she never actually does anything she doesn't want to do. If part of her negotiations include giving up her right to choose for herself or allowing her master to dictate her options for her ... that's still her choice to engage in that relationship with those rules. Even being "forced" to do something she doesn't want to do is part of the game, part of what she OK'd.
Human sexuality is very complex. There are a lot of different things that get people off. Some women really do get off on being dominated, forced, humiliated, objectified. The key here is that those women ENJOY it and those women CHOOSE it. Speaking as a woman who enjoys coercion games, let me tell you how frustrating it is to have to "reprogram" men who come to me with the idea that spanking me is not "respectful". It is respectful because it is doing something I WANT HIM TO DO. Within the context of consensual sex and BDSM, spanking, humiliation, objectification, submission, coercion, all of that are the absolute height of respect because those are acts that a woman wants to do. They also all require a level of trust because we're playing with psychologically-charged activities, so the woman is putting her trust in her partner to do these things because she wants them to and to stay within whatever rules she has negotiated and to not actually damage her physically or emotionally. It just doesn't get any more respectful than accepting responsibility for someone's trust and honoring their trust and their person by participating in these acts that the woman wants to participate in.
Basically, the bottom line is that I do not find wearing a Slave Harness voluntarily to be demeaning to women when the women wearing it are choosing to do it. Even if, let's say, the character the women are dressing as is totally objectified and has no moments of strength or independence or freedom, I still don't see it as oppression.
I wasn't paying attention to how this tangent started because I was already writing this post, but somehow the host and a caller got on the subject of Pamela Anderson and using one's body to bring awareness to other issues. The host said something about how he would never have known about PETA (the animal-rights organization) if it weren't for hot actresses using the attention they gained as hot actresses. Angelina Jolie was brought up for visiting the senate and making speeches and being political. The caller interrupted and said it was different because Angelina was not appearing at the senate meetings in her Tomb Raider outfit, she was using her mind to bring attention to her causes.
I'm a bit conflicted here. On the one had, I get irritated at using sex in advertising if the sex has nothing at all to do with the product one is trying to sell. I also get irritated when people treat me as an object for the sexual desire that is interchangeable for anyone else because there is nothing about *me* that makes me worthwhile, I am merely a receptacle for their lust. On the other hand, I have no problem with, say, strippers or prostitutes who use their bodies to make money and I don't really understand why trading dancing for money is somehow worse than trading my ability to stand and push buttons on a cash register. Before anyone argues that standing there and looking hot is different from learning a "skill" that one can trade for money, let me tell you that strippers and prostitutes do indeed learn "skills". We all use our bodies all the time to trade for money that can be used to buy food and shelter. Dancing on a broadway stage doesn't seem any different to me than dancing on a stage with a pole. Both dancers are using their bodies to trade for money. The only difference I can see is that dancing with a pole is being obvious that there is a sexual content. But you can't tell me that dancing on Broadway never includes a sexual content or that audience members aren't objectifying those dancers or even fantasizing about them.
What I disapprove of in the adult entertainment industry is the mistreatment of the employees. Drug abuse, unwanted advances, blackmail, poor working conditions, this kind of thing is unacceptable no matter what industry they're in. But simply the act of trading one set of skills (that happen to include some form of sexual content) for money is not offensive, nor is it automatically demeaning to women. When the women choose to be there, it is their CHOICE. When they work hard and improve their skills, they can make a shitload of money and really contribute to their independence.
The Slave Leia costume is not demeaning to women. It depicts a very strong female character at the height of her power as she is thrust into an oppressive situation and she triumphs using her own abilities with the odds stacked against her. The women who wear the costume are not being oppressed because they are voluntarily choosing to wear the costume. The men who appreciate these women are not being oppressive towards the women because it is a totally natural reaction to appreciate the physical beauty of a half-naked women and they are not in a situation that even allows them the opportunity to get to know these women as complete individuals. We cannot police other people's thoughts and many of these men do understand that the Slave fans have brains in addition to their bodies, but the situation is designed strictly for enhancing the visual aspect of the woman. The position of a "slave" or emulating submission in a more abstract sense as the Slave ladies get into "character" is also not demeaning because the women voluntarily get into those positions (or roles) and they get something out of being in that position or role. Imposing one's own value system onto another's is the more oppressive act here. Not everyone enjoys the slave or submissive role and that's fine, but not allowing other women to express themselves when they *do* enjoy it because your own personal sense of values doesn't agree falls under "oppression", IMO, far more than the women who voluntarily choose to be dominated because they get something out of it.
*EDIT* I just had a conversation with my sweetie
tacit, and we were talking about something related but not this specifically, and the way he phrased it was (as usual) very simple and got the point across so I want to copy and paste it here:Context is king. And there is a difference between finding some attitude or behavior offensive, and finding a parody of that behavior or attitude offensive. ... The fine distinction [is] the ability to find humor in prevalent social attitudes even when the attitude itself is offensive
And I think this quite nicely sums up what my huge long rambling rant was about. It's about making our own choices and poking fun at attitudes and being comfortable and secure with ourselves. Just because it superficially resembles actions that are otherwise offensive, rude, cruel, etc., doesn't mean that, taken out of that context, we can't enjoy it when it is done respectfully or voluntarily.
I think too much is made sometimes about the overall "message" that's being sent and the hidden meaning behind things when really, it's just a bunch of girls having a good time and enjoying looking sexy. So a few guys get off when the girls voluntarily and happily enjoy acting that way. What we need to be concerned about is the guys who get off when the girls aren't consenting, and preventing those who do consent from participating is not the answer. Teaching our boys to learn the difference is the answer and teaching our girls the ability to be clear on the difference will go a long way towards that.
Adult galleries
Date: 12/2/15 12:00 am (UTC)From: (Anonymous)http://camgirls.adultnet.in/?brief-athena
erotic fairs erotic adventure free adult film erotic prose