Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Music Fridays: Mother Nature Is An A$$hole Edition Previous entry: Feminists against fun? Not on my watch.

Evolving narratives on sexual orientation

LGBT

Igor Volsky at Think Progress examines whether or not Rick Perry's comparison of homosexuality to alcoholism will hurt him in the campaign.  I think it probably will---that kind of overt bigotry is becoming less acceptable by the hour lately.  Igor agrees, to an extent, saying that bigotry like this makes you look bad and distracts from economic issues, pointing out that it hurt Ken Buck in his bid for Senate in Colorado.  He adds:

Republican presidential candidates from Michele Bachmann to Mitt Romney continue to make offensive and homophobic remarks in debates and on the campaign trail, despite the public’s growing acceptance of gay people. It’s unlikely that these positions will resonate with a constituency beyond the party’s social conservative base, since, as Paul Thornton notes in today’s Los Angeles Times, “the radical ideas espoused by Bachmann, Perry, Santorum and others are [already] held up not for genuine consideration but for scorn.” “Perry’s and Bachmann’s views aren’t weighed against President Obama’s ‘evolving’ stance on same-sex marriage; rather, they are simply ridiculed. It says as much about our society as it does the candidates.” And if that’s the case, then Buck’s candidacy was the first in what may be a long line of Republican contenders who will pay a political price for their homophobia until they learn to accept and respect the LGBT community.

Here's what I find fascinating about all this: the "homosexuality is like alcoholism" thing actually came about because social conservatives are trying to sound more tolerant of gays.  It's actually an attempt to evade accusations of bigotry.  The old line was basically that gays are molesters and perverts who only do gay stuff because they're bad people.  The narrative is that gays are broken people with a disease, a compulsion---and that they need "help" to overcome it.  But the public saw through that attempt at revisionism as quickly as it was concocted.  

In fact, many conservatives have moved past even that and are trying to argue that they believe that sexual orientation is fixed and gay people deserve rights. They've retreated to arguing that opposition to marriage equality isn't discrimination at all, but somehow "protecting traditional marriage".  Again, their attempts to evade the label of "bigot" by cleaning up bigoted arguments isn't working. Each new move lasts a couple years, and then the public starts to see through the new gambit, as well.

Of course, the rates of progress vary by community.  I think the very far right is still stuck in the "gays are demons who snatch children" mode, the larger Christian right is in the "gays are sick people who need 'help'" phase, the "traditional marriage" coalition is collapsing since it was a last-ditch effort to retain inequality in more liberal areas, and people of moderate to liberal politics have accepted gay people and are moving on. 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 05:57 PM • (47) Comments

Perceptive observation.  Thanks.  BTW, I like Kinky Friedman, the author, I like Kinky Friedman, the animal activist, but I’m not that crazy about Kinky Friedman, the I-support-Perry-because-he’s-not-Obama idiot

Comment #1: ChrisNGP  on  08/25  at  06:29 PM

Opinions are changing fast.  Back in Clinton’s day, when DOMA was originally getting passed, the idea that a state would even consider legalizing gay marriage was somewhat novel.  Republicans could do the two-faced game where they said “I have no problem with anybody, gays included” in public and “Gays are horrid little abominations” in private, because there was no one challenging them with actual legislation.

Now Perry actually has to answer the question “What will you do if Congress tries to repeal / the SCOTUS overturns DOMA?” because this could really happen.

Unfortunately, I don’t really think its going to matter.  2012 is going to be Revenge Of The Economy, Stupid.  The GOP candidate isn’t going to touch social issues outside the primary because you’re not going to win independent, unemployed voters by gay bashing.  Everything is going to pivot to jobs and economic growth.

Comment #2: Zifnab  on  08/25  at  06:43 PM

  I thought the “idea” that homosexuality is a form of mental illness back to at least the late 19th century as a secular reason to persecute homosexuals once governments found it no longer possible to persecute on religious grounds. I think even liberal psychologists held that homosexuality was a mental illness until at least the mid-20th century.

Comment #3: Lee  on  08/25  at  07:20 PM

Here’s what I find fascinating about all this: the “homosexuality is like alcoholism” thing actually came about because social conservatives are trying to sound more tolerant of gays.  It’s actually an attempt to evade accusations of bigotry.

Just like “irresponsible poor” = “n*ggers”.

Comment #4: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/25  at  07:35 PM

“...people of moderate to liberal politics have accepted gay people and are moving on.”

Bought fucking time, too. Now we just have to get the hicks & Jesus freaks on board.

Comment #5: Mark  on  08/25  at  07:55 PM

. .. once governments found it no longer possible to persecute on religious grounds.

When did this happen?

Comment #6: rain  on  08/25  at  08:24 PM

If homosexuality is like alcoholism, does that mean I can have a little bit of gay sex and still remain straight, just as long as I don’t do too much of it?  I would call this an analogy fail, but this seems to be exactly what many conservative politicians believe, or at least practice.

Comment #7: bananacat  on  08/25  at  08:27 PM

@bananacat

I know you’re being sarcastic, but yes, some people do actually believe that. Just go on Craigslist sometime. You’ll see a lot of ads like this:

“I want a guy to have sex with me, BUT NO QUEERS, ok? Just STRAIGHT guys to have sex with me! A straight guy, cause I’m straight too, NOT GAY, but I want sex with a straight guy!”

Comment #8: Ben D.  on  08/25  at  08:31 PM

I’ll just add that the urge to drink alcohol isn’t a basic human desire, while the desire for sex very much is. That’s where the analogy really fails.

Comment #9: Ben D.  on  08/25  at  08:35 PM

A straight guy, cause I’m straight too, NOT GAY, but I want sex with a straight guy!”

“I’m not gay, but I think the guy sucking my cock may be…”

Comment #10: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/25  at  09:40 PM

@PIATOR

Exactly. That’s the twisted logic in a nutshell.

Comment #11: Ben D.  on  08/25  at  09:49 PM

I think it will hurt him because when he equates homosexuality with alcoholism he is effectively calling a good chunk of his base a bunch of faggots.

Comment #12: chuckling  on  08/25  at  10:12 PM

  rain at 6: I’m generally thinking of how the governments in the 19th century penalized homosexuality in the 19th century. Even countries with a state religion, 19th century governments tended to need more than its against the Bible as a reason to punish homosexuality under the criminal laws. Labeling it as deviant and a type of illness was the justification used if I am remembering history correctly.

Comment #13: Lee  on  08/25  at  10:18 PM

Ben D.: Considering the amount of efforts humans placed in creating various forms of alcohol, I really think you need to reconsider that point. A life without sex or beer is pretty dreadful.

Comment #14: Lee  on  08/25  at  10:21 PM

re 8, 10: The eternal Onion article about this is http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,11150/ , but it almost isn’t satire because Dan Savage gets questions that sound exactly like this.

Comment #15: Dan Watson  on  08/25  at  10:35 PM

As a gay man, I’ve had too many experiences with self-defined “liberals” and “progressives”, let alone god-botherers and the like to change my opinion that for a vast majority of heterosexuals true acceptance of homosexuality is about as deep as the puddle out in front of my apartment building that I stepped over tonight on the way in.

It’s all very contingent for gay men: IF you look a certain way; IF you act a certain way; IF your idea of relationships fit a certain model.  I’m not effeminate, so I’m able to “pass” but if your wrist is as limp as a noodle, uh oh.  If you don’t camp it up or do obviously “gay things” like care about fashion or obsess over female pop stars, fine, but dress or sound like Kurt on Glee, uh oh.  If you want to ape heterosexual marriages, especially if it means moving to the ‘burbs so your 2.5 children “can get in to a good school” fine but if you think (like me) that humans aren’t meant to be exclusively together forever and ever and ever, that that’s a dead end and that open relationships are the way to go, uh oh.

I started studying gay issues ca. 1975, when I was 15.  In the early days of gay liberation, there was a faction that saw a very strong linkage between feminism and gay rights, an idea that simply doesn’t exist very much any more.  The idea was that at its root, anti-gay feelings (I loathe the term homophobia) were based on two ideas 1) that gay men are women in men’s bodies and 2) that buttsex wasn’t so much about a fear of getting a penis rammed up your bunghole, but that by being a bottom, you became subservient in the sex act, a woman, which was one step above being a non-person. 

I work with a guy who’s a textbook liberal, but about 2 weeks ago, out of the blue, he said “Why aren’t you gays satisfied with civil unions, why do you have to get married”.  I patiently explained that there’s 1300 rights he and his wife got the second their marriage was legal and that the vast majority of them don’t transfer to civil unions, that important things like hospital visitation, inheritance law and so on are a bundle of laws that are trumped by state-sanctioned marriage but are easily denied to people in “civil unions”.  Most gay men of a certain age like me know of horror stories of a partner in a couple dying and the family that the dead partner had shunned for 20 years suddenly showing up and (legally) being able to claim everything, leaving the living partner destitute.  Cue the blank looks. 

Or there’s an old (straight) friend from high school who would rather eat raw sewage than ever vote for a Republican, who wonders why we gays “flaunt it”, why do we have to announce being gay all the time?  “So, the last 5 minutes I’ve sat here and listened to you babble on and on about shit that you and your wife have been doing since we last saw each other ISN’T you flaunting your heterosexuality?  Riding in a car with you and having you whistle at some woman in a short skirt on the sidewalk ISN’T flaunting your heterosexuality”? Cue the blank looks.

Sure, most of it is unexamined privilege, but damn it’s worn me out in the 36 years I’ve been out.  I’m sick of having to explain shit over and over to straight people who would react very strongly to even the merest hint that they aren’t 100% on board with the gay rights thing.

Comment #16: Henry Holland  on  08/25  at  11:49 PM

I think that the source of the “homosexuality addiction” is not actually a cynical re-branding but a genuine delusion on the part of the “ex-gay” movement. This doesn’t excuse them, but it’s important to understand that they actually believe that addiction to alcohol or narcotics is 100% analogous to healthy sexual desires.

Here’s a helpful article about the phenomenon from Utne: http://bit.ly/qYFTMs
(and I also wrote a blog post about it- http://bit.ly/n3rIzw)

Comment #17: zyxek  on  08/25  at  11:55 PM

“I’m not gay, but I think the guy sucking my cock may be…”

That’s the standard prison definition. The logic is actually there, if you think about it; the top isn’t doing anything that your average heterosexual male wouldn’t be doing with a woman. It’s the other participant who’s doing things (well, having things done to him, usually) that wouldn’t occur to the male during plain old vanilla straight sex.

To put it bluntly, the tops are treating the bottoms like animated sex dolls.

Comment #18: KeithM  on  08/26  at  12:14 AM

“but if you think (like me) that humans aren’t meant to be exclusively together forever and ever and ever, that that’s a dead end and that open relationships are the way to go, uh oh. “

Yup. If only one type of relationship works for you, then obviously that means only that works for everyone. Anyone who disagrees is just deluded. Just like the fact that I’m straight means gay guys like you are only kidding themselves.

Might want to rethink that bit of logic.

Comment #19: Roivas  on  08/26  at  12:17 AM

Clearly, we’ve all misunderstood Perry. Since not many people on the right want to bring back prohibition, he’s saying that homosexuality is like alcoholism in that a little bit of gay sex is fine, but you don’t want to be turning to the same old bottle/man-butt every time you need to have fun. Everything in moderation!

 

Comment #20: Treefinger  on  08/26  at  12:23 AM

Just like “irresponsible poor” = “n*ggers”.

The analogy is fitting. Here’s what I see happening with regard to the GOP’s stance on gay rights in the coming decades: they’ll start claiming that they aren’t, and never were, homophobes; they’ll make elaborately incoherent arguments about how liberals are the real homophobes; and they’ll let a few token gay people into the upper ranks of the party, with dog-whistled comments to the effect that these gay people are the “good ones,” while liberal gay people are horrible sinners who aren’t really gay but are just rebelling against their parents or something.

Comment #21: Triplanetary  on  08/26  at  12:59 AM

Also they’ll latch onto gay people who berate other gay people for being all in your face and actually demanding civil rights. Much the same way conservatives today latch onto Bill Cosby.

Comment #22: Triplanetary  on  08/26  at  01:01 AM

Although obviously tending to be more socially liberal, you can see how it happened in Canada. In the six years since the national legalization of same sex marriage…no one really gives a shit. The churches (the ones that were opposed) realized no one was forcing or suing them to perform the ceremonies, so largely quit whining. The social conservatives, even the ones most vocally against it, have largely written off the issue, and even with a Conservative majority government no one seriously expects it to come up, mainly because they realize the public has moved on.

Comment #23: KeithM  on  08/26  at  01:06 AM

Here’s what I see happening with regard to the GOP’s stance on gay rights in the coming decades: they’ll start claiming that they aren’t, and never were, homophobes; they’ll make elaborately incoherent arguments about how liberals are the real homophobes; and they’ll let a few token gay people into the upper ranks of the party, with dog-whistled comments to the effect that these gay people are the “good ones,” while liberal gay people are horrible sinners who aren’t really gay but are just rebelling against their parents or something.

Right.

They’re not racists either - why, they have blacks in high positions and it’s liberals who are the real racists for trying to make the comparison.  They’re simply against cadillac driving welfare queens and the kind of irresponsible poor who have children out of wedlock and don’t get college degrees - and if many of them happen to be black, well, that’s just one of those things.

Comment #24: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/26  at  01:20 AM

Damn Henry, that’s a cynical view. Not saying you’re not entitled to it having lived as a gay man your whole life but don’t you think straight folk under 30 are different in their approach. (I’m a bit over thirty myself but I think most people younger than me really have it together on this issue)

Comment #25: typist  on  08/26  at  03:36 AM

@typist

I don’t think so. Unless you hang around solely with other people who were raised to be smart and are into online progressivism (with a focus on feminism), you will encounter straight-up homophobes and well-meaning privileged liberals in the under-30 crowd with regularity. Considering the closest people to a subversion of this I know (that are straight), most still have a bunch of heterosexist and anti-femme presumptions. The only places I can reasonably expect to encounter straight people who have their shit together about it are online.

Also, the kind of thing Henry is talking about is still extremely rife in the gay community itself (esp. gay male), and has passed down to the new generation. Rampant biphobia, transphobia, femme-phobia and gender-policing can be found on websites and real-world gay communities.

What Amanda, etc. is right about is that the new generation is full of people who wouldn’t legally vote against most legislation that benefits the queer community. We have reached a point where overt types of homophobia, like the ones detailed in the post, don’t fly with the majority of young people, and it’s uncool to be openly and actively anti-gay. The progress is measurable but the amount of cultural homophobia that still exists is staggering and depressing.

Comment #26: Treefinger  on  08/26  at  04:54 AM

“legally vote”? Well, you know what I was trying to say: take legal action against queer people for being queer.

Comment #27: Treefinger  on  08/26  at  04:56 AM

“I’m not gay, but I think the guy sucking my cock may be…”

A more amusing variant I heard on “The Mary Whitehouse Experience”:

Biologiocally, there is no difference between the inside of a man’s mouth and a woman’s mouth

Comment #28: James  on  08/26  at  08:08 AM

Damn Henry, that’s a cynical view. Not saying you’re not entitled to it having lived as a gay man your whole life but don’t you think straight folk under 30 are different in their approach.

In my experience, it’s hard to find a single person of any age these days who will express any open disapproval of you when you come out to them. The nastiest, most ranting homophobes can and will suddenly turn into flag-waving allies when they find out you’re gay. But once in a while they lose their composure, the mask slips, and the nastiness comes spilling out. Other, slightly less rabid specimens will stick to naive questions about why gays want to get married so badly and why all “real” lesbians are fat and/or ugly. But one thing none of them will do is calmly and openly disapprove of gays to an actual gay person’s face.

Comment #29: junk science  on  08/26  at  09:26 AM

Lee @ 13:
That offers nothing to support your contention that “governments found it no longer possible to persecute on religious grounds.”

From one review of Graham Robb’s Strangers, “With the fin de siecle advances made in psychology and psychiatry, Robb argues that science strove either to ‘treat’ and/or eradicate this deviation from the Victorian world.”

It doesn’t follow that psychiatry and psychology were used *because* the old reason (the Bible says it’s wrong) was no longer enough on its own.  I don’t see anything to suggest that, absent the “advances” in these fields, the laws criminalizing homosexuality would have been repealed.  The justifications provided by psychiatry buttressed the biblical argument, but no, governments did not “need more” than the Bible.

Actually, I’m not sure governments would need more than the Bible even today.  Seven US states still have laws against cohabitation, and is there any justification (or rationalization) other than the Bible says it’s fornication and wrong?

Comment #30: rain  on  08/26  at  09:38 AM

In the early days of gay liberation, there was a faction that saw a very strong linkage between feminism and gay rights, an idea that simply doesn’t exist very much any more.  The idea was that at its root, anti-gay feelings (I loathe the term homophobia) were based on two ideas 1) that gay men are women in men’s bodies and 2) that buttsex wasn’t so much about a fear of getting a penis rammed up your bunghole, but that by being a bottom, you became subservient in the sex act, a woman, which was one step above being a non-person.

I have a friend who is closer to Amandas’ age than you or I(I’m a year younger than you, Henry).

He and I have discussed the matter of homosexuals in society.  We came to the conclusion
that acknowledging homosexuality in the open in a society makes sex-out-of-wedlock more acceptable for men and women(thus, sexual liberation, although that concept is almost dead after being born more than 40 years ago), and that they make society interesting because of their contribution to the arts and sciences of our society.

Another conclusion we came to is that any heterosexual male who has “problems” with homosexuals probably has a noodle in their strudel, as with your acquaintance who thinks gays should settle for ‘civil unions’ instead of being given the right to marry whom they please.

Comment #31: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  08/26  at  09:50 AM

@29:

Certainly. The most blatant homophobes’ presumption is that they don’t actually know any gay people, or even if they do they’re sure nobody they’re talking to right now is like that. ^_^ Reminds me of a news story I read a couple years back (no way I’d find it now) where some anti-gay-marriage advocate was profiled as he walked around in public telling people to vote against gay marriage. He talked to two women who turned out to be a lesbian couple, and naturally they called him on his bigotry. Afterward, he said to the reporter, “I didn’t mean to upset them. I’m a nice guy.”

No, you’re not a nice guy, you just avoid actually meeting the targets of your bigotry as much as possible so that you can feel like a nice guy.

Comment #32: Triplanetary  on  08/26  at  10:00 AM

I don’t think so. Unless you hang around solely with other people who were raised to be smart and are into online progressivism (with a focus on feminism)

No but I do live on the north side of Chicago and am a college educated middle class artistic person so those are all biases in the direction of hanging out with non-homophobic people I think.

Comment #33: typist  on  08/26  at  11:14 AM

Unfortunately, I don’t really think its going to matter.  2012 is going to be Revenge Of The Economy, Stupid.  The GOP candidate isn’t going to touch social issues outside the primary because you’re not going to win independent, unemployed voters by gay bashing.  Everything is going to pivot to jobs and economic growth.

I think this is mostly right. Ken Buck certainly wasn’t helped by his public comments about gays, but the reason he lost was mostly because that state Republican party had a craptastic year with all kinds of scandals that pulled the whole ticket down and the national Democratic Party poured a shit-ton of money into the race to help Bennet keep his seat. So, I’m happy that that bigotry wasn’t rewarded, and I’m happy that it’s possible to use his extreme views in attack ads against him. But there still is a lot of other stuff that goes into who wins the election.

Comment #34: chingona  on  08/26  at  11:15 AM

About 12 or 13 years ago, I wrote a paper for a “current issues” class with this argument—that being gay was like being an alcoholic because although it might have a genetic component, you didn’t have to act on it.  I was 17 or so, stupid, and living in a town in the middle of the Dakotas.  I didn’t even know that I knew people who were gay. 

Fortunately, I’ve grown up since then. 

 

Comment #35: Karinna A.  on  08/26  at  11:18 AM

This isn’t really so much a redefinition as an attempt to make judgment sound like compassion, and it dovetails with a fundamental belief of conservatives that all behavior except for breathing is chosen, that there are good choices and bad choices, and that society should not accommodate or insulate people from the consequences of bad choices.  Yes, I limited the unchosen behaviors to breathing - there’s some wacky fundy crap out there involving toilet training that doesn’t simply border on child abuse, but actually crosses over that border and homesteads there.  This is the thread that binds homophobia, forced birth, and their attitude towards the poor.  If one’s proclivities compel one towards bad choices, the answer is not accommodation, but more self-control.  Thus, sex isn’t a basic human need or activity.  Instead, it’s chosen behavior, and there is a good and proper place for it, i.e. in the confines of a heterosexual marriage.  Doing it outside of that confine is a bad choice and not one that society should tolerate.  And if that means you live your life as a lie or are miserable, well, just remember that dude who was nailed to a tree because he suffered way worse than you did. 

Comment #36: jeevmon  on  08/26  at  11:25 AM

Conservatives don’t believe that religion is chosen.

Comment #37: Punditus Maximus  on  08/26  at  12:23 PM

@37

Sure they do. They believe that they were smart enough to recognize which religion was the One True Religion, conveniently ignoring the fact that the vast majority of them were raised Christian.

Comment #38: Triplanetary  on  08/26  at  12:45 PM

Another conclusion we came to is that any heterosexual male who has “problems” with homosexuals probably has a noodle in their strudel, as with your acquaintance who thinks gays should settle for ‘civil unions’ instead of being given the right to marry whom they please.

Er, not quite.  The ones with the real noodles in their strudel are the ones who obsessively and loudly put down the mechanics of homosexual sex or homosexual attraction, making everyone within earshot know that, for example, they are absolutely, positively not interested in the tight little buns on that faggy singer…

Comment #39: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/26  at  01:15 PM

The one with the earring and the make up?

Comment #40: helen w. h.  on  08/26  at  01:41 PM

You’re not fooling anyone, Mr. Garrison.

Comment #41: Jayn Newell  on  08/26  at  02:06 PM

@40 I’ll have you know he’s a millionaire.

Comment #42: Quinapalus  on  08/26  at  02:33 PM

Yup. If only one type of relationship works for you, then obviously that means only that works for everyone. [snip] Might want to rethink that bit of logic

Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it? In the context of that paragraph, where am I saying “that means only that works for everyone”? I was making simple binary statements, not a grand sweeping pronouncement. Plus, as I pointed out, what I wrote was a pretty common attitude in the early post-Stonewall years.

Damn Henry, that’s a cynical view. Not saying you’re not entitled to it having lived as a gay man your whole life but don’t you think straight folk under 30 are different in their approach. (I’m a bit over thirty myself but I think most people younger than me really have it together on this issue)

Sure, there’s a generational change, just as my 80 year old mom’s casual racism (i.e. refusing to say “black” even, let alone “African-American”, they’re simply “coloreds”) is unacceptable now, but it’s waaaaaay overrated, the idea of “Well, once the dinosaurs over 40 are dead, it’ll be cool”.  Who do you think commits almost all gay bashings, people who are 68? No, it’s overwhelmingly teens/young adults who commit heinous crimes like the awful situation with Marcellus Andrews in Iowa.  It’s all very regional as well, I guarantee you that I can travel an hour in any direction from my apartment near downtown Los Angeles, to blights like Palmdale or Oxnard or southern Orange County and there’s not a lot of difference between those places and a stereotypical place like Georgia. 

Also, the kind of thing Henry is talking about is still extremely rife in the gay community itself (esp. gay male), and has passed down to the new generation. Rampant biphobia, transphobia, femme-phobia and gender-policing can be found on websites and real-world gay communities

Perfectly said.  Some of the worst “you’re not one of us” moments I’ve ever had were at gay bars or parties.  When I came out in 1985 I jumped feet first in to the gay community, went to bars, meetings, the G&L Center in Hollywood.  I’ll never get over the absolutely *brutal* treatment I got at some of those places because I didn’t look like a twink or because I liked Metallica more than Madonna or because I genuinely liked sports (and not just the butts on the athletes), wouldn’t have known who Yves Saint Laurent was if he was standing in front of me etc. *shudder*

The progress is measurable but the amount of cultural homophobia that still exists is staggering and depressing

Totally agree with that.

Comment #43: Henry Holland  on  08/26  at  07:05 PM

@42: He had his own jet airplane too, until Obama’s Job Killing Taxes killed it…

Comment #44: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/27  at  04:07 AM

yeah, helen, that’s his own hair.

Comment #45: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  08/27  at  04:22 AM

But we’ve got appliances to move now….

Comment #46: helen w. h.  on  08/29  at  10:43 AM

And more news on the noodle in the strudel front…

“Fag, fag, FAG!  Hey, anyone want a picture of my asshole?”

Comment #47: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/29  at  04:35 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.