This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I extend to people the presumption that if they are engaging in the discussion, they have at least looked at the most salient examples of the topic, and so stating that I have “actually looked” at the examples could only be read as a veiled accusation that the other person hasn’t.
———
It’s a blowjob, dude. It’s erotica by its very nature. It shouldn’t be in the public library. Again I stand on the null hypothesis that until very recently, essentially every library in America agreed with me, and it is the change that has to be justified.
That being said, you bring up a good point. Flowers in the Attic and Gor shouldn’t have been in your school library. It shouldn’t have been in mine.
The sewage was already lapping around our ankles when we were kids, but that’s no excuse for letting things get worse. And yes, on the way back to having no metaphorical sewage flowing through our intellectual and spiritual lives, we have to pump the sewer back down to just around our waists, and then our knees, and our ankles, and so forth.
There are things that can be sexual but not pornographic, but those things are, culturally, well prior to Playboy.
Sex acts aren't inherently "erotica." The idea that no library books ever depicted sex acts (visually or textually) before Gender Queer is false.
TIL that should I ever venture onto Pornhub, all the videos will be about cleaning the grout in your bathroom, weeding the garden, the precise temperature at which your roast is perfectly cooked, and giving that mucky wall a good scrub.
Good to know!
I am a tiny bit confuzzled about "it's only a drawing of a blowjob so it's not, you know, erotic" but then that's because I am not ten years old today, and can't parse out "this is someone trying to have sex in line with a particular sexual fantasy but please read it like it's a medical description in a textbook and not about sexy times" from "this is a depiction of sexy times".
Or, to quote Field & Stream,
Rather like Branch Cabell's Jurgen - why no, prurient minded reviewer, all the passages about Jurgen labouring mightily in the night time with a lady friend on mysterious symbolic tasks are not about sex, how could you think that? (Reader, it was about sex). Suffers from being too clever-clever - if you're going to write fantasy, even satiric fantasy, it has to be less heavy-handed. Reading it today, it's hard slogging because the author cannot help but nudge you in the ribs every so often about "do you get it? do you? huh?"
I tried to read Jurgen once, because it was supposed to be this towering fantasy masterpiece, and the title of Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice was a reference to it.
I bounced off it. Didn't care for it, didn't see what was so great about it. And I recall the language being too affectedly old-fashioned for a twentieth-century work.
Same here. I think part of its reputation was the perception of "he's talking about sex and this is driving the prudes nuts, tee-hee!" and part of it was "well ackshully proper fantasy is not that stupid black-and-white morality Tolkien nonsense, it's high-brow literary fantasy (that talks about sex and drives the prudes nuts, tee-hee!)".
If you want high brow literary fantasy you go for E.R.R. Eddison (who is frustrating and amazing at once). I think Cabell just hit the particular period (the 20s) that had a craze for historical/mythological, wry, satirical fantasy writing that sort of smirked at the reader in complicity ('you and I are both so smart, we know what's really going on don't we?') For example the Kai Lung novels of Ernest Bramah which are unreadable so far as I'm concerned (and which today would be excoriated for racism, which is unfair; Bramah was not trying to write about real China or real Chinese people, but the willow-pattern plate China version). They were wildly popular and all sorts of people loved them, Dorothy Sayers in at least one of her novels has Lord Peter and Harriet swapping quotations.
(Bramah also wrote the Max Carrados stories which are much better as Edwardian detective stories and still have a niche to this day).
But those who really disliked Tolkien (as, famously, Edmund Wilson in his essay Oo Those Awful Orcs hated it) loved Cabell instead:
Yeah, no. There's a reason we have a trilogy of movies based on The Lord of the Rings and nobody, to my knowledge, has ever tried making a movie out of Jurgen ("men like sexy women in theory as an ideal but can't live with real women, so they spend their lives chasing after the unattainable Perfect Woman happy in the knowledge there is no danger of them ever catching her, when they would then have to live an ordinary life with her, but it's the perfect excuse for ditching their wives and having a string of casual sex affairs" doesn't really make for a box office success).
I disagree vehemently with the late Ursula Le Guin on her politics and pretty much everything else, but she was a fine writer and she wasn't ashamed of "fantasy is only for kids not Real Serious Adults":
Tell me what you think about Wilson, Ursula:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Erotica is meant to arouse. It's meant to be erotic. Obviously porn is erotica. But not all naked pictures are porn, IMO.
With the caveat that literally everything is "erotica" to someone, I have a hard time imagining anyone finding the specific scene we're talking about in Gender Queer arousing or stimulating, and it seems pretty obvious to me that that was not its intent. You can take issue with all kinds of things (like its suitability for children), but I think a lot of people are performatively clutching pearls about kids reading about sex.
Well, if depictions of a sexual fantasy are not meant to be arousing (and the author is trying to show that for her it was arousing as a fantasy, whatever it was like in reality) then to quote Gilbert and Sullivan "Why, what a most particularly pure young man this pure young man must be!”
Have you read the page in question? Did it strike you as erotic? Did it strike you as something meant to be arousing? Did you look at that panel and think it's something a teen is likely to jerk off to, or that the author thought of it as something to jerk off to? Because to me, it looked more like teens trying out a "sex fantasy" that turns out to be weird and ridiculous and completely unarousing, which was the point of that sequence. But maybe it did something different for you. I'll take your word for it.
Oh, very little written or drawn porn or erotica does much for me, given my own tendencies. But I think the page does present the fantasy as erotic/arousing, this is how the author imagined it would go in her/his sexual fantasy, and few people imagine sexual fantasies that are weird and ridiculous and completely unarousing. The contrast is the point here, and if you're going to say "image of fantasy is meh, image of reality is meh", then that point is lost: "I thought it would be sexy and cool, but in reality it turned out to be weird and awkward and a turn-off".
In the drawn image of the fantasy, the author is imagining she has a genuine, flesh, penis being sucked by the girlfriend/boyfriend. In reality, it's a pink plastic strap-on with a harness over her underwear. The former is the erotic fantasy of the author in her daydreams, the latter is how it was when she tried it for real. If both images are "well this isn't a turn-on for anyone", then they're both pointless and don't need to be included.
Note that the set of those people and the target audience for the book overlap nearly completely. Everyone else is either busy having sex or browsing nhentai (which is just as bad, according to traditionalists, but their understanding of human sexuality is just as malformed as it is for the self-proclaimed queers).
Yes, but the fact that they're both drawn the same way is the main reason I criticize the book in the first place! It's the story of a woman who bought right into Orthodoxy-Approved sex, rejected it (because it was stupid), "but hey, at least it's not straight sex amirite".
If this author actually wanted to promote queer sex, which she doesn't (and 'queer' in this sense, and more generally in usage of that label post-Tumblr, is just 'women who want an excuse not to have sex with men'), I'd expect it to be pushing top of the charts on [insert your favorite drawn porn site here]. But it isn't, and that is why.
So the reason I'm against it being in libraries is that it's a bad piece of literature that fails to do what it sets out to- which is the mistake theory version of why it's bad, not conflict theory coming from [people who also don't understand sex but no longer have the institutional power to force their misunderstandings onto everyone else].
It's the woke version of a Chick tract, really. Art's just as ugly, too.
We can both agree, then, that this kind of thing shouldn't be in school libraries, whatever about public libraries? I mean, yeah, it is propaganda which is the only reason it's even on the lists of the cat-eye glasses wearing library ladies in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure they are. We can do this all day.
Not once have I argued this. You brought in the question of text. I’m not sure who you’re arguing with right now.
What I have argued and will continue to argue is that there is a constant churn of Cthulhu swimming left, towards greater and greater degradation of the commons. Today it’s someone defending cutesy drawings of blowjobs in library books that librarians push or market towards young teens or tweens, 10 or 20 years from now it’ll be someone defending librarians pushing kids towards cutesy drawings of some author’s autobiographical exploration of the first time they let their dog fuck them. Maybe sooner! Things are moving fast.
Maybe that will be too much for you, or maybe it won’t, maybe you’ll continue to say, “Well, I read Gor in the school library when I was a kid, and I remember the Gender Queer arguments on the Motte (PBUI) and the kinds of assholes who took the counter-argument to me, so this is fine also.”
Or maybe you’ll find your grandkid reading it in the library’s booknook and you’ll be appalled. I don’t know. But your current arguments are toothless to me because my stance is that Gor in the school library was already too much.
We are merely having the discussion about Gender Queer because that is where the current battlefield starts. Unfortunately, from my point of view.
I agree with the pattern you observe (but I have mixed feelings over whether it is a bad thing), and I also find it very annoying that normie progressives simultaeneously show radical acceptance towards the thing of [current year] and hostile disgust towards the stuff that hasn't yet been normalised.
But I believe that: a) In the specific case of gender queer, it is not happening b) When it does happen (now or in the future), it's not that bad.
And if that does happen in the future, that would also not necessarily be erotica. It's not about whether you, personally, find the lifestyle choices being proselytised gross or icky - the question is "does this work attempt to convey complex ideas and emotions that provoke the reader to think?" (or in the other direction - "would anyone want to read this work with both hands outside of their pants?")
I can easily imagine a serious piece of literature being written on this topic, in the style of "Gender Queer":
And yes, we can play this game again for any other "degenerate" aspect of human sexuality that also currently lies to the left of the Overton window (pedophillia, necrophillia, vore, etc)
Why is it so terribly awful for children to be exposed to actual erotica? (I am now moving onto point b - I maintain that Gender Queer is not erotica) My school library did not stock "Gor", but it did stock an adult fantasy novel, whose last half was a thinly-veiled femdom porn fantasy:
The actual book is even more sexualised than even this account would suggest (his "training" spans many pages) - I recall the "Mord-Sith" telling the protagonist to focus on her latex-clad breasts to avoid the pain of the Agiel (it can read the
submissive'svictim's thoughts, and hurts them when they think bad things about thedommeMord-Sith), another Mord-Sith who is implied to castrate her "pets", and another still who actually makes them communicate in barks and go on "walks" with her through the town naked, collared and on all-fours.As a pre-teen, I did indeed find this "confusing" (I was not aware that it was supposed to be erotic, so I wondered if there was something seriously wrong with me for finding graphic descriptions of "torture" arousing), and I remember feeling deeply ashamed about my enjoyment of the book and all the fantasies I had that were inspired by the book. And now... I'm an adult - and nothing bad happened. I don't have some kind of PTSD, I understand that was just a fantasy written by a horny guy (and Denna is not an accurate representation of female sexuality), I didn't develop an irrational fear/hatred towards women because I associate them with Denna, etc. Reading this synopsis of the book now, I can only laugh at how silly and over-the-top the whole thing was in retrospect.
This was not a good thing (as in, I'm not going to encourage any future children I have to read TWFR so they can experience what I experienced) - but in retrospect, this seems to be on a similar level of badness to the long list of other minor things that made my teenage years less than storybook.
But going back to point (a) - I think it's borderline even whether something like TWFR counts as "erotica" (the first half was just a normal fantasy novel, with mature themes, and the book did seriously explore the idea of being tortured - the Mord-Siths were not dominatrices, the torture depicted was very real and non-consensual, with blood and genuine agony)
Gender Queer is nowhere close to this border. Having skimmed the book, it totals 240 pages, of which there are exactly 2 short scenes that are of a sexual nature (the strap-on blowjob mentioned by the media, and also a medical exam showing the author naked without any scenery censor) - all of the remaining pages are just ordinary comic book drawings with pro-LGBT storylines and perspectives.
It is a reasonable position to be against titles like Gender Queer on the basis that you are against their underlying message, and do not want to normalise pursuing sexually deviant lifestyles (especially not to impressionable young children) - as I said at the start of the comment, I also have mixed feelings over the LGBTQ+ movement. But I think it is completely unreasonable to object on the grounds that works like these are pornographic (because they aren't)
CREW: A Weeding Manual for Modern Libraries
Bolded for the part that gets as explicit as possible, but of course most of the other criteria are easy to apply as well. I'm familiar with the general argument you're making, but I'm also aware that this is not how libraries actually work, and I decline to be a rube.
I am not claiming that this is the criteria libraries use in real life to decide what is allowed on their shelves (I will join you in not being a rube here), or even that it should be the criteria they use.
I'm arguing that this is the criteria for whether something is erotica or not, and that it's disingenuous to call Gender Queer "erotica" and deny the fact that it does indeed attempt to convey complex ideas and emotions (albeit ideas that offend some people's sensibilities, and whose spread may well be damaging to society)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Okay, but using your own personal definitions and saying "Nuh uh" isn't much of an argument.
Maybe so, though I am unconvinced by arguments that have been made basically since Roman times about the degradation of morals and the corruption of the youth.
I wouldn't have any heartburn about prohibiting Gender Queer from school libraries, but public libraries (which are meant to serve adults as well as children, and which can impose age restrictions on certain books) do not need to cater to your personal preferred level of acceptability.
Likewise, your arguments are toothless to me, because I don't know anyone who turned into a degenerate because they read spicy genre fiction as a kid. I am not saying there is no line, but the line is always going to be fuzzy and negotiable and subjective. You are afraid I'd be okay with exposing children to bestiality; I am afraid you'd like to censor anything that would raise a maiden aunt's eyebrows in 1890. You're right that this is where the battlefield is, however much I personally find Gender Queer offputting (and inappropriate for pre-teens).
I actually agree with you on this. It seems that, if I'm interpreting @BreakerofHorsesandMen correctly, anything outside of the most saccharine, banal works would be banned. Does description of child abuse warrant censure? How about descriptions of warfare or violence? Where does the line stop exactly? It seems that trying to ban things based off on their "appropriateness" to different age ranges is an inherently moral/political question.
However, I have to disagree with you here. It's well documented that watching too much porn can induce transsexuality or autogynephilia at least. I'd also argue that in terms of how well slippery-scope applies, sexuality is one context in which it best applies. Reading spicy genre fiction can easily lead to reading more hardcore fiction, which can in turn lead to joining adjacent online circles/forums/tumblrs that if not encourage, at least implicitly validate non-standard sexual behaviors and identities. Just see cracking-the-egg in trans spaces, or the public and shameless speculation on and encouragement for identifying as gay for anyone who even seems to be gay; see the anger when it comes to "queer-baiting".
Really, I believe the above is the crux of the argument. On one side, you have people who rightly believe that these works of art encourage or at least lower the activation energy of acceptance, so to speak, for sexual identities and behaviors that they perceive to be disordered or morally incorrect. On the other side, you have people who believe that not only are those sexual identifies and behaviors not disordered or morally incorrect, but should actively be accepted and encouraged in society; so, those works of art that can help to either cause people to tolerate those sexual identities or incorporate them into their person should be, in their view, not only permitted, but disseminated.
In Thomas Sowell terms, it's a conflict of visions.
I'd argue that you could actually make an empirical decision on which specific sexual identities are disordered or not based on empirical material outcomes, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.
Accepting that this is possible (I suspect there's more to it than someone coming across the wrong kind of porn at an impressionable age), obviously media affects people, especially children. This should be pretty obvious, but we fight about it because this can be interpreted as "watching too much porn can induce transsexuality or autogynephilia," "Reading spicy genre fiction is a slippery slope to degeneracy," "violent video games turns kids into mass shooters," etc. There are things I think kids should not watch or read and those things might not necessarily be just graphic sex or violence.
So I don't really disagree with your thesis, but I will repeat mine that this is a sliding and negotiable scale. Of course we should control/monitor what media children consume (and parents should be able to make individual decisions for their children). But inevitably parents who want more censorship are going to come into conflict with parents who want less, especially in common spaces. You should be able to prohibit your kid from reading Gender Queer - should you be able to prohibit mine? Libraries are one of those places where we're going to come into conflict, because it's a commons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's actually a strap-on. And neither of the characters finds it sexy. The scene is meant to be awkward.
Confused teens not even knowing how to fuck might be gross but it doesn't strike me as erotica.
I am well aware it’s a strap-on. The facing page in the book in question specifically refers to the act as a blowjob.
I quote:
This writing is erotica.
IMO that's still missing the point. They were excited about it and tried to do it and found out it was awkward and disturbing rather than exciting. Like the same panel and the next several:
"I can't feel anything"
"This was much hotter when it was only in my imagination"
"Hey Z... let's try something else"
In thought balloons: "But now that I've had sex a few times I'm not sure I really need any more. Trying to get off in front of someone is kind of weird."
"I think when I do orgasm, it's not because of my body but in spite of it"
They were clearly acting out roles assigned to them by others and by media. If anything it was saying "putting on a strap-on and sucking it isn't what being queer is about"
To me this is practically anti-erotica. It's like reading about asexual people describing PIV sex as rubbing their elbows together.
It’s about a kid growing up not feeling feminine, struggling to fit into pre-built sexual and gender roles, experimenting, and ultimately realizing she's asexual and nonbinary.
It's definitionally unsexy as a whole.
Sure, but do we really need drawings of it, and not the character as she (or he, if we're being correct in our terminology) thinking about the experience, what he expected, and how that was different from reality?
This is the fundamental division here between the two sides: one set thinks "no, a depiction of a sexual act in a book for teenagers that will be in a school library is not appropriate" and the other set thinks "this isn't sexy like porn, it's fine".
The recommended reading age, looking it up, is for 14-15/15 and up. But will younger kids be able to access it? What's fine for a 15 year old may not be appropriate for a 12 year old, and that's part of the whole fight. Unless the librarians are ensuring younger kids can't get the book, and it doesn't seem like this particular group feels they should be engaging in what they perceive as censorship, then parents can't be sure their kids aren't accessing inappropriate material.
And that's the other part of the fight: what parents think they should be able to decide is appropriate for their kids, versus what the school or school board thinks is okay. Just saying that hey, kids have always sneaked around and gotten into stuff they shouldn't have at that age isn't good enough. Kids might be sneaking drinks at home out of the parents' liquor cabinet, but do we want schools handing out shots of whiskey to 12 (or 15) year olds on the grounds that "they're gonna do it anyway, might as well do it in a safe environment"?
"Oh hey, it wasn't whiskey, it was wine or an alcopop" isn't that much better as justification.
I think so. It's a graphic memoir.
Let me just dump some assorted background opinions that will probably offend approximately everyone, unintentionally.
So, yeah, I don't consider the awkward sex acts in Gender Queer pornographic or erotic. But I also am not that concerned about the risk even if some kids just flip through it to look for the dick scene and don't ever read a single word.
I'm fine with a school library stocking it for teenagers, but I'd be shocked if they were happily letting 8 or 9 year olds take it out and read it.
Yeah, I think it's the age-appropriate as well as every thing else. There's not going to be much middle ground between parents who don't want their kids exposed to this kind of material in school, without their parental consent, and without them introducing (or not) such topics on their own schedule, and school teachers/staff/administration who want to show off how liberal and open-minded and "We don't censor books here" they are.
I think it would be a safe bet that such "we don't censor books here" types, who like to participate in Banned Books
Daysorry, it's now an entire Week, wouldn't stock a copy of, say, The Secret of the Rosary because separation of church and state! non-establishment of religion! no preferring one faith over another! and so forth. Nobody would bravely stand up for "if kids want to know about such prayers, we can't stop them exploring their spirituality and we shouldn't try".Yeah I agree with this. I see these banned books week posters at my library. My ten seconds of thinking reaction is: good old librarians, defending free speech.
Then I think about it for a few minutes and wonder how books actually could be banned, and that that looks like, Also what happens if they don't take any particular stand on banning books, like marking it as BANNED in the online catalog, but instead reduce copies in stock to zero.
My local library doesn't stock The Bell Curve by Murray. That's odd. It's a best seller in psychology that sold more than a million copies. It never even shows up in the online catalog, period. You would never know it existed.
Did the librarians deliberately disappear it? Do they say "look even though we have a five story building downtown in a blue town in a blue state that allocates significant revenue to this library we have limited funds and cannot stock every book"? How would I even begin to contest this.
I assume the ideal librarian chooses books to stock based on some standard like popularity but also public good value but I realize it's probably much more arbitrary than this. And a lot more inscrutable for outsiders.
I note they do have eight copies of Gender Queer, 4 currently loaned out.
They did deliberately disappear it. It was probably initially disappeared on the basis of being pseudoscience, although I’ve seen Chariots of the Gods in libraries before (strange!)
Then it was probably disappeared on the basis of being racist, although I’ve seen The Wretched of the Earth and The Autobiography of Malcolm X in libraries before (strange again!)
Now it’s probably being disappeared on the basis of causing harm or some similar euphemism treadmill, if you could even get the librarian in question to really think through the situation. The fact that Gender Queer appears to be causing no small amount of psychological distress to at least some people, somewhere, is irrelevant to the librarian (yet stranger still!)
The answer to your bolded question, and the thrust of my argument, is that the whole entire debate is ground that one side has prepared and conditioned such that the other side can never win.
You shouldn’t fight on conditioned ground, that is, by engaging in debate with the librarian. You should just seek to harden your heart, gain control of the commons, fire the librarian and restock the library according to the tastes of you and your people, whoever they may be.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Or in other words, it’s oppression pornography (or reverse pornography in the "reverse racism" sense).
It's still devoid of any other literary value and is just a masturbatory aid for progressive women, but the difference is important (and the first step to figuring out that in an environment of equality, unusual in a state of nature, their sexual misbehavior is just as much a problem as it is when men do it).
More options
Context Copy link
By this media! There is no reason for young children to know about strapons or blowjobs. This is a self-licking ice cream cone - teaching children about explicit sex acts and then saying ‘well, children these days encounter sex early, they need to be taught about this stuff’.
When my grandfather was sixteen going on a picnic with a girl and her chaperone was considered risqué. Now they’re teaching pre-pubescents about blowjobs.
Well, as the sign at the "Drag the Kids to Pride" show told us, it's not gonna lick itself
More options
Context Copy link
I find this... unlikely, unless your grandfather was Amish.
Assuming you are no older than me (and probably younger), your grandfather was dating in 1930s at the earliest. Picnics with a chaperone were considered old-fashioned in most of the US even then, and certainly not "risque."
It’s possible that mores were different for a young Brit of my grandfather’s (old-fashioned) class. He was later nearly disowned for marrying a girl at university (rare but they did exist) who didn’t have what was considered an appropriate background.
It’s also possible I made up the chaperone. I’m afraid it’s been a long time since I heard the story.
More options
Context Copy link
He may not be American.
Indeed :) British.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link