Et Tu, Gooney??? Stan Goff Defends Robert Jensen…As Only Stan Goff Can

Oh, but this is just too fresh….

Straight out of the blue, here comes Stan Goff from deep antiporn radical right left field to attempt to defend Bob Jensen’s mindlessness about double penetration and the men who enjoy watching it.

Actually, he just reprinted Jensen’s original Dissident Voice article, then let his posse of antiporn rad freaks have at it.

Some nice excerpts:

I read this, then cried, then threw up a bunch of coffee, then cried some more. Then I could think well enough to type.

1. Stan, it’s very good that you posted this.
2. The answer to the question posed is yes, for the record, from a woman.

Comment by Elaina — 11/15/2006 @ 12:03 am

——————————–

The next two postings were attempts to actually critique Jensen:

  • Insofar as his discursive method appears to be both feminist and postmodern (as if the two are ultimately separable), I find Jensen’s attempted answer curiously essentialist.

    Jensen, however, avoids answering it based upon the paltry anecdotal data available to him. And wisely, I might add.

    Surely his admittedly “unscientific” data is skewed by his status as a male, and a older male professor at that. Of course many women will find DP uncomfortable and sexist. But of those who decline to answer he cannot speak–especially when one considers that “good girls” don’t do DP. Nor do they lie.

    Surely in some cases, if not most, the failure to answer might be due to shock and discomfort at such a traumatic thought; then, of course, there are probably those who simply think such a question impertinent; but there are also, quite possibly, others for whom lack of an answer might represent a “sin” of omission–a failure to positively account for practices that they deem unacceptable by “polite” society.

    My own anecdotal evidence, based upon the experiences of my lifemate, a feminist, contradict Jensen’s theory. Not only has she initiated and enjoyed DP, she found it “exhilerating” and empowering. This was neither uncomfortable, nor was it submissive in her view.

    I believe Jensen has wisely deferred, too, on men’s attitudes while (correctly) identifying some sadistic/homosexual motivations on the part of at least some (if not most men who watch and/or seek DP.

    However, even in this his inclinations are suspiciously essentialist/universalist. It may be true for large numbers of men, and this is significant and should be troubling. But it is likely to be only a generalization.

    Jensen cites clearly mysogynistic and sadistic rhetoric in the form of pornographic advertisements to further his case regarding mens’ attitudes toward DP, but a few searches of more “vanilla” sexual practices will reveal much the same rhetoric.

    Furthermore, his (understandably) reactionary attitude toward the valid question posed at Stanford demonstrates well his understanding of feminism but it betrays a lack of understanding of some other marginalized segments of humanity. It is irrelevant whether Jensen or the questioner would find DP anal horribly painful, unacceptable, humiliating, and so on–which I submit they likely would. What is relevant is whether there are those who would find such a practice pleasant.

    Jensen seems to wish to reduce these behaviors/practices to polemic issues, but it is not clear that this can be done; on the contrary it seems unlikely that a purely polemic case can be made. Further, he seems to favor purely socio-political explanations for what are sometimes more personal reasons, based on isolated fetishistism and/or individual biological impulses.

    None of this is to suggest that his final statements aren’t generally correct. But they’re ambivalent, and wisely so. People aren’t easily essentialized, and their attitudes and behavior are perhaps doubly difficult to boil down to singular impulses.

    Comment by Jimi 45 — 11/15/2006 @ 1:42 am

  • ——————————————————————-

    • I guess us women are such mindless, appendages who have no power, opinion, or choice when in comes to matters of having sex with one or ten men. I wonder if Mr. Jensen would pose the same question in the case of two women having sex with one man. But forgive me, I keep forgetting that the implication is always that men have sex with women and not vice versa.

      I guess for the sake of philosophical debate, the questions posed by Mr. Jensen can be considered an exercise in mind (and body) bending, linguistic pornography and eroticism of hedonistic proportions designed to prove some hidden mystery about the oppression of women.

      I have read some really valuable insights into the issues of gender here, but I have also seen some comments and descriptions that have left me wondering about the value of much of the feminist literature out there.

      We cannot have it both ways. If a woman says no during the act of sex and the man does not stop, it is rape, but if a woman says “yes” to two men, it is still degrading to women.

      We live in a free society (at least in most bedrooms) and what happens between two or three or ten consenting adults is their business no matter how offensive we may view it. THAT is the important point. I doubt if Mr. Jensen’s questions will solve the mystery of why men are the way they are and why women are the way we are told we are.

      I refuse, as a female, to succumb to the notion that if I willingly have sex with two men that somehow it is sexist on their part and, even if it is, if I consent to it, who cares? Men and women cannot be gender neutral when dealing with each other, especially in intimate relationships.

      If I am offended by the portrayal of such acts in movies, I don’t have to watch. If others want to watch them, I think they should go for it as long as no one forces ME to do anything I CHOOSE not to want.

      I am tired of hearing how helpless we women are in all the variety of sexual positions, imaginations, and hallucinations of all the drug and alcohol saturated brains out there. Who thinks this stuff up anyway?

      Feminism is “in” and many are hopping on the train to fame. It is being done in such a superficial manner in areas that really do not promote women’s autonomy.

      I would like to hear about any ideas that the feminist writers have about “empowering” women to be who they CHOOSE to be. We have to acknowledge that women do have a choice in the good and bad they do. Many are oppressed but many also make mistakes and many more have come a long way.

      I always admire the American women of the early 20th century. They were the true feminists and the true promoters of peace, justice, and human rights. I am also a great admirer of the American nurses of the same era and before.

      I would ask a really important question here: is the feminist movement in the United States in its last throws? It has maybe become symptomatic of the “gluttony” of empire, where moral depravity and affluence have really removed the citizens from the true meaning of struggle and suffering.

      I look up to the women of RAWA – http://www.rawa.org/ and their struggles against oppression, and who have been active since Bin Laden became the playboy stud frequenting the nightclubs of Beirut (before he found god and before he had four wives, one in each corner of the globe). No one paid any attention to them at the time when their female doctors, lawyers and professionals were committing suicide by the droves because they lost their freedoms as a result of the psychotic religious and cultural rules of the men. I do not think you will find them arguing about who should be on top or bottom during sex.

      I look up to the civil defense and Red Cross women of the Middle East who are out there picking up burned and charred bodies of children after bombardments and firefights, and they do not get paid for it. Those same women drive medical trucks around remote villages vaccinating the women and children and teaching the women about birth control and health checkups, free of charge. They teach women to help themselves when the men refuse to participate.

      I look up to women who teach in schools that cannot afford to hire teachers, and they do it for free.

      And tell you what, if those same women choose to have sex with five men or five monkeys, I really couldn’t care less as long as they did it with a smile on their faces.

      p.s. We all think “degrading” and “violent” thoughts. Such thoughts are normal. It is what we choose to do about them that matters and it is the actions that determine our degree of dysfunction, not the thoughts alone.

      Comment by Marilyn Farhat — 11/15/2006 @ 2:06 am

    Gooney Goff, however, was having none of that:

    Jensen’s discursive method is not postmodern, but yours is. Jensen talks about pornography as an industry, a fact that both Jimi and Marilyn seem to evade. It exploits the “performers” (the empitical evidence for this is already overwhelming), and it markets directly to misogyny (as Jensen showed). It is, in this context, sexually as well as economically exploitative of women, and it serves as a special kind of hate speech against women, that is reinforced biochemically by men’s masturbatory orgasms.

    Every time anyone says anything against porn, it provokes this this liberal (sometimes dressed up in academic postmodernism) kneejerk about individual rights, which never says anything about how desire gets constructed by patriarchy (which is essentialist, the naturalization of desire, that is).

    For anyone interested in “essentialism” and anti-essentialism, which is thrown in here to sound erudite and reasonable as a way of carefully throwoing doubt on what Jensen is pointing out about how men desire (not how women desire, Marilyn), it is covered in an earlier post-series on gender.

    http://stangoff.com/?p=215
    http://stangoff.com/?p=218
    http://stangoff.com/?p=219

    As to postmodernism, Maria Mies, Margaret Dierdre O’Hartigan, and Alf Hornborg say it better than I can:

    “Although biological determinism had been criticized quite early in the women’s movement as a method of explaining man’s patriarchal dominance by the biological difference between the genders, the postmodernists tabooed even the use of such concepts as ‘woman’, ‘mother’, ‘land’, ‘patriarchy’, ‘capitalism’, and so on. The fact that women have the capacity to bring forth children, that they can become mothers, is totally devalued, de-historicized and dematerialized. It is considered to be a mere biological accident which nowadays can be changed by biotechnology. The same applies to the category ‘woman’. The fact that most people appear in this world as male or female is not accepted as a given, because it is possible today physically to change one’s gender or one’s sexual orientation. The gender discourse in particular contributed to the elimination of such categories as ‘mother’, or ‘woman’. In this discourse ‘sex’ as supposedly biologically determined and ‘gender’ as culturally constructed are being separated and contraposed. This results in the old schizophrenic situation that ‘sex’ is again dehistoricized and declared a matter of biology only, which can be left to reproduction and genetic engineers, while ‘gender’ becomes the ‘higher’ affair, where culture plays the determining role. Old dualism in new garb.” -Mies

    “The ‘postmodern’ supposition that sex is nothing more than a ‘constructed social identity’ threatens the very concept of ‘woman’ while leaving intact the oppression of women. Little wonder that the sophistry of ‘deconstruction’ – primarily developed and promulgated by white men such as Michael Foucault – has found such favor in our sexist society. But whenever ‘off our backs’ publishes a two-page paean to ‘deconstruction’ which cites Colin Powell and Jerry Springer as its only “authorities” (”Identity Politics and Progress”, off our backs, April 1998) it is time for a reality check in a world in which women are routinely discriminated against and murdered because they are women. ‘Deconstruction’ may very well eliminate the perception of such injustice by mutilating the bodies beyond all recognition but the injustice itself will continue unabated.” -O’Hartigan

    “It is not a coincidence that the postmodern paralysis is a condition that mainly afflicts academics, for it is at a distance [eg, cloistered in the academy] that human meanings assume the appearance of ‘constructions’…

    “… the ‘postmodern.’ It is a condition where the exhausting attitude of radical skepticism tends to give way to a structurally enforced feigned gullibility. All hope of certainty has vanished, but precisely because no pretense to power or truth can be admitted, any pretense is as good as any other. Signs are once again perceived as indices of identity, but now simply by virtue of positing themselves as such, rather than through assumed correspondences with essences… ‘” -Hornborg

    Here is my own point for the day on all this: IF YOU AIN’T TALKIN’ ABOUT HOW PATRIARCHY TRAINS US TO DESIRE, YOU AIN’T SERIOUS!

    Treating desire as if it is beyond critical reach is sly as hell, liberal as hell, and the most insidious of all rhetorical defenses of patriarchy.

    All of Jimi’s response seems to throw sand in our eyes on this key point, with these conversational appeals to authority (science, etc) and casual dismissals of Jensen, while never directly confronting what Jensen is pointing out. Men get off on the humiliation of women. Porn gets women (by various means) to behave as if they enjoy these humiliations (DP’s, facials, etc), then sells that often-coerced performance to men, who jack off to it.

    If the Klan could get people to experience an orgasm every time they viewed pictures of the humiliation of Blacks, immigrants, Jews, etc., then we would recognize how deeply dangerous this is to Blacks, immigrants, and Jews, and we would fight against employment this method of indoctrination. When it happens to women, however, everyone becomes a goddamn Constitutional lawyer or a detached academic (especially boiz and a handful of privileged women who see sex and identity as consumer choices… hmmm).

    Jimi sez: “It is irrelevant whether Jensen or the questioner would find DP anal horribly painful, unacceptable, humiliating, and so on–which I submit they likely would. What is relevant is whether there are those who would find such a practice pleasant.”

    So you get to set the terms of the debate, eh. You get to determine what is relevant. And with you, it is the rare individual who elects (apparently without any socialization at all) to have sex in a particular way. Not the millions of women who are harmed by this industry — god forbid one person might have his or her desire subjected to a critique — nor the millions of men who are being socialized (with biochemical reinforcement) by this porn genre to desire the objectification and humiliation of women.

    You say, “Jensen seems to wish to reduce these behaviors/practices to polemic issues.” This is, of course, a lie. Read what he said.

    I’ll leave it to others to describe Marilyn’s abstract liberalism, and continued penchant to naturalize power. I have to run.

    Comment by Stan — 11/15/2006 @ 8:41 am

    Ah, yes….the old "sex is totally socially structured by Teh Patriarchy" meme, reenforced with the old and tired bromides about "postmodernism" and "liberalism" as mere appendages to total male power and female powerlessness. I’m surprised that Stanley didn’t go all the way and head straight for Judith Reisman’s "erotoxins" theory (would that be what he means by "biochemical reinforcement"???)

    And of course, the idea of a former Special Forces elite warrior and converted radical activist defending an academic and throwing words of "elitism" and "privileged women" and "boiz" about at those who merely attempt to disagree with his analysis is simply breathtaking…and so, so, so typical.

    And speaking of elitism, notice how Stanley happens to handle an attempt by a regular civilian (namely, Antiprincess of I Shame the Matriarchy) who attempts to defend her own (and other women’s) right to determine their own sexual desires for themselves (The "Moderator’s Notes" within brackets happen to be Goff’s annotations):

    “Is a DP inherently degrading to women and therefore sexist? I don’t know, and I don’t have to know.

    so, a woman’s opinion on what gets up her own ass is not important to this man?

    [MODEATOR’S NOTE: That is not what he said.]

    “Is a DP inherently degrading in the minds of men? That’s a much more important question, and that answer is much more disturbing.”

    The opinion of Class Man on what gets up a woman’s ass is the important question?

    [MODERATOR’S NOTE: That’s not what he said, either.]

    some feminist.

    [MODERATOR’S NOTE: Ah, so you write the credentials? Porn posse trolls… be advised. We have been through this gang tackle crap before. We have seen all these polemical fallacies before. You make us very very tired. If we post you at all, when you have nothing to contribute but this kind of misrepresentation and venom, then we will intervene thus, right inside your comment. If you don’t like it, troll elsewhere. ]

    Comment by antiprincess — 11/15/2006 @ 3:38 pm

    Oh, poor, poor Stanley. It must be really, really galling to fight the good fight against women who don’t understand how they are being led astray by the evil patriarchy and their chemical inducements to degrade themselves into having all kinds of "patriarchial", damaging sex for the mere pleasure of elitist pimps and pornographers.  It is quite understandable that he has to constantly defend himself and his righteous radicalfeminist antiporn "leftist" philosophy against the hated "porn posse" (I assume that he means moi, Nina Hartley, Sheldon Ranz, Ernest Greene, and anyone else who dares to state an contrary position to his) who inflict such "venom" and "misinterpretation" and "polemical tactics". (Interesting rhetoric for someone who practically indicted and executed Nina Hartley as the main enabler of pimps and rapists for simply replying to his ally Chyng Sun.)

    But it is this post from good old Julian Real which takes the grand prize for total tomfoolery:

    Hi posters.

    In order.

    First, Elaina–I’m sorry that piece was so upsetting, and I concur it was traumatic to read. Men need to be careful about how and where we discuss topics like this, in the name of feminism, no less. And I think that piece was irresponsibly presented.

    Second, a recommendation to Robert: Please put a warning on any sexxxplicit writings you do, including any descriptions of degrading acts against women, including anything that mentions an unsoft penis. Too many people have LIVED that CRAP, been harmed by men’s genitals, and it would be respectful of you to warn folks that some hard-core whitemale supremacist material is about to be graphically described. To not do this is irresponsible, in my view, and is uncaring of all of us who are survivors of this sort of abuse.

    Third, Jimi, I’m ignoring what you wrote entirely. It isn’t worthy of a response.

    Fourth, to Marilyn. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’ll respond a bit.

    MF: We cannot have it both ways. If a woman says no during the act of sex and the man does not stop, it is rape, but if a woman says “yes” to two men, it is still degrading to women.

    I remember a conversation with a white woman who told me when she was young, due to the unwanted sexual attention she got from her mom’s boyfriends, she learned she had better “really like sex” a lot, or else suffer being degraded and violated. What this meant, in the real world, was that she learned that what men do to and with her she had better consider “consensual”–regardless of the degree to which it was so–because she was determined not to be a “raped woman”. She felt she was too empowered to be that, to experience that. She told me she arrived at this decision not based on what she was capable of enduring or resisting, but on the fact that to make herself heterosexually available to men would, necessarily, mean she would be available to men’s use and abuse of her, no matter how much she pretended it was all “what she wanted”. She told me she now realizes that she had to internalize what men wanted from her as what she wanted with men, in order to get through it all believing she was not used and abused. Note: the experience of many women I know, and many I don’t know, is this: women don’t have a choice about what sex is, socially and politically. Women are increasingly told that what prostitutes do, what women coerced into pornography do, what women and girls who are sex-trafficked do, is “sex” for normal men. Do women have the choice to never encounter THAT kind of sex? How many women have that option? Honestly, Marilyn, not many women I know have that option. In fact, none do. Every woman I know has been sexually used and abused by men, except one woman I know who has only ever been sexually involved with women. She’s been emotionally abused by some women, but not sexually abused.

    MF: We live in a free society (at least in most bedrooms) and what happens between two or three or ten consenting adults is their business no matter how offensive we may view it.

    I would argue that consent is relatively meaningless in a world in which men are predatory due to political position and right of access. Not all men need to be, of course. Some are tender and kind. But there is a system, the hierarchical gender system of power, in which women are routinely and systematically forced into being and doing things that, were it not for the ubiquity of male supremacist force, covert or overt, women would not have to consider doing. Within this perspective, we cannot know what anyone would desire outside of whitemale supremacist-influenced patriarchies, until such systems of power are eradicated. To think “natural human sexual desires” exist in this world, as we live it, is, in my view, and others, not only dangerous, but also essentialist.

    MF: If I am offended by the portrayal of such acts in movies, I don’t have to watch. If others want to watch them, I think they should go for it as long as no one forces ME to do anything I CHOOSE not to want.

    For me the core issue is the woman in the films, photo stills, brothels, streets, bedrooms, websites, etc., and what the conditions are that led her to be there, doing what the director/pimp wants her to do that he calls “sexy”. How people are secondarily affected by such abuse of women inside the industry is also important, but not if it invisibilizes the women and girls and boys trafficked, sold, enslaved, and otherwise harmed. (And some men too.)

    MF: I am tired of hearing how helpless we women are in all the variety of sexual positions, imaginations, and hallucinations of all the drug and alcohol saturated brains out there. Who thinks this stuff up anyway?

    I know women who were in the sexxx industries. Their stories are real, compelling, political, and if you wish to know what happens in the sex-trafficking world, including in pornography and prostitution, globally, I warn you, it’s “not pretty” to say the least.

    I agree with you that it is also that case that women’s condition globally is impacted by many other forces other than directly sexual ones. You note them well. Thank you for reminded me, a U.S. white man, about such atrocities.

    Fifth, to Consumer.

    After my concerns about women and girls and boys in the global sex-trafficking systems and industries, and after how that violence impacts (negatively) on the human rights and dignity of women who are impacted by it, because of men who consume it, there’s a mild amount of concern for how you experience this material. Frankly, given the other priorities, what you think of it doesn’t matter at all to me. And for you to prioritize “what it does to you” over what it does to those women in the industry, is a real mark of your own inhumanity, in my view.

    There’s no mirror into the viewer’s soul, as you state it. There’s a lens (literally) on reality, on the reality of women used and abused in systems of whitemale supremacist sexxxual exploitation. Please spare us your self-indulgent musings about how whitemale supremacy impacts on you.

    Comment by Julian Real — 11/15/2006 @ 4:55 pm

    Ahhhhh, OK, I get it now…..so the fact that some individual women might acutally LIKE double penetration and other forms of "patriarchial" sex for the simple pleasure it provides is certainly inmaterial, because even if DP is innately harmless, it should still be banished to RadicalFeminist Hell because it justifies (if not embodies) the "reality of women used and abused in systems of ‘whitemale supremacist sexxxual exploitation’".  ("Sexxxual"????  Hmmmm…could Sam of Genderberg be far behind on this??)

    With "leftist radicals" like this, I’d rather give Ted Haggard the benefit of the doubt.  At least he admitted to his sexual desires, even if he so severely repressed them.

    UPDATE: Incidently….if you have the time and the stomach for it, you can read the original Stan Goff article which attempted to slam Nina Hartley for her defense of her profession here.  (The comments include both responses by Nina and some heated debate, including some comments from yours truly.)

    For an antidote, you can read the following threads developed at Nina’s forum in response:

    http://www.nina.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=2475 "Left Wing War on Sex"
    http://www.nina.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=2663 "Stan Goff Update"
    http://www.nina.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=2502 "Another Day, Another Anti-Sex ‘Leftist’ Rants"

     

     

     

  • Advertisements

    13 thoughts on “Et Tu, Gooney??? Stan Goff Defends Robert Jensen…As Only Stan Goff Can

    1. i still have my guns…my comment on his blog…

      “Moderate me…it would only be typical.

      If you see in my own blog, I have had, as a woman, the “DP” conversation with Robert Jensen before. I am a woman. I like DP. I find it amusing yet insulting that so called feminist minded men presume to know what woman may or may not like in the bedroom. I find it sexist as well. And women who DO like DP? Well, considering a mans unwillingness to generally have his penis that close to another penis? At least half the time, those women who DO like it request it. And it is for pleasure, not power.

      Prove me wrong.”

    2. I wonder what Goff thinks of the postmodernist Karl Marx, and his liberal individualism?

      In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

      I suppose Goff would also reject the postmodern idea of dialectics, in which a thing is defined by competing forces within it. For instance, you could say that pornography has reactionary aspects, but also progressive aspects. But that would make things terribly complicated.

    3. Would this be liberal, postmodern individualism?

      In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

      Would dialectical reasoning be liberal postmodernism? For instance, analyzing pornography in terms of competing sexist and anti-sexist aspects?

    4. wait, WHAT? put a warning on anything that includes an “unsoft penis”?? oh, yer killing me! but wait! he just said it right there! ooh, he said it again!! “Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah!…”

      fetch me my smelling salts.

      jaysus.

      miserable twits.

    5. well, I can’t really speak to his brand of socialism; but as per feminism, I wonder if this is too pomo-academic for Mr. Jensen:

      “See, I think if you want to call yourself a feminist maybe what you really need to grok is that whatever a woman wants to put in the orifice of her choice is no one’s damn business but her own. Is that really so hard to understand?”

      –Cassandra Says

      The even shorter version, in case that was too highfalutin’:

      “Piss off, perv.”

    6. And this bit, I’m sorry, is just -nutty-:

      >It is, in this context, sexually as well as economically exploitative of women, and it serves as a special kind of hate speech against women, that is reinforced biochemically by men’s masturbatory orgasms.>

      that sounds like whatsername, Reisman, with her “erotoxins” or whatnot.

    7. btw, I ganked this from the Hartley board:

      >The critique I and others make is not motivated by squeamishness about sex or conservatism. It is saying that few sexual practices in a patriarchal society are ever innocent of sexuality as a system of power.>

      But here’s the deal: why is -innocence- something to desire in the first place? Innocence of power; well, okay, now it’s -power- that’s the taint, not “sex.” Slightly different route; looks like the same destination to me. Because it really is starting from the same place.

      We are living in a fallen world.

      We are not okay.

      We must be ever vigilant.

      Jam tomorrow, jam yesterday, but never jam today: we must wait for the Promised Land before we can ever truly let go into pleasure.

    8. Sorry ’bout that, Belle…..I had installed a Windows Live toolbar that automatically saves passwords…and it installed that particular password into the blog.

      I just disabled it, so you should be able to post now without requiring it.

      Anthony

    9. What’s remarkable is this doublethink: Goff says we can’t know what sexuality will look like in an egalitarian world yet his whole argument against porn is premised precisely on the assumption that we DO know what it will look like.

      He denies the importance of biology in sex EXCEPT where it suits his argument. And then he makes simplistic semi-behaviorist assertions that aren’t based on any actual evidence. Orwell would be proud.

    10. Pingback: Porn World » Et Tu, Gooney??? Stan Goff Defends Robert Jensen…As Only Stan Goff Can

    11. Pingback: Porno Spectacular » Blog Archive » Et Tu, Gooney??? Stan Goff Defends Robert Jensen…As Only Stan Goff Can

    Leave a Reply

    Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s