Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



The Bijou Phillips bullying stuff sounds lovely but its probably a different thing entirely as she would have been like 17 so she was an rear end in a top hat teenage mean girl picking on a vulnerable peer and one hopes she's grown up in the 20 years since. That's different from grown adults with power using that power to take sexual advantage of people beneath them, including sometimes children. The two things also aren't mutually exclusive.

But yeah, it sounds like a hellish production.

Phillips also has a really crazy and hosed up childhood story that includes claiming her father was abusing her sister, lots of drugs, and being homeless at age 14. None of which is an excuse for treating people badly but there's a lot there to unfold and just doesn't seem like the same kind of criticism this thread is about.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I can actually totally buy into the idea that Michael Bay has some kind of arrested development juvenile idea of sex. Like, Quentin Tarrentino has a foot fetish. We know this because he fetishizes it routinely in a way that isn't even always overtly sexual but is clearly a thing that he is really fascinated by. But Bay's fascination with sex is like a 13-year-old's idea of what sex is. Like "he made Megan Fox wash his car in a bikini" reads entirely to me like something he saw in a movie instead of some actual sexual fantasy of his. It plays exactly like a pre-pubescent kid who gets the broad idea of sex and is obsessed with it, but doesn't actually understand it or is terribly into.

Or he could just be a lowest common denominator sleazeball. But I can buy the theory now that i think of it.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Between this and his Trump comments I'm beginning to think that Cranston is an rear end in a top hat.

He's at the very least got no sense of timing.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



It's pretty easy to see where Crews was coming from with that question and it's not transphobia. It might be ignorant but like, ignorance isn't always about hate or biases. Sometimes it's just genuinely not knowing what to do with a concept that is new or foreign to someone.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Yeah, Krumholtz comes off poorly and it has nothing to do with him doing the movie or saying he regrets it after the fact. The Page and Newman apologies are fine because they take responsibility for their choices and accept the criticism people would inherently have of them. Krumholtz lashes out in the worst way when he gets those obvious criticisms. He clearly wanted to be able to say "sorry" and be done with it.

Like, "I was selfish and/or a coward when I took that role. I should have taken a personal stand for what's right and put that above my own personal or professional ambitions. I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry that it took this movement and increased scrutiny on the problem to get me to this place. I can only hope I can prove I'm sincere. Here's a donation to RAINN to start."

That isn't that hard and wouldn't have made Krumholtz look like a screaming rear end in a top hat.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



twerking on the railroad posted:

The Dave Chappelle Netflix comedy specials feature some prime rationalizing about the culture of Hollywood.

To his credit, Dave sees how bad it really is and knows it has to change, but how seems to elude him because he still wants to look himself in the mirror and see a good guy. The guy who still clings to calling women "bitch" in a casual way decides that accusers have a "brittle soul" and that Iceberg Slim should be quoted as serious philosophy. Because capitalism is really the problem you see, not some guys who just want to get rich off the backs of women.
It played kind of similar to the Stewart and Silverman stuff I've seen. There were cringeworthy moments and obviously their first instincts are to defend themselves and their friends, but all three seemed to basically acknowledge that they knew their instincts were wrong and they needed to work through some complicated feelings to grow. Being a comedian just seems like a bad place to be when you're going through some personal conflict over some very public stuff.

Like, Chappelle's whole thing with the transgender joke was kind of microcosm of it, I think. He starts defending himself saying he isn't a bigot, he retells his joke because he wants to show its funny and not offensive, he makes a couple of jokes about himself to try and show he isn't a bigot, and then he ends up finally acknowledging that he feels bad for hurting someone. He seemed to put the entire personal conflict on display.

I'm willing to give folks who say "I'm not the bad guy, i'm not the bad guy... am I the bad guy?" some time to get there. I've experienced the same process and probably will again. I think its not terribly easy to uproot your own sense of self and moral standards like that and the questioning and discomfort is probably the right first step. Its people who reject it and fight who probably aren't going to get there.

STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jan 8, 2018

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.




It was something about how he read that Caitlyn Jenner might pose naked in SI and while he respects her choices and everything she's been through "but yucky." Something like that but it was obviously more of a journey and he ultimately does like 20 minutes around that, the reactions, and his reactions. He defends himself a bunch, makes some more jokes including some about him hooking up with a transgender lady when he was younger, and then ends up with a story about reading a letter from a young transgender fan who was hurt by it and it affecting him and making him rethink things.

STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jan 8, 2018

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Yeah, the description sounds like a pretty accurate (to my memory) account of the joke itself which I guess he told on a previous special (I didn't see it). But his material on this special was all basically about the fallout of that joke and the ups and downs as he tried to process if he had done anything wrong.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Yeah, if it turns out to be true I think Marvel says "Its tragic that we had to put Grandpa in a home and we're really sorry he keeps harassing the nurses but hes not the guy we knew."

I don't know. I'll fully admit that I have child hood attachments to Stan Lee that cloud my opinion but even if this story is true (and I highly question the source) "95 year old man walks around naked and grabs the nurses who care for him" plays differently to me than this other stuff. You know what I mean?

I mean, its sad to think Stan Lee might be a demented, doddering old perv who grabs asses of nurses when they clean up him making GBS threads his pants. But its not exactly a Weinstein situation, is it?

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I was a little on the fence about this but hadn't read the accusation until now. Having just read it maybe I'd be sympathetic to Ansari for the first part of the story but once she actively tells him to slow down and stop not once but twice and he keeps pushing I'm comfortable calling Ansari at the very least a gross creeper.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Well I said "at the very least." I'm not sure I personally can identify exactly what he did there with the somewhat confusing "mixed signals" but I'm sure as gently caress not going to go to bat for that gross creeper who kept trying to turn a no into a yes with his fingers and dick.

So if you wanna call him something worse I'm not gonna fight.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I mean, I want to make it clear I'm absolutely fine criticizing Ansari for his behavior. I think MAYBE (huge question on that) you could maybe argue "mixed signals" early on in the story and dismiss him as "aggressive" or "pushy". And I'd agree that that's a problem in itself. But once she's telling him "I don't want to" and he keeps making "advances" then I lose any and all sympathy I may possess from my younger less evolved days.

And again, if you want to argue that the early stuff is wrong and any sympathy I have is just from my own messed up ideas of sex when I was younger I'd probably agree and hang my head with a fair amount of shame that while I can definitely say I never crossed a line into pushing sex I really can't be sure I never hit on a woman too much or pursued her in a way that made her uncomfortable.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



GonSmithe posted:

My point is is that calling it “public shaming” and that the article “was reported terribly” is idiotic.

It’s being mentioned because it shows what some men think is a “normal” sexual encounter. It is not antithetic to the MeToo movement because allowing culture to grow where what he did seems okay to someone is the entire point of the movement. It’s not okay.

Maybe I'm wrong but I read the OP as suggesting that there's probably different levels of "punishment" in this. Individuals who commit crimes should be brought to justice. Individuals who abuse power should be stripped of that power. And individuals who treat women poorly without the power or legal stuff in play should be publicly shamed to force them to change their behavior and for other men to see that its not the right way to act. And that in the big picture while getting predators out of power and abusers in prison are both good goals the bigger picture goal is probably to convince a culture to change their ways and that probably happens through shaming them that they're bad now.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



As far as I can tell Ansari didn't really dispute much of "Grace's" story so I don't see any real reason to doubt her.

But yeah, the writer and the blog seem like another matter entirely.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Again, its pretty clear Grace's story is true and Ansari effectively confirmed all of it with his account. Anyone who seeks to dismiss her story because of Babe.net's clear flaws is a piece of poo poo.

But Babe.net seems to have done and continue to do a bad job and its just kind of lucky that Ansari didn't deny it and make the entire story suspect.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



jet sanchEz posted:

No, of course he is a creep but anyone can now say that the story is the problem, not Ansari. Game over.

No, it really doesn't. Anyone can dismiss a story as not worth their time. If you meet people who want to dismiss this than they'll do it regardless of anything else. The credibility of Grace's story isn't in question and its very easy to explain that or counter it with anyone who attempts to dismiss it with the Babe.net problems.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Mister Fister posted:

That's a huge strawman, i don't think i've read any opinion pieces that said the story was false. People are disputing the story's claim that this constituted assault.

Fair, and I apologize if I unintentionally mischaracterized anything in my haste.

Point is Grace's story - regardless of your interpretation of it - really isn't in question and Babe.net's credibility or journalistic professionalism really doesn't factor into whether what Grace went through was assault or not.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



jet sanchEz posted:

You don't think that now that Babe and it's journalist are seen in a less than favourable light (I am being generous here) cast a shadow over Grace and her story?

In a theoretical situation where Grace's story was in doubt, it would. But in this situation Grace's "abuser" has confirmed the gist of the story so there is no question of its credibility, there's only a difference of interpretation over abuse or not. Babe.net and the writer being bad and making themselves look bad is another issue, but it COULD have hurt Grace's credibility if Ansari had responded differently.

If you find someone dismissing Grace's story based on the Babe.net stuff they're either uninformed or disingenuous.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



The Nassar story is going to get huge with the Olympics just weeks away. Its going to be all over the news in the buildup. You've got a young Olympic gold medalist giving a testimony of being abused as a child in a system that enabled and covered it up. This is a shitshow.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



All I know is I never heard of Babe.net before this and now that I'm a little familiar with them I'm pretty confident I'll never be going out of my way to read them.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Yeah, I don't see why anyone feels the need to tie Babe.net's credibility to "Grace" or MeToo. Like, the National Enquirer reports true stories and breaks stuff sometimes. A trashy tabloid is still a trashy tabloid.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I don't know if the guy from Head of the Class is a pedophile and I feel like there should be a credible accusation before he gets labeled as once.

And I don't see feet as sexual so I kind of don't know how to determine whether contextless pictures of feet are sexual in nature. Like I'm open to the idea that they might be sexual to a foot fetishist but without some context that I recognize as sexual I don't see how we tell the difference between sexual feet and just feet.

All that being said, that twitter thread made me click it off grossed out and worry that someone was looking over my shoulder because there's absolutely way too many gifs of an underage Ariana Grande being overtly sexual on camera. That poo poo's differently creepy.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



All other things aside my biggest takeaway about Rose McGowan is that she seems to think that she's the smartest person in every room and if someone corrects her or attempts to corral her she just dismisses them as part of the sheeple problem.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Wasn't there also a thing in the 90s where movies like Sliver and Basic Instinct were pushing the established boundaries of "R" and into "X", so they created "NC-17" to try and avoid the stigma but it didn't work and everyone just became scared of getting the NC-17 label because now it looked like porn?

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I only remember becoming aware of NC-17 when Bruce Willis made that naughty movie where he showed his dick and had sex with a transgendered girl or something and everyone freaked the gently caress out that John McClane was doing porn.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



God Hole posted:

So basically The Invitation was a documentary

I mean... yeah. Its why so many of the guests immediately go "Uhhh... did our grieving friends get sucked into a cult?" Cause it happens.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I also think a lot of the 2Pac stuff is really less about celebrating what a good person he was and more about exploring what a complicated and conflicted person he was and thinking it was kind of tragic that he died so young before he had a chance to find some inner peace and become a better person. Also that he seemed to almost be welcoming the peace of death.

I don't know. I find Tupac Shakur's life and death interesting and tragic but I don't think he was a good person who made good life choices.

Although there certainly are people who just think he's a "saint" because there's lots of crazy poo poo around 2Pac.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Inescapable Duck posted:

Knowing very little about the rap/hip hop scene other than cultural osmosis, it seems like you're considered a little behind on your cred if you HAVEN'T been in prison at some point, or at least gotten shot, addicted to drugs or having dealt them.I mean, the whole thing kinda is built on making confrontational and boundary-breaking art out of their shared terrible experiences with poverty, racism and crime.

That's kind of a bothersome sweeping generalization, I think. Does it happen? Yeah. But Common and Kendrick Lamar didn't need a gunshot wound and there's a little bit of Conservative "all hip hop is gangsta rap" in the idea. Its a thing in certain avenues of hip hop but its not the genre/community as a whole and mainstream being simplified to that has always been problematic. Although certainly there are rappers who go beyond "representing their true lives" and into "sensationalizing and pursuing it for cred."

But yes, 2Pac was a drug dealer and had gunshot wounds and had done prison time for sexual assault. He was also a poet who made an impression with Maya Angelou and the son of a Black Panther. He rapped about respecting women and slapping bitches. Tupac was all over the place and dead at 25 and I think that's what makes him so interesting as a character study because he seems like he died before he became the man he would have been and we don't really know which way he was gonna go.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



As I said, I'm in no way defending the guy or calling him a good person. Its pretty clear Tupac made really terrible life choices, many that hurt others.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Honest Thief posted:

Maybe he's referring to his last standup where he related the hollywood culture as a big pimp game which always tries to get an extra mileage out of people until they break.

I think one of his specials had him kind of lamenting on whether MeToo could go too far or if its more valuable to reach out to men who want to help and change instead of punishing them, but then I also think he kind of laments that he might be part of the problem for thinking that way. It all struck me as rather "stream of consciousness" and him kind of working through "Am I a baddie?"

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Yeah, my takeaway was that he was filming those Netflix specials right as MeToo was taking off and his initial reaction was "Oh, that guy's evil but some of this is too far..." and then he kind of started to say "...wait, am I part of the problem?" and then he was done. I'm kind of curious to see if he took the next step.

I don't know. I guess I'm kind of judging it through the prism of that transgender joke that he defends, then addresses the backlash of, kind of dismisses the backlash and explains himself, then actually reconsiders and questions if he's wrong, expresses regret that he hurt someone, and then makes a joke again. I might be giving him too much room he hasn't actually ventured down publicly.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



A Buttery Pastry posted:

Been a while since I watched it, so I don't remember exactly how he finished that bit, but I remember it being a million times more reflective than anything I've seen from other comedians about "causing offense" - though obviously that is like the ultimate damning with faint praise.

Fart City posted:

I do think it’s worth noting that Chappelle is from that older crop of comics that almost seem incredulous at the idea of someone taking offense to comedy. Like when he and others of his same generation were coming up in the early-to-mid nineties, the term “politically correct” was a consistent punchline across the board, no matter what the politics of the person on the stage were. I don’t know if it was a rebellious thing, or simply an attempt to defend the craft, but there seemed to be a real cult of thinking that it was morally wrong to be offended by comedy during that heyday.

The thing is, things change. People change. Perceptions change. I think a lot of those old-school guys still think they’re fighting the same fight they were back in the day. They’re not. And they seem very slow to catch up.

God Hole posted:

He (and every other comedian) works very hard to come off that way, as steam of consciousness/off the cuff, but Chapelle in fact spent a lot of time thinking about it, honing and perfecting that set, and the best he could come up with was that "Louis CK ain't that bad" and "if you let systematic assault ruin your career, then you must not have actually wanted it".

Yeah, I like agree with all of this even though some of it is combatting itself.

Like, I'm not trying to go to bat for Chappelle. He could be an rear end in a top hat. He's certainly had some offensive jokes and moments. Obviously some of that was delivered in a different time and place. He's obviously got that human instinct of "I'm not a bad guy" and comedian instinct of "its just a joke, don't be offended" but he seemed to at least be open to reflecting on the question of maybe he's wrong. And yeah, I know that wasn't really him speaking spontaneously on stage. He was saying stuff he had already written and he's just very good at making it sound real. But it was contemporary and at the very least the message he seemed to be trying to get across was "I might have been out of line... or they might have been over sensitive... or maybe I need to change... I don't know." And I have no real reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he's sincere in that and trying to grow as a person.

And like, that's the thing I think we miss a lot and which I can volunteer about myself. I'm a better person than I was five years. I'm a better person than I was 10 years ago. I'm a better person than I was 20 years ago. And the only way I know that is because I have been willing at times to say "You know what? You're right. Its wrong for me to say/think that. I'm sorry and I will change." And that usually takes some work.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I think the story is that Lucas wanted Marion to be younger than she was because for some reason he thought it would funny/interesting if she was REALLY young and it was just blatantly a sex crime. Instead they agreed to age her up a little so that you have to like stop and do some head math for a second to realize how creepy it is.

The whole thing seems less "Lucas is a pedophile" and more "Lucas is a goon who kind of hates his audience" to me.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I don't think anyone really finds the Indy/Marion relationship creepy at first glance. Its definitely one of the biggest keys to the film. Its just when you stop and think about it for a little bit you go "Oh, jeez, Indy. What the gently caress were you doing sleeping with teenagers?"

But like the movie also goes out of its way to show us that Indy's college students are fawning all over him and if he was a total creeper he could be cleaning up on inappropriately young women. Instead it presents him as being kind of put out by it and literally jumping out a window to get away so he could go play with old poo poo. So I don't think there's some deep seeded character trait there, it was just Lucas being weird and pulpy in a way that flew in 1981.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Krankenstyle posted:

I forgot how into it they all are, but then again it can just be them bullshitting about the story and character motivations and such, even just egging each other on for laughs. Whatever, it p much made it into the movie so it's there at least somewhat.

Yeah, it plays to me like they just tossing ideas around and being a little silly about it. I've been in rooms like that (obviously nothing on that level) and its like just sitting around with drinks and tossing poo poo at the wall to work up your ideas. Things can get weird.

To me its clear Lucas wanted Marion to be MUCH younger than Indy because he just wants it to be really "provocative" and pulpy while Spielberg kind of clearly wanted to level it off so it wouldn't be quite as weird. Then they clearly eventually got from "Marion was 11 and he was 42" to "Marion was 16-17 and Indy was 27". But it feels more like Lucas just going for the pulpiest thing he can get to and Spielberg pulling back.

Like I said, I've been in that kind of room before so it actually sounds kind of familiar. "WE SHOULD HAVE XXX!"/"Ok, that's a little difficult.. lets just do Y" Creative types go all over the place.

Although obviously there's an element there of "different time" where "16" is "no big deal." And that's creepy, but shouldn't be super surprising. And is still just a fictional character, to the best of our knowledge Lucas wasn't trolling teenagers in courthouses.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



esperterra posted:

Yeah the most important thing to remember is it's loving fiction, who cares. It'd be different if we were talking about Lucas dating a 16yo when he was 27.

I mean there IS an argument to be made about fiction helping set and justify societal standards and what kind of responsibility filmmakers have to that end. But we're analyzing the decisions made by filmmakers nearly 40 years ago so its not like this is going to be reinforcing any messed up standards.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Bust Rodd posted:

I promise I’m not gonna bait anyone into a pedo/ephebophile thing, im 30 and don’t want anyone younger than 24-25 because I like talking to people, but if you’ve never been hitting on someone at a party/bar/club and suddenly realized “oh poo poo you’re drinking like a 19 year old BECAUSE you’re 19, yikes” then maybe get out more I guess?

Generally speaking if you're hanging out at the same place as a lot of people who are age inappropriate for you then that's often one of the best signs that you should move on and go somewhere else. Like there's a point where Matthew McCoughney's character in Dazed and Confused is cool and not creepy still hanging with the kids from his high school, but its passed by the time we meet him and he still hasn't moved on.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Davros1 posted:

Married a sixteen year old (that he had known since she was twelve. Also cast her as a prostitute in Leon). But I'm sure people will point out that the age of consent in lower in France, as if that absolves it.

Like, he fully admits that the creepy 12 year old/middle aged man relationship in Leon is based off his marriage. Its bad.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Samuel Clemens posted:

So Léon's childlike characterisation was born entirely out of the special circumstances on set? Talk about a happy accident.

Its weird that from my memory The Professional is actually really good because its some killer acting performances, but I haven't rewatched it to see if my memory is correct because of the creepy subtext and background of it, but now I know those performances were at least in part shaped by repulsion to that subtext and background. Weird.

Rhyno posted:

I guarantee you anyone who's worked in the service industry has stories like that one. The comic shop I can't explain though.

I don't think that needs explanation to anyone who has been to a comic shop.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



Wait, the dude who made his name and career by alleging to have formed a relationship with a little girl over the internet and then romancing her sister only to claim to have been duped by a bored middle aged woman which he discovered when he drove to meet her unprompted and then made a media franchise off of investigating people on the internet to find out which of them was lying in online romances and exposing them on TV was creepy with women?

I couldn't have seen that coming.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply