BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

something we can all agree on finally, those pesky fence-sitters.

  
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
17:23 / 10.12.01
and yeah, i know we've done this one before, but there are a lot of different people here now, and in the light of the ongoing threads about sexuality/cultures of 'straightness'/'queerness' I want to have a moan and ask some questions. not sure whether to bung this here or headshop, but anyway...

Somewhere in one of the threads, I read a quote to the lines of 'there aren't many stereotypes for bisexuals past slut' (sorry if I'm misquoting) which had me slapping the desk in a yes! sooooo right frenzy. And a mini-discussion on bisexuality, which I wanted to turn into a maxi-discussion

To start with, personally, have a whole big problem with the term bisexual... it's the most used/recognised one, and the one which if i use gives people some vague image that isn't a million miles away from what i'm trying to define.

and yet is, in all its implications of attraction to two genders, of volitional flipping between these genders, of a decision to 'be this way', of decisions about attraction based on someone's physical set-up (rather in the way that homosexuals are all about the 'homosex' )... ugh...

so first question is what would you call a sexuality that wasn't homo *or* heterosexual... and why? from own experience, sure, but i'd really like people who don't consider this their sexuality to have a go at answering this...

I'm really aware atm that while I'm dubious about labels and their constricting visibility (a la Phelan, for the theorybitches out there), there's a whole stack of people I know who can't even grab labels contingently that 'fit them', nor feel part of a community.

eg ever heard of 'the bisexual community's view on x,y,z'? (horribly limiting language aside, you see my point, lots of the local queer services are advertised as being for lesbians and gay men, does this mean I shouldn't turn up, or that i'll upset people, be breaking into safe space? something i really don't want to do, and will/do just keep away, but it would be nice to know 'where to go' okay, selfpitying moan over ) Invisibility is great as defined strategy and even then is tricky and risky, but these weirdos I'm talking about are just plain invisible... and it freaks me... with good reason often, as biphobia is that nifty little prejudice that straight and gay can share together...

Then, what assumptions are there around people who choose not to define as straight/gay but definitely present as not being either of these? and indeed, how do you/someone present as this weird other? read an article a while ago on bisexuality in a book about lesbians and beauty norms asking what a bisexual presentation "shaved head and two earrings? butch but hanging off a boy's arm? how does it work?"

and finally, what implications are there for sexuality/gender in general for a recognition that for some people gender formation, sexual attraction work very differently from current models...
and where can i get some theretical perspectives/life stories on this? would really appreciate help with this...

am i just talking about another end product of the butlerian subjectivity or is my feeling that in the same way that people gain massive strength and joy from a 'gay culture', whichever one that is, and that I want something like this all of my own?

Heeeeeeellllp...
 
 
Ganesh
17:47 / 10.12.01
Heh. I wondered if we'd get back to the "greedy, fence-sitting scum". Bit tired this evening, so will gather my thoughts a little before trying to remember what I said last time and whether it still applies.

In the meantime, a few gobbets from my pre-frontal cortex:

Part of the "problem" with bisexuality is the fact that, as you've identified, there aren't that many easily-recognisable stereotypes - leading to distrust. To a certain extent, this goes on in the gay community (or rather, the gay scene) too, with those individuals not readily classifiable as a 'type' (y'know; bitchy queen, Muscle Mary, bear, A-gay, 'straight-acting', etc.) I've experienced an extremely watered-down version of this distrust on the one occasion that someone got pissed off with me for "lying" to them (ie. I hadn't immediately disclosed my sexuality when they asked if I had a girlfriend).

Bisexual men tend to get tarred with the "they're really gay but can't admit it" brush, perhaps because many gay men (myself included, went through a phase of declaring themselves bisexual prior to 'coming out' %in all its rainbow lycra splendour%. There's a sense that it's a sort of 'halfway house', that family and friends will be less distraught if one at least allows for the possibility that "the right woman" is still out there somewhere.

Bisexual women seem easier for society to accept, although there remains either the 'hubba hubba, can I watch' taint or the slightly more dated 'amoral sex murderer' stereotype ('Basic Instinct', 'Black Widow', etc.): hey, if even their sexuality's fluid, they can't have solid moral principles, can they?

Hmmm. Not sure where I'm going with this. Over to the theory-bitches.
 
 
Murray Hamhandler
18:14 / 10.12.01
Overwhelmingly attracted to women, open to the possibility of finding a guy that lit my fire. Don't feel the need to set my identity in stone. Anyone, gay or straight, who takes you to task over what you personally feel inside should be told to take a flying fuck, as far as I'm concerned. You're you and you shouldn't have to choose a "side" to please anyone. Play it safe and bonk who you like.
Arthur Sudnam
 
 
Ganesh
18:27 / 10.12.01
Perhaps more true now than it used to be. Historically, there was a definite 'need' to be seen to rally to a common banner (hence the old paranoia that bisexual people were insufficiently 'visible'). I'm not sure that the Pink Pound has totally eliminated that need (the Government, for example, not only "takes us to task" but legislates against many aspects of same-sex love), but it's a hell of a lot less pressing than it used to be. We probably have more freedom to experiment now than ever before.

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
18:46 / 10.12.01
In the age of newly developed transportation, people found new countries because they wanted to explore new things.

In an age of frank sexual openess and discussion, it's only normal that people will want to explore their own sexuality.

Some people will find that sexually they enjoy both sexes, others will find that they form good relationships with either sex. In a world of infinite human variety it is simply narrow-minded to declare one segment of society as wrong, or lying to themselves. Some people are bound to turn out this way (hate that phrase BTW, substitutions accepted). Labelling alternative sexualities with derisives is ignorant.

I chose to recognise people by personality first and foremost. Your sexuality is a small fraction of that frankly unimportant to me, prospective partners excepted.

As for the name, bisexual works for me. Like the word "desk" it has an understood meaning. Maybe a little close to hermaphrodite in nature but the alternative, polyamourous, seems like it's trying too hard to have a romantic notion.
 
 
Ganesh
18:56 / 10.12.01
This is all well and good, and no-one would disagree. At the moment, though, it's theoretical because people are discriminated against as a result of the sexualities they choose (or don't choose, depending how one looks at it): most obviously legally, but there remain stubborn old attitudes which - one would hope - will eventually die out with the Daily Mail generation.

At present, even considering the option of spending one's life with a partner of the same sex means that one faces the automatic waiving of certain legal and financial rights enjoyed by the population at large. I'm sorry to harp on with the same old example of homosexuality (because I'm aware that it isn't, specifically, what you wanted to discuss, Plums) but until we manage to achieve legal equality for non-heterosexual relationships, all the "don't worry about labels, be who you wanna be" stuff will be mere window-dressing...

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
Rage
19:29 / 10.12.01
I judge the person and not the gender. So should you. End of story, in my opinion.
 
 
Ganesh
19:33 / 10.12.01
That's laudable, Rage, but hardly "end of story"; not in terms of achieving a more generalised, across-the-board equality. Unfortunately, the arcane British legal system (in certain areas) discriminates against sexualities that are not monogamous-heterosexual. Until that changes, some of us have to keep banging on about it.

I know I'm overstating the point but, while the hetero-monogamous lifestyle (by which I mean choosing to spend one's life with an opposite-sex partner) is legally and financially so much more secure than the alternatives, it's always gonna appear that we are not all equally valid - not in the eyes of our Government, anyway. It's all well and good telling people they're equal, but if they don't enjoy the same legal rights as everyone else, that's just pleasant noise.

In the much more politicised 1980s, I think there was a feeling that bisexual people, because they could (in theory, at least) enjoy the benefits (in terms of Governmental, societal, family approval) of a 'conventional' straight relationship/marriage, were insufficiently "committed to the struggle". As I say, I think that attitude's changed - but, within the gay scene, perhaps not quite as much as we like to think it has...

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
grant
19:50 / 10.12.01
(This soooo belongs in the Head Shop....)

Is there really such an animal as "bisexual culture"?

My first assumption would be that bisexuality exists between/outside the cultures of hetero- and homosexuality. A borderline/mestizo position, more than a synthetic one. One that implicitly critiques either pole without having a pole of its own.

Or have things changed?

And if it's the case, that bisexuals are the Others to the hets and homos, then doesn't that mean that homosexuality has become sort of normalized, mainstreamed enough to have an "other"?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
19:53 / 10.12.01
Just in terms of logic, bisexuality makes the sense.

"between here and there is better than either here or there"
 
 
Ganesh
19:57 / 10.12.01
"Bisexual culture", eh? Tricky one. The most immediate mental images are rather unflattering ones: the suburban semi-detached (and possibly semi-mythical) swinging scene, where everyone happily joins in the "orgy". Or there's the slightly more aesthetically-pleasing (okay, IMHO) fetish scene, where bisexuality is pretty common.

Which brings me to an idle query I once posed before. On the gay scene, short hair is by far the prevailing fashion norm - whether the venue is mainstream or fetish. Bisexual men, on the other hand, when I've encountered them (which has been more or less restricted to Edinburgh's one briefly-thriving fetish monthly) have usually grown long, luxuriant hair.

Why the aesthetic difference? Are gay men trying to be more stereotypically 'masculine' while bisexual men see their sexuality much more androgynously?
 
 
Vadrice
20:09 / 10.12.01
Well... in past experience... yes, there is a bisexual culture, and no, I don't enjoy it.

It's chock full of what I (in my lesser moments) have coined the cognitave unconfirmed bisexual. The type of person who's never had any sort of intimate relationship with one gender or another, and basicly live a nominal gay or straight livestyle, accepting the fact that they constantly harp on the fact that they are indeed bisexual.

I truly hate to be one of those asses who shouts out "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" but... well... 4 times out of five when push came to shove, these cognitave unconfirmed bisexuals didn't make the cut, when it came down to the bones of it. They balked, and eventually they shut up and went on about their various one gender sexualities. This doesn't help the "untrustworthy" aspects of bisexuality (especially, though certainly not exclusively male bisexuality)

THE BEST comradery and culture I have managed to come into contact with is actually a thriving one (in it's brown paper bag sort of way).
That would be asexual culture, which is only the other side of the same coin of bisexuality (and I've met many bisexuals who can't tell themselves apart from asexuals, and are thus constantly changing their minds about their own titling), the main difference being a sharp drop off in drooling.

So yeah. As a male bisexual in America, I'm left with wishy washy slight chance in hell they're bi culture, or asexuality.

Ain't that a choice for the record books...
 
 
Vadrice
20:11 / 10.12.01
didn't touch on the fetish scene, because I'm just not very familiar therein.
 
 
Ganesh
20:15 / 10.12.01
Asexual culture intrigues me hugely. I'm guessing it'd be based around mutually-enjoyable pastimes and hobbies rather than the relentless need to meet potential sexual partners (with all the ritual that entails...)?

Are there many people who actually identify as 'asexual', then? I'm genuinely curious about this.

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
Vadrice
20:41 / 10.12.01
I've only met a few, and I had to work like fuckall to smoke them out of their holes, but... it was worth it.

The thing about asexuality is that sex isn't necessarily removed from the equation. It's just... not charged in the same way. It's more of a passtime that happens to produce pleasurable stimulous- like drinking.

What question was I answering... oh yes.
Not many. Few, actually... but definatly a defined culture, as opposed to the teeming masses of college kids claiming the ever so progressive banner of bisexuality. ~coughs~

And I suppose so. Furthering hobbies and passtimes. Granted, sex CAN be one of them... but... it's not the ritualized, ludacrous thing it has been known ass.

Oh, and every asexual I've ever met has had an absolutly bloody brilliant eye for disecting anything media.
Imagine having always been imune to the sexual overtones in the vast majority of the mediated world!
~swoons~

Yeah. I always end up crushing on my asexual aquaintances. I'm like a straight woman with many gay male friends.
~grunt~
 
 
Ganesh
20:55 / 10.12.01
Thanks, Vadrice. I love it when I'm pleasantly surprised by the vagaries of human sexuality...
 
 
Vadrice
09:00 / 11.12.01
glad to be of service.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:07 / 11.12.01
Ooh, Vadrice, thanks! Hmm, maybe I shall start identifying as asexual rather than d-sexual [as in 'd: none of the above'] or 'queer celibate'...

Ahem. Anyway, I don't want to talk about that. I just popped in to give you my fave Judith Butler quote: "Bisexuality is commonly theorized as the coincidence of two heterosexual desires in a single psyche" (you know, your butch/male side desires women, your femme/female side desires men).

This idea also reminds me of reading (what I thought was) a piss-stupid article in the Guardian about mixed-race subjectivity - saying it was an unhelpful term, and that (bizarrely, to me) a person of mixed race would 'become' either white or black depending on the colour of their spouse & children... What I suppose I mean by the analogy is that bisexuality inhabits an odd space between empiricism and identity. If you're in a straight relationship, "are" you straight? In a gay space, "are" you gay?

I have no answers and dodge the entire debate through my friend, the usefully vague word 'queer'. I wonder whether some of Audre Lorde's work on difference - not suppressing her Black identity in (white) gay space, not suppressing her gay identity in (straight) Black space - would come in handy here? Bisexuality as "the very house of difference"?

I second the move to move to the Headshop.
 
 
The Sinister Haiku Bureau
09:07 / 11.12.01
First up, great thread. Given that I can barely tread water amongst all the theory-bitches here, I'm just going to ask a few questions, and make some quasi-relevant observations, and try not to look too stupid...or at least try and pretend I'm joking...
quote:

Originally posted by lick my plums, bitch
To start with, personally, have a whole big problem with the term bisexual... it's the most used/recognised one, and the one which if i use gives people some vague image that isn't a million miles away from what i'm trying to define.


Could you expand on this please? For me, personally, as a male bisexual, the terms does smack a little of 30-year old, guardian-reading, geography teachers from south london with leather patches on their tweed jackets, a signed copy of 'the joy of sex' and a habit of having swinging orgy parties in his suburban house. But for me, at least, the term seems pretty viable, and I can't think of any alternatives, or what the subtleties of meaning an alternative would have, other than slightly hipper connotations. So please, someone, expand, explain, elucidate. What's wrong with the term and what would an alternative mean, and how would it differ from 'bisexual's meaning?

quote:

Originally posted by Ganesh
...To a certain extent, this goes on in the gay community (or rather, the gay scene) too, with those individuals not readily classifiable as a 'type' (y'know; bitchy queen, Muscle Mary, bear, A-gay, 'straight-acting', etc.)...
what's A-gay? if you try to be one but are crap, does that make you B or C gay???

Vadrice- regarding your assorted comments about asexuality? My hi-school biology defines asexual as being reproduction by splitting in half- I strongly suspect that's not what you're referring to. How is being asexual different from being say, non- or un- sexual, or a theoretically bisexual celibate? Any chance of a nice, sturdy definition?
And finally...
quote:
Originally posted by Deva.
Ahem. Anyway, I don't want to talk about that. I just popped in to give you my fave Judith Butler quote: "Bisexuality is commonly theorized as the coincidence of two heterosexual desires in a single psyche" (you know, your butch/male side desires women, your femme/female side desires men).


I'm not that well acquainted with Judith Butler's work (understatement!!!)- is this quote in the context of a criticism of how bisexuality is usually modelled? If so, does she suggest an alternative, and if so, what? Would it be any less valid to say, instead of saying I'm a straight man and a straight woman trapped in one soul, that I'm a gay man and a lesbian?

A couple of brief observations regarding the subject, also...
I'm sure someone far more versed in the ways of the theory-bitch referred to an argument by Foucoult (IIRC) that 'homosexuality' was 'invented' before heterosexuality, in terms of it being an identity or illness- the term was invented a good few decades before the word 'heterosexual'. Does anybody know how bisexuality fits into all this? And while we're at it, why aren't there (in common parlance) terms for 'monosexual' ie the opposite of bisexual, or people, whether gay or straight who are only attracted to one gender, or generic terms for 'any people attracted to men' or 'any people attracted to women'. Without having such terminology, is it even possible to discuss bisexuality without using clumsy language?
There's also the consideration of specifically bisexual issues which neither straight people or gay people have to worry about, such as when and how you go about coming out to your opposite sex partner (and still maintaining the relationship), and how to deal with that persons potential insecurity about you being unfaithful with someone who has entire sets of sexual organs that person lacks...

Oh, and I third (or fourth if someone else got there first) the move to the headshop.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Johnny Haiku ]

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Johnny Haiku ]
 
 
Vadrice
09:07 / 11.12.01
Keep in mind that I suck at definitions, seeing as it is my self assigned post to wreck them, as opposed to construct them.
But in terms of the fact that I was working on a coded one in my post, I'll concede to do my best.
I was working on the definition of asexual as a mode of sexuality devoid of manifestation of physical attraction toward either gender. And that's about it.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
09:07 / 11.12.01
Interesting thread, yes yes. Maybe I can even work on my non-flaming nice considerate personality here... But it does, definitely, belong in the Head Shop.

I think I'm a d-sexual too. At least, no label fits me as a temporal constant. Sometimes I present as a lesbian; sometimes I 'present' as a straight woman (never deliberately, but if you're walking down the street holding hands with a boy, that does seem to indicate straightness, doesn't it?); sometimes I present as something other-and-more-than, which has far more to do with the interlocking complex structures of gender identification and sexual-preference-as-more-than-gender-of-object-choice I inhabit. Some people have taken to calling me 'in denial', which has to do with a certain reluctance to give up identifying as a dyke when I started a long-term relationship with a boy. I would never describe myself as 'bisexual'. I can't exactly tell you why. Maybe it's because there are more than two genders, and sometimes it feels like I'm all seventeen million of them at once?

It's all pretty contextual, I reckon, plums. And I would say that since no space is safe (or at least I've come to think this, recently) of course you can walk into a lesbian space and 'pass' as a lesbian. In fact, so much insecurity already exists in the dyke community (at least the one I know) about hierarchies of butch-femme, trans, class-inflected lesbian gender presentations, acceptance of women of colour and sheer simple 'am_i'a-lesbian'if-I-once-fucked-a-boy?' problems, that any woman who has the nerve to walk into a dyke bar and flirt with the bar-tender deserves to be there, I reckon.

But then, this doesn't solve the problem of invisibility and positive communities of bisexuality... Sorry!
 
 
sumo
09:07 / 11.12.01
On the definition of asexuality:

This could be considered analogous to Thomas Huxley's construction of agnostic, conflating the root word gnostic with the prefix a-, "without, not".

Resulting, of course, in the paradoxical definition of asexuality as the expression of a sexuality devoid of sexuality.

Which I find appealing.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:07 / 11.12.01
I have moved this into the Head Shop with my magic powers, kids. Thoughts soon.
 
 
Cavatina
11:07 / 11.12.01
'Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same ...'

Michel Foucault


While the importance of the role played by identity politics in preceding decades in combating homophobia and sexism is undeniable, I do question why our subjectivities should be predicated on our sexuality to the degree that they are. I don't care much for sexual categorization, especially in terms of sexual object choice. And, in this sense, I guess I don't think of myself as having a sexual identity, more a sort of anti-identity - in that I'm not limited to desiring only one - that is, either men or women, or to one way of loving.

I strongly agree with the point made by Bill Posters (I think), in a thread some time ago, about the fluidity of sexuality over a lifetime.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
11:21 / 11.12.01
A brief possible thought topic. If we're working with Foucault, perhaps sexuality is given its sizable and significant role in how people are defined because it is a descriptor existent only in the modern age?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
11:42 / 11.12.01
I'm gonna stick my head on the block here and say that I like the fact that bisexuals (or whatever you would chose to refer to them as) don't have a clearly defined culture. Although the rather adhesive "slut" stereotype is present, there seems to be no additional pigeonholes that they get crammed into in the way that happens to gays.

To me, it leaves the whole contingent open to persue definitions of personality without a preclusive tag.

I honestly don't think that I've ever heard to someone refered to as a "bisexual {insert job title}" in the same way that "gay {insert job title}" gets bandied around.

I know I'm not making myself terribly clear here. In example, friends of mine who are gay will occasionally complain about character/personality assumptions that are made about them. This doesn't ahppen so often with the handful of bi friends.

Capice?
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
11:53 / 11.12.01
Is that because bisexuals are able to "pass"? I mean that a bisexual coworker can, if he chooses, talk about parts of his emotional and sexual life while remaining within a "normal" paradigm of gendered sexual space, while a gay man or lesbian cannot, so the space has to be either open or entirely closed off. So, there is a pressure bleed, forestalling the need to define oneself as "the serial killer who just happens to be gay".
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:21 / 11.12.01
I'll take that as not Capice then.

I was refering more to the bisexuals only seem to get landed witht he promiscuous, indecisive labels. They're not really expected to be more camp than a scout jamboree, dress only in drag at the weekend, speak with a lisp, be a hardcore butch football lover, wear dungarees with a crew cut, make innuendo about everything and any other assumptions that are heavy handedly dumped on gays.

They're not expected to have their entire lives and actions defined by their sexuality.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:22 / 11.12.01
Then again, I'm straight so what the hell do I know?
 
 
grant
18:22 / 11.12.01
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:
Why the aesthetic difference? Are gay men trying to be more stereotypically 'masculine' while bisexual men see their sexuality much more androgynously?


I think it's got to do with slick, clean surfaces more than anything else. Shiny and bright.
Not sure what that means, though, or what that answers.
 
 
grant
18:27 / 11.12.01
quote:Originally posted by Deva:
Ooh, Vadrice, thanks! Hmm, maybe I shall start identifying as asexual rather than d-sexual [as in 'd: none of the above'] or 'queer celibate'...

I did that for a while in college, before them wicked women finally got to me. Certainly simplified life.

I wonder - how much is "permanence" keyed into the idea of a culture?

Is bisexuality denied a culture because, as one previous poster said, almost all self-declared bisexuals wind up swinging one way or another?

quote:Ahem. Anyway, I don't want to talk about that. I just popped in to give you my fave Judith Butler quote: "Bisexuality is commonly theorized as the coincidence of two heterosexual desires in a single psyche" (you know, your butch/male side desires women, your femme/female side desires men).

That makes a certain amount of sense, but it sounds a bit... pat.

quote:I wonder whether some of Audre Lorde's work on difference - not suppressing her Black identity in (white) gay space, not suppressing her gay identity in (straight) Black space - would come in handy here? Bisexuality as "the very house of difference"?

I second the move to move to the Headshop.

Who's this Lorde lady? Don't believe I've come across her....
 
 
grant
18:36 / 11.12.01
One observation: an old friend of mine at college used to have a bit of a headache answering the inevitable, late-night "when did you lose your virginity?" discussions, because he did it twice, once for each gender. Cool guy, and definitely didn't fit the slut/dilettante stereotype.
Definitely, too, there was a power to the otherness there. And I think Haus is onto something with the idea of "passing" - because that's something I think this guy could do really well.
 
 
Cat Chant
20:08 / 11.12.01
Audre Lorde was a Black (her caps) lesbian-feminist theorist who, shamefully, I've never read (I may even be spelling her wrong), but she gets quoted a lot in stuff I do read. From the little I know of her, she tried to write, struggle, and live a space of difference - *using* the differences within groups as the basis for political energy, rather than assuming that political (and emotional) stuff has to be accomplished through some sort of prior unity.

I quite like the idea of bisexuality being That Which Disrupts any notion of a unified het population vs a unified homo population. It sounds difficult to live out as an identity category, which is why I mentioned Audre Lorde, who wrote about precisely the difficulties of *not* trying to live in a category while still retaining political and emotional capability.

God, I'm tired. I have no idea if I'm making any sense. Going now.
 
 
Ganesh
09:01 / 12.12.01
A-Gays? Bit like supposed A-list celebrities, I guess: rich, dripping in designer trash, "got it all". In 'Tales of the City', the Hampton-Giddes were A-gays. Elton John and David Furnish are probably the A-gays.

And yeah, I think the notion of being able to "pass" is one of the main reasons for the historical distrust of bisexuals: they just haven't paid their dues, maaan...
 
 
pantone 292
09:18 / 12.12.01
thanks, plums for setting this one in motion, will come back to it with something to say soon, for now, i'm beginning to think of myself as rhythm-sexual, having decided my last and recent relationship ended because we were desafinado...
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply