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 >

Six of the best for you, you little minx

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
some guy
18:05 / 09.09.02
It may be that you aren't addressing me, but you seem to be registering dissent (with me) and then repeating my assertions.

I apologize - I thought you had said that the line between fantasy and reality isn't very clear cut. I must have carried that over from reading a different poster's comments.

You are saying that assertions are not valid unless supported by a statistically significant study. Given that this is the only basis you give for objecting to certain facts, I put it to you that it is rather weak.

This is not what I am saying. What I am arguing is that some of us are offering straw men to bulk up our arguments, when there is actually little evidence to support this. I agree it seems likely that some grown man somewhere has jerked off to a Britney video. It just feels like the sort of thing that would happen, doesn't it? Nevermind that none of us can actually point to anyone who's done this. At its core it's the same sort of thing that perpetuates the belief that, say, gay men are out to corrupt our youth. It just feels like the sort of thing that would happen, nevermind that we would have a hard time pointing out examples of this. It's lazy thinking, and if the only way we can criticize School Disco is to claim that there's a lecherous old man somewhere out there wanking to Britney videos and on the verge of kidnapping young girls, then we're on very thin ice, especially if we can't actually produce said man.

Thats a good description of a possible source for the fetish, though I am not using the word in its technical sense. I mean, we arent saying that the majority of people going to these events only get off when school uniforms are involved.

Perhaps a good house rule (no pun intended) is that pedantry comes second to connotation in future Barbelith discussions?
 
 
some guy
18:07 / 09.09.02
once you get past the customary "poitical correctness gone mad" bit

Feel free to explain why such a description doesn't apply...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:55 / 09.09.02
Well now, that's what we're trying to decide, isn't it?
 
 
some guy
18:59 / 09.09.02
Are we?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:47 / 10.09.02
Moderator hat, Laurence - be so good as to remain on topic. This is not a competition to see who can get the last word. You can tell this by the way most of us are past adolescence.

Which brings us neatly back to schoolgirls. In Macho Sluts, by (the then) Pat Califia, a short story called The Finishing School covers a mistress' "training" of a girl (the exact age of whom I am afraid I cannot recall, or is possibly never given), who is described as her daughter (albeit by an unreliable narratrix), on the night before she goes off to boarding school (the dark flipside of Eleanor M Brent Dyer, I suspect).

Now, I do not know what sort of critical response was inspired by this story. I would certainly suggest that were it to be presented to the Christian right, it would get a rather harder reception than even "Hit Me Baby One More Time". On average, it would presumably appeal to a rather smaller audience and be more likely to upset more people. Also, it might be pointed out, it is aimed at being "transgressive literature". However, what but the fear of straying onto a "protected" sexuality could prevent the critics of the sexualisation of schooldays or schoolgirls by or for heterosexual men not also descending on this with daggers drawn?
 
 
Rev. Orr
08:33 / 10.09.02
Right, Laurence. In the interests of moving this along, I settled in last night with a tube o'lube and MTV and waited. Sadly, I am a few years short of the specified 35, and three minutes of Ms.Spears' writhings coupled with my own best efforts were insufficient to achieve the required Kleenex spittage, but I trust that this is close enough to appease you. I have also, in anticipation, discovered that pigs, if they can be fitted with lightweight, fixed wings similar to a hang-glider and trained to run straight downhill might fly. After attacking a passing tramp with a plank and then placing a ferret in his trousers, I discovered that two wrongs do indeed not make a right and whilst political correctness is indeed undergoing sessions with a qualified therapist, she feels that it is far too early to adjudge that the patient is, in laymans terms, 'mad'.

What about the masses who enjoy a woman in a school uniform but don't require it to function sexually?

I'm going to assume that the 'it' in question is the uniform rather than the woman. What, exactly, are these masses enjoying about the uniform? Do they feel a sensation of nostalgia and sepia-toned memory welling up inside? Does the uniform, independantly of the woman, act as an aide-memoire, taking them make to their own past? Or, could it possibly be that these massed onlookers mainly enjoy the shortness of the skirt and the number of open buttons on the blouse?

Frankly, I think (in my wholly unsubstantiated, not supported by MORI, opinion) that the 'fetishistic' or totemic nature of the schoolgirl uniform is not its primary attraction for most of the monstrous regiment of hetro-men. It's skimpy, it gapes. There's flesh on show and often lollipop action (cf penile substitution not infantalism). The clothing at SchoolDisco is designed to complement the music, not the other way around.

However, this does not explain the strength of the image and/or fantasy within British society as a whole. Page 3 girls in the Sun are sometimes pictured alongside their school photos or descriptions of how they have just left school or will have to after posing. Sam Fox first appeared under the headline that she was 'swapping O-levels for Oooh-levels'. One of the most popular costumes in both fancy dress hire shops and non-specialist sex shops is the 'slutty schoolgirl'. Obviously, the sexualisation of the perceived 'pure' is an attractive prospect for both sexes. 'Good girls who do' is a meme that appears to appeal to women and men. Additionally, I would suggest that the schoolgirl is one of a small group of 'acceptable' fetishes or rather sexualised uniforms. We (as a society) are not comfortable yet with widespread adoption or toying with what are regarded as more outlandish fetishes or patterns of dress (rubber, latex, leather) but are quite happy to whip on a nurses uniform, a school skirt or a French maids outfit. Quite how these became chosen I'm not sure yet, but I think that the proportion of those people of all genders who enjoy playing with the school image who do so out of paedophillic tendancies are very small.

Does this make the sexualisation of the school uniform okay? No, that's a seperate argument and I do agree that there are serious problems inherent with attempting to have one image covering a sexualised adult meaning and an 'innocent' child meaning. However, whether the sight of hundreds of Willesden estate agents sweating into poly-cotton makes you reach for the napalm or not, it is not an example of concious Glitter worship.
 
 
some guy
11:49 / 10.09.02
Moderator hat, Laurence - be so good as to remain on topic. This is not a competition to see who can get the last word.

Not a matter of trying to get the last word. I'm genuinely questioning your statement, which to me doesn't seem a good descriptor of the goal of this conversation (which is less of a reasoned examination of the popularity of the school uniform look than a criticism of men who like the look).

Orr, in which post did I claim political correctness had gone mad? Or indeed even referenced political correctness?

Frankly, I think (in my wholly unsubstantiated, not supported by MORI, opinion) that the 'fetishistic' or totemic nature of the schoolgirl uniform is not its primary attraction for most of the monstrous regiment of hetro-men. It's skimpy, it gapes. There's flesh on show and often lollipop action (cf penile substitution not infantalism).

But surely girls at non-uniform schools wear even less clothing (belly shirts and so forth)? If it was about flesh, wouldn't they get more attention than girls in uniform? I'm also not sure how accurate it is to describe the standard school uniform as skimpy - especially with socks pulled up!

However, this does not explain the strength of the image and/or fantasy within British society as a whole.

Or, more interestingly, within American society, which does not have a strong tradition of uniformed students. This to me tends to negate the "nostalgia" explanation.

there are serious problems inherent with attempting to have one image covering a sexualised adult meaning and an 'innocent' child meaning.

What are these problems, and why are they problematic? Is it so difficult to simply allow people to think contextually?
 
 
Rev. Orr
13:18 / 10.09.02
erm...

once you get past the customary "poitical correctness gone mad" bit - Haus
Feel free to explain why such a description doesn't apply... Your good self

But anyway,

surely girls at non-uniform schools wear even less clothing (belly shirts and so forth)? If it was about flesh, wouldn't they get more attention than girls in uniform?

It's not a question of what girls at non-uniform schools wear, the comparison is with what the women dressing as schoolgirls would otherwise wear. I have no recent experience with the dress codes at non-uniform schools but cannot for a moment imagine that there is not a difference between the reality of school uniform and the fantasy creation worn by older men and women for the purpose of stimulation. Take a look at the images at SchoolDisco on the link Haus provided; nobody dressed like that at any of the schools I attended or taught at.

This, I think, is the crux of the matter. It is a case of dressing as a schoolgirl, not like a schoolgirl does. It is an artificial image that has a life and costume of its own. This goes some way to explain how it has managed to take root in a culture where a much smaller percentage, and a privileged or aspirational sector at that, of schools enforce a uniform. Also, as I understand it, there is a much stronger undertone of the character assumed being a Catholic schoolgirl - a nun-lite if you will - further highlighting the 'touchable-untouchable' thrill, in the US. As to the power behind the image or the attraction of the role, my best guess is that it has to do with a combination of sullying the innocent and gaining an transgressive thrill from the idea that 'nice girls don't'. Not certain, can't prove it, open to suggestions.

There are serious problems inherent with attempting to have one image covering a sexualised adult meaning and an 'innocent' child meaning.
What are these problems, and why are they problematic? Is it so difficult to simply allow people to think contextually

Don't start putting words in my mouth either. I'm not allowing or forbidding anyone anything. The problem that I have with the concept is that it stems from a caricature of of available pubescent female sexuality. An adult is assuming the role of a sexually available and voracious individual and in doing so, sexualising and altering the way that mask or role is perceived. As you see from the above, I am sure that most people can see the difference between a thirty-something professional dressing up for a night out and a fourteen year-old in the clothes she is required to wear. However, the uniform is a symbol of its own. It is imposed upon the individual and colours our perception of them. That is the point of getting schoolchildren to wear it in the first place. If that symbol, that uniform has been sexualised in another context, then it is forcing that association upon an individual without their volition. If the adult in the uniform attracts the innocence of the child, then the child in the uniform attracts the sexual availability and interest of the adult. Yes, I know that teenagers have sexualities, but the uniform is not adopted through choice, it is imposed by authority and therefore should not be forced to carry meanings and allusions that we as a society are not willing to impose on our children.
 
 
some guy
14:13 / 10.09.02
once you get past the customary "poitical correctness gone mad" bit - Haus
Feel free to explain why such a description doesn't apply... Your good self

Let me get this straight. If I respond to someone who raised the issue of political correctness, it's somehow my fault the issue was brought up? I didn't drag that term into the discussion.

It's not a question of what girls at non-uniform schools wear, the comparison is with what the women dressing as schoolgirls would otherwise wear. I have no recent experience with the dress codes at non-uniform schools but cannot for a moment imagine that there is not a difference between the reality of school uniform and the fantasy creation worn by older men and women for the purpose of stimulation. Take a look at the images at SchoolDisco on the link Haus provided; nobody dressed like that at any of the schools I attended or taught at.

In that case I'm afraid I don't see your point re: the skimpy nature of school uniforms. Unless you're arguing that it's the adult version of them that is deliberately skimpy. We all seem to be in agreement that the School Disco women don't really look like school girls.

Also, as I understand it, there is a much stronger undertone of the character assumed being a Catholic schoolgirl - a nun-lite if you will - further highlighting the 'touchable-untouchable' thrill, in the US.

Yes, you're right about the Catholic thing. I see what you're driving at but these are adults attending School Disco with other adults. I'm sure most of us have been to meat market clubs before - there isn't exactly an "untouchable" vibe happening. I have trouble with the scenario you're presenting when everyone involved knows they're likely to cop off just by attending. So we're back to aesthetics, it seems.

What are these problems, and why are they problematic? Is it so difficult to simply allow people to think contextually?
Don't start putting words in my mouth either.

Asking you questions is the opposite of putting words in your mouth, Orr. The final question is posed more to the thread participants at large. I think we're frequently guilty of a high degree of arrogance on Barbelith; I touched on this upthread. We talk about all these "worrying" implications etcetera but by and large the people who go to School Disco (and enjoy the school uniform look in general) are normal human beings playing with consenting adults, with no interest in molesting children or anything like that. Why? Because human beings are contextual thinkers and movement through fantasy spheres by healthy adults is not nearly as complicated as some of us like to think. Or is it complicated for the unwashed masses but somehow not for us? Anyone here want to admit to stalking fourteen-year-olds because you fancied that mid-twenties med student at last month's School Disco?

However, the uniform is a symbol of its own. It is imposed upon the individual and colours our perception of them. That is the point of getting schoolchildren to wear it in the first place. If that symbol, that uniform has been sexualised in another context, then it is forcing that association upon an individual without their volition.

Are you arguing that the police should feel victimized because of the sexualization of their uniforms?

I am sure that most people can see the difference between a thirty-something professional dressing up for a night out and a fourteen year-old in the clothes she is required to wear.

or

If the adult in the uniform attracts the innocence of the child, then the child in the uniform attracts the sexual availability and interest of the adult.

Pick one.
 
 
No star here laces
15:14 / 10.09.02
So if I was going to summarise the conclusions of the non-huffy bits of this thread they would be:

1) People like to be reminded of their schooldays on a night out because it reminds them of their strongest sexual feelings (i.e. their first sexual feelings)

2) Schoolgirl uniforms are revealing and therefore attractive.

3) Innocence in a woman can be an attractive quality for many men. (suspect this has to do with surest way of ensuring a child is yours, i.e. primitive biological drive)

I'd suggest that while the topic of this thread is about the sexual aspect of dressing up as a schoolkid, there is an important other aspect as well. Namely people go out to clubs to have fun. Dressing up in a silly outfit (school uniform, polyester 70s gear) is a way of stepping outside of normal codes of behaviour and allowing yourself to be a bit more silly, a bit more free. You can't be too worried about projecting an image of strength and responsibility while wearing a too-tight pair of grey shorts and a school tie with foodstains.

We've noted that women are very visible at school disco. This might also have something to do with a desire to return to a sexual milieu where women held all the cards. There was no earnings gap at school. The girls had their pick of the older, more desirable boys at an age when the boys were trapped on the wrong side of the puberty fence. I think this is a far more powerful motivator for women to go to school disco than simply to pander to men's fetishes. In fact I'll bet that there are more women than men there any night of the week.
 
 
Rev. Orr
15:37 / 10.09.02
Okay, quickly, political correctness. No, you didn't mention it first. Yes, you suggested it had 'gone mad'. Yes, I referred to that at the end of a piece of supposed humour. Live with it.

I'm afraid I don't see your point re: the skimpy nature of school uniforms. Unless you're arguing that it's the adult version of them that is deliberately skimpy.

Yup. Got it in two. Well done. They are not trying to pass as adolescents, but even you are admitting that they are co-opting the schoolgirl uniform image. Nobody is putting forward the 'isn't it shocking what young people are wearing today' argument. we are discussing adults taking a look which applies to people under the legal age of consent and adjusting it to permit, encourage and display adult sexual interaction.

there isn't exactly an "untouchable" vibe happening...when everyone involved knows they're likely to cop off just by attending. So we're back to aesthetics, it seems.

No. The 'touchable' stems from the context, the intent of the wearer and the nature of the event. The 'untouchable' is a factor in the choice of outfit. It is an association that the person choosing to dress that way is hoping to trigger by donning the outfit and, in many cases, by adopting exaggerated mannerisms and role play.

Aesthetics - the science of sensory perception or the philosophy of beauty or art. I'm sure that nobody cares whether I find this particular look attractive or beautiful, but I agree, it is a matter of perception. If school uniform is perceived as sexualised then we come on to the next point...

by and large the people who go to School Disco....are normal human beings playing with consenting adults, with no interest in molesting children or anything like that. Why? Because human beings are contextual thinkers and movement through fantasy spheres by healthy adults is not nearly as complicated as some of us like to think.

I've already agreed that SchoolDisco is not a centre for massmarketing kiddie porn, but I do not see how you can claim that there is no link between the uniforms worn in one context and the other. Without that link there is no logic, no identity to the adult costume. If it does not reference or map onto the 'real' uniform then what makes it a costume, how is it defined as a dress code? Once you have accepted the link between the real and the fantasy, can you really claim that it can only act in one direction? That our reading of the fantasy costume is informed by our understanding of the uniform, but not the other way around.

I'm not proposing to gather a News of the World lynch mob and picket the next SchoolDisco with paedophile placards. What I am suggesting is that unquestioning acceptance of the mainstream nature of this fantasy feeds into and complicates our view of adolescent female sexuality and availability as a society; something which is already problematic enough.

Are you arguing that the police should feel victimized because of the sexualization of their uniforms?

No. Many members of the police and nursing professions are uncomfortable with the appropriation of their uniforms for sexual purposes, but that is a different argument. The point I made related to two points: the age of the uniform wearer and the lack of choice is wearing that uniform. A policewoman or nurse has made a concious choice as an adult to enter that profession, knowing that it involves wearing a uniform. The extent to which that affected their decision is entirely up to them and they are free to change their mind at any point. School attendance is compulsory and very few children are given the choice of which school to attend by their parents. If they find themselves in a school which enforces a uniform or dress code, then there is very little they can do about it. Secondly, you don't get (dire Burt Reynolds films aside) underage cops. Put these together and no, the two instances are not analogous.

I am sure that most people can see the difference between a thirty-something professional dressing up for a night out and a fourteen year-old in the clothes she is required to wear.

or

If the adult in the uniform attracts the innocence of the child, then the child in the uniform attracts the sexual availability and interest of the adult.

Pick one.

Okay, one more time. Woman, girl, different. That why we have law. If daddy goes to SchoolDisco on Saturday night and goes to pick up his daughter from school on Monday, he does not stand there confused in the playground because the pretty lights and bouncy music have gone. I really don't know how many times I have to explain this for you. It is not that everyone taking part in this 'scene' is going to be mistaken for teenagers - it is the blurring of the boundaries between the available and the not, the independant and the protected, the legal and the illegal. It is not about the 'she looked twenty-five, your honour' defence it is about perception, allusion, inferrence and association. It is incremental, slow and bloody hard to prove, but by sexualising the uniform and then enforcing its use by young women and girls we can only slowly adjust our perception of these women.

Does this lead to action? Not necessarily in the extreme sense you are trying to force on me. But is regarding this section of the population in such a light 'a good thing'? I would suggest not.
 
 
Rev. Orr
15:42 / 10.09.02
Lyra - Yeah, dressing up = fun. And yeah, I like old music and sometimes dress to fit the period. However, no-one went to actual school discos in their uniform. That was one of the attractions. So why school uniform on these occasions? It's not just a 'silly outfit', it has a greater draw than that.
 
 
some guy
16:40 / 10.09.02
We've noted that women are very visible at school disco. This might also have something to do with a desire to return to a sexual milieu where women held all the cards. There was no earnings gap at school. The girls had their pick of the older, more desirable boys at an age when the boys were trapped on the wrong side of the puberty fence. I think this is a far more powerful motivator for women to go to school disco than simply to pander to men's fetishes. In fact I'll bet that there are more women than men there any night of the week.

This is a great observation, Lyra.

No, you didn't mention it first. Yes, you suggested it had 'gone mad'.

Er, I think Haus said that.

They are not trying to pass as adolescents

This is what makes the Arg! School Disco Bad! argument so weak, IMO. This is so obviously not a case of sexualizing actual young people that it's extremely difficult to see what the problem is.

The 'touchable' stems from the context, the intent of the wearer and the nature of the event. The 'untouchable' is a factor in the choice of outfit.

But in this context the outfit translates into "touchable." I just don't buy this argument at all. "These guys are hot for these readily available women because they don't look readily available. Except that they've changed the outfit so they do look readily available, sport skimpy clothes and are at a meat market." It doesn't make sense.

I've already agreed that SchoolDisco is not a centre for massmarketing kiddie porn, but I do not see how you can claim that there is no link between the uniforms worn in one context and the other.

The issue isn't the uniforms themselves, but rather who wears them, and in what context. This shouldn't be a difficult notion to grasp. The sexy nurse is a fantasy type, but this doesn't make hospitals a bastion of sexual assault. It doesn't make people actually want the reality of nurses, any more than women fantasizing about rape want to actually be raped. We are talking about fantasy. Adults are capable of knowing the difference. It's part of what an adult is. Presumably all of us would claim to be able to tell the difference. Why do we insist that it's a unique ability to us enlightened few, that the masses are too stupid to know the difference between a woman in a sexy nurse costume and an actual nurse (insert school uniform example here)?

It begs the question yet again - what specifically is wrong with School Disco?

Once you have accepted the link between the real and the fantasy, can you really claim that it can only act in one direction? That our reading of the fantasy costume is informed by our understanding of the uniform, but not the other way around.

Yes, I can claim that, precisely because the attendees of School Disco are not out molesting actual school girls. This is the exact same relationship, by the way, presented by video games, comics and any other fantasy outlet. Enjoying The Invisibles does not translate into wanting to actually shoot people. Enjoying an evening at School Disco with a hot date in a school uniform does not translate into wanting to date young girls. You want to insist on a backwards link between the uniform and the costume (and that's what it obviously is), but what evidence would you provide for this? The mass acceptance of the school uniform 'fetish' is countered by the mass disgust with adults who molest children. It appears that healthy adults aren't being led into debauchery with school girls because they like their girlfriends to dress in school uniforms. The very paradox pointed out earlier - that there is a mainstream school uniform 'fetish' yet the mainstream is rabidly anti-paedophilia - is a testament to people's ability to appropriately process what's happening.

What I am suggesting is that unquestioning acceptance of the mainstream nature of this fantasy feeds into and complicates our view of adolescent female sexuality and availability as a society

But how can you say this when normal people aren't trying to have sex with adolescent females? It gets back to every other fantasy, too. Would you argue that those involved in the B&D or S&M scenes are likely to fall victim to blurred boundaries and start acting aggressively in real life?

It is not that everyone taking part in this 'scene' is going to be mistaken for teenagers - it is the blurring of the boundaries between the available and the not, the independant and the protected, the legal and the illegal.

Fine. I understand your position here. But I think you're wrong. There is no evidence of a blurring of the boundaries among normal people (and I'm specifically excluding paedophiles here), as you yourself admit several times. What exactly is being blurred, where is your evidence, and how do you explain the fact that I and (presumably) you yourself are not victim of this blurring?

However, no-one went to actual school discos in their uniform. That was one of the attractions. So why school uniform on these occasions? It's not just a 'silly outfit', it has a greater draw than that.

But this is just another classic Barbelith case of reading too much into things. For all we know it could well be just a silly outfit for a night out. It's not like School Disco attendees are textbook fetishists, as Haus pointed out.
 
 
bio k9
09:09 / 18.09.02
Sorry it took me so long to get back, I forgot all about this thread. (Can we have the View Recent Posts button back, please? Tom?) Reading the whole thing in one sitting has given me a headache.

Going way back to the top of the thread...

Haus: Yeah, I think a large part of it has to do with men getting something that was previously unattainable or is currently out of bounds. As far as what the women get out of it I really can't say except perhaps the chance to be "naughty" and/or bask in the attention. At any rate, Jane in a skirt will get a look but Jane in a cheerleaders skirt will get a second look.

Totally off topic (and perhaps worthy of a thread of its own...)
LLBimG said: I tend to frown on big age gaps in relationships because of the inevitable power differential, and wonder what a grown man could possibly see in a younger woman except sex.

Please define "big age gaps". Are you talking about relationship in which both partners are of consenting age? If so, could you please explain how this "inevitable power differential" manifests itself? Does it also occur in relationships in which the woman is older? Is this just an opinion or do you have data to back this up?
 
 
Tom Coates
15:45 / 18.09.02
Interestingly everyone has kind of assumed that men are getting the better deal simply because the girls are exposing more skin. But I'm unconvinced by this - grown men in school uniform can be tremendously sexy - possibly because the level of threat they represent is undermined by the ridiculousness of it, and the behaviour it brings out of them. I think the main reason uniforms maintain their appeal is a combination of a basic fetish for uniforms (which I think pertains a little bit to a dehumanising of the individual concerned and a recasting them as a sexy archetype of a person along with the simple fact that a uniform is generally revealing of the body underneath in a way that normal clothes can disguise), and secondly because most of us manifest sweaty lusty disturbing loin urges when we're at school. Those of us who were at school with people in school uniforms will almost certainly associate them to a good degree with the hot firm bodies of the people we couldn't look at without getting steamingly aroused... There's a good proportion of it that's never going to be any more complicated than that...
 
 
.
22:03 / 18.09.02
More on School Disco.

I'm maintaining my view that the whole school uniform thing is primarily motivated by nostalgia. I haven't been to School Disco, but I'm willing to bet that the music is early- mid 80's pop. And if people have a thing for school uniform, do they think of Grange Hill now or Grange Hill with the old music and the cartoon strip sausage flying across the screen? The recent school uniform craze is inextricably linked with 80's nostalgia. The way I see it, nostaliga is about that vague warm feeling of familiarity and safety, and so it has become popular as a way to distill the usual feelings of paranoia that one feels in a large group such as one finds in a club environment.

Of course assigning oneself a uniform of any sort is also a form of tribalism, which provides some sort of cultural identity in a society where such identity is not a given.

So I'm proposing that there are at least two compelling non-sexual explanation for the whole school uniform thing. (Or at least school uniform within the context of School Disco and the like).
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply