Age Old Victim-Blaming Myths Win Court Case for Girls Gone Wild

by Cara on July 24, 2010

in courts, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, pop culture, pornography, rape and sexual assault, sexual exploitation and harassment, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls

Trigger Warning for descriptions of sexual assault and explicit victim-blaming and sexual assault apologism.

Earlier this week, a jury ruled against a woman who sued the Girls Gone Wild franchise on the grounds that they damaged her reputation when they included footage of her being forcibly disrobed in one of their DVDs (h/t). The woman, identified in the case as Jane Doe, never gave consent for her breasts to be showed on film, audibly refused to lift up her top for cameras, and never signed a consent form. Nevertheless, when another woman came up from behind Doe and suddenly pulled her tank top down — sexually assaulted her — her breasts were exposed and the footage was used.

A St. Louis Circuit Court jury deliberated 90 minutes before ruling against the woman, 26, on the third day of the trial. Lawyers on both sides argued the key issue was consent, with her side saying she absolutely refused to give it and the defense claiming she silently approved by taking part in the party.

The woman, identified in court files as Jane Doe, was 20 when she went to the former Rum Jungle bar in May 2004 and was filmed by a “Girls Gone Wild” video photographer. Now married, the mother of two girls and living in the St. Charles area, Doe sued in 2008 after a friend of her husband’s reported that she was in one of the videos.

“I am stunned that this company can get away with this,” Doe said after the verdict. “Justice has not been served. I just don’t understand. I gave no consent.”

But Patrick O’Brien, the jury foreman, told a reporter later that an 11-member majority decided that Doe had in effect consented by being in the bar and dancing for the photographer. In a trial such as this one, agreement by nine of 12 jurors is enough for a verdict.

“Through her actions, she gave implied consent,” O’Brien said. “She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing.”

There is something gravely, gravely wrong in the U.S. court system when a jury foreman can say that a sexual assault victim “knew what she was doing” and therefore deserved what she got, as a means for deciding how he did in the case.

There is a long, well-documented history of coercion in the making of the Girls Gone Wild films. The women who are featured in the videos are not paid, but rather compensated with tee-shirts. They are plied with drinks by the crews, and then incessantly cajoled and egged on until they do what the cameramen want. Oh, and the company’s sleazy founder Joe Francis has been informally accused of rape. There’s no doubt that some women do actually want and choose to be featured in the films. But their agency and choices don’t erase or excuse Girls Gone Wild’s long track record of gaining “consent” that is not informed, meaningful, or enthusiastic, from women who are known and desired to be in no state of mind to make a decision that very well may stick with them for the rest of their lives.

But that’s not even what we’re talking about here. Girls Gone Wild’s history is relevant, as this case is a part of a long line of purposefully coercive, non-consensual, and potentially illegal behavior. But the issue in Jane Doe’s lawsuit wasn’t the more complex one of whether her consent was meaningful and adequate under the terms it was obtained. The issue is that there was no consent. And Girls Gone Wild knew that, and just didn’t give a shit.

I don’t know the law well enough to know whether or not the jury made the technically correct decision. But I do know that something is seriously wrong here when a woman’s sexual assault is used by a company for profit, without her permission. I do know that something is seriously wrong when “implied consent” — in spite of explicit non-consent, no less — is taken as a valid legal defense. And I do know that something is seriously wrong when a jury decides that a woman who is in public has no legal right to how her body is used by other people.

It’s rare that classic victim-blaming memes are used quite so blatantly and explicitly in court. Usually, lawyers try to be a bit more covert about exactly what kind of prejudices they’re playing into. I feel as though this example is so clear that it hardly needs my parsing, but I’ve been known to overestimate other people’s understanding of rape culture.

When O’Brien despicably said, “She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing,” what he was saying was, “She was being a tease. She totally wanted it. And if she didn’t actually plan to give it up, she deserved to have it taken from her against her will.” What he was saying was, “Look what a slut she was being, dancing in front of our cameras.” What he was saying was, “She’s a slut, and sluts deserve what they get.”

One has to wonder how he sleeps at night. But what went ignored in his argument, and apparently by the rest of the jury, was the simple fact put forth by Doe’s lawyer:

“Other girls said it was OK. Not one other one said, ‘No, no,’” Evans said. “She is entitled to go out with friends and have a good time and not have her top pulled down and get that in a video.”

This truth, that women have a right to be in public without being assaulted and then having their assaults distributed for profit, seems irrefutable to everyone who views women as human beings. But clearly it’s an easy thing to dismiss for Girls Gone Wild and the jury who sided with them. In their eyes, women who leave their homes, who have the audacity to dance for cameras, who “know what they’re doing,” simply cannot be violated, because they have no right to consent or non-consent at all.

Bookmark and Share

{ 36 comments }

1 Marilyn July 24, 2010 at 4:29 pm

Ugh, this is disgusting. I HATE those Girls Gone Wild videos. It almost seems like a type of voyeurism on the part of the viewer. It’s not just enough to see pictures of boobs – no, those boobs need to be attached to young, visibly drunk women being rewarded with hats.

2 Wes Widner July 24, 2010 at 6:32 pm

I think you are blowing this case out of porportion. Are you seriously willing to make the case that the girl’s friend should be prosecuted in criminal court for sex crimes?

Additionally, your additional commentary goes far beyond the scope of the case. I think you are completely overlooking the fact that it was not GGW that forced her actions, but her friend, whom she was with.

Granted, GGW is a pretty sleazy outfit, but this case is simply not on them.

On another note. I am surprised the lawyers didn’t mention the anti-porn law George Bush signed before he left office that requires the signature and proof of age of all participants in any pornographic video. It seems that, in this case, if she were serious about not wanting to be in the video she could simply sue and show where her signature of consent was not provided.

3 Cara July 24, 2010 at 6:41 pm

Well Wes, I would make that case if Doe decided to press charges, regardless of whether or not the woman was her friend (I didn’t notice “friend” being reported anywhere, though I may be mistaken). I’m not big on making other sexual assault victims’ choices about reporting and prosecuting for them. Then again, I’m also wildly bored with people who want to complain about me calling assaults of a sexual nature by the term “sexual assault,” on the basis of whether or not one can or should be reasonably expected to try the perpetrator in a criminal court. Good god, we wouldn’t want women talking about their experiences outside of the context of social systems that actively harm them!

Other things I’m bored with: Dudes telling me how I’m blowing sexual violations against women out of proportion. Imagine that.

4 Heather Aurelia July 24, 2010 at 7:34 pm

I always hated Girls Gone Wild and every other porn video. I am bisexual and my boyfrined thought we could have fun watching porn vids, after, omgds, I will never ever do that again. It was absolutely disgusting! My boyfriend was only trying to *spice* up our love life but I was not impressed, lol.
I can’t believe that this would happen! Urgh.

5 Brian Lynchehaun July 24, 2010 at 8:19 pm

Are you seriously willing to make the case that the girl’s friend should be prosecuted in criminal court for sex crimes?

Did a sex crime take place?

Was the second girl involved?

If yes to both, then yes she should be prosecuted for sex crimes. This seems to be a pretty simple matter, why are you confused?

I think you are completely overlooking the fact that it was not GGW that forced her actions, but her friend, whom she was with

She didn’t consent to having her image used for commercial purposes. This is the violation of her rights that is the central issue in that particular court case, but feel free to ignore in favour of the other nonsense that you’re spouting.

It seems that, in this case, if she were serious about not wanting to be in the video she could simply sue and show where her signature of consent was not provided.

You seem to have not read the case. That is precisely what she argued (that consent was not given), and yet the jury decided otherwise.

6 Brian Lynchehaun July 24, 2010 at 8:22 pm

Other things I’m bored with: Dudes telling me how I’m blowing sexual violations against women out of proportion. Imagine that.

If a woman told you that you were blowing sexual violations against women out of proportion, would you be likewise bored with that? (I’m guessing that yes, you would)

If you’d mind avoiding the confirmation bias and confining your displeasure to just men, I’d be appreciative.

Swapping ‘idiots’ for ‘dudes’ would likewise work. You’re inappropriately grouping the objectors. It’s not a ‘dude’ issue, it’s a ‘moron’ issue. I’m not blind to the fact that the vast majority (hell, even 100%) of the objectors are guys, that doesn’t make it a problem with guys, it makes a problem with the morons who happen to be guys.

7 RD July 24, 2010 at 9:29 pm

It is on them, they profited off it and set up the entire “drunk girls being compensated with hats” and “consent isn’t really important and is ignored at other times too” environment. But it was fucked up of the friend too.

8 Cara July 24, 2010 at 10:05 pm

Brian, I liked you a lot better after your first comment. Have you ever heard “if it doesn’t apply to you, don’t make it about you”?

And I would not swap in “idiots,” as it’s an ableist word that I’m working hard to drop from my vocabulary. Same with morons. And yes, it is an issue with guys, actually. It’s an issue with guys because they’re the ones with the privilege that allows them to not get such things. It doesn’t mean that they’re the only ones who don’t get it, but it is a particular problem when they don’t. And the fact that it’s a vast majority of guys is for a reason. So I’m sick of guys telling women about their lives just like I’m sick of white folks telling people of color about what is and isn’t racist (I’m white), just like I’m sick of straight folks telling gay people to stop whining so much about rights (I’m straight), just like I’m sick of abled folks telling disabled folks to stop being “so sensitive” and “playing the victim” (I identify as abled). Privileged identity is very much an issue, and I absolutely will not ignore abuse of it. It doesn’t mean that I hate men or think that every guy is the same. It means that certain men who do a certain obnoxious thing bore me, because I’m sick of politely educating and being expected to defer to them. *cough*

9 Brian Lynchehaun July 25, 2010 at 2:12 am

Brian, I liked you a lot better after your first comment. Have you ever heard “if it doesn’t apply to you, don’t make it about you”?

First, your use of ‘dudes’ was as much about me, as Doe losing her criminal case was about you.

Secondly, I didn’t make it about me. I made a point about an inappropriate grouping. Here’s a second example regarding that:

I find it obnoxious when “certain women” overgeneralise and blame “certain men” for their problems, as I’m sick of politely educating and being expected to defer to them.

The “” are in use because while ‘certain’ typically means specific, in the case that I’m using it (and ditto for yourself), I don’t mean *a* specific case, but using it as a catch all to mean ‘all men who do this’.

I ask again (though rephrasing): it’s ok for women to make these kinds of comments, but not men?

Sexism is sexism, regardless of who does it. As is idiocy (as defined as: someone who refuses to get what has been clearly spelt out for them. I don’t find those ableist articles compelling, nor do I use ‘idiot’ when ‘ignorant’ applies).

10 Cara July 25, 2010 at 8:26 am

Brian, I don’t have time for your “reverse sexism” arguments. Nor do I have time for someone who has the audacity to compare me calling out an asshole to a woman having her sexual assault distributed on a pornographic video for profit. Which is just a start. You’re derailing the thread, you’re making issues that are about women about you, you’re frankly taking up way too much space and time where it isn’t yours to take, and acting like a privileged ass. Fuck off.

11 Althea Tremaine July 25, 2010 at 9:55 am

Cara,

Frankly, I’m shocked that your solution would be to tell someone with different opinions than you to “fuck off.” although I agree with most of what you’ve said, I don’t think that was appropriate.

Being an activist is not just about spreading the word among the like-minded. It’s about spreading the word to the others so thy they, too, can become a part of yourovement. I know it’s not really fair that you carry this burden, but, unfortunately, it’s the only way to make these pieces more than just outraged rants and turn them into an agent for change.

I really applaud you for your tireless efforts, but in my opinion, that was out of line.

12 Maripoya July 25, 2010 at 11:23 am

I see the jury decision falling under the umbrella of the classic rape apology argument. Under this disgusting ideology, women don’t automatically get ownership of their own bodies. Instead of no meaning no, “implied consent” can be assumed by a laundry list of criteria: skirt length, drinking alcohol, dancing, or even–god forbid–the simple act of daring to leave the house after the sun goes down.

That whole train of thought makes my sick to my stomach. Women are human beings who have a right to exist in public spaces without being assaulted, abused, and humiliated. The jury foreman’s statement not only symbolizes one of the worst mentalities, but also demonstrates the ugly underbelly of our justice system.

13 Ian July 25, 2010 at 2:52 pm

In Brian’s defense, he was not making a “reverse sexism” argument, although it does sound very similar. I know Brian well – he was not attempting to thread-jack, he was exploring a point which he saw as a flaw in the argument. I disagree with his assessment, and I’m sure this will start quite a lively debate between myself and him, but he is sincerely a good guy.

Anyway, that’s all I wanted to say.

14 Cara July 25, 2010 at 4:09 pm

Well, Althea, when you’re moderating comments on your own blog, your opinion will matter a lot more. My mental health, my time, my space, my call. It really is that simple.

15 AileenWuornos July 26, 2010 at 3:29 am

Win comment is made of win.

16 Danielle July 26, 2010 at 4:08 am

Victim blaming doesn’t deserve courtesy.

17 Eve's Daughter July 26, 2010 at 7:54 am

You know what, Brian? Yes, it is okay for women to make these comments but not men. Sexism isn’t simply a matter of individual people having biases based on sex – it describes an entire culture which is designed around the oppression of girls/women/females, of which individual bias may be a -symptom-. Women experience sexism and are therefore competent to comment on it, and if that comment ends up reflecting internalized self-objectification, or hatred of men, or what have you, then she’s at least adding to the discussion from a position of experience and relevance.

People who are considered boys or men do not generally experience sexism unless they are “less than” fully “men” and are feminized in some way (such as being gay, trans*, or so forth), and those men who do experience such sexism do not experience any more than women do. So if you are generally gender-conforming, then it is the height of arrogance and self-importance to tell a woman – particularly one who has spent a significant amount of time thinking about and researching sexism – that she is analyzing it incorrectly. How the hell would you know? Men don’t even generally know what sexism IS.

I’m greatly amused at how you don’t want to “politely educate” and “defer” to women. If that doesn’t speak to the vastness of your male privilege I don’t know what does. If you think a woman’s wrong about sexism, you don’t have to “correct” her, Oh King. You can just go on your merry way, rest assured that no matter what her opinion is it will most likely not impact your life in the slightest.

18 Cara July 26, 2010 at 8:43 am

FYI, I’m not sure why the comments are showing up out of order on this thread. I think it has something to do with “too many” replies to a single comment, so I’ve turned off the reply option in the hopes that it won’t happen again.

19 Katrina July 26, 2010 at 10:30 am

I hate when people use the old fashion excuse of, “If Person A consents to activity #1, then Person A instantly consents to activity #2 through activity infinity.” Jane Doe did not consent to having her bare breast video taped by dancing. She consented to having her dance moves video taped by dancing in front of a tape. It’s sad that having one drink and dancing in a bar infront of a camera is all it takes for a woman to be labled a slut.

20 Katrina July 26, 2010 at 10:40 am

I usually don’t double post like this. I’m just not sure if this part of my comment will continue to derail the tread since it isn’t related to the post directly.

I’ve never understood reverse-sexism/racism/ect. If you’re sexist you’re sexist and if you’re racist, your racist. It just kind of bugs me that if I did hate men just because they were born with penises and no other logical reason (i.e. I’m never going to like Hilter…ever…), I don’t see why I would be a reverse-sexist woman. Same question applies if I ever hated someone just for being born white. Reverse- just seems to be a bit of an insult. Like, my hate “isn’t right” or “goes in the wrong direction” because it is aimed at a group that isn’t “supposed” to be hated. I just don’t get it. I say hate is hate and only goes in one direction.

Also, I am well aware that sexism isn’t as simply as hating women. I just wanted to focus on only one aspect that overlapped with racism for the sake of space. :)

21 Jennifer July 26, 2010 at 10:42 am

This is disgusting. “Implied consent” my ass. Sorry for being crass. She said no, they did it anyway. They were wrong, end of story. The fact that a jury bought into the implied consent BS is painfully disturbing.

22 sleepwalking July 26, 2010 at 4:18 pm

Brian, what you and Wes are engaging in is a typical bait-and-switch tactic. Nowhere in Cara’s original post did she state that the woman who pulled down the victim’s shirt should not be prosecuted. What she is talking about is THIS SPECIFIC CASE, and what she’s saying is that in THIS SPECIFIC CASE, the finding should have been for the prosecuting side. Had the victim chosen to prosecute the woman who pulled down her shirt, I have no doubt that Cara would have been on the victim’s side as well. Yet commenters like you always like to nit-pick and talk about how the blogger SHOULD have talked about this, and blah blah blah.

If you want to write about how the woman in the video should have been prosecuted, write about it in your own blog; this is commonly done among bloggers — they’ll say “So and so wrote an article on this topic from this angle, now I’d like to write about it from another angle.” But instead, you chose to make it look like Cara was wrong simply because she pursued a different angle than you would have taken, and trust me, as somebody with a journalism degree and a few years’ experience in the field, there’s an infinite variety of angles you can take on any given story. If you’re going to go after somebody for not taking the exact angle you would have, for not talking about the hypothetical court case that you think should have happened, I’m sorry, but that’s obnoxious as hell and again, takes away from the very important point Cara is trying to make about women’s bodies not ever being their own. (Did you hear about the case that says it’s okay to take pictures down women’s shirts when they’re out in public essentially because women know what they’re getting into when they step outside? How would you feel if people were taking pictures down your pants or up your shorts every damn place you went? How sweet that you think this is the type of conversation worth derailing.)

Furthermore, I would argue that even though the other woman would ALSO deserve to be prosecuted, if the victim had to choose, taking on GGW will make a lot more difference to more people in the long run. They’ve been operating outside of the law for damn near their entire existence, and they get away with it just because they have money and pick on people who society doesn’t like, namely young women who like to drink. If somebody could take them down, it would have a wide ripple effect. But again, it’s the victim’s choice, and if she’d done it the other way around (prosecuting the other woman) it’s safe to say most feminists would still have her back.

23 C. Hudson July 26, 2010 at 8:17 pm

I make no secret- I don’t like men much. In truth, more women have hurt me than men. But one thing these women had in common: they had all been severely brutalized by men; in ways that I could hardly conceive of: molested as children, raped at knifepoint, raped at 15 (by a 20 yr. old male) while passed out at a party- she ended up pregnant and didn’t know how. I could go on- there’s lots more to share. These girls were pretty, spirited, and screwed up…and angry as hell! These girls weren’t gay- I was, but they weren’t. They distrusted and hated guys- I didn’ blame them. I didn’t do the damage but I tried to love them as much as I could; to heal them. But god damn it- if you morons would cease the bullshit, women like me wouldn’t be destroyed by their misguided anger. These women needed to take it up w/ their victimizers- put it where it belongs. Women are tired of cleaning up your messes…this woman is! Grow up- you mindless wastes of human flesh!
Educate thyselves- here are a few tasty tidbids of wisdom. Break it down into small bite size pieces- as it might be hard to swallow-
“The idea that women need men to protect them is ludacrous- for without men, what would women need protection from?”
And
“Sheep are better off conducting their own affairs than employing a wolf on their behalf.”

24 The Quilter July 26, 2010 at 10:08 pm

The sexual assualt was perpetrated by the victim’s “friend”, not the photographers. Suppose the “friend” pulled down the victim’s top while CNN was shooting footage of the bar for a story of some sort. I don’t think she would be suing CNN. This woman was sexually assualted by the woman who pulled her shirt down, hence she has an action against the woman who pulled her shirt down, not against anyone who was in the vacinity. Did she sue the bar too? There is no doubt she agreed to be in the video WITH HER CLOTHES ON. The GGW people should have deleted that scene out of common human decency, but they are not responsible for the sexual assualt (her shirt being pulled down). I can see why the jury decided as it did.

25 Cara July 27, 2010 at 9:29 am

Quilter, no one has said that they are responsible for the sexual assault. There is no evidence that the perpetrator acted on their behalf. They are responsible for using footage that they had no permission to use, and making a profit off of the sexual assault of another human being. And if you don’t see the difference between a CNN news story and a pornographic video sold for profit, when the victim had explicitly refused to participate in said pornographic video by showing her breasts, I don’t know what the hell to say to you. Though i see no reason why CNN would use such footage, and would indeed accuse of them of acting unethically, gratuitously, and misogynistically if they did so without legitimate reason (which again, I find it hard to fathom).

26 The Quilter July 27, 2010 at 2:45 pm

Yes, when you put it that way, you are right, Cara. The problem is that they made money from witnessing and then showing a sexual assualt. I wonder if the jury made the mistake I did, and got the issues confused.

27 Robert July 28, 2010 at 2:46 am

This woman was obviously violated. They should have consent forms for any of the women pictured nude. If there are too many women to get consent forms then … there shouldn’t be any video!

It’s fairly simple. This Girls Gone Wild company has violated plenty of individual rights aside from this case, evaded paying taxes, and generally been a menace to society.

Throw Joe Francis back in jail. It’s a low hanging criminal enterprise.

28 Sunset July 28, 2010 at 10:58 am

What’s disturbing is why they would have used this particular footage. I somehow doubt there was a shortage of consenting young women posing topless. Or that this one young woman was just *so sexy* they had to put her in.

No, I’m sure the reason they put this in is BECAUSE it was a video of assault. Really, that’s the problem with the way this type of stuff is framed…it’s presented as about getting girls to do stuff they wouldn’t normally do. Pushing their boundaries. And the ultimate logical conclusion of that is assault. Because sexual assault is sexy.

29 Ash July 28, 2010 at 12:07 pm

This made me sick, but it doesn’t come to a huge surprise. GGW is revolting – Joe Francis is a mega misogynist, jumbo prick. This is bullshit.

30 SunlessNick July 28, 2010 at 9:18 pm

No, I’m sure the reason they put this in is BECAUSE it was a video of assault.

I’m sure you’re right.

Really, that’s the problem with the way this type of stuff is framed…it’s presented as about getting girls to do stuff they wouldn’t normally do. Pushing their boundaries.

And boundaries are frequently conflated with inhibitions – which means that the violating of boundaries is conflated with the shedding of inhibitions – and since inhibtions are seen as needing to be shed, then by extension, boundaries must need to be violated.

31 David Harmon July 29, 2010 at 5:55 pm

Going back to the original topic, I’d say we shouldn’t forget the role of the judge in this case. IANAL, but as I understand it, judges do have the capability to set aside a jury verdict when it represents a miscarriage of justice. This looks like a classic example of that, and it’s worth asking why the judge didn’t do so.

32 SMD July 31, 2010 at 10:29 am

I’m sorry, but since when does “going to a party” imply that you want to show your breasts, let alone that you want them forcibly exposed by someone else?

I’m just at a loss of words for this. Can she appeal this at a higher level? I simply can’t imagine any way for a judge to argue that going to a party is somehow an indication that one wants to expose themselves…unless you signed some sort of strange form that said “by attending this party, you know you will be prompted to expose yourself repeatedly and then likely exposed unexpectedly by another person. ” But I doubt she signed anything of the kind. She clearly didn’t sign anything.

What scares the living hell out of me over this is it sets a precedent for higher levels of this kind of thing. Next someone is going to say “oh, well she really wanted to have sex, she was just being secretive about it.” And when that day happens…no, I don’t want to think about that…

33 graciela. August 2, 2010 at 6:59 pm

When I read through the part about “implied consent” even though the woman said “NO”, I thought the same thing SMD did. How far off is “implied consent” in rape cases? This is just horrible.

34 Kristina August 31, 2010 at 10:29 am

I really don’t think that Brian meant to come off as an apologist…however Brian I know it’s hard, but you can’t internalize the actions of other men…it makes you seem guilty, you may feel like you’re sticking up for the good guys, but essentially you’re dismissing bad behavior by disassociating from “idiots”, it’s a normal psychological response to not want to be grouped as one of those assholes…but the fact is you’re explaining to women who know very well that there are assholes, and there are guys who aren’t assholes, so it comes off as you defending assholes. I’m not saying you should say all guys are jerks, but in that disassociation you are doing yourself a disservice…disassociation is the very thing that is plaguing this society, it’s the root of privilege and why some men don’t feel the need to change ANY of their behaviors, wherever that behavior lies on the spectrum of severity, because you will always separate yourself from THOSE guys, it will leave you blind to some of the benefits you receive as a man because you are not like this, or not like that…You are working under the assumption that feminists can’t distinguish a sexist man from a non-sexist man…I assure you we can, and I would assume you can distinguish a man-hater from a feminist…

35 Marlaine Sims September 20, 2010 at 7:06 pm

I believe that the thought of people watching the videos makes my sick to my stomach. Women are human beings who have a right to exist in public spaces without being assaulted, abused, and humiliated. I think that the Girls Gone Wild videos are nasty and disgusting. I dislike the fact that these videos are even fimled for people to watch.

36 Nora September 23, 2010 at 9:54 pm

This is terrifying.

{ 7 trackbacks }

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: