Tubecrush
May 20, 2011 9:30 AM Subscribe

A-month-behind-the-times-filter: Tubecrush is a website that lets people upload pictures of attractive men they've seen on the Tube (i.e., the London Underground, for the benefit of nonUKians), along with varying degrees of lechery. It came to wider attention the middle of last month when the Evening Standard ran a fairly lighthearted fluff piece on it, but there are some who believe that this is at least slightly unkosher not only for its instrusiveness, but also because they suggest its reception has been somewhat smoother than would be the case if it encouraged taking similar pictures of women on the tube. Others offer the thought that ogling different genders is given different contexts by societal attitudes to gender, and that, therefore, its all a bit more OK than it seems. Others still prefer to examine it through the lens of art history.
posted by Dim Siawns (104 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

"Why don't you take a picture, it'll last longer," is not meant as a literal invitation.
posted by Eideteker at 9:34 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

Superb post.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 9:36 AM on May 20, 2011

Others offer the thought that ogling different genders is given different contexts by societal attitudes to gender, and that, therefore, its all a bit more OK than it seems.

Speaking as a person with ladybits: I think this "thought" is sheer and total poppycock.

It wouldn't be cool to do this if it were pics of ladies on the subway, ergo it's not right to do this to pics of gents on the subway. Not because of any sort of "gender-theory" argument, but because men and women are both PEOPLE, and it is not cool to post pictures of PEOPLE without their permission and invite people to ogle them.

QED.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:37 AM on May 20, 2011 [56 favorites]

I'll be taking the central line from Holborn to Notting Hill at 6.30 pm tonight, girls - warm up your cameras!

I'll be dressed in a light blue t-shirt, and will be dribbling froth and muttering over and over to myself "kill the foreigners ... kill them all ... drink their sweet foreign blood to obtain their foreign skills and delicious powers ...," while I nervously finger my crotch.

So why not come on up and say "hey".
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:38 AM on May 20, 2011 [11 favorites]

Ugh there are ratings.
posted by Danila at 9:38 AM on May 20, 2011

I am a chick, and I find the Tubecrush thing super-creepy. Eww.
posted by specialagentwebb at 9:38 AM on May 20, 2011

Remind me to wear headphones and/or play with an iphone the next time I get on the subway, apparently chicks dig it.
posted by delmoi at 9:40 AM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]

Man I think this is terrible. The ratings, the writeups, the pictures, all of it.
posted by Danila at 9:40 AM on May 20, 2011

Wow, this is so wrong. The worst part is the voting thing where these poor unsuspecting men get to be subjected to the judgement of the entire internet just because they happened to go outside that day. Not to mention the outrageous, bizarre, appalling taste of the voting public, who consistently vote down all the best-looking guys. WTF, internet, on so many levels.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 9:41 AM on May 20, 2011 [4 favorites]

Funny, the start of this blog matches up to exactly when my boyfriend moved to London. My initial (jokey) thought: "well, surely someone saw him and was inspired to start mapping the good-looking dudes." But I checked through the archives--no dice. Surely this is just an oversight on the part of the camera-toting oglers of London.
posted by phunniemee at 9:50 AM on May 20, 2011

women objectifying men is relatively harmless because men hold the power in terms of sex and more generally in terms of whatever comes between flirting and sexual harassment.

Surely, who holds the power depends at least somewhat on the situation. In this case, it seems to me that the person holding the camera who is creepily posting and sexually rating pictures of strangers on the internet is holding the power, and being the harasser, regardless of gender.
posted by IjonTichy at 9:51 AM on May 20, 2011 [7 favorites]

women objectifying men is relatively harmless because men hold the power in terms of sex and more generally in terms of whatever comes between flirting and sexual harassment.

It's exactly this sort of ridiculous reasoning that only serves to reinforce the very machines that work against gender equality.

The blog post is right to point out that if this were reversed in gender, it would absolutely not be tolerated. This would be all over Jezebel and Feministing et al. It would stir outrage. But this is somehow supposed to be cute? If this were the only example of such double standards, that would be one thing. But I fear it is simply symptomatic of a much larger pathology within our culture as it views gender.
posted by Lutoslawski at 9:52 AM on May 20, 2011 [7 favorites]

Note that only white men are considered attractive by Tubecrush. Isn't the UK pretty diverse? I find the lack of representation more offensive than the ogling.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 9:57 AM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]

it is not cool to post pictures of PEOPLE without their permission and invite people to ogle them.

I'm not sure why this is not cool. It's okay to take pictures of people in public places, period. What people do with those photos is basically out of your control. The time to try and apply cultural standards to the use of this technology was when it was first made readily available. Unfortunately we don't really think about things that way because OOO SHINY NEW TECHNOLOGY!
posted by hermitosis at 9:59 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

The blog post is right to point out that if this were reversed in gender, it would absolutely not be tolerated. This would be all over Jezebel and Feministing et al. It would stir outrage.

What do you mean it would not be tolerated? Not tolerated by whome? Sites like People of walmart (and their sister site, 'beach creeps') exist solely to make fun of ugly people, and that gets a lot of press. Those sites are mixed-gender but I'm sure you could find sites dedicated to pictures of surreptitiously photographed hot girls.
posted by delmoi at 10:00 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

I invite Jezebel and Feministing to take this up. Feminism isn't just about women.
posted by leotrotsky at 10:01 AM on May 20, 2011 [4 favorites]

While I am definitely, firmly against photographing people without permission and putting them on the internet to be ogled and rated, regardless of gender, I do think there's some validity to the gender theory arguments.

Compare it to men who respond to complaints about street harassment with, "Hey, I would be flattered if I were catcalled!"

Men and women live in very different worlds. They have very different public experiences as a whole. So if we argue that ogling men is exactly the same as ogling women, there are going to be a whole lot of men who think that, because they'd be OK with that, so should women.

Again: I do not endorse Tubecrush. I think it's loathsome. But I think it's a slightly different thing than it would be if it were a woman ogling site.

Also, if I'm not very mistaken, it's not all or even mostly women posting those pictures.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:01 AM on May 20, 2011 [9 favorites]

ick.
posted by modernnomad at 10:02 AM on May 20, 2011

I'm a little squicked out by this, but I have to admit that I love the look on this guy's face.

He looks like he's incredibly focused on the audiobook portion of his "Be A Whistling Busker For Fun And Profit" correspondence course.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 10:02 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

Hey, that's cool, that's the first time that I'll be getting many first hand clues as to who qualifies as an "attractive man"... Judging from the gap between me and the boys up there, I sure don't. But considering the existence of websites like this one, it isn't necessarily bad.
posted by nicolin at 10:05 AM on May 20, 2011

This clearly is within the bounds of the law in the UK (and US) as the photographer has the right to photograph others in public, although police have been stomping on that right with increasing frequency, especially in the UK with regards to buildings and landmarks.

The expectation of privacy is just not there for someone on the subway. These photographers are no Elliot Erwitt, but they have the right.
posted by ridogi at 10:06 AM on May 20, 2011

I'm not sure why this is not cool. It's okay to take pictures of people in public places, period.

When this guy posted to AskMe about taking candid photos of "very attractive" women, there was pretty much a universal reaction from everyone that it was in fact creepy and not a cool thing to do.
posted by burnmp3s at 10:06 AM on May 20, 2011

I'm not sure why this is not cool. It's okay to take pictures of people in public places, period. What people do with those photos is basically out of your control.

That's true, but that's a different argument than the one I was making. Whether or not it's cool is an open, and seperate, issue (yeah, it's out of my control what people do with my picture if they take it of me when I'm in public, and there is no law against them using it in this way; but just because there's no law against it doesn't mean I can't personally consider it skeevy thing to do).

However, whether or not it's a skeevy thing to do is a separate argument from whether or not "it's only skeevy if it's girls, but it's totally cool if it's guys".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:06 AM on May 20, 2011

Others offer the thought "It's okay when we do it."

Remember, folks, creepy can only be applied to men.
posted by adipocere at 10:08 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

Me no Leica!

"Walter Kerr, usually a kind critic, amused the theatre world with this comment... When John Van Druten's wonderful play I Am A Camera opened, Kerr's review headline was "Me no Leica." "
posted by Jody Tresidder at 10:08 AM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]

Remember, folks, creepy can only be applied to men.

As someone said above, it's not just women who are snapping and posting these shots. So is it creepier if a man takes a shot of a man who's unaware of it and posts it?
posted by blucevalo at 10:11 AM on May 20, 2011

But I think it's a slightly different thing than it would be if it were a woman ogling site.

Everything is slightly different than everything else. That's trivially true. Whether or not that makes it better or at least enough better is another matter.

For my part, I don't think it is at all kosher. When it comes to issues like this it isn't enough not to be improper; one should strive to avoid to appearance of impropriety as well. And while you can construct a theoretical gender studies argument for why the social and historical context of this and that and the other thing makes it different, we don't live on that elevated rational plane. We live on the plane where you're taking shitty pictures of people and inviting people to leer at them.
posted by Justinian at 10:12 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

Men and women live in different worlds when it comes to this kind of thing, but that doesn't mean this is okay. In addition to the obvious creepiness on display, it also reinforces the status quo through a layers of play-acting and irony. This is uncool for everyone.

Of course it's legal in the US (and I think the UK) to take photos of people in public*. That's not the issue. There's also a good reason why there's social opprobrium against taking creepy-ass photos of people for ogling purposes.

*Incidentally, I was under the impression that it was technically not legal to take photos at all on the NYC subway, but that's not the issue here.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:13 AM on May 20, 2011

The blog post is right to point out that if this were reversed in gender, it would absolutely not be tolerated. This would be all over Jezebel and Feministing et al. It would stir outrage.

What do you mean it would not be tolerated? Not tolerated by whome? Sites like People of walmart (and their sister site, 'beach creeps') exist solely to make fun of ugly people, and that gets a lot of press. Those sites are mixed-gender but I'm sure you could find sites dedicated to pictures of surreptitiously photographed hot girls.

Tolerated was perhaps a bad choice of word. I mean there would be a lot more rage and balking, in the vein of the AskMe that burnmp3s linked to, something we're not seeing nearly as much in this case.

Obviously there are probably gazillions of sites dedicated to pictures of surreptitiously photographed women. And of course sites like People of Walmart are grotesque. Why does their existence somehow make the existence of TubeCrush ok? In fact, the vitriol these other sites elicit, in ways that this site doesn't (or hasn't), is testament to the embedded double standards in gender discourse.

I invite Jezebel and Feministing to take this up. Feminism isn't just about women.

A great point - and I would love for them to take this up. But they won't; they are dedicated to increasingly sensational stories and issues that further their agendas. I tried to get some of the feminist blogs I contribute to to take up the issue of laws that make men who have children from being raped liable for child support. They wouldn't touch it.
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:16 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

women objectifying men is relatively harmless because men hold the power in terms of sex and more generally in terms of whatever comes between flirting and sexual harassment.

I strongly suspect that feminist women are generally not the women posting to that site.

Obviously, men posting/rating pictures of women would be meaner and creepier, because women are judged much, much more harshly on their appearances, women are often valued primarily because men want to sleep with them and because there's much more pressure on women to make nice to men.

But it's still creepy, intrusive and patriarchal to post/rate pictures of men - it assumes that everyone should be judging each other all the time, rating and comparing, and that everyone should at all times expect to be rated and compared and judged. It makes the public sphere even worse and more dangerous, especially for people who do not conform to gender/beauty norms.

And it's just one more little blow to privacy and freedom - we're getting more and more used to the idea that individuals should not have to consent to be mapped and tracked and rated for others' purposes, and this has some really crummy political possibilities.
posted by Frowner at 10:17 AM on May 20, 2011 [4 favorites]

Obviously, men posting/rating pictures of women would be meaner and creepier, because women are judged much, much more harshly on their appearances, women are often valued primarily because men want to sleep with them and because there's much more pressure on women to make nice to men.

No.
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:19 AM on May 20, 2011

Whether the purpose is to leer or to post the photographs on some mean-spirited tumblr for mocking, taking snaps of people without asking is fairly distasteful to me. The practice smacks of "I know you will object; I want this anyway" and "You can't stop me." Comparing various situations and looking for maximal creepiness is irrelevant; it's a crappy behavior, period.

*continues on with research on detecting the infrared and ultrasonic signatures of various autofocus cameras*
posted by adipocere at 10:22 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

Some of these aren't even on the tube, just on normal trains. It's a disgrace.
posted by dng at 10:22 AM on May 20, 2011 [8 favorites]

No.

Look, I recognize that we basically can't have this conversation without it getting all flame-y. I will say that I wish that just once men-who-don't-like-the-artifacts-of-patriarchy could say that, yes, patriarchy generally benefits men more than women even if it doesn't benefit them personally. I wish that we could be allies instead of competitors, and I view it, in fact, as an artifact of patriarchy when men feel that they must be just as oppressed or even more oppressed by patriarchy than/as women.
posted by Frowner at 10:24 AM on May 20, 2011

It wouldn't be cool to do this if it were pics of ladies on the subway, ergo it's not right to do this to pics of gents on the subway. Not because of any sort of "gender-theory" argument, but because men and women are both PEOPLE, and it is not cool to post pictures of PEOPLE without their permission and invite people to ogle them.

QED.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:37 PM on May 20

Really, this is the final and only word on the subject. Anyone who can't see that needs to be dragged into this century.
posted by Decani at 10:25 AM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]

Also I preferred it when it was done before without pictures.
posted by dng at 10:26 AM on May 20, 2011

I'd also say that if I ever saw someone taking a picture of me without my permission I'd be right in their face and challenging them about it. It's so fucking rude, no matter why they're doing it.
posted by Decani at 10:28 AM on May 20, 2011

I will say that I wish that just once men-who-don't-like-the-artifacts-of-patriarchy could say that, yes, patriarchy generally benefits men more than women even if it doesn't benefit them personally. I wish that we could be allies instead of competitors, and I view it, in fact, as an artifact of patriarchy when men feel that they must be just as oppressed or even more oppressed by patriarchy than/as women.

Would you settle for "oppressed in different ways"? Because to my mind, that's what's actually going on here.

Also, speaking as a lady-person, I don't give a shit if a guy wants to say he's "just as oppressed" as me by this kind of thing, if it's the kind of thing that wakes him up to the need to stop it. If he's down with the program, I wouldn't care if he said he was more oppressed than the Red Lectroids of Planet Ten. I'd just be glad he's helping stop something skeevy.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:31 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

What about if one does this in one's mind, but doesn't actually take the photo. Is that OK? Just asking.
posted by Lleyam at 10:31 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

Look, I recognize that we basically can't have this conversation without it getting all flame-y. I will say that I wish that just once men-who-don't-like-the-artifacts-of-patriarchy could say that, yes, patriarchy generally benefits men more than women even if it doesn't benefit them personally. I wish that we could be allies instead of competitors, and I view it, in fact, as an artifact of patriarchy when men feel that they must be just as oppressed or even more oppressed by patriarchy than/as women.

Yes, let's avoid getting flame-y.

I agree with you completely that - broadly speaking - men have benefited from the artifacts of patriarchy. I think that's undeniable (of course we'd have to examine this more closely by talking about what we mean about 'benefit' and such, but technicalities aside). And I would never make the argument that men are 'just as oppressed in all the same ways as women.' No, that's ridiculous. But I do stand by my sentiment that, in this day and age, women and men suffer from the very similar scrutiny when it comes to appearances and ideals v. reality. That isn't because of men and women; it's because of hollywood and magazines.

I actually sort of think that in a certain way (and I haven't totally thought this through so perhaps there is more to be said or refuted here), that the fact that it does seem sort of less lechery or someone 'not creepy but cute' when women are the stalkers with the camera (or when men are the subject, in any case), ultimately hurts the cause of women's liberation w/r/t to sex. Wouldn't it be more helpful to the cause if more people recognized that women can be creepy, sexually aggressive and can trespass sexual boundaries in inappropriate and offensive ways?
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:33 AM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]

What about if one does this in one's mind, but doesn't actually take the photo. Is that OK? Just asking.

It depends on whether you get everyone else in the carriage to help you vote him up or down, I suppose.
posted by dng at 10:35 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

Honest question, completely getting off the subject of pictures intended for ogling: what do people generally opposed to public photos think of (emphatically non-pornographic) street photographers, like Cartier-Bresson? Sounds like an asinine comparison, but I don't think it really is - what if, unbeknownst to you, you had become part of a great shot? Would you be offended by someone taking your picture in public for non-creepy reasons, albeit reasons which still technically objectify you as being part of a framed picture?
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:36 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

Men and women live in different worlds when it comes to this kind of thing, but that doesn't mean this is okay. In addition to the obvious creepiness on display, it also reinforces the status quo through a layers of play-acting and irony. This is uncool for everyone.

It really is uncool for (and OF) everyone. It's intrusive and objectifying and most of all non-consensual. These are people out trying to do the stuff they gotta do, and at least putatively not intentionally putting themselves on display in order to solicit public comment.

The difference between it happening to men vs. to women is that women are regularly subjected to that treatment, whereas men generally aren't. For men, it's more likely that they'd respond to it as flattery, simply because it's so out of the norm. Women, on the other hand, are used to it.

I used to have a commute that virtually guaranteed a catcall or a hamhanded pickup attempt or even, with alarming frequency, mild assault every day. As a result of that life experience, I am far more on guard in public than most of the men I know. I am more threatened by unwanted attention from strangers, and I am sick of men telling me I should be flattered and take that as a compliment, which is something I've heard a lot.

I am totally down with men who are offended and feel icky about this. They are justified. They are right. My concern is that a lot of other men are going to claim they find it flattering, and they're A-OK with it, so everyone should be.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:36 AM on May 20, 2011

dng: It depends on whether you get everyone else in the carriage to help you vote him up or down, I suppose.

I can feel a new commute game coming on. There were some lovely ones on the Waterloo & City line this morning.
posted by Lleyam at 10:37 AM on May 20, 2011

Women objectify men just as much as the reverse*, but in our society, men still have most of the power, so objectification of women hurts women more than objectification of men hurts men.

*Anyone who doesn't believe this just needs to hang around LiveJournal for a bit and read the multitudes of discussions about the "packages" of male celebrities.
posted by desjardins at 10:39 AM on May 20, 2011 [4 favorites]

That isn't because of men and women; it's because of hollywood and magazines.

Judgment of people and speculation about their characters based on appearances predates Hollywood and Magazines by a very large margin.

I know we'd like to have a tidy boogeyman to explain away the more troublesome facets of human behavior, but the simple truth is that people are people.

And people will use whatever information they have at hand to identify and categorize things, even other people. And that process is subject to all of the other foibles of the human existence.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:40 AM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]

Stitcherbeast, yes. "Offended" is not quite the right word, but "angry" will do. If you want something from me, you can ask for it.
posted by adipocere at 10:41 AM on May 20, 2011

I will say that I wish that just once men-who-don't-like-the-artifacts-of-patriarchy could say that, yes, patriarchy generally benefits men more than women even if it doesn't benefit them personally. I wish that we could be allies instead of competitors, and I view it, in fact, as an artifact of patriarchy when men feel that they must be just as oppressed or even more oppressed by patriarchy than/as women.

What is the point of this? If something makes someone uncomfortable, or they claim that a specific cultural attitude diminishes them, I generally just believe them. Maybe it can be, like EmpressCallipygos said, an opportunity to share your own feelings of oppression; maybe it's just an opportunity to listen to others'. But who cares if someone's experiences of oppression don't fit your ideology? It isn't a contest.

Anyway, this thing? It's just not cool. Taking pictures of people in public and posting them on the internet, either to rate their attractiveness or to mock them, is creepy.
posted by byanyothername at 10:42 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

It would be an honour to be photographed by Cartier-Bresson, or Bill Brandt or any number of street photographers: the essence of competent street photographer is empathy for their subject, rather than judgement over them. Even Martin Parr, might be making pointed commentary but it wouldn't boil down to "OMG! Teh hottt!!!" (or more likely in my case, "Urrgh!! Ugly creepy old man"). It's not the same thing. This is an expression of power - the photographers and website managers have the power to present these photographs in such a way that they are demonstrating an ownership over the image. The corollary of this is more the sidebar of the Daily Mail, where (usually) female celebrities are photographed with a long lens in their bikinis for the titillation of the idiot masses (though that's for a largely female audience, too).
posted by Grangousier at 10:45 AM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]

what do people generally opposed to public photos think of (emphatically non-pornographic) street photographers, like Cartier-Bresson?

Don't non-journalists taking photos for commercial use have to get people to sign model releases?
posted by desjardins at 10:48 AM on May 20, 2011

...an ownership over the image and by an extension over the subject, reducing the subject to their plaything.

/amend
posted by Grangousier at 10:48 AM on May 20, 2011

Don't non-journalists taking photos for commercial use have to get people to sign model releases?

I believe for commercial use you do, but how is Tubecrush commercial use? These are people, visible in public. They have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the Tube and unless the laws are significantly different in the UK, there's nothing illegal about taking someone's picture without them knowing it and posting it on the Internet, voting or not.

Honestly? I'm surprised at the vehemence of the pushback in this instance. How many of you ripping on this are prolific Tweeters? have Facebook profiles, with photos galore? Use credit cards to order things from online merchants? This is almost ridiculously trivial compared to the amount of personal information you're releasing into the wild every single day of your online lives, and not one of you is simple enough to really believe any of that information is "secure" or "private." To suddenly get your backs up over this seems... a little hypocritical.
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 10:57 AM on May 20, 2011

Posting photos for the express purpose of public ranking and leering is a wee bit different from ordering pizza with a credit card.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:03 AM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

I actually sort of think that in a certain way (and I haven't totally thought this through so perhaps there is more to be said or refuted here), that the fact that it does seem sort of less lechery or someone 'not creepy but cute' when women are the stalkers with the camera (or when men are the subject, in any case), ultimately hurts the cause of women's liberation w/r/t to sex. Wouldn't it be more helpful to the cause if more people recognized that women can be creepy, sexually aggressive and can trespass sexual boundaries in inappropriate and offensive ways?

Well, I completely agree with this. The idea that whatever a woman does is cute, harmless and inoffensive just because a woman did it is just another part of the problem. Part of being an adult of any gender is taking responsibility for your ethics and your actions. One of the reasons I don't spend as much time as I used to on celebrity gossip sites, even though I kind of love celebrity gossip, is the culture of creepy and inappropriate comments that nobody ever seems to acknowledge are creepy and inappropriate. I actually have less of an objection to objectification in general than most people, but not if it only means women getting a special exemption from the laws of human decency to say and do whatever we please because oh, we can't really mean anything by it, giggle giggle. I mean, please.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 11:04 AM on May 20, 2011 [8 favorites]

The District Line is hugely underrepresented. Probably why I'm not on there.

I got the gist of this in the Standard article and thought it would be vile. I was right. Not only am I an overlooked hot guy on the Tube, but I am sometimes right.
posted by tigrefacile at 11:05 AM on May 20, 2011

From the article:

...founders - four young professional flatmates from south London who wish to be known only as Stephen, Andy, Gemma and Michael,.

Three of those names are male, as are many of the submitters' names. It seems to be primarily "men objectifying men", not "women objectifying men."

I suspect if it turns nasty, it's more likely to involve the photographers getting beaten up by one of the subjects...
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:14 AM on May 20, 2011

Next thing you'll be telling me that most Playgirl readers aren't actual girls.

Three of those names are male, as are many of the submitters' names. It seems to be primarily "men objectifying men", not "women objectifying men."

I'm too lazy and not-wanting-to-take-another-bath-to-wash-off-the-filth to check the site again, but aren't most of the site's commenters women? How much of a difference does it really make?
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:18 AM on May 20, 2011

I hate this. Not because it's sort of creepy and objectifies people (though it does), but because it's another confirmation that I have absolutely no idea what women find attractive in general. One or two of these guys is detectably handsome, and some others are detectably fit, but most of them seem to me to range between goofy and possible wanker.
posted by cmoj at 11:27 AM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]

Add me to the list of feminists who thinks that even if it's less threatening and possibly less creepy for women to photograph men on the subway for men than vice versa, Tubecrush is still creepy and wrong. I'm not down with the whole "hot or not" aspect of publicly judging people for attractiveness on the internet in general. Extending it to men is not an improvement.

There's a hollaback site for London. Wonder how the people (mostly women, but as some folks noted, there are men involved) taking these pictures would feel about ending up there?
posted by immlass at 11:37 AM on May 20, 2011

HollabackLDN seem to agree with us, so that's nice.
posted by Grangousier at 11:44 AM on May 20, 2011

The discussion about objectification and feminism and patriarchy is interesting, and all, but it seems to miss the point, entirely, and make what should be a rather simple issue all too complicated. The simple fact is, it's rude to photograph someone without their permission.

That would go for anyone, including some great photographer/artist. It's simply impolite not to ask first. This is for all kind of social reasons: objectification, intrusion of privacy, etc.

To then post the pictures in a public forum for ogling and judgment is simply amplifying the original rudeness. Honestly, some people weren't raised right.

Not that I didn't find one or two of those dudes tasty. But still.
posted by darkstar at 11:57 AM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]

Dang, isn't there enough camera surveillance already?
posted by kinnakeet at 12:02 PM on May 20, 2011

Tubecrush enthusiastically endorsed!

Additional fact: I quite like Guys with iPhones.
posted by joeclark at 12:13 PM on May 20, 2011

OneMonkeysUncle: “Honestly? I'm surprised at the vehemence of the pushback in this instance. How many of you ripping on this are prolific Tweeters? have Facebook profiles, with photos galore? Use credit cards to order things from online merchants? This is almost ridiculously trivial compared to the amount of personal information you're releasing into the wild every single day of your online lives, and not one of you is simple enough to really believe any of that information is "secure" or "private." To suddenly get your backs up over this seems... a little hypocritical.”

This makes no sense. At all.

Prolific tweeters or facebook users or online shoppers all choose and consent to releasing some personal information into 'the wild'. Facebook doesn't take photos from your hard drive without your knowledge and post them to your wall. Twitter doesn't monitor what you are reading on the NYT and broadcast it to the world.

This website is run by a group of people who have decided it would be a great idea to take, without consent, surreptitious photos of individuals simply going about their business in public and the posting those photos for the world to see with comments about their physical appearance.

I don't really give a fuck if it's men taking photos of women, women taking photos of men, men taking photos of men, or women taking photos of women. It's about dignity, not gender.
posted by modernnomad at 12:20 PM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think that sometimes, for certain individuals, nothing teaches like personal experience. ("It's not street harassment, it's a compliment!...Oh wait if red-flagged-somebodies did it to me all the time, maybe I wouldn't feel complimented...") But this collective judgmental voyeurism is just a race to the bottom.

Their "Legal Information" page links to Is it legal to take photos of people without asking? which includes the following rationale:

a recent court case upheld a right to eat a meal in a restaurant in privacy even though the restaurant owner had consented to the photography, because in the court's view it was a customer's normal expectation not to be photographed there. If in doubt, this is probably the question to ask yourself.

Why yes, yes I do have, and everybody I know has, a normal expectation not to be unwittingly close-up photographed while taking public transportation. (And re people's likenesses being submitted for collective online judgment, well, it's one more legal way for assholes to exercise their legal rights to open up wide & take a dump.) Being photographed as one of a crowd taking public transportation, fine.

From their "Legal Information" page: "our blog is an artistic expression of our appreciation of the human body, and as such, we believe we are legally entitled to publish these photos." It's legal, plus, it's not rude it's just compliments!
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 12:21 PM on May 20, 2011

joeclark: “Tubecrush enthusiastically endorsed! Additional fact: I quite like Guys with iPhones.”

So maybe you can explain to us why precisely you find this sort of thing not-creepy and not-gross and not-disgusting.
posted by koeselitz at 12:23 PM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

Crap. I do know what "rationale" means. Point obfuscated during editing. Y'all know what I mean.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 12:23 PM on May 20, 2011

I hate this. Not because it's sort of creepy and objectifies people (though it does), but because it's another confirmation that I have absolutely no idea what women find attractive in general.

cmoj, I'm a (straight) woman and I'm baffled by what the women on this site rate as "hot"; the voting patterns do not in the least overlap with my own tastes. I'm saying this only because I don't think you should take this site as representative of what women find attractive "in general", if there even is such a thing. (Note that there are basically no non-white people posted). Rather, it probably reflects the tastes of women who are skeevy enough to take surreptitious, sexually objectifying pictures of men and post them on sites. Also, the votes are pretty divisive in most of the cases anyway: a guy who, for example, had the following votes: (+238 rating, 438 votes, rated), still had 200 negative votes. In sum, I'd hardly take this website as a barometer of what women find attractive.

That said, Tubecrush is a total invasion of privacy (I don't care what the law is, I'm speaking from the perspective of common sense) and it's sexually predatory. To say that it's okay because it's women taking pictures of men and not vice versa is nonsense. It perpetuates the stereotype that women are by default victims and that their sexuality is always passive and non-threatening. It denies the possibility that in certain contexts women can and often do sexually objectify men in a manipulative and harmful way.
posted by adso at 12:34 PM on May 20, 2011 [3 favorites]

How many of you ripping on this are prolific Tweeters?

Me me me! If you want to aggregate tweets and judge whether they are funny or interesting or stupid, be my guest. My account is not locked down. If you want to rate my tweets based on whether I'm sexually attractive, well that's not cool, because I didn't put them out there for that reason. People ride subways to get from point A to point B, not so strangers can judge their physical attributes. If people want to get feedback on their sexual attractiveness, there are plenty of venues for that, like dating sites, Hot or Not, guys with iPhones, or amateur night at the strip club.
posted by desjardins at 12:42 PM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

browsed through a few pages of the photo blog... is it me or do almost all the guys look weirdly very similar to each other?
posted by Bwithh at 12:57 PM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

The kind of women who think it's a good idea to lech over twentysomething men, surreptitiously photograph them and post it to the internet with appropriate comments are very much of a type. I imagine they're all sitting in branches of All Bar One right now, drinking white wine from oversized glasses, comparing lechy notes on other twentysomething men and with no idea at all that we're talking about them.
posted by Grangousier at 1:09 PM on May 20, 2011 [3 favorites]

Yeah, add me to the list of those who think this is creepy, rude and disturbing, regardless of gender.

The gender thing is interesting though - I was listening to a DVD commentary the other night (I know, nerd) and the actress said "Nice butt, there" to the actor. I was a little surprised by that. What are the odds that a man could say "Hey, great tits" to a female colleague on a public forum and not be considered sexist? It's quite a double standard.
posted by smilingtiger at 1:16 PM on May 20, 2011

I was listening to a DVD commentary the other night (I know, nerd) and the actress said "Nice butt, there" to the actor. I was a little surprised by that. What are the odds that a man could say "Hey, great tits" to a female colleague on a public forum and not be considered sexist? It's quite a double standard.

....This may sound a bit of an apologetic, but I think the fact that you heard that on a DVD commentary may be a different case.

I've worked in theater, and seen this; working on a play or a movie can lead to a sort of sped-up familiarity between co-workers, especially if they're playing characters who are lovers. In a normal work environment, it's weird to have a co-worker checking out your ass, but in some plays or movies, having a co-worker grab your ass may very well be part of the job description. So I've seen actors have a lot of this teasy-jokey-kidding-around familiarity with each other, where having one person tell another, "cute butt in that shot" isn't as weird.

Mind you, this isn't to say that there aren't actors who don't get this way, or that all actors get this way with all their colleagues. And I do -- and I have -- doled out a smackdown onto an actor when their colleagues tell me they've crossed the border from "goofy" into "creepy". However, the line between "goofy" and "creepy" is often in a very different place from where it's located in other work environments. (I learned the definition of the term "teabagging" years ago by having two guys in a show I was working on actually act it out for me. They were clothed, but they gave a very convincing mime. It can be a different sort of workplace.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:27 PM on May 20, 2011

I don't really know how to feel about this TubeCrush business. I mean, its skeevy but I'm not in any practical danger as a big white male. There's no (or very very little) risk of me being followed down a dark street, being physically assaulted (unless they're taller than me or quite stupid), etc.

This is the part where I don't see gender equality being applied as easily. Some (or a lot) of men might not like the idea of being judged but there's little physical harm (and consequently little emotional toll from fear of stalkers, assaults, etc). If it were women, they would understandably be quite worried. They are more vulnerable to assault when not well protected/trained and even their homes are not as secure as they would like in many cases. In being framed online as 'hot', there's a connotation associated with it that women are afraid of: being seen as 'open', 'wanting it', 'available', etc.

Perhaps men are seen in the same fashion as 'out there', 'available', etc, but we don't have to worry about a giantess coming over a raping us. Except maybe in Norway but they don't seem like uncivilized barbarians to me.
posted by Slackermagee at 1:43 PM on May 20, 2011

It took me a few years to figure out that even though I was one of the most non-threatening people I knew (5.0 ft, 120 lbs, small round smiley face), I could still be creepy. This realization came to me at a SciFi convention. The poor guy was maybe 6 ft tall, and dressed as David Bowie from Labyrinth (I was interested in the mechanics of his, ahem, codpiece). Dude, if you are reading this, I'm sorry!
posted by domo at 1:57 PM on May 20, 2011

I'm pretty sure I did see a gender-reversed version of this based on the London Underground not so long ago.

*googles*

Oh yeah. Ew.
posted by motty at 2:07 PM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

I get that, EmpressCallipygos, but wouldn't it still be different the other way around? I might expect Mel Gibson to comment on an actress' body parts in a commentary, but I imagine most actors would avoid it. I could be wrong, though!

....This may not be as much of a derail as you think; I think whether or not any kind of "forward" gesture -- like say, ogling someone's picture and looking at them objectively -- is or is not "creepy" depends on a) how familiar the ogler and the oglee are with each other, and b) whether both people are willing. If both parties are familiar with each other, and respect each other's boundaries, then...the oglee may not mind the ogler -- because they may actually dig the attention, they may know the ogler is "just kidding around" and would drop it if they said "knock it off," or whatever. Some actors have the across-the-board reputation of just being big horkin' kidders in this regard, but some actors who work together a lot and have a jokey-teasey-kind of relationship may also engage in it with each other. By the same token, if a significant other secretly took a picture of you and had it on his wall, and you knew s/he was gazing at it every day, that probably wouldn't bug you.

It's when that sort of attention is a) uninvited, b) coming from a stranger, or c) unwelcome that it gets into "creepyville". It's because it's someone you don't know, and so you don't know whether they're just kidding, and you don't trust that they would drop it if you asked them too -- you don't know that they respect your wishes, in fact they give every indictation that they don't care about your wishes because they just walked right up to that boundary of your personal space and jumped over it. That's why we think it's so creepy, I think -- because these kind of subway oglers didn't ask permission first, they just took. And that gets back to what I was saying about actors sometimes having that dance of figuring out each others' boundaries thing happen at an accelerated pace. We all have people we would be okay with if they cracked a joke like this (at least most of us do, I should say); but that's because we know them and we know they would take it seriously if we asked them to stop. The guys on the subway, we don't know. That's why it's creepy in that instance.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:09 PM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm pretty sure I did see a gender-reversed version of this based on the London Underground not so long ago.

Whilst I agree - Ew! - note that they all appear to be perfectly aware of the fact they're being photographed. Though I didn't stick around long enough to find out whether they know where the photographs are going.
posted by Grangousier at 2:13 PM on May 20, 2011

Whilst I agree - Ew! - note that they all appear to be perfectly aware of the fact they're being photographed. Though I didn't stick around long enough to find out whether they know where the photographs are going.

I did (ew) and found this at the bottom:

Were Back! – Please Read
We have made some changes to the site, the rating system has been removed as to not cause offence and we now only accept pictures of girls who:

a, are posing for the shot, or

b, are aware a photo is being taken, or

c, upload their own photo

Please adhere to these rules as we will not post any other images on the site!

Thanks

Admin

I wonder how long it will take Tubecrush to make the same changes. I also wonder whether Tubecrush was a reaction to Tube Chicks. Hmm...
posted by smilingtiger at 2:18 PM on May 20, 2011

I think it's hot. The photons that bounce off you in a public place are not yours to keep. Some would find me just checking out hot guys on the subway creepy too, and that's fine, I'm not sure I need to justify what I like to anyone. It is probably a bit impolite to not ask first, but that's not the rudest thing I've ever experienced on public transit.
posted by kevinsp8 at 2:39 PM on May 20, 2011

In tone and intent this appears to be a relative of Heat Magazine, otherwise known as the most viscerally irritating publication ever to sully the name of British womanhood.

They call Boris Johnson 'BoJo'. Go fuck yourselves.
posted by Summer at 2:45 PM on May 20, 2011

I don't see why people keep approaching this from a gender equity angle. It's creepy and intrusive to publicly rank and judge people. It's not about a fear of rape or some imagined Suffering Contest with womankind.

People are talking about it from a gender perspective because surreptitious picture-taking and public ranking/judgement of appearance is a kind of creepiness and intrusiveness that is traditionally inflicted on women (by men) and not on men (by women). The Tube Chicks link and subsequent discussion illustrate this point. But the gender equity issues aren't just about the men whose pictures are taken and whose appearances are rated, but the women, to the extent that Tubecrush picturetakers are per the point upthread, who are taking pictures and rating men. If it's uncool for men to treat women like that, why wouldn't it be uncool for women to return the favor? Gender equity can also be about calling women out for sexist behavior.
posted by immlass at 2:50 PM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]

It does come across as incredibly smug and entitled, which is exactly what happens when men do it (to women).
posted by Summer at 2:54 PM on May 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

I have all sorts of thoughts about this, but mainly I'm thinking this: what if someone called you tonight and said, hey, you are going to be featured on a site and hundreds of thousands of people will be viewing you; what would you like to present about yourself? Aside from those saying "thanks, but no thanks," some people might want to have a blurb about their political activism, some might want to have something about their hobby, or their profession, their school, or something about their background. You might want to talk about your love of books, or your kids, or your pet, or a sport or activity that you participate in. But, then the stranger calls back and says, "O whoops! I wuz wrong! This is just going to be about how hot you are, and people are going to vote. My bad!"

So that's it; the right to choose how you are portrayed has been stripped from the negotiation. There is no negotiation. Your image is going to be published in a sexualized way and people invited to comment about your rack or your package, etc., so that the people running the web site can sell ads. Okay? Never mind if it's okay, that's just how it's going to be. These people are going to publish your image, invite sexual speculation about you, and make money from it.

I'm just very curious how privacy laws will evolve to address electronic media. The publishing landscape has changed so much that the technical or financial bar for exploiting/monetizing images of private individuals is virtually nonexistent. You no longer need photography skills or expensive equipment to take photos, you don't need to know how to produce a magazine, you don't have to pay to have it printed. Just throw up some photos and rake in the ad dollars if it's popular enough.

If your image were printed in HOT HUNKS or SEXY SLUTS physical magazine, wouldn't the publisher need a model release? I'm not really clear on how is this different.
posted by taz at 3:26 PM on May 20, 2011 [3 favorites]

Is it bad to hassle lads with your Hasselblad?
posted by ShutterBun at 5:33 PM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]

A similar case of online ogling reported in Melbourne this week.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 11:46 PM on May 20, 2011

Decani writes "I'd also say that if I ever saw someone taking a picture of me without my permission I'd be right in their face and challenging them about it. It's so fucking rude, no matter why they're doing it."

darkstar writes "The simple fact is, it's rude to photograph someone without their permission. "That would go for anyone, including some great photographer/artist. It's simply impolite not to ask first. This is for all kind of social reasons: objectification, intrusion of privacy, etc."

Does anyone who thinks this way apply that reasoning to news photography? EG: when Jimmy "The Squid" Jones is being perp walked to his latest arrest (IE: Not proven guilt of anything. this time. yet.) should photographers have to ask his permission and abide by his wishes if he says no to photography? Remember at this point he is an innocent citizen.

Or does public interest interest over ride? If I see cops beating the crap out of some homeless guy am I required to seek permission from both the cops and the homeless guy before taking pictures?

If I take a picture of the crowd in a free speech zone do I need all their permissions first? What if it's the WBC out protesting a funeral?

I agree the both posting to the internet of non public figures and the ranking is creepy in this case (sites like people of WalMart creep me right the hell out and I can't for the life of me disconcern why they are popular) but a hard line rule against taking pictures of people without their permission in public seems to restrict a lot of news gathering photography.
posted by Mitheral at 1:08 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's a good job none of you have ever googled 'guess her muff'.
posted by joannemullen at 1:52 AM on May 21, 2011

Ten years ago that would have got me but now I'm much wiser and experienced and when someone implies I shouldn't google for something I've learned to not google for it.
posted by Mitheral at 2:37 AM on May 21, 2011

It got me, Joanne. I am moderately surprised, I guess, although I think most of the comparison images are taken from porn sites. Good luck to them if this is something they want to do though; it's consentual exhibitionism rather than non-consentual judgement (for non-searchers, this is a blog where you view pictures of women and it is then revealed how they style their pubic hair).
posted by jaduncan at 2:46 AM on May 21, 2011

Wow, what a lot of uptight comments. This site is just harmless fun. Who cares if someone takes a picture of you in public? You're in public aren't you? Who cares if people post comments about you, bad or good? It's not the end of the world. Name-calling doesn't actually hurt, you parents are supposed to tell you that when you are a kid. Everyone posting here must be incredibly insecure if they can't handle the thought that people might be posting comments about them on the internet. Get this, people probably talk about you all the time behind your back. At least this is on a website, so you can see what people are saying about you. Also, surely being featured on this site is actually a compliment? People here are so uptight, I can't believe that nearly every comment here is condemning this site. People are just too insecure these days, too obsessed with privacy. Being obsessed with privacy just means you can't handle public criticism. If you're that devastated by public criticism, I think you're a bit too image-obsessed, too wrapped up in what others think of you and how others view you. Stop worrying so much about that stuff, it doesn't matter as much as you think it does. We shouldn't depend for our self-esteem on what other people think of us anyway. I think most of the reactions in this thread are just from people who are terrified of being humiliated in public. That's an emotional reaction, not a rational one, and it's understandable. But if you look at it rationally, there is nothing particularly bad about this site, or about having your photograph taken in public. Why are people so frightened of that? It doesn't imply malice in and of itself. Really, it doesn't. Relax.

Also the sexes are not equal in all ways. Socially and legally, of course, in terms of rights and treatment, they should be equal. But in actuality, men and women are not equal, because men are stronger and more aggressive. That's what makes this site harmless, the fact that the men can easily defend themselves from random women, and random women are unlikely to start physically attacking men. I don't see that there's any real possibility of physical threat here.

Also, the fact that these pictures are being posted online makes the whole concept of people taking photos of each other on the tube *less* threatening than it might conceivably be if the photographer kept the pictures for themselves. Posting them online on a clearly fun-orientated site like this makes the whole thing more of a game and a way of bringing everyday gossip onto the web. Don't people already gossip with each other about strangers they find attractive? Doing so isn't decried as a threat to the fabric of society. I don't see why this website is.

Surely if someone found out they were on this website and wanted to picture taken down, it would be. But I don't think that most men are going to feel violated by knowing that other people find them attractive. Really, I would have thought most men would actually be pleased, particularly if it was women who found them attractive.
posted by rubber duck at 3:01 AM on May 21, 2011

Right on cue, the warmed-over liberal feminists who dominate MetaFilter evince moral outrage – on behalf of other people, the ideal kind of outrage for them.

This isn’t porn, it isn’t objectification, it has fuck-all to do with wymmyn, it’s completely legal, it crosses no lines whatsoever, and it is fundamentally a gay project. So of course you people don’t understand it and you think it’s – what is the term used over and over again here? – “rude.”
posted by joeclark at 6:43 AM on May 21, 2011

men can easily defend themselves from random women, and random women are unlikely to start physically attacking men

It's not really relevant to the subject at hand, but that statement isn't, in practice, true: the primary qualification for committing acts of violence is the desire to commit those acts - gender and physical size playing a smaller part than you think, certainly compared to the desire to inflict pain, although my experience tells me that women who wish to commit violence against random men will usually get a man to do it for them. Maybe it's a Sarf London thing.
posted by Grangousier at 7:31 AM on May 21, 2011

Wow, rubber duck and joeclark, I'm convinced! If only there'd been someone around to make presumptuous, dismissive, insulting remarks before I posted my comment. oh wait.

joeclark, I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentally gay". It sounds like the site was founded by three men and a woman, and among submitters, even if we count all the gender-non-specific names as men, there seem to a good number of women posting as well. Do you assume women just aren't inclined to this type of behaviour? Many are. Do you think gay men have more of a right to use men they don't know this way than everybody else? They don't.

Sites like these aren't illegal (I don't think). Just because many of us find them gross and disrespectful doesn't mean we'll be taking them away from you, any more than the fact that many people find People of Walmart classist and disrespectful means that site is going away any time soon. Everybody is perfectly welcome to whatever kind of creepy voyeurism they find appealing - just not to the whole world's approval. Hope people can find a better way to deal with that than needling imaginary uptight, irrational wymmyn on the internet.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 8:05 AM on May 21, 2011

I think I'm most upset that, despite having to take the tube several times every day, I don't appear to be on that site. Thanks a lot, ladies of London.
posted by ciderwoman at 8:09 AM on May 21, 2011

I was momentarily confused when I got to the end of rubber duck's ramble and there was no hamburger.
posted by postcommunism at 8:27 AM on May 21, 2011

the fact that the men can easily defend themselves from random women, and random women are unlikely to start physically attacking men.

My husband's 6'4" and built like a Viking. He's been spanked on the ass by a woman in a SXSW crowd. It's true that he finds it less threatening than I would if a man did it to me, but don't think women don't ever grope men anonymously if they can get away with it. And men who think they're OK with it might feel differently if it happened to them.
posted by immlass at 8:39 AM on May 21, 2011

the warmed-over liberal feminists who dominate MetaFilter evince moral outrage

Warmed over? BTW, thanks for bringing a flavour of the Daily Mail comments section to MeFi and once again, for the millionth time, turning the word feminist into an insult. There isn't nearly enough of this shit on the internet.
posted by Summer at 4:14 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]

joeclark: making the world safe for heterosexual white males one shitty metafilter comment at a time.
posted by Justinian at 4:51 PM on May 22, 2011

(note: not intended to be a factual statement. Joeclark may not be heterosexual).
posted by Justinian at 4:53 PM on May 22, 2011

rubber duck writes "Wow, what a lot of uptight comments. This site is just harmless fun."

I guessing the fun for the featured is less.

rubber duck writes "Who cares if someone takes a picture of you in public?"

Well I don't much but that is only half the compound problem.

rubber duck writes "Who cares if people post comments about you, bad or good?"

Well I do. I'd find it a bit weird and bad comments would make me feel bad.

rubber duck writes "Name-calling doesn't actually hurt, you parents are supposed to tell you that when you are a kid."

Well I can tell you name calling directed at my person hurts plenty regardless of what my parents told me. Aphorisms like I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original trajectory and adheres to you are cutesty but don't much lessen the power of words.

Also I don't think we should be encouraging everyday gossip but hey, that's probably just me.
posted by Mitheral at 5:20 PM on May 22, 2011

« Older As the Japanese government and TEPCO struggle to b... | In 1992, comic book titan Stan... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Tubecrush May 20, 2011 9:30 AM Subscribe

Tubecrush
May 20, 2011 9:30 AM Subscribe