Join 3,377 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Humiliation Television
August 29, 2011 10:12 PM   Subscribe

Playboy: The Curse of Reality TV (url/ads may be NSFW)
posted by zarq (57 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
Worth noting that Playboy itself profits handsomely from reality tv stars.
posted by zarq at 10:12 PM on August 29, 2011


Read playboy for the articles? Never!
posted by Ahab at 11:05 PM on August 29, 2011


The first celebrity reality-TV show took cameras into the home of Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne for MTV’s The Osbournes. Two of their kids went to rehab for drug addiction, and Sharon went on to appear on other reality series, including VH1’s Rock of Love: Charm School, which ended with an out-of-court settlement following Sharon’s physical confrontation with a cast member, a woman who got her own series, which featured her dating millionaires and which was pulled off the air because one of them killed his wife and later committed suicide.
Heh. I actually heard about that dude. It was big news because the show was still airing when he murdered those people. It was one of those bachelor-style dating shows where people are gradually eliminated until just one is left. Supposedly that dude made it pretty far in the series.
posted by delmoi at 11:11 PM on August 29, 2011


Slightly less dodgy URL (ready for your Instapaper client).
posted by John Shaft at 11:17 PM on August 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Read playboy for the articles? Never!

I had a huge book of Playboy articles I picked up at a booksale. I think my mom threw it out, but it had so much good stuff.

I did once pick up a Playboy in the newsstand, flip to the Ray Bradbury article, and put it back.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 11:33 PM on August 29, 2011 [3 favorites]


I was watching Dangerous Death Crabs of Doom recently, doing a basic and distinctly amateur analysis of just how many cameras were in use.

It was one of those episodes where someone gets hurt and the Coast Guard flies out to rescue them. There seemed to be a camera on the bridge, a camera on the deck, a camera down in the crew quarters, an aerial camera flying around, a camera at the Coast Guard base (which then got aboard the helo and flew with them out to the boat), and then several more aboard a second boat that came to the assistance of the first.

So even if the show was unscripted, as they claim (and they didn't just place all the cameras before breaking some guy's leg for good TV), there was so much raw footage about that it seems like a competent editor could create pretty much any dramatic narrative they liked. In those circumstances, the notion that it's "real" begins to fall by the wayside. As it does, the idea that there might be an ethical approach to the production of reality TV goes with it.

In short, a reality TV production company's prime imperative is to sell television shows, or ad slots in them. That's done through faking "reality" and making people do (and be) what they want for entertaining TV (or, in an unscripted situation with lots of cameras, appear to do and be what they want). In that context, talk of ethics and long term care for the subjects of the show seems just a bit hollow. The whole enterprise is about creating the most attention grabbing and profitable visual entertainment possible, not about actually finding out who people are, or providing sensitive documentary insight into their lives.

Of course that messes with people. How could it not?
posted by Ahab at 12:04 AM on August 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


a competent editor could create pretty much any dramatic narrative they liked.

You know that reality shows have writers who do basically exactly that, right?
posted by KathrynT at 12:23 AM on August 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


I recently took a screenwriting course where it explained to us that writing "reality" TV was one of the more lucrative markets out there right now.
posted by Avenger at 12:30 AM on August 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


where it was* explained to us

Luckily, I don't need gooder grammar to be a reality TV writer.
posted by Avenger at 12:30 AM on August 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


I don't understand what people like about reality TV. Not because I think I'm better than you, but because I really don't. I want to understand. If you asked me what I thought was so great about Nas, or Bollywood, or paintball, or anything I really like, I would definitely still be talking when you didn't want to know anymore. Could someone please help me understand why reality TV is good?

This article was interesting -- I'm not trying to threadshit.
posted by pH Indicating Socks at 1:38 AM on August 30, 2011


I don't understand what people like about reality TV.
There's a very very very small chance you'll get to see some people fuck. Or die.
posted by fullerine at 1:57 AM on August 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


pH Indicating Socks, dobbs defends reality television.
posted by cgc373 at 1:57 AM on August 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


Maybe it's because I just woke up. But this is badly written, right?
posted by parmanparman at 1:59 AM on August 30, 2011


Maybe the problem is that I do not remember any of this happening.
posted by parmanparman at 1:59 AM on August 30, 2011


That's awesome cgc -- now I know.
posted by pH Indicating Socks at 2:16 AM on August 30, 2011


How many times has the Screenwipe segment on editing reality TV been posted? Yet again, you say?
posted by maxwelton at 2:28 AM on August 30, 2011 [10 favorites]


Maybe it's because I just woke up. But this is badly written, right?

I didn't think so, but it did feel somewhat choppy. Like it was either a longer piece that'd been cut down, or just one that didn't quite pull together from the several angles the author tried on it.

I don't write for money, let alone under time constraints, but I notice this in magazine writing a lot and strongly suspect that deadlines have something to do with it...
posted by brennen at 2:31 AM on August 30, 2011


Read playboy for the articles? Never!

There is a braille edition.
posted by StickyCarpet at 2:51 AM on August 30, 2011


I don't understand what people like about reality TV.

It's more complex outside the arena of competitive shows, but with competitive shows, I believe about 75 percent of it is waiting to see jerks get their comeuppance. Seriously. That's a HUGE chunk of the appeal. They almost never win, unlike in life, meaning that usually, you get to see them go down at some point, hoisted with their own petards of jerkdom, bested by someone you like better. Unlike in life.

The rest is the unintentional comedy of un-self-aware people, combined with the actual fun and suspense of any competitive enterprise.

I am talking here about shows like Survivor. I have no idea why people watch Keeping Up With the Kardashians.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 3:08 AM on August 30, 2011 [5 favorites]


I don't understand what people like about reality TV

At first, I'd say there was the (morbid?) curiosity of "what are other people really like? Am I 'normal?'" (i.e. The Loud Family.) Then later it was more of the same, followed by a desire t be somehow "better" than those we watched ( The Real World, et al)

Later, still, I think the appeal of game shows entered the mix (Survivor, etc.) and nowadays there seems to be a blurring line between documentaries (which are "educational") and plain-old reality shows, which are entertainment.

I believe that people honestly believe that reality television is "non-fiction" and hence, similar to news & current events. "This really happened, and I saw it," and so forth. Non-fiction carries a certain weight vs. fiction for some (myself included) and so Reality Television may appeal to people who honestly think they're learning something about the human condition.

While it's certainly understandable why *you* might not like it, it shouldn't be too difficult to understand (or at least grasp) the appeal to the masses, no?

posted by ShutterBun at 3:29 AM on August 30, 2011


The best reality TV show is No Reservations. And then, only the Beirut episode. It was kind of boring, when there wasn't shooting. But then, that's true of pretty much all of everyday life.
posted by cthuljew at 3:33 AM on August 30, 2011


While it's certainly understandable why *you* might not like it, it shouldn't be too difficult to understand (or at least grasp) the appeal to the masses, no?

I really was at a loss, but the explanations I just read seem plausible. +1 to you.
posted by jwhite1979 at 3:49 AM on August 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


So You Think You Can Dance, despite being of the 'Reality' Genre on Fox, shows that "all reality TV shows must have drama manufactured by odious conflict of some kind" to be a lie.

My missus and I think this is because:

i) People (contestants and choreographers) are actually talented, and they are screened out based on such
ii) The ratio of meaningful criticism:crap criticism is high*
iii) There is NO backstabbing allowed between competitors.

I think that iii and i are deeply related. If you have a bunch of insecure people whose insecurity is played upon to cause drama, of course there will be fights - the producers depend on it.

If you have actually TALENTED people, both judges and comepetitors who know the hard work it takes to get talent, and the show is supportive (I'm sure this is part of the show's culture), you get great, non-psychopathic, non-banal TV.

Oh yea, that's right: a Talent show. That's what they used to call them. Becuase it showed something GOOD.


* Some of the judges blather and scream, fair enough. But there is actual meaningful criticism in there!
posted by lalochezia at 4:25 AM on August 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


There's a very very very small chance you'll get to see some people fuck. Or die.

Or more and more lately, a good chance you'll see something blown up. Or some kind of hostility between characters. I see where the owner of Red Jacket on Sons of Guns has started yelling at the camera crews. That's after the episode where he led a brief group prayer before demonstrating some absurd weapon to a "client." IIRC, the weapon failed during the demo. WWJD?

Question: Is Mythbusters reality TV?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:29 AM on August 30, 2011


Mythbusters is mission journalism.
posted by parmanparman at 4:45 AM on August 30, 2011 [7 favorites]


This week's This American Life has a segment with a reality show producer that really goes into how drama is manufactured and how producers (or at least some of them) do whatever it takes to create the story they want to present.
posted by Mchelly at 4:49 AM on August 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


I suspect everybody's probably sick of me talking up The AV Club's TV Club (and/or already knows about it), but people interested in reality TV ought to look at its writeups of the first season of The Real World, if only to remember what the genre looked like in its infancy.*

*WARNING: Those of us old enough to remember the first season of The Real World run the risk of being reminded just how old we are.*

*Twenty years ago, really? Jesus Christ.

posted by Rangeboy at 4:50 AM on August 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


This phenom is a function of cable television, and the hundreds of channels available. Each channel is trying to be more bizarre with their programming, to get viewers to stop and look, as they scroll through the endless choices. I agree that there are viewers who honestly believe what they are watching is "real". Research has shown behavior changes when subjects believe they are being filmed/recorded. These shows are just silly. and I refuse to watch them...except Storage Wars and Pawn Stars, of course.
posted by GreyFoxVT at 5:03 AM on August 30, 2011


It's all an elaborate scheme to somehow bring Any Warhol's "15 minutes of fame" prediction to fruition.

Up next: the series premiere of "So you think you can sweep a pool?"
posted by ShutterBun at 5:10 AM on August 30, 2011


I think reality shows come from a much, much simpler place - at least for the producers.

Reality shows have exploded because they are cheap to make. No-names cost no-money, comparatively, and expectations are low. Throw in peoples' voyeuristic tendencies and you're rolling in the cash.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:32 AM on August 30, 2011


So You Think You Can Dance, despite being of the 'Reality' Genre on Fox, shows that "all reality TV shows must have drama manufactured by odious conflict of some kind" to be a lie.

Absolutely. My wife and I have so much fun watching this show together. We never worry that it'll leave us in a bad or mixed mood. Even when Mary Murphy is yelling in that awful, awful way, I can totally get behind her enthusiasm. The dancers and choreographers are brilliant.

Did you see that routine when Melonie ran across the stage and jumped spread eagle into her partner's arms? I got so choked up for no apparent reason. I wonder how much the show's peculiar good nature can be attributed to the way the show necessarily and casually dismisses social taboos surrounding interpersonal space and sexuality, and how much can be attributed to whatever the judges are drinking.
posted by jwhite1979 at 5:35 AM on August 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


Fuck. Or die.

Coming this fall on Fox!
posted by smoothvirus at 6:16 AM on August 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


that routine when Melonie ran across the stage and jumped spread eagle into her partner's arms

That was simply heart-stopping, wasn't it? SYTYCD manages to be a highly-rated network show but some of the dance they feature is fairly out there. If you are a fan of dance at all you need to check out the show (jump past the beginning weeks of elimination before they get to the top 20). The competition and crazy judges is just the structure, but some of the choreography is simply stunning. People that lump it and Dancing with the Stars haven't watched the show.
posted by ao4047 at 6:28 AM on August 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's necessary to distinguish between competitive and non-competitive reality shows. Although Gordon Ramsay presides over both Hell's Kitchen and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, they provide different kinds of pleasure.

I watch the former for the pleasure of Ramsay inflicting his manufactured rage on the hapless contestants. I grant that this is a sordid kind of entertainment.

Contrastingly, the latter is a "feel good" enterprise with a soothingly predictable narrative in which he cleans filthy kitchens, overcomes the owner's stubbornness, and sets the restaurant on the path to success.
posted by Trurl at 7:04 AM on August 30, 2011


Question: Is Mythbusters reality TV?

That feels like asking if "Mr. Wizard" was reality TV. It's an educational science program. Yeah there's explosions and silliness, things that Adam Savage has said openly are necessary to make a show like this appealing to a wider audience, but it's still a scripted show that provides informational, educational content.

Even going by the arguable standards of what "reality" TV is, Mythbusters isn't that.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:06 AM on August 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


I did once pick up a Playboy in the newsstand, flip to the Ray Bradbury article, and put it back.

Well that's my new favourite euphemism, right there.

"Excuse me for a few minutes. I need to go to the bathroom to ... uh ... flip to the Ray Bradbury article."
posted by Grangousier at 7:16 AM on August 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Trurl: " Contrastingly, the latter is a "feel good" enterprise with a soothingly predictable narrative in which he cleans filthy kitchens, overcomes the owner's stubbornness, and sets the restaurant on the path to success."

Such as it is.... As of March 2009: Of the 20 restaurants that were featured on the US version of Kitchen Nightmares, 10 closed; 12 out of the 22 UK establishments had also closed.

Some details from 2008.
posted by zarq at 7:39 AM on August 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


There's a very very very small chance you'll get to see some people fuck. Or die.

You "might" see someone fuck, but you will never, ever see someone die. You have a greater chance of winning the lottery, every time you play it. The reasons are first, you'd hear about it on the news before the episode ever airs, don't believe me just look at more minor things that happen that make the news about reality shows, a death on one would be huge news. Second, the family would sue to high heaven if some show used footage of their loved one for ratings, and no business would ever risk that. There is only the "tease" of injury or death, but if you believe you will ever see it, then i'm sorry.
posted by usagizero at 8:28 AM on August 30, 2011


you will never, ever see someone die.

What about the Captain Phil arc on Deadliest Catch?
posted by KathrynT at 8:34 AM on August 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


I recently took a screenwriting course where it explained to us that writing "reality" TV was one of the more lucrative markets out there right now.

From my experience almost all of the money goes to the executive producers and the host(s).
posted by mrhappy at 8:37 AM on August 30, 2011


This is fascinating. I had this vague, intuitive notion of the troubled lives of reality TV stars, but it's amazing to see it laid out so plainly.

Consider media that has more traditionally involved major disclosure by it's stars, like poetry, music and memoirs. Many Beats wrote freely about their lives on the fringes of society, for instance. And rock and rap stars are notoriously troubled by the antics and heart-break that gives their work resonance. In these cases, however, the artist often maintains at least some scrap of control over their work. Reality TV stars seem to have very little in comparison.
posted by es_de_bah at 8:50 AM on August 30, 2011


Could someone please help me understand why reality TV is good?

This question is a little broad to the same degree it would be impossible to give a definitive answer to "Why are sitcoms good?", considering each individual show has a different level of quality, and thus it's probably not fair to paint "Arrested Development" with the same brush as "Mama's Family".

But I think I get the general gist of what you're asking. I can only speak to the reality TV that I watch, which is exclusively limited to the "game show on steroids" sort ("Survivor" and "American Idol", though I stopped watching the latter after Simon Cowell left) rather than the non-competitive, straight drama type, such as "Real Housewives" or "Keeping up with the Kardashians".

With Survivor and AI, the appeal to me is similar to that of a procedural crime drama, legal thriller or mystery novel: Knowing the shows will dependably end with a conclusive winner and getting caught up in the drama, twists and turns and surprises that ultimately lead to that conclusion.
posted by The Gooch at 9:05 AM on August 30, 2011


The appeal of non-competitive reality TV is that, via the miracle of television and non-linear editing, we now have an unclamped hose spraying schadenfreude whenever we thirst for it, and it turns out that a lot of us thirst for it very often indeed.

Reality television which is competitive works because it's a game show with loads of drama, and we like competition and we like drama.

Non-competitive reality television works because it's more or less the closest we're going to come to putting self-absorbed crazy idiots in a zoo. There will never be a shortage of dipshits who will do anything to be on TV, or who believe that any fame is good fame, and there will never be a shortage of viewers and media consumers willing to prove them right.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 9:12 AM on August 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


This article was so long and disjointed it was hard to read. I had to stop half way through.
posted by djduckie at 9:13 AM on August 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


I will admit to watching some reality TV from time to time. It's a guilty pleasure, there's usually one or two shows a year that I watch.

Jersey Shore: bad people doing bad things is entertaining to watch. Those people are pure id (or at least, their characters are), and there's a definite voyeuristic pleasure in watching them (in small doses). However, the jerky video editing (screen shaking all over the place like the cameraman is constantly in the middle of an earthquake, and gritty lines running across the screen with quick flashes of words associated with the upcoming scene) REALLY annoys me.

Big Brother (US): I have no excuse for why I watch this show, really. And I get REALLY into it. I'm not proud of myself. I don't pay to watch the 24 hour feed online (though I know people who do) or anything, but I *do* find myself saying to the wife "Argh, why would she make such a stupid game move? She's totally going to get evicted now" and I often find myself getting FAR too invested in who wins/loses specific competitions. I miss the UK one, actually, which was on more often (like 6 days a week, instead of 3) and was much more about the relationships between the contestants, since they weren't allowed to discuss gameplay at ALL and aside from nominating who should go up for eviction, the public actually decided who stayed/left, not the players in the game.
posted by antifuse at 9:15 AM on August 30, 2011


I don't understand what people like about reality TV.

The only thing I like about reality TV is that it enables The Soup to exist and amuse me every Saturday morning.

Other than that, it's worthless and I avoid it like the plague.
posted by Squeak Attack at 9:28 AM on August 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


I watch the Amazing Race when I can remember it's on. Mostly because the scenery is gorgeous, and it's neat to see various cities from the perspective of someone who doesn't speak a language trying to navigate in a foreign country and find their way. The competitions are always contrived but still manage to be interesting. The dynamics between the people are usually less dramatic than on Survivor. Ironically, the couple that caused the most drama on any season of the Amazing Race were an import from Survivor.

It's not just the people. The entire dynamic is different than most reality shows. Yes, it's possible to screw another team, or to work in tandem with them to get ahead. But ultimately a team's biggest challenge is getting from point A to point B -- and the show makes sure they'll need to do so themselves throughout the race. Ingenuity is rewarded.

I torrented and watched the first three seasons of Amazing Race Asia a couple of years ago. The show was taped in English and was quite similar to the US version, but more commercialized (blatant product placement everywhere) and with a much lower prize. ($100,000 instead of $1,000,000.)

There was a wonderful moment in one of the episodes of Asia where contestants needed to calculate the value of a certain amount of gold jewelry, based on a constantly updating exchange rate, while standing in a jewelry shop. With no pen and paper in sight, four teams struggled to complete the task mentally. Fifth team wanders in, places the jewelry on a scale. One of them asks the guy behind the counter if he can borrow a calculator, adds the weights quickly, calculates the value, grabs his ticket, hands the calculator back and walks out. No one said he couldn't use a calculator.

Moments like that are one reason why I keep watching.
posted by zarq at 9:53 AM on August 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


Anybody interested in reality TV should listen to the second half of this week's This American Life (episode #444, Gossip) which has a short story in which the protagonist is an assistant producer for a fictional reality series. It's good and very accurate to how the games and contestants are manipulated -- at least according to the stories I've heard from my friend who was on Project Runway.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:57 AM on August 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


Talk to people in the nonfiction/documentary TV industry (Discovery, Nat Geo, etc), and there's a lot of hang-wringing about how reality TV is taking over the "nonfiction programming" domain like a cancer.

(I know, I know, but there's still a world of difference between I Love New York and an episode of Nat Geo Explorer, which recently got canceled, btw. And it's not just that one costs 1/20 as much to make.)

The annual conferences are now more about reality TV - sorry, "unscripted programming," a euphemism even head execs can't say without cringing - than legit animal/cultural/historical documentaries. More LA/NY folks than DC folks, in other words.

You all know that This American Life episode was fiction, right?
posted by gottabefunky at 10:08 AM on August 30, 2011


Speaking of "reality", documentary, photography and editing: Erroll Morris has collected his essays on the nature of truth in documentary photography into a book: Believing is Seeing.
posted by crush-onastick at 10:24 AM on August 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


"there was so much raw footage about that it seems like a competent editor could create pretty much any dramatic narrative they liked. In those circumstances, the notion that it's "real" begins to fall by the wayside."

Rashamon's revenge.
posted by klangklangston at 10:52 AM on August 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


I wonder how much [So You Think You Can Dance's] peculiar good nature can be attributed to the way the show necessarily and casually dismisses social taboos surrounding interpersonal space and sexuality, and how much can be attributed to whatever the judges are drinking.

The interpersonal space and sexuality bits would ring a lot clearer if they acknowledged that a fair number of their competitors are not participants in the heterosexual crazy romance genre choreographers seem to only be able to choreograph. Seriously, it frustrates me a lot that there is never any discussion of homosexuality and the only dance that could have been read as some component of a gay love story (choreographed, in fact, by a gay man who read as straight on the show), was explained on screen as two friends. It's great to bring dance to the world, but how much greater would it be if there wasn't additional pressure on young queer dancers to fabricate heterosexual sexual tension to please the audience?
posted by ChuraChura at 12:00 PM on August 30, 2011


Well now I'm worried about Chumlee.
posted by juiceCake at 2:07 PM on August 30, 2011


It's great to bring dance to the world, but how much greater would it be if there wasn't additional pressure on young queer dancers to fabricate heterosexual sexual tension to please the audience?

I always thought it went without saying that So You Think You Can Dance is the gayest show on television. I guess that in itself says something about how heterosexual the media has to remain in order to keep their audience. So meh on that, but bravo on everything else about the show.
posted by jwhite1979 at 4:31 PM on August 30, 2011


I don't really understand how come reality TV has become so popular, I understand why the media corporation like them (they are cheap to make), but why do people find it so interesting to watch a bunch of weirdos.
I must admit though, that I also have watched reality TV once in a while, but it only because I'm so interested in social dynamics, how the carry a conversation and thus I find it really interesting how the group dynamics evolve and so on.
posted by MarkusEllek at 1:16 AM on August 31, 2011


It depends on the genre, but a lot of reality programs combine all the elements of drama, comedy, apathy, etc. along with some sort of competition.

There are (usually) people to root for, enemies to despise, challenges to be met, goals, obstacles, in short, everything that makes a good story.

Reality shows are doing the same thing al the scripted shows are doing, only they're doing it via clever editing, music, and so forth. It's really quite a testament to the power and importance of cinematic tools that so often go unnoticed.

Granted, I'm referring more to "good" reality shows like Survivor and Amazing Race (some good friends of mine were on the latter show twice; think "pink and black") But even the more exploitive shows occasionally manage to produce a worthwhile episode (err...I suspect).
posted by ShutterBun at 1:26 AM on August 31, 2011


I'm a writer, and I adore reality TV. I don't watch everything there is, not by a long shot, but when it's good, it really is good in ways that most scripted television just isn't (if every show were on the level of Arrested Development or The Wire, then I'd probably have a different opinion).

What I love about reality tv when it works, is that real people - even real people pretending to be 'characters' - just don't act the way they do in fiction. Even when you can predict the plot arcs, how they get there or how others react is often a complete surprise - and another insight into human nature. I am always amazed when people - even people who have clearly been directed by producers to ham it up - act reprehensibly to others, or showcase their hypocrisies, or bare their prejudices and possibly allow themselves to be schooled for them, knowing people are watching.

Survivor is a particular joy of mine, because they are starving and cold and wet (the best seasons are always the ones with the least food provided). Because it shows you in - ways that science is ethically barred from doing - how many ways humans act when they aren't capable of thinking clearly yet still have to reach a goal. I keep thinking if I just watch that show enough I will figure out the trigger that makes a person a successful business or political leader - what it is that you need to do to make your interpersonal relationships work to combat human nature, if you're not naturally charismatic.

But the biggest reason I'm hooked on reality TV was this scene from the very first Survivor: Someday, if I work hard enough, just maybe I could write something as raw and simple and awesome as that.
posted by Mchelly at 6:57 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


« Older Town Of Cats...  |  Pretty Colors... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments