Lionel Shriver wrote an interesting book.
June 8, 2005 8:04 AM   Subscribe

Woman wins Orange Prize for novel "many people will hate" Lionel Shriver's We Need to Talk About Kevin is one of the few novels I've read in which the protagonist admits that she dislikes her child and is ambivalent (to put it mildly) about motherhood in general. In this case, she has good reason--the boy has a few problems, which culminate in a school gym massacre (preceded by something really grisly). (I'm not giving anything away by saying this, it's not a mystery novel.) Many people do indeed hate it; I personally thought it was fascinating. See also The Independent, The Guardian, ID Theory, Salon, and many more.
posted by scratch (58 comments total)

 
The son, I neglected to add, is difficult virtually from infancy and the implication is that he is seriously disturbed. Shriver has said in interviews that she herself was/is extremely ambivalent about motherhood, and I suppose she deliberately slanted the narrative toward the negative. I find the book fascinating for its "daring" approach to the notion that not all women want children and not all women can be expected to be "good mothers," try as they may (or not).
posted by scratch at 8:11 AM on June 8, 2005


In this case, she has good reason--the boy has a few problems

Which came first? The child's problems or the mother disliking child/motherhood?
posted by spock at 8:12 AM on June 8, 2005


I'm interested in hearing more on why people hate it so much. Are the majority of haters women? I don't think it's any big secret that some woman are just not able to be motherly. Looking at the many instances of child abuse, neglect etc... proves just this.
posted by Constant Reader at 8:18 AM on June 8, 2005


&SectionI can't say if I hate the book or not as I've never read it. I do, however, hate the title. I cringe every time I see it at the bookstore (the cover's pretty terrible too, at least in Canada). That said, I didn't know what it was about and the premise is interesting so maybe I'll give it a shot... but good Christ, could she not have come up with a better title?
posted by dobbs at 8:28 AM on June 8, 2005


I don't think it's any big secret that some woman are just not able to be motherly.

The question is "why"? Is there a physiological/brain chemical reason? Does it have a genetic component? It seems problematic from an evolutionary perspective.

There is a lot of research and interest in "Fetal Programming", prenatal influences, and development in the womb. By its very nature it is difficult and long-term to study. The idea of developmental programming is not completely accepted by the medical community. But even dismissing a possible prenatal cause, there are primate studies of problems with infants that are not raised in loving/nuturing environments.

It doesn't seem too difficult to understand why people don't enjoy reading about it. It's no secret that pedophilia or child abuse exists, but I doubt that the majority would read a book with an abuser "protagonist" (explaining their feelings frankly) are going to be terribly won over.
posted by spock at 8:28 AM on June 8, 2005


I find the book fascinating for its "daring" approach to the notion that not all women want children

This is not exactly a new idea. There are, and always have been plenty of women (and men) who don't want kids. And that's fine. But if you're one of those people, well, don't have them, because if you do and you abuse that child, the kid is the victim, not you.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on it directly, but I wonder how sympathetically the abusive mother is portrayed. That could draw some ire, since I imagine a sympathetic portrayal of a male child abuser or wife beater would have people up in arms as well, and probably wouldn't be recieving accolades.
posted by jonmc at 8:35 AM on June 8, 2005


spock : "It seems problematic from an evolutionary perspective."

Not necessarily. Evolution works over large groups, and relies on chance. Evolution is not necessarily "progress", it's just a buildup of random changes that happened to survive. So there's nothing evolutionary odd about certain genetic/physiological traits resulting in "bad mothership", as long as the number of those bad traits is insufficient for the species to die off. No more problematic from an evolutionary perspective than sterility, SIDS, or the like.
posted by Bugbread at 8:37 AM on June 8, 2005


scratch : "I find the book fascinating for its 'daring' approach to the notion that not all women want children"

I haven't read the book, but could you clarify something? You mention that she's ambivalent about having kids (i.e. both likes and dislikes it), but then you mention that not all women want children (the implication being that the mom in the story doesn't). Which of the two is it?
posted by Bugbread at 8:39 AM on June 8, 2005


I think evolution, particularly technological evolution, has a lot to do with strained maternal and paternal relationships. Just 50 yrs ago family units were much tighter - maybe due to lack of cable, internet, iPods etc... How many families now are able to sit down together at dinner as much as families in the 50's and 60's were?

This begins the nature vs nurture argument. Nature does play a part, but the environment the child, as well as the parent, is in is equally important.
posted by Constant Reader at 8:41 AM on June 8, 2005


Constant Reader : "I think evolution, particularly technological evolution"

Technological evolution? "Survival of the fittest equipment"?

I'm not sure the word "evolution" can really be applied to technology.
posted by Bugbread at 8:45 AM on June 8, 2005


bugbread - would you have preferred "development"?

I think my point came across well enough.
posted by Constant Reader at 8:47 AM on June 8, 2005


It's no secret that pedophilia or child abuse exists, but I doubt that the majority would read a book with an abuser "protagonist" (explaining their feelings frankly) are going to be terribly won over.

*cough* Lolita. *cough*
posted by headspace at 8:51 AM on June 8, 2005 [1 favorite]


Spock (what an apt name given the topic) and Constant Reader, can you provide a justification for using the term 'abuse' or setting this kind of dysfunctional parenthood alongside pedophilia?

Can we not discuss this issue without labelling the protagonist so emotively? Surely it's only the inability to see a spectrum in the ability of people to be good parents that makes this such a charged issue.
posted by popkinson at 8:55 AM on June 8, 2005


sheesh. I'm with, like EVERYONE above. The title blows donkey nards. Plus, think about all the Kevin's who will be made fun of now... its NOT FAIR. PLUS, if this kid goes on a shooting spree (that's the impression i have so far) what name wants that stigma attached to it?

Whatever happened to great titles like "This far, No Further" or "Through a glass, darkly"? Or even "Ronin"? Now THOSE are titles! She might well have titled it "Uh OH! Spaghetti-O's"
posted by indiebass at 8:57 AM on June 8, 2005


Constant Reader : "bugbread - would you have preferred 'development'?

"I think my point came across well enough."


It did, and normally I wouldn't have said anything, but we had a bit of discussion of evolution in the sense of natural selection (from Scratch) right before it, so I just wanted to avoid the two disparate uses bleeding into eachother.
posted by Bugbread at 9:02 AM on June 8, 2005


I don't think it has to with technology at all, Constant Reader. Rather, women now have more choices and thus don't feel like mommy is a given role and definitely don't feel like it's the only role (other than wife) that they have open. At the same time, it's still kinda expected, and men, even men who try really hard, are still poor at doing half the parenting (based on my observations of the very progressive childed couples I know). So the mommy site carries lots of stress and ambivalnece.

It's complicated for the same reason there are fewer nuns.
posted by dame at 9:11 AM on June 8, 2005


. . . can you provide a justification for . . . setting this kind of dysfunctional parenthood alongside pedophilia?

My point was an illustration of why people may be reacting negatively to the novel. Messy roadkill happens too, but most people prefer to avert their gaze. Few enjoy stopping their car and getting out to examine it more closely.

We've all been children and the thought of this person being our mother is probably a generally disturbing one. (Again, I have not read it, just attempting to come up with a rationale for other's reactions).
posted by spock at 9:15 AM on June 8, 2005


I doubt that the majority would read a book with an abuser "protagonist"

feh - I don't particularly enjoy the thought of being a sibling-murdering [***SPOILER REMOVED***] shut-in, but I thought The Wasp Factory was a pretty good book. You don't need to like the protaganist for the book to be a good read. And frankly I think a little more honesty about how people experience parenting and other such 'universal feelings' can only help matters.

Thanks for the link, I'll probably check out the book.

OP: evolution, particularly technological evolution The concept of biological and 'technological" evolution are so fundamentally different that I'd say relating them like this should only be done when that's the idea under discussion.
posted by freebird at 9:16 AM on June 8, 2005


I think a lot of women (and men) have kids on the premise that once the baby is born they will start to love it because that's what everyone tells you will happen. But it clearly isn't always what happens (and not just humans, some adults of all mammal species will ignore, neglect or harm their young too).

Also there are women who like being pregnant and having the babies but are not so keen on spending the time with toddlers or young kids.

And I don't think that familial closeness has decreased since the 1950s at all. Sure you got a hot meal at the end of the day back then but the rest of the time? you were told to get out from under everyone's feet and go outside. These days "good parents" are supposed to keep their kids under constant supervision until the age of about 17, drive them everywhere, know all their friends, not let them do anything dangerous, be their best friend etc. I'd start to dislike anyone I spent that much time with too.
posted by fshgrl at 9:20 AM on June 8, 2005


fshgrl raises an excellent point. For years, my defense (as ridiculous as it is that I must have a defense) for not wanting children is that I don't enjoy being around children that much. I'm always given the reply, "Oh, that all changes once it's your kid!"

My standard response: "What if it doesn't?"
posted by trey at 9:22 AM on June 8, 2005


Amazon's reader reviews for this book are rather fascinating.
posted by spock at 9:25 AM on June 8, 2005


PS to scratch: Well-written post. Thanks
posted by spock at 9:26 AM on June 8, 2005


It's too bad that melodrama had to get mixed into the plot, otherwise the "ambivalent mother" would have made a far more interesting study (and probably story) on its own.

Let's reinforce the stereotype that, when someone is dangerous, even their mother will notice something "wrong" with them.

I'm sure perfectly fine little boys never have mothers who don't want them.
posted by dreamsign at 9:40 AM on June 8, 2005


It appears as though trey and popkinson have it, but we're still operating under several assumptions that are not necessarily completely valid:

1) That everyone wants to be a parent, whether they state it explicitly or not (though we've pretty much covered this)

2) That parenthood in and of itself is a total societal good

3) That "good parent" can even be defined to any workable extent

4) That anyone who excludes themselves from the process of propagating the species is an inherently lesser individual for having done so and their ideas are less valid than those who breed

I am looking forward to reading the book.
posted by gramschmidt at 9:43 AM on June 8, 2005


Medea
"...Am I not right to weep?
Oh my children, cursed children of a hateful mother —
may you die with your father and all his house,
may it all perish, crash into ruins."

Euripedes, too, may encounter some difficulty being chosen for Oprah's Book Club.
posted by Haruspex at 10:24 AM on June 8, 2005


popkinson - I think my initial choice of abuse was an emotional one. The mother in the story was not actively physically abusing her son, but I think her lack of interaction with him felt like emotional abuse to me.

fshgrl - I could just be romanticizing what I've been told about that era, but it did seem like a simpler time with much less external stimuli.

trey - I find it very strange that people who don't want children are often spoken to like they don't know what they're talking about. I'm an 29 yr old woman and am often asked when I'm going to start a family. At this point in my life my answer is "don't know" or "maybe I'll adopt when I'm in my 40's". The asker is often taken aback by my casual answer and will make some comment about how I'll be changing my mind soon.

Women do have more choices now, one of which is to not have children. I do have a maternal instinct, but my pets are enough for now.
posted by Constant Reader at 10:29 AM on June 8, 2005


Haruspex writes "Euripedes, too, may encounter some difficulty being chosen for Oprah's Book Club."

Meh. That's just because he doesn't have a good agent.
posted by clevershark at 10:46 AM on June 8, 2005


I've read this book and enjoyed it a great deal. As a woman who has made the decision to not have children, this book examined a lot of the issues that I've considered in making my decision.

There is almost a level of helplessness about the protagonist in how she deals with her son. She knows it's wrong to not connect with the boy, she knows that something inside her is deeply flawed, but for whatever reason, the child repulses her.

As you read along, you discover that the father (who does all the good parent stuff) is the parent the boy hates the most, while he loves his mother in his way because she was honest with him and her distaste for him was visible.

Although this book is really a chicken or egg kind of situation, I personally believe that the kid was off and mommy didn't help.

I also think there are way more men and women out there with kids who had no idea what they were getting into, and now regret having children.

The best way to encourage good parenting is to stop glorifying childraising and parenthood and show it for all it is. Hard, difficult, not fun at times, and possibly not rewarding at all.
posted by teleri025 at 10:47 AM on June 8, 2005


At the risk of being branded a deviant freak myself, I enjoy reading books on or about, er, deviant freaks. Lolita and Wasp Factory have both been mentioned here as novels focusing on such characters; I've read both and am looking for more along these lines (although I haven't read Lolita in about 15 years and found it quite boring when I did). This could go in AskMe I guess, but since we're already on the topic...recommended titles, anyone?

(I haven't read WNTTAK but I may - like I say, I like the literary equivalent of looking under rocks)
posted by stinkycheese at 10:52 AM on June 8, 2005


I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on it directly, but I wonder how sympathetically the abusive mother is portrayed. That could draw some ire, since I imagine a sympathetic portrayal of a male child abuser or wife beater would have people up in arms as well, and probably wouldn't be recieving accolades.

FYI, the mother in the book is NOT abusive. A little rejecting, perhaps, certainly bewildered, but not a hitter or withholder of food. But I think it is a sympathetic portrait. It's told from the mother's P.O.V., incidentally.

Which came first? The child's problems or the mother disliking child/motherhood?

IMO that's the whole point.

I'm interested in hearing more on why people hate it so much.

So am I. I was rather hoping that more people who'd read the book already would respond. But I think people react very negatively, generally speaking, when confronted with the fact that some women don't want children, period. And with the fact that some mothers are ambivalent about motherhood (or "selfish," if you like). Fishgirl's post sums it up nicely.

It's no secret that pedophilia or child abuse exists, but I doubt that the majority would read a book with an abuser "protagonist" (explaining their feelings frankly) are going to be terribly won over. *cough* Lolita. *cough*

So I'm not the only one who thinks Lolita is a sad story about a creepy child molester?

Thanks, spock for complimenting my post and I thank everyone for their interesting responses.

Oh, and Stinkycheese: For deviant kiddies, read "The Fifth Child" by Doris Lessing. It'll kick your ass. For general deviance read Sanctuary by Faulkner, and Child of God by Cormac McCarthy, and Joe by Larry Brown. Enjoy (and feel free to pm me to discuss ad nauseam.)
posted by scratch at 11:23 AM on June 8, 2005


stinkycheese - I recommend The Fifth Child by Doris Lessing and The Fermata by Nicholson Baker.
posted by Constant Reader at 11:29 AM on June 8, 2005


Thanks for the suggestions scratch and Constant Reader! Interesting how many of these suggestions seem to be set in the Southern US. I now have a bunch of new additions to my reading list - these all sound great. If I may offer one title back in return, The Demon by the late great Hubert Selby, Jr. is one that really got under my skin and stayed with me.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:54 AM on June 8, 2005


So I'm not the only one who thinks Lolita is a sad story about a creepy child molester?

No, you're probably not the only one. Unfortunately.

I apologize for sounding snarky, but that would seem a diminished perspective on one of the most beautiful elegies for lost time ever written.
posted by Haruspex at 12:03 PM on June 8, 2005


Euripedes, too, may encounter some difficulty being chosen for Oprah's Book Club.

Well, the Greeks had slaves and patriarchal tendencies you know. So who nowadays would want to read what they have to say anyhow?
posted by freebird at 12:11 PM on June 8, 2005


But I think people react very negatively, generally speaking, when confronted with the fact that some women don't want children, period.

I'm a thirty year old woman who doesn't want children and the reaction I get the most (and the one that drives me the most batshit buggy) is the condescending, dismissive "oh, you'll change your mind" crap, usually delivered with a wink and a smirk. This attitude usually comes from women who assume that I must have emotional issues holding me back from embracing motherhood.

Which reminds me of one of Jim Gaffigan's bits about people automatically assuming you're an alcoholic just because you don't drink:

When you don't drink, people always need to know why. "You don't drink, why?" This never happens with anything else. "You don't use mayonnaise, why? ... Are you addicted to mayonnaise? Is it okay if I use mayonnaise? I could go outside..."
posted by LeeJay at 12:14 PM on June 8, 2005 [1 favorite]


So I'm not the only one who thinks Lolita is a sad story about a creepy child molester?

No, you're probably not the only one. Unfortunately.

I apologize for sounding snarky, but that would seem a diminished perspective on one of the most beautiful elegies for lost time ever written.


Diminshed perspective? No, just different.

I read it in college and didn't like it either. I second the "creep" label.
posted by agregoli at 12:23 PM on June 8, 2005


Well, the Greeks had slaves and patriarchal tendencies you know. So who nowadays would want to read what they have to say anyhow?

Oh dear. I take it your ethical rigor demands that you read only half of the collected correspondence betwixt John Adams & Thomas Jefferson?
posted by Haruspex at 12:32 PM on June 8, 2005


Well, actually it's more complex than that - I know it's not their fault they weren't enlightened back then! Jefferson was pretty conflicted about slavery, so I just pick out the letters or sections of letters where I feel he's coming from a Good Place. The rest I black out. And Adams, especially in his dealings with the french, could display certain imperialist tendencies. These sections I feel impart a negative influence, so I try to avoid them. I can generally tell by about two sentences in to a given paragraph if it's Good John or Bad John talking, and I continue reading or apply the Black Magic Marker of Good Thoughts accordingly.

So, it's not half the correspondence - it works out to about 23% and 49%, respectively.

Of course, in addition to the Greeks, most classical literature is out, and the majority of American fiction until around 1965, with some exceptions (before and after). Most of my reading consists of carefully selected children's literature and technical books written by committee. Though I must admit I get a guilty pleasure reading Mark Twain, even though he talked about slavery - see, I'm not TOO sensitive!
posted by freebird at 1:05 PM on June 8, 2005


I just walked upstairs and grabbed Lessing's "The fifth child". Boy, working at a library sure is great.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:24 PM on June 8, 2005


...I'm not TOO sensitive!

Still stung by the bloviation appellation, freebie? It was -- I have no reluctance in admitting -- gleefully applied to myself as well. Such is the lure of this encompassing blue.
posted by Haruspex at 1:28 PM on June 8, 2005


So I'm not the only one who thinks Lolita is a sad story about a creepy child molester?

No, you're probably not the only one. Unfortunately.

I apologize for sounding snarky, but that would seem a diminished perspective on one of the most beautiful elegies for lost time ever written


"Diminished perspective"? See now, that's exactly my point. Haruspex, if I understand what you're saying, you hold the view that Humbert falls in "love" with Lolita b/c she reminds him of his lost whatzherface who died at age 9 or whenever. So, by chasing after Lolita, he's forever trying to regain his lost youth. Right? Sorry, but I call bullshit on that. He's a pathetic, creepy old man who kidnaps and fucks a little girl and lies to her when her mother is killed. You want an elegy for lost time? Read Proust.
posted by scratch at 1:30 PM on June 8, 2005 [1 favorite]


Still stung by the bloviation appellation, freebie?

eh? Actually, I just really loved the image - since I've dealt with the type - of the kind of self-righteous asshead that would not read the Greeks because they weren't PC. And your wonderful idea of only reading half the correspondence obviously caught my fancy too! It's lucky I have real work to do, because I was heading towards some pyscho guy in a library blacking out individual characters from plays and individual letters from words based on their historical provenance! mwua hah HAAA...
posted by freebird at 1:53 PM on June 8, 2005


but that would seem a diminished perspective on one of the most beautiful elegies for lost time ever written

whoa... I always thought the whole point of lolita is the conflict! It can't be a simple "beautiful elegy" because it's clearly about a kidnapper and child abuser... but we're shown the twisted way he understands his own actions. That's what makes it powerful. Characters in novels are most interesting when they have negative and positive characteristics, when we're shown ways we can understand things that we might not even want to think we could understand... Lolita is neither an affirmation of man-girl love nor a pointless display of creepiness. It's an exploration of conflict and desire, of one's personal perspective and the normative culture at large - etc. I mean, I haven't read it in years, but these responses honestly kinda puzzle me. As headspace implied, the very power of the novel is in its entry into such complex and dangerous territory.

The book in question on this thread, though, sounds like a post-columbine soap opera... maybe it's done well, but the premise on its own could result in a pretty lame product (but I remember enjoying that book about the school bus of kids that overturned, which premise coulda resulted in crap too...)
posted by mdn at 1:58 PM on June 8, 2005 [1 favorite]


I always thought the whole point of lolita is the conflict

yah - it's almost like Nabakov was a fucking INCREDIBLE writer who knew exactly what kinds of games he was playing with the reader! And didn't set out to make books that were about "good" or "bad" people or ideas, but were ambiguous and rich and fun!

I'm agreeing with you mdn, but seem unable to say anything lately without being an abrasive pedantic jerk - sorry! Too much coffee and work stress...and the seductive lure of book threads in the blue...
posted by freebird at 2:17 PM on June 8, 2005


Wow. Okay, ol' Scratch -- that's a fair cop, from an obstinately reductive -- diminished! -- POV. Purely rhetorical, no doubt. Or do you then equate Coriolanus = "Don't listen to Mom, y'all!" or some such reductio ad absurdum? Look: Lolita is, after all, a story, words words words arranged just so; no actual children were harmed in the creation, publication or ingestion of the material.

So no, I choose to read it _ahem_ differently. I see an unpleasant taboo (one of the very few left in our post-consumer culture and one rapidly eroding at that) carefully chosen by a master of evocative & polyphonous comedic prose, and constructed so that the plot and aesthetic and literary referents (Chants of Maldorer, similar grotesqueries et al) continually shift a readers unexamined identification, sympathies, and ethical presumptions at every turn. Or should. You're a living and thinking being on a materialist trajectory through experience, correct? Thus, the only real perversion is clinging to one's (heh!) desiccated hymen of self-righteousness as Time loves and leaves us behind. A story allows all that -- like Johnson's & Johnson's -- without tears.

And I have read Proust, Scratch. He's a good'n, you bet. Lots of juicy pedophilia in there too. Baron Charlus, now that's a HumbertCubed, don't you think?

On preview, yah, mdn, conflict -- but modulating to resolution, and regret. Hence elegy, hardly simple. But point taken.
posted by Haruspex at 2:27 PM on June 8, 2005


(but I remember enjoying that book about the school bus of kids that overturned, which premise coulda resulted in crap too...)


Which book is that? Sounds good.
posted by agregoli at 2:28 PM on June 8, 2005


Geez, pardon my messy dispersal of apostrophes. I was in a hurry, as it's beerThirty.
posted by Haruspex at 2:31 PM on June 8, 2005


Thus, the only real perversion is clinging to one's (heh!) desiccated hymen of self-righteousness as Time loves and leaves us behind.

Woo Hoo!
posted by freebird at 2:59 PM on June 8, 2005


Mdn: the school bus tragedy book was The Sweet Hereafter by Russell Banks.
Doris Lessing"s The Fifth Child can be read as a sort of uncle-in-the-attic of the book under discussion by Lionel Shriver and Lionel Shriver's novel is numbing, brilliant, incredibly clever and an astonishingly absorbing read. On one level it does tempt the peer-under-a-rock reader - guilty as charged - but it couldn't be further from a soap opera...suggest everyone read it before they try to prejudge - its skill is astounding.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 3:35 PM on June 8, 2005


The schoolbus book, presuming I'm thinking of the right one, is Russell Banks' The Sweet Hereafter, also made into an Atom Egoyan movie I've never seen. I'm also a fan of Banks' Rule of the Bone, but that's just gossip.

On preview: Hi Jody.
posted by box at 3:50 PM on June 8, 2005


Hi Box,
The Sweet Hereafter film adaptation is not at all bad, btw, though not a patch on Banks-on-the-page.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 4:01 PM on June 8, 2005


indiebass wrote: think about all the Kevin's who will be made fun of now

cf. Soundgarden's song "Full On (Kevin's Mom)".
posted by oats at 6:27 PM on June 8, 2005


Gawd, literate geeks are entertaining! and I mean that only in the most flattering sincere way possible.
posted by spock at 9:02 PM on June 8, 2005


"Lolita" is one of my favorite books, and really, a top-notch character study of someone who is, essentially, a colossally delusional, arrogant dork. Humbert has a great time rationalizing his actions and (willfully?) misreading other people, but his capacity for self-examination is practically nil. I always thought it was important that the title of the book is what Humbert unilaterally decides to call her, not her actual name.
posted by Snyder at 3:16 AM on June 9, 2005


Haruspex, go outside and get some fresh air.
posted by scratch at 7:00 AM on June 9, 2005


Yes, Russell Banks was who I was thinking of, and thanks for the insight on this book - didn't mean to prejudge. So much depends on the way it's done.
posted by mdn at 9:36 AM on June 9, 2005


so much offends
some

in blue Me-
Filter

crazed for plain
diction

or vexing Scratch's
predilections.

(Apologies to W.C.W.)
posted by Haruspex at 12:25 PM on June 9, 2005


Read "The fifth child" and it did indeed kick much ass. Thanks again. Hoping to read "The fermata" next...
posted by stinkycheese at 10:29 AM on June 15, 2005


« Older I have a fish in my pants skirt...  |  Got mercury?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments