A Wrong Made Right
February 15, 2005 3:03 PM   Subscribe

A wrong made right. Female genital mutilation has been discussed on Metafilter before, sometimes with awful derails. Well here's the good news, Folks. A French surgeon has found a way to reverse this disfiguring crime against women. And he doesn't charge for it because "he considers his patients to be victims of one of the biggest crimes against humanity".
posted by Wulfgar! (55 comments total)
First link: "Sorry. the story you asked for has not been published yet."
posted by rxrfrx at 3:14 PM on February 15, 2005

Sorry, but it seems to work fine for me.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:16 PM on February 15, 2005

Seriously, this is good news for many women.

Facetiously, the testing procedures for ensuring that the surgery actually results in a true reversal must have been interesting.
posted by pmbuko at 3:17 PM on February 15, 2005

Don't go there.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:21 PM on February 15, 2005

Seriously, this is good news for many women.

Yes--for 135 million women, and counting.

If ever there was a person worthy of sainthood, this doctor is the one.
posted by r3rrr at 4:01 PM on February 15, 2005

When I was nursing here and saw the genitals of an English woman for the first time I was very shocked and wanted to cry. 'Is this what has been taken away from me?' I screamed inside."

Chilling stuff - and I use that term sparingly. I find very few things as hard to comprehend as FGM. It's one of those things I ask 'why?' every time I hear about it.

Even if he helps a small proportion of women, he has done A Great Thing. If it catches on and other doctors do the same thing, this could help many, many people.
posted by cosmonik at 4:13 PM on February 15, 2005

Links work fine for me.
I am putting a check for this doctor in the mail tomorrow. cosmonik said it best -- this is A Great Thing.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 4:15 PM on February 15, 2005

posted by delmoi at 4:39 PM on February 15, 2005

Oh, I see I should have read the article before asking.
posted by delmoi at 4:43 PM on February 15, 2005

What an incredibly awesome man. I hope he's doing all he can to spread his technique among like-minded physicians.
posted by pookzilla at 4:58 PM on February 15, 2005

What does this practice say about the men who require it?
Do they try to insure fidelity by substituting pain for female pleasure? If so, what level of male insecurity produced this abomination?
The mind boggles at the thought of a "sewn up" woman giving birth.
posted by Cranberry at 5:06 PM on February 15, 2005

what level of male insecurity produced this abomination?


The sad thing is, the whole family is often complicit in these kinds of operations, not just males. You'd think females who had been through it would see that there is a point where the cultural value of a tradition is far outweighed by the pain and horror it causes.
posted by cosmonik at 5:27 PM on February 15, 2005

This post absolutely saved my day. Thanks, wulf!!!
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 5:37 PM on February 15, 2005

To hell with not judging other cultures, any population group that engages in female genital mutilation are a bunch of fucking barbarians.
posted by Scoo at 5:41 PM on February 15, 2005

God bless this man. What a wonderful thing he is doing!
posted by SisterHavana at 6:06 PM on February 15, 2005

Exactly my thoughts, Scoo.

I'm all for respecting other cultures, but this is crossing a line.

BTW, the second link says that this is primarily practiced in Muslim countries. Just what is it with Muslims and their fear of women?
posted by sour cream at 6:29 PM on February 15, 2005

You'd think females who had been through it would see that there is a point where the cultural value of a tradition is far outweighed by the pain and horror it causes.

The problem with this idea is the price paid for not engaging in the practice; too often a mother must make the horrible choice either to enable the mutilation of her daughter's genitals or consign her daughter to the life of a total pariah. In a culture where a woman's best hope and aspiration is to marry well, I can see why a mother might think a dysfunctional vagina is better for her daughter than a miserable life as an unmarriable outcast.

To be clear: I'm no apologist for either the mutilation or the creation of a pariah. I think the idea that a woman is created only for marrying and that she must have all possibility of sexual pleasure removed to be fit for marriage is horrific beyond the telling of it. I can see, though, why a mother might see one as a slightly less horrific choice than the other.
posted by jesourie at 6:46 PM on February 15, 2005

I'm not saying this to offend or be flamed, but what about males that have unwillingly been circumcised? Yes, male circumcision is not as inhumane as mutilating as female circumcision, but male circumcision is also a completely unnecessary procedure that removes part of the human body and can leave the circumcisee with a strong feeling of having been violated.
posted by potuncle at 7:25 PM on February 15, 2005

jesourie, I don't really buy this "if we don't mutilate her, she won't find a husband" idea. While I have never been to these countries where FGM is practiced, I would think that other considerations are just as important (e.g. dowry, status of her family, not to mention personality or maybe even a pretty face) if not more so.

I think it's simply a sick tradition rooted in sick religious mores. It's probably difficult to stamp it out in a generation or two, but the best way is probably *not* to show any tolerance, meaning that those engaging in it should be prosecuted. This is, of course, difficult when it happens in Sudan, but like the articles say, the practice is also common among certain Muslim communities in Europe, the States and Australia. I'd say, send those engaging it in the civilized world home to where they come from. Or if they are already naturalized citizens, lock them away for good.
posted by sour cream at 7:32 PM on February 15, 2005

The things done to these girls are horrific to say the least. But let me remind you that about 8 out of every 10 males reading and responding to this are circumcized. I am myself cicumcized and I AM PISSED OFF. Don't touch my penis unless you are invited to do so.

Not to take away from the story, but WHAT? Is Christianity better and more acceptable than other cultures and beliefs that likewise mutilate children's sex organs?

When asking my Mom about this she simply said, "Well, that's just what we do." Do you think that these families would respond in just the same way? Well, that's what we do.

(on preview-check potuncle)
posted by snsranch at 7:42 PM on February 15, 2005

sour cream, I'm also sure other considerations are important, but research by Dr. Nawal Nour, a prominent OB/GYN at Brigham and Women's Hospital's African Women's Health Practice and arguably the country's foremost expert on the cultural basis of FGM, has this to say:

I find that people do it because of a deeply ingrained belief that they are protecting their daughters. This is not done to be hurtful, but out of love. The parents do it because they think this is necessary to ensure that their daughters will get married.

I'm inclined to believe her.
posted by jesourie at 7:56 PM on February 15, 2005

Wulgar!, the first link doesn't work for me either.

To hell with not judging other cultures, any population group that engages in female genital mutilation are a bunch of fucking barbarians.

Like America? 5 a day and counting.

If you are seriously interested in learning something about genital cutting, why its done, and how to help make change in a positive way, I recommend these titles:

Politics of the Womb by Lynn M. Thomas

Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change edited by Bettina Shell-Duncan and Ylva Hernlund

The Female Circumcision Controversy by Ellen Guenbaum

Genital Cutting and the Transnational Sisterhood edited by Stanlie M. James and Claire C. Robertson
--see in particular chapter 5: "Cultural Practice" or "Reconstructive Surgery"? U.S. Genital Cutting, the Intersex Movement, and Medical Double Standards by Cheryl Chase for an elaboration of the issue I linked to above.
posted by carmen at 8:03 PM on February 15, 2005

Good point snsranch; I don't really know much about circumcision and the effect it has on the victim or his sex life, so others are probably better qualified to comment. I always thought that the effects of circumcision are not quite so traumatic, but if they are in fact similar like you seem to argue, then hell yes, by all means, ban it too.

(BTW, I don't get your connection between circumcision and Christianity. If anything, I would think it is most significantly a Jewish tradition, although also practiced by people of other persuasions all over the world.)

On preview, thanks for the link jesourie. According to Dr. Nour, FGM is primarily a women's thing, with the men hardly getting involved. (I guess I have to retract my comment above about Muslim men, if this is true.) Very scary.
posted by sour cream at 8:07 PM on February 15, 2005

People, I'm asking politely. Forget the "!" if you wish, but please don't forget the "f". "Wulgar" just reads icky. And also, most of the threads on Mefi concerning Female genital mutilation morf into threads concerning circumcision. The penis is not the end-all-be-all of existence. There is a huge difference between trimming unnecessary skin and a nerve rich organ. The equivalence is trimming the entire top of the penis, and I doubt any of us would favor that. Thank you.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:15 PM on February 15, 2005

sour cream: thanks. RE Christianity, I took a little leap becasue I was raised Catholic and it seemed to be a judeo-christian practice.
posted by snsranch at 8:24 PM on February 15, 2005

Wulfgar!, let's be reminded that there are many dozens of variations of female genital mutilation. Only a few of which actually entail the removal of the clitoris. Does that make the other "styles" any less horrifying? I think not.

BTW, I did bring up male circumcision. I would not have had I not met a girl, many years ago, from Togo who was also genitally mutilated. She taught me about the whole thing back in 1986. I was sad and sickened then as I am now. But SHE made me question my own circumcision.
posted by snsranch at 8:33 PM on February 15, 2005

Sorry Wulfgar! I pronounced the f in my head, but obviously missed on the keybord.

I am very interested to read your article. Could you post the title and author, so I can try to find it (or something similar) elsewhere?
posted by carmen at 8:38 PM on February 15, 2005

Scoo: any population group that engages in female genital mutilation are a bunch of fucking barbarians.

carmen: Like America?

Exactly like America. And thanks for the links.

Wulfgar!: There is a huge difference between trimming unnecessary skin and a nerve rich organ.

And maybe, just maybe, this will be the first MeFi thread on the topic not to get the two confused.

On preview: Looks like I'm wrong.
posted by cosmonik at 8:38 PM on February 15, 2005

There is a huge difference between trimming unnecessary skin and a nerve rich organ.

But since we're talking, in re both FGM and circumcision, about the latter, the former is irrelevant to this discussion.

The equivalence is trimming the entire top of the penis, and I doubt any of us would favor that. Thank you.

The circumcised bit is, to be pedantic, the top of the penis. And what snsranch says about variations on FGM.

Nonetheless, my opposition to circumcision notwithstanding, it's certainly not as brutal and as vicious as what's done to these women. And this doctor sounds like a fucking hero. I wonder, though, if the idea that FGM is now "reversible" will be used to justify its continuation. But then, I have a pretty dismal view of human nature.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:44 PM on February 15, 2005

cosmonik; and I thought this would be one thread that could circumvent politics. Was I wrong?
posted by snsranch at 8:50 PM on February 15, 2005

I think it's important to point out that FGM isn't practiced only by Muslims; it's a fact of life for Africans and Arabs of various religious traditions.
posted by LiliaNic at 9:01 PM on February 15, 2005

Moolade is an amazing film that addresses the conflict between the tradition of FGM and more modern beliefs that mutilation is wrong. The same strength of tradition that leads the some of the mothers (and all of the fathers) to insist that their daughters are circumcised allows one of the women to use moolaade - protection - to save other girls from mutilation. Like you pointed out jesourie, it seems to revolve around marriageability - families refusing to let their sons marry "bilakoro," the intact women.
posted by bendy at 9:05 PM on February 15, 2005

The practice of mutilating women in one form or another has been around for thousands of years. The practice of foot-binding in China lasted well into the 20th century. A woman's foot would be bound as a child, breaking the bones and leaving a deformed foot too small to properly walk on. They relied on others just to move around, forget any sort of independence.

Cosmetic surgeries may be voluntary, but the process is most definitely mutilation. People will have their bodies cut, torn, stretched, tightened, and even injected with deadly poisons just to look a bit better. Many women have foreign masses implanted into their mammaries, leaving them ill-suited to breastfeed, for the purposes of attracting a mate. There are thousands upon thousands of women who starve themselves willingly, just to fit an arbitrary and skewed notion of beauty.

Imagine how many of these women would voluntarily have their genitals mutilated so that they could find a husband. The root of the problem lies within the societal standards of beauty and acceptability of a mate.
posted by Saydur at 9:43 PM on February 15, 2005

My husband was circumcised at 21. He states: "Sex, along with everything [cleaning, etc.], is better circumcised".
Also his urologist looked like Al Gore.


I will have to send this link to my friend at school. She has a young daughter and is in a terrible position of having to consider FGM for her, as the pressures from their families is near overwhelming.
I want to also point her to the other resources listed here.
Thank you!
posted by oflinkey at 9:54 PM on February 15, 2005

Cosmetic surgeries may be voluntary, but the process is most definitely mutilation.

No fucking way. The word means nothing if you're going to degrade it to that point.

I'm not such a rhetorical simpleton that I'll quote a dictionary definition here, but trust me, the word "mutilation" does not apply to standard cosmetic surgery. Extraordinary (Michael Jackson?) cases, maybe, but not in general.

And a "deadly poison" isn't deadly if it doesn't have any chance of killing you, is it? Or was I drinking a glass of "deadly poison" with dinner tonight just because some people have died of alcohol poisoning?

Eck. Words mean things. Don't abuse them.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:56 PM on February 15, 2005

oflinkey: You should point your friend to the books listed by carmen as well. It's my guess that no amount of family pressure will be able to justify this for many parents once the implications of FGM are considered in perspective. I know that tradition and social mores can be a powerful thing, but there is some evidence that some women are challenging FGM in their communities.

Thanks Wulfgar! for this link - it is nice to know that with all of the terrible sad things happening in the world, there is someone out there using his knowledge to help people who have been harmed. I'm inspired.

And regarding the comparison of FGM to circumcision of males: while both may constitute mutilation and both may be harmful, they are worlds apart and just because most of us reading are far from the experience of FGM, doesn't mean we should try to steer the conversation back to our own more familiar concerns. I think one of the first steps toward ending FGM needs to be direct confrontation of the practice by as many people as possible - we need to try to conceive of how horrible it really is and understand the specifics of it in context.
posted by mai at 11:46 PM on February 15, 2005

oflinkey I don't know where you live but you might want to point out to your friend that FGM is illegal in many places. Maybe she can tell her family that she would be prosecuted.
posted by fshgrl at 4:08 AM on February 16, 2005

Only a few of which actually entail the removal of the clitoris.

snsranch, all forms of genital mutilation involve removing the clitoris. Some remove only the clitoris, some remove the clitoris and labia minora, and some (usually referred to as infundibulation) remove the clitoris and labia minora in addition to sewing or scarring shut most of the labia majora, leaving only a small space for urine and menstrual blood to exit.
posted by jesourie at 4:25 AM on February 16, 2005

Carmen, I'm sorry. I went to bed before your comment. The article is from The UK Independant and concerns a Dr. Pierre Foldes. Searching on his name didn't help much, 'cause there's too many Pierre Foldes in the world.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:38 AM on February 16, 2005

The male equivalent to FGM would be the removal of the entire penis via unsanitary means (broken glass, rusty whatever.) FGM causes physical and mental problems for life. Now I'm not saying male circumcision is a good thing, but please don't compare the two. Female "circumcision" is just a pretty word and fails to tell the story of the actual mutilation.
posted by sian at 5:40 AM on February 16, 2005

Thanks, Wulfgar! I'll see if I can find a journal article or something. He's probably published his results somewhere (although the thought of reading medical journals does make my eyes glaze over somewhat;)

I'm not sure that the books I recommended would be overly helpful to someone trying to decide for their daughter. They cover a huge range of practices, many of which will be irrelevant to a specific case. If you are debating about excision that initiates your daughter into a secret women's society, then books about infibulation that is done for purification will be pretty irrelevant. (On the other hand, if you're an activist, its important to know about both kinds because the approach you take to positive change should be different in both cases... that's why I listed the book here). Oflinkey, I'm trying to think of something that would be of more use to your friend. Do you know where she's from?

mr_roboto, all surgery carries a risk of death, and women (and men) do die of elective surgeries. Also, more and more FGC is performed either in hospitals or with pain killers and antibiotics.

The question which I am struggling with right now is whether adult women who chose a form of FGC should be similarly free to chose as adult Western women who chose cosmetic surgery, and I think that Saydur has a point. There are important differences at this time, though, for women and girls who choose not to have FGC verses women in Western societies who choose not to have cosmetic surgery. (Please note: I am unequivocally against removing healthy tissue from children: that goes for FGC, intersex gender assignment, and even male circumcision.)


I don't want to come across all teachy, but I've studied this subject fairly extensively for several years, so I'd like to make a few points about claims made in the discussion:

There are generally-speaking three categories of FGC, the least severe of which is equivalent to or less severe than male circumcision (this category includes forms like ritual scarification, symbolic pricking of the genitals to draw blood, and removal of the hood of the clitoris). These forms are not very common.

The second category is the most common, and it includes forms like removal of all or part of the clitoris, and all or part of the inner labia.

There is no strong evidence for and mounting evidence against the claim that either of these forms causes long-term medical problems. The claim that these forms cause mental trauma is very contested (by the women who have experienced them) and is not well studied.

The third category is infibulation, which involves removing all of the exterior genitals and closing off all but a very small hole. This form is associated with long-term medical complications. Again, the claim of mental trauma is contested and not well studied. It is important to note that this is not, by far, the most common form of FGC.

Western activism has often had unexpected and unintentional results. Using words like mutilation, cruelty, viciousness, etc to describe the practice combined with an ignorance of locally specific meanings and practice have sometimes served to entrench practices that women were already resisting and trying to change. Also, Western activists sometimes seem to be prioritizing sexual health over other health issues (like starvation, malaria and AIDS) which affect African women in more immediate and deadly ways than most forms of FGC. This has led to some alienation between Western and African activists.

That said, I do think that Western activism should continue. We need to take a lesson from our past mistakes, though, and be sensitive, listen to the various voices from communities that practice FGC, and acknowledge our own problems and inconsistencies. We need to be informed, and we need to ask how we can help.

Okay, sorry this is so long. I'll shut up for a while.
posted by carmen at 7:23 AM on February 16, 2005

The male equivalent to FGM would be the removal of the entire penis via unsanitary means (broken glass, rusty whatever.) FGM causes physical and mental problems for life. Now I'm not saying male circumcision is a good thing, but please don't compare the two. Female "circumcision" is just a pretty word and fails to tell the story of the actual mutilation.

I was going to say something, but it's already been said. Thanks.
posted by agregoli at 8:08 AM on February 16, 2005

Then why did you say anything at all?
posted by Irontom at 8:26 AM on February 16, 2005

One might ask you the same question. Are you always this hostile?

It merited a repeat, considering it's always brought up on these threads - female genital mutilation and male circumcision as practiced in hospitals is not the same thing on any level.
posted by agregoli at 9:14 AM on February 16, 2005

(Hint to opponents of male circumcision - you are free to start your own FPP rather than continue to derail this one with your tangential topic. Why does this always happen on FGM threads? I mean, imagine a thread on the following subject:
"The female breast has long been an object of fascination for many cultures"
Turning into:
"I feel compelled to point out that men also have chests."
"Er, yes, but the current topic of discussion is the female breast."
"I don't think you understand. I am saying that MEN have a similar part of their body, TOO."
"And many people admire the male chest! This is completely on topic!"
"While it is true that the male chest has fans, it is obviously treated very differently - observe the standards for nudity, the existence of the bra, the debate over public breastfeeding, and numerous other examples. There is a significant difference here."
"You suck! They are exactly the same! How dare you!"
I mean, WTF?)
posted by kyrademon at 10:36 AM on February 16, 2005

There were several jaw-dropping bits of info for me in that first link. This was one of them:

Dr Foldes' crusade to restore the clitoris to women who have been mutilated began 15 years ago. He began to research the subject but was shocked to find that the only organ in the human body devoted solely to pleasure had been metaphorically excised by the male-dominated medical fraternity. "It was invisible," he says indignantly. "It was shocking for me to discover in my research that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, on this organ, although there are hundreds of books on the penis, and several surgical techniques to lengthen it, enlarge it or repair it. Nobody was studying the clitoris because it is associated with female pleasure. There was very little anatomical detail on it. Let's say I had to start from scratch."
posted by orange swan at 11:42 AM on February 16, 2005

kyrademon, thanks. I find it extremely annoying that not once has this topic come up (I believe) without someone bringing up male circumcision.
posted by agregoli at 11:53 AM on February 16, 2005

I didnt say anything at all about male circumcision, nor FGM. I just found your comment pretentious and annoying. What you essentially said was "I dont have anything new to add, so I just thought I'd let you all know that I have nothing new to add."

I shouldnt have made the comment at all, because it has the potential to derail the thread, but sometimes self-control is hard.
posted by Irontom at 12:21 PM on February 16, 2005

You didn't have anything to say about the article - at least my comment was on topic. What was your point again?

I found your comment rather annoying too - such anger. Direct that at the appropriate people and things, like the ones mentioned in this article, it's much more appropriate.
posted by agregoli at 12:37 PM on February 16, 2005

" One might ask you the same question. Are you always this hostile?"

He just wanted to show that he can be an asshole, while I'm merely being a smart ass.
posted by john at 12:57 PM on February 16, 2005

Some quotes:

"Genital mutilation is not an issue of severity, it’s one of sovereignty. If eradication of FGM were based solely on the notion that it harms health, one would expect women’s leaders to support a reduced form of cutting, comparable to male foreskin amputation, under hygienic and anesthetized medical conditions. That they are virtually unanimous in their opposition to even a "nicking" of the female foreskin indicates that the issue goes beyond severity and is one of sovereignty. Genital cutting of healthy unconsenting individuals fundamentally violates individual autonomy. In both forms of circumcision, adults usurp the child's right of choice before the child has any knowledge or ability to exercise sovereignty over her/his reproductive organs."

"Those who dismiss the importance of the prepuce (foreskin) are unaware that male and female genitals evolve from the same embryologic tissue and share more anatomical similarities than differences. The prepuce is the most densely nerve-laden part of the penis (as the clitoris is in females) with specialized anatomical structure and functions that serve a male throughout his life. The prepuce, while small in a baby, accounts for about 50% of an adult male’s penile skin, approximately 15 square inches of erogenous tissue."

"Long-term harm includes: skin tags, skin bridges, prominent scars, tight/painful erections, bleeding during sex, bowing/curvature, loss of sensitivity, excessive/painful stimulation needed to orgasm, sexual dysfunction..."

(and that's just the physical)

And one from Alice Walker - who wrote 'Possessing the Secret of Joy' - a disturbing novel on the subject of FGM that I encourage anyone interested in the topic to read.

"I think it (male circumcision) is a mutilation. In working with FGM we often find that the battle is such an uphill one that we hope that the men who are working on this issue of male circumcision will carry that."

Obviously - I disagree with those who say the two subjects should not be considered related. Describing the removal of male prepuce as the removal of 'an uneccessary pice of skin' is the moral equivalent of telling a rape victim she asked for it.
posted by Sparx at 2:25 PM on February 16, 2005

Could someone post a statistic relating the percentage of unhappy FGM victims to the percentage of unhappy males who underwent circumcisions?
posted by sian at 2:35 PM on February 16, 2005

Sparx, I'd take your quotes even half way serious if there was a link attached to check their medical veracity.

I really hoped, when posting this, that really good news for women wouldn't degenerate into being all about the dick. I should have known better. Mea Culpa, and I'm sorry.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:43 PM on February 16, 2005

That would be a pretty hard statistic to compile, I suspect. Here's one for men, though I'd point out it comes from an anti-male-circ organisation. I don't know if similar studies have been done for women. There's about a 5 or 6 - 1 ration of mgm to fgm, and less public opprobrium attached so male studies would be quite a bit easier to do.

Wulfgar!: Point taken.

Quote 1: this is opinion - agree or disgagree, a cite is largely pointless
Quote 2: Nerve endings and sexual function - collection of links to studies and references.
Quote 3: complications: British Journal of Surgery
Quote 4: again - an opinion. But do read the book.

Sorry for the drift. As I stated before - I think the two are closely interrelated. Both cause damage and death and I found your comment about 'irrelevent skin' vs 'a nerve rich organ' aggravating and ignorant. Skin is an organ - and the prepuce is exceptionally highly innervated. I tried to keep my comments to the relationship between the two, rather than being 'all about the dick', but then I never did know when to shut up.
posted by Sparx at 6:26 PM on February 16, 2005

I managed to get the article finally. Thanks, Wulfgar! It certainly does seem to be good news for women who want a reversal. It's ironic, considering the direction of this thread, that one aspect (cutting the ligaments that hold the clitoris) is very similar to an operation used to lengthen micropenises.

I'm not sure about the argument made by the midwife: "I've discussed the effects of surgery with some of the women here, and while some believe it can be great mentally and psychologically, some women say it could be traumatic and bring back memories."

I wonder if these were women who had had the reconstructive surgery, or if they were just contemplating the effect on others. It seems to me (contemplating the effect on others) that choosing to have reconstructive surgery would be an assertive act that would be pretty emotionally distant from a forced surgery in childhood about which one had no choice.
posted by carmen at 8:42 PM on February 16, 2005

« Older Thou shalt not criticize Republicans   |   Hello Kitty! Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments