ND is up to her usual tricks.
I'm... not feeling like responding right now, really. These folks are very much a broken record about what they consider to be "antifeminist" and are not at all consistent about why they do. I know that a lot of you look to me to debunk this stuff, and I hate to let you all down. But I am really quite burnt out of the same fights over and over.
So I will reiterate that I do not think that it is possible to call someone's personal sexual life antifeminist without knowing her personally and specifically as an individual. I will also reiterate that I do not think we can call all sexually explicit media antifeminist in a sweeping way either.
And with that I will go eat lunch and pass the torch to you all for the moment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
...Wow, I'm only a few paragraphs in and...I have to just stop reading, I guess.
telling your boyfriend that you are or aren’t into some sex act and expecting him to respect your feelings (i.e., not guilt trip you about it or threaten to look elsewhere) is a feminist act.
...and telling your boyfriend that you aren't into non-kinky sex and expecting him to respect your feelings would be... Oh wait, I forgot, it's okay to have double standards in this regard and to mark vanilla as the unimpeachable norm.
Fuck, smoking angel dust — as far as feminism is concerned — is a neutral act.
...Wow, how little do you care about the lives of women affected by drug-induced wars? How little do you care about the women (and it is usually women, particularly mothers as they're socially vulnerable) used as drug mules? Oh wait, I forgot, if it's not to do with sex or appearance it has no feminist dimension! That's why labour other than sex work isn't worth writing about, why women in prison aren't worth writing about, why -
No, I'm stopping here. I'm stopping because 9-2's attitude is exactly the same as that of the conservatives who say The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion: the only moral heterosexuality is her heterosexuality, the only moral marriage is her marriage, the only moral plastic surgery is her plastic surgery, ad infinitum.
There's really no point in debunking this sort of thing, really; it's predicated on the notion that the motivations behind an action can be divined from surface observation.
Allowing for the possibility that people sometimes make the same externally-visible choice for different reasons takes a big chunk out of the basis for this. (Am I eating before I'm hungry, because food is my depression self-medication, because that guy gave it to me and I want to please him by accepting his gift?) That people sometimes make different choices for the same reasons takes out the rest of the basis. (Many, many people's reason for getting married is falling in love, yet very few people marry the same person ....)
ND either doesn't understand or doesn't care that some women, such as myself, find her rhetoric and positions oppressive and treating us as second-class citizens who are defined in terms of what other people think women should be like. Now, if I were one to pontificate about things being "anti-feminist", I'd call that "anti-feminist", but really, I have better things to do. Like go take a piss.
I've actually been enjoying this thread, mainly because it's the first time in awhile that my comments have survived mod.
What's noteworthy to me about the article and the subsequent debate is that 9/2 (who is engaged to a male with whom she presumably has sex of some type) has essentially posited that all sex acts have an inherent, objective, "degradation value" that is either culturally established or self-evident. And yet neither 9/2 nor anyone else on the site has suggested a specific heterosexual act that is not degrading.
We know that fellatio doesn't make the cut, and from the previous thread, it would appear that penile-vaginal intercourse doesn't make the cut, either.
Maybe cunnilingus and holding hands?
But she is outraged, outraged if folks sling the "anti-sex" epithet at her.
[Sigh]
The tragedy is that there are nearly so many good conversations to be had in that space...
"
What's noteworthy to me about the article and the subsequent debate is that 9/2 (who is engaged to a male with whom she presumably has sex of some type) has essentially posited that all sex acts have an inherent, objective, "degradation value" that is either culturally established or self-evident. And yet neither 9/2 nor anyone else on the site has suggested a specific heterosexual act that is not degrading."
Exactly. If you accept that some sex acts can have different meanings based on intent or relationship, then you have to either agree that they all can or offer specific reasons why some don't even though some do.
I think "it's degrading" is supposed to be that specific reason, but there's so little explanation of what "it's degrading" is supposed to actually mean that it's basically like saying "that act is obviously different because it's fweezle."
Also, I'm about as interested in wading over there to say this as I am in getting bitten by a copperhead, but...
...does anyone know WHAT THE HELL Charlie is talking about when he says this?
"One of the things that I suspect is going on in our current cultural shifts is that we’ve gone from the model of “all sex is bad” to the model of “anything goes.” While this sort of reactivity is common in many situations, I think it’s still problematic. When people rebel by deliberately breaking all of the rules, they’re just as trapped by those rules as the person who feels compelled to comply with all of them."
Because I have no idea what that stuff means, except as an epithet flung at people who violate societal norms. "You must believe that ANYTHING GOES!"
Yep, sure. I was telling some kids to have sex with their pet puppies just yesterday.
*glower* Whatever.
I've just ranted about the 'reasonable person' concept on my blog- I find it offensive when feminists use patriarchal power contructs. My thoughts are pretty confused because I'm trying to write an essay... apologies for any lack of coherency to people who read my rantings...
Lissy,
I'm probably the wrong one to ask to read that, as I have steadily become more and more turned off to the idea that women should reject rationality as a masculinist standard. To me, this does not get away from, but rather reinforces, anti-woman stereotypes of woman as The Feeler rather than The Thinker.
Also, feminist critiques of rationality tie in so tightly to feminist critiques of autonomy that I no longer believe they are separable. And the vast majority of critiques of autonomy allow for statements like the ones ND makes.
"I have steadily become more and more turned off to the idea that women should reject rationality as a masculinist standard. To me, this does not get away from, but rather reinforces, anti-woman stereotypes of woman as The Feeler rather than The Thinker."
And this in my humble opinion is the bind of patriarchy, it has succeeded in defining the terms of play- it has elevated The Thinker over The Feeler, rather than realising that both are part of the human experience.
I'm not saying I reject rationality per se because it is masculinist... I reject the idea that rationality is context and value free.
So in the case of the discussion at 9-2's what I reject is the idea that there is non-contextual reasonable person who is capable of defining any and all acts taken place in any and all contexts as being feminist- or anti-feminist.
"Also, feminist critiques of rationality tie in so tightly to feminist critiques of autonomy that I no longer believe they are separable. And the vast majority of critiques of autonomy allow for statements like the ones ND makes."
I never got deep into feminist critique of autonomy in particular, mostly because I had a philosophy lecturer in first year who liked Kant too much...
But off the top of my head I'd say I'd reject any notion of autonomy that was not contextual to the individual and their circumstances. I have no idea where that line of thinking will take me...
But wait, wait. The "reasonable person" standard really isn't a rationalist concept. That's a red herring. RP tests are just a legal fiction designed as a projection of whatever the speaker finds to be self-evident. Like Spock(?) or Data(?) or whoever it was on Star Trek that was supposed to be so logical, but all that amounted to was him saying "Logic compels us to do whatever shit I say." No syllogism, no induction, no deduction, nothing.
And Trinity, Charlie's straw-man version of subjectivism is pretty old news, right? The basic subjectivist argument is "Well, maybe it's OK to fish on Friday if your heart is in the right place" and the basic response is "But then it's OK to rape puppies! Little ones! Eski-poos! And bit off their little noses!"
I blame kink for this. No, really. More than anyone else, that line of reasoning comes from De Sade. For him it was "humanism proves there is no moral purpose to life, so we are compelled to rape and torture folks."
I am thinking how much I like ideologies that aren't about compulsion...
"But wait, wait. The "reasonable person" standard really isn't a rationalist concept. That's a red herring. RP tests are just a legal fiction designed as a projection of whatever the speaker finds to be self-evident."
Oh, I don't disagree with that. I agree with both of you that there is no up-on-high absolute rationality when you're talking about how humans act or should act or especially, as in this instance, how they should emotionally respond to something.
I just get really, really itchy when the whole "well, someone's trying to be objective there, and thus as a woman I have to smell Patriarchy" thing rears its head, and that's very much how the whole "see how men invented this?" citations read to me at first.
I really do think that some things need to be looked at objectively and neutrally, and that there's a strong current fad for pooh-poohing that whole idea in academia. I tried to go along with it for a while because it was Shiny! And Feminist! And Sparkly! And New! but my reason just kept revolting against it.
However, I do agree that trying to be Data or Spock (neither of whom was as objective as they looked, as you note) about human social behavior and its emotional impact and meaning is a doomed and incredibly silly project.
"I blame kink for this. No, really. More than anyone else, that line of reasoning comes from De Sade. For him it was "humanism proves there is no moral purpose to life, so we are compelled to rape and torture folks."
The thing is though, I think people really are hugely confused about how much we actually derive from Sade, which is not much at all...
I agree entirely. But I don't think we can say, oh, De Sade, he wasn't kinky 'cause he wasn't into consent, etc. etc.
How does it go?
I don't want to be part of any club that tells other people who think they're part of the club that they can't be part of the club.
Or something.
I don't know, Orlando. I definitely think there were multiple things going on with him, two of which were sadism and masochism of the kind we do. But he was also an abusive and possibly a psychopathic creep.
I don't like the idea of accepting anyone who does anything like what we do as one of us. That leads to "oh, right, Bundy and Dahmer were into hurting people. So they were SMers, but of course we don't like them..." Which... no, I don't think that's quite right.
And I do vaguely recall reading some article where a psychologist interviewed SM tops and also sadistic rapists, and the difference was that the tops said that the idea of having a consenting partner was a turn on, that they liked the idea of the other person wanting to do this with them, and the violent people said that the idea of consent was a turn-off. It wasn't that they would have wanted consenting partners and were missing impulse control or something, it was that actual nonconsent was the turn-on for them.
Hmmm. Obviously, if you are looking for a date, or booking a club, or trying to prioritize your acts of solidarity, then you want to make a really major distinction between serial killers and cute fuzzy sadists.
But I hope that we can leave space in discussion to talk about general categories of sexual desire and fantasy, and how they might relate, even if that means putting De Sade and the CFSs on the same chart.
I mean, the man was a homicidal fuckup who didn't care about consent, but so were Nixon and Al Capone. Yet I don't feel like I could tweak one or two aspects of Nixon's fantasies and get my own fantasies in pretty lurid detail.
I guess my feeling is that if we set up a moral test for who gets to be called kinky, we are heading down the primrose path towards arguments about who's a really radfem and whether or not punk is not undead.
Orlando,
Oh, I think there's something between "it's impossible to share any traits with these awful people, simply because they're awful" and "we're almost exactly the same."
I think consent being a turn-on for tops is a difference, and an important one, but I don't think that difference means there are no similarities in the lizard brain somewhere. But I don't know quite how to determine what they are or aren't.
I'd add that Charlie is seemingly confused about the distinction between "white, middle-class women" and "all women".
Besides, some forms of sex have always been condoned - eg. marital sex - and some are still generally not condoned - eg. homosexual sex, which has only been so much as constitutionally protected in the USA as private behaviour for, what, five years? The line is constantly moving, it hasn't stopped now, and I personally doubt it will ever cease moving.
Oh, it's sad news. The direction this thread is going, "reciprocity" and "privacy" are going to join "rationality" in the concepts-forever-tainted-by-patriarchy category.
To clarify what I was saying...
When people react to a rule by "having to break it", IMO, they're just as trapped by that rule as the people who feel compelled to comply with it. OTOH, authentic rebellion, in the sense that Freire discusses it, is the process of rebelling against the rules that keep us from connecting to and developing our authentic selves.
While breaking the rules for the sake of breaking the rules may look the same as authentic rebellion, at least on the surface, it's a different thing because the motivation is still about the external rule. It makes one just as easily manipulated as the person who feels compelled to comply. But a person who can act out of their authentic self, whether they happen to act in ways that are aligned with the rules or not, is much less easily swayed.
My experience in various sex-positive communities is that some people fall into the trap of thinking that just because they're doing something "wild and crazy", that they're more evolved/sex-positive/cool than those repressed people over there. But some of the most sex-positive people I know are monogamous, vanilla, celibate or whatever, because they've discovered their authentic sexual expression and they can honor and celebrate sexualities that are different from their own. That's a very different thing than falling into the trap of thinking that you have to be wild and crazy to be sex-positive. Unfortunately, the "sex-pos = wild & crazy" makes for the best headlines.
I'm sorry if my less-than-perfect way of trying to capture that riled you up, Trinity. I'm not saying that sex-pos = "anything goes." I'm suggesting that some people mistake the two. That seems to lead to bouncing back and forth between repression and rebellion. I see that binge/purge cycle happen for individuals, groups, and our culture as a whole.
I'd really like it if we could come to a place of recognizing that what makes sex good or bad is whether the pleasure, consent, well-being, and authenticity of the participants are cared for. That probably requires a more nuanced approach than we generally see in the media and blogs. But until we figure out how to do it, I think we'll keep bounding back and forth between repression and rebellion.
Hi Charlie-
I have no doubt that the general tendency you are describing exists, I'm just not sure how much importance it has. Two things strike me whenever I hear arguments like this.
First, there is usually an absence of any notable public discourse that takes the "anything goes" position. If individuals take that position, they would appear to be doing so in defiance of their own subcultural norms.
Secondly, it is often very clear that when X says Y has an "anything goes" attitude, X is projecting this motive because they don't want to engage Y's actual motives. My fundy Christian friends truly believe that atheists have no ethical sensibility because they've decided that "anything goes." Obviously this is not the case, and obviously my friends are relying on this over-simplification to avoid having to consider actual atheist thought.
Thene wrote:
"Besides, some forms of sex have always been condoned - eg. marital sex - and some are still generally not condoned - eg. homosexual sex, which has only been so much as constitutionally protected in the USA as private behaviour for, what, five years?"
True, although there's a difference between saying that heterosexual intercourse for the purpose of procreation is allowed and saying that sexual pleasure during intercourse is allowed. For much of its history, the official Church doctrine (which has had a big impact on European and US cultures, even for people who aren't Catholic) made that distinction and decreed that any pleasure felt by either partner during intercourse was a sin. Augustine wrote, for example, that the lust that accompanies sex is the source of "original sin." And the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which became official dogma in 1854, says that Mary was born without original sin because her conception took place without pleasure, which is what made her worthy of giving birth to Jesus.
So while the act of reproduction has been condoned ("be fruitful and multiply"), the act of sexual pleasure has not always been condoned, even within the context of heterosexual marriage. Given that one of the justifications for criminalizing homosexual sex has always been that it's not a procreative act, I think it's worth looking at the difference between condoning P/V intercourse and condoning sexual pleasure.
"I really do think that some things need to be looked at objectively and neutrally, and that there's a strong current fad for pooh-poohing that whole idea in academia. I tried to go along with it for a while because it was Shiny! And Feminist! And Sparkly! And New! but my reason just kept revolting against it."
My latest 'Sparkly! New! theory uncovering is "capability theory"...yes I'm behind the times...I'm not denying that reason or rationality exist or that they are worthless concepts forever tainted by patriarchy, I just contend they exist in a context.
Any theory can only ever be an approximation of reality, there is no way for any theory to capture... the individual context. But theory has power, the power of defining that individual experience...I have a kick in the stomach reaction to calls to 'reasonableness' because there is usually a power play involved... so I want to know "What is the nature of the reasonable person in this context? How do they define reason? And for what purpose are they invoking the call to reason?"
And in the context of the convo at 9-2's place I could see no reason why the call to the 'reasonable person' was not a power play. Just as I see many feminist discussions about consent, reciprocity and privacy are also power plays. The denial of an individual's experience of their reality is a power play. Don't know where I'm going with this train of thought...
Oh yes, it was absolutely not a legitimate call to the "reasonable person" standard. It's the idea that ever having such a standard would be masculinist (which I thought the beginning of your post said) that I disagree with.
I was not clear in my attempts to argue that calls to reasonableness are power plays, even when done by feminists... I guess I don't see why feminist theory should be any less subject to a critical lens than any other theoretical perspective... so that any feminist constructions of female sexuality to my mind should be just as strongly critiqued as patriarchal constructions... because theory itself has a power and feminist theories are not exempt from this.
Trinity, you are an inspiration, a true Sexual Freedom Fighter, and you have spent much time fighting, many times on your own, against a Second Wave Lesbian Sex War style attack.
Of COURSE you can't do it alone. I understand you're being burned out, I'm pretty burned out myself, regarding the last three to four years, I've been talking about all this stuff, and I haven't had to deal with all that you have.
So PLEASE, be kind to yourself and give yourself time to reenergize. There's got to be at least ONE other leatherwoman with feminist training out there who can grab that torch from you, isn't there? I'd grab it, but honey, I don't have the feminist academic training to be able to go toe to toe with these gals like you do. I'm better at challenging people street wise, being a loud mouth, and connecting with other Leathercrip sisters. I simply don't have your knowledge or skills.
Please know how grateful I am to you, for your blog and all that you have done, caring enough to put Feminist BDSM onto the Internet.
In Sisterhood,
Ms. Pet
Thank you so much, Ms. Pet.
I hate these discussions so much I cannot even say.
This is maybe a minor point in all of that, but I hate their concept of "reciprocation."
See, to me, reciprocation in sex would mean something like, "We each do what turns us on as much as the other person agrees to it, and hopefully this overlaps a lot. Otherwise, we compromise." Something like that.
Their concept seem to go like, "Well, okay, give him head, I guess. But only if he's doing the same for you. Whether you're actually interested or not. The most important thing is that you're getting enough friction on your genitals to balance out all that nasty 'second-hand' pleasure you've been brainwashed into liking."
Hey, um. I don't know about these people, but "second-hand" pleasure feels pretty good to me. Better, in some ways, than "first-hand" pleasure. (Assuming I can even make a distinction between the two when they both cause me to, uh, feel pleasure. First-hand.)
But that's bad and patriarchal and stuff - "second-hand" is not good enough, regardless of how good it feels.
The underlying tone here (and in many other discussions just like this one) is, to me: "Hey, your whole sexuality is shit! Your every fantasy sucks! Way to uphold the patriarchy every time you orgasm!" [And wow, haven't even brought kink into it yet.]
"You're anti-feminist if you don't spend your life having utterly sub-par sex and pretending you're deeply fulfilled by sex acts which bore you!
"P.S. When you fail to gain appropriate amounts of pleasure from being stimulated in approved ways, please allow us to shake our heads at what terribly sad proof you are that the patriarchy damages people raised female."
Yeah! Fight the Man!
/intensely bitter
Seriously? Seriously. Fuck them.
Also, my favorite unanswered provocation on that thread:
"Well you’re assuming it IS ok to fantasise about Brad Pitt"
Fuck yeah I am.
And good luck with the army of thought police whose job is to get people to stop.
Yeah, exactly Bean. I'm a top. My sex life does not look like the "reciprocal" sex life they want everyone to strive for. Does that mean I'm awesome because I have most of the orgasms, or does that mean I'm an evil male-like greedy asshole? I really don't know. (Then ask yourself whether it's really lopsided, given that he gets most of the direct physical stimulation from the SM that we do.)
I do think it is worth looking critically at cultural norms that say that the man should have the lion's share of the pleasure.
But I also think that you're doing that in a worthless way if you don't let people define pleasure for themselves. Some people really enjoy sex that these folks would not define as "reciprocal."
"Well you’re assuming it IS ok to fantasise about Brad Pitt"
A how the huh? I haven't been looking at the thread, so I don't know the context, but wow. That's so ridiculous it's gold.
Word.
I was trying for a less in-your-face example than kink, so I thought, who's the most common vanilla fantasy out there? Maybe not Brad Pitt, but he's gotta be in the top ten, and I don't read goddamn People.
I was, in fact, working on the assumption that fantasies are OK, because, you know...thoughts...
No such luck.
"I was, in fact, working on the assumption that fantasies are OK, because, you know...thoughts..."
But your mind must be clean! Otherwise the terrorists win.
"While breaking the rules for the sake of breaking the rules may look the same as authentic rebellion, at least on the surface, it's a different thing because the motivation is still about the external rule. It makes one just as easily manipulated as the person who feels compelled to comply. But a person who can act out of their authentic self, whether they happen to act in ways that are aligned with the rules or not, is much less easily swayed."
I'm not entirely convinced of that, C. I do think some rebellion is hollow. Of course that's true. But I think that often, "hollow" rebellion is a rung on a ladder of self-knowledge, a step in a process. If a rule has held you hostage, breaking it can be the important first step to self-awareness.
I don't think we should be quick to say we know when, how, or who is remaining stuck in the "empty rebellion" stage. As I've said here many times, I think the only sex lives we can judge are those of individuals with whom we actually interact.
But I also think that you're doing that in a worthless way if you don't let people define pleasure for themselves.
Yeah, this exactly. And I maybe had a strong emotional reaction to this post, but THIS point is the one that only really started to sink home while reading 9/2's post.
I mean, I know the party line on, "demand equal pleasure - make sure he goes down on you," and I've certainly repeated that myself.
And felt like a hypocritical sack of shit when I did it, because my own interest in orgasm is significantly lower than my interest in other things. (Like, say, theirs.) I mean, I like orgasm, but I don't want it that often. If my partner had more orgasms than I did, I would not necessarily consider that a problem. Nor, "unequal," in the way that I define unequal.
I've spent years trying (and failing) to find a way to "fix" that, on the assumption that people like 9/2 are right that I feel this way because of the patriarchy.
I'm now kind of pissed at myself for swallowing that line whole and not asking why individual physiology - brain wiring, body chemistry, whatever - is being ignored in that analysis.
I mean, yes, "You have sexual needs which are just as important as your partner's," is a good thing to say. And it's fundamentally opposed to, say, "You're a frigid bitch."
But, funny, I get a really similar, "ur doin it rong," feeling from, "Your pleasure in doing X is only second-hand," (and, by implication, second-best) as I do from, "you're frigid," considering how important to me the things falling under X are.
I made a list the other night of things that most turn me on. (No real reason - I just like nice, orderly lists.) It's about a page and a half long. While reading the comments over there, I came to the sudden realisation that there is literally not a single thing on that list which is okay by 9/2's crowd. Not a single thing! I maybe shouldn't let that upset me so much, but I have.
This is sexually liberating somehow? I don't think so.
I mean, I know the party line on, "demand equal pleasure - make sure he goes down on you," and I've certainly repeated that myself.
I sometimes wonder why I've never had the self-recriminations on the whole potential "What the hell is wrong with me that I don't enjoy receiving oral sex" front. (Sensation too intense; goes straight through pleasure to overstimulation-pain the overwhelming majority of the time, and I am not a masochist.) I never did, though, perhaps because that was so obviously a neurology thing that it couldn't be a mental defect, heh.
But I'm not orgasm-focused in general, either. For the most part, I don't object to having 'em, but I don't have them as a goal in most sex because there's other stuff I like more. Which is another place that orgasm-tallying reciprocation thing falls down - the assumption that everyone wants the same thing out of sex, and that that thing is the o-word every time.
On the not-orgasm-centred thing, here's the weird bit (if we take the premises on NDs thread):
Me: Top, Dominant, Sadist, "Man-Who-Takes-What-He-Wants" (in their language)
And yet - I don't really need to orgasm to have a good time fucking. I take my greatest pleasure "second-hand" by bringing my partner to orgasm through various sexual stimulations and torments. I've often said that without sex-ed at school, i doubt I would have figured out PiV for myself, my sexuality was always about other things. Oh, ND, where do I fit into your world view, chuckie egg?
(And yes, I give some great rhetoric during sexual scenes about it being all about my pleasure, and her pleasure is purely incidental to that - but that's called "roleplay"...)
I join. I agree with told all above.
Personal Sexual Life is something that you choose even people said that you're doing bad or doing well it doesn't means that you're feminist or anti feminist.
menownslome
[url=http://healthplusrx.com/dysfunction-erectile-treatment]dysfunction erectile treatment[/url] theartdinkari
Nice post once again. Thanks for sharing this kind of informative post.
Oh my god, there's so much useful info above!
Especially in Cheap wow gold a new culture where intercourse is normally considered to become unclean generally speaking -- a need everyone has, indeed, but any embarrassing a single. In particular when you are the "pervert,In at which an example may be with best Buy rs goldfoolish along with charming at worst a hazard, because other people explain to it.
top [url=http://www.001casino.com/]online casinos[/url] hinder the latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com/]casino bonus[/url] autonomous no set aside perk at the chief [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatchcasino.com
[/url].
Did you [url=http://www.onlinecasinos.gd]blackjack[/url] classify that you can dally with Turn Power industrial of the realm momentarily from your mobile? We be anguish with a inclination moveable casino elbow an comprehension to iPhone, iPad, Android, Blackberry, Windows 7 and Smartphone users. Share out your gaming with you and be a police [url=http://www.adultsrus.us]vibrator[/url] wherever you go.
We [url=http://www.singapore-casino.ws/]casinos online[/url] be suffering with a corpulent library of unqualifiedly free casino games championing you to sport opportunely here in your browser. Whether you want to training a provisions recreation master plan or even-handed examine exposed a occasional late slots in the presence of playing in the direction of real money, we be undergoing you covered. These are the exact verbatim at the same time games that you can play at veritable online casinos and you can part of them all for free.
развлечения на праздники г. алматы
в [url=http://goooogl]Gooogle[/url] интим город ставрополь
аннет знакомства
Have a well balanced diet, and try and get plenty of exercise. Living a good lifestyle has every little thing with regards to the health of your own hair. Smoking, not receiving ample sleep at night, along with other poor habits are detrimental to the health of your own hair. Take good care of yourself, as well as your locks will follow go well with. [url=http://abbeydigital.com.au/ixs/gallery.asp]Tiffany And Co[/url]
Work with a keep-in conditioner when you have issues with frizz. You want to apply this device following a shower, prior to the your hair dries out. Don't be scared to get a sizable volume on your go, and be sure to target both roots and also the quite recommendations of the head of hair. [url=http://v6.com.au/signatures/ByronLogin.htm]Abercrombie[/url]
A single-on-one training sessions may be the ideal solution for a few dog owners. A single-on-one education can be hugely adaptable for the routine. It is also usually costed for every treatment. Because of this for any canine that only demands a handful of classes, specific education may be less expensive than class. [url=http://altag.it/Statistiche/defines.htm]Nike Jordan[/url]
Do you want your apple ipad to assist you stay away from traffic jams? This can be achieved along with your Charts mobile app. There is a page icon at the base proper of the display. Feel that and select Visitors. This will cause the apple ipad tablet to obtain visitors information on the internet. Now you will realize natural (typical), yellow-colored (slow-moving) and red (stop-and-go) notations around the road map. [url=http://www.musicworldonline.co.uk/employment/client.html]Jeremy Scott Adidas[/url]
Keep a schedule in your lifetime to help you continue to keep anxiety and panic attacks away. If your life is simple, predictable, and controllable, you'll discover that a lot less issues help you get agitated or anxious. Once you know what's emerging it is possible to take care of it in the event it gets there, so plan it all out! Give young children power over some areas of their life. Young children require restrictions and guidance, but getting also strict and firm in every area can keep them experiencing crushed and stifled. Let them have the ability to earn some alternatives independently, such as what they wear during the day, or the way they coordinate their room. [url=http://www.btpbusiness.fr/]Nike Blazer Pas Cher[/url]
Post a Comment