The Concept Of Nude Photography

[Norma Desmond]

Nicole--

<p><p>

There we differ. I do think we are the sum of our parts (and there's an awful lot of parts,

very complex) and I do think there are real-world reasons, biological, cultural, familial

(whether discoverable or undiscoverable), why each woman in your example reacts

differently to <i>seemingly</i> similar circumstances. There are hormones, other

chemicals, genetics, experience, luck, dust in the air, whatever, all having their effects.

<p><p>

Pete--

<p><p>

A key thought, great. We have no control over our audience.

<p><p>

Artists and photographer don't always know themselves, don't always articulate well, and

don't always tell the truth even if they do know it.

<p><p>

I would be shocked if Sturges's knowledge about the titillation factor didn't quite strongly

enter into his work and inform his pursuing this kind of work. He's no dummy. For

practical consumer reasons, controversy breeds publicity which generates money. For

esthetic reasons, he'd have to be pretty lame not to understand the "significance" in our

society (the society he's showing these photos to) of nude pre-teen girls. Precisely why, as

you point out Pete, what he's actually feeling and what gets conveyed and communicated

are two different things. Pre-teen nudity is a taboo in our society. He's not a good artist if

he doesn't take that into consideration when using pre-teen nude models. That doesn't

mean he's titillated by them. It just means he's aware of the meaning, the possibilities, the

general aura around the subject and all of that is going into his work. He may valiantly be

trying to change society's view and reactions toward youthful nudity. A truly worthwhile

and heroic endeavor. That shows he knows it's problematic and all of that goes into his

work.

<p><p>

Much as people like to claim they create art for personal reasons and don't take into

account the audience, on some level most good artists do. They know the significance of

various subjects, various symbols, various canons established in their own fields before

them. Creativity often stems from just those matters and those things are part of what is

driving Jock.

<p><p>

Nicole--

 

<p><p>Regarding your analogy to a woman wearing revealing clothing. She's not

responsible for his thoughts, actions, or perversions. She still may stop wearing the

clothing due to practical concerns. If she really feels in imminent danger, she can either

stand on principle and risk being raped or she can wear something different. She may also

have the option to call the cops or seek protection, but that option may not be available.

She's entitled to feel outraged by the whole situation, etc. But she would be wise not to

simply dismiss the matter and say, "he's wrong so I will pretend it ain't happening." Same

with Jock. Honorable though his intentions may be and honorable though most of his

viewers are, he'd be a fool not realize what the real-world situation is with regard to his

subject matter. And I don't think he's a fool.

[jtk]

Pete: "...how would you relate to me which one you were talking about? Or would it not be possible because of their inalienable rights?"

 

Recognizing Fred, one-to-one, when addressing him does not require signifiers beyond the optional but courteous honorific of his name.

 

Identifying him to you I'd point to his posts on P.N, which would add signifiers, your interpretations and his writing, not my distortion.

 

If we were together socially and I identified him to someone, I might say "That tall guy over there."

 

Would you identify someone as Jew? If not, why identify him as gay?

 

Can you tell by looking? Is it central to his identity or your understanding? What if he's dying of prostate cancer? Isn't that unknown factoid more central? Would you say "the Jew with the prostate cancer?"

 

The fewer signifiers the better. Better you learn about Fred from him, than that I cartoon him for you. Perhaps he'll be

different for you than for me, and surely you'll get to know him better that way. Seems honorable.

 

"Gay" inescapably means something different for him than for me, as he's explained.

 

Why not respect individuals by suspending signifiers? All signifiers categorize. Why have you not mentioned his race?

[nicolerenee]

Fred, if all that I am is just a result of what happened to me then I'm not really much of anything. I become a consequence. There is no value to me if I am nothing more than a result.

 

As far as the woman goes, I meant to introduce the question of where the line of responsibility is drawn. When do I stop being responsible for the reprocussions of what I "create?" Do I? Is there a line at all?

[jtk]

Another spin on this is simple: rather than seeing someone as sum-of-parts, we can see them through the eyes of our basic humanity.

 

From experience with reservation Navajo people, I know they watch guardedly and intently: will you treat them as exotics, will you recognize them as individuals, will you respect their tribal nature? If you only recognize them as individuals they are initially doubtful and puzzled, because like Fred they have heavy added signifiers. But they ultimately want to be known as Ben Yazzi, and the will watch for years, testing and re-testing.

[Norma Desmond]

I've never had so much discussion about my orientation in a public thread before - LOL.

 

I can't believe I haven't gotten one offer for a date!

[Norma Desmond]

Nicole--

 

I can see where you draw the conclusion that a person is a consequence in the determinist

world view I've put forth. It's a view that I wrestle with myself because of various strange

results of this way of approaching the world. Nevertheless, I find it a pretty viable way of

thinking.

 

As far as value, I have long been of the opinion that civilization has a tendency to misplace

value. By an emphasis on valuing the individual as free agent, we have created a global

ecological mess, have an overpopulated planet, put a false premium on life instead of

quality of life, and on and on. If society would value circumstances a little more and blame

supposedly free agents a little less, some needed changes might occur, regarding poverty,

education, hunger, degradation of resources, to name just a few.

[nicolerenee]

It certainly seems viable on its surface and has quite a bit evidence that seems to back it up as well. What I would as is this; what is it inside of someone that determines how they handle the consequences life throws at them? How does a young child who has seen his mother beaten, himself and his siblings abused, grow to love? Even to find work at an early age and adopt his siblings to become like the father he never had? How do people in war torn countries who have seen unimaginable injustice and violence continue to hope for peace and justice and safety? There is something more at work inside a human being than just a reaction to circumstance. Something outside of logic and philosophy. Something that determines right and wrong, good and evil, hope and desperation. Something more than mere survival instict, herd instinct, or society. If not, there is no hope and no point in trying to make a better world.

[zoewiseman]

Nicole said: "Does a woman stop wearing revealing clothing because it causes a married

man to lust after her? Is she responsible for his perversions, thoughts or actions? Where

does the responsibility lie? (just an example)"

 

I could not agree more.

 

Pete,

I understand what you are saying, sure. I just think that if anyone looks at those

photographs and sees anything other than innocence or feels anything in the groin area

that they should do well and go talk to a psychologist, pronto.

 

How does one document a nudist colony? Consider yourself on a journalistic assignment

to go to a nudist colony for one year and do nothing but document the day to day life. Do

you only photograph the adults? No, because that wouldn't be a true documentation and

you would fail in your journalistic approach.

 

john kelly said:

"Repulsion is the most shallow possible response to questions, and the easiest way to

avoid thought."

 

I couldn't disagree more. We are talking about people feeling erotic responses to

photographs of children... I am still repulsed. Not repulsed at Jock's work, but repulsed at

the IMMATURE actions of the people who view his work. So, we are once again back to the

ever dangerous immature mind set that CREATES all that we fear about sexuality.

[Norma Desmond]

"what is it inside of someone that determines how they handle the consequences life

throws at them?"

 

This is the crux of the difference between two distinctly different approaches to life, one

that has perplexed philosophers, religious thinkers, legal scholars, politicians, educators,

and any other thoughtful person from the beginning of time. No thinker worth his salt

didn't ever wrestle with the issue of freedom vs. determinism, whether from a

philosophical and/or scientific standpoint or a religious one. Philosophers have trouble

reconciling what appears to be the need for free agency in assigning punishment and

reward and, as you note, assessing value. Religious thinkers wrestle with God's

omnipotence and man's power and place in the plan.

 

As perplexed as I am by the contradictions inherent in the determinist's position, I am

even moreso by the religious approach. Thanking God for good stuff, not holding him

responsible for the bad stuff. Praying while believing in free will. I've heard all the rationale

from some great minds on how these things can be resolved. Never heard a convincing

one. It probably takes Faith with a capital "F" (must be the key, right), which I don't have.

 

Ultimately, I'm not sure there's a right or wrong. I tend to look at results. If I find the

results of someone's way of thinking beneficial overall, I consider that of value. If I think

the results of an approach to life make the world less of a better place, I tend to consider

that of negative value.

 

I assume your answer to the question above is soul combined with free will. Mine is a

combination of biology, chemistry, environment, and experience. Either answer is fine with

me, as long as the result is that the consequences of starting out with such a tough life are

made

better either for the person or for the greater good, at whatever level greater good gets

determined.

 

Zoe--

 

Is an erotic response an action?

[gordonjb]

In the brief instant of conception all that ever was in the history of two individuals is combined to create a completely unique new life. Despite having happened billions of times before, the throw of the genetic dice comes up different every time.Somewhere in there is all that makes us one humanity and all that sets us apart. Add to that the lifetime of experiences that we each go through in our own unique way and you have everything that is need to explain all of human nature and history without any need for a soul. Unlike Nicole I do not find this assertion a cause for hopelessness but rather a cause for celebration. Well... we've certainly done quite the lateral shift from were we started.

[jtk]

Zoe, your site seems to be promoting professional nude photography : Nude bodies are nice as long as they're young, according to your statements on your site and in this thread.

 

How is your pitch not identical to Hugh Heffners's, other than that you consider it "repulsive" and "immature" to respond sexually to images of nekkid wimmen or to recognize that response can be evoked by Sturges' nude girls?

 

Is there a clue in the lack of elderly nude grandmothers on your site? Could a righteous photographer, such as David Steinberg, do it?

 

Is age as unattractive as you suggest?

 

I think David Steinberg, mentioned by Pete far above, is a client from long ago. Presumably a "repulsive" guy now. A Berkeley High classmate of Galen Rowell (know either of them?) he did some famous album covers for Tower of Power (eg "Back to Oakland"). He's made a point of photographing sex among elderly people, evidently not repulsed by old bodies. Different strokes?

 

Zoe: "We are talking about people feeling erotic responses to photographs of children... I am still repulsed. Not repulsed at Jock's work, but repulsed at the IMMATURE actions of the people who view his work."

 

In other words Zoe, "immaturity" is repulsive to you...and its not a paradox that you seem to sell nude photography online (your website), claiming the harsh lighting of breasts (for example) is not addressed specifically at men.

 

Sturges PR accepts that his nudes of preteen girls can be provocative, but you are "repulsed" that some of us speak openly about this dimension. I'm not repulsed, I'm amused. :-)

[petemillis]

John - race - I'd have no problem with identifying someone by race. Would it be demeaning to someone to describe them to you as "Stef the Norwegian fella" so you knew I wasn't talking about "Stef the Italian fella"? And it someone wants to describe me as "Pete the Pommey bloke" to differentiate me from "Pete the Aussie bloke", or "Pete the bald bloke" as opposed to "Pete the hairy bloke" - well, so what.

 

Zoe, unfortunately there is no escaping from the fact, and never will be, that some people will feel erotic responses to nude photographs of children. And you should feel repulsed at these people. You shouldn't feel repulsed though at the need to protect children. I feel repulsed at the minority who view this sort of work inappropriately. But I feel disappointed and sadness that we live in a society in which certain actions have to be taken because of the repulsive minority. It is the repulsive minority who are to blame. I think it is the fear created by the actions of the repulsive minority that makes us feel the need to protect our children. People who see anything other than innocence and feel anything in the groin area would certainly benefit from professional help pronto, but we as a society can be certain that they will not seek that help. It's always after the event that people like that get referred for help as part of their "punishment" or "treatment".

 

And documenting the nudist colony - of course you wouldn't just photograph the adults. But you can still achieve the objective with images of children that can not be mistaken at all for anything that may appear erotic. It's not difficult to produce images that clearly depict nakedness without showing pubic regions, genitalia and breasts -and if documentation of a nudist colony is all that is required then that should suffice. Furthermore, when I look through Jock's images on his web site, it is quite clear that none of these is a depiction of people going about their day to day life. Every single image is posed regardless of what he says so how can this be considered as documentary? Jock's work is not a true documentation of a nudist colony - rather it's a series of nude portraits of people who are comfortable with him photographing them. I don't doubt for one moment that the images are artful, but I also don't believe for one moment that he was so naive (as he claims) as to not realise that taking shots like these would land him in hot water. He is fully conversant with western society and would have been more than slightly aware of the provocation that he could rouse with his pictures. He has very successfully exploited what our society has become

[nicolerenee]

Gordon, celebration for not having a soul? The idea saddens me. The fact that two humans procreate and create an individual (if no soul is involved) isnt miraculous its mathematics. Apparently there are so many hundreds of bazillions of combinations that there may be no two alike in human history. Just as no two snowflakes are alike. Not a cause for celebration as far as I'm concerned.

 

Fred, it has deffinately been a crux for nearly all great thinkers. I think it's really fairly simple if you look at it from a common sense standpoint. Not that I've got a bigger brain than the thinkers do ;)

Would love to talk to you about it sometime.

[gordonjb]

Nicole, the cause for celebration is that for the first time in our history we are in a position to reconcile our place in the universe without some absurd nonsense passing as an explanation.I for one am overjoyed to see humanity slowly throwing off the yoke of dogma that all this soul nonsense has thrust upon humanity for thousands of years. There is much to be said for science and mathematics, for starters it makes logical sense which is never a bad place to begin a hypothesis. If the idea saddens you just dismiss it.

[gordonjb]

Did Sturges know he would catch grief for his work? of course he did. Did he suspect that in the wrong hands it could be arousing in an inappropriate way? at the very least he knew this after the fact. Did he create his body of work with the deliberate purpose of causing either of the above to happen? I do not believe he did. Looking at his work I get the sense that this is what he was meant to capture. His images seem sincere to me, perhaps I've been naive all these years.

[nicolerenee]

Recocile our place and absurd nonsense? Gordon, what freedom is there in the idea that we are some cosmic accident with no purpose and when we die that is the end of us? Sure, science and mathematics are logical, at least mathematics is...science seems to be becoming less so, but they cant give answers for the most important questions in life. They werent meant to. If thats all there is, where in the world do you get the concience? It cannot be explained away. Oh there is so much MORE than that.

[jtk]

To be individuals it's not necessary to postulate "souls", any more than it follows that we're mere bundles of signifiers. Philosophers tend toward one or the other, but that is precisely what separates them from human experience, a.k.a "reality."

 

Nicole, whats this about you going away. Damn. It's been good to have your input.

[gordonjb]

The magnificent splendor of life itself is enough for me, I only have to take a short walk through my forest to have all the answers anyone could need.I am not in need of a soul or an afterlife to be enraptured by what is already right here in front of me. The conscience is a product of the conscious mind which is a product of the brain, it is in fact easy to explain away. Science and mathematics were in fact created to give answers to the most important questions in life and that is exactly what they are presently involved in doing. We are closer now, than we have ever been to answering the big questions about consciousness as well as the universe around us and the soul merchants have functioned as nothing more than impediments.

[Norma Desmond]

John--

 

Oy vey.

[GerrySiegel]

There is one way to sort out some of the philosophical arguments and conundrums in the case of nudity,specifically the stimulation vs art factor, and juvenile nudity as startling and unsettling to some,not present sophisticated posters,but lots of folk. So why do you and I find the female nude popular and attractive as art. Goes back a ways,doesn't it. Carved images of the female by the primal family group ,with breasts and hips enlarged,signifying the relation to and worship of the powerful forces that bring nourishment,good luck,many kids, and good harvest.

The erotic nature of the of the rear of the female when bending over (sign stimulus?) has been "stimulating" to me and just about every guy I ever met.

 

Identity,wowzer,as related to how one sexually reacts to images gets thorny but maybe not so thorny if one seeks a working definition. I am identified as how people see me,the simplest formula I know. And serves a working definition.(Used in affirmative action cases I do recall).Yeah, I know, sounds dumb, and not abstract enough,but just ask the Senator in the toilet incident. He is as he is seen by the public, I submit.

 

It is really quite easy to wrap up as you now see,fellow cogitators. One, evolutionary biology determines how we react to images; personal identity is a group defined thing and will inevitably be subject to how the group defines one. Two,spirit is something we like to believe surmounts our group identity. But real individualism and expression is a self delusion even in the artist framework. We humans,both sexes, need and plead for acceptance, being social animals and very sexy,-in estrus all year round- primates too.

[mvisionphotography]

Ok, First off,

 

Fred, When I am in town (I know I am married and a FEMALE, sorry about that) will you go out with me. Ok, it's like eight grade but well... Well next to that tush of your last picture. (all smiles)

 

Ok, My two cents (for what is oh so worth).

 

First off. Not a lover of ANY NUDES if it is CRAP. Crap meaning made to be peverted and there for a SHOW. Hense to be "meant" for a PORN feel. Now sensuality yes. I can understand that.

 

I am of the feeling of show less means it is a lot better. LINES and SHADOWS are so much more important in any picture of any body for me. Show nothing I don't want to see (ok I don't like the private parts, tops are ok). It's a personal thing.

 

Personally I don't look at NUDES for the sake of what others do. I have a man. He's asleep over in his chair right now. HA!!

 

I don't need to go looking for "things" to look at. What interests me are the MOODS that the picture evokes. What does the picture make me feel. SO, it doesn't matter if it is a man or a woman, half naked or not. How does it make me feel. Lighting and such matter to me.

 

Honestly you throw a naked "OOPS" of a man (yep) and I won't look because that would make me feel uncomfortable YET FRED has done several where I feel I KNOW them. He does them with style.

 

I personally have to feel the emotion of the picture. I think Zoe said it earlier that you don't have to have desire to look and appreciate a picture tremendously. I personally think we "girls" can do that. I know I would almost rather look at the shape of a woman or the curves sometimes because they MIMIC so many things. What is really facinating is the mimic between the two if done right.

 

But, honestly I'm not a FAN of total nudes. Not a fan of the NUDES here as I never know what I am going to see. My hubby and I have a rule not to look at the nude category. Mainly because we have teenagers and we expect them to have "safe" internet, as we call it. Plus, it is not all that great there.

 

Looking through Jock didn't even really disturb me as I lived in Japan (with the Bath Houses) and Germany where being Naked is normal. What disturbed me was all the sadness and then thinking about all the peverted people that "get off" on those pictures.

 

The WHY factor. There is no NEED for those pictures.

 

So, when I do look at something that is beautiful and done well. That is something I also consider. WHY was it done and what is the purpose for it.

 

The main question was can a MAN look at a... blah blah

 

Well, I like looking at both, maybe in a different way but I have answered you. So there, I have answered you.

 

As for the question that can a MAN, I asked my husband and he said a MAN, BLEEP ~ HA well if he's a, oh NEVER MIND, HE HE ~ he's snoring. LOL

 

He has always appreciated a good shape, honestly. I think any healthy person should be honest about it. We all look at both. We appreciate BOTH body's IF it is a well done picture.

[mvisionphotography]

Ok, I talked about the main question that was brought up in this forum and then somehow the forum got turned into the "the arrousal affects" of the forbidden. Am I correct?

 

I had to come back in and say more about the fact that I read Nicoles answere several times about science goes round and round. The answer to did the "MAN Sturges" know what he was doing was wrong. Well, do we all know what we do will end up with any kind of repercussions? He made a name for himself didn't he.

 

I think it is well said that National Geographic put Naked ladies in there Magazine and Many Young Boys Whacked off to that magazine.

 

Am I wrong to say that?

 

Sorry!

 

So, am I wrong (scientifically) to say that it is the progression of little boys (and little girls) to progress into manhood by looking at little adolesence and get thrills out of that?

 

Or is that no different that a little do HUMPING your leg because that is what dogs do.

 

This is the scientific progression of the species. Gerry said it so right that a man is drawn to the backside of a woman as that is supposed to be some sort of arrosal for a man. Not unlike that FLOWER (forgive me flower people out there) that can give off the same sort of impressive feeling on a man or look like the genitatia.

 

Now HERE we have young viable girls well under the age, some of them, of puberty. Should they be photographed? NO, YES, Who knows?

 

Should the kids over in Africa be photographed NAKED? No, YES, Oh but it is OK? They are ALWAYS naked it is there way.

 

Wait a minute! These kids that are photographed by this man are always naked as manby they live in a place that it is perfectly acceptable.

 

hmmmm

 

Then that MAKES it ok.

 

hmmm

 

SO, does that THEN make it ok?

 

See, the delima. YES?

 

Well, the problem is not that he did it. AGAIN, the problem is that it is the progression of the science correct?

 

It is the society.

 

Fred you said FREE WILL. Yes, I heard it (was an excellent point even if I know it was not your point). We have it. Well, I believe in it because I sure am blaming Him for my bad stuff (stupid seizures) but do praise him for my miracle of the good too (my daughter was born YEAH). But then again I have the Free Will to say my mind and hopefully He won't be mad at me for being up at 1:33am writing this. HA! Well the the husband will.

 

So, FREE WILL. Those that will look, and yes they will because it is in our nature will look and they will do just as those little boys did with the National Geographic and be perverts.

 

Sad thing is, why? Why do them in the first place? Why any of them? So that science goes on. My next question is WHY do we have to have the over the top PORN? hmmm OUCH! I enjoy tremendously some of the stuff I see with the wonderful characters I get to meet in some of what I would call semi-nudes. But active nudes, things that go beyond fine art. Why do we need it?

 

Are we that needy that we can't use our imagination or read about love that is devine? What has our society come to that the stimulation has to be so RAW now that we have to have it all in our face like a humping dog.

 

Sorry, I just wonder sometimes. The simple nature of the beauty of the body has almost gone from our society because we have made it NASTY with the POP culture of the LEATHER of today.

 

Just curious why we have to have it shoved so harsh in our face? I would almost rather see the nature side like Jock does with his adults.

 

Why HAS it gone to the GRASS is greener at their house mentality. It's all over the TV isn't it. She's doing him, he's doing her etc... Sex is IT BLAH BLAH

 

Sorry, I think more people, honestly, if they would just look at the person they are married to OR that they LOVE or are devoted to and not look at on the screen so much that they would be so much more happy. Just my opinion. Honesty and Trust. Look together etc... But if you are out to go looking for it you're out to go searching for it is my moto.

 

Sorry, just had to come back with more after I read more into the discussion.

 

Forgive my mistakes it is almost 2am (well always forgive my mistakes I am always have brained and well still fighting it) HA

 

 

~ micki

 

[pnital]

Well, it is a very interesting thread, that deals with a part of our human charcteristics,especially nuds, sex, and our approach to it in life and in photogrpaphy and the arts.It is such a wide subject, so I will write my personal feeling about it.

 

Fred,For me what is interesting , is what the human is in general . Sex is a part of a person identity, but not his whole personality.

 

It is also his way of thinking, expressed feeling, behavior etc, And I evaluate a person( especially in the internet) of what I find in his expressed writting and photos. So for me not knowing you, and others in person, is what you and others write and expose in your work and comments, displayed here.

 

Looking at nudes, and I have looked at some, mostly done by male photogtaphers of women nudes. I must say, that many are simply boring.... either it was man or woman nudes.

 

Good art, nudes included, is very individual evaluation, depends on so many components of a personality like: culture, education, Parents freedome approach to the subject in childhood, exposure to all kinds of the arts from young age, that helps to develop the abbility to discern what is good and what is trash... and still it is a very personal taste as well.

 

I agree with Micki, that what is important in nude( and other subjects) photography is the way I feel it, if it has succeeded to reach me, to touch my feeling and trigger my thoughts and enjoyment.

 

We were born as nudes, sex and nudity is part of human life,I like it when it is delicatly exposed, when "less is more", when there is a thought behind the exposure, in photography( also in literature, films, and even poetry. a good example is E. M. Rilke. "Duino allegies, and Sonatas to Orpheus"). I think it says much more of the subject than a blant pose of a nude, be it man and mostly women. It depends on composition, light and shadows etc, but mostly if it conveys feeling that I can connect to.

[zoewiseman]

john kelly... as far as my site goes, you will find old, young, male, female, obese, firm, black,

white, gay, lesbian, straight, asian, russian, jewish, christian, atheist, buddhist and even

islamic and all body types and ages under the sun. one of the women i work with is 50 years

old. one of the male models on my site is 65. the youngest is 18. so you clearly don't know

much about my website. and i wish you would not say that i have said things i haven't. that

isn't very nice.

 

fred... i get it. i just get frustrated with immaturity. i need to learn to sit in yogi pose and

hum when that happens. i'm not fully enlightened, but i'm working on it.

[zoewiseman]

i won't be back to this thread after reading one of these responses. not saying what one...

but i think i need to leave this discussion alone before i regret something that may start

typing away in streams of consciousness. not good when that happens. so, if anyone

wants to put words in my mouth, would you please respect that i won't be back to set you

straight if you do? that would be utterly human of you if you could.

 

i have enjoyed this up until now though. i think the conservative right just entered the

building and well.. that's all i'll say about that. and if i get going it will take way too much

of my time and energy to do battle with witless worms (to quote gandolf). sorry, trying to

be funny, laugh, it's ok.

 

I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all

kinds of things you can't see from the center.

 

Kurt Vonnegut

 

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for

it terrifying and absolutely vile!

 

Kurt Vonnegut

 

I should leave before I'm abducted by Tralfamadorians - Love Live Free Will and Kilgore

Trout

 

tata