In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« More Taubes | Main | Camille's Back »

November 20, 2008

More on "Game"

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

City Journal's Kay Hymowitz discovers the phenomenon of "Game" and the culture of PUAs (Pick-Up Artists). Hymowitz's piece struck me as fair, but Roissy thinks the bitch deserves a spanking. I overindulged in the comments thread on Roissy's posting.

Related: The smart, interesting, and spirited Chris and Mu'Min are now sharing a blog. Roissy annotates a classic scene from "Gone With the Wind."



posted by Michael at November 20, 2008


Hasn't this topic been flogged to death by now? Maybe we need to tar-and-feather it too.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on November 20, 2008 11:19 AM

Sorry guys..youre All dating yourselves.

in all senses of the term...

Posted by: Ramesh on November 20, 2008 11:21 AM

You guys are even more cynical and jaded than I am!

My case, and then I'll try to shut for a bit: Imagine it's 1964, and you spot some long-haired flower-wielding types around. They're hippies. Who knew? Now it's 1965. There are even more of them around. Do you react by yawning? Or by thinking, Hey, this seems to be a cultural phenomenon that's growing, and that seems to say a little something about our times?

Obviously both reactions are OK. My reactions just tend more towards the second sort.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on November 20, 2008 11:26 AM

Id quitely try to get as much (hairy or not) poontang as possible and yawn at the old magazine eds writing articles about picking up tabs and competing levels of testosterone , as if all this matters to anyone..

Posted by: Ramesh on November 20, 2008 11:34 AM

I've got to add to the chorus, Michael.

I stopped reading Roissy. The man is juvenile. Not only that, he's really running a lonely hearts column for desparate men. The whole thing is embarassing, and really, downright swishy.

The Hymowitz column was alright. Thing is, I've never asked anybody for approval for my sex/love life, nor do I plan to. People who are looking for approval for their sex/love lives... well, they've got their heads up their asses.

I can certainly see that the traditional rules for mating and love have fallen apart. That's somebody else's problem as far as I'm concerned. I never lived by rules anyway.

I hate to agree with Patrick, but Roissy's readers do seem to be 30 year old guys who are still living in their Mommy's basement. Roissy himself seems to have no accomplishments in life. He's become preoccupied with lecturing people about the length of this dick. This is college dormitory boasting at an idiot level.

I can't see anything positive about giving this type of lowlife any attention. Why bother? The crudeness and boasting that is all Roissy's got is not a new phenomenon. I remember it well from my undergraduate days in the dorm. Don't you?

On the other hand, I am somewhat gratified to discover that the young men have decided to tell feminist, spoiled brat women to go fuck themselves. Hell, I did that 25 years ago. I no longer find it necessary to carry on much about it, as I long ago exited any relationships with those women. I just ignore them now. Fighting with them is just as bad as being ensnared by them. In either event, they take over your consciousness.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 20, 2008 11:42 AM

Remember Michael?

in the middle ages, when the Borgia popes were worried about the papal booty, Thomas A Kempis was worried about God?

I'm like the Thomas A Kempis of poontang.

Posted by: Ramesh on November 20, 2008 12:03 PM

Whether you like or agree with Roissy or think he writes well or stinks, the phenomenon he describes and is a symptom of -- the whole package: the PUA thing, what it's reacting against, as well as a class of furious and frustrated computer-equipped betas living in their moms' basements -- is an interesting cultural development, no?

Looking at it and saying "meh" strikes me as a little like living in the '60s and saying "The '60s? Big deal," or living in 1500 in Italy and shrugging at that whole Renaissance boringness, or maybe living in Palo Alto in 1980 and finding the "personal computer" thing overdone. It's a little more blase than I can be.

I dunno if this ranks with the '60s, let alone personal computers or the Renaissance, but it certainly seems to me to be one of the more interesting and unexpected cultural developments around. Got any that beat it for interestingness? Incidentally, if you do: cool, let's hear about it.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on November 20, 2008 12:20 PM

I think with all interest race realism that comes from commenters on this site, they would be interested in the pickup artist phenomenon as well. It surprises me to see they aren't. Just like the race realism seems to be a reaction to the radical egalitarianism of modern race politics, the PUA movement seems to be a similar reaction to the radical egalitarianism of modern gender politics. Both movements are good for injecting some very necessary facts and political incorrectness into public discourse, but both movements can also become repetitive and bitter-sounding if one gets too immersed in them.

Posted by: T. AKA Ricky Raw on November 20, 2008 12:37 PM

Oh michael I dig you daddy -o ..I just think you can either be the culture or talk about it. (well you can be the culture and talk about it later, but you'll have to pay me for that) . I for one am a computer bound alpha thatr can see a lot of dissatisfied women from the cravings they have for the good stuff ...and living in a world of betas that wouldn't know their way around a vagina if they were given mapquest directions...

to me its an opportunity to plant (encased) wild oats , not to add to the general angst by pm ing to my other beta girlfriend-dudes ad nauseum aboot it.

Posted by: Ramesh on November 20, 2008 12:38 PM

Well, yes, Michael, the phenomenon is interesting in a very negative way.

The hippie 60s things was pretty juvenile too, but at least it was adventurous and cheerful... well, until the Manson thing took it south.

I don't want to preach about it, but I see the world headed toward the next great war. I'm old enough now to see that what I thought were new things are, in fact, repetitions of a common cycle throughout human history.

This collapse into homosexuality, spoiled brat thumb sucking, a refusal to face the reality of evil, the destruction of religion and tradition, women and men rebelling against family and childbearing... I used to think these were new things. They're not. This breakdown of human society has happened repeatedly on a cyclical basis. None of this is new.

This breakdown is the precursor of a collapse into global violence. I see it now as inevitable. Those who think they are striving to stop this inevitable collapse into outright war are, without knowing it, greasing the skids toward the day when the bombs start falling.

I see a day of reckoning coming for the spoiled brat culture. It might be in a decade, might be in a century. I hope I'm not here when all hell breaks loose.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 20, 2008 12:54 PM

Roissy may be hard to take (though highly entertaining), and much of his advice simply won't work for most men, but Christ Almightly, I wish that I had someone who would have given me dating and relationships advice when I was in my college years and mid-20's. Calling my dating experience during those years "mediocre" is really stretching things. And yet, looking back, I realize that a relatively few changes would have given me much more success: Lose weight (5'10" and 245#s cannot be explained away as having a "big frame," needless to say I weigh much less today). Don't act so needy (needy = desparate loser in a woman's eyes). Understand that when a woman says "let's just be friends" there is no chance that she will ever accept you as anything except a friend (I wasted an aggregate of two to three years following around like a puppy dog women who'd LJBF'ed me). Show some level of interest in dress and grooming (just because I didn't note these things did not mean that women didn't either).

Yes, these simple lessons probably would have made a world of difference, but I never learned them. Thinking today about my cluelessness back then is enough to make me want to take antidepressants.

Posted by: Peter on November 20, 2008 12:58 PM

It's not that it's uninteresting, it's that everything has been said about it.

It's a tiny number of very loud people who are into this thing. The boys are loud because they are pissed off, like the article says. But being a pissed-off "alpha" is still not the same thing as growing some sack. It's just another way of catering to the girls. "Game" means conforming yourself completely to female expectations, just in this case what they really want instead of what they say they want.

But what about what you, the alleged man, want? What about being who you really are? Apparently an "alpha" puts that second to tickling the ladies fancy. In other words, they're fake men, dandied up little toys designed for the ladies delight.

If you live your life entirely through your penis, have at it! Those with brains and real balls need something to do in between orgasms.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on November 20, 2008 1:22 PM

T, I am interested in the PUA phenomenon. That doesn't mean I have to confine that interest to places like Roissy's, with its tendentious misappropriations of terms like "alpha". Pickup is much more than Roissy, and much clearer about things than he is. Example: "alpha male" is used in the "seduction community" in something like its ordinary meaning--the dominant male in a group, as in the term AMOG, which means, of course, exactly that.

The rest of the pickup world understands what it is they're doing: trying to get laid. Some of its leaders use evo-bio reasoning. Mystery uses evo-bio reasoning as the foundation of his method, Strauss and others have extended his work or built their own philosophy (including my favourite MPUA, Zan, who's been going his own way for a while). None of them (the ones I'm familiar with) waste time trying to twist words to suit their own purposes.

And none of their work has anything like the juvenile, angry, pissed-off adolescent crap that clutters up Roissy's. Strauss calls himself Style. Mystery is Mystery. None of them would think to call themselves something like Kick a Bitch, who's received praise and smirks and high-fives from the other zit-poppers at R's for his pathetic teeny boy comments. That kind of low calibre posturing is so prevalent at R's now that the core message of pickup is lost.

Pickup is interesting, even to someone who doesn't want to practice it, insofar as it cuts through the facade of modern "courtship", especially the lies of feminists and Oprah-types, and reveals in stark detail the not entirely edifying answer to the ages-old question: What do women want?

The answer ain't pretty. And pickup has done much to reveal those unpretty truths. But pickup is much more than Roissy and his nasty little twist on it. Insofar as Michael or you equate pickup with Roissy, you're doing it a disservice. The artists like Zan, Strauss, and even the high-strung Mystery himself, just plain lack the bile, the misogyny and misanthropy, and especially the sheer mind-numbing immaturity of almost everything that goes on over at the Chateau.

I recommend that anyone interested in pickup stay away from R's, and from the sites Hymowitz mentioned. There's nothing valuable there.

Posted by: PatrickH on November 20, 2008 1:23 PM

The PUA thing is a really narrow trend and I predict will not even be a blip in the history books. Not that that alone excludes it from discussion. It's just absolutely uninteresting to me. I mean completely. There is nothing to be gained from either participating in it or thinking about it. It's not even distasteful, it's just pathetic.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Posted by: JV on November 20, 2008 3:07 PM


Thanks to your muse, I have crowned myself the Thomas A Kempis of poontang, on my blog.

for info.


Posted by: Ramesh on November 20, 2008 3:19 PM

Michael: "Whether you like or agree with Roissy or think he writes well or stinks, the phenomenon he describes and is a symptom of -- the whole package: the PUA thing, what it's reacting against, as well as a class of furious and frustrated computer-equipped betas living in their moms' basements -- is an interesting cultural development, no?"

Speaking as a guy who turned his back on romance ages ago, preferring the open range of the mind to the cramped and constraining universe of boy-meets-girl, I find myself surprised that the PUA discussion has almost gotten me - me of all people! - to begin thinking about sex and females with something other than my customary cold chill. Hitherto I associated the subject only with the nightmare world of haute bourgeois courtship and marriage, which I knew very well would be the end of me, seeing as I am very right-brained and women are emphatically left.

That last line may be a sticking point with some, as women are popularly considered to be the spontaneous ones, but in my daydreamy experience of life they seem pretty relentlessly earthbound. And look! My sex therapist HL Mencken agrees:

[N]either sex, without some fertilization by the complementary characters of the other, is capable of the highest reaches of human endeavor... The wholly manly man lacks the wit necessary to give objective form to his soaring and secret dreams, and the wholly womanly woman is apt to be too cynical a creature to dream at all.

And a quick glance at the world tells us he's onto something. Which sex writes rulebooks on wedding etiquette, for instance, or collections of recipes? And which writes books on alternative history, or speculative metaphysics? Which demands a steady paycheck, and which convinces themselves that daytrading will make them rich? Which would you hire to do clerical work, and which would you hire to play jazz? The right brain, they tell us, controls spatial perception - and have you ever watched a woman park?

(You may retort with a mention of the right brain's control of intuition, but what's called a woman's intuition is merely interpersonal realism heightened to the level of cunning.)

Anyway, this left-brain female realism didn't fit with my right-brain masculine spontaneity, so I bailed, and bailed with extreme prejudice. The last date I had was in '99 or 2000, and it was, of course, a disaster; after twenty minutes I announced I had to catch a seaplane to Burkina Faso and bolted. Since then I've fooled around with "perfect continence". (My record is six months, woot woot!) I've mastered Napoleon Hill’s concept of sex transmutation, that strange alchemical procedure whereby horniness is transfigured into greed. I've spent countless hours in libraries, and done for the inner landscape what Lewis and Clark did for Oregon. All good!

And I've clearly had a lot more fun than my sexually active friends, all of whom - as I long ago predicted they would be - are now in relationships; and one can immediately see by their sluggish torpor, their haunted Gestalt, their thousand-yard stare, that it can be nothing other than True Love.

But we must return to Mencken:

Philosophers do not seem to flourish amid scenes of connubial joy. High thinking, it seems, presupposes boarding-house fare and hall bedrooms... A married Spinoza, with two sons at college, another managing the family lens business, a daughter busy with her trousseau, and a wife growing querulous and fat - the vision, alas, is preposterous, outrageous, and impossible!... The ideal state for a philosopher, indeed, is celibacy tempered by polygamy. He must study women, but he must be free, when he pleases, to close his notebook and go away and digest its contents with an open mind.

Hear that? "Tempered by polygamy".


So what to do?

Browsing the internet, we find that one school of thought - that of conventional dating - seems to be geared, amazingly enough, toward entering a relationship instead of avoiding one. So that's out. Another says you have to be popular, another good looking, and so on.

Now the Roissy approach seems to be trying to out-left-brain the left-brainers, turning womankind's appalling complexity of arbitrary rules into a still more appalling complexity of pseudo-scientific ones, and with an emphasis on status that would make Lady Astor blush. Instead of an alternative to our grotesquely extraverted society he offers a hundred-fifty proof distillation of it. Though masquerading as a manly lifestyle, it has more to do with the 400 than the 300.

(I notice also in the comments section that their insistence on wholly external standards of decision-making has often so eroded their subjective values that they are only able to judge success by external conditions, thus leading them to demand an ever more neurotic level of control over those conditions (including people), and finishing with the inevitable eruptions of anger when such control proves unrealizable. But I digress.)

So Game per se is out. But, in dismissing it, something like a strategy begins to emerge.

Since women aren't interesting, it occurs to me that the job of the moment is to make them interesting - in short, to draw out the long-dormant right brain. What if, I ask myself encouragingly, what if the left-brain façade is merely a persona, a mask for getting them through the tribulations of ordinary life? What if behind this relentlessly pragmatic front lies a passionate romanticism amounting to the Byronic? What if one could - like Ahab - seek and finally discover a way to strike through the mask? What if it were possible to separate them from their Blackberries and stop them fretting about the carpet, to make them late for work and go a day without HGTV, to cancel their subscription to Martha Stewart Living, pull them away from Oprah, and lure them, even just for a weekend, into the joys of lustful impracticality?

Part of me suspects it isn't true, that they are as dull as they seem, and that all the best ones have long since gone into pornography, but hell it's worth a try. If it gets to the point where there's a chance of me winding up on House Hunters, then there are many methods of painless self-slaughter.


A propos of nothing, I think Shaw had a sex drive like mine, as you can read in detail here. The passage about the Uranian Venus definitely chimes, and I find this line especially - "I did not need to pursue women; I was pursued by them" - to be all too irritatingly true.

Posted by: Brian on November 20, 2008 3:42 PM

Too bad you're not gay, Brian, then you'd be set.

You do say some very smart things about the Game folks.

I don't know, the more I read here, the more depressed I get. Lots of damaged and/or eternally disappointed people. They seem to be congregating here more and more. It's not the state of the world that gets me down, it's the reactions to it from some people.

Posted by: JV on November 20, 2008 4:06 PM

PatrickH -- Links to your fave PUAs, please. Don't hold back.

Brian -- That's a masterpiece of a comment. I haven't read anything that perverse and witty in ages. You've almost got me convinced to go celibate.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on November 20, 2008 4:23 PM

Michael, I'm with you on this one. I reckon "game" is the "natural" cultural backlash to Feminism. Who would have thought that the defeat of Feminism would have come from a bunch of guys who were trying to work out how to get laid? The "proponents' of game are emphatically a "reality based" community. Their body of knowledge deals with how women are, as opposed to how they appear to be.

I'd give Roissy a bit of slack ST. True he can be a bit annoying at times, but there are nuggets of gold amongst the turds. I think that he is a fantastic writer. In fact, I will go as far as to say, that at his best, he writes like Edward Hopper paints.

And whats his message? Be a man, have some balls, look after your appearance, control your dick and know how to talk. All pretty conservative stuff. Stuff I imagine you would find in the Philippines.

What you want to do with that message is up to you. If you want to fuck around, find the woman of your dreams or be more self confident, he gives you no imperatives. It's up to you.

Posted by: slumlord. on November 20, 2008 6:04 PM

Gutsy comment by Brian, that women are dull. The sure test of their dullness is that nothing, nothing whatsoever can stop their jabbering away to each other: not a painting a piece of music or a play. Art? Man's attempts at the sublime? Silly because incomprehensible to the prosaic sex. Not that they don't "get" it. But why? What's the silly man after?

This is the age in which the expression of that truth is verboten. One of the many examples of hate speech demanding reeducation. Bitter? Me? Not really, because, as Beckett wrote, "Nothing to be done."

Posted by: ricpic on November 20, 2008 6:25 PM

Patrick, what was it that women want?? I must have missed something here.

Also, I would like to give myself an award for deciding NEVER to go to Roissey's blog, and sticking with it. I remain untainted by whatever that loser is dishing out.

We jabbering women are merely trying to amuse ourselves while you people strive for the Sublime and the right product for Penis Enlargement.

Love, Sister Wolf xo

Posted by: Sister Wolf on November 20, 2008 8:45 PM

A lot of PUA writers are a bit too much the happy-clappy power of positive thinking types who are all about being non-judgmental towards female sexuality. For them, it's all fun and games. As such, while their super-positive teachings are often extremely useful on a practical level for getting women into bed, they are an unreliable guide to reality as it is.

What I love about Roissy is that, despite his own personal corruption, he is not afraid to be judgmental as hell. He lays the darkside of female sexuality bare. I'm not much of a hater myself, but I'm glad Roissy is out there to strip away the lies. Bring on the hate.

Posted by: Thursday on November 20, 2008 8:47 PM

Brian, second Michael's praise. That was perversely quirkily brilliant. Roissy has a comment of the month feature, and I think Michael should put one in here.

I nominate Brian for Blowhard's comment of the month number 1.

Links to my fave PUAs will arrive in due course. Zan is particularly interesting. A genuine lover of women.

Oh, and he's another one of the Canadians who have prominence in the community in numbers far beyond our population would predict. I have no idea what that means. I mean, Tyler Durden is from Ottawa!

Posted by: PatrickH on November 20, 2008 10:48 PM

Your right Michael it is an interesting phenomenon and Roissy is offering a very adroit casual observation.
What happens when a theistic cultural norm is replaced by a humanist one. Get rid of grammar and English turns to shit, get rid of cultural mating standards and society turns to shit.

Posted by: niko on November 21, 2008 12:56 AM

Eh, for all his ability to dispel the panglossian notions of love and sex, Roissy isn't very adept at turning his own blistering gaze on himself. While I realize that it probably wouldn't do his ego that much good to pour the turpentine of introspection on it (what good is figuring out how much you have failed in life in a game where confidence is the key?), I find that in the end, it warps his analysis of his true placement in the cold cold world he has saw fit to expound on.

Outside the myriad vaginas of hot women, there's not much to take solace in by his token, ya know?

Frankly I don't care. The intellectual and aesthetic priors he's starting from ain't the ones I'm starting from. So long as there's some marginal entertainment to it, I'll watch. When the parade stops being fun, it's time to go somewhere else.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on November 21, 2008 8:59 AM

"Gutsy comment by Brian, that women are dull. The sure test of their dullness is that nothing, nothing whatsoever can stop their jabbering away to each other: not a painting a piece of music or a play. Art? Man's attempts at the sublime? Silly because incomprehensible to the prosaic sex. Not that they don't "get" it. But why? What's the silly man after?"

Some of you are hanging out with the wrong women.

Posted by: CyndiF on November 21, 2008 1:51 PM

"Some of you are hanging out with the wrong women."

No shit. I can't get over the bitterness towards women here. Sure, the woman that you're in a relationship with is a pain in the ass, hell, MOST of the time. But it goes both ways. And besides, the positive aspects of a good woman far outweigh the negative if you would just get over the fact that they aren't men with vaginas instead of dicks. Sexual differences? Hell to the yeah. Why not appreciate them instead of making ridiculous statements like women are boring because they aren't into and/or don't appreciate the same shit men do. For one, that's not categorically true, not by a long-shot. For two, isn't it women who are supposed to want to rope us men into whatever they're doing? Hell man, rejoice in the fact that women want nothing to so with our past-times, for the most part! Time away from each other is necessary.

As for Game? The bitterness stems from one fact that men accept and juveniles (of all ages) can't get over: women can get laid any time they want and men can't. From this biological arrangement, they twist themselves into knots justifying shitty behavior. Seriously, to whine about how feminism has driven men to retaliate with something like Game is weak-minded. Grow a pair, gentlemen.

Posted by: JV on November 21, 2008 5:00 PM

That said, Brian's comment made me laugh. Kind of like reading De Sade: appreciate the wit while making a distinction between enjoying art and behaving in life.

Posted by: JV on November 21, 2008 5:02 PM

PUA takes itself far too seriously. But taken for what it really is, it's extremely valuable -- especially to late-blooming geekazoids trying to punch above their weight and making every 'nice guy' mistake in the book in the process. Most will fail, of course, because the 'game' is about looks to a degree ever hopeful up-and-comers can't begin to appreciate. Still, the general mindset that's hopefully fostered can help men better handle the women they're already with or are readily capable of attracting (which the vast majority will eventually settle for anyway), so it's still very much worthwhile.

I wish PUA's had more to say about inculcating 'old time' values in women over whom the 'upper hand' has already been established. This is better for both the relationship and the women themselves, though it requires the man to have embraced or be familiar with such values in the first place, which isn't as unlikely to be the case among PUAs as it seems at first glance: PUAs already touch on 'old time' values in their attitudes toward women and are probably better placed to rediscover the rest of what the Forgotten West had to say about the Good Life than the average 'tolerant' liberal weeny.

Posted by: silver on November 22, 2008 12:54 AM

ok, guys here's the deal: women don't want wimps, but they don't want jerks either. Given the choice between jerks and wimps, we'll choose jerks. The trick here is to be the guy we REALLY want. Listen to the lyrics of "Someone to Watch Over Me" until they sink in. Some women do want Rhett Butler, but MOST of us want Mr. Darcy. Give it some thought.

Posted by: Bradamante on November 22, 2008 8:55 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?