Dimitrios Tsoukalas
English 101.0800
Date: December 2 2010
Preliminary Thesis and Annotated Bibliography for Paper #2
Preliminary Thesis: Men need homosocial bonds with other men to be successful in their heterosexual relationships.
Grazian, David. "The Girl Hunt: Urban Nightlife and the Performance of Masculinity as Collective Activity". Men's Lives 8th Ed. New York: Allyn and Baron 2010.
In this article, Grazian describes about the nightlife ritual of girl hunting. He describes the importance of Girl Hunting to the masculinity of adolescent men as well as the importance to a group of men.
Grazian is a studied man with a PH.D in sociology. The source relates the Girl Hunt to how it strengthens homosocial bonds between men and can be used to objectify woman, making it easier for a man to approach them. Unlike the other two sources, this source focuses on the girl hunt. All of Grazian's claims are backed up with information from other sources and he is not biased in what he says.
Even though Grazian focuses on the ritual of girl hunting, he relates it to the strengthening of homosocial bonds. The entire ritual of girl hunting is to get girls, but Grazian claims that through this procedure, men strengthen their own bonds and masculinity of themselves. This article has proved to be that men need other men to get a girl sometimes, with the example of wingmen. Men strengthen their homosocial bonds in order for one of them to get a heterosexual bond.
Flood, Micheal. "Men, Sex and Mateship: How homosociality shapes men's heterosexual relations". Feminisms: An international Women's and Gender Studies Conference. University of Queensland. 12-16 July.
In this article, Dr Micheal Flood explains the homosocial relationships between man and relates them to mens heterosexual relationships. He also mentions that male to male relationships prioritize over male to female relationships.
The source does have a decent amount of research done, if only on one group of males. I believe it can still be applied for the majority of men. Also, it explains basically everything I am expecting from a source, answering my thesis directly. Though, because the research is done on one group, it could biased.
The source talks about men's relationships to each other, and because of these relationships, they are able to think of girls as objects, because they think of themselves as real men. It's made me think that men are more shallow then I initially thought. In the source, an example is given that these men pick their friends over a female, and are thought of as weak if they pick a heterosexual bond over their homosocial.
The 40 Year old Virgin Dir. Judd Apatow Pref. Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd. Universal Pictures 2005.
This is a source which explains how a man who has given up on the sexual part of life, is influenced by his guy friends to try to get sexual again. With example it shows how homosocial bonds between men boost and create heterosexual bonds.
While this source might be a movie and the information not completely reliable, I think this source can be used as a good example though.
This movie's entire focus is making the 40 year old virgin, not a virgin. The way they do it though, is through homosocial bonding, the other men try to teach him and edge him to it. Which does work, cause he does end up in a sexual relationship with the woman he was after. But he wouldn't have done it without the support the men gave him.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Part 1 Of Research Paper #2: Research Paper Proposal
Tsoukalas Dimitrios
English 101.0800
Date: December 2 2010
Part 1 Of Research Paper #2: Research Paper Proposal
For my paper I'm going to be talking about men's relationship to each other, agree with David Grazian's article, "The Girl Hunt: Urban Nightlife and the Performance of Masculinity as Collective Activity". Men need the help of other men to get woman, it's a boost to their confidence and to their masculinity if they succeed, also provides them with wingmen who can offer their assistance.
Men are known for going girl hunting as a group, at least after girls that they want to show off. Men have been raised to feel that by getting a girl, they can feel good about themselves, that they are successful at being a man; By doing it with a group of men, they feel like they become better men themselves if they succeed with the girl hunting. "In fact, the statistical rareness of the one-night stand may help explain why successful lotharios are granted such glorified status and prestige among their peers in the first place." (Connell and Messerschimidt 2005:851)
I shall do my research by looking online through google scholar,and the cuny library resource center. The sources I'm considering are mostly articles written about my topic, or any other paper done on it. The information I'm looking for is mostly an explanation about the relationship of heterosexual men with another. Also, if the bond of "Bro's" is stronger then the bond of male-female.
English 101.0800
Date: December 2 2010
Part 1 Of Research Paper #2: Research Paper Proposal
For my paper I'm going to be talking about men's relationship to each other, agree with David Grazian's article, "The Girl Hunt: Urban Nightlife and the Performance of Masculinity as Collective Activity". Men need the help of other men to get woman, it's a boost to their confidence and to their masculinity if they succeed, also provides them with wingmen who can offer their assistance.
Men are known for going girl hunting as a group, at least after girls that they want to show off. Men have been raised to feel that by getting a girl, they can feel good about themselves, that they are successful at being a man; By doing it with a group of men, they feel like they become better men themselves if they succeed with the girl hunting. "In fact, the statistical rareness of the one-night stand may help explain why successful lotharios are granted such glorified status and prestige among their peers in the first place." (Connell and Messerschimidt 2005:851)
I shall do my research by looking online through google scholar,and the cuny library resource center. The sources I'm considering are mostly articles written about my topic, or any other paper done on it. The information I'm looking for is mostly an explanation about the relationship of heterosexual men with another. Also, if the bond of "Bro's" is stronger then the bond of male-female.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Quick Write (Fathering: Paradoxes, Contradictions, and Dilemmas)
After reading the article and relating it to the picture, it seems that the two men in the picture are basically complete opposites of what the article is talking about. It seems that while men are encouraged to take a larger part in the upbringing of a child, they are supposed to do it while retaining their fatherhood. Fatherhood in the article is described as upholding the certain duties, rights and activities a man should take. In the picture, the two men are carrying the child instead of the mother, which relating in the article is not fatherhood at all, their feelings are more maternal then paternal.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Final Draft Research Paper #1
Dimitrios Tsoukalas
Magdalena Bogacka
English 101
28/11/2010
Masculinity comes in many forms; From the retrosexual male which is the strong, self supporting man from the past, to the metrosexual male, one who can show their emotions and dress fashionably. For most men in this day and age, both of these masculinities are seen as normal and masculine. But for a political leader, which masculinity is seen as more efficient for a leader to possess, a man that is controlling, ruthless and aggressive or a man who sees does not require things to be his way, a man who reasons things out and uses his head rather then his fist. Of course, a political leader needs compromise, intelligence and a passion for their work, but those are just a few of the many masculine traits expected from a leader.
Gentlemens Quarterly in the past year has published numerous articles related to the masculinity showed off by political leaders old and new, giving harsh criticism and respects where needed. To begin with, for a men’s magazine to even publish these stories, it’s apparent that common men are interested in such articles. These men can be seen as role models to common men, and by determining their masculinity and success, one can tell whether or not that masculinity is compatible with their job. The political leaders masculinity is one thing which determines their decision making, which affects the people in return depending on their decisions.
Men whos masculinity is being a minimalist, dominant as well as ignorant, now these are not the qualities you expect from even a common man, but all these qualities are what made up Donald Rumsfeld, Bushes secretary of defense. He was a man who followed the old tradition of a man, one who wants to be in control of everything, the leader of the pack; One who would not listen to the opinion of others as well as being prepared before making a decision. He was a political leader who faced extreme criticism. People were calling for his head and wanted him fired, in his term, Rumsfeld was faced with declining public support for the war, and mostly because his decisions were done without preparation, without a plan. (CNN News) Rumsfeld’s masculinity isn’t one that adapts well with the political world, people do not want an ignorant leader.
A man who has an a less traditional masculinity on the other hand, someone who is able to think before they make decisions, listen to other peoples ideas and work together with others is seen as someone who is more able to make decisions for people, someone people actually want to lead for them. Now while this man is not in the position of Rumsfeld, Dr Zekebig is a man who is senior counselor to the recent health care bill. Apart from being there cause of his intelligence, Dr Zekebig is an open-minded man, whos sole goal is to make a health care bill accessible to most people. A man whos passion is not for himself, a man who cares for the people he is leading, that’s the kind of masculinity people look for in a leader.
Unlike a common man whos masculinity is not judged only once, but constantly throughout their lifetime, political leaders only get their first impression. The previous president, George Bush was an ignorant man who answered every question given to him without thought. Yet, he did have the masculinity to reform, though, unlike a normal man, a leader is not given that second chance. A leader needs the correct masculinity from the start, because they cannot right the wrong they might cause during that reforming period. While the masculinity to be able to reform and adapt is good in a leader, there is a limit to how much reforming and adapting a person can do within a certain amount of time. You only make a first impression once.
Masculinity is something every man creates for themselves from the time there a child, though through the influence of the media, family and friends, it changes. President Obama’s masculinity is one of intelligence,quick thinking, and focus. He’s also able to perceive everything with the writers eye, basically, comprehend everything with a literature view. Also to note, Obama’s public approval rating has gone up recently, remaining at a much higher percentage then president Bushes at this time of his presidency. (NYC Daily News) The proper masculinity of a leader should be a masculinity which is able to look into the future, work for that future, be optimistic and happy, and above all, not remain ignorant. Because in this day and age, especially for a political leader, intelligence is power.
The masculinity required for a leader to have, is less forgiving then that required of a common man, the leader has to be vigilant, intelligent, aware, cooperative, optimistic yet realistic. In our past, we have had leaders be likewise, but also had leaders who were the opposites. To be a leader, you do not need to have all these, but to be a successful leader, one that other men can look up too and be proud, one that can lead it’s people to prosper, that leader, has to contain all the masculinities a real man should have.
Draper, Robert "And He Shall Be Judged. (Donald Rumsfield)". GQ (May 2009) October 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Draper, Robert "Barack Obama's work in the progress". GQ (Nov 2009) October 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Mark, Kirby "And Now A Word From The White House's Other Emanuel". GQ (June 2009) October 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Draper, Robert "The Prez and I (George W. Bush)". GQ (Jan 2009) October 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Corky, Siemaszko "President Obama's approval rating climbs to 47% despite midterm massacre of Democrats" NY Daily News (Nov 9 2010) November 28 2010. Web
Frank Sesno "Rumsfeld: Criticism 'goes with territory' " CNN (Sept 29 2006) November 28 2010. Web
Magdalena Bogacka
English 101
28/11/2010
Masculinity comes in many forms; From the retrosexual male which is the strong, self supporting man from the past, to the metrosexual male, one who can show their emotions and dress fashionably. For most men in this day and age, both of these masculinities are seen as normal and masculine. But for a political leader, which masculinity is seen as more efficient for a leader to possess, a man that is controlling, ruthless and aggressive or a man who sees does not require things to be his way, a man who reasons things out and uses his head rather then his fist. Of course, a political leader needs compromise, intelligence and a passion for their work, but those are just a few of the many masculine traits expected from a leader.
Gentlemens Quarterly in the past year has published numerous articles related to the masculinity showed off by political leaders old and new, giving harsh criticism and respects where needed. To begin with, for a men’s magazine to even publish these stories, it’s apparent that common men are interested in such articles. These men can be seen as role models to common men, and by determining their masculinity and success, one can tell whether or not that masculinity is compatible with their job. The political leaders masculinity is one thing which determines their decision making, which affects the people in return depending on their decisions.
Men whos masculinity is being a minimalist, dominant as well as ignorant, now these are not the qualities you expect from even a common man, but all these qualities are what made up Donald Rumsfeld, Bushes secretary of defense. He was a man who followed the old tradition of a man, one who wants to be in control of everything, the leader of the pack; One who would not listen to the opinion of others as well as being prepared before making a decision. He was a political leader who faced extreme criticism. People were calling for his head and wanted him fired, in his term, Rumsfeld was faced with declining public support for the war, and mostly because his decisions were done without preparation, without a plan. (CNN News) Rumsfeld’s masculinity isn’t one that adapts well with the political world, people do not want an ignorant leader.
A man who has an a less traditional masculinity on the other hand, someone who is able to think before they make decisions, listen to other peoples ideas and work together with others is seen as someone who is more able to make decisions for people, someone people actually want to lead for them. Now while this man is not in the position of Rumsfeld, Dr Zekebig is a man who is senior counselor to the recent health care bill. Apart from being there cause of his intelligence, Dr Zekebig is an open-minded man, whos sole goal is to make a health care bill accessible to most people. A man whos passion is not for himself, a man who cares for the people he is leading, that’s the kind of masculinity people look for in a leader.
Unlike a common man whos masculinity is not judged only once, but constantly throughout their lifetime, political leaders only get their first impression. The previous president, George Bush was an ignorant man who answered every question given to him without thought. Yet, he did have the masculinity to reform, though, unlike a normal man, a leader is not given that second chance. A leader needs the correct masculinity from the start, because they cannot right the wrong they might cause during that reforming period. While the masculinity to be able to reform and adapt is good in a leader, there is a limit to how much reforming and adapting a person can do within a certain amount of time. You only make a first impression once.
Masculinity is something every man creates for themselves from the time there a child, though through the influence of the media, family and friends, it changes. President Obama’s masculinity is one of intelligence,quick thinking, and focus. He’s also able to perceive everything with the writers eye, basically, comprehend everything with a literature view. Also to note, Obama’s public approval rating has gone up recently, remaining at a much higher percentage then president Bushes at this time of his presidency. (NYC Daily News) The proper masculinity of a leader should be a masculinity which is able to look into the future, work for that future, be optimistic and happy, and above all, not remain ignorant. Because in this day and age, especially for a political leader, intelligence is power.
The masculinity required for a leader to have, is less forgiving then that required of a common man, the leader has to be vigilant, intelligent, aware, cooperative, optimistic yet realistic. In our past, we have had leaders be likewise, but also had leaders who were the opposites. To be a leader, you do not need to have all these, but to be a successful leader, one that other men can look up too and be proud, one that can lead it’s people to prosper, that leader, has to contain all the masculinities a real man should have.
Draper, Robert "And He Shall Be Judged. (Donald Rumsfield)". GQ (May 2009) October 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Draper, Robert "Barack Obama's work in the progress". GQ (Nov 2009) October 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Mark, Kirby "And Now A Word From The White House's Other Emanuel". GQ (June 2009) October 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Draper, Robert "The Prez and I (George W. Bush)". GQ (Jan 2009) October 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Corky, Siemaszko "President Obama's approval rating climbs to 47% despite midterm massacre of Democrats" NY Daily News (Nov 9 2010) November 28 2010. Web
Frank Sesno "Rumsfeld: Criticism 'goes with territory' " CNN (Sept 29 2006) November 28 2010. Web
Friday, November 12, 2010
Worst Date
It started as a normal date, the only thing that sucked was that we had nothing to talk about,I mean apart from the movie. She was a girl I thought I liked, but I guess it was only the appearence. I mean, be honest, how fun is it talking to a girl when you can't think up anything to talk about, it's just akward silence. You can't really talk much to a girl if there is nothing under all the makeup.
First Draft of Research Paper #1
The common man has long been seen as being ignorant and helpless when it came to politics and major issues occuring in this world, they either never had to power to do anything, or refused to do anything because they didn't find it important enough to waste they're time on. Yet, in the recent years men are becoming more and more involved in the politics of today. Men want to know what is going on around them, and who is running everything at the top. The men's magazine GQ "Gentlemen's Quarterly" for instance, has started publishing an increasing number of political articles in their magazine for the past few years, seeing that men's interests is started to involve politics in the recent years.
Gentlemens Quarterly in the past year has published quite a few articles relating to the horrors and the accomplishments caused by the men who run our politics, the magazine itself is trying to show the men of today that this is something you want to know, should know, and is important to know. Because by knowing what kind of person was able to be a success and not, we're able to not repeat the mistake of voting for the non-successful ones.
In "And He Shall be Judged (Donald Rumsfield)", we have an article speaking about the ignorance and incompetence of George Bushes secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfield. He was an ignorant men who was in charge of our military, and because of his ignorance, did much more then his fair share of mistakes. He was a man who wanted to be in control of everything, but at the same time, a minimalist, a man who didn't want to do anything that he didn't think was needed. Donald Rumsfield was a disaster. For an article like this to be published, it shows that men want to know what went wrong during the years of George Bush's presidency, they want to understand what kind of men we're leading our country and why we ended up with this recession.
In recent years, men have been more focused on what is happening with our laws, in this article "And Now A Word From The White House's Other Emanuel", basically, this article talks about an interview with Dr Zekebig, an extra senior counselor for the health bill plan. Who talks about the progress of the plan and that he believes changes are a part of good planning. Men don't want to sit around and wait for the universal health plan to come, they want to know exactly how it's going and what kind of person is in charge of it. They want to see the change instead of waiting for it to come.
In the october issue of GQ, an article was published called "The Prez and I (George W. Bush)" in this article, Draper talks about what exactly was going on during the Presidency of Bush in the whitehouse. Draper talks about the pressure the president went throught he changes which occured in him. How he started reading everything he could to get a grasp on what he could do to fix the problems which had been caused during his presidency. Again, men are intrugied in what happened during Bush's presidency, and this article talks about what was going on in the president himself.
In the november issue though, it seems that the focus has left the mistakes Bush has caused, and instead turned to our new president, Barack Obama. What kind of person he was, the things he's accomplished and the aura he has given out his entire life. Basically, he shows Obama in a positive light, claiming he is the first president since Roosevelt who is able to see things with the writers eye. Unlike Bush who gave answers without thinking, Obama is able to comprehend and analyze every situation. Men after reading about the faults of Bush, now want to read our new leader, I mean what better way to know how our President is then by learning about his past.
Robert Draper is a corrospondent for Gentlemens Quarterly and has been writing political articles constantly for Gentlemens Quarterly, every month there is at least one article from this man in the magazine, Robert is a man who has been writing about politics almost his entire life, and in the recent years, his number of articles have increased including a book he has written on George Bush's presidency. Because his number of articles have increased recently, it's proof that the interest of men have increased relating to politics in the recent years.
Draper, Robert "And He Shall Be Judged. (Donald Rumsfield)". GQ (May 2009) Octomber 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Draper, Robert "Barack Obama's work in the progress". GQ (Nov 2009) Octomber 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Mark, Kirby "And Now A Word From The White House's Other Emanuel". GQ (June 2009) Octomber 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Draper, Robert "The Prez and I (George W. Bush)". GQ (Jan 2009) Octomber 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Gentlemens Quarterly in the past year has published quite a few articles relating to the horrors and the accomplishments caused by the men who run our politics, the magazine itself is trying to show the men of today that this is something you want to know, should know, and is important to know. Because by knowing what kind of person was able to be a success and not, we're able to not repeat the mistake of voting for the non-successful ones.
In "And He Shall be Judged (Donald Rumsfield)", we have an article speaking about the ignorance and incompetence of George Bushes secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfield. He was an ignorant men who was in charge of our military, and because of his ignorance, did much more then his fair share of mistakes. He was a man who wanted to be in control of everything, but at the same time, a minimalist, a man who didn't want to do anything that he didn't think was needed. Donald Rumsfield was a disaster. For an article like this to be published, it shows that men want to know what went wrong during the years of George Bush's presidency, they want to understand what kind of men we're leading our country and why we ended up with this recession.
In recent years, men have been more focused on what is happening with our laws, in this article "And Now A Word From The White House's Other Emanuel", basically, this article talks about an interview with Dr Zekebig, an extra senior counselor for the health bill plan. Who talks about the progress of the plan and that he believes changes are a part of good planning. Men don't want to sit around and wait for the universal health plan to come, they want to know exactly how it's going and what kind of person is in charge of it. They want to see the change instead of waiting for it to come.
In the october issue of GQ, an article was published called "The Prez and I (George W. Bush)" in this article, Draper talks about what exactly was going on during the Presidency of Bush in the whitehouse. Draper talks about the pressure the president went throught he changes which occured in him. How he started reading everything he could to get a grasp on what he could do to fix the problems which had been caused during his presidency. Again, men are intrugied in what happened during Bush's presidency, and this article talks about what was going on in the president himself.
In the november issue though, it seems that the focus has left the mistakes Bush has caused, and instead turned to our new president, Barack Obama. What kind of person he was, the things he's accomplished and the aura he has given out his entire life. Basically, he shows Obama in a positive light, claiming he is the first president since Roosevelt who is able to see things with the writers eye. Unlike Bush who gave answers without thinking, Obama is able to comprehend and analyze every situation. Men after reading about the faults of Bush, now want to read our new leader, I mean what better way to know how our President is then by learning about his past.
Robert Draper is a corrospondent for Gentlemens Quarterly and has been writing political articles constantly for Gentlemens Quarterly, every month there is at least one article from this man in the magazine, Robert is a man who has been writing about politics almost his entire life, and in the recent years, his number of articles have increased including a book he has written on George Bush's presidency. Because his number of articles have increased recently, it's proof that the interest of men have increased relating to politics in the recent years.
Draper, Robert "And He Shall Be Judged. (Donald Rumsfield)". GQ (May 2009) Octomber 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Draper, Robert "Barack Obama's work in the progress". GQ (Nov 2009) Octomber 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Mark, Kirby "And Now A Word From The White House's Other Emanuel". GQ (June 2009) Octomber 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Draper, Robert "The Prez and I (George W. Bush)". GQ (Jan 2009) Octomber 15 2010. General Onefile. Web
Friday, November 5, 2010
Blog Post #8
Title of the movie: Wedding Crashers
Director: David Dobkin
Actors/Performers (at least two): Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn
Distributor: New Lines Cinema
Year: 2005
Medium: Film
1) How do the main male characters behave in the movie towards other male characters? Toward female characters? Do you consider their behavior masculine? Why? Explain.
For the majority of the movie, the main characters treat the men as obstacles and the women are the targets of their whole procedure, the purpose for them to crash weddings is to get girls basically. In my opinion their behavior is not masculine with the idea that they think of women as objects instead of actual people, but seeing it from societies view of masculinity, men are supposed to be players, so I guess they are masculine in societies view.
2) Does the movie place more emphasis on the relationship/bonds between males or between males and females? Are there any connections between the movie and what David Grazian discusses about males behavior in "The Girl Hunt: Urbon Nightlife and Performance of Masculinity a Collective Activity"?
Well, the purpose of the movie is that Owen Wilson (John Beckwith) who falls for a woman at a wedding can try to get together with her, but unlike the other times, he thinks he's in "love", while Vince Vaughn (Jeremy Klein) ends up being tortured by another woman who he finally ends up falling for, even though the friends are constantly bickering for the help of one another, I believe the relationship of the women with the men is shown better through the movie. David Grazian talks about men playing a game related to the number of women when they go clubbing, basically, these two do the same with women just at weddings.
3) What seems to be the ultimate message of the film? In other words, what ideas about men and masculinity do you, the viewer, walk way with from this film?
The movie is about two men, who crash one of the biggest weddings in the century, and in that wedding, one of them (John Beckwith) tries to get a specific girl, and in doing so, he gets his friend (Jeremy Klein) mixed up in the family of the girl John Beckwith is after,
Director: David Dobkin
Actors/Performers (at least two): Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn
Distributor: New Lines Cinema
Year: 2005
Medium: Film
1) How do the main male characters behave in the movie towards other male characters? Toward female characters? Do you consider their behavior masculine? Why? Explain.
For the majority of the movie, the main characters treat the men as obstacles and the women are the targets of their whole procedure, the purpose for them to crash weddings is to get girls basically. In my opinion their behavior is not masculine with the idea that they think of women as objects instead of actual people, but seeing it from societies view of masculinity, men are supposed to be players, so I guess they are masculine in societies view.
2) Does the movie place more emphasis on the relationship/bonds between males or between males and females? Are there any connections between the movie and what David Grazian discusses about males behavior in "The Girl Hunt: Urbon Nightlife and Performance of Masculinity a Collective Activity"?
Well, the purpose of the movie is that Owen Wilson (John Beckwith) who falls for a woman at a wedding can try to get together with her, but unlike the other times, he thinks he's in "love", while Vince Vaughn (Jeremy Klein) ends up being tortured by another woman who he finally ends up falling for, even though the friends are constantly bickering for the help of one another, I believe the relationship of the women with the men is shown better through the movie. David Grazian talks about men playing a game related to the number of women when they go clubbing, basically, these two do the same with women just at weddings.
3) What seems to be the ultimate message of the film? In other words, what ideas about men and masculinity do you, the viewer, walk way with from this film?
The movie is about two men, who crash one of the biggest weddings in the century, and in that wedding, one of them (John Beckwith) tries to get a specific girl, and in doing so, he gets his friend (Jeremy Klein) mixed up in the family of the girl John Beckwith is after,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)