Thursday, 25 October 2007

Having the Conversation

So a bunch of threads I've read in various places lately that have had some anti-BDSM overtones, there's one thing that I keep seeing people saying, which goes something like, "Clearly I don't know about this subject to actually argue about it [with actual kinky people]." Which sort of has me thinking, as one of the things that I've been having a lot of conversations about lately has been, more or less, "If I could just impart this knowledge, I wouldn't have to fight about this ..."

So it struck me that it might be useful to try to assemble a few things that kinky folks think would be useful to have compiled as 'before we fight, you should know' or something like that. Not getting the words quite right there, but I hope I'm making some sense.

The ones I've thought of while reading some of the discussions that are sort of general are:

* being a top/dominant/sadist does not intrinsically mean being interested in abuse, rape, violence, or non-consensual pain.
* being a bottom/submissive/masochist does not intrinsically mean being abused, a doormat, or having embraced a sense of personal worthlessness.
* top-dominant-sadist and bottom-submissive-masochist aren't tidy little categories into which kinky people can be divided; there exist people like dominant masochists or people who bottom without submitting, to pick two of a wide variety of potential combinations.
* people who can happily adopt both sides of a typically paired (as in top/bottom) role exist.
* some people get off on being deviant/transgressive/"kink on sin", yes, but many people -- certainly the overwhelming majority of the ones I know, though I would not presume to speculate about whether that's true in general -- get off on what they get off on without reference to whether or not it is something that offends the mainstream.
* an understanding of what it is to be kinky derived from public reports of play parties, photography of the Folsom Street Fair or a Fetish Flea, or news reports about acrimonious divorces with unsigned "slave contracts" involved is at best woefully incomplete, and at worst an offensively cartoonish caricature of the lives of kinky people.
* while some people tie their kink to gender in some fashion, a large number of people don't, and trying to force their behaviour to fit a gendered lens will produce gibberish.
* gay kinksters exist; kinky-people-of-color exist; disabled BDSMers exist; also Christians, feminists, members of various political parties; in short, kink coexists with a wide-ranging variety of other adjectives and affiliations.

A few more personal ones:

* if your response to my identifying myself as a submissive is to ask me how I can reconcile that sort of humiliation with a certain set of values, you either need to learn that your assumptions about what submission entails are flagrantly incorrect or get over your belief that providing good and competent service (and being well rewarded for it, at that) is intrinsically degrading.
* I feel treated more like an equal in my relationship with my liege than I did in the relationship with my ex whose egalitarianism precluded comfort with kink involving power.
* a little light bondage combined with a spooning snuggle is one of the most comforting things in the world to me (when I mentioned this to a friend the other day she commented that they sell weighted blankets for kids with sensory integration problems and nobody calls that indoctrination into bondage).
* my kinky sexuality is thoroughly integrated into my spiritual life, and no, it does not cause me problems with god.
* if your political agenda demands that my sexuality serve it, I am likely to back away slowly and consider you extremely creepy.
* I don't find the idea that when utopia happens people like me won't exist to be terribly utopian.

So. Anyone want to add to these lists?

44 comments:

Eileen said...

I would add to my personal list:

Having fantasies about violence, abuse, rape, or non-consensual pain (as giver or reciever) does not indicate a desire to act these fantasies out, nor does it imply any inability to recognize or adhere to moral and ethical social behaviors.

SnowdropExplodes said...

I would add:

* "Daddy/girl" (or "Mummy/boy") has nothing to do with paedophilia, it is just a roleplaying power relationship between consenting adults.

* Aftercare is an important part of what we do; sometimes it is as pleasurable for all participants as the main session is.

* Kinky people can socialise together without it involving sexual play of any kind, or dressing up.

In order, I guess, from "most personal" to "most general".

SnowdropExplodes said...

Oh yes, and I definitely second Eileen's one!

Lindsay1984 said...

How about the wonderfully common assumption that we were all abused in some form or another as kids? Or, that our specific kinks are derived from specific types of abuse.

Alex said...

Heh, I've been thinking a little about the 'kinking on sin' - I kink on 'sin' that I don't even find sinful. I'm not even sure how that works. :)

Kind of generalizing from the first two, and Eileen's comment:
* Just because one does something in a kinky context does NOT mean that one does it all the time. As a corollary, few people are 24/7; don't treat everyone as though they are.

* The assumption that one has not examined their desires [at all or hard enough] is, at best, annoying, and at worst, totally ignores the reality of many kinky people. It's incredibly condescending, especially if they've told you otherwise.

And, personally:

* Don't assume that because I do get off on humiliation in some sex play that I enjoy it across contexts. (This is sort of in line with the 'no intrinsic nature to subs/bottoms/masochists'.)

Trinity said...

I'd add (and this was an assumption I had for a long time about other kinksters, actually):

* People who ARE 24/7/identify as "Master and slave" or something similar, are not always interested in micromanagement of the "slave's" life. Some people do that I suppose, but outside of the Internet the people that I know are much less about micromanagement and much more about "this power role informs how we act toward one another and regard one another, even if we're not fucking now."

(I just had an amazing discussion with some local Masters and slaves and all of them, unanimously, pooh-poohed the "micromanaging" thing and expressed confusion at it. So it's very fresh in my mind now.)

* I'd add to your "gay kinksters exist": gay leather is IMPORTANT. All of the pansexual (which often translates to "mostly het") groups I've been a part of, some of which are big, have at the very least gotten guidance and help developing from the gay (and a lesser extent the lesbian, in many cases) leather community. If you want to talk about what SM is as a social phenomenon, that's fine -- but when you simply say "this is about men dominating women" and don't even speak to the gay male roots that so much of organized/community BDSM has, you're being heterocentric to a degree that's startling from anyone and downright reprehensible from a feminist.

(This one is very personal to me, since I DO identify as leather. I know not everyone does, but from what I know of history, even if many people don't: those are many of our roots, even if we don't know it. Yes, there have always been het enclaves; yes, many people, especially people who are not in the larger community, may be mostly doing that. But most people who are part of the larger community in just about any way whatever have ties somewhere to gay leather roots *somehow*, and I hate seeing that ignored so people can live in their pristinely hetero bubbles.)

Trinity said...

* Being into BDSM does not imply having a political view about social dynamics of power, social hierarchies, oppression, or governments' authority. A person can be, say, a staunch anarchist who is suspicious of any and all compulsory hierarchy and still enjoy BDSM.

(I'm not; I'm too Foucauldian about power dynamics in general to be. But there is no magical thing that erotic power exchange reveals about who you'd really like to have social power, thanks.)

Dw3t-Hthr said...

Talking with Eileen elsewhere has reminded me:

* kinked relationships are not intrinsically short-term, experimental, or exploratory.

* just because you hear about people having brief liasons at play parties does not mean that this is essential to kink; it may not even be essential to those specific people's kink.

ellefromtheeast said...

Can I add something to your third point about switches?

Even if someone identifies in one role, don't assume they don't know about, or haven't tried out or picked up some skills with another role.

I'm really only comfortable as a sub, but even I know how to swing a flogger, and even the mostly domly dom of the male tops in the scene will eventually admit to bottoming once in a while. The other side may not be our cup of tea, but don't assume we don't know how to do it or what it's like.

Oh, and Trinity, I'm so glad you said that about the gay leather tradition.

Trinity said...

You're welcome, elle. I'm glad to see other people acknowledging that. :)

and relatedly

* for many people, BDSM is as much about community as it is about sex. A lot of groups are places where people can find support, education (how do I use a whip? how do I tie someone up? how do I do X safely)?) and community. For many people, this is as important if not more than finding someone to play with or have sex with.

This is another area where I think there are parallels to gay/queer community. Heterosex and vanilla sex don't generally have social communities built around them; BDSM does. Not everyone who does BDSM is or wants to be a part of the communities, but talking about BDSM in a sweeping way without even mentioning them leaves the black leather elephant in the room out of the discussion.

EthylBenzene said...

"if your political agenda demands that my sexuality serve it, I am likely to back away slowly and consider you extremely creepy."

Stolen!

Ok, to sort of add the corrolary to what everyone's been saying about leather and community, I'd add:

*Not everything that people consider "kink" or that kinky people "do" involves all the accountrements that pop culture seems to think are neccesary. Sometimes a word or a look is all that is needed to change from vanilla to kinky.

I'd just want to reiterate, as well, and to sort of condense the comments on fantasy into:

*Nobody's kink or fetish makes them unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality,
AND
*Nobody's kink or fetish makes them unable to comprehend consent.

Thanks for a great post, Dw3t! Maybe we could have, like, a FAQ, similar to the Feminism 101 blog? I'd be willing to help out.

EthylBenzene said...

Oh, just to add -- not, like, a BDSM 101 blog for people who want safety tips, but a "theory" FAQ, if that makes sense. Does that make sense? I'm sorry...I'm really hopped up on cold medicine and my sinuses feel like they're going to explode :(

SnowdropExplodes said...

ethylbenzene, I've already linked to this thread from my blog as precisely that: a BDSM theory 101 "Mistakes to avoid making" class!

Dw3t-Hthr said...

I'd certainly be in favor of adding an "Our Useful Entries" section to the sidebar, for things that produce useful activisim and education content. (While I'm able to make posts, however, I'm not empowered with the ability to add stuff like that.)

pepomint said...

This is all very cool. I would love to see this all pulled together in the text of a post, so we could just refer people to it. "Want to talk about BDSM? Here are some things you should know first!"

Also, I second the call for a similar theory FAQ. Some examples:

* BDSM is not only about power dynamics. For example, some people bottom specifically for the endorphin rush, much like people who enjoy exercise for the endorphins.

* The power dynamics in BDSM are not a simple reflection of patriarchal or otherwise oppressive power dynamics, though some times these dynamics are incorporated in a consensual manner. Often the power dynamics have mutated beyond recognition, or simply did not originate in mainstream power. For example, some BDSM practitioners experience a power dynamic during play piercing scenes, but it is a power dynamic largely unrelated to mainstream power dynamics, even medical/doctor power.

And so on.

Haitch said...

Isn't this discussion a bit idealising? There is no definition of BDSM that has universal application. People do all sorts and call it BDSM: no dictionary descends from the rafters to adjudicate. Much of what is done under the name of BDSM is abusive. There are predators. There are people who parrot 'safe, sane and consensual' and then manipulate others to the point that consent becomes meaningless. There is the world of what 'ought' to be, and there is the world of what is. Almost all the propositions, the provisional theory faq, I wish were true. Many of them are true in many situations and relationships, I'm sure. I've just seen too much abuse to be convinced. It would be nice if we could delineate all the 'good' behaviour and call it BDSM, and leave all the 'bad' behaviour and say 'it's not real BDSM' ... that's a bit like Christians who say, of abusing priests, for instance, 'that's got nothing to do with spirituality', or 'that's not real Christianity'. In a sense they're right; but in a more important sense they're self-deluded.

Trinity said...

Haitch,

I don't agree with you at all. That is to say, I do think there are people that are cruel and vicious in horrible ways that call it BDSM, but I don't think we need to make room for them in any sort of analysis of what it is. That would be like saying, "Here's what the nuclear family is. Here I define it and put forth the roles that it involves... and here I analyze the abusive nuclear family because it's intrinsic to what a nuclear family is that some people be abusers."

When that's really not true. I have plenty of negative things to say about the nuclear family (in fact that's why I chose it as an example) but the fact that many abusive parents or uncles or aunts or brothers exist is not a part of what the nuclear family IS.

If we want to then say that the nuclear family creates possibilities for abuse based on its structure (for example, a father will often be alone with his daughter, where in a more communal situation there might be less radical privacy in which he could molest or beat her), that's certainly possible and worth talking about (and I'd argue it should often, if not always, be mentioned.) But not adding that to a discussion of what nuclear families are about, are supposed to be, isn't an omission.

Trinity said...

Basically: abusers are everywhere. The Church, the family, the marriage, BDSM, the schools... anywhere and everywhere. They are their own group of people. They prey on everybody. There's nothing intrinsically BDSMish about any of them.

One might say there's intrinsic desire for power, but BDSM is not the only way to gain or wield power, so singling BDSM out as a particularly fertile ground for them strikes me as off-base.

Haitch said...

Trinity, I really wish I could agree with you, but I think your idea of making a statement about what something 'is' is mistaken. You seem to want to define what something 'is' apart from the historical or experiential reality. That's basically essentialism. I wish I knew a more recent discussion of it than Karl Popper's in 'The Open Society and Its Enemies', there has to be one, but sadly I don't know it. Your example of the nuclear family is a good one. The fact is, the nuclear family is one of the most universal loci of physical and sexual abuse, in pretty much every culture and historical period. We might wish it were otherwise, but it is what it is.

It's true that predators and abusers exist in all social contexts. Predation and abuse need to be considered as basic social facts, in their own right, but their status as entities in their own right doesn't preclude their being seen to characteristically occur in particular contexts. BDSM makes people vulnerable in almost unique ways ... in fact, being in a nuclear family is strikingly similar. Both ought to provide environments of trust and nurturing. Ought.

I don't disagree that the world of 'ought' exists. I believe it is part of what is real. I'm not a materialist. But the world of what 'is' has to be the driving force behind our identification of things such as BDSM, D/s, the family, or whatever.

Trinity said...

I may be misunderstanding you simply because it's been a long time since I gave a damn about is and ought outside of moral contexts, or since I heard the word "essentialism" used outside of a discussion of gender and how people of various genders are expected to behave or the bodies they are expected to have.

That said, when discussing what BDSM is, it hardly seems wrong to me to talk about what people's experiences actually are, outside of and beyond intentionally sensationalistic media tropes. We're not here to provide an absolutely exhaustive cross-section of any and every BDSM community. We're here talking about myths and misconceptions, and the fact that it's quite common NOT to have experiences like those many people are afraid of.

Also, I can't really refute your anecdotal assertion that there are a lot of abusers in the BDSM community such that the proportion is high, as I'd be trading anecdote for anecdote. However, I will point out that in my own experience abusers are rather rare. Which shows that personal speculation from either of us is pretty foolish, in addition to being beside the point.

Now, if you have studies or other demographical data, feel free to cite.

belledame222 said...

Popper? Great at parties.

apart from that, admittedly I flunked angel pin-dancing 101, but I'm fairly certain you don't need all that shit to say, "BDSM IS TOO full of abusers," yanno.

Lisa Harney said...

Haitch, your argument that BDSM discussion must address abusive BDSM relationships reminds me of how some people always somehow manage to extend discussions of homosexuality to include paedophilia.

Abusive relationships are bad, of course, and we all know this. But they shouldn't define BDSM in any particular way, nor is BDSM peculiarly vulnerable to abusive relationships.

Healthy BDSM relationships are built on consent, and no pro-BDSM person needs to add qualifications about relationships without consent any more than we need to add "but some husbands abuse their wives" whenever discussing marriage.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

Isn't this discussion a bit idealising?

Dude, if my life were idealised I wouldn't have nitwits coming around and expressing this kind of neurotic disbelief in my actual lived experience.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

apart from that, admittedly I flunked angel pin-dancing 101, but I'm fairly certain you don't need all that shit to say, "BDSM IS TOO full of abusers," yanno.

And honestly, that sort of angel pin-dancing nonsense is part of why I started listing things off to start with. There's this sort of sidelong insinuation that anyone who's into this stuff has to be either a menace to society or a victim waiting for an abuser, and it's constant, and it's worth saying, "Actually, no, having these desires doesn't mean that."

And the point that has clearly been missed is that none of this claims that people who are abusive don't exist -- just that equating kinksters and abusers is offensive bullshit. This guy thinks that it's "idealistic" to say things like, "No, actually, I'm not a walking victim". Or "gay kinksters exist". Or "It's possible to distinguish between fantasy and reality." Or "not everyone does all of B&D D&S S&M".

In other words, it's idealistic and apparently unreasonable to point out facts. Don't get diverted by the whole 'but, but, but the abuuuuuuuuuse' thing, it's a diversionary tactic, wave the red cape in the hope that nobody notices the irrelevance of the interjection, that nobody sees that once again the kinky people are supposed to prove that they're not abusers or victims, rather than talking about what we actually are, for real, in our lives, rather than the wank fantasies of philosophers on teh intarwebs.

Haitch said...

sorry, I must have missed the big placard somewhere that says dissent is bad. You're all so right, BDSM people are just wonderful. I was only teasing.

Catch you all in 'Heads in the Sand 101'.

Trinity said...

Haitch,

If you're so anti-BDSM, what the fuck are you doing on a pro-BDSM web site? The NAME OF THE BLOG should tell you we are pro.

And by the way? Your little paean to Sade on your blog? YAWN. Don't get me wrong, the guy is a fascinating writer and I agree that too many people don't read him... but to think that he's the last word on the subject just because people coined a word after his name? Stupid.

If "essentialism" as you use it means what I think it does, it seems to me you're using it there.

And the "death instinct" bullshit's as old as Freud. I want to *hurt* people. I can't hurt a corpse, hon.

Haitch said...

Well, you guys really do have an impressive tolerance for dissent. Trinity, how you can regard my piece on De Sade as a paean is beyond comprehension. Sarcasm? Didn't look like it, more like plain incomprehension.

Nothing I've posted has been anti BDSM. I'm still somewhat amazed at the level of blatant misrepresentation in the responses to my comment ... And at people who think that calling someone 'dude' or pressing keys till they repeat is some kind of argument.

What I'm against is simplistic characteristation of BDSM, whether by those who are pro or those who are anti. I'm also not too keen on 'coterie SM', which is what I appear to have stumbled into.

I suppose there's no point continuing to respond. But I'll continue to read it and, if you've read my own blog, you'll see that I've spoken very warmly of this one. I still think it has a lot going for it. All I thought was, you were being rather idealist in this particular post. Sorry you don't like dissenting voices.

Trinity said...

Dissenting voices? Look, if you want to say that BDSM is inherently prone to abuse in ways that other roles, relationship styles, etc. are not: do it. Make arguments. Give the citations I asked for a bunch of comments up.

The fact that you're not doing it indicates to me, and it looks like to a bunch of others as well, that you're here to troll. Or at least to show off your brain in a peacocky, "look at me!" way, which has absolutely nothing to do with countering negative stereotypes (which was the point of dw3t-hthr's post.)

What you want seems to be "fairness" to the negative steretypes. I'm not sure why. What does that do to help people who have an understanding of what BDSM is that comes from wives' tales and sensationalistic media coverage understand what many of us are about in a fairer way?

Haitch said...

I don't want 'fairness to the negative stereotypes'; who on earth would? I don't want stereotyping, positive or negative, that's all. I have made arguments, and I'm not trolling. Consider the possibility that you did misunderstand. Goodbye.

Trinity said...

Bye. If you do ever feel like coming back to actually discuss how to counter negative stereotypes, feel free to do so. If you want to talk about how many abusers are in the scene or where, go ahead and do that too -- but understand that bringing it up in a political post intended to be about combating negative presuppositions ***among people who aren't familiar with the community*** is the wrong place for such a topic.

Later.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

Guess I was insufficiently reverent of someone's attempt to subvert the discussion, huh?

Trinity said...

But Kiya, you're STIFLING DISSENT! Because commenting about the prevalence (or not) of abusers in BDSM is so incredibly important that it has to take place even on an activist post about getting people thinking about us mundane and boring people who AREN'T abusers.

but ah, that's just not juicy, y'know.

and it couldn't POSSIBLY BE the case that people could just comment to an actually relevant post, or post to their own blog (my toppy tendrils, they reach ALL OVER THE BLOGOVERSE, FEAR MEEEEEE)

Trinity said...

and yes to the vanilla relationship thing. I've found personally that vanilla relationships tend to include the kind of invisible or subtle power relation that's crazy-making because any time you try to call attention to it, the other person can go "but we're EQUALS, I'd never do THAT! Much less to control you!"

which creates just enough doubt that they can do precisely that.

Alex said...

Um, look, Haitch... BDSM as abuse? NOT THE POINT OF THE THREAD! We are specifically talking about NON-ABUSIVE BDSM AND HOW TO CONVEY THAT TO PEOPLE!

In fact, we are talking about how FED UP we are with people CONFLATING THE TWO!

Therefore, if you want to keep talking, go to your own blog, or a different post further down, or another blog talking about it... not this post.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

My experience with abusive relationships was in a completely vanilla situation with a whole hell of a lot of problems. But some of the factors were that I was dealing with someone who had a lot of self-hatred to project outward, an inability to maintain any sense of perspective, a lack of respect for other people as independent entities, and a penchant for putting his own gratification above everything else.

And, y'know, someone might say "OMG that guy would be a terrible dom" but the fact of the matter is that there was no kink in that relationship whatsoever. And when he crossed a major boundary and made me recognise that he wasn't going to get any better, I left his ass.

Back to "If they're nice to you and treat the waiter like shit, they're not nice".

SnowdropExplodes said...

and yes to the vanilla relationship thing. I've found personally that vanilla relationships tend to include the kind of invisible or subtle power relation that's crazy-making because any time you try to call attention to it, the other person can go "but we're EQUALS, I'd never do THAT! Much less to control you!"

which creates just enough doubt that they can do precisely that.


As explained by this person

http://al.turtlecounseling.com/blog/_archives/2005/3/5/400379.html

whom I took to task for his use of "Master/slave" when it's seen as a positive term in BDSM, and he and I worked together on the positive depiction he gives here:

http://al.turtlecounseling.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/25/2764456.html

(see point 2, which is actually the third point down)

Trinity said...

yes! times a hundred.

EthylBenzene said...

"Um, look, Haitch... BDSM as abuse? NOT THE POINT OF THE THREAD! We are specifically talking about NON-ABUSIVE BDSM AND HOW TO CONVEY THAT TO PEOPLE!

In fact, we are talking about how FED UP we are with people CONFLATING THE TWO!

Therefore, if you want to keep talking, go to your own blog, or a different post further down, or another blog talking about it... not this post."

Gods, seriously. WHY can't people hear what people who actually have lived experience have to say? Are we speaking some kind of other language? I am getting really royally sick of hearing people with no experience of BDSM whatsoever tell me what my relationship is like and that all of my friends are abusers.

FUCK OFF. You don't live my life and you don't know the people I know.

I'm SICK TO DEATH of BDSM concern trolls.

Trinity said...

right on. I think this endless "debate" would go so much further if people would actually agree to listen to members of the community, rather than invoking some nebulous "fact" that most sadomasochists do it at home quietly. Maybe that is so -- but if it is, these people could at least do us all the favor of backing up their claims.

There's something to be said for those "citation" things I mentioned a few comments up. Really.

It's not easy to find studies of BDSM, and most that I've seen are studies of the community simply because it's easy to distribute surveys among the right people if you do go to people who self-label... but it's quite possible to look at broader populations, too.

If these people REALLY cared, they'd find something, I bet.

Myca said...

Grrrrrrr.


Not to mention, on a purely structural level, I will never accept that 'arguing against a position you disagree with' somehow equals 'not tolerating dissent.'

Seriously, Haitch, fuck you. Nobody stopped you from commenting here, nobody is being 'intolerant', they're just disagreeing.

Of course, I've noticed that it's also true that people who hold insupportable positions often get mightily pissed off when they're asked to support those positions.

"The Earth is flat!"
"Really? Let's see some evidence."
"YOUUUUU'RE INTOLERRRRRANT OF DIIIISSENT!"

---Myca

Anonymous said...

So it struckD3 Gold me that it might be useful to try to assemble a few things that kinky folks thinkBuy GW2 Gold would be useful to have compiled as 'before we fight

Anonymous said...

A woman should have the perfect handbag. Paul Frank bags fulfill the requirement of the right designer with the exception that they are more reasonably priced. So why not buy a Paul Frank bag..
"We started with scallop and seaweed from Okinawa with freshly grated wasabi and sudachi (Japanese lime) which was important in bringing out the flavor of the scallop. Then Hama fish eggs, yama kaki, shiso, and uni that had been bound with gelatin and then pressed into a cake using an Oshizushi box. [url=http://www.magliecalcioitalia.net/]http://www.magliecalcioitalia.net/[/url] O'Driscoll And Cullen Return For Leinster
Thanks to CIE Tours International, Mary Pat Flanagan and Jim Myers. Thanks to all at McNally's Traditional Irish Pub in St.
Many insurance companies will pay for some or all of the windshield repair work. Some policies may require an out of pocket fee, and will reimburse the expense by check through the mail. Many auto insurance policies are accessible online. Online chat support or telephone customer service agents should be able to answer specific questions regarding reimbursement. [url=http://www.magliecalcioshopit.com/]calcio italia[/url] From shaking up the very foundations of the Indian government to stirring up unseemly controversies, from showing incredible courage in the face of extreme adversities to losing a reputation built over years of hard work in just a blink of an eye, from setting the electoral hustings afire with golden speeches to getting into trouble for not speaking at all, there were many 'newsmakers' in 2012 who caught the common man's imagination.
OK you closed the deal, we'll do it. I'll spin the stories in the page headers to show it is not about MMR but about the wider issues surrounding compulsory vaccinations. We are not coming out against vaccines per se, but are questioning the policy of administering multiple vaccines in a single dose.
It should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. [url=http://www.magliecalcioitalia.net/]maglie calcio a poco prezzo 2013[/url] le de Wake. les souslevent. Ymen.
Au Libria. Libye. Liechtenstein.

nongfu380 said...

Was looking for link up! Have a wonderful weekend break! :) My partner and i almost all associated way up. Your enthusiasts are Nokia case usually invited to come along with link up any moment Fri-Wed Appreciate your welcoming myself above from OneCreativeMommy

Amy Smith said...

Great and useful site! It's worthful in my lifetime~ Also, I think we should learn more in the future, so I choose this site to study! Not only are Sony L36h case there many friends, but also there are many resoures~