Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, October 23, 2009
Savage Love Savage Love Letter of the Day
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Hello Dan, Mr. Savage, Sir, or your Holiness if you prefer. First things first; long time reader, first time e-mailer. I saw a hypothetical a few weeks ago and thought that I would try one as well. Sorry it took so long but I am guilty of procrasturbation; see if it appears in your column it will catch on. Now for my inquiry: Let' say that my current partner is interested in necrophilia (I know you are against it, but bear with me), and I have lung cancer from smoking (a disgusting habit). As a final "I Love You" before I die—and to be GGG—I leave my body to him or her in my will. If my partner were to use my corpse to satisfy his or her curiosity, would that be wrong? After all I gave my consent in my will.Solving This Inquiry From Fan
My answer—including a call for legal advice—is after the jump...
Even if I didn't think there was something wrong with it, STIFF, I'm pretty sure police, prosecutors, judges, and juries all would. Laws governing the proper disposal of a corpse, and laws that criminalize the abuse of a corpse, don't include exceptions for quasi-consensual necrophilia, I'm guessing (any lawyers reading today?), so even with your written consent—in the form of a will (easily challenged by outraged relatives)—your partner would land in hot water (and necrophiliacs prefer ice-cold water, I'm told). Necrophilia is illegal so the consent of the dead is irrelevant. Just as a person can't consent to be murdered, a person can't consent to be fucked to death after death.
You could argue that necrophilia with the deceased's consent is a victimless crime, unlike murder, and you could further argue that the deceased's body was the deceased's to dispose of and if the deceased wanted to gift his or her remains to a necrophiliac, where's the harm? Hard to say. One could make the case that the deceased's other relatives would be deeply traumatized when they discovered why there wasn't a body at the memorial service, I suppose, but my first boyfriend's parents were deeply traumatized when they discovered that I was sodomizing their son and I certainly don't think that should've been illegal.
And, no, I'm not sure how one squares any of this with the whole donating-your-body-to-science thing... except that when a body is donated to science it benefits all of humanity whereas a body donated to a necrophiliac benefits just one pervert.
And I suspect that all of this is moot because HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CANCER-RAVAGED CORPSE?
1
I wonder if there's some public health aspect to the fact that necrophilia is illegal (in addition to the consent / defiling the dead aspect). Does anybody know whether there's a risk of diseases passing from corpse to necrophiliac? Or of new diseases being created (a la HIV)? Dear Science? Just a thought.
5
And there is the rigor mortis issue as well, one would hate to get stuck. And, I suppose one would be at risk due to the decomposition of the body, all that bacteria breaking it down, too.
Nicely answered, Dan.
6
Well from my admittedly limited understanding of the law (first year law student at SU) I would guess that you cant "leave" your corpse to someone because a corpse is not property. We cannot own our own bodies and therefore it's use after death is subject to the state and not to a will. As well, wills are not 100% - if what you are doing is against societies morals/best interests the state has the right to change your will after you have passed. I.E. someone who wants their house destroyed after they die has been stopped from doing so because it served no good purpose.
That would be my guess anyway.
That would be my guess anyway.
7
I suppose this is the next logical step in your fight for "civil rights".
Marriage rights?
Or would this come after bestiality? It's just a matter of time, for the stranger.
Marriage rights?
Or would this come after bestiality? It's just a matter of time, for the stranger.
9
Well from my admittedly limited understanding of the law (first year law student at SU) I would guess that you cant "leave" your corpse to someone because a corpse is not property. We cannot own our own bodies and therefore it's use after death is subject to the state and not to a will. As well, wills are not 100% - if what you are doing is against societies morals/best interests the state has the right to change your will after you have passed. I.E. someone who wants their house destroyed after they die has been stopped from doing so because it served no good purpose.
That would be my guess anyway.
That would be my guess anyway.
10
@7. I know it may be tough for you to wrap your head around, but civil marriage is essentially a contract. Can the dead sign contracts? Can animals? Can children? No? Then, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
11
What if the writer of the letter was in the middle of having sex with their partner and they died?
Technically, only a medical doctor can certify death.
Just saying. It's actually kind of a grey area as to the "moment of death".
Personally, one hates the idea, but ... just a point.
Technically, only a medical doctor can certify death.
Just saying. It's actually kind of a grey area as to the "moment of death".
Personally, one hates the idea, but ... just a point.
13
@10
Well, okay, although I'm sure you could find some loophole.
And what about hate crime legislation or military service? Hm?
Well, okay, although I'm sure you could find some loophole.
And what about hate crime legislation or military service? Hm?
14
It really does terrify the crap out of some people if you seriously entertain eithical questions using logic.
Because logic can upend all kinds of traditions that are, ahem, illogical. Before they're upended, the thought is frightening and logic is just grease for the slippery slope straight to hell. But afterward, let a couple years go by, and it seems perfectly fine. See for example: educating women, civil rights, smoking bans, seat belt laws, ending the Cold War, etc.
It's too bad because having real conservatives around, the way Lincoln idealized them, would be useful. Some political group that would remind us not to change things that had proven themselves good. Instead, we get meathead reactionaries, Biblical know-nothings and corporate sycophants. Such a shame.
Because logic can upend all kinds of traditions that are, ahem, illogical. Before they're upended, the thought is frightening and logic is just grease for the slippery slope straight to hell. But afterward, let a couple years go by, and it seems perfectly fine. See for example: educating women, civil rights, smoking bans, seat belt laws, ending the Cold War, etc.
It's too bad because having real conservatives around, the way Lincoln idealized them, would be useful. Some political group that would remind us not to change things that had proven themselves good. Instead, we get meathead reactionaries, Biblical know-nothings and corporate sycophants. Such a shame.
15
I wrote about something similar this past year, but it was in the context of art. And, Dan, you are right: There's no statutory exemption for necrophilia, quasi-consensual or not. Good guess.
In nearly all states there are, however, laws allowing you to leave your body to hospitals and universities for research and organ donation. But the policy supporting these laws is not grounded in an "it's-my-body-and-I'll-do-what-I-want-with-it/me" sentiment. So, yeah, this would be a criminal offense. Depending on the state, it may also trigger a civil action by Cancer Corpse's family, but those actions are limited.
While courts will enforce to a reasonable extent clear, unconventional wishes, as expressed in a will, for the disposal of someone's own body, no court will enforce such a wish if it is criminal (e.g., necrophilia).
In nearly all states there are, however, laws allowing you to leave your body to hospitals and universities for research and organ donation. But the policy supporting these laws is not grounded in an "it's-my-body-and-I'll-do-what-I-want-with-it/me" sentiment. So, yeah, this would be a criminal offense. Depending on the state, it may also trigger a civil action by Cancer Corpse's family, but those actions are limited.
While courts will enforce to a reasonable extent clear, unconventional wishes, as expressed in a will, for the disposal of someone's own body, no court will enforce such a wish if it is criminal (e.g., necrophilia).
17
Dan, since when do YOU decide right and wrong based on legal vs. illegal. There are a lot of things that YOU consider to be "right" that are illegal (e.g., marijuana smoking, sex working, etc.). While you always caution your readers and listeners about the illegalities involved, you have never been one to rely so heavily on the law when giving your answer. Why is necrophilia different? In prior columns, podcasts, SLLOTDs, etc., you have stated that your issue against many of the "perverted" things that people ask about is one of consent. In this situation, consent is granted. Maybe you compare this more to incest or scat play, which are just wrong regardless of consent. However, if that is the case, you can just say that rather than hide behind the law.
Also, on a side note, under your theory of "if you can stick your dick in it, there's a fetish for it," I'm pretty sure that are people out there that want nothing more that sticking it in the hole of a cancer-ridden corpse.
Also, on a side note, under your theory of "if you can stick your dick in it, there's a fetish for it," I'm pretty sure that are people out there that want nothing more that sticking it in the hole of a cancer-ridden corpse.
18
@7 and 13 your 'slippery slope' argument is falacious, and unworthy of even the stupidest 13 year old internet troll.
Please attempt to make arguments based on reality in the future. Thank you.
Please attempt to make arguments based on reality in the future. Thank you.
19
@ 10, if you're not trolling, here's a fact: If marriage rights are extended to gays and lesbians, incest, bestiality, bigamy, and necrophilia all remain illegal (in communities where all that is illegal - as Washington found out a few years ago, not every place outlaws bestiality) because there's nothing in the laws regarding marriage that say those things are legal.
Get it?
Get it?
21
@13 See @18. Also, I don't see a lot of people clamoring for corpses to serve in the military- oh wait, they already do! Read "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Cadavers" for all kinds of neat info about the corpse industry. And we already have laws against corpse abuse, that's why necrophilia is a crime.
You fail on this slippery slope.
You fail on this slippery slope.
22
@18
I thought it was pretty obvious that I was kidding. No, I don't believe that people will really fight to allow corpses to serve in the military. Kids these days, with their absence of humor...
The "slippery slope" argument that was behind the joke however... that stands. I have no problem with gays doing gay stuff in their homes. It is a "slippery slope" though when we chuck perfectly good ideas about what is productive and normal.
I thought it was pretty obvious that I was kidding. No, I don't believe that people will really fight to allow corpses to serve in the military. Kids these days, with their absence of humor...
The "slippery slope" argument that was behind the joke however... that stands. I have no problem with gays doing gay stuff in their homes. It is a "slippery slope" though when we chuck perfectly good ideas about what is productive and normal.
23
OK, we don't own our bodies. But what about our body parts? For example, if my arm were amputated, and I wanted to have it preserved for my mantle, then I'm pretty sure I could legally do that. Then, if someone wanted to fuck my well-preserved, amputated arm, would that be considered necrophilia?
Taking this a step further, what about my pelvis? Or my face? What percentage of my body must be intact for it to be considered my corpse?
What if someone gets off sticking their dick into a jar of cut hair and clipped fingernails? Is that necrophilia?
Taking this a step further, what about my pelvis? Or my face? What percentage of my body must be intact for it to be considered my corpse?
What if someone gets off sticking their dick into a jar of cut hair and clipped fingernails? Is that necrophilia?
27
This sounds like the sort of question I and my dumb high school buddies would have come up with while hotboxing someone's bathroom.
That being said, EWWWW.
That being said, EWWWW.
28
@23 - no, we're using that for the next BODIES exhibition.
Along with all the other plasticinated executed political prisoners from China.
Along with all the other plasticinated executed political prisoners from China.
29
What if you leave your body to science and someone is doing a study about necrophilia? Like some scientists want to see what happens in someone's brain when they are necrophiliating or something. Would that be legal?
30
When I was in pre med we had corpses for teaching purposes. One of them was a young man. It shook me to see someone so young and with no apparent reason for death. His family must have carried out his wish to be used for science. He had ample sex organs so his penis and balls were bisected for students to study. I asked myself if I would have done the same. I just couldn't imagine my corpse being used that way.
35
@1 - New diseases don't pop out of no where.
@5 - Rigor mortis is transient. The body doesn't break down that quickly - I mean serial killers like Ted Bundy and Gary Ridgeway kept fucking their dismembered for months.
@6/9 - Justin4444 - Off topic: as someone who wants to practice law, you should probably learn what "i.e." means versus "e.g." and the lack of capitalization. Just a suggestion. [See comment 15 for a proper example - lower case, periods, and a comma.]
@11 - I don't think they were referring to "certified" death. Death is death. Are you saying death didn't occur until the occupation of "physician" was created?
@23 - Anything with blood on it is not allowed out via a non-biohazard safety approved route.
@5 - Rigor mortis is transient. The body doesn't break down that quickly - I mean serial killers like Ted Bundy and Gary Ridgeway kept fucking their dismembered for months.
@6/9 - Justin4444 - Off topic: as someone who wants to practice law, you should probably learn what "i.e." means versus "e.g." and the lack of capitalization. Just a suggestion. [See comment 15 for a proper example - lower case, periods, and a comma.]
@11 - I don't think they were referring to "certified" death. Death is death. Are you saying death didn't occur until the occupation of "physician" was created?
@23 - Anything with blood on it is not allowed out via a non-biohazard safety approved route.
37
Is it illegal to have sex with someone who's brain dead? I mean, if the person had legal documents specifically giving consent for their partner to have sex with them even when brain dead... is that legal? Or would that be rape?
39
I'd say go for it! You consent, your mate loves you; who would have a problem with it? The authorities don't have to find out. Surely you are allowed some time alone with the deceased in a funeral home?
40
Dan, as some others posted, what's with this reliance on the law all of a sudden? Besides, that wasn't even the question. The question was whether you would consider it wrong, as in ethical, not legal. What really lit a fire under my ass in your response was this: "when a body is donated to science it benefits all of humanity whereas a body donated to a necrophiliac benefits just one pervert." So what? Since when does everything have to benefit the society? Lots of people like recreation drugs, dangerous sports, etc. -- and you've been their great proponent, which I totally agree with. In fact, it was just recently that you mentioned in your podcast something along the lines of "our bodies are ours to enjoy and USE UP"
And even the legal advice here, I'm finding somewhat dubious. What about Gunther von Hagens? http://www.alterati.com/blog/?p=1959 People are lining up to leave their bodies to him at every show he does. The exhibit has traveled around the world, including the US. So, while there may be some legal ramifications to all this, it's not an open and shut case, legally or ethically.
And even the legal advice here, I'm finding somewhat dubious. What about Gunther von Hagens? http://www.alterati.com/blog/?p=1959 People are lining up to leave their bodies to him at every show he does. The exhibit has traveled around the world, including the US. So, while there may be some legal ramifications to all this, it's not an open and shut case, legally or ethically.
43
@35 -- Has Gary Ridgeway admitted to necrophilia yet? Bundy didn't admit to it for years. Only one of Ridgeway's victims was found posed.
44
@22 - See, this is the mistake your side so often makes: you think that because our side wants same-sex marriage, that can only mean that we're trying to replace heterosexuality as the social norm. Where on earth do you get this idea? I mean, I know the lesbian separatists had a thing like this, but when's the last time you heard from one of them?
The basis of our movement - and science backs us up! - is that sexual orientation isn't a choice and is a fluke of genetics (or, more likely, pre-natal development) and that the only ethical and compassionate way for a society to deal with queer folks is to accommodate them to allow them the closest thing to a normal life possible. Really, it's no different from making accommodations for the left-handed or folks with disabilities.
Besides, our society accepted the idea of marriage as a contract of love and devotion - not necessarily reproduction - a long time ago! We let all sorts of people marry who can't or don't plan to have kids...as long as they're heterosexual.
The basis of our movement - and science backs us up! - is that sexual orientation isn't a choice and is a fluke of genetics (or, more likely, pre-natal development) and that the only ethical and compassionate way for a society to deal with queer folks is to accommodate them to allow them the closest thing to a normal life possible. Really, it's no different from making accommodations for the left-handed or folks with disabilities.
Besides, our society accepted the idea of marriage as a contract of love and devotion - not necessarily reproduction - a long time ago! We let all sorts of people marry who can't or don't plan to have kids...as long as they're heterosexual.
46
@10: "Can the dead sign contracts? Can animals? Can children?"
We pretty clearly do not live in a culture that requires an animal's "consent" to be used for human purposes. I agree that likening gay marriage to bestiality is bigoted bullshit, but unless you agree that animals have rights far beyond what's recognized in our culture, you can't make the argument that bestiality is wrong because the animal's not consenting. We don't require their consent to cage them, cut their balls off without anaesthetic, kill them, or fuck them with inseminating machines or with other animals' dicks; so why the fuck would we need their consent to fuck them with our own dicks/vags?
We pretty clearly do not live in a culture that requires an animal's "consent" to be used for human purposes. I agree that likening gay marriage to bestiality is bigoted bullshit, but unless you agree that animals have rights far beyond what's recognized in our culture, you can't make the argument that bestiality is wrong because the animal's not consenting. We don't require their consent to cage them, cut their balls off without anaesthetic, kill them, or fuck them with inseminating machines or with other animals' dicks; so why the fuck would we need their consent to fuck them with our own dicks/vags?
47
I'm pretty sure animals have been used in the military since the dawn of military. How could the cavalry charge without horses? Where would Hannibal be without his elephants? Not sure if animals are currently used in the U.S. military but it wouldn't surprise me if specially-trained dogs were used (to sniff out bombs, for example) the way they are used by police nowadays.
But corpses? Not particularly useful soldiers.
But corpses? Not particularly useful soldiers.
48
This reminds me of a horror comic from the eighties, apropos of the letter and the upcoming holiday. A sex worker agrees to visit a cabin in the woods and take a drug that leaves her in a death like state, so that a client play out a necrophilia fantasy on a cold winter night. All goes well until the client leaves but doesn't shut the door tightly. The story ends as the girl, conscious but immobile for hours more, feels the cold wind and driving snow enter through the widening crack.
49
Hmm.... dunno if there have been any psychological studies on this, but is something like necrophilia typically found only in conjunction with other disorders like sociopathy? I don't think I've seen a question in Savage Love from an honest to God necrophiliac, except for that one guy who had a fantasy about a woman dying while fucking her.
50
If I recall my Thomas Harris accurately, it was brought up in The Silence of the Lambs novel that while fun with corpses is illegal, the sentences for such infractions are often fairly light (a fine of $500, reduced if you return the corpse afterwards), so while homicide is a considerable crime, necrophilia and cannibalism are significantly less severe, in an of themselves. So make sure you happen upon the dead through less direct means.
This is apparently an uncommon, but not rare issue when fringe groups like rockers and biker gangs will steal their late friend from the morgue for one last party. If said friend was fond of saying I always wanted to... or before I die I gotta... he almost begged this to happen, should he not succeed in fulfilling this deed while alive. Similar infractions, such as fucking a corpse, eating one, or making one into a wearable suit or a lampshade would fall under the same ordinances, despite how much a judge is disgusted with said deeds.
Regarding rights for the dead, I'm surprised our conservative friends haven't brought up the spiritual ramifications of the practice of taking parts of the dead and attaching them to your own body, creating a union that is beyond civil or marital, but physical, making the said components part of your living identity. It happens with frequency enough that one can be sure dead people are involved in living marriages (with a third party), gay and straight and are serving in the military. We've even institutionalized this process through medical transplant services.
This is apparently an uncommon, but not rare issue when fringe groups like rockers and biker gangs will steal their late friend from the morgue for one last party. If said friend was fond of saying I always wanted to... or before I die I gotta... he almost begged this to happen, should he not succeed in fulfilling this deed while alive. Similar infractions, such as fucking a corpse, eating one, or making one into a wearable suit or a lampshade would fall under the same ordinances, despite how much a judge is disgusted with said deeds.
Regarding rights for the dead, I'm surprised our conservative friends haven't brought up the spiritual ramifications of the practice of taking parts of the dead and attaching them to your own body, creating a union that is beyond civil or marital, but physical, making the said components part of your living identity. It happens with frequency enough that one can be sure dead people are involved in living marriages (with a third party), gay and straight and are serving in the military. We've even institutionalized this process through medical transplant services.
51
@40: Can you point me to something that says that people in the U.S. are successfully devising their bodies to Body World? I don't see it in that link, but I'd like to read how it is being done.
The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act allows body donations to (1) a hospital, physician, surgeon, or procurement organization, for transplantation, therapy, medical or dental education, research, or advancement of medical or dental science; (2) an accredited medical or dental school, college, or university for education, research, advancement of medical or dental science; or (3) a designated individual for transplantation or therapy needed by that individual. A for-profit entertainment property (Body World) does not appear to qualify as a permissible donee under the UAGA, even if there is collateral educational value. And you confuse the legality of donating a body to Body World with the legality of exhibiting the bodies in the U.S.--those are very different issues, the latter of which I'm not addressing.
And, again, no court will enforce a will provision that calls for a crime to be committed (here, necrophilia). That's kinda obvious (i.e., not dubious), don't you think?
The tort of interference with a dead body creates a cause of action for the relatives of the deceased, who have a quasi-property right in the disposition of the body.
The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act allows body donations to (1) a hospital, physician, surgeon, or procurement organization, for transplantation, therapy, medical or dental education, research, or advancement of medical or dental science; (2) an accredited medical or dental school, college, or university for education, research, advancement of medical or dental science; or (3) a designated individual for transplantation or therapy needed by that individual. A for-profit entertainment property (Body World) does not appear to qualify as a permissible donee under the UAGA, even if there is collateral educational value. And you confuse the legality of donating a body to Body World with the legality of exhibiting the bodies in the U.S.--those are very different issues, the latter of which I'm not addressing.
And, again, no court will enforce a will provision that calls for a crime to be committed (here, necrophilia). That's kinda obvious (i.e., not dubious), don't you think?
The tort of interference with a dead body creates a cause of action for the relatives of the deceased, who have a quasi-property right in the disposition of the body.
52
I think the legal issues involved in this question are truly fascinating and speak to the complexity of our legal system; how amazing that we need to make terms like "quasi-property" and then apply them to dead relatives!
However, I think the ethical issues are even more interesting. In every way I think of it, I can't find, in myself, a way to be okay with necrophilia. I just can't, justify it however I may. The same is true for pedophilia, scat, bestiality, and incest. When I argue against bestiality and pedophilia, however, I come down always on the issue of consent and how/where it can be given. But necrophilia, scat, and incest... Every argument I make sounds like the same bigoted crap people say about homosexuality. I find those acts icky, fundamentally. Poop and decomposition and my Dad are all things that repel when I try to stick them to sex in my mind.
But ethically, morally, it's only because of an internal yuck that I can't suppress. Which is what so many people have said about homosexuality. So how do we draw that line? I don't know how to answer that question and that is the aspect of this argument, this conversation, that I think is truly the most important.
However, I think the ethical issues are even more interesting. In every way I think of it, I can't find, in myself, a way to be okay with necrophilia. I just can't, justify it however I may. The same is true for pedophilia, scat, bestiality, and incest. When I argue against bestiality and pedophilia, however, I come down always on the issue of consent and how/where it can be given. But necrophilia, scat, and incest... Every argument I make sounds like the same bigoted crap people say about homosexuality. I find those acts icky, fundamentally. Poop and decomposition and my Dad are all things that repel when I try to stick them to sex in my mind.
But ethically, morally, it's only because of an internal yuck that I can't suppress. Which is what so many people have said about homosexuality. So how do we draw that line? I don't know how to answer that question and that is the aspect of this argument, this conversation, that I think is truly the most important.
53
After a cursory look, I can not find any federal legislation and only 22 states that have laws against necrophilia, and in several of them, it is a misdemeanor.
IIRC, California had no laws against it until introduced by Governor Arnold.
IIRC, California had no laws against it until introduced by Governor Arnold.
57
Little known fact: necrophilia wasn't against the law in California until the 1970's when a chick that worked at a Sacramento mortuary stole the body of a teeenage boy, drove around with it in a hearse for a few days, and had (apparently) lots of sex with it. She was charged with (if I remember correctly) theft and improper disposition of a corpse, because they couldn't charge her with anything else. You can read about it, in much better detail, in Mary Roach's book "Stiff". For those law students, a quick google turns up no evidence of an actual federal statute, and lots of statements that there specifically isn't one. Statutes are on a state or local basis, and I'm guessing, based on the California model, that there isn't a law until they need one. For what its worth, I'm not a law student, but I did just finish a BA in anthropology... we're into weird topics like this.
58
Er, sorry for comment spam. Further googling turned up the raging necrophiliac's name (Karen Greenlee), and apparently it was much more recent that I had remembered, only a few years ago. Here's a bonus interview with her. http://www.nokilli.com/sacto/karen-green…
Its also important to note that its actually as difficult (or less so) to catch anything from a corpse. Unless it has bubonic plague. Then you're on your own.
Its also important to note that its actually as difficult (or less so) to catch anything from a corpse. Unless it has bubonic plague. Then you're on your own.
60
re:comment 52
No, being squicked by something doesn't make it wrong. As your exampple of homophobes demonstrates, people are squicked by things which are which are not at all wrong. You draw the line where you have reasons to draw it, and being squicked is not a reason.
No, being squicked by something doesn't make it wrong. As your exampple of homophobes demonstrates, people are squicked by things which are which are not at all wrong. You draw the line where you have reasons to draw it, and being squicked is not a reason.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (60) RSS