New Year’s Eve night out: Why what women wear actually matters

posted at 7:00 pm on December 31, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Jazz already made a compelling case to avoid a night out altogether — and, to this day, my best New Year’s Eve memories involve watching M*A*S*H reruns with my parents until midnight and then skipping down the hall to go to sleep. But a chic party is fun, too, especially if it compels frequently-pajama-clad bloggers to dress festively. So, I’ll be the chipper to Jazz’s chill — and celebrate with those of you who do plan to go out on the town tonight. I hope y’all have a ball!

At the same time, though, I can’t help but implore my fellow females to aim for “pretty” and not “hot” tonight. Let me explain. Truthfully, I didn’t plan to write about this. We’re not a fashion blog — and, by and large, I don’t think what folks wear does matter. But, this morning, I read a brief blog post headlined “The Death of Pretty” — and I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it. This is a rather long excerpt, but it’s too good to not be shared (the whole piece is worth your time, too!):

Pretty, pretty is dying.

People will define pretty differently.  For the purposes of this piece, I define pretty as a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence.

Once upon a time, women wanted to project an innocence.  I am not idealizing another age and I have no illusions about the virtues of our grandparents, concupiscence being what it is.  But some things were different in the back then.  First and foremost, many beautiful women, whatever the state of their souls, still wished to project a public innocence and virtue.  And that combination of beauty and innocence is what I define as pretty.

By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact.  That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.

Young women today do not seem to aspire to pretty, they prefer to be regarded as hot. Hotness is something altogether different.  When women want to be hot instead of pretty, they must view themselves in a certain way and consequently men view them differently as well.

As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend.  Pretty is cherished. Hotness, on the other hand, is a commodity.  Its value is temporary and must be used.  It is a consumable.

Nowhere is this pretty deficit more obvious than in our “stars,” the people we elevate as the “ideal.”  The stars of the fifties surely suffered from the same sin as do stars of today.  Stars of the fifties weren’t ideal but they pursued a public ideal different from today.

It’s so true — and it’s so sad. Every so often, a feminist will attempt to prove that femininity is a social construct. She’ll give her daughter a fire truck to play with and her son a Barbie doll — and, lo and behold, the little girl will wrap the truck in a baby blanket and rock it back and forth, while the little boy will force his Barbie dolls to fight. Femininity isn’t a social construct; it’s the natural complement to masculinity, written into our very bodies — and the two in combination civilize the wide world to lay the resources of the earth at the feet of even children.

Little girls gravitate to pretty. The success of the Disney princess franchise proves that. Even Sophia Grace Brownlee, the eight-year-old YouTube sensation who raps singer Nikki Minaj’s “Super Bass” word for word, appears in a tutu and tiara. But, somewhere between childhood and adulthood — or, sadly, sometimes in the midst of childhood — girls begin to think it’s an embarrassment to be innocent, to be naive.

It’s not an insult to be called naive, though — not really. The first definition of the word is “having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality.” What’s wrong with that? To encounter the natural and artless — to escape cynicism and ugliness — is to be refreshed. Yes, it’s foolish to ignore ugliness — for it’s real and revealing. But we have such a limited amount of time in a day: Why not look to the beautiful, the good, the true at least as often as we look to anything else?

Nothing reveals the time constraint on our lives quite like the passage of a year and the commencement of a new one — and even something as simple as what we wear reflects what we intend to do with our time. In 2012, will we build up or tear down? Will we strive for what is lastingly meaningful or temporarily gratifying? Will we be pretty or just hot?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

DHV, next time just say, oh, it is just a regular job, what do you do?

Cindy, the vet doesn’t board, and they don’t have an answering service, just an outbound message referring me to the after hours emergency pet clinics nearby. Coincidentally, their monthly email newsletter arrived today, I replied and asked if they have office hours tomorrow.

This Sunday New Year’s makes for a weird schedule, some businesses are back to normal on Monday, others closed, or reduced hours. And to make matters worse, we are under a winter storm warning until tomorrow night. Sigh.

karenhasfreedom on January 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM

While not helpful when you just want to be socialable, in the long run you need someone who is your intellectual equal.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

This is true. I’m not that bothered by it since at least I know what that person’s all about quickly enough so that I don’t waste any time on them, but it’s happened enough times with enough different people that it is kind of depressing after a while.

I would have thought that the ability to earn a decent living in a relatively recession-resistant industry would be a good thing in a relationship…

DangerHighVoltage on January 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

It doesn’t even get that far. All I have to do is mention it…

Some Guy (SG): So what do you do for a living?
Danger High Voltage(DHV): Oh I’m in science.
SG: *blank stare*
SG: So you must be really SMART, huh? (Said in a tone of voice as if I’ve just told him I’m infected with the ebola virus.)

And it all goes downhill from there.

DangerHighVoltage on January 1, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I dumbed mine down:

“What did you do for a living before you retired?”

“I looked for things.”

“Er-r-r, what kind of things?”

“Oh, copper, gold, silver, diamonds, platinum, those kinds of things.”

For some reason that got women’s attention. ;-)

Yoop on January 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I would have thought that the ability to earn a decent living in a relatively recession-resistant industry would be a good thing in a relationship…

DangerHighVoltage on January 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

So you want them to go for you money, instead?

Just kidding. Just kidding.

In all seriousness, you are just hanging out with the wrong guys. A decent man will prefer a smarter woman, all else being equal. Any guy who is intimidated by a woman’s intelligence is probably not a good one to try and become attached to, anyway.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 1, 2012 at 1:15 PM

karenhasfreedom on January 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Oh, well, it was a thought. Something I stumbled on to when I had a pet emergency many moons ago. Yes, the Sunday/Monday thing is hard when you really need to see the folks you trust. I hope your cat can be comforted by your being close by.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2012 at 1:16 PM

This is a sad day today. I am just trying to keep her comfortable and let her know I am nearby.

karenhasfreedom on January 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

It’s hard to watch them go.

unclesmrgol on January 1, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I would have thought that the ability to earn a decent living in a relatively recession-resistant industry would be a good thing in a relationship…

DangerHighVoltage on January 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

It’s a great thing but I don’t think the average person thinks in those terms. Imagine how many women turn their noses up at plumbers, HVAC and car mechanics and they has that same thing in common with you. But what do I know, I’ve got three kids from 36 to 27 and can’t get a spouse amongst them. And I promise you, I will be the BEST mother-in-law ever.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM

And to make matters worse, we are under a winter storm warning until tomorrow night. Sigh.

karenhasfreedom on January 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM

We’ve gotten the first 5 inches of it this morning and are in a very windy lull right now as the wind is backing to the northwest. The radar shows the lake effect is going to kick in soon off of Superior and it looks like it is going to get “real serious”.

Hang tough. Losing a pet is losing a friend. I’ve been exactly where you are now and just had to sit and hold them till they passed. It’s tough, but they know what you are doing for them. Best wishes.

Yoop on January 1, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I watch a lot of HGTV. They have some REALLY HAWT guys who pound nails for a living on those shows. All of them probably make a LOT OF MONEY too, because they fix up houses and rent them out and stuff.

I married a HAWT engineer and after we came up for air 5 years later, we realized we had nothing in common. Now I prefer ugly men with character anyday, and I prefer entrepreneurs over corporate types.

karenhasfreedom on January 1, 2012 at 1:25 PM

The radar shows the lake effect is going to kick in soon off of Superior and it looks like it is going to get “real serious”.

Yoop on January 1, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I no sooner hit “submit comment” and turned to look out the picture window and it is “HERE”. This is going to be a pile. :-(

Yoop on January 1, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Yoop, I am 18 miles east of the Lake Michigan shoreline, about midway up the state. So we do get the lake affect show here, too. The radar map has it all pink and blue across Lake Michigan. The flakes just started here, and I imagine the roads will be very slippery. I am glad I ran my errands yesterday. I don’t plan to leave this house until Tuesday because of this storm.

I have a huge mailing I am working on, so I can stay busy until these letters have to hit the post office on Tuesday afternoon. Mindless work to watch tv by today. I will turn on CBS at 4:15 to watch tebow.

karenhasfreedom on January 1, 2012 at 1:33 PM

But what do I know, I’ve got three kids from 36 to 27 and can’t get a spouse amongst them. And I promise you, I will be the BEST mother-in-law ever.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM

While it is unspoken, I assume you don’t yet have any grandchildren. I hope you are ultimately blessed with many. They are an absolute delight: They are reasons for optimism as well as living reasons for caring about the long-term future of our country, in addition to the abstract reasons that are frequently discussed.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 1, 2012 at 1:36 PM

ehhh

overall i agree with what you’re saying tina but, femininity IS somewhat a social construct. it changes over time. it didn’t use to be that girls wore pants! over time, society changed.

you say that girls and boys play with toys differently? not all the time. i’m a girl with a twin brother and we shared our toys and played together a lot of times!

and not every girl is attracted to tutus, glitter, princesses, and pink. i love that stuff, (in fact i think i like it more now than when i was little) but you have to be careful not to generalize every girl into liking that stuff.

As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend.

this is another generalization. there are tons of men out there who don’t have any kind of noble instincts at all, lol.

and why does “pretty” = the need to be protected by a man? girls can’t be pretty and strong at the same time?

Sachiko on January 1, 2012 at 1:39 PM

GaltBlvnAtty on January 1, 2012 at 1:36 PM

No grandchildren (tears), oddly enough I would still like to stick to traditional order of things. Not that I’ll get a vote. I’m the eternal optimist. My words to live by are “In a barn full of sh!t, I know there is a pony in here somewhere”. Not very eloquent but it’s me.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I think the American public as a whole has gotten a bit more casual about their clothing choices, and that goes for conservatives as well as liberals. Although I respect the “dress-for-success” movement, if I was your average college student I would be a bit leery of the conservative youth groups if all I saw them in were jackets and ties or business-class dresses. I’d like to think one could be conservative and still be able to hang out in (clean, undamaged) T-shirts and jeans. Andrew Wilkow once said that you could be dressed like a biker gang member and still be a stock-investing, strong-family conservative. And while he does the suit-and-tie thing when doing speeches or banquets, he’s more of a T-shirt-and-khakis guy in the studio.

As for wedding dresses and other female formal attire, let’s face it… bare shoulders and arms are not a big deal these days. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of today’s brides are wearing strapless gowns… and 80% of weddings take place in churches or synagogues. So we either have a lot of weak-willed pastors, or most of us have changed our attitude about what bare body parts are socially acceptable now.

TMOverbeck on January 1, 2012 at 1:52 PM

A lot of the hot versus pretty is a growing process. Most girls/young women has a period of testing their WOW power. Sometimes it just lasts too long.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2012 at 2:01 PM

has = have. Grammar is my friend.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2012 at 2:02 PM

It hurts me to see some of the self-mutilations of some of our young women.

The ones that get me the most are the nose- and lip-rings and -studs. It’s gross, it’s mutilation, and forever marks those who do it – even nose studs that only pierce the cartilage – as damaged, second-class goods.

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I agree!!!

IMHO, there is no bigger “turn-off” than a person of either gender with nose-rings, lip-rings, or studs. What are they thinking??? What message are they sending??? The only half-way understandable objective I can think of is deliberate self-disqualification from jobs where you have to meet the public…but that’s not the only thing you disqualify yourself from!

A close second “turn-off” is a young, otherwise-attractive girl with visible tatoos: this is worse than vile graffiti…worse than the most disgusting air or water pollution imaginable!!

landlines on January 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I will strive to be pretty this year rather than just hot.

Dr. Tesla on January 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I will strive to be pretty this year rather than just hot.

Dr. Tesla on January 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Then you must not touch the mesmerizing glowing globe of lightning…ZAP!!!

Yoop on January 1, 2012 at 2:24 PM

karenhasfreedom on January 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

I’m very sorry to hear that. I hope that her end is peaceful – for both of you.

Solaratov on January 1, 2012 at 2:46 PM

This is a sad day today. I am just trying to keep her comfortable and let her know I am nearby.

karenhasfreedom on January 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

She is blessed to have such a compassionate owner for all of her life.

herm2416 on January 1, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Here is a hint: Men don’t want their women to be “pretty”. They want them to be hot. Sizzling hot.

Forget that and you’ll be back at the parent’s house watching TV in no time at all.

moochy on January 1, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Tina,

I agree that beauty is different from “hotness”, and in a much more positive, enduring way, but don’t think old-fashioned naivete is a good thing nor does it have to be part of being pretty. 60+ years ago, women’s beauty was defined simply because expectations were also lower for them – being a pretty face was often the most important attribute for a potential bride. They often didn’t have to be men’s intellectual equals. Their beauty was more permanent than “hotness” is, but they were still not always as three-dimensional as men were allowed to be. Women were naive and pure while men were allowed to know about sex and to know about the world, to have experience in things. In classic movies I see a lot of question-asking by the wives to the husbands about really obvious, childish things. It makes me laugh.

Being “hot”, however, means girls dumb themselves down in the important ways, while being sexually savvy. They put on a front as if they are strong, but put out easily. It’s funny that feminism was about destroying the institutional sexual dominance of men, when the modern day woman gives men exactly what they want – easy access to the poon.

But nowadays, we women have the potential to be men’s intellectual equals. We can pursue any job – I’m going to be a doctor, for Christ’s sake! Beauty, at least as I view it, is a modest femininity, care for one’s body, and confidence in what you’re born into(meaning you’re not trying to alter your body i.e. plastic surgery or way too much makeup). We can combine beauty with our awareness of the world/intellectual drives and make ourselves truly equals – and not destroy our self-respect in the process.

Dagny__Taggart on January 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Just one perfect observation of the deterioration of America. We’ve dumped God and like idiots think we can keep goodness around.

Sexual attractiveness has replaced chastity – and that my friends some fools celebrate as freedom!

Don L on January 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM

We’ve dumped God and like idiots think we can keep goodness around.

Sexual attractiveness has replaced chastity – and that my friends some fools celebrate as freedom!

Don L on January 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM

So if people don’t believe in God or as you put it “dump God”, that means they automatically dress like sluts or oppose “goodness”?

This is your classic false choice.

Dr. Tesla on January 1, 2012 at 4:31 PM

So if people don’t believe in God or as you put it “dump God”, that means they automatically dress like sluts or oppose “goodness”?

All goodness comes from God – surprized you didn’t know that.

Don L on January 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM

All goodness comes from God – surprized you didn’t know that.

Don L on January 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM

So if you’re good and don’t believe in God, what does that make you?

Dagny__Taggart on January 1, 2012 at 5:21 PM

All goodness comes from God – surprized you didn’t know that.

Don L on January 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM

All goodness does indeed come from God.

So do all pole dancers. Even the ones who aren’t all that good.

CorporatePiggy on January 1, 2012 at 5:25 PM

and not every girl is attracted to tutus, glitter, princesses, and pink. i love that stuff, (in fact i think i like it more now than when i was little) but you have to be careful not to generalize every girl into liking that stuff.

Sachiko on January 1, 2012 at 1:39 PM

My take on it is that I’ve hated the color pink ever since I was stuck with that pink blanket in the hospital where I was born. I’m only semi-joking — this is a visceral hatred. :) Some women can carry off that kind of pastel pink in clothing. I can’t — I look terrible in it. The darker rose or magenta colors are a maybe. I look OK in them (or so I’m told), but I’m still uncomfortable wearing them.

Growing up, since almost all the kids my age in my neighborhood were boys, I ended up a tomboy, much to the dismay of my fashion-conscious, seamstress aunt, and to some extent, my mom. So no, I was most assuredly not the girly-girl type.

60+ years ago, women’s beauty was defined simply because expectations were also lower for them – being a pretty face was often the most important attribute for a potential bride. They often didn’t have to be men’s intellectual equals. Their beauty was more permanent than “hotness” is, but they were still not always as three-dimensional as men were allowed to be. Women were naive and pure while men were allowed to know about sex and to know about the world, to have experience in things.

Dagny__Taggart on January 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

This really used to bug me as a high-schooler in the mid-70s. I liked learning as much as I could, liked studying (OK, I was a nerd, I admit it) and enjoyed talking about the issues of the day. But there was still the last vestiges of the old attitude that you had to be (or pretend to be) dumb and pretty if you wanted a guy to like you. I knew in my heart I was a lousy actress, and I wasn’t into pretending to be something I was not, so I befriended guys who were not bothered by it. The one who was least bothered by it I ended up marrying.

PatriotGal2257 on January 1, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I didn’t read through all the comments, but I have to admit Tina that this was a wise column, not at all what I’d expect from someone of your age. Thank you for proving me wrong on my assumptions with the younger generation.

As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend. Pretty is cherished. Hotness, on the other hand, is a commodity. Its value is temporary and must be used. It is a consumable.

So very true.

dominigan on January 1, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Here is a hint: Men don’t want their women to be “pretty”. They want them to be hot. Sizzling hot.

Forget that and you’ll be back at the parent’s house watching TV in no time at all.

moochy on January 1, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I know what you’re saying, but I’ve tried to teach my 3 daughters different. Any man who has the attitude of “Show me wha’cha got!” hasn’t earned the right to know, and will probably never get the chance.

Yes, there will be times when my girls get overlooked in favor of the overt types, but the only girls jealous of the meat in a market are the ones who are not desirable except as meat themselves.

So you’re implying that the newly-engaged-Tina needs to show off her racing stripes? I’m sure that when the time is right, she’ll let the lucky man see them. And he’ll know he has a treasure to value all his life.

rwenger43 on January 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

So if you’re good and don’t believe in God, what does that make you?

Dagny__Taggart on January 1, 2012 at 5:21 PM

It makes you good (only you’re not giving the right Person the credit). There are lots and lots of good and moral atheists. But their ability to be good and moral comes from God, Who loves them as much as He loves any person, even if they don’t know He exists yet.

There is nothing inherently insulting to atheists about the truth that all good comes from God. “They merely have not added it up yet.” –Amy Daczycyn, in another context

inviolet on January 1, 2012 at 10:51 PM

This really used to bug me as a high-schooler in the mid-70s. I liked learning as much as I could, liked studying (OK, I was a nerd, I admit it) and enjoyed talking about the issues of the day. But there was still the last vestiges of the old attitude that you had to be (or pretend to be) dumb and pretty if you wanted a guy to like you.

PatriotGal2257 on January 1, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Well a definite plus nowadays is that it’s cool to be smart. Then again, I grew up in the suburbs. I was in high school ’04-’08 and I’d say there were more girls in AP classes than guys. About an equal amount of guys and girls even in my AP Calculus class. Look at modern-day characters like Hermione from Harry Potter (if you have kids you’ll probably know what I’m talking about, heh. Or just a Potter lover). There’s definite pressure to be the pop culture-loving, materialistic bimbo type/”hot” but it’s much easier to find a guy who wants a smart girl. I’d say there’s some of that pressure to be dumb for guys too, whatwith prison culture (“let me wear my pants below my butt, talk ‘street’ and play video games all day!”)

Dagny__Taggart on January 2, 2012 at 1:03 AM

There are many aspects of life which showcase the distinction between being driven by virtue, or by appetite. Uncontrolled appetites of any nature are destructive.

Freelancer on January 2, 2012 at 3:06 AM

I agree with most of what’s written, however to say that naivite is not insulting or embarrassing, well.. come on. Most ‘pretty’ girls turn into the ‘hot’ girls via copious quantities of naivite

Reaps on January 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM

At big get togethers years ago when asked very personal questions on what I do and what I think I spent too much time explaining the resume’ to someone who didn’t have a clue. So I came up with a routine that was easier. I would sheepishly say that at the moment I’m suffering from jet lag from my long air flight. Naturally that peaked the persons attention with where, what, really, OMG, and a host of others. I simply said that I just arrived home from Australia where I had some business to attend to at my Nauga Ranch. Looking back at me would be a slightly inebriated person asking “A what”? A nauga ranch, I’m sure you’ve heard of nauga hides before. Oh yes, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that. The subject was dropped and something more appropriate was discussed. What fun you can have with this. Especially if someone bites on the tale I would try to explain the problems with the EPA, animal protection services, The ACLU, shipping and hide processing and the list goes on. Who would believe there’s a TV program called, “Dirty Jobs”.

mixplix on January 2, 2012 at 4:56 AM

All goodness comes from God – surprized you didn’t know that.

Don L on January 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM

So if you’re good and don’t believe in God, what does that make you?

Dagny__Taggart on January 1, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Someday, when you find a moment to wonder about life more deeply, you might discover natural law, infused by our Creator (God) into each human at birth. Hence, we all know right from wrong -that’s why we lie to our self and call the henious things we do (i.e. murdering our own offspring) “good” (a woman’s choice), in order to live with our God given (if atrophied) conscience.

Don L on January 2, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Funny, my extended family and I just finished having a big discussion about this yesterday after church. We were visiting their church and their youth worship team was on. The youth did great overall, but the lead female vocalist was dressed rather inappropriately.
The conversation went from that particular instance to others talking about how extremely inappropriately other women now dress – at church of all places. You wonder if some women were up all night at the club and then wandered into church without changing. Beauty does not mean skanky. There is a difference and unfortunately, even in church, we seem to be losing sight of it.

Free Indeed on January 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Of course what you wear makes a difference. Brides are wearing strapless gowns today to wedding because the reception is more important than the wedding ceremony. Were I pastoring a church I would not allow a strapless dress on the bride. Nor would I allow a photographer to roam about the sanctuary during the service, but that’s OT.

Beside one’s body shape and weight the first nonverbal cue a person has on one is clothing. Instant judgments are made based on what one is wearing. That’s why Europeans despise us BTW. Too many of us look like we are walking around in either our underwear or a gardening clothes.

IdrilofGondolin on January 2, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Well a definite plus nowadays is that it’s cool to be smart.

Dagny__Taggart on January 2, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Yes, and I’m really heartened to see that it’s cool to be smart, but it also should be assimilated into the culture better. After all, if it’s cool now, it may be that it won’t be sometime in the future. If a boy or girl enjoys learning and wants to become knowledgeable in a subject, it should be an accepted part of who that child is, just as it is with a child who has talent and skill in a particular sport, a musical instrument or art, for example. A boy or girl shouldn’t have to hide or diminish an aspect of themselves because the prevailing peer pressure says that it’s “in” or “out.”

Then again, I never thought I’d live to see the day when wearing glasses would be considered cool and fashionable, no less. LOL

PatriotGal2257 on January 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Oh yeah, modesty is nice. With style fit for the occasion, irresistable.

jake49 on January 2, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4