THE MASCULINITY CONSPIRACY

03: Sexuality completed

with 44 comments

We need, too, to be aware of the power dynamics that might arise in our newly-discovered sexual inclinations. One common outcome for men might be to opt for a “younger model” (whether male or female) as partner. The sexual attraction of younger people can be profound. Part of this is to do with the biological third of sexuality, referred to at the beginning of this section. Part of it is to do with death anxiety: of grabbing hold of youthful vitality which at once reminds us of our own youth, and provides a boost in the face of our own mortality. This is made all the more complex as we get older and achieve things in life, as younger people may be as attracted to our achievements as to our personalities (which can be very difficult to differentiate for everyone involved). However appealing such a scenario, if there is a power imbalance in a sexual relationship (whether through age difference or social position), it is likely to be inappropriate. On this subject I recommend reading Sex in the Forbidden Zone: When Men in Power—Therapists, Doctors, Clergy, Teachers, and Others—Betray Women’s Trust by Peter Rutter. Of course, there may be (probably very rare) situations where a 20 year-old and 40 year-old are not subject to such power imbalances, in which case I heartily wish you well on your journey. These issues will be unpacked further in the following Relationships chapter.

A final point is the nature of “casualness” in sexual relations: a moral term if ever there was one. Historically, psychologists thought casual sex was emotionally damaging to those involved. More recently, studies have suggested this is not the case. However, it seems to me that if sexuality is indeed derived in part from biological determinism, the philosophical seeking of union, and desire, the idea of sexuality being “casual” is impossible. With these fundamental elements at work, sexuality can be nothing but “significant.” If you disagree with this I suggest you examine more closely how these elements operate across all aspects of our lives.

One interesting alternative on this spectrum that does not get the attention it deserves is the choice of a period of celibacy. One reader of the previous chapters sent me an email stating that the greatest lesson of celibacy for him was “learning how to love a man and not have to possess a woman.” I do not invoke celibacy in any way as a moral position, but a philosophical and practical one which is rarely mentioned but which offers a valuable space for thinking and growth.

Sexuality, then, is fundamental to the Masculinity Conspiracy. By giving disproportionate weight to biological determinism and setting up false binaries in terms of gender values and sexual orientation, sexuality offers a theme through which the conspiracy continually defines and regulates masculinity on its own terms. However, it is surprisingly easy to reject the assumptions behind the conspiracy’s mobilization of sexuality and to open ourselves to multiple and fluid ways of being men and women, masculine and feminine. Once we have started to suitably manifest these diverse identities, we can put them to work in the relationships we have with those around us, the next contentious site of activity in the conspiracy.

Written by Joseph Gelfer

August 1, 2010 at 12:50 pm

44 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Do I begin to detect a whiff of Socialism in the underlying thrust of the book?

    Bit worried it’s all about descontruction of identity into soothing woolly fluff: a world where we’re all ‘the same’, with no aspirations to genuine elitism or greatness, wallowing in collective mediocrity. A bit like modern Britain, in fact.

    Only time and further reading will tell, of course.

    Ricos

    January 25, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    • Completely opposite to the same, Comrade: everyone different, rather than belonging to one of two (m/f) categories.

      Joseph

      January 25, 2011 at 3:47 pm

      • …trouble is, I believe that only at the extremes (such as ‘poles’) does brilliance lie. If we all end up meandering around comfortably in harmonious middle ground, what a dull world it will be.

        Ricos

        January 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm

        • I reiterate: I am not advocating sameness or middle ground; everybody should be their own pole.

          Joseph

          January 25, 2011 at 4:09 pm

  2. “One interesting alternative on this spectrum that does not get the attention it deserves is the choice of a period of celibacy.”

    I vaquely remember reading about early Roman Stoic practicioners viewing abstinence from sex as a temporary discipline, later after they mastered the technique of temperance they permited themselves to be part of orgies. The idea shifted with the early Christians to complete celibacy.

    But more on topic I have found that whether it be Deida or Alcoholics Anonymous or different new age practices their seems to be an attitude of certain techniques and ideas to be rigidly applied to life in a way the Christian church did and in many cases does. Rather than using a technique as a means to a particular outcome.

    In otherwords their seems to be a broad authoritative voice in such books like Deida’s instead of it being merely a “technique” which someone could take it or leave it. He combines technique with assertions of what is reality and metaphysics which is probably why it gets under my skin so much.

    Matthew

    November 22, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    • One of the challenges I often get from critics is that if I am all about multiple masculinities, am I not being hypocritical by “denying” the right of Deida et al to be the way they are and embody their vision for masculinity. The difference is that Deida et al’s vision of masculinity does not line itself up as one among many (if it did I could theoretically allow for it, even if I didn’t like it), rather it privileges itself as the *appropriate* form of masculinity: so yes, the authoritative voice you identify.

      Joseph

      November 22, 2010 at 4:01 pm

      • Lifton’s 1961 book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism I think points out the aspect I am refering to. Perhaps because many in the men’s movement especially Deida have their roots in the human potential movement, a psychology of totalism is employed and his books specifically are written in this tone. And it need not be, he could write it as his own truth and what works for him, no matter how offensive it may be to some. But I think the totalistic approach sells more books.

        Matthew

        November 22, 2010 at 4:08 pm

        • In otherwords he uses “thought-terminating clichés”.

          Matthew

          November 22, 2010 at 4:16 pm

  3. Starting a new comment level to avoid the absurdly skinny reply:

    gaia charis says “Your response is interesting. I can’t see anywhere in my commnent that I did suggest that ‘it can’t be both ways’.Your assumption that I am doing this is based on me mooting the possibility that theory developed via a liberatory ethos can inadvertently become a Conspiratorial tool.The slippage into binary thinking comes in your response, not my comment.Neither did I ‘privilege’ reality..what I have quoted is relevant to my premise that theory may inadvertently perpetuate inequality in reality.Perhaps the most telling part is your closing comment that ‘reality’ should be ‘seen in appropriate context.’ Whose ‘reality’? Whose ‘context’?There starts to be more than a whiff of academic arrogance here. I think this quote from Riki Wilchins makes my point perhaps more eloquently than I can.
    ‘So why, with the surge of trans and gender theory flooding from the presses, does so little address or assuage our pain ? Why is it mostly irrelevant to translives ? why have all the observations and theories been so utterly useless for transpeople themselves ?’
    This is exactly my point….WHY?”

    I’m glad we both see the importance, then, of both the practical and theoretical, even if the claim of “a whiff of academic arrogance” makes me feel again that you downplay the value of the theoretical (my interpretive issue, clearly). Appropriate reality is whatever reality looks like when all things are taken into account: it is a methodological statement, not one that privileges anything or anyone.

    Joseph

    November 21, 2010 at 2:11 am

  4. I will add that certain men’s movement writers like Lewis Hyde (trickster makes this world) and Alan B.Chinen attempt to go past these tendencies in the mythopoetic men’s movement, while using the same discourse. But such writer’s are neither well known in the men’s movement, and I would even suggest they run so contrary to what is celebrated they will likely remain in the margins. Deida seems like a fad, I think many men fantasize about “applying” his ideas and then secretely put it down realizing they can not live up to such a model. Robert Moore remains the most influential but his main advocacy is structuring psychology. This structuring is what so largely contributes to this “collective turn”. Because Moore is supplying the structure, and believes in it as a pragmatic necessisty. Unlike the feminist figures like Kristiva or Butler most men’s movement writers lack faith in men’s creative ability to define and create their own subjective experience.

    Matt

    November 20, 2010 at 8:11 pm

  5. Thanks again for posting your book online. Very exciting work and discussion. I like the term mono-masculine it really illuminates what Deleuze may have meant by “their can be no becoming man” in that if gender identity becomes dictated and authoritative multiple-masculinities can not possible. I also can relate Deleuze, Derrida, Focault and Jung’s ideas as they relate to a core problem, that is to say if one creates an identity (self) one also creates an “other”. This is largely why I insist Jung is utterly misused and misunderstood by the men’s movement, because with Jung the self/shadow split requires a person to be in an act of becoming what s/he is not. This idea is echoed in Deleuze’s becomings, Kristeva (woman as undiscovered), Derrida’s “tracing one’s narcissism by seeing the other as other, etc. I know we differ about the Jung thing, but I would say that the way the men’s movement uses Jung is very abhorrent because instead of actually reclaiming their shadow as Jung would insist (or replace the Jargon with your favorite postmodernist) the men’s movement has been more about creating ego, self, identity.

    What is truly bizaare about this creation of ego identity is that it is exactly opposite of what Freud would have even recommended. For now a person does not strengthen their ego by identifying with “their self” but by identifying with half the population on the planet earth!!! A truly strange turn of events in the history of psychology!

    Matt

    November 20, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    • That’s an interesting point, which also counters the popular claim in academic discourse that spirituality (in a loose sense) is now characterized by the “subjective turn” away from external sources of authority towards a self-centered spirituality. Your suggestion would have it that we are not witnessing the subjective turn in the men’s movement, rather a “collective turn” away from *transcendent* sources of authority to the biologically determined.

      Joseph

      November 20, 2010 at 5:36 pm

      • Yes, exactly. But I am not sure if it is so unique to the men’s movement, but it does seem perhaps the most vulnerable of recent mass movements to a “collective turn”. I can’t exactly put my finger on it, but it seems the ironic end point of the cult of the self, and even the cult of the subjective. I wrote on here about the darkside of Romanticism. Well the bright side of Romanticism were bright inspired energetic poets and their subjective exalted experience of gazing into vast spaces, Rilke, Blake’s subjectivity, Lord Byron’s deep feeling etc. We all like feeling so high but the darkside of Romanticism is Nazism, in a very real sense. Both advocated a return to “nature” and dictated what that nature is. Both had a mass of people identify with the collective feeling and a codified notion of identity. “We are all facists” (Foucault) but I believe certain movements are more vulnerable than others.

        Matt

        November 20, 2010 at 7:03 pm

  6. Thinking more about this, in Evangelical (born again) Christianity a converted relative once said “children look to their mothers, mothers look to their husbands, men look to God, this is the natural order”. The idea of a male parental God places men in the role of being “naturally more mature” although Deida claims it to be different I think he his using the same idea.
    I find creating paradigms of maturity and immaturity sometimes necessary as I am a teacher even though the ideas often used are problematic.

    But within this context I think male equals mature and female equals immature is a hidden text.

    Matt

    November 19, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    • Yes, I noted in Numen, Old Men the odd parallels between Deida and Promise Keepers: they would both be horrified to be associated with the other, but are largely on the same message.

      The female equaling immature formula is also around a lot, yes. Both some of the Christian mythopoets and Ken Wilber relegate feminine earth-facing spirituality as inherently primitive compared to masculine outward-facing spirituality (back to Lakoff’s orientational metaphors).

      Joseph

      November 20, 2010 at 6:26 am

  7. “In terms of the romantic and sexual, I see any relationship where there is a power imbalance as problematic.”

    From my own personal experience almost all of the women and men I have dated in my younger years were older as I desired an almost parental, mentoring role from these early relationships. Which changed in thirties.

    I don’t think that the imbalance of power was essentially problematic but it does reflect a psychological “maturity” or more accurately “new parents”. But this I think echoes the masculine conspiracy in that all these “feminine values” are often looked at as “immaturity” and the “feminine” is immature.

    I think perhaps buried in Deida’s text is another old idea the feminine = immaturity, women are children, etc. Maturity and immaturity is yet another inconsistent bianary.

    Matt

    November 19, 2010 at 9:47 pm

  8. Re chosen celibacy….consider the possibility that there may be very different dynamics in this for men and women. In reality, most sexual relationships invariably bring in ‘relationship’ dynamics which can have a very different outcome for men or women as ‘conspiratorial’power dynamics inevitably come into play.It is well established, for example, that men are less supporting to women in relationships than the other way round. A factor which often facilitates the achievements of men but mitigates against those of women. Thus for women, choosing a period of celibacy may be a pragmatic decision if she wishes to further other aspects of her life.This is a very real dilemma. Many women find that men subtly ‘sabotage’ their aspirations for all sorts of reasons and it may end up as being a choice between having a sex-life or achieving their full potential as individuals, even if for only partial periods of their lives.

    gaia charis

    November 17, 2010 at 8:44 am

    • I would be more inclined to look at the different dynamics between individual people and their specific contexts (which may include the kind of sabotage you mention), rather than the different dynamics between the categories of “men” and “women”.

      The reasons why women’s aspirations are often thwarted are, as you suggest, very complex: some of this is to do with the personal sabotage of husbands/partners, some with the systemic sabotage of the workplace. At the same time, I have seen some women who have used claims of such personal and systemic sabotage as a cover for not taking the kind of initiative required to fulfill their aspirations (that’s not to deny that such sabotage is common).

      Joseph

      November 17, 2010 at 8:57 am

      • I was referring very specifically to the personal sphere, not the workplace.Theoretically your standpoint is justified but the reality of the lives of many people who consider themselves to be very categorically ‘women’ who are in relationships with those they consider to be categorically ‘men’ do present patterns of extraordinary confluence and similarity woth regard to relational dynamics and to those of ‘sabotage’ in particular. So much so that they could be termed ‘Scripts’…a concept I have referred to in a previous comment. Re. anyone, not just women, using claims of sabotage to avoid initiatives of fulfilment…I think it is dangerous, if not presumptuous, to make judgements on the lives of others without knowledge of all the dynamics that may be pertaining.

        gaia charis

        November 18, 2010 at 6:50 am

        • Which is why I offered the caveat of “that’s not to deny that such sabotage is common”. Of course, the very true fact that “it is dangerous, if not presumptuous, to make judgements on the lives of others without knowledge of all the dynamics that may be pertaining” works also in terms of scripts.

          Joseph

          November 18, 2010 at 7:06 am

          • That’s why one spends a lot of time investigating the dynamics from which one offers the Script concept as an interpretative possibility 🙂

            gaia charis

            November 19, 2010 at 11:30 am

            • Am starting to wonder just how much the un-pc-ness of man-woman categorisation ( no matter how logically and theoretically justified ) becomes a Conspiratorial tool.If we all start to definitionally exist as part of the thousand little sexes this conveniently blurs the fact that some highly categorically biological females are still doing two thirds of the world’s work for 10% of it’s wages whilst owning 1% of its land.And why 85% of senior execs in eu companies are cb men, as are 86% of Irish TDs and why eu cb women earn 86 cent for every euro earned by a cb man.
              You don’t, after all, find many African grandmothers checking their genital credentials whilst subsistence farming to support their HIV orphaned grandchildren.
              Bit naff if theorising for justice serves to bollock it.

              gaia charis

              November 19, 2010 at 11:45 am

              • Suggesting it can’t be both ways is in service of the conspiracy, I think. The skill to get through these issues is holding theoretical possibilities in tension with practical realities in a way which does justice to both; we don’t have to choose between them. To privilege the reality on the ground is to appeal to a certain “common sense” approach that is generally mobilized by the conspiracy (the fetish of the “natural”), which glosses over both the diverse reasons why things are the way they are and the possibilities of the way they could be. Of course, this does not mean the reality on the ground should be demoted in any way, only that it be seen in appropriate context.

                Joseph

                November 19, 2010 at 11:55 am

                • Your response is interesting. I can’t see anywhere in my commnent that I did suggest that ‘it can’t be both ways’.Your assumption that I am doing this is based on me mooting the possibility that theory developed via a liberatory ethos can inadvertently become a Conspiratorial tool.The slippage into binary thinking comes in your response, not my comment.Neither did I ‘privilege’ reality..what I have quoted is relevant to my premise that theory may inadvertently perpetuate inequality in reality.Perhaps the most telling part is your closing comment that ‘reality’ should be ‘seen in appropriate context.’ Whose ‘reality’? Whose ‘context’?There starts to be more than a whiff of academic arrogance here. I think this quote from Riki Wilchins makes my point perhaps more eloquently than I can.
                  ‘So why, with the surge of trans and gender theory flooding from the presses, does so little address or assuage our pain ? Why is it mostly irrelevant to translives ? why have all the observations and theories been so utterly useless for transpeople themselves ?’
                  This is exactly my point….WHY?

                  gaia charis

                  November 21, 2010 at 9:35 am

  9. You mention the quite stereotypical older guy-young woman scenario. you might like to examine the very significant rise in older woman-young guy partnerings..some purely sexual, some sexual/relational. How would you see this in Conspiracy terms ? At 57, and having had only younger men in my life since the age of 32, I would be extremely interested in your answer !

    gaia charis

    September 26, 2010 at 6:04 am

    • I’d first want to unpack supervisory and mentoring relationships, which often function very well with power imbalances, for whatever the combination of gender and age.

      In terms of the romantic and sexual, I see any relationship where there is a power imbalance as problematic (although power can be measured in diverse ways, which can upset the age stereotype). No doubt there are useful older women/younger men relationships, but I’m not sure if there’s anything special about this relative to the usual combination (the idea, for example, that there is something particular about “women’s knowledge” (or, indeed, “men’s”) is an essentialism I am not happy to accommodate).

      If there is indeed a rise in such relationships, I would imagine the reasoning is diverse. Some of the reasons may be positive (such as older women’s value being finally appreciated), other less so and echoing the conspiracy (such as older women being branded as sexual commodities: the media-friendly “cougar”).

      But I know less about women your age 🙂 than pretty much any constituency on the planet, which is why it is a theme I rarely refer to.

      Joseph

      September 26, 2010 at 6:41 am

      • I would agree that power imbalance can be problematic but this does not necessarily equate to ‘inappropriate’ as you state in your text. Given that the vast majority of human relationships are power-imbalanced for a whole variety of reasons this, logically, means that most of the world’s sexual activity is ‘inappropriate’…a very interesting thought.

        gaia charis

        September 26, 2010 at 6:49 am

        • Especially as ‘inappropriate’ may well be the source of the attraction.

          gaia charis

          September 26, 2010 at 6:52 am

        • I think that most of the world’s sexual activity probably *is* inappropriate. I don’t say this as a puritan, rather as an advocate for greater mindfulness.

          Joseph

          September 26, 2010 at 7:19 am

          • You have stated at various points that ‘masculinity’ is something that both men and women can do, that it is not fixed, that it can be whatever the individual wishes it to be. This implies ( indeed as one would hope ! ) a desire to see all human beings accessing and choosing from the complete range of all human qualitites (which is the crux of my own book introduction also) without any ‘taboos’ imposed by the arbitrary polarisation of said qualities into ‘masculine’ and feminine’ domains.If you agree with the standpoint of unlimited accessibility to human wholeness does the very term ‘masculinity’ not cease to have any relevant meaning ? And if, for you, it does, then in what terms will you define it if it not tethered to either sex or to any specific domain of characteristics. I make this enquiry very genuinely as my own opinion is that, if each human being is truly free to access and explore the sum total of all human qualities then the terms masculine and feminine become redundant….leaving us as what I believe we are, human beings who may happen to be male or female, just as we may happen to be any age, race, sexuality etc.

            gaia charis

            September 28, 2010 at 5:24 am

            • As you know from previous dialogue I don’t agree with the term ‘multiple masculinities’as currently used within any of the various areas of gender studies.I do, however, entirely support and endorse both the concept and the term of’multiple humanities’as defined above.

              gaia charis

              September 28, 2010 at 5:28 am

              • PS. Have also to say thank-you for said dialogue as it has been the catalyst for the finding of a final jigsaw piece in my own thinking.

                gaia charis

                September 28, 2010 at 5:29 am

                • I agree: the term “masculinity” is, in the end, redundant (although before the Men’s Rights Brigade charge, this does not mean men are redundant): I map this out in my book Numen, Old Men. Once the conspiracy is revealed, the most that can ever be said is that masculinity alludes to a range of aesthetic and behavioral characteristics which can never fully be pinned down. The Masculinity Conspiracy, as a text, is a navigational and liberational tool from conspiracy to redundancy.

                  I am also agreeable to the term “multiple humanities”: in conversations I often urge for the dropping of the “men’s movement” and “women’s movement” in favor of the “people’s movement”. Call me old fashioned: I was named after Stalin.

                  I’m glad the dialogue has been useful: even if we don’t agree on some things, aspiring to be a catalyst for dialogue is the whole point of this exercise.

                  Joseph

                  September 28, 2010 at 7:47 am

                  • I haven’t read Numen, Old men but will.I agree with the ‘People’s Movement’ in principle and do often say the same thing but it would only work effectively in practice if current gender dynamics could be transcended. Like Communism…it sounds great in principle.

                    gaia charis

                    September 28, 2010 at 8:08 am

                    • But thinking further…why do you still adhere to the concept of multiple masculinity if you acknowledge that it is the possibility of a multiplicity that may include ‘femininity’ that inevitably confers redundancy ?

                      gaia charis

                      September 28, 2010 at 8:12 am

                    • [Answering the point below here, as we appear to have hit the end of the comment nesting]

                      Because I believe multiple masculinities are tangible to those people currently stuck in the mono-masculine regime, whereas the ultimate redundancy of gender (in essentialist rather than performative terms) is not. In short, multiple masculinities provide the escape route (in Numen, Old Men I use the metaphor of a decompression chamber): not the destination.

                      That said, it also depends on the position from which we hear the claim “redundant” (this is what I allude to with “essentialist rather than performative terms”). I use it here adopting the voice of those within the conspiracy: for these individuals multiple masculinities become so diverse that “masculinity” becomes redundant. However, I am comfortable with the meaning of “masculinity” being stretched in extraordinary ways: as Deleuze says, “a thousand tiny sexes”. In this context, a masculinity which does not look like masculinity, and which is redundant to most, still has meaning to me, even if that meaning is elusive (which is the case for most meaning of a significant order). I don’t meant to get so metaphysical, but this is where it leads.

                      Joseph

                      September 28, 2010 at 8:40 am

      • Thanks for reply below to which I would love to reply but in perpetuity neither of us will get our respective books written. Am writing a piece to go on my site called ‘Multiple Humanities…beyond gender’ so will just send you the link when complete as will be easier than clogging up your comments column.

        All the best.

        gaia charis

        September 28, 2010 at 9:13 am

        • In an earlier comment I asked you whether you were sure that you were not actually perpetuating ‘the Conspiracy’?
          In our dialogue above you agree that ‘masculinity’, once freed from Conspiracy, becomes entirely redundant.
          And yet this chapter closes with the prospect of freedom from the Conspiracy leading to..’ multiple and fluid ways of being of being men and women, masculine and feminine.’
          This is exactly what I mean by unwittingly perpetuating the Conspiracy…..by holding on to these gendered terms ( and in the process perpetuating a binary divide regardless of what you may put in them ) when, post-Conspiracy, you have agreed that they would have no meaning.This dangles a GM carrot before the reader( no phallic pun intended )….ie. they can still be masculine and/or feminine but Gender Modified when what is really needed is ‘ungendered’.

          gaia charis

          September 28, 2010 at 6:32 pm

          • ie.A post-Conspiracy world, by your own definition, must be gender-free,

            gaia charis

            September 28, 2010 at 6:46 pm

          • I said it becomes redundant in terms of the mono-masculine regime. I also said that I have no problem with its meaning being continually stretched. I see no anomaly here.

            I agree with “by holding on to these gendered terms (and in the process perpetuating a binary divide regardless of what you may put in them)” and discuss this at some length in Numen, Old Men. You’ll have to wait until the whole of The Masculinity Conspiracy is written before knowing what my end game is here: the narrative should, of course, unfold, not just splurge forth at once. That said, I will probably not be unpacking themes at the same level in this text as the target audience is different.

            Joseph

            September 28, 2010 at 7:00 pm

  10. Another interesting issue not covered in this chapter is what is said to make sex “sacred.” In conservative Christianity, usually abstinence until marriage and making skin (of women) hidden is what is said to make sex sacred. Meanwhile more progressive cultural values tend to desacrilize sexuality (at least in this way) by comparing it to other natural bodily functions like eating and breathing, thus reducing shamefulness and hypocrisy around premarital sexuality (which happens just as often if not moreso in conservative abstinence-focused communities).

    I see Deida as in part trying to resacrilize sexuality by reintroducing conservative values and constructions of masculine-feminine polarity while keeping the more “sex-positive” view that allows for anyone to get it on anytime. Of course, this also has the effect of making the masculine-feminine binary seem divinely inspired and thus beyond criticism.

    Duff

    August 2, 2010 at 6:50 am

    • Good point.

      In terms of balance, I’m trying to keep spiritual references minimal until the spirituality chapter, but will pick this up then.

      Joseph

      August 2, 2010 at 8:04 am

      • Looking forward to the coverage of this issue later then!

        Duff

        August 2, 2010 at 8:15 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: