Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dianahsieh

Ayn Rand on Forbidding Sexual Displays in Public Places

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In tomorrow's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I'll answer the following question on public nudity and sex:

Do restrictions on nudity and sex visible to others violate rights? While having a zestful online debate, someone claimed that Ayn Rand contradicts herself in claiming that public nudity should be censored. (See "Thought Control" in
The Ayn Rand Letter
.) Since sex is a beautiful act, why should people be protected from it? Could a ban on visible pornography or sex be a slippery slope to other intrusions by government?

Of course, I have my own views on the substantive questions about the proper limits of the law, and I'll offer them in the webcast tomorrow.

I'm also interested in the question about Ayn Rand's views on the topic. Hence, I just re-read her essays, "Censorship: Local and Express" and "Thought Control." Both essays were originally published in The Ayn Rand Letter, and the former is also reprinted in Philosophy: Who Needs It. I strongly recommend reading (or re-reading) both essays in full before commenting on my question of interpretation below.

In light of Ayn Rand's strongly principled defense of freedom of speech in those essays, including her rejection of "community standards," I'm rather puzzled by what she says in these controversial paragraphs from "Thought Control." (I added an extra paragraph break for readability.)

Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper—but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality.

No one has the rights to do whatever he pleases on a public street (nor would he have such a right on a privately-owned street). The police power to maintain order among pedestrians or to control traffic is a procedural, not a substantive, power. A traffic policeman enforces rules of how to drive (in order to avoid clashes or collisions), but cannot tell you where to go.

Similarly, the rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive -- e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as "For Adults Only," may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech.

I understand Rand's basic claim just fine. It's her reasoning that puzzles me. She seems to endorse the general principle that the government can and ought to regulate the actions of private property owners, if that property is open to the public, so as to prevent certain people from being offended. That seems like a terribly dangerous precedent to me, particularly because its application would depend on something like "community standards."

Hence, I'm wondering if I've properly understood Rand's argument. Any thoughts on that question of interpretation would be most welcome in the comments. What do you think she's saying -- and why?

3372618-8082953323736179138?l=blog.diana

di

di

sXTutFNQVLc

Cross-posted from Metablog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence, I'm wondering if I've properly understood Rand's argument. Any thoughts on that question of interpretation would be most welcome in the comments. What do you think she's saying -- and why?

Yes, you've properly understood Rand's argument. It's quite clear what she is saying. There is no need to try to second-guess yourself or to try to imagine more a reasonable "interpretation." Her words don't need to be "interpreted," since they mean what they mean: Rand is advocating the idea of using the initiation of government force to prevent people from using their property in a manner in which others merely find "offensive." She is arguing that people have the right to not be offended by the displaying of images they regard as "loathsome."

And, yes indeed, it is, as you say, a "terribly dangerous precedent." We've discussed the issue over on OL here, and, as I argued on that thread, Rand's novels could be relegated to the "adults only" section using her views on society's right to not be offended. Any type of public expression could be limited or banned.

Obviously, Rand didn't think her position through very carefully. She erred, and advocated a position that is contrary to Objectivism.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too don't think her argument here works, but I don't know if I quite get it either. Her reasoning seems unusually confused here. It doesn't appear that she's arguing for any kind of "community standards" based regulations, more of like some kind of "procedural rules" for displays. She mentions traffic laws, and etiquette, but I don't quite think her analogy works. In traffic violations, you have something taking place totally on one person's property, whereas on displays of this kind, you have a conflict taking place between two properties. But perhaps there is some kind of argument under nuisance law, where someone could be made to cover up the offending parts, I don't know.

Regardless, it seems like in a totally private property society, people would be aware of this possibility for conflict, and so would have procedures already in place to arbitrate them, if not specifying these matters in private zoning contracts so that this kind of thing is relegated to the "red light district" and not something your neighbor could just randomly decide to do anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what you get when The Public is the owner of the property in question. . Rand was right.

Instead of arguing with simple naked bodies in your mind, just think "two girls, one cup". (Only if you think Rand is wrong should you CHOOSE to go seek that out. And, you are welcome for my giving you even that much of a warning).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what you get when The Public is the owner of the property in question. . Rand was right.

Rand isn't talking only about property which is owned by the public. She is also talking about someone displaying images on private property which can be seen by others from property owned by someone else -- notice that she parenthetically added that a person would also not have "such a right on a privately-owned street." So, in this case, Rand is the one who is asserting that "The Public" has certain rights of ownership where it actually does not. She is advocating the idea of allowing non-owners control over owners' property.

Instead of arguing with simple naked bodies in your mind, just think "two girls, one cup". (Only if you think Rand is wrong should you CHOOSE to go seek that out. And, you are welcome for my giving you even that much of a warning).

Whose level of queasiness at being "offended" will be used as the standard by which visual displays will be banned? Yours? Ayn Rand's? "The Public's"?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand isn't talking only about property which is owned by the public. She is also talking about someone displaying images on private property which can be seen by others from property owned by someone else

Well, we're assuming places "open to the public". Nevertheless, she calls this an issue of etiquette and she is right. Since we're talking about what is proper in public places, we are discussing public areas (such as sidewalks in front of stores) where there are, rightly, expectations of what one might encounter (and not encounter) in that particular public area. I would not extend her argument (re: legislative regulation of warnings) within the boundaries of completely private areas that can not be seen from public areas. When Rand makes the point that no one has the right to do "whatever he pleases" even in private, she is speaking of the fundamental principle. She specifically said that warning signs "may properly be required" in places open to the public where specifically unconsenting individuals might be confronted.

Whose level of queasiness at being "offended" will be used as the standard by which visual displays will be banned? Yours? Ayn Rand's? "The Public's"?

J

The "public's" level of queasiness in that local community is the answer. We are discussing legislation about what the "public" should be reasonably warned about. Whatever that community sets as its standards for what the public should NOT be confronted with without warning should be decisive for areas that the "public" is responsible for. This isn't a federal issue... it is a local one.

If some town wants a rule that disallows shop keepers from displaying pictures of people eating fecal matter to the public, and instead, just requires a sign that says "Come in side to see poop-eating," then no rights are violated.

Rand is right. Too many people don't understand the distinction between metaphysical freedom and political freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we're assuming places "open to the public". Nevertheless, she calls this an issue of etiquette and she is right. Since we're talking about what is proper in public places, we are discussing public areas (such as sidewalks in front of stores) where there are, rightly, expectations of what one might encounter (and not encounter) in that particular public area. I would not extend her argument (re: legislative regulation of warnings) within the boundaries of completely private areas that can not be seen from public areas. When Rand makes the point that no one has the right to do "whatever he pleases" even in private, she is speaking of the fundamental principle. She specifically said that warning signs "may properly be required" in places open to the public where specifically unconsenting individuals might be confronted.

The problem is that once you allow people's "offensiveness" to be the standard by which others' rights to use their own property is limited, then you have no argument against those who claim to be "offended" by things which don't offend you. You thus open the door to the banning or limiting of all forms of public expression.

The "public's" level of queasiness in that local community is the answer. We are discussing legislation about what the "public" should be reasonably warned about. Whatever that community sets as its standards for what the public should NOT be confronted with without warning should be decisive for areas that the "public" is responsible for. This isn't a federal issue... it is a local one.

How large of an area or population is a "local community"? And by what objective criteria? Why couldn't a state or nation declare itself a "community" and impose the majority's will about what is or is not "offensive"? It's perfectly acceptable to you for, say, 100 people to tell a person what he can or cannot display on his property, but you think it's unacceptable for the entire nation to vote on what he can or can't do with his property? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

If some town wants a rule that disallows shop keepers from displaying pictures of people eating fecal matter to the public, and instead, just requires a sign that says "Come in side to see poop-eating," then no rights are violated.

So, then I take it that you would have no problem with "communities" limiting Rand's novels to being sold in "adults only" sections, and requiring that they include warnings on their covers about their sexual and/or violent content? And I take it that you would have no problem with "communities" establishing governing boards who decide, say, which architectural styles and colors private citizens will be allowed to use, and which they will not, since architectural styles and colors of buildings are often as controversial and "offensive" to the majorities in certain "communities" as public displays of nudity?

Rand is right. Too many people don't understand the distinction between metaphysical freedom and political freedom.

I would think that your notion of "political freedom" would mean that people are "free" when legally restricted to discussing their views in private, and never in places that are "open to the public" lest someone be "offended" by views that they (or the majority of their "community") find "loathsome." Is that what "freedom" means to you?

J

Edited by Jonathan13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a funny story related to this. A friend ran a headshop on a busy street near where I live. His inventory naturally included glass bongs, but I gather that the people who make those also make glass dildos. Big, eye-catching dildos, on display in the window to shock the passersby. So, there he is, running his store, paying his rent, doing well; there’s a smoothie place on the one side of him, and the other space is vacant. Then some brilliant entrepreneur gets the bright idea to open up a children’s clothing boutique in the vacant space. A couple months after she moved in, she starts complaining about the dildos in the window. Anyway, long story short, the landlord didn’t have the power to demand the dildos be removed, and my friend wouldn’t remove them on principle. When his lease came due, the landlord raised his rent by the maximum possible, effectively shutting him down (he also has a strip club, he does ok). The children’s clothing store went bust before long. Both spaces sat vacant for quite a while afterwards. Even the smoothie joint went bust. A lose, lose, lose situation.

At least the state didn't get involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the state didn't get involved.

As I mentioned on the OL discussion that I linked to above, "I think that the responsibility of convincing others that they shouldn't display objectionable images on their property should be left to parents and other concerned citizens exercising their right to organize, persuade, protest, boycott, embarrass, buy out, move away or otherwise creatively and privately solve differences with property owners."

There are always options available other than running to the government, initiating force and violating others' property rights. Get creative. Find out what makes the offender tick, and explore ways of getting through to him or her.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are always options available other than running to the government, initiating force and violating others' property rights. Get creative.

This just made me remember, the reason he was stubborn about keeping the dildos in the window is because she did call the cops. All they did was talk to him, I gather there was nothing they could do about it. But naturally, if you run a headshop you don't like seeing cops coming in to the store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "public's" level of queasiness in that local community is the answer. We are discussing legislation about what the "public" should be reasonably warned about. Whatever that community sets as its standards for what the public should NOT be confronted with without warning should be decisive for areas that the "public" is responsible for.

I have to say, that's about as non-objective as it gets. Such a standard is subjective because queasiness is an emotion. If community at large was uncomfortable around a gay couple kissing, would that couple be obligated to ONLY kiss in secluded areas with a warning sign when a hetero couple does not have to? Unless there is a *rights violation*, a community just has to deal with it. I guess I don't understand what the big fuss of seeing a sexual display is in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is as non-objective as is each individual's own private standard of queasiness.

...but again, this is what you get when the "public" is the "owner" of the property. There is no objective way to assure 100% agreement. The slippery slope argument doesn't work because you must completely change the context to something that actually does violate someone's right.

If we're talking about a society where everything is privately owned, then there is obviously no place for government involvement unless actual rights violations are occurring. The private owners can set their own standards.

But where you have a situation that leaves it up to the public to set standards, the only way to do this is through politics. Hopefully (since this is not the ideal) the political system is one that leaves these standards up to the smallest and most local political bodies.

I don't think anyone here would argue that a private business owner shouldn't be able to set up NON-RIGHT VIOLATING procedures and rules of etiquette in their own domains. Right?

Since public areas have no such owner, is your "objective" answer to say that NO procedures and/or rules of etiquette can every be instituted? These are, again, non-right violating procedures and rules of etiquette we're discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But where you have a situation that leaves it up to the public to set standards, the only way to do this is through politics. Hopefully (since this is not the ideal) the political system is one that leaves these standards up to the smallest and most local political bodies.

I understand this, that because it's public there should be some kind of standard, but the queasiness you cite is a poor justification for rules under public property. There should be an attempt at something justifiable. I question that there is anything at all which ought to be censored under public property. The topic is really about sexual displays, so assuming public property [which we agree is unjustified], why should any public sexual displays be disallowed? So basically, no, I don't think rules of etiquette should be instituted unless it has to do with safety, such as traffic laws. Other than that, people just have to deal with discomfort.

There's a similar thread elsewhere, I probably should take a look at it.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you've properly understood Rand's argument. It's quite clear what she is saying. There is no need to try to second-guess yourself or to try to imagine more a reasonable "interpretation." Her words don't need to be "interpreted," since they mean what they mean: Rand is advocating the idea of using the initiation of government force to prevent people from using their property in a manner in which others merely find "offensive." She is arguing that people have the right to not be offended by the displaying of images they regard as "loathsome."

[...]

Obviously, Rand didn't think her position through very carefully. She erred, and advocated a position that is contrary to Objectivism.

The reason Objectivists are slow to say "Rand erred" is because in the vastness of the rest of her work, she rarely erred and consistently thought her ideas through to a point most would not be able or just wouldn't care to. Also, if it were some arrogant child who constantly spat out ideas he'd clearly not thought much about, a flippant and biting attitude might be appropriate (might). But this is Ayn Rand, a great thinker who warrants great respect. I don't understand taking this kind of attitude with her.

That said, I disagree with her reasoning. For one, sexual imagery, or even sex itself, is not offensive, maybe. It depends on context. Even still, let's assume offensive sexual content, such as explicit intercourse on the front lawn. Or offensive political content, such as a large swastika lawn ornament. Or even an offensive color, such as hot pink, which literally makes you squint in the sunlight with every glance. What of it? No actual harm is done. That's all one needs to know, really, to understand that the government is not to be involved. Maybe the social community would have an uproar, and the neighbors would hate you, and the neighbor kids would taunt your kids at school or from across the street. And maybe that would be enough to change your behavior... or not. Either way, no rights violation, no government.

"The roads are there so there must be rules, even if they're operated by the government" is a poor argument in favor of offensive imagery regulations. The context for roads, and their rules, to exist morally means they need to be privately owned. Using the current, not-privately-owned context as a way to morally support any system of rules is like arguing for tax code reform. The meaty argument is instead for tax repeal.

Edited by JASKN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shortcoming of Ayn Rand's defense of procedural restrictions on property use is that she did not identify explicitly the legal principle involved. Ayn Rand was not a lawyer so this is no surprise or moral failing. I'm no lawyer either, but I have the power of a fully operational internet that makes research into such matters much easier.

The legal principle involved is the "Coming to the Nuisance" doctrine. The principle was stated as follows by David Wilens (ed: who is a lawyer):

If a property owner is using his property so as to cause a nuisance to another property owner, then the property owner who was the earlier to start his particular use is the one who has the right to continue his use.

The coming to the nuisance doctrine brings objectivity to the process of establishing which uses of property are rightful and which are not. The full article by David Wilens is at Capitalism Magazine serialized into four parts.

Part one is a statement of the problem created by zoning laws.

Part two is an introduction to the 'nuisance' problem, which zoning laws are supposed to address.

Part three is the statement of the 'coming to the nuisance' doctrine.

Part four shows how the coming to the nuisance doctrine solves the many problems created by zoning laws.

And yes, public sex and nudity is attention getting and distracting and can qualify as a nuisance. Note that the 'coming to the nuisance' works both ways, either the party having a sexual display or the neighbors objecting to that display can invoke the doctrine depending on which was first to establish the property. It is possible in laissez faire capitalism to prevent new strip clubs from being opened next to your house. At the same time no existing strip club should be closed down just because some fool wants to open an elementary school next door to one.

Edited by Grames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to "coming to the nuisance", as it seems to me is that it is the element where Capitalism achieves the goals that forced government zoning laws pretend to but can't. For example if a nuclear plant is built then private homes are unlikely to built next door because most people would prefer other areas. So instead perhaps a saw mill or another industrial facility which is not affected would use the land nearby instead. And conversely a nuclear plant would not typically choose to build next to a block of private houses.

This is not a point that is the fundamental issue in the OP but it is just one to consider. It is that most likely what you would have is some natural "districting" occuring that sections off businesses that involve sexuality. This already happens in major cities. You go to a district knowing ahead of time to expect shops that are geared toward sexual products. It's unlikely any parent would go out of their way to take a stroll with the kiddies to the red light district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, no, I don't think rules of etiquette should be instituted unless it has to do with safety, such as traffic laws. Other than that, people just have to deal with discomfort.

So if a group of anarchists decide they will hold weekly sex parties in a public park's child play area, the kids will just have to deal with the discomfort? Nothing to stop these people from intentionally making trouble and ruining the purpose of the park? Just wait till someone throws the first punch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason Objectivists are slow to say "Rand erred" is because in the vastness of the rest of her work, she rarely erred and consistently thought her ideas through to a point most would not be able or just wouldn't care to.

The rest of her work has nothing to do with it. I think that arguments should be judged strictly on their merits, not on who makes them, or on how often you think that the person making them has been right about other issues. I think the mindset that you're proposing is what leads to people revering Rand to the point of not being properly critical of her arguments, to people being highly offended when someone simply states the truth that Rand erred about something, and also to the double standard of people giving other great thinkers very hostile readings. I've seen it all too often in Objectivist circles: The reluctance or refusal to recognize Rand's errors no matter how obvious, and, in sharp contrast, the eagerness to misinterpret and negatively judge other thinkers because they've been deemed ahead of time to be undeserving of respect.

Having said that, I understand the concept of respecting the person while not respecting a specific argument they're making. I respect Rand highly enough to say that she erred, and not to make a harsher negative judgment about her as a person for the rights violations that she was mistakenly advocating.

Also, if it were some arrogant child who constantly spat out ideas he'd clearly not thought much about...

My primary area of interest is aesthetics. Have you read all of Rand's views on the subject? Do you have any education in the arts outside of Objectivism, or any professional experience? I do. A lot. And although I wouldn't exactly call Rand an "arrogant child," I think that in the field of aesthetics she "spat out" a lot of judgments and opinions that she had "clearly not thought much about." I'd like to see more Objectivists being open to the idea that acknowledging and correcting her errors would be a good thing, rather than revering her so much that they get offended that anyone would criticize her.

...a flippant and biting attitude might be appropriate (might). But this is Ayn Rand, a great thinker who warrants great respect. I don't understand taking this kind of attitude with her.

Who has taken a "flippant and biting attitude" toward Rand?

That said, I disagree with her reasoning. For one, sexual imagery, or even sex itself, is not offensive, maybe. It depends on context.

I agree. Sexual imagery is very rarely offensive to me, and when it is, it usually has more to do with the ugliness of the people involved, and not the sexual act itself. The same public performance committed by two old fat men which revolts me would most likely be very appealing to me if committed by two attractive young ladies. When I first read Rand's opinion on the subject, I was as shocked as I would be if I had read that she wanted to ban public displays of delicious desserts because people should be protected from such offensive sights.

Even still, let's assume offensive sexual content, such as explicit intercourse on the front lawn. Or offensive political content, such as a large swastika lawn ornament. Or even an offensive color, such as hot pink, which literally makes you squint in the sunlight with every glance. What of it? No actual harm is done. That's all one needs to know, really, to understand that the government is not to be involved. Maybe the social community would have an uproar, and the neighbors would hate you, and the neighbor kids would taunt your kids at school or from across the street. And maybe that would be enough to change your behavior... or not. Either way, no rights violation, no government.

"The roads are there so there must be rules, even if they're operated by the government" is a poor argument in favor of offensive imagery regulations. The context for roads, and their rules, to exist morally means they need to be privately owned. Using the current, not-privately-owned context as a way to morally support any system of rules is like arguing for tax code reform. The meaty argument is instead for tax repeal.

That's the problem that I have with Rand's position. Normally, you'd expect her to say that she doesn't accept the premise of publicly owned roads, and that the Objectivist position is not to be fooled into going along with discussing which rules the public should enact once it decides to own or control property which it shouldn't.

J

Edited by Jonathan13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a group of anarchists decide they will hold weekly sex parties in a public park's child play area, the kids will just have to deal with the discomfort? Nothing to stop these people from intentionally making trouble and ruining the purpose of the park? Just wait till someone throws the first punch?

In a sense, yes. Parent's responsibility mainly. Also, a parent's discomfort around something is not a sufficient reason to disallow certain activities or media in public. What I'm getting at is that discomfort cannot, in any way, be measured objectively, nor should it be. More along the lines of what Grames mentioned makes sense to me (I haven't read all of the links provided), and doesn't rely on a person's emotional reaction. Otherwise, when you stray away from the sort of obvious examples you gave, you only end up with censorship being promoted or expression controlled. What would you do if a majority of people felt uncomfortable around two gay people kissing? There needs to be a better standard. I know that public property creates a mess of things, but it's still better to have as objective as possible rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you do if a majority of people felt uncomfortable around two gay people kissing? There needs to be a better standard. I know that public property creates a mess of things, but it's still better to have as objective as possible rules.

Queasiness isn't the standard I chose or am arguing. My standard is whether or not a rule (made in public or private) violates individual rights.

That's what I mean about having to change the context in an attempt to make an analogy work here. It IS an individual rights violation to create a law or rule (like the one you suggest) that discriminates against gay individuals kissing. If kissing is to be disallowed by rule in certain public areas (by political consensus of the public) then the rule must apply to all individuals equally.

A rule that states "NO NUDITY AND/OR SEX ARE ALLOWED IN THIS CHILD'S PLAY AREA" is valid for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Queasiness isn't the standard I chose or am arguing. My standard is whether or not a rule (made in public or private) violates individual rights.

That's what I mean about having to change the context in an attempt to make an analogy work here. It IS an individual rights violation to create a law or rule (like the one you suggest) that discriminates against gay individuals kissing. If kissing is to be disallowed by rule in certain public areas (by political consensus of the public) then the rule must apply to all individuals equally.

A rule that states "NO NUDITY AND/OR SEX ARE ALLOWED IN THIS CHILD'S PLAY AREA" is valid for all.

Then a law which states that all individuals will be put to death by the state at the age of 30 is also "valid for all." So is it your position that such a law would not violate individual rights?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I mean about having to change the context in an attempt to make an analogy work here. It IS an individual rights violation to create a law or rule (like the one you suggest) that discriminates against gay individuals kissing. If kissing is to be disallowed by rule in certain public areas (by political consensus of the public) then the rule must apply to all individuals equally.

Why should kissing be allowed or disallowed at all? I'm thinking that a "no kissing" rule *is* a violation of individual rights more often than not because there isn't really much to point to in order to justify a rule disallowing kissing. Freedom of speech and all that jazz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then a law which states that all individuals will be put to death by the state at the age of 30 is also "valid for all." So is it your position that such a law would not violate individual rights?

J

Clearly, putting someone to death without cause violates one's most fundamental right.

Are you serious?!? This is the context changing and context dropping which I keep pointing out.

Edited by freestyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, putting someone to death without cause violates one's most fundamental right.

Are you serious?!? This is the context changing and context dropping which I keep pointing out.

How about, "Showing any skin whatsoever is a disgusting display of sexuality, therefore everyone -- men, women and children alike -- must cover themselves completely by wearing burkas when in public, so as not to offend anyone else." Would that be a rights violation to you? It would meet your standard of applying equally to everyone without harming anyone, no?

J

Edited by Jonathan13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...