Man, what a week. After being cut off from the internet and TV news for just that period of time, I knew there was a lot of catching up to do, especially on the news, and that probably it would never get done. I had hoped to hear that the persecuted (raped, pillaged, murdered and sold into slavery) Sudanese Christians had found relief. I had hoped to come back and learn that the terrorist insurgency in Iraq had been totally crushed, Zharqawi beheaded, and some good-looking woman crowned queen of Babylonia. But first I decided to pay my respects to a few friends, so I headed over to TS O'Rama's to find this out: Under the category "too much information" falls a sad piece in NCR with revelations concerning a convert who works for Crisis magazine. I wish he'd write a book about how he overcame that problem... Who are you talking about? What problem?
The problem of unchastity... Oh, that problem. But who, what, when, where?
This is a delicate subject and I'm not sure I should write about it at all... Yes you should, TS, you really should.
College professors surely find themselves sorely tempted... Aha! At last - a subject on which I am fully qualified to hold forth. I have experience in this area. Let me rephrase that. I have experience at not having indulged the experience. I have so much experience that someone could probably benefit from the experience of my inexperience, though it sounds a little late for the "convert" in question. But who is that convert? Alas, he doesn't say. Oh, that TS, so...discreet, so subtle, so prudent, so averse to pointing the finger. I figured going over to Crisis was pointless, since they come out only once a month and they'd probably be in, shall we say, crisis-management mode for the next two.
No, if I needed names named and fingers pointed, there were several choices available, so I flipped a two-tailed coin and headed over to Amy Welborn's and started scrolling. Bingo. Deal Hudson. Yes, he works for Crisis, all right. In fact, I think he's the editor. But what had Deal gone and done that Deal shouldn't do? O'Rama aside, I knew it had something to do with sex; otherwise nobody'd be interested. But before I could find that out, I open a comment box to a post and, scrolling quickly, find one by Jeff Culbreath (sorry, can't link to individual comments), wherein he claims that Crisis and Deal Hudson have been caught on occasion in brazen embrace with "a thoroughly decadent popular culture," by way of example pointing to a favorable review of a work called Mr. Ives' Christmas, which he considers a "virtually pornographic novel." He is responded to by, of all people, Rod Dreher (scroll down a bit), who considers the work a "great Catholic novel." Jeff fires back, graciously of course, then Dreher, then Jeff once more who, I think, acquits himself well, and that's the end of it. None of it had much to do with Amy's original post, but was still a question that seemed well worth discussing: what constitutes a legitimately Catholic aesthetic? Well, in the case of Mr. Ives' Christmas I won't even attempt to resolve it. The reason is that, ahem, I've never read it. And the reason for that is that I've never heard of it. But now that I have I promise to...no I don't. I don't make promises anymore. The ones I've already made are sufficient unto a lifetime.
I know that lines can be hard to draw sometimes, but how does this happen, that two politically conservative, morally upright, and religiously orthodox fellows read the same book and see two different things? Can their individual concepts of an "occasion of sin" be that far apart? Puzzling. (And it is not the case, as I have seen some try to portray him, that Mr. Culbreath would permit us an art only of the shlockiest, kitschiest and most wholesome variety, in short that he is Polyannaish prude. As one who has occasionally and enthusiastically pushed the boundaries of good taste, allowing to himself and his commenters a fair measure of licentious leeway, I can testify that Mr. Culbreath is able to laugh at a well-placed vulgarity.)
But, really, I had no time for these higher pursuits. The Catholic aesthetic and the rapine in Sudan could wait. I wanted to know the deal on Deal. I wanted to gorge on gossip. So I popped out of the comments and scrolled, scrolled, scrolled and there it was, a link to a National Catholic Reporter story accusing Deal of adultery with an eighteen year old girl, a young woman, a student in his philosophy course, and with plenty of lascivious, supporting detail. One got a sense of the writer licking his lips with each keystroke. The Bible says that that which has been done in secret will be shouted from the rooftops, but I guess this divine duty has devolved upon the organs of the modern media. Heaven (or hell) can wait. Some readers expressed surprise that NCR would so gleefully expose a fellow Catholic. That's a legitimate worry, I suppose, if one actually considers the Reporter a Catholic publication. Before running the story, the editors had to confront an obvious truth: this could at the least sorely embarrass Mr. Hudson and at the worst destroy him. And how do you suppose they resolved it? Good, that's what we're trying to do. It's not complicated. Mr. Hudson is not a "fellow Catholic" to a pagan mouthpiece for the sexual revolution. The problem for Mr. Hudson is that he wasn't supposed to be one either.
Conveniently, I'm of two minds on the matter. At the same time that I ought to have felt dirty while perusing the squalid details, I couldn't. After reading about collared priests who diddled boys and hosted pornographic websites, I found this all too tame. It's hard to feel dirty anymore because the dirt is everywhere. At the same time that I felt I ought not to know of this transgression, I was glad I did. At the same time that I wanted to summon sympathy for both predator and prey - Deal's need for "forgiveness," the girl's for "healing" and justice - I felt paralyzed. In her case, it's the 'victim' status that begins to annoy. She had a rough upbringing, she was "vulnerable". All right. But I have students whose stories, in their horrifying specifics, equal and surpass that of Miss Poppas, yet they have never sunk so low. I was wondering how far removed from the age of reason an 18 year old really is. I was wondering if there were any possibility that she thought what she was being asked to do, and what she consented to, was not wrong. To say yes is to render her a moral imbecile. She was asked to do certain things, she consented, she promised not to tell, she told. Mr. Hudson, like Mr. Clinton, was guilty of adultery, lechery, and a violation of professional ethics, with, in the latter's case, a further misapprehension of the proper role of cigars in human affairs. So why does the article make it sound as though Hudson held all the high cards of power while she held none? Thirty grand and a newspaper hatchet job later, it's not so clear.
The word "no" in a woman's mouth is the most powerful protest in the language. It's what separates the victim from the participant.
I was surprised to learn that Mr. Hudson is a philosopher. I guess the calm, clear air of those Aristotelian heights doesn't stand a chance against the hot wind generated by an 18 year old belly button staring you in the face. Wish I could've been there for him. I'd have shouted, "Deal! Don't do it! That way nothing but evil lies." But, too late, it's a done deal. (Sorry, TS).
I have to look at it everyday. Lots of belly, cleavage, bare backs, low-riding jeans that seem to hang by a pubic hair. When a girl takes her seat, sometimes the jeans ride lower and her thong and the upper swell of her buttocks rise to view. And nobody seems to care. A couple of days ago I saw a new one, a pretty blond girl (I'd say in her twenties) sitting on a concrete bench, leaning against the brick wall, with one arm raised to run her hand through her hair while she used the other to talk on a cellphone. Her eyes scanned passersby as she talked. And I could see her breasts. Literally. The garment was not perfectly transparent, but the shape of everything was clearly visible. Everything. And she was so pretty. Her face alone was enough to draw many a young man to her side. So why? (Maybe some of you ladies can help me out.)
If there's a dress code at my school, I haven't been able to figure it out. I could ask, but already know the answer: re Potter Stewart grappling with obscenity, We'll know it when we see it.
Well, Mr. Luse, you shouldn't stare. I don't, really. There's no time. No sooner has one pelvic assembly passed by than the next one's smacking you in the face. Even if you were immune to staring, you can't get away from it.
What I actually feel is a mixture of pity and contempt. I'm jaded, I guess. I'm tired of seeing it because the mystery is being destroyed. Well, some would say, that's a good thing. You're innoculated against temptation. No, it isn't a good thing. When a man catches a glimpse of the more erotically inspired parts of a woman's anatomy, he should be struck dumb by at least two things - by wonder at the beauty of it, and by a rising concupiscience that pays tribute to her appeal, but which can also put his soul in danger, and which is why he should not get too many such glimpses. And there is a third thing which I will get to shortly.
But it is never good that the veil be torn from this particular mystery. The honor of women, on which may depend the decency of civilization, is the thing at stake, and so we teach our women to have no honor. Too sweeping, some would say, but I believe it.
Educational philosophy today is caught in a contradiction. We are to make the students more participants in their education than recipients of it. (It seems that Mr. Hudson had already bought into this to some degree.) The old pedagogy is dead. We are to "cooperate" in their learning process, not force-feed it. At the same time as we are asked to elevate their status and modify our own, one wrong look can bring you up on charges. As we are asked to get closer to them, one slip of the tongue can cost you your job at worst, your reputation at least. Or maybe it's the other way around.
And so, recalcitrant to the end, I remain of the old school, trying not to project the aura of one who is approachable in any kind of "chummy" fashion. Although it's not always feasible, I try not to have conferences in private. I do most of that in the classroom, with other students hanging around. I want witnesses. Still, things can happen. Behind the desk a hand brushes your thigh. While looking over your shoulder, she allows (or did she?) her breast to press against it. Does it mean anything? Probably not. Maybe. Pull away, fast. Don't ever, ever try to find out.
I've never accepted a student-profferred invitation to an end-of-semester "celebration". There have been times I'd like to, but I don't. Some of them actually come to admire you. You can see them wanting to draw close with nothing sordid in mind. You have touched them in some way, and they'd like a mentor, someone of experience with whom they can discuss their enthusiasms. I do what I can, but it's never enough, not these days, and not if the student is female.
None of this may seem to have much to do with Deal Hudson, who appears to have actively sought this encounter, and pursued it to its end in a calculated fashion, softening her up with alcohol, for example. But it does, and is the source of my lack of sympathy for him (a lack which does not extend to his wife and children, assuming he's still got them). And it is this: it's not that hard to say no. It's not that hard to deny the impulse either to proffer, or accept, an overture. It's simply a small matter of conscience.
The reasons given above for exercising caution in my contacts with female students are real ones, but not the ultimate ones. They are purely practical and self-preserving, reasons that could be dispensed with if you thought a student could be trusted. No, the real real reasons run more like this:
What would my wife think if she found out? (And she will find out, if you believe in eternity.) What kind of wound would this inflict? Would her heart ever heal? Could I live without her trust?
How ashamed would my daughters be? I'll tell you: I'd be an empty shell of lies, a hypocritical husk.
And (that third thing), being the father of daughters, how can I look upon any one of my students with a lust that is not at once overpowered by an even greater share of the tenderness I have for my own girls, for the sweetness of their promise, of all their hopes for the future, and by a proper deference to the prerogatives of the man (if so it be written) she will one day find, and whom God has set aside for her? She could have been your daughter, Mr. Hudson. It's not that hard.
These questions seem silly, almost clichéd, because so obvious and fundamental, as are their answers, yet when one is tempted, they are the first that should come to mind. How hard can it be?
Mr. Hudson is a man near in age to my own, and, rather than his cups, should have settled into a modest wisdom, which is that a lecher - even if the girl consents, and apart from the harm he inflicts on himself - takes from his conquest something he can never give back (some great part, perhaps, of her innocence). But even supposing she were well along the road to corruption, where was his solicitude for even the image of her innocence, which all youth exudes no matter how corrupt, and which he should have been anxious to salvage, not savage? If Miss Poppas ever gets her faith back, she'll feel the absence of what he took all the more keenly, although in recompense she may find redemption.
All of us (okay, not all of us) are hypocrites to some degree, preaching a fine vision of integrity, even holiness, while privately entertaining a myriad wicked thoughts. Well, let it stay there, in your head, where none can see but you and God. It will protect others, and maybe even keep you safe. For awhile, anyway.
I finally did get caught up on the news, as caught up as I care to be, but not before getting my gossip. I regret having been part of the problem rather than the solution, but all was not without profit. Before coming across that NCR piece I had considered offering my services to the president. Not now. With "Catholic" friends like that out there, my past begins to look like strewn wreckage, ripe for a gathering of eagles. And some of it probably is. Some of it I've even repented of, and most of it I had hoped to be forgiven. But that's not good enough, not anymore.
Comments: Philosophy on the Rocks:
Great article Mr. Luse. After reading it I'm glad we decided to keep my 15-year-old son at a digital school where his exposure to young women will be almost nil. Now I think I might take another look at those on-line universities because frankly what you just described as the scene on campus scares the hell out of me!
Posted by Elena email at August 28, 2004 12:06 PM
Another great essay Bill. Our society seems to falsely think that we should listen to the wisdom of those who have given into temptation compared to those who have resisted it. In most cases this is just pure nonscence. It is like asking for defence advice from a WWII France compared to Britain. Britain successfully faught off the temptation of the Germans and it was not easier than giving in to it. It is the contrast between the short term and the long term results of our actions. The path of least resistance can be a slipperly slope to hell.
Posted by Jeff Miller email at August 28, 2004 01:13 PM
Kudos, Mr. Luse!!!
Amazingly, I talked about this issue on my blog just this morning. http://dressingwithdignity.blogspot.com
(It also is the topic of an entire book: "Dressing with Dignty", available from http://www.ValoraMedia.com ....yeah, it's a shameless plug, but I don't have money left for marketing!!!) ;-)
Really, though, as a mother of two young men and two maturing ladies, this topic is near and dear to my heart.
I really wonder: Why is it that some women argue that they have a right to wear whatever they want, and the young men have no right to ogle them?
It’s not a question of rights, though, is it? It’s a question of nature. And men, by nature, are going to see a woman (or young girl's) scantily clad body and be stimulated by what they see. Besides, are we animals? Or are we human persons created to the image and likeness of God?
Most of society is unaware of the splendor that the effects of a tastefully dressed lady has on men. Guys are delighted to be around modestly dressed women, as they can enjoy the pleasure of their company…without a trace of temptation. Dressing with dignity brings with it liberation between males and females that women can only imagine—but men appreciate! Deep down, men understand that feminine modesty allows for the dominance of the female intellect.
A woman half dressed will throw men into confusion. Why is that?
Because passions can overrun and even cancel out the intellect.
We’re not just talking about sexual passion, either. Think about it. Have you ever heard anyone say, "I was so hungry, I couldn't concentrate"? Or, "I was so angry, I just couldn’t think"? How about, "I was so sad that I couldn’t focus on the book I was reading"?
Can we seriously say that hunger, anger and sadness will disrupt our ability to think, and then say sexual passion will not?
If anything, sexual passion is a stronger distraction. It just follows that the more immodestly someone is dressed, the more distraction they will cause. Male or female!
But immodesty not only distracts our attention, it also reduces a lady to an object. It makes her appear less than the human person that she is. That’s why today’s advertising is primal, even revolting. Immodestly dressed women dominate advertising these days, and are obviously directed to the baser passions of men.
The sexual decadence that we have witnessed in the course of the last few decades can be traced back, in part, to the fashion world’s attempt to wipe out our ‘holy bashfulness’. The proper response that women should give to what is personal, intimate, and calls for veiling is to dress with dignity.
Posted by Colleen Hammond email at August 28, 2004 02:11 PM
Shameless plugs are ok in a good cause, Colleen.Don't be scared, Elena. If I can handle it, so can many others. Prepare your kids as best you can and say a lot of prayers.
Posted by William Luse email at August 28, 2004 02:54 PM
In dressing modestly, the dress must be done in such a way that it does not come across as dowdy, stiff, neo-Jansenistic. Not to come off looking like some Catholic Amish or a pseudo-Mormon stereotype. Modest dress can be done in such a manner that can conform to both the letter and spirit of Catholic teaching, yet be so fresh, modern and magnetic as to draw folks like bees to honey.
Not to come off like something Victorian or prudish, but avoiding a slippery slope to the dark world of a Brittany Spears also. It can be done.
Posted by Roy F. Moore email at August 28, 2004 04:31 PM
Good to have you back, Professor. (You said I could call you that.) Amen to everything.
Anyway, I suppose I should thank you for letting me off the hook with respect to being a prude. You remind me of a fellow parishoner, a nice matronly sort of lady, who came into my shop to order business cards. In the course of her telling me about the job she said "damn".
Then she got red faced and apologized all of a sudden. "What are you sorry for?" I asked. "My language. I'm quite sure that you never talk that way. You're so devout."
"That's not true. Just the other day, in fact, I said 'hell'."
"Sure. It was probably in one of your prayers."
There's no pleasing some people.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath email at August 28, 2004 07:40 PM
Hilarious. In the words of my friend Hambone when a salacious topic comes up: "talk slower".
I wasn't trying to be coy by not naming Hudson's name...at the time I wrote that I was thinking if they didn't know who I was talking about then I wasn't furthering the ruination of his reputation. But soon after everybody and there brother (in St. Blogland) knew what the deal(puns happen) was.
I do think there is a possibility that one can learn from a situation which is "99% gossip by volume". Certainly Jeff & Dreher's conversation on books was edifying. Alas I haven't read Mr. Ivey's so cannot contribute. I really think that Hudson should write a book on how he climbed out of this abyss, assuming that he did learn something other than what a child learns when they touch a hot stove.
Posted by TSO email at August 28, 2004 08:29 PM
So, Jeff, I remind you of a nice matronly sort of lady. Let me mull that over.You're welcome, Roy. Although I think the Amish are kind of sexy. Some of the women, I mean.TS, I don't mean to be cynical, but right about now I don't feel like he's got much to teach you. Maybe philosophy, in a non-coed class.
Posted by William Luse email at August 28, 2004 09:19 PM
Roy wrote:>Modest dress can be done in such a manner that can conform to both the letter and spirit of Catholic teaching, yet be so fresh, modern and magnetic as to draw folks like bees to honey.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!!!
There is nothing wrong with being well groomed, tastefully dressed, and looking beautiful---dressing 'modestly' does NOT mean 'frumpy'!
There is a difference between dressing attractively and dressing to attract, and it is my hope that women will once again dress with the beauty and charm that excentuates their femininity so that we can regain the respect that our gender deserves.
Posted by Colleen Hammond email at August 29, 2004 12:02 AM
You're probably right Bill, but my experience has been that those with experience with a particular sin are particularly adept at teaching others how to avoid it - God writing straight with crooked lines sort of thing. My initial reaction to the scandal was along the lines "well, whatever he was reading back then - it sure wasn't working" which is why Jeff C's comments were so interesting to me.
Posted by TSO email at August 29, 2004 07:19 AM
Great post, Bill. "Pelvic assembly" -- great writing as well as great insight.
Posted by ktc email at August 29, 2004 08:40 AM
Loved your essay Mr. Luse, primariy bc you were honest. I do think you missed one good Catholic aid: frequent recourse to confession where even thoughts of evil should be exposed. In many ways the thoughts are then "de-mystified" and much temptation loses its pull. I also admire the love you have for your family. If we have admirable relationships it forms a "pre-emptive" shield around one. And like you said, if you destroy that shield you might destroy all.May the Immaculata, the most modest lady, help us all.
Posted by Susan email at August 29, 2004 02:36 PM
Well thanks, Susan.KTC - need to hear from you more often.
Posted by William Luse email at August 29, 2004 03:01 PM
good insights, as usual. too bad the usual media chooses to emphasize the salacious aspects of scandals rather than the lessons that we all could learn from them. My younger son has a comment that he often puts up as his IM message - something about hom man is the only creature capable of learning from the mistakes of others and yet seldom does. As kids we all responded negatively to the concept of "Do as I say, not as I do (or did)" from the adults in our lives - yet how horrible it would be if we had to learn everything all over again every generation. As a teenager and young adult, I was totally unaware of the affect my dress habits had on the concupiscence of others. My preference was generally to dress with more clothing on rather than less, yet I can remember a Levi Strauss bikini of which I was extremely fond. However, I think that I was probably the only person in my HIgh School (class of 1972) to have been sent home for wearing a skirt that was too long, rather than too short. Colleen - keep up the good work. We also need to have clothing manufacturers who will make clothing for women that is not only modest but practical. Have you tried to find a dress or skirt with pockets lately?
Posted by alicia email at August 29, 2004 05:50 PM
Alicia, Lane Bryant sells nice jumpers with pockets and they go down to size 12 to 14.
Posted by Elena email at August 29, 2004 06:47 PM
Excellent essay. I am of the opinion that a little mystery would go a long way for both the Puritans and the Baywatch gals.
Posted by specialk email at August 30, 2004 12:08 AM
About Rod Dreher and the "Mr. Ives' Christmas" controversy ... TSO mentioned Graham Greene's "The Power and the Glory" as another Catlicker novel that might be perceived as scandalous. I enjoyed "The Power and the Glory", and even though it did contain sexual situations that probably crossed the line of good taste, these were not presented to the reader in the form of literary porn. It was gritty, sure -- but not pornographic. I don't know why it is so hard for people like Mr. Dreher to see the difference.
Posted by LeXuan email at August 30, 2004 12:33 AM
I've never read "The Power & the Glory" (while, of course, not letting that get in the way of my commenting about it). Thanks for the tip LeXuan, I'll plan on skipping Mr. Ives but checking out The Power & the Glory.
Posted by TSO email at August 30, 2004 09:25 AM
Oh, that was me, TSO. Jeff here. Sorry about that. Sometimes I use LeXuan's account at home. But yes, I hope you do read "The Power and the Glory".
Posted by Jeff Culbreath email at August 30, 2004 11:17 AM
Your essay was/is wonderful Mr. Luse. Don't know if it will truly come to pass but I saw a piece on some news show that the new fashions for the school year are not going to show belly buttons, etc. It said that the girls would be dressed like (I think) lawyers. Anyway, I have six children and I've always told my youngest (30) daughter that the girls are responsible in the way they dress. She never went for it. As someone else mentioned above, they think they can dress however they want but not be responsible for how the poor men respond. I wonder why God made you poor guys that way. We've read on other blogs about the poor priests looking down on those scantilly dressed women. God help us. I'm in Ft. Myers and got hit by Charley as well - happy that you came throught it okay as we did.
Posted by Ginny email at August 30, 2004 11:29 AM
LeXuan is mindless, empty headed, have never read heavy stuff like Graham Greene's novels. The most thought provoking book I ever read starts with "It is a truth universally acknowledge..." Really shallow, I know. Jeff does all the thinking and I just do all the head nodding. Mr. Luse knows.
Posted by LeXuan email at August 30, 2004 11:35 AM
Thanks to all. I've gotta go to work, but briefly: Special K is indeed special, occasionally posting as one of the Summamamas.I was just about to compliment LeXuan's perspicacity only to find out it belonged to the "thinking" half of the partnership. I'll bet if we could see into their home, we'd find a slightly different arrangement. I wonder how often he yields to her persuasion.TS, it's been a long time since I read "The Power.." but it was the only thing of Greene's I was able to finish. You should have it under your belt. I almost want to read Mr. Ives so that I can decide who's right, Jeff or Dreher, but probably won't.Virginia, there's another hurricane coming. Maybe. If it does, I'm going to re-think certain things. There are people in this area who just yesterday got their power back. I underestimated the time for cleanup, months not weeks. And there are still plenty of people living in and still repairing damaged homes, and plenty of others without homes at all.
Posted by William Luse email at August 30, 2004 03:07 PM
The lovely LeXuan is anything but shallow, let me assure you. She's practically earned a doctorate in Jane Austen as well as pharmacy. She's also an expert at making me think her good ideas are my ideas. (Bill, you don't know the half of it.)
Posted by Jeff Culbreath email at August 30, 2004 07:09 PM
Ginny wrote:>Don't know if it will truly come to pass but I saw a piece on some news show that the new fashions for the school year are not going to show belly buttons, etc. It said that the girls would be dressed like (I think) lawyers.
Actually, Paris is calling fashions for this Fall the "sexy librarian" look. Just what I want for my 8 year old daughter.
Alicia wrote:>Colleen - keep up the good work. We also need to have clothing manufacturers who will make clothing for women that is not only modest but practical. Have you tried to find a dress or skirt with pockets lately?
Starting in September (I'm shooting for September 1st), I'll have the most complete listing of where to find nice clothing on the web. I'll have it on my personal website, and it is also an appendix in my book. Too many to clog up here.
Posted by Colleen Hammond email at August 31, 2004 12:16 PM
Lol. Great post, Mr. Luse.
Did you see this little bit of self-righteous indignation on the part of the National Catholic Reporter? In reference to Deal Hudson's response to their, em, article:
"He was able to place the response on the Web site of National Review, the conservative magazine. "As an aside, I find it intriguing that National Review would allow its Web site to be used in such a fashion."
How do they do that? How do they roust about in their closet morals and find a shoe for conservatives to wear that has never graced their own feet?
Posted by :~) Julie email at September 1, 2004 01:33 AM
Jeff- Have you tried [i]A Burntout Case[/i]? Also a good Greene novel.
Posted by :~) Julie email at September 1, 2004 01:39 AM
And on rear-ends, front-ends to no end.
Young women can be highly competitive. Being able to sport the latest fashion with best the bod and turn the most heads is better than Linus' security blanket and more devestating than Lucy's temper. It is the Holy Grail of the Cosmo Grrrrrrl and the ultimate affirmation in a society that lives in a mirror.
If you can make your professor drool (seeing as Daddy was dispensed of as an accessory by bicycling fish and is therefore no longer available for healthy kudos or sane boundaries of dress) while tae-kwan-doing any aspiring rapists (having Marvel Comic book cleavage and sporting super-hero underwear necessitates the ability to thwack away unwanted advances, or in lieu of such fortitude, a good laywer to get a cash settlement), well so much the better.
Posted by :~) email at September 1, 2004 01:59 AM
Ah, Julie. You always keep me reading.
Posted by William Luse email at September 1, 2004 02:51 AM