Lessons Learned at Harvard Law School
Last night's panel discussion of sex work and civil liberties at Harvard Law School, hosted by the HLS ACLU, the American Constitution Society and the Women's Law Association (?) was a learning experience. I learned that some formats, which sound helpful in theory, are very limiting in practice. I learned that one should never make assumptions about an audience. And I learned that when you've had the last word and the panel is officially over, letting it be reopened is a very bad idea.
The panel was extremely well moderated. Professor Glen Cohen promised at the beginning to keep a tight rein on the discussion and he did. That made me feel confident and safe going into the discussion that it would not become a shouting match nor be derailed by questions that are not really questions. Unfortunately that limited the opportunities for panelists to respond to each other. It meant that if we were to play by the rules (where did I learn to be such a good girl?) we could not easily challenge each other's evidence, or revisit questions once the discussion had moved on. For example, if an audience member had a question specifically for Melissa Farley, and Farley answered using anecdotal or unreliable evidence, as soon the question was answered a new question was invited. There were only a few questions that were posed to the whole panel and it was hard to get back to earlier questions without deviating from the format. So, lesson number one: advocate for format change or break the rules if necessary to get important information out.
I expected an audience that wanted to focus on the civil liberties-related questions surrounding prostitution. I expected a conversation that explored nuances of sexual freedom and the complexities of discerning where personal freedoms intrude on the rights of others, and where labor rights, human rights and civil rights overlap. Both Sam Majic and I prepared remarks that were centered on that discussion. Sam and I even had a fortuitously good division of labor in that she addressed questions of government, nonprofits, and civil liberties and I addressed questions of sexuality, labor, and civil liberties.
Unfortunately with few exceptions the audience wanted to talk about the awfulness of some kinds of prostitution while taking as gospel that involuntary servitude and rape are by definition aspects of all prostitution. I was not prepared for an audience that accepted that all prostitution was akin to slavery and that was not going to be swayed by evidence.
Given the format and the audience there were many things I wanted to talk about that we did not have time to discuss. I'd like to identify a few of them here. I encourage discussion in the comments.
The politics of fear and emotion threaten civil liberties
Civil liberties are at risk when policy is made based on moral judgment rather than systematic, reliable evidence and reason. Discussions of sex work, like the one last night, illustrate the willingness of many to accept anecdotal and unreliable evidence and emotion as guiding principles for policy. The politics of fear that gave us the USA Patriot Act, overly broad use of sex offender registries and residency restrictions that create greater risk of recidivism are just two very different examples of the politics of fear restricting civil liberties in ways that hurt individuals, families and communities.
Assumptions about sexuality are a big part of the problem with conversations about sex work
The discussion we had at the panel made it clear to me that it is not only assumptions about women's sexuality that are problematic in feminist discourse about prostitution but also assumptions about men's sexuality. The antiprostitution discourse assumes the worst of men's sexuality and the most limited of women's. Several questioners, and both Farley and Carter asserted that men who purchase sex are always looking for disconnected, anonymous, violent and objectifying sex. A questioner in the audience asserted that men seek out prostitutes to have the kinds of sex that women will not have for free. The audience generally accepted these statements judging from the nods, and nobody challenged them in follow up questions.
Inability to focus on points of agreement
There were points of agreement we each clearly acknowledged. We all agreed that slavery, rape, and violence were serious human rights violations, that they were social problems that exist beyond the sex industry, and that they require serious responses. We all agreed that misogyny, patriarchy, sexism, racism, homophobia, heterosexism and economic inequality are root problems and that dramatic social change is necessary to create a society that is truly just. A conversation focused on strategies for fostering the social changes necessary to create a just society that would have been interesting. When that important conversation is subverted by a debate over whether or not all or most prostitution is the same as rape and sexual assault then a productive conversation is impossible.
An unexpected and unpursued line of discussion: antiprostitution and antimarriage
I raised in my opening comments and in answer to a question the fact that marriage is also seen by some as an institution that exposes women to violence and exploitation but I claimed that you rarely hear people talk about criminalizing it. Several women in the audience indicated by speaking out or nodding that they think marriage should be eliminated. That conversation would have been a fabulous one to continue and yet there was not really a way to do that. I have argued in terms of the same sex marriage debate that marriage should not be the goal but that equal rights under the law should be the goal and that rights and relationship recognition should not hinge on marriage. (See the recent Woodhull Freedom Foundation statement in support of the DC domestic partner registry for more on why marriage should not be the only form of recognized relationship and why privileging marriage over other kinds of relationships is unjust.)
Connections between Prostitution and Legal Sex Work
A questioner asked Melissa Farley if, given her antiprostitution stance, she also would support a ban on pornography since that was also paid sex. His question, essentially, boiled down to whether having a camera in the room made the paying of someone to have sex a somehow more acceptable. Farley evaded the question by referring to her definition of prostitution and saying that if the pornography in question fit that definition then, well, her answer would be clear. It was frustrating because again there was an opening for an interesting discussion that there was no room to pursue.
I don’t want to make it sound like it was all missed opportunities and waylaid conversation. One of the most important things that came out of the discussion was the identification of organizations like the St. James Infirmary and HIPS, which provide services to sex workers without judgment about their work, the identification of publications like $pread Magazine which is published by and for sex workers, and of research and advocacy centers like the Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center which provides methodologically sound and ethical research. Vednita Carter spoke about the important work her organization – Breaking Free - does in providing housing and much needed services to sex workers who want to get out and are willing to buy into the antiprostitution message of her agency. While I would prefer a housing-first model where services are provided and decisions to leave can be made later I am glad she is serving the population she is serving. Sam Majic noted that none of these organizations get the funding they deserve and when asked what could be done immediately to help sex workers argued for money to be poured into nonprofits that are serving disadvantaged populations so that they can focus on providing services rather than on groveling for grant money. (I’ll include a list of organizations and resources, with links, in the comments on this post.)
All in all it was a valuable learning experience and I am grateful to the Harvard Law School ACLU chapter for hosting the discussion. It was a good faith attempt to present a range of academic positions and host an intellectual discussion of the issues surrounding civil liberties and sex work. That it didn't work that way is unfortunate. I wonder if it was also inevitable.
Disturbing
It's very disturbing that professionals who should be able to have rational conversations about the civil liberties issues surrounding sex work and sexuality show a marked refusal to.
Sex work resources
As promised here is an incomplete list of important sex worker driven sex work resources.
Services in the US and Canada:
St. James Infirmary (San Francisco) http://stjamesinfirmary.org
HIPS (Washington DC) http://hips.org/
Stepping Stone (Halifax) http://www.steppingstonens.ca/
Chez Stella (Montreal) http://www.chezstella.org/stella/?q=en/stella
WISH (Vancouver) http://www.wish-vancouver.net/
Information and Advocacy
Research for Sex Work research for sex work
Network of Sex Work Projects http://nswp.org
Sex Workers Project http://sexworkersproject.org
Sex Work Awareness http://sexworkawareness.org
Sex Workers Outreach Project http://www.swopusa.org/
Media
$pread Magazine http://spreadmagazine.org
Bound, Not Gagged: http://boundnotgagged.com
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Sex and Disability
Another area where there should have been space provided for conversation was around the issue of sex work and disability. When you said something about disabled people using the services of sex workers, there were audible gasps - clucking and tutting by the best legal minds of a generation.
Not only do the Farleys of the world absolutely deny the possibility that someone might choose sex work (and therby deny them the human right of self-determination, of agency), but they deny that we live in society where sex work has a legitimate place - that sex workers perform labors that should be honored similar to (I liked your analogy) the labor performed by Nurses.
Thank you again,
Brian
Professionalization
Thanks Brian. One of the other things I wish we'd been able to talk about is the possibility of professionalizing the sex industry. I've often heard sex workers talk about the providing of nondjudgmental interaction, education. One mistake we make in the way we typically approach sex work is thinking "oh, it's just sex, so anybody can do it." What if we understood sex as a set of skills (emotional skills, communication skills, physical skills) and sex workers as experts in that domain? I understand that this creates the potential for further stratification in the industry, but it also creates the potential for respect and for routes up and out of the most disadvantaged sectors of the industry. I've thought before that professional association models might be more useful for some sex workers than would be union models, though I can see where each have benefits and drawbacks. Just some additional thoughts that would have been interesting to discuss.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
A couple of random things
A couple of random things which came to mind after reading that comment, neither of which are actual quotes from anywhere:
"And just like nurses, sex workers are potentially exposed to disease on a regular basis."
"We can't allow the disabled to seek relief from their suffering, because it trivializes both their disability and their suffering!"
non profit advocacy not effective
Yes, the outcome was inevitable.
1) You should have known who you audience was because Innovations in American Government, Roy and Lila Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1998 gave the founder of SAGE in San Francisco an award for figuring out how to promote itself while simintanously profiting off the criminalization of prostitute's labor.
The San Fracisco Office of the Budget Anylist's audit said the SAGE program is "not sufficiently comprehensive" to be "effective in reducing recidivism or assisting women to leave prostitution." and that the program has no clearly defined measureable outcomes that proved it "reduces the demand for prostitution through education, reduces recidivism and assists women in leaving prostitution".
You would have had more fun and made more impact on this crowed by clowning them to their face in bringing forward these facts. (The former being an actual labor tactic).2) The ACLU chapter in San Francisco didn't endorce Proposition K, that would have decriminalized prostitution. Lawyers make lots of money off of our criminalized labor, they're essentially one of our bosses because they've positioned themselves to profit off our labor without our permission, they're one of the slave holders. They have a finacial interest in 'advocating for us', a form of eclipsing our voices.
3) the non profits that eclips our voices like the one's you listed, haven't done much to advance the rights of prostitution. For example, SJI refused to endorce the signature collection phase to qualify Prop K for the ballot beause they were concerned that SAGE would loose funding by stopping the practise of arresting workers and our customers who are trafficked into it's shame based sex negative program via the diversion program at the District Attorney's office in San Francisco. (SJI did endorce once it became clear how silly they would look for not endorcing it).
Stop using what's not working for us.
4) If you are talking about labor rights for prostitutes, try acting like you are a prostitute instead of just speaking about it from this remote accedemic place.
And finally,
5) support actual prostitues, like myself who are the actual authority of our rights because we know what they are and it aint funding non prostitutes to 'deliver us services' and 'advocating' for us without our permission.
Allies and Partners
Hi Maxine,
It was a shame that Prop K failed to pass, decriminalization seems to be much harder to accomplish than criminalization.
I'd like to point out that Elizabeth and SITPS consistently and outspokenly supports sex workers as their own advocates. She speaks out in academic settings because she works in an academic setting and she was asked to speak at Harvard due to her body of work done in collaboration with a wide variety folks including prostitutes.
I don't think that the outcome was inevitable. As far as I can tell from the west coast with only the information that I have available it could have been much worse.
The organizers of the panel discussion were very likely well intentioned, they chose four presenters with widely differing viewpoints to speak on a set of controversial topics that need sane discussion to dispel lies myths and stereotypes.
Unfortunately one of the panelists they chose is an academic professional that has made a mockery of accurate ethical scientific research. She throws out statistics based entirely on self-defined self-referential sophmoric papers that fly in the face of much more sound, peer reviewed studies.
Contrary to branding the ACLU is not a very unified group. That the San Francisco chapter chose to withold an endorsement on a good and ground breaking proposition is both unfortunate and serves to tarnish their reputation. The Harvard Law School chapter of the ACLU is a different group as the law school today is different from the school of government in 1998 at Harvard University.
While it might have been fun to heckle the opposing viewpoint in the struggle between freedom and persecution Elizabeth chose to enter the panel discussion armed with years of study, research and as much preparation as she could squeeze into the month that she had between being asked and showing up. Unlike Farley she did not seed the audience with allies armed with friendly questions. Unlike Farley Dr. Wood followed the rules as set forth by the moderator and conducted herself in a respectful and professional manner. I don't know that I could have held my composure under such adverse conditions.
Given the challenge of going on a panel with a known character assassin and smear campaigner Elizabeth could have chosen not to go, or could have lobbied for a less rigid structure, or could have peppered the audience with supporters, but she pulled through with her eyes open and learned a great deal about the strategies and tactics that some people use to derail open exchange in favor of propaganda and politicization. She reached a few of the audience members and performed brilliantly based upon firm scientific and anecdotal information despite a strategic and tactical blitz of misinformation and inappropriate questions.
For the audience members that were there with open but critical minds, ready to listen to an insightful discussion, I'm encouraged to hear that a few left wanting to learn more as a direct result of Elizabeth and Sam.
Thanks Maxine and keep up the good work,
Chris O'Sullivan
sex educator
Well intentioned or not...
These panel discussions don't benefit workers. Besides they chose four presenters with widely differing viewpoints and they included one who made a mockery of accurate ethical scientific research. How serious could they have been really.
fair minded or balanced representation
A thing I've noticed on the news and on tv shows that claim to be balanced In representing issues is a really irritating tendancy to gather people for soundbites that are diametrically opposed. Extremists in many debates tend to be uninformative at best and are commonly scatological. News show after news show after special takes clips of extreme opposed viewpoints and claim some level of balanced coverage. Covering only extreme views and not covering either points of agreement or points close to the center of potential compromise dilutes the news into a useless pile of sensationalistic dung.
Unfortunately this sloppy model of coverage bleeds into academic and political arenas where it's not only useless but rather detrimental,
points of agreement
From my seat in the back row, it seemed like there as a false polarization of panelists in some senses- the implication of a lot of the comments and questions was that one either things there is a bad side to sex work or you think it should be decriminalized. Like you note in your blog, there were a lot of interesting points of agreement that could have been engaged, and lots of points of disagreement that could have been talked about more in depth between panelists. I appreciated your clear articulation of why sex work should be decriminalized. I wish we could have heard more of what, in your world view, that decriminalization would do viz the problems of misogony, sexism, economic inequality etc? Anyway, I really enjoyed the panel discussion and plan to look at more of your work. Thanks for coming to HLS.
Also, it is unclear to me why the preview shows this weird purple emoticon. If that shows up on my comment is is entirely unintended.
Don't overlook fundamental points of disagreement, however
I think that while it might be important to look for points of agreement, I think too much can be made of that. If you read Melissa Farley's work, it becomes quite clear that she, like Catherine MacKinnon and other radical feminists, considers any form of sex for money to be a form of violence against women, and that payment for sex is by definition, a form of sexual coercion that should be harshly punished. Naturally, proponents of decriminalization or legalization don't agree with this at all.
Whatever agreement there might be about helping those who really are victims of forced prostitution, or those who simply want to get out for whatever reason, the fundmental divide over whether prostitution should always be treated as a form of victimization by definition, and hence criminalization of buyers and business assocites a blanket answer, versus a rejection of that approach is a gap that is ultimately not possible to bridge. (There is also an idea floating around that the "Nordic model" of criminalizing the client is a sort of "comprimise" model, when it is really nothing of the sort.)
Add to this that for Farley, Hughes, and other ideologically-motivated people in the "abolitionist" camp, their views are part of a an all-encompasing, total ideology of radical feminism (or conservative religious belief, or in some cases both), and that kind of fundamentalist belief system is not very amenable to working with opponents on shared concerns.
It is true that in some cases, productive alliances with more moderate prostitution abolitionists might be possible in terms of allying against the increased criminalization of prostitutes. In the case of the Rhode Island legislation, there did seem to be a tenuous alliance between some anti-trafficking organizations who, I believe, ultimately advocate something like the Nordic model and proponents of decriminalization or legalization. However, ultimately, the most hard-line anti-prostitution actvists (including many who identify as feminists and proponents of the Nordic model) got behind the most hard-line legislation that most strongly criminalized prostitutes themselves, and it is this group that has the ear of law enforcement and government officials.
entrenchment
EUC
The truth is that there are bad sides to prostitution and it should be decriminalized.
Much about what is bad about prostitution stems from that it is illegal. What harm it does to women is tightly bound to the fact that the legal system is not engaged to protect and serve these citizens, it is engaged to ignore their need for help or harrass workers and their clients.
If in a governace capacity your desire is to help a section of society the first task is to find out from them what help they need. If your purpose is to generate an uptick in political popularity the first task is to identify a disenfranchized group and scapegoat them for those things that you have failed to address effectively and punish them.
off-topic
Please excuse the digression, but I'm hoping to see some commentary on the BdJ thing happening in Britain. It raises a variety of issues, and I am hoping she'll become something of a public intellectual on those topics - though there's no sign of it at present. So some of your insight would be welcome. Any plans to write about it?
Present state of the ACLU
Unforunately, the ACLU has really declined from the strong, unabashed defender of individual rights that they were in the 60s and 70s. There has been a move away from defending rights and forms of expression unpopular among the liberal base that it depends upon for funding. Hence, its general lack of intervention in campus speech wars of the 1990s, in recent obscenity cases, and a move away from advocacy of legal prostitution, among other things.
Wendy Kaminer details this in her book "Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU". Admittedly, much of her stance is derived from a bitter faction fight she had with Nadine Stroessen a few years back. Nevertheless, there has been a noticable move away from defending sexual speech and sexual freedom issues in recent years on the part of the ACLU. Unfortunately, it sounds like the atmosphere Elizabeth encountered at Harvard, or the Yes on K campaign dealt with in regard to the San Francisco ACLU is very much in keeping with that.
I certainly wouldn't advocate giving up on the ACLU, as they are still an important and powerful voice for civil liberties. But it might be worthwhile to "lobby" the ACLU in such a way as to win them back to their earlier support of sexual civil liberties. And also, try to build alternative civil liberties law groups with a focus on sexual liberties so the ACLU wouldn't be the only game in town.
Appreciation
Thank you for this account of your experience with the panel, Elizabeth. I again express appreciation for your participation and presentation/representation. It seems to me that in initiating/having a progressive, open, non-defensive discussion about sex work and prostitution specifically, the antiprostitution faction/perspective may have an advantage in that it has been so ingrained in the collective consciousness. Frequently it seems not even questioned even by individuals who perhaps do not feel strongly about it one way or the other. "Prostitution is an abomination" seems to be the default position.
At the same time, it does seem to be that thus presenting an alternative perspective at all may have a particular value itself in that the very possibility of the existence of one may not have occurred to some. Anyway, thank you again for your pariticipation in the panel.
Chris O'Sullivan, I have quite enjoyed reading your comments. I especially appreciated this: "Much about what is bad about prostitution stems from that it is illegal.” This seems so obvious to me that I still feel surprised that it does not seem more widely understood/recognized.
Best,
Emerald
Thanks Emerald
Laws restricting adult activity between consenting adults in private are absurd and demeaning to all parties involved.
Police are required to lie and misrepresent to enforce these laws and everyone participating in the activity is incentivised to disavow any knowledge of the activity.
If you are restricted from speaking positively about something for fear of incriminating yourself the only voices that speak are voices of condemnation or the hushed voices of guilty pleasure.
Inevitability
I suspect that the outcome was inevitable, but that depends on how you measure such a thing. I say inevitable because people tend to go into these sorts of debates with fairly fixed ideas that are unlikely to be fundamentally swayed by other viewpoints or information.
However it is far better to enter into dialogue than to be silent. We cannot tell how many in the audience shifted their thinking, even if only a small amount, or whether in future discussions or arguments they will recall what was said and draw on it. Elizabeth and I debated the potential usefulness or not of such a forum prior to this and realised its limitations but also the necessity of engaging in dialogue and trying to understand the thought processes of those contraryminded.
Also, in defence of Elizabeth, we both agreed that it would be preferable to have a sex worker on the panel since the tragedy of discourse on sex work (as Maxine points out) is that it usually takes place in the absence of the subjects of the discourse thereby entrenching the denial of sex workers' voice or agency. However it was not within our power to achieve that. It should also be pointed out in terms of future opportunities that there are plenty of academics who are sex workers (or sex workers who are academics if you prefer).
However I think Maxine's central issue is how can such academic discussions actually benefit sex workers - and that is a valid objection, since as Annette Jolin points out, such discourse generally takes place on the backs of sex workers. However in defence of such dialogue I would state that no matter how idealistic we might be the probability that sex workers can change the world single handedly is unfortunately remote, although they are gaining strength through organising in many ways. Such arguments apply to many marginalised groups, because they do not exist in a vaccuum. Sex workers, like any other group, no matter how capable they are (and I don't want in any way to diminish those skills) need allies in a world controlled by power. So I would not dismiss any group even if they seem only lukewarm to our ideals, far better to cultivate them than to face them in opposition. The ACLU was active in the Rhode Island debate, and such groups have contacts we need if we are to move the levers of power.
However we need to actively listen to sex workers, and ensure that what we say reflects their priorities. Even amongst sex workers there will be divergence of opinion as to priorities and strategies, but I wish to point out that people like Elizabeth Wood go to great lengths to elucidate sex workers' voices and to amplify their concerns in a variety of forums such as this one. Indeed the very raison d'etre of this Forum was to provide different communities of knowledge (experiential, empirical and theoretical) with a common public forum for dialogue.
Talk is talk.
Normal 0 0 1 200 1143 9 2 1403 11.1282 0 0 0
The issue is who is doing the talking and who are they talking to and what are they saying. This business of allies continuing to front the prostitutes rights movement and define our priorities isn’t valid. And I’m not saying the folks involved in this public discussion did that, I’m speaking to the general state of prostitution nation.
It’s great to discuss ideas and debate but we have to move on. If these kinds of events don't involve a call to action, for us, then, what?
Allies are very important but who is going to put their money, their resources, their time and their reputation in a concerted effort to move our issue forward in to the spheres where we could actually have some positive effect and that would be in organizing ourselves as well as in courts and in the legislator?
Was anyone moved to action on our behalf as a result of this public discussion? Thinking differently is important but it won’t get the job done. Holding those institutions accountable is a step forward because at least we can stop beating on the doors that aren’t open to us.
Media whoredom is important, in fact, really it’s the only place we’ve prevailed, the court of public opinion, but it almost hurts us to have these same old tired polarized discussions over and over and over again. It’s boring, it doesn’t do anything to fire up our base or bring acts of empowerment to the movement to organize itself. And that’s all we ought to be doing is talking about and to each other.
You hit it on the head
Hi Maxine,
You hit it on the head when you say
If only those who prefer criminalization of commercial sex are speaking then only their voices will be heard with no challenge to the veracity of their speaking points. As you stated earlier it's important to have voices of sex workers speaking for sex worker civil and criminal protections and against civil and criminal injustice.
Without debate (speech) there are few opportunities for changing the hearts and minds of the next generation of lawmakers and voters. Debates are not calls to action, they are calls to thought and consideration of other viewpoints. Rallys are calls to action, forums like this one are spaces where the formulation of what might be an effective action can be discussed and refined. Gathering in person allows more thoughtful development of tactics and strategies that might work to bring the changes that are desirable, such as Sex 2.0 earlier this year.
While these kinds of events don't involve a call to action they further train and refine effective tactics and strategies for when that call to action comes. While I do not agree with my opponents on many points in debates or panel discussions I can study their methods and measures and formulate my plans, arguements and speaking points to their disadvantage in the future.
It takes people on the front lines like yourself to create the calls to action on the specific fronts that you determine are best suited to attain the ends that you desire. Set up a conference of peers and allies that can formulate a call to action. Have the debates that build consensus, the panel discussuins that are not polemic but informative, lively and educational. Open the forum and use your allies to assist you in actualizing your goals.
Harvard Law Record
Harvard Law Record just posted a story about the panel discussion:
http://www.hlrecord.org/news/freedom-to-sell-sex-prostitution-debate-con...
Interesting also are some of the "related articles" links at the end, which speak volumes about the entrenched alti-sex work mentality at HLS. In particular, this article from a few weeks back about Catherine MacKinnon's class at HLS, which is spoke of in almost religious terms. Creepy!
Harvard Link
I went over and read that article about the panel, and near the end I got distracted by this:
I can't help wondering how this person, Stephanie Young, defined "cited" and "showed" and "actually" and "large", because that's some important stuff that you might wanna, ya know, back up with more than a diabolical smile.
And the bottom of the page says it's powered by MTV. What the hell? No wonder everything is so fucked up, MTV's in charge of Harvard.
prostitution from the perspective of sex workers and advocates
Panel Discussion - Rebellious Lawyering Conference at Yale Law School - Feb. 21, 2009
SEX SELLS, BUT SHOULD WE SELL SEX?
Intro/andrea
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=981238232521148406
Sienna
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3545322101606755784
Maxine
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=273769478079225849
Veronica
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7229065565718626187
Q/A
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7104170043784367974
Check out this
Check out this blog:
http://happyendingsdoc.wordpress.com/
Post new comment