Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
You may one day regret this
What’s a college student to do when she gets pulled off a Southwest Airlines flight (albeit, temporarily) for wearing an outfit deemed too revealing? Pose for Playboy of course.
But here’s the real kicker: Kyla Ebbert, who wants to be a lawyer one day, doesn’t think posing nude will get in the way of her professional aspirations. “This was beautiful and classy,” she said. ”I don’t see why it would affect a professional position.”
Sorry, honey. But in an Internet age of quick Google searches, I have a feeling this move is going to come back to bite you.
Topic: Culture, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top84 Comments to “You may one day regret this”
In this day and age? Heck no, she’ll do just fine. She’s a feminist’s icon – the perfect blend of the politically and sexually “liberated” woman.
Report comment to moderator
I imagine other young women will consider copycatting this. It seems to be quite a career move.
Report comment to moderator
She will pose and then several years later represent women who’ve had to endure leers and ungentlemanly comments uttered by the very herd of pervs who bought the magazine in which she chose to peel and reveal.
But its all about choice, no? “My body my choice” as the abortucrats remind us ad infinitum.
Report comment to moderator
It’s just unfortunate that some kids get to college age without any instruction on what is and is not professional behavior. My daughter tells me that she has to send some workers home to change their clothes because they show up inappropriately attired for the workplace.
Report comment to moderator
I’m always amused when Judge Judy has to send people out of the courtroom to cover up their scantily-clad bodies. It’s pretty bad when you don’t even know how to dress for court.
Report comment to moderator
Contrary to what some of you seem to think, it will follow her and hurt her career if it progresses to a point of serious responsibility. If she wants to work in small claims, go for it.
Report comment to moderator
6 all things being equal, I’d agree with you, because that’s what should happen. But there are too many people who have succeeded despite their indescretions. It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is. There simply isn’t such a thing as a checkered past anymore. Men get away with this sort of thing all the time, and the fact that she’s a woman makes her all the more likely to be forgiven.
Of course, providentially speaking, that’s another story. God’s paydays aren’t always on Friday’s.
Report comment to moderator
7. Except, though, for stories like the Army Reservist who was discharged (not honorably, IIRC) for doing a photo shoot. And the recent media attention about potential employers checking myspace and facebook pages for indiscretions as part of their due diligence.
I’m having trouble seeing this young lawyer getting a job with a reputable firm (i.e. not with an ad on the back of the phonebook) or a DA’s office, with this in her past.
Report comment to moderator
If she wanted to go into acting… now that might be another story.
Report comment to moderator
How many clicked on the link in the story?
(raises hand)
I honestly didn’t think she was that attractive.
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
Work those small claims? I’ll bet her’s will be bigger than that, at least they will after she spends her new found photo wealth to get some larger …. errrrr…..claims.
Report comment to moderator
“Most hesitant”?
Would instead she had reported, “But my dad disinherited me. What everrrr …”
Report comment to moderator
Maybe she convinced him by promising him a free copy of “her” issue … Daddy’s little girl, huh?
Report comment to moderator
Maybe in some strange way, this indiscretion of this girl is God’s providential way of keeping her out of lawmaking and quelling the monstrous regiment that now plagues us.
When John Knox starts speaking out of me, I know my caffeine has made my heartbeat soar into the stratosphere.
Report comment to moderator
Oh man, y’all are so behind the times.
This will not hurt her. Posing for Playboy is of no more import than posing for Cosmo. It’s no longer a scandal to appear in Playboy. When you’ve got Playboy issues devoted to “The women of Wall Street” and every other profession, this just isn’t that big a deal anymore. Yeah, there might be a few buttoned-up law firms who will pass on her, but if she’s a good litigator, she won’t have any problem landing a job.
Report comment to moderator
15 – yeah, I agree. I don’t like it, but I agree.
Report comment to moderator
When John Knox starts speaking out of me, I know my caffeine has made my heartbeat soar into the stratosphere.
John Knox? You rang?
Report comment to moderator
Hey, someone’s gotta take charge here!
Report comment to moderator
Some employers might give her a pass under the “youthful indiscretions” umbrella forgiveness clause, but I would imagine that the sort of firm that represents Fortune 500 companies would take a pass on her for at least a decade.
Report comment to moderator
Hey Rob,
I don’t think so. For every buttoned-up law firm out there I’ll wager there are ten “Boston Legal” type firms. In this day and age, money, power, and access talk. What one does in one’s personal time is of little import as long as it’s legal. In fact, “notoriety” (legal or not) can be the stepping stone to a big career in law, politics, lobbying, sports, religion, and Hollywood.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I dare say, money, power and access have always talked and have nothing to do with this day and age. But you could say the same thing about big….errrr….claims right?
Report comment to moderator
Mr Menaer post 10,
why would Ihave wanted to click on this link???
Report comment to moderator
Musing
I know,
I’m just a sick puppy.
(but, as a single guy….)
I stand by my first post.
If she looks like someone who would possibly date me, she’s not that hot.
She’s aaiight.
Now I’m off to chase a few dollars, for a bit.
Report comment to moderator
It won’t affect her professionally as much as it will personally, at least to the extent that she hasn’t deadened the voice of her conscience. How old will her first son be, if and when she has one, when he’s exposed to the pictures of mommy?
Report comment to moderator
Hmm…interesting detail in the article nobody has commented on thus far. Apparently, she works at Hooters, among other things. So this does say a few things regarding attitude towards display of body and the like.
The camera is not extremely flattering to her either.
Report comment to moderator
So lets think about this.
We have a young woman who for whatever reason has decided to take part in what some will call unsavory publicity.
Have we asked the following questons (lets stick to legal issues right now):
1) will she repsonsibly represent her clients?
2) will she have a deep understanding of the law?
3) will she get the training required to be able to apply the law?
4) has she committed any legal infraction which would make inelgible to practice law?
5) will she be able to pass the bar exam?
I suggest that this posing, while perhaps adding to her notoriety, says nothing about what would appear to be the qualifications for being a good lawyer.
So we are interested perhaps in ensuring that people follow your norms of personal behavior and we consider this more important than skill and capability?
Is there a reason why you believe your norms of behavior should be used to judge others?
Why?
P.S. the last question arguably is the most interesting.
Report comment to moderator
Come now, Musing. The whole context of our discussion has been whether the young lady’s recent behavior will affect her ability to land a professional job. A practical discussion about consequences of behavior in our shared American culture. We weren’t talking about Christian morals per se, and you know it.
Report comment to moderator
Guess I should have said “chances” (of landing a professional job) instead of “ability,” but the point stands.
Report comment to moderator
I’d suggest that if, first, she’s going to make it through law school and, second, eventually into a job level where some of the comments above would have her working, she’ll need to muster far more intelligence than she’s displayed thus far – especially when the ol’ bod looses it’s luster. She may be enamored with her present appearance thinking she can ride it to career security, but I’d think it not hard to find law firms who’ll find this exposure more than they’d care to deal with should it come to light before a jury, or with an important client, at the wrong time.
There are not very many cases that could beneficially use her very narrow area of expertise and experience that haven’t appeared on the pages of the “Weekly World News”. Considering jury pools I’ve seen, packing a jury with enough pervs to find in favor of a client she represents using this experience would be impossible.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus’ words come to mind: “He who is faithful in little, is also faithful in much.”
The common sense factor is what applies here. If she is so foolish as to not realize her inappropriate behavior or dress, why would I trust her to recognize the jot and tittle of the law?
Foolish youthful discretion maybe–if not plain opportunism–but it shows me her character and it’s not one I want to represent my interests before a judge.
Report comment to moderator
rr post 27,
but my post still stands for any other individuals standard of behavior.
My question is do you judge her based on her performance or on her own perfectly legal private behavior.
Notice that I never mentioned Christian morals: you seem to have read this into the post on your own.
I always am delighted to see how people interpret ambiguous statements of this form. It arguably says more about them than it says about the question itself.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle post 30,
because perhaps her interpretatio of common sense may be different than yours BUT she may knwop a good deal about the law and how to argue it.
I sugest her behavior here does not in itself provide any information abuot her legal abilities.
I find it fascinating how we so often judge the competence of others not based onthier real objectvie performance, but rather on our interpretation of norms.
In industry we often call this a failure to value diversity. In my company you can be fired if you have difficulty with making this distinction.
Report comment to moderator
“perhaps her interpretatio of common sense may be different than yours”
Now there’s a topic for discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
My question is do you judge her based on her performance or on her own perfectly legal private behavior.
It ceased to be private when she posed for Playboy. Private would imply the access was limited.
Report comment to moderator
cameron post 34,
actually no.
You can do all sorts of activities on your private time BUT if you do not represent yourself as part of another organization to which you have repsonsiblity, it is your private activity.
So if you serve on your town government you will be recognized in the press: it should not count regarding your professional activity.
In fact if it does, there are potentially issues.
Private here would seem to apply to who is being represented, not who has access to the information.
If we are talking about access to information then under the intepretations of the law by the present administration, very little remains private by your definition.
Report comment to moderator
What is fascinating is that no one seems to be able to present a cogent argument about why posing in Playboy has any relationship to ones professional skills in say law or medicine or engineering.
And if it doesn’t have a relationship to ones professional skills, why would people be so focusedon it when it comes to evaluating this young woman professionally.
So I am waiting for an objectvie data driven argument showing thatposing for Playboy is directly correlated with one’s, let say, legal capacity.
Report comment to moderator
I wouldn’t seek a professional, be it a lawyer, doctor, banker, accountant, or anyone else who was part of pornography -
Report comment to moderator
Musing, it isn’t about ability. It’s about ethics.
Playboy models have all sorts of abilities to do all sorts of things. It doesn’t mean we want them making decisions in our legal system and moving on to be Congressmen representing us.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 36,
but demonstrably Playboy is not itsefl pornography otherwise it would be under legal restrcitions.
Report comment to moderator
bianca post 38,
and what ethical standards for the law profession has she violated?
When we are talking ethical considerations for the professions it is the professional ethics for that profession.
Report comment to moderator
And we have responses, but no one has shown that posing for Playboy has any correlaton positive or negatvie with being a good lawyer.
There is this deafening silence regarding fact based objective responses on this issue.
Report comment to moderator
It’s unethical to pose naked for someone other than one’s husband or wife. If you don’t agree with that, then I really don’t know what to say. I’m not being ugly, just honest with you.
Report comment to moderator
bianca post 38,
so we have numerous cases of lawyers with the conventional ethics of swine who are considered extremely capable lawyers and are in great demand.
It would seem that conventional ethics has little to do with being a good lawyer, so why your apparent animus towards this young woman?
Report comment to moderator
bianca post 42,
actually that is not true. What you are saying is that it is against your personal ethics to pose naked for someone other than one’s husband or wife.
I will grant you the right to your own personal ethics.
But you have to admit that many of the greatest artists had people posing naked for them, so I suggest that the world does not hold to your personal model of ethics here.
And what gives you the right to impose your ethics on others?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, if you want to hire a lawyer who displayed or who displays her wares for the world to see, have at it.
If you really want to know my honest opinion, women don’t even belong in law.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 39
I consider Playboy to be pornography, the rest of the world can decide for themselves, which they do.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca – 45
“If you really want to know my honest opinion, women don’t even belong in law.”
Why shouldn’t women be lawyers?
Report comment to moderator
bianca post 45/victoria post 46,
and of course these are your personal opinions and you have the right to them.
You do not have the right to expect that others must hold this opinion, however, nor do you have the right to expect that others must make judgements which honor your personal opinions.
Report comment to moderator
bianca post 45,
Your comment:
“Why shouldn’t women be lawyers?”
is a fascinating point. It would sound like no matter what this young woman did professionally, you would disapprove.
But if you will disapprove no matter what, then why should this young woman care about your approval?
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 48
“You do not have the right to expect that others must hold this opinion, however, nor do you have the right to expect that others must make judgements which honor your personal opinions.”
Musing, that goes without saying, that was never disputed. I made that point in post 46 below:…..
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 50,
then of course we are in agreement AND we can then also assert that this should not be used as a general criteria for evaluating her competence as a lawyer.
Report comment to moderator
I wouldn’t even consider someone who had such little respect for themselves as to pose nude to represent me, or to do any legal work for me.
Sound judgement is important when hiring a professional to do anything. Posing nude would not constitute sound judgement.
Report comment to moderator
Musing (39),
I don’t think that’s a good criterion for what is/is not pornography. If it were, there would hardly be ANY pornography. As it is, it is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
You ask for proof of the impossible given that her lawyerly desires are merely her wish and we/you have no hard data showing any level of ability one way or the other.
Yet, you offer no proof showing your position even probable. Show me how it’s probable that a woman who is so desperate to please men that she’ll work for Hooter’s, half-dress for public plane rides and who’s gullible enough to be talked into posing naked for Playboy believing it a career enhancement move in one of the most stodgy and conservative professions she could choose. How is it even probable, considering what we know, that she shows enough acumen to be a successful lawyer?
It seems to me she thinks her nudity the big brass ring, which if anything, shows an incredible lack of intelligence.
Report comment to moderator
Rond,
Excellent points.
Any woman who things she can get to the top by undressing and then being photographed is sadly mistaken.
Report comment to moderator
If you really want to know my honest opinion, women don’t even belong in law.
Heavens to Betsey!
Report comment to moderator
Hey now, there are plenty of women who work for Hooters for one reasons only: it pays well. A Hooters girl does pretty good from what I hear. Plenty of girls put themselves through college and law school that way.
And there have been plenty of fine professional women who have posed for Playboy over the years.
Believe it or not, there are some women who have both the looks and the brains. Just like some men do.
Now, you may not like it that they work at Hooters or take their clothes off for Playboy. But not everyone thinks that way. In fact, I dare say most people don’t care one whit either way. It’s still a free country last time we checked.
It’s not like Kyla Ebbert is applying to head up the National Association of Evangelicals or Trinity Broadcasting Network.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
“Believe it or not, there are some women who have both the looks and the brains.”
That’s the truth.
A woman with brains most likely wouldn’t take her clothes off, she would be much to smart, . . . . and if she were beautiful, she wouldn’t have to use it to get ahead, her God given gifts of brains and talent would be ENOUGH!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
“plenty of women” = what percentage? We’re looking for proof not your suppositions.
What I may or may not like, or what other people may or may not like, is not relevant. It does not it enter into my opinion of Kyla’s abilities. I’m working with what I know from the post.
I can’t speak for the opinions of other people who find such professions and skin over-exposure an overall positive in the scheme of life. Nor would I care to.
Report comment to moderator
If a magazine is kept under wraps behind a counter so that minors cannot buy it, it’s pornography.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast, it sure is!
Report comment to moderator
Why are there sixty comments here? She look her clothes off. There’s no evidence that taking one’s clothes off for a camera causes someone to be any less competent as a lawyer. It may reduce her chances of being hired by many law firms, but it’s certainly her right to make such a decision. Seriously people.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast, that’s inaccurate. All pornography is kept under wraps away from minors, but not all that is kept under wraps away from minors is pornography.
Report comment to moderator
yes, Stephen, 63 comments at the time I started writing this one; about half of them Musing’s.
“It may reduce her chances of being hired by many law firms.” Thank you, Stephen. That’s pretty much what we prudes have been saying all afternoon on this thread. I haven’t read anyone suggesting that doing a nudie photo shoot = inability to comprehend law, no matter how many times Musing reinterprets comments that way. What it does demonstrate is a certain lack of discretion, and a lack of care for the reputation of future employers (attorneys who want to make partner will do well to think on these things).
What employees do in private life DOES affect employers, and employers are increasingly paying heed. A couple of examples that come to mind: the flight attendant fired by Delta a couple of years ago for provocative pictures she posted on her blog; our own DC Lawyer’s comment this week on another thread about being asked by his/her employer to shut down a blog (DCL complied).
I think some of the discussion has gone way, way beyond the scope of the post, and into the realm of, “How dare you impose your Puritan morality on free-thinking Americans!” – while missing the obvious, don’t-have-to-work-from-a-Christian-worldview-to-see-it point: this stunt will likely be embarrassing for this young lady long after she wishes it forgotten.
Report comment to moderator
In this age of Facebook and Myspace, if I were hiring anyone for any job where the employees past indiscretions could adversely affect my bottom line YOU DANG RIGHT I would be far less inclined to hire Kyla or anyone with similar stunts.
In fact, many HR depts can and do google your name and check out websites to see what you’ve written said etc.
In the information age anyone can be Borked for what they wrote (as the Judge was) and I would extend that practice to images/photos as well.
I did a wikipedia search on a woman from the 70s named Candy Loving (Note: this wasnt a character from a Bond movie, it was her actual name) Today she is married with kids and living far from the limelight and notoriety of her youth. I wonder if she could delete images of herself (rights to which she signed away), would she do so? I’m inclined to think she would and I’m inclined to think this woman will as well.
Report comment to moderator
Who here has ever heard of or actually heard Daina House (centerfold turned evangelical speaker)? She did a Jessica Hahn in reverse.
And I believe one of Prince’s backup singers, Vanity (who also posed), got saved and today is involved in a ministry of her own.
Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future
Report comment to moderator
Now this a funnnny thread. I wonder what Victoria and Bianca will say about the judgment and character of Sawgunner’s examples. I wouldn’t have any part of a God those ladies would kneel before.
Report comment to moderator
Hamachitwo, I think lotsa folks have and will do things in their youth which they will regret later as adults. In the internet age of Facebook and Myspace, your past comes back to haunt you before it’s even the past. I’d hafta say that Ebbert’s lack of judgmt would preclude me from hiring her as legal counsel.
Such a contrast between her and the early “models” who posed for PLAYBOY. From what I’ve seen/heard, those were women named Gladys or Myrtle (most likely pseudonyms) for whom posing was an act of defiance against the prevailing societal norms of the 50s. What norms is Ms Ebbert defying? A Hooter girl sees her looks as an income stream and isnt shy about it. Myrtle and Gladys were very conventional waitresses in real restaurants, hat-check girls, or else quiet mousy little stenographers from the secretarial pool who worked for the man in the Grey flannel suit. Myrtle and Gladys would have dressed appropriately for a flight, as well!
Report comment to moderator
TRR post 53,
so your definition of pornography?
Of course we need to make sure we separate your personal opinion from the legal definition.
Report comment to moderator
rond post 54,
but of course.
Statements were apparenlty being presented as presumably objective fact without adequate support.
Under these conditions, the simplest approach is to ask for the data.
Do note that all I have suggested is that no one can provide correlation between legal skills and posing in Playboy. I don’t believe I have made any other objective statements of fact.
Interestingly, no one else seems to be able to provide any correlation here either.
When there is no data presented, then you can also be reasonably confident that the material is mostly based on thermodynamic principals of differences in temeprature of gaseous materials.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 60,
so since Playboy (and for that matter Cosmopolitan and Maxim) are not behind the counter, they are not pronography!!!
Thanks outkast!
Report comment to moderator
rr post 64,
actuyally what I have said is stephen’s point:
- taking off clothes has nothing to do with legal competence
I have asked others to show how taking off clothes does affect legal competence.
A number of people have felt it necessary to answer me (victoria comes to mind) but no one has provided an answer to my question.
Do note that they still appaarently feel the need to comment on this and try and prove me wrong.
Admit the point and we can move on: it seems that most posters don’t want to admit the point.
Report comment to moderator
This is a different issue, but I’m looking for a literary agent. Researching through websites, I found one agent who had represented a best-selling book…but one that seems to be heretical. That gave me pause, but I looked at the site a little more. One of the categories of their books is “erotic romances.” I didn’t choose that agent? Why? I don’t want to be “linked” with them. I don’t want publishers to connect their books with my name. Reputations do matter, and this woman now has one.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 72
For some reason you fail to understand the point. Moral values within many corporations, and law firms are VALUABLE whether you like it or not. Someone can be competent in a given field, but their morals amount to ZERO – I wouldn’t go to anyone for advice in a legal matter IF that individual didn’t possess moral fiber, their advice wouldn’t matter to me.
The only point to be made here is that many of us don’t agree with you, and you aren’t able to grasp that fact and accept it. The issues don’t bother you, so we disagree……..
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl
“One of the categories of their books is “erotic romances.” I didn’t choose that agent? Why? I don’t want to be “linked” with them. I don’t want publishers to connect their books with my name. Reputations do matter, and this woman now has one.”
You are right Cheryl, …. linking yourself with someone who has a reputation which doesn’t match your values would hurt your reputation.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 72,
but of course what you don’t agree with is that taking off ones clothes being correlated with legal expertise and capability.
Unless you can provide some facts/data to support your position here I will assume this is your opinion but not substantiated fact.
I most certainly grasp that some of the psoters don’t agree with me, or more correctly some of the posters here can’t substantiate their subjective opinions.
I have made no statement of opinion whatever except to observe that there is no evidence for correlation.
And amusingly all the posters challenging me on this observation have confirmed this point either implicitly or explicitly.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
No one needs to prove anything to you in regards to morals, we owe you no proof, its a waste of time to think everyone will agree.
I stand for moral values, and that includes those I hire to do a service for me in the professional world. You Musing, have every right to hire anyone you choose, with any reason that you feel justifies your reason, I on the other hand have the same right, and I nor you have to PROVE it.
This has become boring, or haven’t you noticed?
Report comment to moderator
Playboy Centerfold models have had children and grandchildren, started careers, retired and gone on to nursing homes and their eventual eternal damnation, but I’ve never heard of one outside of a Stephen Kuntz novel who “came to regret it.” Maybe one Miss October had a malevolent adventure at a vacation home after the tourists all went back to the city (an encounter with Cheryl D, let’s imagine), but what other harm could befall one who has been looked upon? Millions of humans have gone naked through the tulips without losing respect. When God said we had to wear clothes after the Fall, he was talking about frostbite, child.
The allure of the human nude in art and cheap magazines isn’t the body, but the facial expression, the communication of consciousness. The one thing that we expose to public view — the face — is the only indispensable anatomical object in portrayal of the nude. The topography of skin, fat, muscles and skeleton are less memorable than mood and circumstance of portrayal. And once the shutter snaps, the river of time carries the image into the past, and the model is never the same, and never even looks the same.
Report comment to moderator
Stephen: Where did I say that ONLY magazines kept in wrappers behind a counter away from minors are considered pornography?
You stated that my statement was inaccurate, but you failed to show how.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 77,
but do note that your post as written explciitly acknolwedges that posing for Playboy and legal capabilities are probably not correlated.
That you judge the professionals you work with on your own moral values is, of course your right.
But do note that I have not been arguing morals, I have been arguing legal capability. It is you who continues to bring morals, which you admit vary from person to person, into it.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 79,
but you did kindly suggest then that since Playboy is not kept behind the counter, that Playboy is not pornography.
I had the opportunity to confirm this again today in the bookstore.
In the context of this disucussion, this was a very useful clarification.
Report comment to moderator
#78 Scroop Moth: “I’ve never heard of one outside of a Stephen Kuntz novel who ‘came to regret it’.”
Maybe a lot of you will think this is totally silly. I was not yet a Christian when it happened. In the late 60’s I was at a beach resort swimming and was wearing a bikini similar to ones most young women were wearing at that time. A professional photographer was taking pictures “for advertising use”. He approached several of us and asked us to sign something giving the resort the right to use the pictures. I thought, “sure, what’s the harm?” But the minute I saw the photo I was in in print in a brochure, I regretted it. I felt used and exposed. I also stopped wearing bikinis. Now I am not saying that everyone, or even a majority would necessarily feel this way, but now you know that “someone” might.
Report comment to moderator
janie post 82,
and I suggest that the important aspect of this exercise is what you feell about it.
I respect your approach to considering this: I tend not to want my picture taken either.
Report comment to moderator
but you did kindly suggest then that since Playboy is not kept behind the counter, that Playboy is not pornography.
Please stop lying about what I said, Musing. I never said (or even suggested) that copies of Playboy are not kept behind a counter. Playboy is porno, and that’s why it’s kept alongside copies of Hustler and all the other filth.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!