Archive of articles classified as' "Manners For The 21st Century"

Back home

Diversity & Inclusion


I’ve had some interesting conversations with some folks recently on the topic of diversity and inclusions.

Long story short:
These are mostly older white people, either Christian or from a Christian cultural background, who are hurt when they hear themselves being referred to as racists. They blame this hurt on cultural diversity, thinking they are being made into scapegoats for things their ancestors did to other people.

By and large, these people I had these conversations with are nice, decent, compassionate human beings. They’re morally and ethically trustworthy. They can say “some of my best friends are” and truly mean it without any irony, because on a personal one-to-one level they have no bias against any particular individual.

Okay, so let’s address their specific personal problem and how to go about alleviating their pain…

If you don’t want to be thought of as a racist,
you must be open and vocal in your opposition to racism.

As stated here oft times before, racism is an institutionalized system of discrimination, either explicit (laws) or implicit (culture).

To avoid being
called a racist,
don’t support

You don’t have to reject the entire culture, just the parts that discriminate against people outside the ethnic majority.

This means listening to the people who have experienced discrimination and stop trying to explain to them that what they felt, what they experienced isn’t valid.

If someone tells you they feel excluded from mainstream American society, you aren’t going to make them feel included by explaining to them why they shouldn’t feel excluded.

The dignity and security and sense of self-worth you want for yourself has to be extended to those not like you.

It sometimes means coming to a workable compromise on some issues.

The Confederacy and their flag may not be a hate symbol to you, but it’s certainly a hate symbol to millions of other people.

If you don’t want to be thought of as racist, you can’t defend symbols used by people who waged open terrorism against non-whites and non-Christians.

(Buddhists can use swastikas in their temples because they control the message there, but they don’t use them openly in countries where there’s any sizeable European cultural component.)

You also have to recognize that while you personally have displayed no prejudice against non-whites and non-Christians, there certainly has been a long, long history of such prejudice by others in the past.

And as a result, those non-white / non-Christian cultures are shaped by literally hundreds of years worth of experience (thousands when you start including some Middle Eastern cultures).

Those cultures, their histories, and their common experiences cannot be negated with the stroke of a pen. The momentum they built up to simply survive in the face of a hostile dominant culture can’t be turned on a dime.

Yes, it may be unfair for you to be told you have to shoulder the blame for something your ancestors did to their ancestors 150 years ago, but you can’t expect their culture to cancel itself out in order to accommodate yours.

(When you think about it, that attitude by your ancestors was precisely what created the problem in the first place.)

You have to understand that echoes of racism still resonate loudly in our culture.

When a 12 year old boy is gunned down without warning by police for playing in a park, you need to get angry.

Not say “he was big for his age”.

When a teenager returning to his father’s home is chased down and murdered by an armed vigilante, you need to get angry.

Not make excuses for the vigilante.

When a doctor is brutalized by a corporation and the corporation tries to justify it by falsely claiming he had a criminal record, you need to get angry.

Not agree with the corporation’s smear campaign.

When it is pointed out that to this very day people of one color have a vastly different experience with the legal system than white people who commit the exact same crimes, you need to get angry.

Not blame the victims of this legal bias.

You say — and I believe you, and believe you are genuine and sincere in doing so — that you want this country to be more inclusive.

Remember the exclusions this country suffered through in the past were created and engineered by white Christians for the benefit of white Christians.

African-Americans did not champion Jim Crow. Native Americans did not volunteer for the Trail Of Tears. Gays did not request to be criminalized and hounded for their orientation.

Women didn’t ask to be denied the rights and privileges of citizenship because of their gender.

There’s an easy way to avoid being regarded as a racist.

Act like a mensch.


No Comments

Cultural Appropriation: That Knife Cuts Both Ways


There’s been a lot of hoopla recently of the Scarlett Johansson version of Ghost In The Shell crashing & burning at the box office.

A lot of the blame seems to be placed on the controversy of “whitewashing” (i.e., retelling a story originally set in an Asian or other non-European derived culture with an American or European cast, in particular a white American or European cast).[1]

There are times when claims of whitewashing are valid, such as when it’s another form of black/yellow/brown/redfacing (i.e., an actor attempting to realistically play an ethnicity they don’t belong to).[2]

As a rough rule of thumb, when the story hinges on taking place in a specific time and place and with a specific ethnic casting in mind, it becomes whitewashing when one casts a non-ethnic actor in an otherwise ethnic role with the intent of appealing to the audience.

But what happens when you take the core idea of a story and transplant it to a different setting with similar but different characters?

MacBeth is referred to as “the Scottish tragedy” but Akira Kurosawa moved it to feudal Japan and called it Throne Of Blood and nobody called shenanigans on it.

To show he wasn’t a literary snob, he took Ed McBain’s[3] 87th Precinct pulp crime novel, King’s Ransom, and turned it into a contemporary Tokyo crime thriller called High And Low.

Kurosawa allowed himself to be inspired by the writings of Dashiell Hammet — most notably his novel Red Harvest about a Depression era hero in the Midwest who pits two gangs against one another — to create Yojimbo, about a masterless ronin who pits two yakuza clans against one another, and that inspired Sergio Leone to make the Italian Western A Fistful Of Dollars about a bounty hunter who pits two bands of desperados against one another, and that inspired Walter Hill to make Last Man Standing

… about a Depression era hero in the Midwest who pits two gangs against one another,

I ax ya, hooz zoomin’ hoo?

Three Godfathers has been filmed numerous times as a Western…and once as an anime set in contemporary 21st century Tokyo (Tokyo Godfathers).

 La Femme Nikita was a dazzling 1990 French spy thriller…but Hong Kong did it sooooo much better as the kinetic 1991 action flick, The Black Cat, which was certainly more enjoyable than the 1993 official Americanized remake, Point Of No Return.

Do we even have to mention Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven?

the call me trinity


The point is, we cannot stop cross-cultural appropriation:
People see something, like it, and try to duplicate it.

They Call her Cleopatra Wong

It’s one thing when a drunken frat boy puts on a sombrero and loudly proclaims himself “the Frito bandito” in order to mock working class Mexican-Americans…

It’s another thing when an African-American actor uses an identical sombrero to help add authenticity to a Hispanic character he is playing Off Broadway…

And it’s a third thing still when a Chinese-American tourist buys an identical sombrero in Cancun to take home to wear when she’s gardening.

As always, the context is important.

Absolutely jump dead in the @%#& of anybody blowing off minority voices simply because they think it would be an easier sell with a whitebread American in the role.

But accept all really good ideas are universal, and however well done one particular expression of an idea may be, there’s no reason someone else can’t do it just as well in a different manner.




[1] I blame the failure on something entirely different. I’m a huge fan of the original anime, Ghost In The Shell, and think it is one of the most philosophically and psychologically profound films ever made, all wrapped up in a colorful action-adventure sci-fi package. But the format of the original Ghost In The Shell is crucial to its success: Being done throughout in a 2D anime style everything — from the most mundane detail to the most spectacular sci-fi elements — carries the same weight. That’s to say a character quietly sipping a cup of tea is just as real as that same character splintering apart a few seconds later to reveal they’re an android. As a result, the cinematic universe the anime Ghost In The Shell inhabits is equally realistic and believable at all levels, and as a result the audience is not yanked out of the story when they see something spectacular, asking themselves “How did they do that?” but rather goes, “Cool!” and keeps up with the flow of the story.
One may fairly ask why superhero movies and Disney’s recent live-action remake of Beauty And The Beast succeed, and in those examples I would say it’s because the audience recognizes the huge amount of CGI involved and sees the human performers as just motion capture for a stylized animated experience. Ghost In The Shell, while based on a highly influential anime derived from a popular manga series, is simply not well enough known for audiences to see Ms Johansson as the mo-cap cartoon character but rather as Scarlett Johansson herself. Compare and contrast with the early James Bond movies or original Star Wars where the film makers wisely convinced the audience of the reality of their fanciful characters and stories by surrounding them with practical props / vehicles / sets instead of relying heavily on opticals and CGI as latter films in those series have.

[2] “-facing” is not a 100% clear cut issue and depends largely on context. No one objects if a high school rounds out its cast of MacBeth with non-Scottish students or allows females to play minor roles written as male. And for certain types of satire, when the –facing in question is shown as a Very Bad Idea, one can slither by. By and large, however, attempting to pass off one ethnicity as another is somewhat grating at best and blatantly offensive at worst.
Still, how does one explain cosplay, eh? Cosplay is a celebration of a character, not an attempt to actually pass as that character. One can cosplay across ethnic lines so long as one does not attempt an egregiously mock the character’s ethnicity or use offensive types of make-up effects. Ergo, a non-Asian wearing eyefolds to portray an Asian character is unacceptable, wearing an Asian style wig is okay; painting one’s skin black to cosplay Blade is unacceptable, painting it black to cosplay Nightcrawler isn’t. It becomes more complicated when a cosplay character may be wearing stylized ethnic make-up such as a geisha: Is it mockery to powder one’s face stark white in that case?

[3] “Ed McBain” was the mystery / crime fiction pen name of prolific mainstream author Evan Hunter…and “Evan Hunter” was the respectable whitebread pen name Salvatore Albert Lombino adopted to break into mainstream American fiction.


No Comments

Us vs Them (only who >is< "them"?)


I read history. I see the storm clouds gathering. Rational leaders never threaten…and sooner or later irrational ones act on their threats if their threats are what brought them to power.

Karl Alexander Wilke - 2 generals

In the best of all possible worlds we’ll have four more years of bad economic policy and religion. People will suffer economically, medically, personally, but — in the best of all possible worlds — it will stay confined to this country and will end in four years.

In the worst of all possible worlds:
Blood and chaos across the planet.

We are here today because of greed and fear.

The greed of the oligarchy — from ancient Rome to the so-called nobility of Europe to Wall Street’s modern “masters of the universe” — the rentiers who do nothing but manipulate markets to make money for themselves at the expense of others.

When they learn of new lands beyond the western ocean they claimed them sight unseen, then recruited brutes to colonize them, and those brutes drew out the lowest of the low in Europe and, when those could not extract cash fast enough from the “new” world, they purchased slaves by the millions.

To keep the slaves in line they told the poor whites that no matter what else, at least they were white and not black.

And because of that one group of poor people (white) were forever pitted against another (black) and not just black but red and brown and yellow.

All to make a few greedy bastards even richer.

And that fear of losing status, of not being on top but rather merely equal to the red and black and brown and yellow, made poor whites the slaves of rich bastards, always taking the oligarchy’s side against their own self-interests

That’s what this election was all about:
Keeping “them” in their place and “us” on top.

I will not be part of that.

My heart lies with justice for all,
not just those of my skin color.


No Comments

Intelligent / Foolish / Stupid / Smart


What’s the difference between an intelligent person, a foolish person, a stupid person, and a smart person?

An intelligent person admits their mistakes and strives not to repeat them.

A foolish person realizes they’ve made a mistake but is too proud or vain to admit it, and so often ends up repeating the same mistake.

A stupid person is incapable of realizing they made a mistake, and thus can’t grasp how their actions have consequences.

A smart person figures out why they made the mistake and in doing so, learns something: Either insight into themselves, or how to make penicillin.

No Comments

A Point About Privilege


“Privilege” is one of those words, much like “theory”, that has a very precise technical meaning and a much looser popular one.

In everyday parlance, “privilege” means gloating or lording it over someone because one possesses something the others lack. “That’s her privilege” “He thinks he’s a privileged character” “It was my privilege to know them”

In common parlance, “privilege” packs
quite a negative emotional punch.

In its precise use in sociology and other sciences, it’s far more morally neutral.

Let’s tell a little story to illustrate the point using Sam and Pat.

Sam is a successful small business owner who uses a wheelchair.

Pat is an unsuccessful working-class level employee who is able-bodied.
Both Sam and Pat have to get their driver’s licenses renewed. Pat goes to the DMV, walks right up the steps and through the front door, takes a form off the rack on the wall, gets in line, and eventually receives a new license.

Sam has to locate the wheelchair access ramp, ask someone to hand down a form from the rack, gets in line, and eventually receives a new license.

After getting their respective licenses, Sam and Pat feel hungry.

Sam rolls across the street to a restaurant and orders a satisfying meal. Sam’s business is successful enough to afford spontaneous little things like this without worry.

Pat feels hungry, but hasn’t got enough for both a snack from the DMV coin op machine and bus fare home. The part time job Pat holds requires a valid driver’s license but doesn’t pay enough to afford even a cheap used car. Pat needs to decide whether to eat and walk home, skip lunch and take a bus, or do both because who knows what tomorrow may hold?

Pat enjoys what is referred to as “able-bodied privilege”. Pat never has to think about going up stairs, door access, where things are located, etc. because the world for the most part is set up to accommodate people like Pat who are physically able.

Sam does have to worry about such things, because unless somebody thinks ahead and designs the DMV building in such a way as to make it equally accessible for everyone, Sam personally needs to adjust to a world built for able-bodied folk.

Conversely, because Sam is reasonably successful at business, Sam doesn’t have to evaluate whether to spend money on a meal; Sam just orders it and enjoys. Pat does have to make that judgment.

And that, in a nutshell, precisely defines “privilege” in sociological terms: You can afford not to think about something because it doesn’t bother you directly.

It doesn’t make one a bad person.

It doesn’t mean one gloats or smirks or lords it over others.

It certainly doesn’t mean one doesn’t experience other problems and disappointments in life.

But Pat can ignore inadequate wheelchair access at DMV because it doesn’t affect able-bodied persons.

And Sam can roll over and buy a meal on the spur of the moment because making a choice like that presents no budgeting challenge to a person with cash.


You’ve got it.

No matter who you are, no matter what your background, you enjoy privilege in some shape, form, or fashion.

There’s nothing wrong with recognizing that.

Just make sure when you can, you look around and ask what can be done to make the world a bit easier for those who don’t enjoy what you’re able to enjoy.

You don’t have to give anything up.

It’s not a status symbol.

It’s just treating others the
way you want to be treated.


No Comments

A Post On Reparations


You’re invited over to someone’s house for a turkey diner.

Maybe it’s your grandparents who are inviting you.

Maybe it’s those nice neighbors.

Maybe you’re coming empty handed, maybe you’re bringing a side dish.

Doesn’t matter.

You come, you gorge yourself on turkey.

You have a great time.

You feel full.

But then, as you’re leaving, you learn your hosts — be they your grandparents or just nice neighbors — stole the turkey from someone else.

And the person they stole the turkey from, they and their family have gone hungry.

Oh, maybe not starvation hungry, but hungry.

And what was once theirs was taken from them.

And you benefited from that theft, even if you didn’t know it at the time.

Now, do you seek justice for the victimized family?

Do you demand your hosts pay for the turkey?

Do you at least dig into your own pocket and pay your share of what the turkey was worth?

Or do you say it’s not your fault?

Not your responsibility?

The victims should have done a better job of looking after their poultry?

That other people steal turkeys all the time, and until those thieves are brought to justice the nice people who invited you shouldn’t have to pay?

One answer makes you a mensch,
one answer makes you a shit.

And you damn well know which is which.

No Comments

In The Bloody Decade After…


As bitter as Clinton’s failure must feel to her, and as ignominious her and her husband’s fall from grace in the Democratic Party is going to be over the next two years*, in the end she will probably come to reluctantly admit it was better that Trump took the reigns and drove the country into the shitter than for her fingerprints to be on the controls in 2020.

Barack Obama will probably come to realize the same thing, that it was better for him to have been a thwarted figurehead for six years than to have actually enacted any programs, for had those programs not been instantly and obviously 100% successful, his place in history would have been tainted by them.

Now he goes down as a heroic champion, stymied by the incipient racism of conservative politics, a Kennedy-esque figure without the liability of actually having to get shot.

Like it or not, here is the problem:
Big Money, always a player, has taken control of the political system in this country and several others.

They are like professional athletes who have conspired to get all the refs and umpires thrown out of the stadium and regard the rulebook with contempt, playing the game as they damn well like and expecting the fans to love it and continue paying them exorbitant fees to do whatever they feel like doing and who gives a rip if the crowd likes it or not?

If that sounds stupid, it is:
Nobody except Big Money has ever claimed they were smart and Big Money’s proof of their intelligence are the huge piles of money they steal or extort from others.

If history is any example — and boy howdy, is it ever! — then they are going to get a bunch of laws passed to enrich themselves, another bunch of laws repealed or changed so they can avoid paying their fair share, and then everything will go to hell in a hand basket.

Smart Republicans — yes, they exist — are going about with forced smiles on their faces, hoping Trump runs things off the rails right after the mid-terms in 2018 so they can blame him** for screwing things up and position themselves to remove him from the ticket in 2020 and hopefully spare themselves from the ethics of retaliation yet again.

Trump’s negotiating history is this:
He finds a mark who wants to make money or otherwise get something out of the deal (acquire a property, etc.).

He makes grandiose non-specific promises and lets the mark fill in the details in their own head.

Once Trump gets what he wants, he disengages as quickly as possible. If the mark is lucky, the mark has gotten all or most of what they wanted. If the mark is unlucky, they have to deal with the people Trump hands off to.

If the mark is really unlucky, Trump stiffs them. They then face a range of options going from shutting up and accept being stiffed, settling for a lesser amount, or suing (and the whole gamut of options there).

Rarely does anyone take it all the way through court and successfully recover what is owed them plus attendant court costs.

Trump repeats this again and again. Eventually the word spreads and he runs out of easy marks. This happened to Trump in the US as US banks and investors, wary of his shenanigans, refused him money.

Trump is approaching foreign policy in the same manner, assuming his brashness and braggadocio will get him what he wants without blowback.

Unfortunately, he can’t walk off the world stage. To paraphrase a line in Watchmen, the world isn’t locked up with him, he’s locked up with the world.

He is dealing with people who have much different agendas than self-enrichment. World leaders are motivated by internal factors Trump has no control over, and which Trump can’t negotiate on.

He can offer a short changed investor pennies on the dollar, he can’t offer to turn a foreign nation’s internal pressure down.

His behavior, in fact, will only acerbate this.




* Like it or not, they are tainted goods now, and for whatever valid advice they may be able to offer, it will have to be behind the scenes.

** You know he will loudly be taking claim for every good piece of economic news before then.




No Comments

The Enemy Is Not At The Gate But At Our Table


The terrible thing about authoritarianism is that it robs one of moral agency.

That’s a fenchy-smenchy way of saying it takes away your individual moral responsibility.

“I was told…”

“The boss said…”

“According to the book…”

In each case the individual surrenders their ability to make a choice for good or ill and lets somebody else decide for them.

On occasion, this is good:
It speeds things up and prevents low level functionaries from making a mess of establish procedure.

But there’s also several magnitudes of difference between a check-out clerk who won’t give a refund without a receipt because of store policy, and a person who refuses to help a desperate person simply because the paperwork has been filled out incorrectly.

In the first case, one can always push it up to a manager or other higher authority figure; even if denied the person seeking the refund is unlikely to suffer great personal harm. In the latter, one may see that will befall a person, and simply avoid doing anything about it because one can hide behind authority. “Hey, I didn’t want to sends those Jews back to Nazi Germany, but their papers weren’t in order and the regulations are clear.”

Authority offers a comfort factor:
In an authoritarian environment, everybody knows their place.* Theoretically, when the old king dies the new king – even if only a child – immediately steps in, and things proceed in an orderly fashion.**

When many people feel their world shifting unfamiliarly around them, when they’re no longer certain or comfortable where societal boundaries lay, then they turn to authoritarianism.

A big hunk of this comes from fear of losing status, safety, and security to change. As human beings we are almost always more comfortable / less anxious if things stay the way they’ve always been.

“’Twas ever thus.”

But not everybody enjoys their current or past status, and many want that status changed, at least to the point where they feel safe and secure.

Too often those with the old mind set cannot grasp why they can’t continue acting and talking the way they once had — they have no problem with it and literally can’t imagine why anyone else would.

I remember in grade school, way back in the 1960s, hearing a sweet little white haired old lady ask after church, “Well, what’s so wrong with calling them n[bomb]s? That’s what they are.”

Racism is authority in the form of tradition: We have always had this system, ergo we must always have this system.

And since racism hinges so much on shoring up the status of the dominant group, it’s no surprise members of said group flock to comfort under certain authoritarian banners.

They want something to make them feel safe and secure, and gladly surrender heart, mind, and soul.

I am not a racist,” they proclaim, and in their specific definition that’s true.

But it doesn’t mater if you personally kick your neighbor’s teeth in or if you merely say nothing while somebody else kicks their teeth in if the end result is the same: Your neighbor gets their teeth kicked in.

We are now engaged in the opening salvos of a great test of our national character, one in which we shall see if we truly do believe in liberty & justice for all and loving our neighbors as we love ourselves, or will throw it all away in a desperate yet futile attempt to cling to a past that not only no longer exists, but never really existed in the first place and certainly can’t be summoned forth now.

There will be no neutrals in this struggle. There may be peacemakers, but those peacemakers will not be neutral.

We have failed — in fact, have been failing for a long, long time — our tests of moral character. We need to choose wisely so we do not destroy ourselves entirely.

Nobody thought Byzantium would fall…

…until it did.




* And if that doesn’t sound offense and demeaning to you, it’s because you don’t feel the sting…yet.

** Theoretically. And that has happened on many an occasion. The pages of history, however, are well saturated with blood in all the places where it didn’t and pretenders to the throne went to war over heirs-apparent.


No Comments

Symbol Status


[see “Two Sides, One Coin” and “A Walking Contradiction…”]


There’s a concept called the hierarchy of needs and it basically boils down to this: As soon as your most basic level of needs are met (i.e., you have air / water / food), you forget about them and progress to the next level of needs (i.e., shelter and clothing for protection from danger and harsh elements), and then to the next level (i.e., securing a stable source / supply of those needs), and so on and so on until you get to the need for status.

And today, despite people complaining about crushing debt and limited buying power and lack of affordable health care, we are by and large living fat ‘n’ sassy and can afford to worry about status.

Our economic system has spent literally centuries telling workers that they were useless unless they produced wealth for someone else.

Even so-called self-made gazillionaires were producing wealth for investors and stockholders, not exclusively for themselves.

Anybody who tries going off the grid is dismissed as an impractical eccentric at best and a kook at worse.

Culturally, it’s even more daunting. It doesn’t matter if you are a bona fide hermit or a California nature lover or a self-contained religious cult or an early Delta blues musician or a jazz player or a rock’n’roller or a Greenwich village bohemian or a Beat or a hippie: If you opt out of the rat race, if you set your own goals, if you establish your own standards then you are suspect at best, despised most likely, and actively persecuted with depressing frequency.

We are expected to participate in the grand scheme of things.

The model created at the beginning of the industrial revolution is no longer viable:   Large numbers of human beings aren’t needed to grow food or make things; most of those jobs can be eliminated.

What do we replace them with if not a consumer society?
How can you have consumers if they have no money with which to consume?

The average human being travels in a relatively small community.

I’m not referring to actual physical location, but to the people who make that community up.

Most people have about 250 people in their lives whom they interact with enough to be comfortable with.*

Facebook and other social media lets us have thousands of ”friends” but in truth once one starts growing their Facebook friend list beyond a hundred or so people, one discovers those people are really fans or followers, people who find something interesting in your posts and keep an eye on what you’re doing.

Which is fine.

Nothing wrong with that.

But there’s a core of around 250 people who matter to us, even if they’re just Facebook friends or pen pals.

We want them to look favorably on us.

That’s status.

Real status.

Even among the world of celebrities and / or billionaires, there’s only 250 people they’re trying to impress.

They may want fame and fortune so that millions of schmoes will envy them, but having millions of schmoes envying them is how their 250 friends rank status.

We have an economy and attendant culture based on making / moving / marketing things.

We encourage people to consume things not for the obvious basic reasons of pure survival, but because by conspicuous consumption our status may be displayed to the rest of society.

Expensive shit stuff >means> “They make a lot of money” >means> “They must be important.”

We literally live in a culture based on this deliberate and incessant perversion of the Tenth Commandment: Thou shalt covet…

Our digital world is undercutting all this.

We no longer need to physically possess something in order to enjoy it.

We don’t need ownership for much of what we want, merely access.

So why do we need things to display status?

Consider a society / culture / world in which status was adjudged by doing something.

Hard to imagine?


That’s the world most people lived in the western world in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early part of the 20th century.

That’s the world of classical Greece, of pre-Columbian American, of the Polynesian peoples.

A world rich with amateur and semi-pro athletics, of literary and art guilds, of amateur musical groups ranging from choirs to brass bands to full symphonic orchestras, of amateur theatrical troupes, of home makers displaying their skills and competing in local / regional / national competitions, of animal shows, of gardening clubs, of a thousand and one special interest groups, all built around the concept of their members doing things.

Read any history of popular culture in those eras. People worked hard, but had no mass produced diversions; they had to entertain themselves.

What happened to that world?

Consumer economy, that’s what.




[to be continued]

* “Comfortable” here does not necessarily mean pleasant, merely that both sides know their respective roles in the relationship and can thus anticipate what the other will do in a given situation.

No Comments

007 in 008 words


007 thunderball underwater cropped

kill all the men
boff all the babes

007 thunderball_art

art by Robert McGinnis

No Comments