Perfectly pedestrian polygamists

SecretStoryIf I were queen of the world, I’d forbid reporters from using any variation of the they’re just like you and me theme for stories. It’s bad enough when Us Weekly does it with a photo package of celebrities shopping and walking their dogs. But when mainstream reporters do it, it’s embarrassing.

Back when Big Love — HBO’s drama about attractive and perfectly pedestrian polygamists — debuted, critics all emphasized how normal their marriage seemed. And a recent New York Times article on gay parents and their reproductive donors forming multi-parent families also emphasized normalcy.

This style of reporting smacks of advocacy, which is one reason I oppose it. But it also betrays a lack of understanding about why some people oppose polygamy or various other lifestyle choices. Certainly people are troubled by the rampant child sexual abuse and abandonment of young males that plagues polygamous communities. But it’s possible to oppose polygamous marriage on principle and for far more nuanced and subtle reasons then thinking “them people sure are weird.”

Which brings us to a New York Times story by Lee Jenkins about a young basketball star whose parents are in a polygamous marriage. The well-written and interesting story ran in the sports section and began this way:

When the cheering section for Joe Darger is at full strength, it includes his father, his mother, his 18 siblings and his father’s other wife.

They wear red T-shirts, blow on red noisemakers and wave red pompoms. They appear no different from any other group in the U.N.L.V. family section — only larger and louder.

Really? I thought they would have horns and green skin!

College basketball has plenty of experience with nontraditional family structures: parents in jail, parents in shelters, parents missing entirely. Joe grew up with three parents in the house.

See, Darger’s experience is no different than anyone else’s! Are we getting the message yet?

“I know the kid really well, and I like him a lot,” said Rick Majerus, a former Utah coach, who recruited Joe in high school. “I met the family, and they were very nice people — certainly loved their son and cared about him.”

polygamyWhich surprised me, since I figured his parents loathed him.

John Darger is a 60-year-old real estate developer with bushy gray hair, a thin goatee and a deep singing voice. He grew up with 46 siblings. His father had several wives. Polygamy was passed down like a family heirloom.

When John met Carollee 32 years ago, he was a construction worker and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were married in the Salt Lake Temple. For anniversaries, John still writes songs for Carollee.

John considers himself a Mormon, but he is no longer recognized as one. Because polygamy is illegal and the church renounced the practice more than a century ago, John said that he had been excommunicated. His children, however, remain active members of the church and have given no indication that they will practice polygamy.

See, they’re even more romantic than most couples! They’re not just normal — they’re better. I must mention that I appreciate the way the reporter concisely explained the polygamists’ relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also find it interesting that the children are active Mormons while the parents aren’t. For one thing I wonder how the children can be part of a church that condemns the polygamy of their very family and whether that causes any friction. Does this happen frequently where excommunicated Mormons have children in the church?

As Carollee relaxed on the beanbag chair, children came and went. Her sons cooked burritos. Her daughters gave each other massages. When polygamy was raised as a topic of conversation, they laughed. They say they think it is amusing that people are so fascinated by it.

“We are just people,” Carollee said. “We are normal people.”

Okay, we get it. Polygamists put their pants on one leg at a time. People with unorthodox marriages are normal. They’re less threatening than the Red Hat Society. It’s been beaten into me. I relent.

I feel a bit of regret for being so negative about this story. It’s a generally well-written feature on the sports page, and I’m sure most readers were just entertained by the novelty of it all.

But this “everyone is normal” theme is just overdone. Is it too much to ask for a new approach with stories about groups such as these? If everyone is normal, after all, then no one is newsworthy.

Print Friendly

  • Hans

    This style of reporting smacks of advocacy, which is one reason I oppose it. But it also betrays a lack of understanding about why some people oppose polygamy or various other lifestyle choices.

    Well put. This whole story reminds me of the time the GLBT group at my college had a stand set up during orientation week that featured pictures of all sorts of famous people throughout history who were (supposedly) homosexual.

    Gosh, I thought. I had no idea gay people could be TALENTED! Well, there goes my entire moral objection to the practice. Since Cole Porter wrote good songs, I guess it must not be wrong.

  • Stephen A.

    Yes, this is a clear case of advocacy journalism, and sadly, this is all that many people under 30 have ever known, it’s become so commonplace. It’s one thing to see this “everyone/everything/every behavior is normal” nonsense in People or Us Magazine, but it’s disconcerting to see it in the “mainstream” media. Disconcerting, but not really surprising.

    (And it’s everywhere. Flipping through the channels, I saw an “MTV News” report on military recruiters in a Southern town that implied that the kids had no other job prospects and were ‘forced’ into the military to fight in Iraq. One side’s point was made. But no context, no rebuttal, no balance. Back in my day, MTV was all about music videos. Stupid, but less politically charged.)

    It’s telling that the subject of these issues being pushed by reporters is often of the Left-wing variety. I’m not sure if polygamy fits that label, but it sure goes against tradition – spits in the eye of it, actually – and that’s certainly a liberal trait.

    Reporters need to understand that this is not journalism, it’s propaganda, because it lacks objectivity and toys with readers’ emotions in an insidious way.

    BTW: A recent story in USA Today discussed this phenomenon of reporters pushing and championing an agenda, often with the goal of becoming famous (that is the goal of journalism, right?):
    http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-03-05-social-journalism_N.htm

  • http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com ELC

    This style of reporting smacks of advocacy, which is one reason I oppose it. I don’t think it “smacks” of advocacy: I think it simply is advocacy.

  • Stephen

    Sad that there was very little about the negative aspects of living/growing up in a polygamist family. Granted, waving around dirty laundary is probably not the best idea either, but the point I’m trying to make is that no family, however one defines it, is perfect. I think we can all agree that for all of the joys of being in a family, there are also tensions, and I think the article would have been more balanced if it explored what the tensions were and how they were or were not overcome instead of making it sound like a bed of roses.

    And most interesting line, I thought, was “Polygamy was passed down like a family heirloom.” So are all the kids then expected to recieve this family heirloom and enter into polygamy? And is this the sole reason the Dad married two women, because it was the family tradition? Also interesting how there was almost no mention of the other wife. You almost get the impression that she is not quite part of the family, hence making this family even more normal.

  • bbell

    Hi,

    I am a active Mormon with long roots in the LDS church. I have polygamous ancestors.

    I was very surprised to read in the article that the children of the three polygamous adults are active LDS members? They attend local LDS wards and participate? There is little if any contact between our cousins in the fundamentalist movements and the maistream church. My exp is that from time to time a fundamentalist in the west will leave his or her familiy group and seek membership in the mainstream church. Local bishops have to carefully screen these individuals and after some consultations with Mission Presidents, local area authorities etc some of them have been accepted for baptism.

    “I also find it interesting that the children are active Mormons while the parents aren’t. For one thing I wonder how the children can be part of a church that condemns the polygamy of their very family and whether that causes any friction. Does this happen frequently where excommunicated Mormons have children in the church?”

    I concur with the author and have the same questions

  • Michael

    Would it be advocacy journalism to write a story about how normal a Christian family was that homeschooled their children? Would it be an advocacy piece to write a story about how normal a Catholic family was with 13 kids?

    Because there are lots of people opposed to homeschooling and gigantic families, so any story that says “look how normal they are” wouldn’t represent those legitimate criticisms.

    I guess the question is when is a story just a story and when is it advocacy? If a story points out problems (like the NYT story on multi-parent families did), does it stop being advocacy?

  • Stephen A.

    Would it be advocacy journalism to write a story about how normal a Christian family was that homeschooled their children? Would it be an advocacy piece to write a story about how normal a Catholic family was with 13 kids?

    Yes, and without opposing views, that would be wrong, too. It’s a question of fairness, and slanting these stories would be just as wrong as making other lifetyles appear ‘normal’ and uncontroversial, when in fact they are.

    Of course, I’ve never seen these two ultra-positive stories in the MSM, so I assume they are hypothetical.

    Any story about homeschooling would include the local NEA chief or school officials noting that they are missing out on “socialization” with other kids and how hard it is for a parent to sufficiently know ALL of the subjects she’d required to teach. And stories about large Catholic families would surely talk about the Pope’s stand on birth control. Would these opposition views be fair game to include? Sure. As long as both sides have ample rebuttal space in the story, that’s the balance. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m just amazed that balance and fairness are concepts that are so perplexing for some in the media to grasp.

  • Chris Bolinger

    Mollie, you were on a roll in this blog post. Had me LOL. Don’t apologize for being so negative on a story that reaked. While I appreciate that this blog seeks to highlight good efforts, it must raise the bar for the press, because that bar is set far too low. Too many press folks characterize all criticism as bashing and whine about how tough their jobs are. And some never can bring themselves to agree with you on anything. :-)

  • Jerry

    I’m not sure if polygamy fits that label, but it sure goes against tradition – spits in the eye of it, actually – and that’s certainly a liberal trait.

    A couple of points – polygamy is a mormon tradition or at least was at one point. And it still is a tradition in Islamic countries and perhaps in other places. Polygamy is thus traditional in many places.

    Also, that’s a very skewed idea of what liberal – since most of my fellow liberals are very much in favor of the tradition that one takes care of people who are less fortunate. That tradition is even enshrined in the Sermon on the Mount.

    Part of the problem I have with the story and the comments is that the word ‘normal’ can have multiple meanings. One meaning is ‘normal’ meaning “natural” or, with value judgment, “acceptable”. Another meaning of “normal” is sane – behavior engaged in by sane people.

    Just for grins, I reread Mollie’s post with the two different meanings in mind. Read one way, I agree with her points. Read another way, I disagree.

    Most people who practice polygamy are sane. In some cultures, it’s a standard part of life. So it’s ‘normal’ from that perspective. But asking if the behavior is acceptable to God is quite something else.

    So was the intent of the original article to answer the question “what kind of nuts practice polygamy”? Or was it to promote acceptance of polygamy? Or did the reporter just want to write something most acceptable to his readership not caring about any agenda? I have no idea – I’m not a mind reader.

  • Sarah Webber

    I question I’ve wanted an answer to for years: when did the spelling change from polygyny to polygamy?

  • Stephen A.

    Hmm. Well, if words mean anything, “tradition” here can’t many any old thing. Clearly (or perhaps not) I was referring to WESTERN tradition, and in Western tradition, polygamy most certainly is not the norm, and no amount of rhetorical somersaults will make it so.

    As for “normal,” the liberal view is quite a bit different from reality, too. If you don’t think it’s the liberal media’s game to “tweak” conservatives at every turn by throwing abberant material out there and painting it as normal, you’re simply not watching TV or reading anything in print. That liberals are infatuated with polygamy right now because it ticks off religious conservatives is just an example, but only the latest one.

    And I was actually not making any value judgement based on a religious point of view. Surely, other cultures practice polygamy. I do think it’s a bit skewed to try to make the case that it’s Normal in some of these cultures (Muslims tell me it is NOT the norm, though is accepted, in some nations) and there’s the “so what?” factor here, too. Other nations practice child labor. Does that mean anything? Nope.

    As for the Sermon on the Mount, and taking care of people, I guess that’s your way of saying something about the social gospel being just as valid as traditional marriage and traditional morality, and that’s great, but it’s not the subject at hand. Or maybe it actually bolsters my comments, I don’t know.

  • http://altreligion.about.com Jennifer Emick

    spits in the eye of it, actually – and that’s certainly a liberal trait.

    Stephen, that’s just obnoxious. Liberalism doesn’t ‘spit’ on anything, it asks that people accept peope who are different and doing you no harm. Apparently, that’s too much to ask of some people.

  • Dr. K.

    Would it be advocacy journalism to write a story about how normal a Christian family was that homeschooled their children? Would it be an advocacy piece to write a story about how normal a Catholic family was with 13 kids?

    What about a ‘friendly’ article about a family of NRA members? I have trouble imagining most media dealing kindly with a little 8-year-old Suzie who can shoot bulleyes at 100 yards and knows the rules of gun safety. I suspect that in the article there would be counter-claims from CPS wonks and psychologists of how Suzie was becoming warped and sociopathic bacause she had touched a weapon; and that she should be moved into a loving (non-violent) home where she could be deprogrammed of her NRAism and fed free-range chicken and NPR.

    Most people who practice polygamy are sane. In some cultures, it’s a standard part of life. So it’s ‘normal’ from that perspective. But asking if the behavior is acceptable to God is quite something else.

    True, to some extent. But in most polygamist cultures, women (usually much younger than their husbands) are ‘purchased’ and treated as little more then baby factories. I certainly don’t want to see that attitude toward women become ‘normal’ in the U.S. These kinds of advocate articles lean down that slippery slope. As to whether God says it’s alright, I’ll stick with the admonition that Paul makes to Timothy when he tells him that a bishop/Christian mentor/pastor/Godly man should be the husband of one wife.

  • Dr. K.

    I question I’ve wanted an answer to for years: when did the spelling change from polygyny to polygamy?

    When Randolph Hearst got the ‘A’ on his typewriter fixed.

    Sarcastic answers aside, that is a good question. Dictionary.com actually ascribes an earlier date to ‘polygamy’, but both words seem to have similar meanings and both seem to be correct uses of English.

  • Dan

    I agree it is an advocacy piece by someone who is sympathetic to “nontraditional family structures.” But in places the writer’s advocacy seems more like Exhibit A for a Focus in the Family white paper. One wouldn’t think that an advocate for “nontraditional family structures” would associate those families with delinquent parents who, if they are to be found at all, are in jail or homeless shelters. Yet the writer does just that in the following passage:

    “College basketball has plenty of experience with nontraditional family structures: parents in jail, parents in shelters, parents missing entirely.”

  • Jerry

    That liberals are infatuated with polygamy right now because it ticks off religious conservatives is just an example, but only the latest one.

    Of course, in a posting such as that, one is free to make any assertion one cares to. But do you care to prove the assertion that “liberals are infatuated with polygamy”? I went looking for any poll data that purely asked about polygamy and found a Gallup poll on the Mormons (for obvious reasons). Given how few identify polygamy as the #1 defining characteristic of Mormons, I don’t think that survey says much of all about attitudes toward plural marriage.

    So I did some more looking and found another poll that says that over 90% of Americans find polygamy morally wrong. That hardly seems like ‘infatuation’ on any group’s part.

    What about a ‘friendly’ article about a family of NRA members?

    With a pro-gun (anti-abortion) Democratic leader of the Senate and a gun-control advocate running for the Republican presidential nomination, the world is sure upside down.

    That hotbed of liberalism, the New York Times, had an article a couple of years ago with this section:

    Long out of favor, hunting is fast becoming a hip way to spend the weekend for the young and upwardly mobile.

    At the end of the article, a certain about of squeamishness was expressed about actually killing Bambi, but overall I did not find that article to be anti-gun.

  • Jerry

    sigh. looks like the blog software ate my latest post as being spam. I’m going to avoid blockquotes and many official links. It seems that is triggering the spam bucket treatment.

    That liberals are infatuated with polygamy right now because it ticks off religious conservatives tml?sec=travel&res=9801EEDB1E31F93AA35752C0A9629C8B63

    In fact, a recent poll http://www.pollingreport.com/values.htm showed that over 90% of Americans find polygamy morally wrong. That’s hardly an infatuation with polygamy on the part of any major group.

    My point about the social gospel was meant to refute your overbroad statement about tradition. That poll also mentions that the overwhelming number of Americans believe adultery is morally wrong. It is true that on some questions of tradition, liberals and conservatives part company.

    And outside of some squeamishness about killing Bambi at the end of the article, the “liberal” New York times had a pretty positive story about hunting becoming more popular. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=9801EEDB1E31F93AA35752C0A9629C8B63
    which is not the pro-NRA article mention above, but its a cousin to it, I think.

  • Stephen A.

    Jennifer, snarky liberals on NPR and MSNBC (among many others) spend all their time attacking traditional families, traditional religious beliefs and tradition in general. Perhaps “snarky” is a better word than “spitting” but it’s the same thing: They have nothing bu irreverence and contempt for the traditionalists, reverential “normalcy” reporting for abnormal and abberant behavior. That’s the M.O. of the Left in the media.

  • Stephen A.

    Jennifer, as for polygamists, gay couples or any other “people who are different and doing you no harm,” as you put it, that’s not a value judgement reporters need to be making. That’s the very definition of “advocacy” and it has NO place in reporting. NONE.

    But apparently, liberals get a pass, and can freely advocate for busting down traditional foundations and replacing them with utterly new value systems. As I said, that’s wrong, the same as a reporter going into a story on these issues with an ax to grind and a traditionalist bias to promote.

  • Jerry

    It’s amazing how many snarky conservatives spend time attacking liberals for beliefs they don’t actually hold. For example, see the http://www.pollingreport.com/values.htm poll which shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in traditional marriage and are against adultery. And the numbers are so large as to necessarily include left and right.

    There are real disagreements between groups on specific issues. But we would all be better off to avoid hyperboli in normal discourse and sensationalism in the media. They are two sides of the same coin. For example, without too much trouble I found a PBS news story about trying to shore up marriage including classes at a church: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/welfare/jan-june02/marriage_5-14.html and the npr report http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4826235 which includes this comment on the web site:

    Still, liberals and conservatives alike agree on one thing: marriage is more than a simple piece of paper, it’s an institution that needs to be preserved.

  • Harris

    It seems sort of crude to point this out, but the fact that the article was written at all indicates that these people are not “normal” or common. That’s the point. That’s why it’s called news.

    If our basketball player had a family that was white-bread ordinary than what would be the point of writing about him (unless, say, he was averaging 25 points a game)? It’s the odd family, the odd rooting section that makes for the story.

    If anything, it being the NYT and not the LA Times, I would take the focus on the polygamy as a kind of “ain’t they cute/odd/strange in flyover land.” And were you being really suspicious of the machinations of MSM, you might want to read this more as a Romney attack (see, polygamy is not a thing of the past, therefore his Mormonism likewise ought to be interpreted in the most invidious, culturally threatening way). And in point of fact, it’s Romney’s Mormonism that probably set people thinking this would in fact be a good story.

  • http://rub-a-dub.blogspot.com mattk

    Cole Porter was a homosexual?

  • Irenaeus

    Part of the problem is that there really isn’t any fair, objective, neutral point of view. Ever. The boundary between editorials/advocacy and ‘straight news’ stories is a matter of degree, not kind.

  • Michael

    But apparently, liberals get a pass, and can freely advocate for busting down traditional foundations and replacing them with utterly new value systems. As I said, that’s wrong, the same as a reporter going into a story on these issues with an ax to grind and a traditionalist bias to promote.

    Arguably, is there is a bias to thie story, it is a story with a very conservative bias. Normalizing the lives of religous conservatives and suggesting that religious practices outside the mainstream should be respected and are “normal.”

    It seems interesting that we assume that a story that allegedly promoted the religious liberty of religious conservatives by trying to normalize a large family with a married biological mother and father is somehow considered liberal.

  • Diane Fitzsimmons

    I had questions about the legality of the marriages that I didn’t understand. Maybe someone here can help.

    The story noted that the children range in age from 2 to 40. The player’s mother and father have been married 32 years, meaning Carollee is the second wife. Carollee is 49; Joe is 60. They were married in the Temple, according to the article, and by my calculations were 17 and 28. If Carollee is the second wife, how were they able to marry in the Temple?

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Diane,

    Excellent question. I just went through the article and came up with the same calculations.

  • Tracy Hall Jr

    I felt confused after reading the NYT piece, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on what bothered me. Thanks, Mollie, for hitting it on the nail!

  • Camassia

    I question I’ve wanted an answer to for years: when did the spelling change from polygyny to polygamy?

    They’re two different words, from different Greek roots. Poly (many) + gyne (woman) means many wives. Poly + gamos (marriage) means multiple spouses of whatever gender.

  • meverest

    Camassia makes me wonder how long it will be before we see some coverage of a normal polyandrous family…

  • http://www.quenta-narwen.blogspot.com Donna Marie Lewis

    To recap Camassia and meverest:
    Polygyny is the practice of one man having more than one wife.
    Polyandry is the practice of one woman having more than one husband.
    Polygamy is either practice.
    However, since polygyny has been the most common form of polygamy, those two words tend to be used interchangably.
    (I believe there is a tribe near or in Tibet that traditionally practices polyandry – however, I believe they also traditionally practice female infanticide in order to keep the number of surviving females low. Basically, a family will have one living daughter, and charge a huge bride-price for her. The prices are so high most men can’t afford a bride by themselves. A set of brothers will get together the price and marry a woman. Then the brothers take turns staying with their bride. One will be at home, while the rest are out on long herding or hunting expeditions. Then one will come home, the stay-at-home will go out, etc. As the tribe is very dependent on herding and hunting, which are reserved to males, the system gets them as many males out doing them as possible. )

  • http://auspiciousdragon.com/wp/ holmegm

    Help my ignorance here – did polygamy become legal somewhere in the U.S.? Since the people in this article couldn’t be more positively identified, then … well … why won’t they be charged with something?

  • Stephen A.

    Michael wrote:

    Arguably, is there is a bias to thie story, it is a story with a very conservative bias. Normalizing the lives of religous conservatives and suggesting that religious practices outside the mainstream should be respected and are “normal.”

    Wha? I was referring to the tendency (and the compulsive one, at that) of the MSM to glamorize anything that diminishes and atomizes the traditional nuclear family – of which the polygamists are DEFINITELY not a part, and they are most certainly not “conservative.”

    Though this is one situation in which I might be willing to agree that labels may fail us, since they may indeed see themselves as “conservative” in every OTHER way, though they are in fact quite radical in their acceptance of this lifestyle.

    As a side note, I’ve long argued that for this very type of situation, another group, social libertarians, should not be portrayed in the press or elsewhere as “conservative,” either, since many embrace a worldview that encourages a total overthrow of the social order and understandings thereof. Clearly not “conservative,” either, and closer in method, though not intent obviously, with Marxism than with conservatism. The fact that they see more in common with conservatives (and the GOP in the US) is our burden to bear.

    So, two ways labels fail us. But if you now say that the MSM has a “corporate bias” (the old liberal stand-by when the L-word is used) I’ll simply scream in frustration.

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    Well, it is a change from the MSM pile-on when Santorum said “If you allow ‘gay marriage’, you have to allow polygamy” and the editorialists and opedders showered how-dare-he responses.

    Probably it is this sort of thing which gives commenters the idea that “liberals” are ready to cheerlead for anything which goes *against* “red-state” values at all cost, including consistency.

    But reactions like that mentioned in the first paragraph STILL baffle me. If “gay marriage” is an issue of “privacy” or whatever the current buzzword is, why not what three or more heterosexuals want to do?
    I was reminded of the PICKET FENCES episode involving fundamentalist Mormons. Judge Martian noted that “sooner or later, the issue is going to come before the Supreme Court. I don’t want WOMBAUGH to have the case!”

  • http://www.quenta-narwen.blogspot.com Donna Marie Lewis

    holmegm-
    The point is, they consider themselves ‘married’, but the law only recognizes the first marriage as legal.
    The law does not penalize consenting adults from having sexual activity in any form, but it only recognizes as ‘married’ two people of opposite sexes who are not married to other people.
    Thus, legally, a husband cannot have two wives, and a wife cannot, legally, have two husbands, but if the first spouse is willing to accept the second relationship, the law won’t step in, anymore than it would if, say, a married man was carrying on a long-term affair and the wife tolerated it because she wants his money, and the pre-nup says she gets zip if she files for divorce.
    If a ‘second wife’ were to leave, and want to marry a single man, she could do so without first getting a divorce, since the law doesn’t recognize a plural marriage.

  • Stephen A.

    Will, you’re right about the contempt that was heaped on Santorum and others when they dared to suggest that polygamy was the next natural consequense of the “privacy” argument. And yet, some elements in the media seem to be softening up the public for just that eventuality.

    What hasn’t been fully explored in the news media is the actual language of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling, in which justices argued that the government had NO right to determine who enters into social contracts like marriage. While it’s true that some justices’ arguments included the hope that this wouldn’t extend to more than two people in these arrangements, it sounds like it would be hard to make both arguments mesh.

    p.s. I personally found Picket Fenses abhorent, since every episode seemed intent on championing the weird over the traditional. It quickly became unwatchable for me. That was the point of the show, I guess, but it is yet another example of a medium used as a vehicle to push a “progressive” agenda. At least Boston Legal pushes its liberalism with some class and entertainment value.

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    “…every episode seemed intent on championing the weird over the traditional.”

    Hey, I represent that!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X