Can a Patriarchy Practice Equality of the Sexes

[Jason]

From another thread:

Here's a poser for you, Lurker. Can you imagine a patriarchal order that practices equality between men and women, or in your view does being patriarchal mean it cannot be equal by definition?

By "equality" I mean something like "treating both sexes as being of equal value and with equal respect."

Well, can it?

(Oh, and "poser" means "a puzzling question". Not "someone pretending to belong to a social group they do not actually belong to")

[bluebell]

I think many people would claim that there is no equality where one group has all the power, hence a patriarchy cannot treat men and women equally because men have all the power in the relationship.

However, if we are talking about patriarchy as is espoused in the idea of the 'kingdom of God' then one could argue that because all power rests with God, who is the head, that both men and women are equal before Him. Therefore, His patriarchy does treat both equally.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes. See D&C 121: 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

[CV75]

By "equality" I mean something like "treating both sexes as being of equal value and with equal respect."

Of course it can. What is the controversy? An order does not entail a denial of real power, privilege or influence within that order, just the route through which things get done for he benefit of everyone's power, privilege and influence.

[ELF1024]

From another thread:

By "equality" I mean something like "treating both sexes as being of equal value and with equal respect."

The Two Trees

Another thing that I am taught is that men and women are equals before the Lord and before each other. Now, don't use the fallen world's sense of the term "equal"

[Jason]

This was Lurker's most substantial response to my question:

I don't think you are a poser Jason.

I wish I had more time to respond but I don't so here is a quick response.

In those areas where both men and women could fill a role (I am thinking specifically leadership) do you think there is equality in a patriarchal order? Would you consider a non religious organization run under the same guidelines as the church as practicing equality between men and women? Does the definition of equality change depending on whether it is applied to a secular organization or a religious one?

On Edit: We may have to explore what it is we mean by equal in this area.

[CA Steve]

From another thread:

By "equality" I mean something like "treating both sexes as being of equal value and with equal respect."

Well, can it?

(Oh, and "poser" means "a puzzling question". Not "someone pretending to belong to a social group they do not actually belong to")

You are not going to let me work are you?

(And poser can be used either way which was the point of my poor joke. )

I do not believe a patriachal order is equal under this definition. If we take a hypothetical case with a family run company in which both the daughters and sons are equally capable of running the organization, and the choice of who gets to run the company is made solely based on gender, clearly the daughters are not being valued or respected as much as the sons.

On Edit: And what Jason posted above from my other posts would be my follow up questions.

[Jason]

I think many people would claim that there is no equality where one group has all the power, hence a patriarchy cannot treat men and women equally because men have all the power in the relationship.

However, if we are talking about patriarchy as is espoused in the idea of the 'kingdom of God' then one could argue that because all power rests with God, who is the head, that both men and women are equal before Him. Therefore, His patriarchy does treat both equally.

Turn it around a bit. Could you argue that in an earthly kingdom a king that uses only males in his government can still treat men and women equally, since the king is the one with all the real power?

[Hick Preacher]

In human relationships there is power at one pole and love at still another pole. These two poles create a dynamic that must be balanced.

The Patriarchal Order IMO is a tribal system of order. If used as primarily as a system of power, then unrighteous dominion exists. It is likely that systems were laws rule all social order are not completely sustainable--and lead to the ills of our post-modern world.

IMO advanced civilization as we have it today is also not sustainable. Rather people are designed to live in tribes.

So an advanced civilization, even with equal rights for all is not the best kind of society in the first place.

Patriarchal Order works and is sustainable and beneficial for all, if exercised by mature loving men who preside over institutions of a tribal society.

Noteworthy to this is that some feminist theories claim that love is not a real human dynamic. That is to say that there is no such thing as love in human relationships. In this theory of society, only a balance of power between the genders, can a good society be built. Otherwise men have to become extinct, because powerful men keep making victims of less powerful women and children.

The notion of women and men being equal may be an idea rooted in terms of power alone, and not in terms of love/caring. And social problems are thought to be caused by men who have too much power. The real problem however is that men are not loving enough in the use of their power.

The equal rights movements, being rooted in providing power to people who felt they did not have enough power is leading to a generation of people who are only concerned about there own rights, and gaining as much power as they can get. Its all about gaining power, not about love.

If power only is to rule the day, then ultimately women and most men too will be in big trouble, because the most aggressive male personalities will be won over by the dark side of power to become sociopathic tyrants-- and enslave us all.

All we need is love.

[TNBu]

I think you can define "patriarchy" and "equality of the sexes" in non-standard terms that make them compatible. There are some feminist thinkers who accept a "different but equal" sort of definition for equality, so that's certainly not unprecedented.

However, I think it's going to be a tough sell to convince most people concerned with this perceived problem that the standard definitions should be rejected because they don't apply and that the non-standard definitions better describe the power relations involved.

From Merriam-Webster

Patriarchy:

1 : social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power

2 : a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy

[bluebell]

Turn it around a bit. Could you argue that in an earthly kingdom a king that uses only males in his government can still treat men and women equally, since the king is the one with all the real power?

No, an earthly king who only allowed men to lead would not be treating men and women equally. He is favoring men.

[CA Steve]

Our Heavenly Father assigned different responsibilities in mortality to men and women when we lived with Him as His spirit sons and daughters. To His sons He would give the priesthood and the responsibilities of fatherhood, and to His daughters He gave the responsibilities of motherhood, each with its attendant functions.

Equal does not mean same. Equal in this case means that our mission is no less important, and no less critical than the other. Our reward is the same for success.

We are equal before God. Our missions are different, but we are still held responsible for our own successes and failures.

So if priesthood and fatherhood are the counter balance to motherhood, in a relationship where the father does not hold the priesthood is the mother of greater value?

[Jason]

No, an earthly king who only allowed men to lead would not be treating men and women equally. He is favoring men.

So why is it different for God?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Maybe we need to question not only what we mean by eqality by why we automatically privilege it.

For what it's worth, I attach below something I've previously written on this subject on another forum:

A poster recently expressed the following concern about what she perceives as the inequality inherent in the endowment:

[bluebell]

So why is it different for God?

Because of the difference in motivation behind the decision.

[ELF1024]

So if priesthood and fatherhood are the counter balance to motherhood, in a relationship where the father does not hold the priesthood is the mother of greater value?

I suppose that depends on if the mother is "magnifying her calling". It depends on the situation.

In mine own household, I would say yes, my wife is of more value than I. I am not a priesthood holder, I'm not even baptized, and I lack the gift of the Holy Ghost. I've never been endowed. I'm a loser, without a calling, without a membership. I do the best I can to magnify my role as husband and father. I wasn't able to baptize my children, I was unable to give them a name and a blessing when they were born. I have been inactive, disfellowshipped, or excommunciated for most of my children's lives.

My current wife is baptized, and will be marking her first year in the church in Feb. She has gotten her P. Blessing, and has done some Baptisms for Dead family members. She is a wonderful mother, a terrific wife, and is also called as the Sec. in our Ward's Young Women's program. She is of great worth, and I don't feel I am worthy of her.

[bluebell]

Moreover, I sense this possibility within the Saviour's repeated references to Himself as the Bridegroom to the Church. One would be hard pressed to argue that the relationship suggested by this imagery is anything but asymmetrical, even hierarchical. At the same time, I doubt many of us find this particular instance of hierarchy to be anything but liberating, uniting, empowering, beneficial, or intimate. This, perhaps, is the model of hierarchy we are to understand, embrace, and implement in a temple-based marriage.

Having studied a bit of history, i have trouble believing that asian women of 800 BC saw their relationships with their husbands (where they did not even have the right to their own lives if a male relative or spouse wanted them dead in some cultures) as intimate, liberating, or empowering.

Though i can see the benefits of hierarchical structures to society as a whole, historically speaking, they typically have benefited the male almost exponentially more than the female.

Maybe i have misunderstood though.

Moving on to your comparison of our relationship with Christ to the marriage relationship-i can see what you are saying, but i'm not sure how i feel about it. God created Eve as an equal partner in the marriage relationship with Adam, so it's hard for me to consider that God intends for the marriage relationship to be hierarchical.

On one hand, it can be interpreted as offensive to women to suggest that because we can be in a beneficial and fulfilling hierarchical relationship with God, that that means that all such mortal relationships must be equally fulfilling.

God and man are two very different beings to be subordinate to and males, no matter how sincere, are no Jesus. Still though, i like your points and there is definitely room to ponder on them.

[thesometimesaint]

ELF1024:

Stop it. You are of great worth just being you a child of the Most High God. That you working to come back is a noble goal, says much more about you to me, than anything that is in your past.

[CA Steve]

I suppose that depends on if the mother is "magnifying her calling". It depends on the situation.

In mine own household, I would say yes, my wife is of more value than I. I am not a priesthood holder, I'm not even baptized, and I lack the gift of the Holy Ghost. I've never been endowed. I'm a loser, without a calling, without a membership. I do the best I can to magnify my role as husband and father. I wasn't able to baptize my children, I was unable to give them a name and a blessing when they were born. I have been inactive, disfellowshipped, or excommunciated for most of my children's lives.

My current wife is baptized, and will be marking her first year in the church in Feb. She has gotten her P. Blessing, and has done some Baptisms for Dead family members. She is a wonderful mother, a terrific wife, and is also called as the Sec. in our Ward's Young Women's program. She is of great worth, and I don't feel I am worthy of her.

Elf1024 I hope you did not take my earlier response as directed at you. I actually think in a secular marriage or one where the husband does not hold the priesthood both parties are equally important, which is why I think there are gender inequalities in other areas.

[Ceeboo]

In mine own household, I would say yes, my wife is of more value than I. I am not a priesthood holder, I'm not even baptized, and I lack the gift of the Holy Ghost. I've never been endowed. I'm a loser, without a calling, without a membership. I do the best I can to magnify my role as husband and father. I wasn't able to baptize my children, I was unable to give them a name and a blessing when they were born. I have been inactive, disfellowshipped, or excommunciated for most of my children's lives.

My current wife is baptized, and will be marking her first year in the church in Feb. She has gotten her P. Blessing, and has done some Baptisms for Dead family members. She is a wonderful mother, a terrific wife, and is also called as the Sec. in our Ward's Young Women's program. She is of great worth, and I don't feel I am worthy of her.

Hi ELF1024,

Please excuse my non-LDS intrusion to your post (I respect and realize that is was posted with the intention to share among your LDS brethren). I will keep my words very short.

If I may:

Your post almost brought me to tears.

I would suggest that your "value" has NOTHING to do with the status or badge that any church cements to your chest (This certainly includes the LDS church).

Again, I am sorry to intrude and I hope this came across as I intended it to.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Hamba Tuhan]

Having studied a bit of history, i have trouble believing that asian women of 800 BC saw their relationships with their husbands (where they did not even have the right to their own lives if a male relative or spouse wanted them dead in some cultures) as intimate, liberating, or empowering.

Asia's a rather large place, Bluebell, especially when you include all its historical iterations. You may want to check out works which deal with conceptions of power in a specifically Southeast Asian context, before Islam and Western domination.

God created Eve as an equal partner in the marriage relationship with Adam, so it's hard for me to consider that God intends for the marriage relationship to be hierarchical.

How then do you understand repeated prophetic teaching that men are to preside in their homes/families?

Still though, i like your points and there is definitely room to ponder on them.

Thanks.

[kamenraider]

Here's some relevant quotations:

Genesis 3:16

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1 Corinthians 11:3-15

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22-24

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 3:18

18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:9-15

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Titus 2:4-5

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3:1-7

1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Submit = Greek: Hypotasso

Strongs lexicon definition

1) to arrange under, to subordinate

2) to subject, put in subjection

3) to subject one's self, obey

4) to submit to one's control

5) to yield to one's admonition or advice

6) to obey, be subject

This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

After his fall, another name was given to Adam, and being full of integrity, and not disposed to follow the woman nor listen to her was permitted to receive the tokens of the priesthood.

...

The order and ordinances passed through here prove the principles taught in the Bible. First men should love their God supremely. Woman will never get back, unless she follows the man back, if the man had followed the woman he would have followed her down until this time.

--Heber C. Kimball Journal, December 28, 1845; see also George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle; The Journals of William Clayton, pg. 239.

Dominicus Carter Preached to the people in the Afternoon a Discourse upon the subject of the potter with his Clay & vessels of honor & dishonor. He spoke well.

He was followed by J. C. Wright. He bore testimony that the Lord has been with this people from the beginning up to this day the gifts & graces were manifest. He spoke of many of the sick being healed. Even the dead had been raised to life. He spoke of the Law of God. A woman was under the Law of her husband & no other. If she obeyed his Law she was under no transgression because her husband was her head & evry man & woman had a head. The Presidency [p.383] of the church is the head of the Church on Earth & if we obey them we shall be saved.

--Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Jan 6, 1856, Vol. 4, pgs. 382-383.

The thing to notice is that Adam is not let off lightly as a privileged character; he is as bound to Mother Earth as she [Eve] is to the law of her husband. And why not? If he was willing to follow her, he was also willing to suffer with her, for this affliction was imposed on Adam expressly "because thou hast hearkened unto thy wife and hast partaken of the fruit."

--Hugh Nibley, "Patriarchy and Matriarchy," in Mouritsen, Blueprints for Living, pg. 45.

It was from him [Joseph Smith] that I learned that the highest dignity of womanhood was to stand as a queen and priestess to her husband, and to reign for ever and ever as the queen mother of her numerous and still increasing offspring.

--Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, 1st edition, 1938, pgs. 329-330.

There is no higher authority in matters relating to the family organization, and especially when that organization is presided over by one holding the higher Priesthood, than that of the father. The authority is time honored, and among the people of God in all dispensations it has been highly respected and often emphasized by the teachings of the prophets who were inspired of God. The patriarchal order is of divine origin and will continue throughout time and eternity. There is, then, a particular reason why men, women and children should understand this order and this authority in the households of the people of God, and seek to make it what God intended it to be, a qualification and preparation for the highest exaltation of his children. In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father, and in all home affairs and family matters there is no other authority paramount.

--Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939, pgs. 286-287.

I fear some husbands have interpreted erroneously the statement that the husband is to be the head of the house and that his wife is to obey the law of her husband. Brigham Young

[bluebell]

Asia's a rather large place, Bluebell, especially when you include all its historical iterations. You may want to check out works which deal with conceptions of power in a specifically Southeast Asian context.

As a history major, i have studied that and will no doubt study more in the future. There's always more to learn and i definitely have a long way to go before i feel i am even remotely knowledgeable on the subject.

I have studied enough though to say that, taken as a whole, women have been viewed as less than men in those societies. If the hierarchy was what was most important in these situations, and not the supremacy of the male, you would have more instances of matriarchy (which is also set up as a hierarchical system). In general though, these cultures value a male hierarchy and not hierarchy for it's own sake. That should tell us something.

How then do you understand repeated prophetic teaching that men are to preside in their homes/families?

I'm still working on understanding it.

[bluebell]

Here's some relevant quotations:

Genesis 3:16

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1 Corinthians 11:3-15

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22-24

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 3:18

18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:9-15

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Titus 2:4-5

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3:1-7

1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Submit = Greek: Hypotasso

Strongs lexicon definition

1) to arrange under, to subordinate

2) to subject, put in subjection

3) to subject one's self, obey

4) to submit to one's control

5) to yield to one's admonition or advice

6) to obey, be subject

This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

After his fall, another name was given to Adam, and being full of integrity, and not disposed to follow the woman nor listen to her was permitted to receive the tokens of the priesthood.

...

The order and ordinances passed through here prove the principles taught in the Bible. First men should love their God supremely. Woman will never get back, unless she follows the man back, if the man had followed the woman he would have followed her down until this time.

--Heber C. Kimball Journal, December 28, 1845; see also George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle; The Journals of William Clayton, pg. 239.

Dominicus Carter Preached to the people in the Afternoon a Discourse upon the subject of the potter with his Clay & vessels of honor & dishonor. He spoke well.

He was followed by J. C. Wright. He bore testimony that the Lord has been with this people from the beginning up to this day the gifts & graces were manifest. He spoke of many of the sick being healed. Even the dead had been raised to life. He spoke of the Law of God. A woman was under the Law of her husband & no other. If she obeyed his Law she was under no transgression because her husband was her head & evry man & woman had a head. The Presidency [p.383] of the church is the head of the Church on Earth & if we obey them we shall be saved.

--Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Jan 6, 1856, Vol. 4, pgs. 382-383.

The thing to notice is that Adam is not let off lightly as a privileged character; he is as bound to Mother Earth as she [Eve] is to the law of her husband. And why not? If he was willing to follow her, he was also willing to suffer with her, for this affliction was imposed on Adam expressly "because thou hast hearkened unto thy wife and hast partaken of the fruit."

--Hugh Nibley, "Patriarchy and Matriarchy," in Mouritsen, Blueprints for Living, pg. 45.

It was from him [Joseph Smith] that I learned that the highest dignity of womanhood was to stand as a queen and priestess to her husband, and to reign for ever and ever as the queen mother of her numerous and still increasing offspring.

--Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, 1st edition, 1938, pgs. 329-330.

There is no higher authority in matters relating to the family organization, and especially when that organization is presided over by one holding the higher Priesthood, than that of the father. The authority is time honored, and among the people of God in all dispensations it has been highly respected and often emphasized by the teachings of the prophets who were inspired of God. The patriarchal order is of divine origin and will continue throughout time and eternity. There is, then, a particular reason why men, women and children should understand this order and this authority in the households of the people of God, and seek to make it what God intended it to be, a qualification and preparation for the highest exaltation of his children. In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father, and in all home affairs and family matters there is no other authority paramount.

--Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939, pgs. 286-287.

I fear some husbands have interpreted erroneously the statement that the husband is to be the head of the house and that his wife is to obey the law of her husband. Brigham Young

[kamenraider]

Man surely is an imperfect creature.

Tell me more...