Only Humans do this...

[tha malcontent™]

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090227/NEWS0107/902270346/1055/NEWS

Seriously People...

What in the Hell!

:)

peace...

[deester]

That is over the top disgusting...

[tha malcontent™]

That is over the top disgusting...

Animals have More Common Sense than Humans...

Amazing, isn't it.

:)

peace...

[Jalend Skyr]

Goodness Gracious....

I mean.. ***!?

[slick_trip]

i have to admit - when sexual fetishes cross legal boundaries we're dealing with a whole different level of criminal.

this is a crime i don't feel people can rehabilitate from. pedophiles, bestiality, necrophilia...these are not perversions that humans have shown a capacity to regulate left to their own devices.

[tha malcontent™]

i have to admit - when sexual fetishes cross legal boundaries we're dealing with a whole different level of criminal.

this is a crime i don't feel people can rehabilitate from. pedophiles, bestiality, necrophilia...these are not perversions that humans have shown a capacity to regulate left to their own devices.

Legal Boundaries regarding Sexual Fetishes have Changed since the 60's Revolution...

:)

peace...

[Residential Bob]

Live women probably laughed at the loser when they saw him naked.

[tha malcontent™]

Live women probably laughed at the loser when they saw him naked.

I wouldn't be Surprised if he had Living Women Join him...

Humans are ****ed up.

I am Never Amazed at how Disappointing this Species can be.

:)

peace...

[slick_trip]

Legal Boundaries regarding Sexual Fetishes have Changed since the 60's Revolution...

:)

peace...

right - because many laws that improperly put the state in the bedroom of two consenting adults were wrong and should be removed.

and i would hope fetishes that delve into activities forced upon an unwilling victim have gotten more strict laws applied to them.

those who would allow their sexual fetishes to cross over into the above realm are people i don't feel are ever going to be rehabilitated.

[slick_trip]

Live women probably laughed at the loser when they saw him naked.

as true as this might be - i would doubt that had much impact on his choice.

i mean, the man had sex with the dead. somehow the idea of being living, let alone gorgeous, somehow doesn't seem to overcome what his true interest is.

[Vic Daring]

Devil's advocate/for the sake of discussion:

Isn't this in the realm of "victimless" crime?

Dead people are just that. Dead.

The soul has departed, if you believe that sort of thing.

[NascarGirl2448]

One word: YUCK

[Vic Daring]

One word: YUCK

Indeed.

But does (or should) YUCK!!!!! = Illegal?

[tha malcontent™]

Devil's advocate/for the sake of discussion:

Isn't this in the realm of "victimless" crime?

Dead people are just that. Dead.

The soul has departed, if you believe that sort of thing.

What if two Twisted Deviants Willed each other thier Bodies after Death?...

And what about Art Garfunkel?

:)

peace...

[jeepers]

Indeed.

But does (or should) YUCK!!!!! = Illegal?



If it isn't, it should be. If I found out that some ******* violated the body of a dead loved one, my head would explode.

That person might be dead, but they're not only still human, they're not fair game to anyone else who might want to violate it some other way.

Take the sex out of it for a moment. Maybe someone gets their rocks off by cutting off body parts of dead people, or doing any of a number of unmentionable things.

Would that be okay?

No. None of it's okay.

[slick_trip]

Devil's advocate/for the sake of discussion:

Isn't this in the realm of "victimless" crime?

Dead people are just that. Dead.

The soul has departed, if you believe that sort of thing.

i don't consider this a victimless crime - even as an atheist. consent is required - the fact it can't be given doesn't remove that component.

in fact, i'd say if consent can't be given it's the same as no consent in this situation.

[Samm]

Animals have More Common Sense than Humans...

Amazing, isn't it.

:)

peace...

Yeah... animals just eat their dead. :neutral:

[Samm]

Devil's advocate/for the sake of discussion:

Isn't this in the realm of "victimless" crime?

Dead people are just that. Dead.

The soul has departed, if you believe that sort of thing.

The dead are not the victims... the victims are the families and civilized society.

[tha malcontent™]

Yeah... animals just eat their dead. :neutral:

http://images.publicradio.org/content/2006/07/06/20060706_dahmer_2.jpg

^So do Homosexual Mass Murderers...

But having Sex with the Dead is Exclusive to Humans.

:)

peace...

[tha malcontent™]

i don't consider this a victimless crime - even as an atheist. consent is required - the fact it can't be given doesn't remove that component.

in fact, i'd say if consent can't be given it's the same as no consent in this situation.


What if two Twisted Deviants Willed each other thier Bodies after Death?...

And what about Art Garfunkel?

:)

peace...

:)

peace...

[Jeemie]

That is completely ****ed up.

[tha malcontent™]

That is completely ****ed up.

Necrophiliaphobic much?... :))

:)

peace...

[MrCapitalism]

http://images.publicradio.org/content/2006/07/06/20060706_dahmer_2.jpg

^So do Homosexual Mass Murderers...



Oh Noes! It's da gaysssss!

[rob_b52]

This ranks a 9.9 on my weird crapometer...

[Vaard]

animals have a better sense of smell......

[tha malcontent™]

animals have a better sense of smell......

Yet they EAT their Dead and Living...

:)

peace...

[AutoRacer55]

Talk about a cheap date.

But yeah, kinda freaky on that guy

[sgtmac_46]

Devil's advocate/for the sake of discussion:

Isn't this in the realm of "victimless" crime?

Dead people are just that. Dead.

The soul has departed, if you believe that sort of thing. For the sake of argument, you make a good point. The real issue isn't so much should it be a crime.....but what kind of crime.

Should it really be on the same level as sexual assault or rape? I seriously doubt it. Stronger than a property crime, less than a crime against persons.

[sgdp]

:)

peace...


Wait. Art Garfunkel? What?

By the way, I'm sure animals don't engage in these sorts of activities, because they do not have sex for pleasure.

Isn't there some study that says only humans and dolphins have sex for pleasure?

[sgtmac_46]

Wait. Art Garfunkel? What?

By the way, I'm sure animals don't engage in these sorts of activities, because they do not have sex for pleasure.

Isn't there some study that says only humans and dolphins have sex for pleasure? Animals don't engage in sex for pleasure?

Then the neighbors dog is simply being compelled to hump legs out of biology! He does appear to enjoy himself, however. :))


There's a lot of these laughable truisms I hear that aren't anywhere true.....'Animals don't engage in sex for pleasure' 'Animals don't kill for pleasure'.......perhaps the definition of 'pleasure' is at issue, but if the notion is that they don't do it for some sort of recreational function, that is completely erroneous......human sexual rituals and practices may be more complex, but they are still rooted in the same drives as those of animals.....complexity doesn't change that.

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

Only humans dress their dead up in fancy clothes, stitch their orifices shut, pump them full of preserving chemicals and have parties to celebrate burying them too.

[nondem]

:eek: :redface: :sick:

[sgtmac_46]

Only humans dress their dead up in fancy clothes, stitch their orifices shut, pump them full of preserving chemicals and have parties to celebrate burying them too. That i'll agree with.

[tha malcontent™]

Wait. Art Garfunkel? What?


I was Waiting for someone to Notice that... :))

:)

peace...

[bsleplatt]

you seriously have to wonder...how does one find out that thier pervision is se with dead people? I mean...Do they just wake up and say....hey I want to try that someday??

This is just sick...And I can not imagine the anger someone who was grieving would feel to hve this happen to thier loved one...but I do have to wonder about Vic's post...bc Is this really a victim crime? If the person is gone from this earth...no matter what you believe...how is someone who is gone from this earth personally violated? a corpse is just...well...an empty shell.

[jeepers]

Oh Noes! It's da gaysssss!


Dahlmer wasn't 'gay' he was a full blow homicidal sadistic sociopath.

Probably a few other dsm descriptors on top of that...

[ImNewHere]

mal, you always judge those with alternative lifestyles. You need to learn some tolerance. Some acceptance. Maybe some sensitivity training and be forced to participate in a necrophiliac pride parade.

[terri910]

This is just sick...And I can not imagine the anger someone who was grieving would feel to hve this happen to thier loved one...but I do have to wonder about Vic's post...bc Is this really a victim crime? If the person is gone from this earth...no matter what you believe...how is someone who is gone from this earth personally violated? a corpse is just...well...an empty shell.
That empty shell, however, still does not belong to the person who violated it. Since people are allowed, by way of wills and last testaments, to maintain a certain amount of control over what happens to their remains(note the word "their" remains...that indicates possession....their remains "belong" to them still), it could be said that even after death a person's "empty shell" still belongs to them and to no one else. At the very least, in the absence of a will, the empty shell might be considered to "belong" to the deceased's next of kin. To use that empty shell in any way not authorized by either of those should be a crime, and, IMO, can be considered a crime with a victim.

[ImNewHere]

People can't help who or what they fall in love with. Stay out of their bedrooms, I say!

You can't discriminate against this man based on his sexual preference. Love is not a crime.

[Rorus Raz]

Someone has brought up that necrophilia occurs in nature, right?

We didn't wallow in the shadow of malcontent's powerful ignorance for this many pages, did we?

[terri910]

Is such a personal attack considered civility nowdays?

I'm logging off soon, for a bit, to let you consider, Rorus Raz. If your post stands the next time I'm online, I'm going to ask a Moderator if it is allowed under the TOS.

[Dreamy]

Only humans dress their dead up in fancy clothes, stitch their orifices shut, pump them full of preserving chemicals and have parties to celebrate burying them too.


All true. We have our individual cultural norms. This refers more to lack of consent,yes? There is no implied or otherwise consent offered to anyone to defile a body.

I could also address this from the aspect that we are called a civil society because of certain acceptable and unacceptable behaviors we embrace and reject.

Of course I would be the first to state that our collective civility is not increasing these days and I certainly do not need stories as gross and tasteless as this one to know that fact.

[Samm]

That empty shell, however, still does not belong to the person who violated it. Since people are allowed, by way of wills and last testaments, to maintain a certain amount of control over what happens to their remains(note the word "their" remains...that indicates possession....their remains "belong" to them still), it could be said that even after death a person's "empty shell" still belongs to them and to no one else. At the very least, in the absence of a will, the empty shell might be considered to "belong" to the deceased's next of kin. To use that empty shell in any way not authorized by either of those should be a crime, and, IMO, can be considered a crime with a victim.

Tell that to the Medical Examiner. Nobody can prevent him/er from performing an autopsy (which is an extreme invasion of the corpse's body compared to intercourse) by objecting to it in their will. The issue here is not violation of the dead person's rights; dead people do not have rights... it is a violation of the dignity of the corpse; emotional harm done to the families; and of course... perversion.

[terri910]

Tell that to the Medical Examiner. Nobody can prevent him/er from performing an autopsy (which is an extreme invasion of the corpse's body compared to intercourse) by objecting to it in their will. The issue here is not violation of the dead person's rights; dead people do not have rights... it is a violation of the dignity of the corpse; emotional harm done to the families; and of course... perversion.
Autopsies are not routinely done, are they? Must there not be a compelling reason to override the (for lack of a better word) privacy (wait, you used a better word! "Dignity"!) of the person's remains? The exception that proves the rule, so to speak?

And the post wasn't talking about the rights of the deceased, but of whether or not it should be considered a "victim crime"...IMO, it should be.

[terri910]

By the way, Rorus Raz, I asked the Moderators if your post is acceptable; and it is okay. Feel free to ignore my previous post -- or to continue to do so! *LOL*

[sgdp]

I was Waiting for someone to Notice that... :))

:)

peace...

Good guy. I love "Angel Clare".

Are you saying he's a necrophiliac? :confused:

[sgdp]

Animals don't engage in sex for pleasure?

Then the neighbors dog is simply being compelled to hump legs out of biology! He does appear to enjoy himself, however. :))


There's a lot of these laughable truisms I hear that aren't anywhere true.....'Animals don't engage in sex for pleasure' 'Animals don't kill for pleasure'.......perhaps the definition of 'pleasure' is at issue, but if the notion is that they don't do it for some sort of recreational function, that is completely erroneous......human sexual rituals and practices may be more complex, but they are still rooted in the same drives as those of animals.....complexity doesn't change that.

Yeah, it hinges on the definition.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/pleasure.asp

Meh.

[Samm]

Autopsies are not routinely done, are they? Must there not be a compelling reason to override the (for lack of a better word) privacy (wait, you used a better word! "Dignity"!) of the person's remains? The exception that proves the rule, so to speak?

And the post wasn't talking about the rights of the deceased, but of whether or not it should be considered a "victim crime"...IMO, it should be.

I have no idea how many of the dead are autopsied. My point was, that neither the corpse (in their will) nor the family of the deceased determines whether an autopsy is performed. But I believe we were speaking of rights... at least I believe that once the body is in the hands of the Officials, that there is a legal expectation, an expectation that borders on a right and which also extends to the family and loved ones, to being treated with dignity. This most certainly is crime with victims.

[sgtmac_46]

Yeah, it hinges on the definition.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/pleasure.asp

Meh.
Of course even by that definition, it's still not limited to humans.....but by the most restrictive definition includes at least dolphins and bonobos........but like many things, the answer is complicated, and relies on various definitions.

[tha malcontent™]

Good guy. I love "Angel Clare".

Are you saying he's a necrophiliac? :confused:

There was a Movie where he rolls over and Makes Love to a Girl who just Died in his Bed...

It was on IFC Years ago...

Can't Remember the Name.

:)

peace...

[jeepers]

I have no idea how many of the dead are autopsied. My point was, that neither the corpse (in their will) nor the family of the deceased determines whether an autopsy is performed.

Yes, they do, to a point.

An autopsy is automatically perfomed regardless of family opinion IF there is a question as to how the person died. In other words, iff there is any question as to whether or not the person died from things that are in the pervue of the law, then they can override family. This would be if there was a question of something like a contagious disease that puts the community at risk, if one is unsure as to why someone died like perhaps as the result of a crime/abuse/neglect, those sorts of things.

Any other reason NEED PERMISSION. So now, the state doesn't have carte blanche to do an autopsy on anyone that they want to. They have to follow the law.

When I worked in ICU, if somneone died, the coroner was notified. We had an official checklist that he would go through with us and there was paperwork involved. Depending upon the answers to those questions, then it would be determined if it was a 'coroner's case'. If yes, then the county would come pick up the body. If no, then it was dealt with privately through the family with mortuaries and the like.

I suppose a family could demand an autopsy if THEY had questions, but I have no idea if they would have to do that on their own (like arrange for it or pay for it, whatever).

If a doctor wanted an autopsy and it was not a coroner's case, AND the patient's family said no, there would be no autopsy.

[Rorus Raz]

By the way, Rorus Raz, I asked the Moderators if your post is acceptable; and it is okay. Feel free to ignore my previous post -- or to continue to do so! *LOL*You're not getting a Christmas card this year.

EDIT: I hadn't returned to this thread until after you checked, so I wasn't intentionally ignoring you.

[sgdp]

There was a Movie where he rolls over and Makes Love to a Girl who just Died in his Bed...

It was on IFC Years ago...

Can't Remember the Name.

:)

peace...

Oh! From his acting days! "Carnal Knowledge" maybe?

[sgtmac_46]

There was a Movie where he rolls over and Makes Love to a Girl who just Died in his Bed...

It was on IFC Years ago...

Can't Remember the Name.

:)

peace... Didn't see that one....but I did see 'Clerks'.

[tha malcontent™]

Oh! From his acting days! "Carnal Knowledge" maybe?

Is that it?...

I can't Remember the Name...

And I am Usually VERY Good with Movies.

:)

peace...

[tha malcontent™]

Didn't see that one....but I did see 'Clerks'.

:))

That's how they Mainstream it... Make you Laugh at it!...

Classic Film.

:)

peace...

[angelicmadrigal]

Oh and here I thought he'd actually killed these women to have sex with them. To my suprise I find out they're already dead. Meh. ::waves hand dissmisively::

[angelicmadrigal]

.
Would that be okay?


Wouldn't bother me. If I was dead, would I care? No. Besides if I was dead, and did care...assuming there is some sort of afterlife, I'd just haunt the hell out of the person and get my revenge.

[angelicmadrigal]

The dead are not the victims... the victims are the families and civilized society.

Which just really shows how humans can still be atattched to something that has no real value anymore. A dead body is simply that a dead body.

I've been to a funeral for every year of my life, so I'm very desensitized to the whole "death" thing.

Even if there is no body/shes or grave, what SHOULD be important are the memories you have of that person, not what happened to thier body.

[tha malcontent™]

Oh and here I thought he'd actually killed these women to have sex with them. To my suprise I find out they're already dead. Meh. ::waves hand dissmisively::

:))

:)

peace...

[Stuball]

http://images.publicradio.org/content/2006/07/06/20060706_dahmer_2.jpg

^So do Homosexual Mass Murderers...

But having Sex with the Dead is Exclusive to Humans.

:)

peace...
I was wondering how long it would take you to bring Gays into this thread:rolleyes:

[tha malcontent™]

I was wondering how long it would take you to bring Gays into this thread:rolleyes:

Actually, Stu... I was NOT First... A Pro-Homo Lefty was...

:)

peace...

[Stuball]

Actually, Stu... I was NOT First... A Pro-Homo Lefty was...

:)

peace...
Really ? Please post a link. I reread the first 18 posts I didnt see it


BTW Does that make you an Anti - Homo Righty?

[flowercopter]

Wouldn't bother me. If I was dead, would I care? No. Besides if I was dead, and did care...assuming there is some sort of afterlife, I'd just haunt the hell out of the person and get my revenge.

I'm with you on this one.
I wouldn't care two kidney beans what happened to my body after it died. [If I had my druthers it would be filled with candy and turned into some sort of Macabre Pinata for my funerary guests.] If the mortitian wanted to get some sort of pleasure out of me before hand, more power to him/her.

Nor would I care what happened to a loved ones dead body. I care very much about what happens to it while they are living. But once they are dead -- who cares?

[Stuball]

I'm with you on this one.
I wouldn't care two kidney beans what happened to my body after it died. [If I had my druthers it would be filled with candy and turned into some sort of Macabre Pinata for my funerary guests.] If the mortitian wanted to get some sort of pleasure out of me before hand, more power to him/her.

Nor would I care what happened to a loved ones dead body. I care very much about what happens to it while they are living. But once they are dead -- who cares?
You do realize you would put clowns like John Edward and Stlvia Browne out of business ............ dont you?

[angelicmadrigal]

You do realize you would put clowns like John Edward and Stlvia Browne out of business ............ dont you?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Besides if ghosts actually did talk to people, I would think they'd want to talk to someone more fun.

[angelicmadrigal]

[If I had my druthers it would be filled with candy and turned into some sort of Macabre Pinata for my funerary guests.]

::laughs really hard::

Exactly, how would one go about this?

I'm trying to visualize, but it just isn't coming to me.

[tha malcontent™]

Really ? Please post a link. I reread the first 18 posts I didnt see it


BTW Does that make you an Anti - Homo Righty?

It's there, but the Magic Word, "Gay" or "Homo" is Missing...

Read it again.

And I am Pro-Keeping Perversion Private and in the Bedroom, and out of the Schools and out of Marriage in Law.

:)

peace...

[Stuball]

It's there, but the Magic Word, "Gay" or "Homo" is Missing...

Read it again.

And I am Pro-Keeping Perversion Private and in the Bedroom, and out of the Schools and out of Marriage in Law.

:)

peace...
So they brought up Gays without mention of the word Gay or Homo?
Help me out here .I dont see the hidden meanings of things like you do

[tha malcontent™]

So they brought up Gays without mention of the word Gay or Homo?
Help me out here .I dont see the hidden meanings of things like you do

It's Amazing, Stu... You can't Talk about Homosexuals without Labeling them...

Read this Thread again, and you might catch it this time.

:)

peace...

[Stuball]

It's Amazing, Stu... You can't Talk about Homosexuals without Labeling them...

Read this Thread again, and you might catch it this time.

:)

peace...
I read it several times before I asked
You can PM the post if you like
Remember it has to be in posts 1-18

[terri910]

Yes, they do, to a point.

An autopsy is automatically perfomed regardless of family opinion IF there is a question as to how the person died. In other words, iff there is any question as to whether or not the person died from things that are in the pervue of the law, then they can override family. This would be if there was a question of something like a contagious disease that puts the community at risk, if one is unsure as to why someone died like perhaps as the result of a crime/abuse/neglect, those sorts of things.

Any other reason NEED PERMISSION. So now, the state doesn't have carte blanche to do an autopsy on anyone that they want to. They have to follow the law.

When I worked in ICU, if somneone died, the coroner was notified. We had an official checklist that he would go through with us and there was paperwork involved. Depending upon the answers to those questions, then it would be determined if it was a 'coroner's case'. If yes, then the county would come pick up the body. If no, then it was dealt with privately through the family with mortuaries and the like.

I suppose a family could demand an autopsy if THEY had questions, but I have no idea if they would have to do that on their own (like arrange for it or pay for it, whatever).

If a doctor wanted an autopsy and it was not a coroner's case, AND the patient's family said no, there would be no autopsy.
Thank you for the information, jeepers. I was not aware of the particulars, but was fairly certain that autopsies were usually only performed if there was some compelling reason to override the privacy, or dignity of the deceased's remains. In my own experience, having had some deaths in the family when I was a young adult, I remembered there was no autopsy for my mother, who died at home but had lost her battle with cancer, yet there was one for my brother, who had been in an automobile accident and was alive when the police officers arrived, but died on the way to the hospital (I believe it was before emergency personnel like police officers knew as much as they do now, re: CPR, etc. The autopsy showed that the contents of my brother's stomach had been forced into his airway by the steering wheel....no one knew, and he choked/suffocated. Now, probably a preventable death!).

[tha malcontent™]

I read it several times before I asked
You can PM the post if you like
Remember it has to be in posts 1-18

Then you only have 18 Posts to Re-Re-Re-Read... :))

It's there, Stu...

:)

peace...

[Vic Daring]

I'm with you on this one.
I wouldn't care two kidney beans what happened to my body after it died. [If I had my druthers it would be filled with candy and turned into some sort of Macabre Pinata for my funerary guests.] If the mortitian wanted to get some sort of pleasure out of me before hand, more power to him/her.

Nor would I care what happened to a loved ones dead body. I care very much about what happens to it while they are living. But once they are dead -- who cares?

I guess that's what I was thinking with my earlier post that spawned all this discussion.

I don't have any religious or spiritual beliefs or anything. I figure my body is just a thing. It's not me. Whatever it is that makes me, me, is gone once I'm dead.

I'd guess that more spiritual types (Christians, etc.) would believe that the sould has left the body. So what's left but an empty shell?

There is certainly a significant EWWWWWWW factor and, as someone mentioned, a simple question of property rights with the remains. So maybe, if we look at it directly, it's more a vandalism type crime?

I dunno. I was just thinking out loud earlier in the thread, and I realized that several pages had been added so I thought I should throw in another 2 cents.

[RickRhetoric]

http://www.dreamindemon.com/2008/07/30/kenneth-douglas-is-one-sick-dude/

Aw, what the heck? It's just his culture. Cut him some slack. Anyway, the mischievous Kenneth is kinda cute. Don't cha think?

[Stuball]

Then you only have 18 Posts to Re-Re-Re-Read... :))

It's there, Stu...

:)

peace...
I see it now

2 consenting adults= Homosexual
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=49906291&postcount=9

I never considered Slick Trip a Pro Homo Lefty:confused:

[BillyBobUSA]

Animals have More Common Sense than Humans...

Amazing, isn't it.

peace...

I dont think it is acurate to attribute this to all of humanity.

But if you were to say, only leftist pervs would consider doing this, perhaps.

[BillyBobUSA]

Which just really shows how humans can still be atattched to something that has no real value anymore. A dead body is simply that a dead body.

I've been to a funeral for every year of my life, so I'm very desensitized to the whole "death" thing.

Even if there is no body/shes or grave, what SHOULD be important are the memories you have of that person, not what happened to thier body.


That is your opinion, obviously but alot of folks would consider this to be desecration of their loved ones corpse, and yes that does matter more than if some took a picture of them and set it on fire.

[Stuball]

I dont think it is acurate to attribute this to all of humanity.

But if you were to say, only leftist pervs would consider doing this, perhaps.
There arent Righty pervs?

[Stuball]

Then you only have 18 Posts to Re-Re-Re-Read... :))

It's there, Stu...

:)

peace...
Tell me..................
Its my birthday..............consider it a present

[slick_trip]

I see it now

2 consenting adults= Homosexual
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=49906291&postcount=9

I never considered Slick Trip a Pro Homo Lefty:confused:

are you implying i'm some gay pitcher in major league baseball?

[tha malcontent™]

are you implying i'm some gay pitcher in major league baseball?

You go Girl!...

:)

peace...

[tha malcontent™]

Tell me..................
Its my birthday..............consider it a present

Damn it, Stu... You can't pull a Birthday Card for this...

:)

peace...