Sign in to follow this  
Scylla Rhiadra

The UnQueering of Second Life

Recommended Posts

There has been a fair amount of discussion here, both recently and in the past, about the issue of “gender bending” and, in a more general sense, about identity in SL.  There is nothing new about this; evidence of the social anxiety and, occasionally, moral panic that is evoked by the freedom with which SL allows one to shape one’s own identity independently of “first life” associations has been around for as long as SL itself.  Broadly speaking, the debate is often reductively broken down to a conflict between “augmentationists” and “immersionists,” and the salient terms of the discussion – “dishonesty,” “freedom,” “abuse” to name but a few, signal the importance of what is at stake for many.

I want to try re-opening this discussion from a slightly different perspective.  Although my own ideological biases will be very clear, I’m not interested in castigating one side or the other so much as I want to briefly highlight what I think is gained, in larger social terms, by the freedom to experiment with identity in SL.  I want in particular to consider this in terms of the concept of “queering” identity.

“Queer” has long been, of course, a pejorative term thrown against the LGBTI community, but it is one that has also been re-appropriated by that community:  “Queer” is now a term that is as often employed proudly as it is as an insult.  From this re-appropriation has arisen the idea of “queering,” which has come to mean a way of challenging accepted perceptions of something with the intent of showing that those perceptions are built upon false assumptions and myths.  “Queering” in this sense is really a process of “making strange,” a kind of shifting or even distortion of perspective that forces us to perceive anew, and in different ways, objects, ideas, and socially-constructed conceptions that we otherwise take for granted.  I think that this is something that SL does very very well.

My own feeling, however, is that this side of SL is being threatened as never before.   The newish focus of Linden Lab itself upon social networking platforms such as Facebook and Twitter as a means to both disseminate information and network within the virtual world is an important instance, but so too is the advocacy for stronger and more transparent links between SL and RL identities that we are hearing from many commentators on Second Life.  The spread of in-world groups that promise the “verification” of gender (generally by voice) of members is another manifestation of this.

By “unQueering,” then, I don’t mean that this necessarily threatens the LGBTI community in SL (although I suspect it may, in some ways).  I mean rather that there is an increasing degradation of the way in which SL’s “strangeness,” and its disconnect from RL identities and significations, forces us on a daily basis to grapple with and question our own assumptions about the “naturalness” of gender characteristics and other aspects of our identity and interactions with the real world that would otherwise go unchallenged.

A case in point is a recent thread here, entitled “How can you tell if someone is male or female”?  It’s a question that is nearly inconceivable in “real life,” but it, or variations upon it, has become, in Second Life, a classic articulation of the social anxiety and moral panic about the instability of identity here.  What does such a question really mean?  “Male” or “female” in this context implicitly refers to biological sex, rather than to gender:  the question is really about what set of RL genitalia a person is equipped with.  That the answer to this question is surely irrelevant in the context of a virtual world, where there is no access to, or conceivable use for, RL genitalia, is masked by a second assumption of this question:  that there should be some correspondence with how someone represents themselves in SL – their culturally-defined gender --  and their biological sex.  Behind this question is the need to assure oneself that the represented gender is “authentic,” that it is “true,” that it is “honest.”

Ironically, the weakness of this assumption is embedded within the question itself:  if represented gender can be so “convincing” that the question needs to be asked in the first place, then there clearly is no necessary connection between gendered behaviour and biological sex.  “Gendered” behaviour – how, for instance a “woman” talks, thinks, reacts, or even makes love – is arbitrary and unrooted; the success with which a new gender role can be assumed by those of a different biological sex underscores the degree to which it is a “learned” behaviour, assimilated from our cultural norms, stereotypes, and assumptions.  Ironically, it is possible that those who deliberately adopt the cultural stereotypes, by role playing “womanly” or “manly” in a recognizable and accepted manner, may be those who are most readily accepted as their represented gender.

Those who are distressed by the lack of clear and intrinsic connection between RL identity and SL identity are making another fundamental mistake in imagining that it is only SL identity that is unstable and unrooted.  We are all of us, in our everyday lives in the physical world, constantly performing, assuming different roles as is necessary, becoming, in fact, different versions of ourselves.  All of these roles – professional, close friend, lover, and myriads of others – are aspects of ourselves;  all are subtly or not so subtly differentiated, and all are authentic

In SL, the most obvious manifestation of this aspect of our identity (or identities) is the much-maligned and often feared “alt.”  There are of course many reasons to create and keep an alt, but one of the most common is to express a side of oneself that one wishes to keep separate, or can’t express for whatever reason, through one’s “main.”  Alts can, of course, be used consciously to deceive, but the issue there is not the “alt” itself, but rather the inherent dishonesty of the typist.  Most alts, even ones that seem to represent identities at enormous variance with our perceived RL identity, are in some sense expressions of who we are, of who we want to be, or how we wish to see ourselves:  they are all authentic.

I don’t want to attack those who distrust SL identity, or who fear alts.  Their questioning of the moral “rightness” of gender bending, pseudonymity, and alts does no more than echo assumptions about stable identities that are repeated, and almost enforced, in RL.   In a strange – or queer – way, the very fact of questions like these underscores the power of Second Life to challenge assumptions about identity and gender even as it highlights our discomfort with the reality that our biological sex (to name but the most common anxiety) need have nothing to do with social behaviour

A final thought:  SL makes us seem queer even to ourselves.  It encourages introspection and self-discovery in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, as most obviously when we experiment with an aspect of ourselves that we would never dare or think to give expression to in RL.  I was once asked if “I was bi in SL.”  It was an interesting question, with its assumption that I might be something in a virtual world that I was not in “reality.”  I decided, after some introspection, that I was not, but what was of value was the very fact that the question forced me to evaluate my responses.

The pressure is on, then, to reduce the distortion, the “queerness” of SL.  And this, I am arguing, is a bad thing.  Bad because, however comforted we might be by the illusion that there are no difficult questions and that our reductive understandings about gender, about others, and about ourselves are valid, it means that SL will cease to challenge our preconceptions, our stereotypes, and our comforting fictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tl;dr?  I can't say I blame you!

Here’s the executive summary:

The anxiety people feel about not being able to ascertain the “real” gender and identity of residents in SL is a good thing, because that anxiety forces us to confront our own comfortable fictions about how stable and unified our identities really are.  SL “queers” our perceptions of what it “means” to be male or female, black or white, or indeed any reductively defined “identity” in a way that liberates us from these restrictive and ultimately fictional categories.  But this function of SL is under threat by a general movement, slow but inexorable, towards the linking of SL and RL identities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the movement you are talking about seem to come from the augmentionists, a clearer connection between our sl self and our rl one, it seems like the connection is being encouraged, but if someone really believes that an alt is an expression of itself that can not be expressed in rl for social, cultural or any other reason, that person is not going to allow that part of itself to go public for the same reason. no matter how much the connection is promoted they simply are not going to do it. as long as the connection is a choice, the immersionists are protected by themselves, by the same ideological protection they use in rl.

i think that part of sl is protected.

(i love your mind)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm .. yes indeed, you do spin up the thinking gears Scylla.

I'm a pretty liberal guy myself, not really giving much concern to what specific form of plumbing one wears in RL. Like you (at least what I think you are like) .. I am more concerned with the person's intentions and basic honesty.

I have for a long time been able to "spot" guys pretending to be gals. However, that's the surface description; I'm not really able to identify a person's RL plumbing by sensing or intuiting somehow. But what I AM able to do is detect deception for malicious or basically morally wrong reasons with a pretty high degree of reliability. Truth of the matter is, I don't care TO spot someone's RL plumbing either because it's of no import. But I certainly do find myself willing to identify and help unmask those that use the "blurring" of their own reality for hurtful reasons.

As to the issue of "voice verified" and other such methods to guarantee that RL gender matches SL gender .. I have no problem with them. My reason is quite simple. I am liberal enough to accept any gender preference someone might desire for their "SL Self", thus I am just as willing to accept their preference to be selective about their partner too. It's not a decision I can make for them because it is their own choice for their own reasons.

Yes, some really do demand such services because they harbor a hatred for people they feel are "different", but for those that do not hate or hold unfair judgements against others and only wish to protect their own right to choose correctly, such "verification" services can be very important.

(For example, I wouldn't be angry or spew hateful words if I found out a "lady" I'd just enjoyed some intimacy with was actually a guy, but it would certainly spoil the memory and the pleasure of that shared time. Thus, wishing to preserve the specialness of the memory, I might be one to take extra steps just to be sure it wasn't at risk from the start.)

What's at the core here is the freedom to choose. And that means freedom to choose to "queer" and freedom to choose methods that guarantee against that same eventuality. When trying to set moral limits, to say "it's not right to discriminate or hate based on ..." we must also be mindful that it's not right to hate or discriminate against those that simply choose to be less open-minded than ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I follow you notions in many aspects - just not in that the move towards social networks (a very neccessary one, in my opinion if LL want to survive) will necessarily mean that SL and RL idendities will have to become the same.

There is, I think, a limited number of resaons to use SL, to be a member ... One of the main motivations is to (at least to a certain degree) slip into an at least slightly different role. If LL fail to see that or decide to ignore that, SL is dead (even more than it is now). There is, however, no necessary connection to moving SL closer to social networks. It's an offer that - I don't doubt - quite a few people happily make use of - for an SL identity that is close to their RL identity - or an identity which they clearly mark as a virtual identity that differs from their RL identity. And finally, for those who like to play a bit more with identities, they have several virtual identities in SL and e.g. facebook. This wasn't the main track of your thoughts, but just one thing I wanted to state about SL and social networks.

I think that much of the argument of those people seemingly  wanting to tighten the connection of SL and RL identities are in most cases linked to very specific interests - I don't think I have to go into that ;) Apart from that, their vitual identity is a virtual identity just like most here - why else come to SL? (this is a rhetorical question ;))

To force SL users to tighten the connection between RL ans SL identities would certainly have negative effect - not the positive one that the opening to and closer link to social networks should have. I'm not saying that LL could be tempted to think they should tighten the connection - but what USP would remain then? What I'm saying is: Social networks do by no means mean that there has to be a tighter connection between the different identities.

As far as the your arguments in favour of the freedom of keeping identities apart and play with them, I totally agree - as I have with the zillion other postings that have been written that argue in the same direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed reading your "thesis", Scylla, and found doing so thought-provoking.

The freedom of expression, to be whoever or whatever we want to be, is an important and valuable feature of SL. However, that freedom should be exercised in a responsible manner. The feelings of other people must be respected. Only, if and so long as they do not hurt others,  should people should be free to express themselves sexually in whatever way they see fit. Nothing will ever change my view that it is morally wrong to engage in intimate discussion or behaviour with another through the medium of SL in circumstances where you know, or reasonably believe, that that other person would be distressed or disgusted if he/she knew the truth concerning your RL sexual identity.

I find the large numbers of ridiculously macho, would-be alpha, males that frequent SL rather amusing. I assume that in many instances they present that way because of failings in their real lives. By not acting that way myself, I am frequently assumed to be gay. I will often play up to this just to see the confusion it causes to the macho types.

I find it a shame that in modern, liberal, western societies there still exists (i) the perceived need on the part of some to adhere to old-fashioned and out-dated stereotypes, and (ii) the need of the others, in order  to avoid actual or perceived prejudice, to hide aspects of their sexuality.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ian Undercroft wrote:.

Nothing will ever change my view that it is morally wrong to engage in intimate discussion or behaviour with another through the medium of SL in circumstances where you know, or reasonably believe, that that other person would be distressed or disgusted if he/she knew the truth concerning your RL sexual identity..


Hmm - I would like to understand how you would like to do that. There are so many aspects one could "resonably believe" to be distressing to the other. Do you have a check list, so you don't forget to check all the possible causes for distress across cultures?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Scylla Rhiadra schreef:

De opwinding die mensen voelen omtrent het niet kunnen vaststellen van het 'werkelijke' geslacht en identiteit van inwoners van SL is iets goeds, omdat deze opwinding ons dwingt ons te confronteren met onze eigen comfortabele inbeeldingen over hoe stabiel en eensgezind onze eigen identiteiten echt zijn; SL vervreemdt onze denkbeelden wat het 'betekent' om mannelijk of vrouwelijk, zwart of blank te zijn, of inderdaad iedere beperkende gedefinieerde 'identiteit' op een manier dat ons bevrijdt van deze restrictieve  en uiteindelijke fictieve categoriëen. Maar deze functie van SL wordt bedreigd door een algemene beweging, langzaam maar onveranderlijk, richting de verbinding tussen SL en RL identiteiten.

Scylla,

De opwinding die mensen ervaren ligt ten grondslag aan het bedrog dat huist binnen SL omtrent identiteit en sexualiteit, omdat teveel gevestigde groepen enkel juist daarop de nadruk leggen. Dit komt niet enkel door degenen die de verbinding maken tussen SL en RL, maar juist door degenen die zich eraan willen ontrekken omdat het werkelijke leven niet 'meespeelt' met de deceptie dat eraan gepaard gaat. Uiteindelijk is niemand zowel man als vrouw in al zijn 'puurheid' of totaliteit.

Het belang van identiteit binnen SL kan men afdoen als bekrompen, maar het verlangen eraan voorbij te gaan om sexualiteit ten volle eruit te laten springen is juist wat mensen in groten getalen afstompt in plaats van de aantrekkelijkheid die het de sexueel ongeremden ( of hen die ernaar verlangen ) biedt.

De bedreiging die jij ziet is slechts een bevestigend voor mij hoe de wereld daadwerkelijk in elkaar steekt en SL wordt, naarmate het de massa opzoekt, een steeds grotere afspiegeling ervan. Sexuele ongeremdheid zonder beperking der geslachten ongeacht identiteit is een niet vol te houden utopie. Zeker niet als men dat voorlegt aan steeds grotere groepen mensen die niet keer op keer de exclusiviteit van de LGBT-gemeenschap er in willen terugzien, maar juist hier komen inclusief hun eigen wereldbeeld en de technologie en (sexloze) vertier die het bieden kan.

PS Could not respond in your language, because I first had to translate this in my own language to slightly comprehend here what you are saying at all. Cannot express what I really think about this in your language as well, because I'd miss the subtleties my own language offers me. No matter. Just ignore it. Basically thinking out loud without being heard here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ian Undercroft wrote:

The freedom of expression, to be whoever or whatever we want to be, is an important and valuable feature of SL. However, that freedom should be exercised in a responsible manner. The feelings of other people must be respected. Only, if and so long as they do not hurt others,  should people should be free to express themselves sexually in whatever way they see fit. Nothing will ever change my view that it is morally wrong to engage in intimate discussion or behaviour with another through the medium of SL in circumstances where you know, or reasonably believe, that that other person would be distressed or disgusted if he/she knew the truth concerning your RL sexual identity.

Don't you mean RL gender instead of RL sexual identity? That's not necessarily the same thing. It's actually a lot more likely that the SL gender of a person reflects their RL sexual identity than their RL gender. And in my opinion, it is only reasonable to assume that anything you see in SL does not correspond to the reality of the person behind the keyboard. Seeing that this is a virtual world, it would probably be foolish to think otherwise.

That's why I really don't understand that gender is a point of concern for some people. What if your cyber lover's operator does have the desired gender but weighs 300 pounds and is covered in acne? What if she's 72 years old? Or an amputee, or suffering from a debilitating disease? What if she's a frigid bipolar hoarder with OCD, a moustache, leg hair fit for a chimpanzee, and three autistic children to boot?

I think we all have a good reason to socialize and get intimate in SL rather than RL, and in most cases the reason is that it wouldn't be quite as easy to find a partner in the real world who is willing to overlook our many shortcomings. Which means that if you engage in intimate activities with any avatar in SL, there is a great chance that you would be turned off or outright disgusted by the avatar's operator, no matter which gender the operator has.

The implication is simple: If you have any interest in or expectations of the person behind the avatar whatsoever, it is up to you to make sure that they meet your standards before you allow things to proceed any further. There are many people who simply don't care about the operators behind their cyber lovers, and you can't expect them to assume that you are looking for more than meaningless role play.

For the same reason that you expect others to reveal an aspect of their RL identity, role players and immersionists can expect you to make your RL-related expectations and long-term intentions clear enough from the very start. Of course by inquiring about their RL identity, you will inevitably ruin the immersion and hurt the feelings of a role player. Which goes to show that it's not always so easy to reasonably assume what might distress or hurt another person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Wilhiam Hydraconis wrote:

Sexuele ongeremdheid zonder beperking der geslachten ongeacht identiteit is een niet vol te houden utopie. 

 

Only if your sexual interest in the other person extends beyond Second Life and into RL.

If the RL identity of people is a huge concern for you, SL is either not the right environment for you to be sexually active in, or you have to go to great lengths in an attempt to "verify" the professed gender (as well as age, weight, general attractivity, health situation, relationship status, financial situation etc. pp.) of every potential SL partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I mostly agree with your post (except for the idea that gender-specific behaviour is largely or completely learned or culturally imprinted, which is probably only half true), I also see an increasing acceptance of gender bending in online environments since communication technology, such as voice chat, and social networking more or less force people to out themselves.

MMORPGs such as WoW are a great example. They used to be mostly text based, but with an increasingly fast-paced gameplay came the need for more efficient means of communication within groups and guilds. At some point, MMORPG guilds no longer accepted members who refused to use voice chat, simply because they were inable to work as part of a performance-oriented team if they had to stop mashing macro buttons in order to type a reply.

Being a bit of an immersionist, I pretty much stopped playing online RPGs around that time. But from what I hear and read about newer MMORPGs such as WoW, it's no longer a big deal if the female elven archer speaks with a deep baritone and the bearded dwarven warrior sounds like a woman. Open gender bending has long become a normality in these games.

Of course there is little sexual activity in games like WoW. But in my experience, that is not much of an issue either. I've never made a secret about my RL gender in Second Life, or about the gender-ambiguous nature of my SL avatar for that matter, and I have yet to meet someone who has a serious issue with my SL identity. Probably because my openness causes people who do have a problem with my gender bending and -mixing to keep their distance.

That being said, I still wouldn't want to link my SL persona to my RL identity in a way that allows RL friends and relatives to locate me in Second Life. Outing my RL gender is a small step compared to outing my entire RL identity with no holds barred. The latter is a bad idea for so many and so obvious reasons that I don't need to list them here (although it doesn't seem to be that obvious for Linden Lab).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well stated Ishtara .....

to answer Scylla: you can roleplay whatever who or what u like..... the beauty of second life is that u can connect with the souls of other avatars without the need to feel, touch or to see those persons in real life. It is pure and honest, a soul never lies and cannot be roleplayed ..... I don't need to know who is at the other side of the monitor, we connect or we don't, that's part of the game  *meows*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Only if your sexual interest in the other person extends beyond Second Life and into RL.

 

True, yet I doubt sexual interest in SL ( which I personally don't have and learned not to have in SL ) can ever be totally disconnected from RL. An avatar in itself is 'sexless'.

That's the friction that will remain for many involved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ceka Cianci    846

Does it always have to be such a deep reason.?Can't it be that some people just like to shop or never thought about gender that much when they signed up..

i just don't think everyone was thinking between the legs when they joined LOL

some just joined to see what the world was like..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Wilhiam Hydraconis wrote:

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Only if your sexual interest in the other person extends beyond Second Life and into RL.

 

True, yet I doubt sexual interest in SL ( which I personally don't have and learned not to have in SL ) can ever be totally disconnected from RL. An avatar in itself is 'sexless'.

That's the friction that will remain for many involved.

 

If an avatar is sexless, why do we have that little checkbox in our appearance settings? :) I've met lots of avatars who did have a sexual identity and were quite sexy, and I like to think that I'm pretty good at disconnecting SL RP personas from the operators who control their actions. Although I have to admit that it works best if I don't have the slightest idea who the operator might be.

I generally view intimate SL activities like an (interactive) adult movie. The script author and the director are both likely to be male, which of course affects the acting of the female characters to some degree. But that doesn't ruin the movie for me. In fact, it usually makes the plot more enjoyable if the mind who imagined it shares my gender-specific interests and fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond SL, another related phenomenon is Facebook Comments, which in a nutshell uses Facebook
authentication to allow users to comment.  There are a couple of problems with that... it means that
if you follow Facebook's requirement of using your RL data, you can only make comments as your RL self.

Facebook would like to be the clearinghouse for authentication on the net, I think, but
thankfully they aren't the only ones with something to say about online identity:

Online Identity Isn't a Transaction - It's a Feeling
Five Easy Pieces of Online Identity

It will be unfortunate if Second Life ends up following Facebook's trend and denies us the possibility
of creating a separate online identity.

I mean, this topic could be generalized to "The Dwighting of Second Life."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ceka Cianci    846

but when you open an account with second life..you use RL data..this is why avatars can have profiles on facebook..unless they lied about the rl information..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ceka Cianci wrote:

but when you open an account with second life..you use RL data..this is why avatars can have profiles on facebook..unless they lied about the rl information..

 

I don't understand your point.  LL has my RL data, but  you can't see it.

Facebook gives your RL data away -- to whatever extent you allow, or to whatever extent they trick you.
In fact, the way it's implemented now, if you want to use Facebook Comments, you have to lower your
privacy, or only your friends will see your comments.

I'm not blaming Facebook... they aren't making the trend.  I'm only saying that it will be unfortunate
if SL follows that trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Canoro Philipp wrote:

the movement you are talking about seem to come from the augmentionists, a clearer connection between our sl self and our rl one, it seems like the connection is being encouraged, but if someone really believes that an alt is an expression of itself that can not be expressed in rl for social, cultural or any other reason, that person is not going to allow that part of itself to go public for the same reason. no matter how much the connection is promoted they simply are not going to do it. as long as the connection is a choice, the immersionists are protected by themselves, by the same ideological protection they use in rl.

i think that part of sl is protected.

(i love your mind)

 

You may be right, Canoro, but there will be -- in some ways already are -- immense pressures to "validate" one's SL identity by linking it with a public RL one.  Things like RedZone, which was at least as much about outing alts as it was about protection from griefers and copybotters, point to the enormous thirst for "knowledge" about "who someone really is" -- as though that were ever really knowable.  There are social pressures too, of the sort that sometimes evident among some users of voice, and the possibility, which many have raised before, of the emergence of a sort of two-tiered hierarchy, consisting of those who are "in" because they have undergone a sort of indentity test, and those who are "shunned" because "they must be hiding something."

I think that people will resist the temptation to out their own alts, for the reasons you state.  But if SL becomes a less alt- and experiment-friendly place, they will simply remvove these from play, or will cease to create them.  The net effect on SL will be the same:  the impoverishment of the platform as a place to explore and challenge identity, and the emergence of a dominant class smugly and complacently hugging their cherished illusions about the stability and deterministic meaning of identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Venus Petrov    298

I live my SL life with little anxiety about the gender or gender identity of avatars around me.  I do not care.  The one and only instance where it matters to me is when I have a close, intimate relationship with someone.  As it is 'your world. your imagination.'. so, too, is it mine.  It is no threat that I feel, it is a personal preference.  I am a RL hetro woman and prefer to 'be' with a RL hetero man.

I am entirely comfortable in my identity and need no validation of my gender.

As I am monogamous in SL, I do not care about the RL genders/identities of others here.  Likewise, I do not judge others on their choices in SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ceka Cianci    846

 


Ossian wrote:

 

Ceka Cianci wrote:

but when you open an account with second life..you use RL data..this is why avatars can have profiles on facebook..unless they lied about the rl information..

 

I don't understand your point.  LL has my RL data, but
you
can't see it.

 

 

what shows on facebook?what the user chooses to show? I don't have an account there myself..but plenty of avatars are tied to facebook..aslong as the information is solid from the second life account..they can tie to their facebook..

or are you saying it will expose someone to who is who if they tie to facebook accounts..i may have misunderstoofd you hehehe..wouldn't be the first time lol \o/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this