What's cool is there was so much disagreement until everyone started to really think objectively and then were just like "oh ****, wait. That doesn't seem right..."

Be excellent to each other everyone. That's all we can really ask for!

/thread

/thread

This one anyways

We just had a conversation on the Internet about sexism that lasted twenty pages and didn't dissolve in to a flame war. ... I don't think that's ever happened before.

We probably do. Harrassment = bad. No-one is gonna argue. Anything . literally anything past the staring argument is = 100% bad.

No-one is arguing this.

My point is that a near naked 20 year old is hard not to stare at. Even when you are really, really trying not to.

I hid an experiment in the above sentence. First person to call it out gets an internet cookie, or a +1, or something.

Can I just say that after reading through this thread and enjoying seeing the opinions of both sides, that I agree with you.

There is a difference between what you have a RIGHT to do, and what you SHOULD do. With regards to how people dress, everyone has the right to dress how they like (except for complete public nudity), but that does not mean that people should expect to be able to dress however they like in any situation and not receive any negative consequences from it. Why is there a law against public nudity? For the same reasons there are laws against having sexual relations in public; it makes people exceedingly uncomfortable and disturbs the peace. This is considered completely okay and logical, so why is it that the second someone covers the very barest essentials needed to not be 'naked', it's suddenly everyone else's fault and they should have to suck it up because the other person is just 'expressing themselves' or whatever? Of course, blatant and prolonged staring is creepy and bad, and any form of unwanted contact/harassment/groping/assault is utterly unacceptable and morally repugnant, regardless of how someone else is dressed. But that does not mean that people don't have a certain personal responsibility to exercise some logical self-determination and behave/dress appropriately.

It's your right to turn up to a funeral wearing bright neon colours and a gimp mask if you so wish, but the majority of people would think you incredibly disrespectful for doing so, and it would no doubt have a negative impact on the whole affair. And YOU would be in the wrong for doing that. You knew what the situation was and what the appropriate tone/behaviour should be, and you chose to go against it. You exercised your personal rights, but that does not make it a correct course of action. Similarly, if you go out in public wearing a very nice but somewhat uncomfortable suit, chances are it's because you want people to see how smart you look.

Another point is, why would someone wear a very outlandish/garish/revealing costume if they don't want to attract any attention? Literally the whole point of wearing an outfit like that is for it to be eye catching. Why do people go to cons to cosplay? Because they want to be able to show off their outfit/persona to the world. If the simple act of wearing the costume is what gratifies you, then why waste all the time and money going to a con when you could just wear it at home or with your friends and get the same effect? The same goes for the logic of "they're wearing it for their friends/partner/whatever, not for you". Okay, fine, but then why go out in public? Why show to the world something that is meant to be for the enjoyment of a select few individuals, and those individuals only?

My point is that it is ludicrous to say that all the responsibility rests with the onlooker, and that if they feel uncomfortable, they are the ones at fault and should just 'look away'. Creeping/harassment is NEVER acceptable, but if you insist on wearing a revealing costume to a public event, you cannot conversely expect everyone to look at you the exact same way as if you were wearing a baggy t-**** and trackies. Especially as the sole purpose of wearing an eye-catching costume is, as the name implies, to catch the eye.

I disagree, all the responsibility rests with the onlooker. The point is that our society, especially american society (I'm ignoring the truly repressive countries like Iran) has a bit of a hypocritical slightly repressive attitude towards female bodies.

I grew up in Italy and while it was not very common, I remember as a child seeing the occasional topless girl on the beach. In italy it's not a big deal. Teens will make out in public and I can't remember anyone having a problem with it, even mother walking their child nearby.

Only in USA you read articles with these stories: girls wearing a skirt in high school forced to bend over by a teacher to check whether their outfit is too slutty. National drama on TV because a nipple was shown. think of the children! but the same people have no problem with violence.

Just because somebody is looking sexy with a miniskirt, it does not mean they want YOU to stare at them or go and pester them with cheesy pick up lines.

We don't live in small villages, but many of us live in big cities. On their way to some place where the girl wants to be seen in revealing clothings she might pass by a place where she'd rather not be seen in revealing clothing. You make assumptions to think they are dressing that way for YOU just because you happen to be there. Even if it's at a party, maybe they are just not finding YOU attractive.

If your girlfriend is hot and is at the beach wearing a bikini, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to wear at a hot beach, at the same time there's not much covering her. Is it OK if every other guy at the beach now goes and hits on her, or stares at her, or makes comments that she wants to be seen and harrassed, obviously, or she wouldn't wear such revealing thing?

I could go on but you get the point. Seeing a hot girl in a revealing outfit does not place any responsibility on her. It's all on YOU.

I have one last story. It's about a young saint from India who went bathing naked in the Gange. on his way out of the river, he was so absorbed in divine joy that he forgot to put his cloths back on. While walking, he met his aunt who scolded him for being such a shameless boy. His answer was that the sin was all in her mind, because he was pure and innocent and had no sinful thoughts in his mind.

We probably do. Harrassment = bad. No-one is gonna argue. Anything . literally anything past the staring argument is = 100% bad.

No-one is arguing this.

My point is that a near naked 20 year old is hard not to stare at. Even when you are really, really trying not to.

I hid an experiment in the above sentence. First person to call it out gets an internet cookie, or a +1, or something.

Can I just say that after reading through this thread and enjoying seeing the opinions of both sides, that I agree with you.

There is a difference between what you have a RIGHT to do, and what you SHOULD do. With regards to how people dress, everyone has the right to dress how they like (except for complete public nudity), but that does not mean that people should expect to be able to dress however they like in any situation and not receive any negative consequences from it. Why is there a law against public nudity? For the same reasons there are laws against having sexual relations in public; it makes people exceedingly uncomfortable and disturbs the peace. This is considered completely okay and logical, so why is it that the second someone covers the very barest essentials needed to not be 'naked', it's suddenly everyone else's fault and they should have to suck it up because the other person is just 'expressing themselves' or whatever? Of course, blatant and prolonged staring is creepy and bad, and any form of unwanted contact/harassment/groping/assault is utterly unacceptable and morally repugnant, regardless of how someone else is dressed. But that does not mean that people don't have a certain personal responsibility to exercise some logical self-determination and behave/dress appropriately.

It's your right to turn up to a funeral wearing bright neon colours and a gimp mask if you so wish, but the majority of people would think you incredibly disrespectful for doing so, and it would no doubt have a negative impact on the whole affair. And YOU would be in the wrong for doing that. You knew what the situation was and what the appropriate tone/behaviour should be, and you chose to go against it. You exercised your personal rights, but that does not make it a correct course of action. Similarly, if you go out in public wearing a very nice but somewhat uncomfortable suit, chances are it's because you want people to see how smart you look.

Another point is, why would someone wear a very outlandish/garish/revealing costume if they don't want to attract any attention? Literally the whole point of wearing an outfit like that is for it to be eye catching. Why do people go to cons to cosplay? Because they want to be able to show off their outfit/persona to the world. If the simple act of wearing the costume is what gratifies you, then why waste all the time and money going to a con when you could just wear it at home or with your friends and get the same effect? The same goes for the logic of "they're wearing it for their friends/partner/whatever, not for you". Okay, fine, but then why go out in public? Why show to the world something that is meant to be for the enjoyment of a select few individuals, and those individuals only?

My point is that it is ludicrous to say that all the responsibility rests with the onlooker, and that if they feel uncomfortable, they are the ones at fault and should just 'look away'. Creeping/harassment is NEVER acceptable, but if you insist on wearing a revealing costume to a public event, you cannot conversely expect everyone to look at you the exact same way as if you were wearing a baggy t-**** and trackies. Especially as the sole purpose of wearing an eye-catching costume is, as the name implies, to catch the eye.

I disagree, all the responsibility rests with the onlooker. The point is that our society, especially american society (I'm ignoring the truly repressive countries like Iran) has a bit of a hypocritical slightly repressive attitude towards female bodies.

I grew up in Italy and while it was not very common, I remember as a child seeing the occasional topless girl on the beach. In italy it's not a big deal. Teens will make out in public and I can't remember anyone having a problem with it, even mother walking their child nearby.

Only in USA you read articles with these stories: girls wearing a skirt in high school forced to bend over by a teacher to check whether their outfit is too slutty. National drama on TV because a nipple was shown. think of the children! but the same people have no problem with violence.

Just because somebody is looking sexy with a miniskirt, it does not mean they want YOU to stare at them or go and pester them with cheesy pick up lines.

We don't live in small villages, but many of us live in big cities. On their way to some place where the girl wants to be seen in revealing clothings she might pass by a place where she'd rather not be seen in revealing clothing. You make assumptions to think they are dressing that way for YOU just because you happen to be there. Even if it's at a party, maybe they are just not finding YOU attractive.

If your girlfriend is hot and is at the beach wearing a bikini, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to wear at a hot beach, at the same time there's not much covering her. Is it OK if every other guy at the beach now goes and hits on her, or stares at her, or makes comments that she wants to be seen and harrassed, obviously, or she wouldn't wear such revealing thing?

I could go on but you get the point. Seeing a hot girl in a revealing outfit does not place any responsibility on her. It's all on YOU.

I have one last story. It's about a young saint from India who went bathing naked in the Gange. on his way out of the river, he was so absorbed in divine joy that he forgot to put his cloths back on. While walking, he met his aunt who scolded him for being such a shameless boy. His answer was that the sin was all in her mind, because he was pure and innocent and had no sinful thoughts in his mind.

NOOOOOOOOOOooooooOooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

edit ( mean i agree)

but we were done we finished the thread ended

23 pages and we all kinda agreed with some disagreements being settled in the "we will never agree on this so why continue arguing" pile

/cries

Oh I actually agree on the above too.

I just admit sin exists. Of course, said bikini is appropriate and.... oh you know what who cares

Be awesome to each other.

Please be respectful of others as you venture into the comments (or leave one) below...

I am going to put in my 2 cents here. I think it is not just stupid but reckless to label every bad thing that happens to you "terrorism". If everything is terrorism, nothing is.

Additionally, I have been a gamer for 30 years. Things have definitely gotten better as far as racist or homophobic comments go but even at it's worst I have NEVER heard of incidents as bad as the blog post describes. Even in the early 90's ANY of that stuff would have gotten you taken out back and rapped on the beak. I am considering the cherry picked internet tales and saying there is little credibility to them.

Second, gaming is a male-centric hobby. It doesn't have to be and can be enjoyed by anyone but mostly males are the ones that play it. I am not going to apologize for that. I also thing that X-wing, with it's non-anthropomorphic figs the most asexual of the wargames I play, yet still has a small female following.

Third. Whatever.

I would love to have more females play but ultimately this 'article' is complete garbage. Gamergate was crap. I also find it hard to believe that this many incidents of blatant sexual misconduct would be ignored or tolerated, especially with the 'white knight' syndrome that is pervasive in gamer culture (what geeky guy wouldn't love to come the rescue of a damsel in distress).

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. My wife plays games - she is a very attractive black female. She has NEVER had anything like they described happen to her. Nothing sexual, no harassment, and no racism.

You want to badmouth me, that's fine. But broad, unsubstantiated generalizations are ridiculous.

/cries

-pats the fake-canadian (fakenadian if you will) on the back-

Its okay man, its okay.

We probably do. Harrassment = bad. No-one is gonna argue. Anything . literally anything past the staring argument is = 100% bad.

No-one is arguing this.

My point is that a near naked 20 year old is hard not to stare at. Even when you are really, really trying not to.

I hid an experiment in the above sentence. First person to call it out gets an internet cookie, or a +1, or something.

Can I just say that after reading through this thread and enjoying seeing the opinions of both sides, that I agree with you.

There is a difference between what you have a RIGHT to do, and what you SHOULD do. With regards to how people dress, everyone has the right to dress how they like (except for complete public nudity), but that does not mean that people should expect to be able to dress however they like in any situation and not receive any negative consequences from it. Why is there a law against public nudity? For the same reasons there are laws against having sexual relations in public; it makes people exceedingly uncomfortable and disturbs the peace. This is considered completely okay and logical, so why is it that the second someone covers the very barest essentials needed to not be 'naked', it's suddenly everyone else's fault and they should have to suck it up because the other person is just 'expressing themselves' or whatever? Of course, blatant and prolonged staring is creepy and bad, and any form of unwanted contact/harassment/groping/assault is utterly unacceptable and morally repugnant, regardless of how someone else is dressed. But that does not mean that people don't have a certain personal responsibility to exercise some logical self-determination and behave/dress appropriately.

It's your right to turn up to a funeral wearing bright neon colours and a gimp mask if you so wish, but the majority of people would think you incredibly disrespectful for doing so, and it would no doubt have a negative impact on the whole affair. And YOU would be in the wrong for doing that. You knew what the situation was and what the appropriate tone/behaviour should be, and you chose to go against it. You exercised your personal rights, but that does not make it a correct course of action. Similarly, if you go out in public wearing a very nice but somewhat uncomfortable suit, chances are it's because you want people to see how smart you look.

Another point is, why would someone wear a very outlandish/garish/revealing costume if they don't want to attract any attention? Literally the whole point of wearing an outfit like that is for it to be eye catching. Why do people go to cons to cosplay? Because they want to be able to show off their outfit/persona to the world. If the simple act of wearing the costume is what gratifies you, then why waste all the time and money going to a con when you could just wear it at home or with your friends and get the same effect? The same goes for the logic of "they're wearing it for their friends/partner/whatever, not for you". Okay, fine, but then why go out in public? Why show to the world something that is meant to be for the enjoyment of a select few individuals, and those individuals only?

My point is that it is ludicrous to say that all the responsibility rests with the onlooker, and that if they feel uncomfortable, they are the ones at fault and should just 'look away'. Creeping/harassment is NEVER acceptable, but if you insist on wearing a revealing costume to a public event, you cannot conversely expect everyone to look at you the exact same way as if you were wearing a baggy t-**** and trackies. Especially as the sole purpose of wearing an eye-catching costume is, as the name implies, to catch the eye.

I disagree, all the responsibility rests with the onlooker. The point is that our society, especially american society (I'm ignoring the truly repressive countries like Iran) has a bit of a hypocritical slightly repressive attitude towards female bodies.

I grew up in Italy and while it was not very common, I remember as a child seeing the occasional topless girl on the beach. In italy it's not a big deal. Teens will make out in public and I can't remember anyone having a problem with it, even mother walking their child nearby.

Only in USA you read articles with these stories: girls wearing a skirt in high school forced to bend over by a teacher to check whether their outfit is too slutty. National drama on TV because a nipple was shown. think of the children! but the same people have no problem with violence.

Just because somebody is looking sexy with a miniskirt, it does not mean they want YOU to stare at them or go and pester them with cheesy pick up lines.

We don't live in small villages, but many of us live in big cities. On their way to some place where the girl wants to be seen in revealing clothings she might pass by a place where she'd rather not be seen in revealing clothing. You make assumptions to think they are dressing that way for YOU just because you happen to be there. Even if it's at a party, maybe they are just not finding YOU attractive.

If your girlfriend is hot and is at the beach wearing a bikini, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to wear at a hot beach, at the same time there's not much covering her. Is it OK if every other guy at the beach now goes and hits on her, or stares at her, or makes comments that she wants to be seen and harrassed, obviously, or she wouldn't wear such revealing thing?

I could go on but you get the point. Seeing a hot girl in a revealing outfit does not place any responsibility on her. It's all on YOU.

I have one last story. It's about a young saint from India who went bathing naked in the Gange. on his way out of the river, he was so absorbed in divine joy that he forgot to put his cloths back on. While walking, he met his aunt who scolded him for being such a shameless boy. His answer was that the sin was all in her mind, because he was pure and innocent and had no sinful thoughts in his mind.

NOOOOOOOOOOooooooOooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

We'll just call that the sequel hook and end things here.

Well, that didn't work quite as intended, and I'm now out of likes sooooooo.

/thread

Anyone entering the ganges does not come out pure.

Please be respectful of others as you venture into the comments (or leave one) below...

I am going to put in my 2 cents here. I think it is not just stupid but reckless to label every bad thing that happens to you "terrorism". If everything is terrorism, nothing is.

Additionally, I have been a gamer for 30 years. Things have definitely gotten better as far as racist or homophobic comments go but even at it's worst I have NEVER heard of incidents as bad as the blog post describes. Even in the early 90's ANY of that stuff would have gotten you taken out back and rapped on the beak. I am considering the cherry picked internet tales and saying there is little credibility to them.

Second, gaming is a male-centric hobby. It doesn't have to be and can be enjoyed by anyone but mostly males are the ones that play it. I am not going to apologize for that. I also thing that X-wing, with it's non-anthropomorphic figs the most asexual of the wargames I play, yet still has a small female following.

Third. Whatever.

I would love to have more females play but ultimately this 'article' is complete garbage. Gamergate was crap. I also find it hard to believe that this many incidents of blatant sexual misconduct would be ignored or tolerated, especially with the 'white knight' syndrome that is pervasive in gamer culture (what geeky guy wouldn't love to come the rescue of a damsel in distress).

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. My wife plays games - she is a very attractive black female. She has NEVER had anything like they described happen to her. Nothing sexual, no harassment, and no racism.

You want to badmouth me, that's fine. But broad, unsubstantiated generalizations are ridiculous.

I...

Oh I actually agree on the above too.

I just admit sin exists. Of course, said bikini is appropriate and.... oh you know what who cares

Be awesome to each other.

No abort abort that will really burn down the forum if we start on religion.

...I was going to explain what I meant and my wording.

Instead I want to discuss how I for one prefer sausages to bacon.

It's the thickness and texture really. I find they cook better, I like them almost burned. Also on a batch with bacon they are fantastic.

Besides my friend, if you and I get on the topic of religion we'll likely incinerate a quarter of the web, agreeing on exactly everything.

Because no one seems to want to discuss the pressing issue of only certain squad posts getting replies and others getting 0, I've decided to take matters into my own hands and be the change I want to see. I'm now seeking out squad building posts with 0 replies and taking part in the discussions others are trying to create. My posts will be long forgotten but I will make sure theirs aren't.

We probably do. Harrassment = bad. No-one is gonna argue. Anything . literally anything past the staring argument is = 100% bad.

No-one is arguing this.

My point is that a near naked 20 year old is hard not to stare at. Even when you are really, really trying not to.

I hid an experiment in the above sentence. First person to call it out gets an internet cookie, or a +1, or something.

Can I just say that after reading through this thread and enjoying seeing the opinions of both sides, that I agree with you.

There is a difference between what you have a RIGHT to do, and what you SHOULD do. With regards to how people dress, everyone has the right to dress how they like (except for complete public nudity), but that does not mean that people should expect to be able to dress however they like in any situation and not receive any negative consequences from it. Why is there a law against public nudity? For the same reasons there are laws against having sexual relations in public; it makes people exceedingly uncomfortable and disturbs the peace. This is considered completely okay and logical, so why is it that the second someone covers the very barest essentials needed to not be 'naked', it's suddenly everyone else's fault and they should have to suck it up because the other person is just 'expressing themselves' or whatever? Of course, blatant and prolonged staring is creepy and bad, and any form of unwanted contact/harassment/groping/assault is utterly unacceptable and morally repugnant, regardless of how someone else is dressed. But that does not mean that people don't have a certain personal responsibility to exercise some logical self-determination and behave/dress appropriately.

It's your right to turn up to a funeral wearing bright neon colours and a gimp mask if you so wish, but the majority of people would think you incredibly disrespectful for doing so, and it would no doubt have a negative impact on the whole affair. And YOU would be in the wrong for doing that. You knew what the situation was and what the appropriate tone/behaviour should be, and you chose to go against it. You exercised your personal rights, but that does not make it a correct course of action. Similarly, if you go out in public wearing a very nice but somewhat uncomfortable suit, chances are it's because you want people to see how smart you look.

Another point is, why would someone wear a very outlandish/garish/revealing costume if they don't want to attract any attention? Literally the whole point of wearing an outfit like that is for it to be eye catching. Why do people go to cons to cosplay? Because they want to be able to show off their outfit/persona to the world. If the simple act of wearing the costume is what gratifies you, then why waste all the time and money going to a con when you could just wear it at home or with your friends and get the same effect? The same goes for the logic of "they're wearing it for their friends/partner/whatever, not for you". Okay, fine, but then why go out in public? Why show to the world something that is meant to be for the enjoyment of a select few individuals, and those individuals only?

My point is that it is ludicrous to say that all the responsibility rests with the onlooker, and that if they feel uncomfortable, they are the ones at fault and should just 'look away'. Creeping/harassment is NEVER acceptable, but if you insist on wearing a revealing costume to a public event, you cannot conversely expect everyone to look at you the exact same way as if you were wearing a baggy t-**** and trackies. Especially as the sole purpose of wearing an eye-catching costume is, as the name implies, to catch the eye.

I disagree, all the responsibility rests with the onlooker. The point is that our society, especially american society (I'm ignoring the truly repressive countries like Iran) has a bit of a hypocritical slightly repressive attitude towards female bodies.

I grew up in Italy and while it was not very common, I remember as a child seeing the occasional topless girl on the beach. In italy it's not a big deal. Teens will make out in public and I can't remember anyone having a problem with it, even mother walking their child nearby.

Only in USA you read articles with these stories: girls wearing a skirt in high school forced to bend over by a teacher to check whether their outfit is too slutty. National drama on TV because a nipple was shown. think of the children! but the same people have no problem with violence.

Just because somebody is looking sexy with a miniskirt, it does not mean they want YOU to stare at them or go and pester them with cheesy pick up lines.

We don't live in small villages, but many of us live in big cities. On their way to some place where the girl wants to be seen in revealing clothings she might pass by a place where she'd rather not be seen in revealing clothing. You make assumptions to think they are dressing that way for YOU just because you happen to be there. Even if it's at a party, maybe they are just not finding YOU attractive.

If your girlfriend is hot and is at the beach wearing a bikini, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to wear at a hot beach, at the same time there's not much covering her. Is it OK if every other guy at the beach now goes and hits on her, or stares at her, or makes comments that she wants to be seen and harrassed, obviously, or she wouldn't wear such revealing thing?

I could go on but you get the point. Seeing a hot girl in a revealing outfit does not place any responsibility on her. It's all on YOU.

I have one last story. It's about a young saint from India who went bathing naked in the Gange. on his way out of the river, he was so absorbed in divine joy that he forgot to put his cloths back on. While walking, he met his aunt who scolded him for being such a shameless boy. His answer was that the sin was all in her mind, because he was pure and innocent and had no sinful thoughts in his mind.

To people saying the thread should end, feel free to leave if you like. It's just one thread out of the 20 or so on the front page and the hundreds or so on the whole forum. It's not mandatory to post in here or ever read it. I don't mean to be disrespectful at all, I'm just pointing out that we all know where the Back button is. So long as the conversation continues to be civil, why not continue?

@XBear I agree with most of what you have said. I 100% agree that unwanted sexual advances are wrong and it is the responsibility of everyone not to engage in them. This include creepy staring, picture taking, catcalling, persistent attempts to 'chat up', groping, negging, etc etc the list goes on. But what I don't think is true is that people should be able to pull out the 'it's my right' card in any situation and instantly have all personal responsibility removed. The thing about personal rights is that they are general, blanket statements that don't take into account the nuances of every single situation. It's much easier to say 'people should be able to wear whatever they want' than to try and detail all possibilities where it may be inappropriate to dress a certain way. Because ultimately, where do you draw the line? But just because it's not up to any one person to say where the line should be drawn, doesn't mean it shouldn't be somewhere.

Once again, I am in no way saying that harassment in the fault of the victim. What I am saying is that it is unrealistic and unfair to expect people to behave exactly the same regardless of how you choose to dress/act, even if all of your behaviour is technically allowed according to your personal rights or the letter of the law. Actions have consequences, and if you wear eye-catching clothing, people will look at you, even if it's only for a moment. Beyond that, the fault is on them, but I feel like some (emphasis on the SOME) people think that any alterations in behaviour are wrong, and that's just unrealistic.

...... but I did reply to that.......

Just because I can't not say this:

-Gamergate is crap?!? Seriously? Someone getting death and **** threats just for being a woman in gaming is crap? Arrrgghhhhh-.

What? Topic turning to religion?!?!?! I'm a Jew who attended a catholic college and has a degree in religious studies, my moment has come at last!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I find your references to bacon insulting and insensitive to the dietary-disabled among us.

Just kidding, there's a reason I'm reform. Bacon > laws of God

Actually that describes reform Jews pretty **** accurately.

God: "don't do this, it's forbidden."

Reform Jews: "meh"

Why do I even try....

Oh well, carry on.

Hang on. I got this...

ATTENTION: THERE IS NO BODYPAINT IN THIS THREAD, I REPEAT, I WILL NOT BE WEARING BODYPAINT.

Hang on. I got this...

ATTENTION: THERE IS NO BODYPAINT IN THIS THREAD, I REPEAT, I WILL NOT BE WEARING BODYPAINT.

WTB dislike button. K thx by