mouthporn.net
#erin rants – @queerly-autistic on Tumblr
Avatar

Queerly Autistic

@queerly-autistic / queerly-autistic.tumblr.com

Erin (she/her). Author of 'Queerly Autistic: The Ultimate Guide for LGBTQIA+ Teens on the Spectrum'. 30s. Autistic. Queer. Fat. Fangirl. This is mostly a fandom space (full of gay pirates and angels and demons and other messy little neurodivergent queers I've picked up along the way)
Avatar
reblogged
Anonymous asked:

I'm quite sure that most people think Stede is bi solely because he has children. That he "successfully" had sex with a woman. As if your organs can't work without you being attracted to the other person. As if, even outside of the pressure of "creating offsprings" in an arranged marriage (and you can be sure they never touched each other after conceiving a son, or that they wouldn't even have two children if the first was male...), people don't often have sex with "the opposite sex" due to the heteronormativity of our world, and figure out only later that they are not even into that gender...

Yeah, this is what bugs me. Most of the time when I've seen "Stede is bi!" the reasoning is that he's nice to women (because gay men hate women or something?) and was married (forced into an arranged marriage where the sole purpose was to produce an heir to land rights).

Avatar

I know I've come in on this before with the same point, but it makes me very angry on a personal level every time I see it, so here we go.

I am literally the product of a gay woman having sex with a man she wasn't attracted to BECAUSE SHE IS GAY. Me AND my little brother, meaning yep, it happened more than once. That doesn't make her bi. She's gay. And if you came over arguing that she CAN'T be gay and MUST be bi because she has had sex with a man, then she would tell you where to stick it in very flowery terms (and I, an actual bisexual, would be cheering her on).

The idea that if someone has had children in a 'straight' relationship then that must mean they're bi rather than gay (because apparently it's impossible to have sex without attraction) is not only fundamentally incorrect, but it also erases a huge swathe of queer experience. And that is a problem. It's a really rigid, gatekeeping, conservative view of sexuality, and that causes harm (because how many closeted/questioning gay people might internalize that and go 'well, I can't be gay then, if I've had the sort of sex that disqualifies me from being gay' - which is what happened to my mum for years).

By all means, headcanon Stede as bi if you want to! I disagree with you, because I absolutely read Stede as gay (and also as demi - he reads as a demisexual gay man to me), but that's the beauty of headcanons: you can do what you like. But if your reasoning for that headcanon is 'he had kids with a woman, so he can't be gay', then I am absolutely begging you, as a child who was literally born from a gay woman being a relationship with a man whilst gay and closeted, to step back and reassess your ideas about sexuality and the human experience more generally.

Avatar

The idea that part of the reason Our Flag Means Death was cancelled is because it wasn't an awards contender is not only bullshit (it's already been nominated for several, including a prestigious Peabody Award, and Max continues to run a FYC for the show as we speak), but it's also extremely damaging because it hinges the survival of queer stories (and stories that centre other underrepresented groups) on them being exceptional. NEWSFLASH: most tv shows don't get nominated for or win awards! That's why awards are such a big thing - it singles you out as the best of the best. If only Emmy-nominated shows get to be safe from cancellation, then say goodbye to 99.99% of shows. But we're not saying goodbye to 99.99% of shows, are we? And that's because this is an impossible standard that is overwhelmingly (and unfairly) applied to shows like Our Flag Means Death or Rap Sh!t or A League Of Their Own - shows that centre stories that don't fall into safe white cisheteronormative standards.

We're right back to reaffirming that old idea: that we have to be twice as good as our non-marginalised counterparts to get half the recognition. It's damaging because we as queer people deserve to have meh, entirely mid, heck, even shit, media that features our stories. There are hundreds, no, thousands, of entirely mediocre stories out there for white cisallohet abled people that get recommissioned season after season, despite never even coming close to award nominations or critical and audience acclaim, and yet they'll cut down extremely popular, critically acclaimed shows centring marginalised stories and then go 'we had to cancel them, they weren't awards contenders'.

I personally think Our Flag Means Death is awards-worthy (and it has been nominated for awards), but y'know what? Even if it wasn't, we're allowed to have a little gay pirate romcom that doesn't win awards!

I'm fucking tired of having to be exceptional. It's exhausting. You set us an impossible bar, and then, when we get close to reaching it, you go 'oopsie daisy' and kick it even higher up. We can never, ever be good enough. And them using this rationalisation as a reason for cancelling shows like Our Flag Means Death just serves to reinforce this endless game of exceptionalism that we have to play in order to earn the scraps of humanity they're willing to give us.

Avatar

You really can't engage meaningfully with Ed's story in S2 without firmly centring his mental illness and suicidality, because that's inherently what the story is: it's the story of a man having a severe mental breakdown and going to increasingly erratic extremes in order to achieve his end goal, which is to not be alive anymore...and then it's the story of his recovery from that.

And so much of my frustration with the way I see this being talked about (or, in many cases, not being talked about) reflects my more general frustration with how we talk about mental illness and neurodivergence, so buckle in because this got long (also I am going to be discussing suicide here, as well as very brief mentions of psychosis and ocd, so please take care). There's this trend when we talk about mental health: we go 'oh mental illness isn't an excuse' or 'mental illness doesn't make you do bad things' or variations thereof. These are, in my opinion, some of the worst things to ever happen to the discourse around mental illness. It's reductive. Absolutely mental illness can lead you to do things that you would not have otherwise done, even things that you would be absolutely appalled by, if you were mentally well. What do you think mental illness is if it's not something that impacts your brain and how your brain functions? If your mental illness doesn't directly lead to problematic behaviour, then that's fantastic, but that experience is not universal. It's not an 'excuse' - it's an explanation for certain behaviours that's vitally important to acknowledge and understand in order to try and mitigate harm.

There's also this thing that happens with discourse around mental illness where we assume that what you do in the grips of mental illness is reflective of something that's innate inside you. You were violent whilst in the middle of psychosis? Oh, it's because you're an innately abusive person and this just reveals who you really are. You have Tourette's and one of your tics is a racial slur? Oh, it's because you're an innately racist person and this just reveals who you really are. Your OCD is rooted in a fear that you're going to murder your family? Oh, it's because you inherently do want to murder your family and this just reveals who you really are. It's bullshit. What you do in your mentally ill state is not some deep philosophical reflection of your true character, and the idea that it is is something that causes really deep, dangerous harm to mentally ill and neurodivergent people.

So, now that that's over with, back to Ed.

Ed was behaving in ways that were acknowledged in canon as being extremely out of character whilst in the midst of a severe breakdown. Fang himself said that he'd 'never' seen Ed behave this way; even Izzy, who actively pushed for Ed to embody the extremes of his Blackbeard persona, ended up concerned because it became so extreme and out of character that it was impossible not to be concerned by it. The crew who mutinied on Izzy within a day didn't mutiny on him for months, not until their lives literally depended on it, because it's heavily insinuated that they were hoping he would get better. Because this wasn't the Ed that they knew (the Ed that we came to know in S1 - an inherently soft man who is caught in a culture of violence and is tired of it).

The show wasn't subtle about this. It didn't bury the lead. As well as the constant reminders that he was acting out of character in increasingly alarming ways, this was very clearly depicted as a breakdown, an almost total collapse of Ed's mental health. We saw Ed detached and numb and completely dissociated from the world around him. We saw him in private moments of despair, breaking down. We saw him behaving erratically in the grips of mania. We saw him display absolutely textbook warning signs of someone whose made the decision to die by suicide. We saw him smile and say 'finally' at the moment when he knew he was going to die.

The show basically painted a giant neon sign over his head flashing 'THIS MAN IS EXTREMELY UNWELL' in bright lights, and if you miss that, then it's because you're deliberately avoiding looking properly.

(And, important to note, that most of the people that I've watched the show with outside of fandom discourse absolutely took away from these episodes what the show was intending - they saw how unwell Ed was, they were devastated for him, and they desperately wanted him to get better.)

When Ed steered the ship into the storm, and threatened to put a cannonball through the mast, his clear goal was to create a situation where the crew had no choice but to kill him. I've seen people describe this scene as Ed 'trying to hurt the crew', and I think that's very much a misrepresentation of what the show was depicting. It was very blatantly a suicide attempt. He wanted to die, and he didn't care what he had to do in order for him to achieve that goal. That doesn't make it good behaviour, and it doesn't mean people didn't get hurt, but it does make it a very different situation than if causing harm had been his main intent.

There is a fundamental difference between 'he is doing this because he explicitly wants to cause harm to the people around him' and 'he's doing this because he's suicidal and beyond the point of being able to rationally consider who might be getting hurt in the process of ensuring that he ends up dead'. One of those is a bad person who enjoys causing pain - and the other is a deeply unwell person who can be supported and helped to recover and be better (and should be, for the good of themselves and the people around them).

And on that note, the failure to engage with this as a mental health story is also, I think, why I've seen some people get so upset about the show not doing Ed's redemption arc 'right' - because this isn't a redemption arc, and it's not trying to be. One day I'll do a separate post about how much I love that the show explicitly rejected a carceral approach, opting to essentially put him through community rehabilitation rather than punishing him, and even mocking punitive prescriptive measures (that rubbish youtuber apology speech was supposed to be rubbish and unhelpful), but that's one for another day.

The fact is that the show is telling a story about mental illness, and that inherently means that Ed's arc is a recovery arc, not a redemption arc. And if you're expecting a redemption arc, then you've fundamentally misunderstood the story that they're telling (and the revolutionary kindness at the heart of the show).

I have a lot of feelings about this because I genuinely believe that it was one of the best depictions of mental illness and suicidality that I've ever seen. Within the confines of it being a half hour, eight episode comedy show, they told a story about mental illness that was surprisingly realistic (with the obvious fantastical over the top elements of it being a pirate show - and piracy is explicitly depicted as a culture where violence is heavily normalised), and that didn't shy away from the messier, darker, more complex elements of mental illness (particularly of being suicidal).

And then, most importantly, after all that, the show took me gently by the hand said 'you are not defined by what you do in your lowest moment - you can make amends, you can recover, you are still loved, and you are worth saving'.

Avatar

Max: Oh shit OFMD fans are really upset about us cancelling their show at the last possible second 😰😰😰

Max: What can we do to show that we’re still an inclusive platform in the meantime? 🧐

Max:…

Max: OOO I know! We’ll caption an Emmy’s pic of Jennifer Coolidge with “This one’s for all the evil gays.” Get it? Like White Lotus? Whew, nailed it 🥰🥰🥰

Honestly, it REEKS of damage control.

They've had days and days of media directly raising OFMD's queerness in relation to its cancellation. The fact that the show is LGBTQIA+ has been central to almost all of the coverage its cancellation has received, and they have no rebuttal to any of that because by its numbers and its metrics it SHOULD have been renewed. And we've heard from people who work there that raising the diversity and inclusion aspect when providing feedback is a fantastic way to get that feedback noticed. They don't WANT people to think they're the homophobic network who cancelled a beloved queer show.

It feels like they're scrambling desperately to try and move the conversation on from 'HBO MAX CANCELLED THEIR FLAGSHIP QUEER SHOW' by going 'look queers, look over here!' and, ironically, all it's doing is bringing more attention because it's making people ANGRY.

Avatar

I keep seeing posts on social media thanking the OFMD cast and crew for their work and not mentioning Taika, and it's driving me to distraction because Taika is absolutely fundamental to the existence of this show.

There's a huge chance the show wouldn't have been picked up at all if Taika hadn't attached his name to it. And he didn't just attach his name and walk away - he played a key role in developing the show. David has said that he was looking at the history with Taika and they both went 'omg Stede and Blackbeard were fucking' and decided to centre the show around that. Taika pushed for Rhys to play Stede. Taika saw Nathan's comedy on instagram and went 'yep that's Lucius'. Taika was desperate to play Ed, and fought to play him. Taika has spoken about how much he loves playing Ed, how it made him fall in love with acting again, to the point where he wears some of Ed's jewellery and has gotten some of Ed's tattoos actually inked on him. He poured everything he has as an actor into Ed (some of the stuff he had to perform, particularly at the beginning of S2, is difficult) and the show simply wouldn't work without it. Taika directed the pilot. He loved the show enough to juggle filming S1 with post-production on Thor: Love and Thunder. When the show's budget was slashed by 40%, and could no longer afford to film in LA, Taika would have been key to moving production to New Zealand - and if that hadn't happened, S2 wouldn't have happened. When a director went off sick with Covid during S2, Taika jumped in to direct half an episode and then didn't take a director's credit on it.

You do not have to like Taika. You do not have to agree with everything he does/says. But what we are not going to do is erase the absolutely key fundamental role that Taika has played in OFMD. This show simply would not exist, probably not in any form, but certainly not in the form we see and love, if not for Taika's continuing and multi-level contribution.

Avatar
reblogged

I do wonder about Ed saying “fuck you, Stede Bonnet” at the end of "Impossible Birds."

The obvious interpretation is his anger with Stede for leaving, but the way he says it and the clutching of the groom figurine is more wistful and resigned than angry. The figurine has stood in place of the silk for Ed’s concealed, softer feelings, especially those related to Stede that Izzy openly mocked. It’s the thing that Ed tries to hide and can’t, that he wants to hang onto and experience but that he's not allowed to, and that ultimately keeps getting dragged into the open and blamed for everything. So Ed is more upset at the fact that Stede brought out those soft emotions in him and showed him they were safe to have, and now Ed can't even start to put them back. He cracked Ed open, then left.

It always got me how everyone assumed that Ed was going to so, so violently angry at Stede because of what happened. There were headcanons flying around of red hot fury and sword fights and attempted murder. But then we see Ed with that little cake topper and he's so fucking gentle with it. He doesn't grab it and stamp on it or throw it around, which he absolutely could understandably do with what is essentially a visualisation of the man who abandoned him and broke his heart (like tearing up a photo of an ex). But he doesn't. He just...gently caresses the damned thing.

Even when he's faced with something that isn't Stede - that's just a metaphor, a stand-in, something that he could take out his fury on without actually causing any harm to the man he loves - he can't be violent or angry with him. He's so gentle. He strokes over it with his fingers. It's even suggested that he holds it up to his face (the cake topper is shown smudged with kohl make up on one side later on).

In keeping with how that 'fuck you Stede Bonnet' is whispered and sad and wistful rather than spat out with fury or violence, the recurring theme throughout is Ed's total and utter gentleness when it comes to Stede. Because he loves Stede. He's not angry at Stede for leaving him, he's sad and resigned because Stede opened up this softness in him that he's now destroying himself to try and repress. And even in the absolute depths of Ed's despair and distress, he can't hold anything other than softness towards this man.

Avatar

I keep seeing some variation of "why am I so upset?! It's just a show!"

No! No, that is the mind-killer! Art matters! TV shows are pieces of art!

They might be silly, fluffy, brightly colored art, or they might be grimdark fantasy hellscapes, or they might be moderate pieces of hotel art, but they are ART. And art affects us because we're human beings. We see ourselves in it. We learn through it. We tell our histories through it. We teach our children through it. We've been making art since we became human.

This is something that a lot of people spent a lot of time and care and love crafting, so that they could share it with other people who would see something of themselves and others in it. Stories matter! How stories make you feel matters!

We've become so embarrassed by having feelings, especially ones of love and care and grief, but one of the things that OFMD says very clearly is that those feelings are good! They're OK to have and to express and not expressing them in healthy ways can hurt us, very badly.

This is a silly pirate TV show and it matters. How it made you feel matters.

Avatar
Avatar
ofmd-ann
Every day we spend apart feels like an eternity 💔

I LOVE that they used a slightly different take/takes of the 'you wear fine things well' scene for this? Because this is Stede's memory of the scene in question, and we've not seen it from his perspective before (the original scene was very much, in my eyes, an Ed point of view, even if we did cut to Stede's a little at the end). Little things like: he fumbles a bit more with the silk; his delivery of the line isn't quite so smooth; even Ed is looking at him slightly differently, so so soft but a slightly different flavour of softness to the way we saw him look in the actual scene.

But, the essence of the scene is still there, and it's a confirmation that this moment was as important to Stede as it clearly was to Ed. We know that this is the moment that Ed realised he was falling in love with Stede, but this confirms that, although Stede's perspective of the scene is slightly different, not quite the same as Ed's, it's just as pivotal a moment for him and one that he instinctively comes back to when he thinks of his love for Ed.

And that's just them in a nutshell. Not identical perspectives, not identical interpretations, not identical outlooks or personalities, but inherently able to meet each other in the same place nevertheless.

Avatar

I'm distraught about Our Flag Means Death being cancelled, and I'm absolutely on board the 'keep trying to save it' train, but I do also want to say this: a show ending doesn't mean the end of the story. Everything that that story gave us is still there. Stories continue to live, because we MAKE them live. We rewatch, and we love, and we support, and we talk about it, and we headcanon our own futures for the characters, and we go to cons (and push con organisers to keep booking our faves and doing panels for that show), and we write and draw, and we keep the heart beating.

That doesn't mean that it's not absolutely devastating when your show gets cancelled, or your favourites get axed, because no, it's not the same. It's devastating to know we won't see those characters again, or have new content to analyse and pick apart and write about and draw about. What we create in its stead doesn't make that lost potential hurt less. But the thing about those stories is that, despite that, they mean enough to us to persist. They don't die because we won't let them. And OFMD has meant SO damned much to so many of us - they can't kill it, and we won't let them

We are the ones that give these shows their longevity. Heck, I have a fandom tattoo for a TV show that only ever aired for half a season, years before I was paying attention, but then I found it, and fell in love with it, and here we are: it persists (on my arm!). I wrote the bulk of my fanfiction for another fandom AFTER they axed my favourite character and I stopped watching - because I needed to fill the space and give my character what they deserved.

OFMD will be this show. It will be the show that we continue to write about, and create for, for years to come. We will fill the space with our art and our love and a refusal to let the show fade on the bonfire of prematurely cancelled shows. People years from now will find the show, and fall in love, and come looking for us, and we will still be here to squee and create with them. Fandom often outlives the media it is based around by decades, because our love doesn't end when the cancelling gavel goes down. OFMD will be talked about for years, because we will refuse to shut up about it.

Cancellation sucks. It sucks so much. It's not fair. It hurts. But, as long as we are here to put on our glittery goldfish tails and swim alongside it, the show will never die.

Avatar
reblogged
Anonymous asked:

People in other fandom are criticising the 1st gentlebeard kiss again, and I think we need to discuss how this is the result of oversexualation in queer media

I’m assuming that other fandom refers to the Canyon? I’ve mostly either blocked or been blocked by them, it seems, which is perfectly fine by me. They don’t want to see me and I don’t want to see them.

I’ve written, as have others, about how there’s a clear progression to those kisses, from the very tentative sweetness of the first and the absolute confidence of the last. In that beach scene, Ed can barely get out what he wants to say, and Stede doesn't immediately clock what it means (because he's dealing with that initial emotion of "I make...you...happy?"). I’m not sure what was wanted with the first kiss? Like, full-on snog? How would that make sense to either of those characters at that point? It might even have looked like assault, since Stede is obviously surprised and not quite expecting it. The fact that it is gentle and unsure is part of their relationship - they’re figuring out who they are to each other, and Ed especially is being so careful about how he does it.

In terms of oversexualization generally...I'm not a queer media scholar or critic, though I've done work with queer theory and I know a lot of Hollywood history. So much of mainstream queer media was initially about subtext and suffering - characters that were typed as queer without being made explicitly so (because they literally couldn't), stories that treated queerness as a mental illness or that ended in death and destruction. So there's been a natural pushback against all that, often outside the mainstream and then more into the mainstream now. I think there was also a desire to shock the straight world, hence things like John Waters's films, Rocky Horror, etc. (not knocking these - I fuckin' love 'em), which are also in conversation with pornography.

With Our Flag Means Death and a handful of other shows and films (Good Omens, A League of Their Own, Heartstopper, etc.) there's been major movement forward, in part because there are more queer writers/artists/creators getting a say in mainstream texts. But there's still that fear of assimilation - because mainstream. So there's a cadre that will demand that if it's queer, it's gotta be explicit. It's gotta shock the straights. Which leads, eventually, to a sanding away of complicated emotions and nuance and not allowing characters or plots to progress in an organic way. There has to be space for sexualization if it's natural to the story, but it can't be forced.

I would absolutely have been upset if all we ever got was that beach kiss, and all we ever saw was Ed and Stede barely kissing each other. That wouldn't have made sense to the story that was being told. I even remember messaging my friend after "Curse of the Seafaring Life" that I was glad they "finally got a proper kiss." And looking back, even then, I was pretty much thinking that that's all we were gonna get, because I've been so conditioned to just expect crumbs in mainstream media. (Also, like, I remember very well how Ellen lost her sitcom when she came out, how people had an absolute fit about Will & Grace featuring a nonromantic same-sex kiss, and how all the interviews around Brokeback Mountain were along the lines of "how terribly uncomfortable was it to kiss a dude?!" So the idea of two straight actors maybe possibly not being grossed out by kissing each other is relatively new, in terms of media history.)

I think some of this is a desire for all queer media to be all things. That if any show doesn’t do ALL THE THINGS, then it is bad and problematic. And that’s just not the nature of art. It would be awful if they tried to do all the things. It wouldn’t work. But that's also a result of having so little explicitly queer stuff, especially from mainstream shows/films, that when something like OFMD or Good Omens comes along, it gets picked apart and people are upset that it didn't do all the things. The more queer stories there are, the less we'll have to depend on single works and the less infighting there will be.

Well, there, I wrote way too much. This is all very complicated and I'm not trying to pretend that it's easy to distill down or that I'm 100% right here. I'd be happy to hear other opinions or caveats (that are not "no, I love Izzy, therefore you're wrong").

Avatar

Not an opinion on the show's kisses, BUT there are shows out there that show passion and romance, so it. Is. INTERESTING that they never seem to get mentioned in the lineup.

Shows like POSE and P-Valley. Interview With The Vampire...to just name a few.

Yes, very good point (I always forget about Interview, and I admit I've never watched POSE). That's my point, though - the broader the spectrum of queer stories, the better. That means that no single show or even group of shows (or films) will have to bear the burden of doing ALL THE THINGS.

I do find it interesting that I've seen all of Ed and Stede's kisses get singled out for this sort of criticism - yes, the first kiss is a little awkward, but realistically and normally so for where those characters are; it's a perfectly fine kiss - despite the fact that I can't spot much of a functional difference between their kisses and any of the other kisses in the show. This is just the standard level of kissing that happens in the show, and that's absolutely fine - OFMD isn't Queer as Folk, and it's not trying to be, and it shouldn't have to be. The idea that if it's not all open-mouthed tongue-kissing it's somehow desexualised or not passionate does, I worry, bely an oversexualisation with queer media that makes me inherently uncomfortable, and plays into the oversexualisation of queer people more generally. I know plenty of people - of all sexualities and genders - who kiss like Ed and Stede kiss, and so I'm consistently baffled by this idea that these kisses are awkward or unrealistic or somehow devoid of passion because their mouths aren't open enough (also I need to know who got the tape measure out and became judge, jury and executioner on that particular standard). I also think there is an interesting projection that sometimes comes into play when the actors involved in a queer pairing are (presumed) cishet. I've been in the very interesting position of seeing queer kisses in a piece of media get criticised with this exact presumption, with people going on and on about how the actor was straight and was obviously uncomfortable with queer kissing, all whilst personally knowing that the actor in question was actually queer (they just had no interest in sharing anything about their private life publicly, and honestly, good for them). And yet this awkwardness was projected onto what were perfectly good, fine, natural kisses, all because the fandom had assumed this person was straight and projected the idea that therefore it must be awkward onto the kisses. And for some reason this projection and presumption around cishet actors is only overcome if they go full in with tongues and chomping on each other's faces - even though it's perfectly good and fine and normal to kiss in other ways too - almost as if they have to overcompensate as the only way to prove that they're actually fine and not grossed out by this. Whilst I understand the important representation of having queer actors in queer roles (although will never demand it, because we've seen what comes from that, with actors being forced to out themselves), I do wonder if some of this particular projection/presumption is based in the subconscious idea that queerness is this uniquely nebulous unknowable thing that is inherently uniquely disgusting for anybody who isn't queer, and therefore cishet actors (particularly cishet men) must be inherently unable to perform it realistically (despite snogging people you're not personally attracted to being something actors of all sexualities and genders do all the time). And that's something I think we need to sit down and interrogate pretty hard.

Avatar
reblogged

truly just saw someone on twitter concede that stede must be bi since he and mary have kids

...

girl

And THAT'S why I took such issue with that poll.

I'm going to keep yelling about this: as a bi woman who is consistently seeking out bi representation, please don't do this.

I am LITERALLY the child of a gay woman. I am the product of comphet. My mum was married to a man for almost twenty five years, and had two children with him, and my mum is GAY.

The idea that if you've ever had a 'straight' relationship with 'straight' sex it means you can't be gay is extremely harmful. Stop doing this.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net