Basically I think I had some stupid ideas introduced via the media and my academic background studying sociology and media, culture, post-modernism, feminist theory, and similar disciplines with healthy doses of overlapping content.
That was basically that artwork like this
is badwrong. This was a symptom of the oppressive patriarch hegemony and a relic of an unenlightened time, to be appreciated only as a relic or something with "retro" sensibilities and not something for modern artists or audiences. Unless of course you are a degenerate with antiquated thinking who has not yet been introduced to enlightened thought.
Even though I like it. (Uh oh, I must keep my degeneracy a secret!)
So as I started working on my own media, whether it was films, comic art, RPGs and most recently RPG art, I wanted to "do the right thing" and create things that were "good" and accessible to as wide an audience as possible. I would be a modern and progressive voice and do things differently than they were done in the past. I'd do them right! What could go wrong with that?
Well if you're going to do the "right thing" and include images of women, particularly, in your art you really need to listen to them about how they want to be depicted, and try to understand the things I am genetically unable to understand about lady bodies and artwork and feelings and hegemonies and such. And if you spend a lot of time online, and a gamer, it only makes sense to engage in discussion with female gamers about this. And some are very eager to discuss the topic! Excellent!
So while through my
Yesterday on G+ we had an interesting discussion where one woman and several men explained how this illustration:
is sexist. Because the tabard makes you think she is about to show you her lady parts. I kid you not. In fact the optimal way of presenting a drawing of a woman in fantasy artwork is this:
an almost literal armoured burkha where you can't even tell if it's a man, woman or monster beneath the clothing. It's completely asexual, and until you reach this point you will be "doing it wrong" in the eyes of a vocal group. If your goal is to listen to complaints and adapt them into your work, your work is going to be, quite frankly, boring as shit.
Meanwhile I've met some other women on G+ who are happily sharing their appreciation for the old Fantasy and Sci-Fi movies I grew up with like Conan the Barbarian, Flash Gordon, Beast Master and other media that existed before the current more politically correct times. They're also making their own art, costumes, and even movies that don't share these same hangups about ultra-conservative dress and Laura Mulvey's "Male Gaze" bugbear (I studied that stuff for 5 years, please don't tell me about it anymore after discovering it on Wikipedia).
So given the choice between making boring shit artwork that may or may not be conservative enough, or ideologically correct enough to make the Tipper Gores of the RPG community happy -- and the choice to just do stuff that I think is awesome and that some other guys and girls think is awesome too…
Damn, it seems like a really obvious choice.
46 comments:
I don't understand why "liberals" can be so "conservative"....
Should we ban "Family Guy" from the airways because they belittle our Lord Christ and Savior, or should I just not watch it (Which I do, I love the show, don't tell God.)Fact is if you don't like it don't look at it. I hate H.R. Gigers phallic fascination, and so I don't "look" at his art. And amazingly it does not offend me.
It's like magic.
ERIC!
With respect, you're missing the point big time man...
I'm missing the point that I'm not able to choose to like the things I like and make the kind of art that I want? That can't be right.
Not sure if that's what you're saying, so if you want to accuse me of missing the point you need to use more words when making your point. :)
Loved it, right on the money.
The key thing I think is that art (especially SciFi/Fantasy and RPG art) has to be engaging and interesting. For genre art it generally also needs to kick some ass.
Again I think it's a problem of the vocal minority, most people either don't care, aren't bothered or just (as Eric suggested) don't look at things they know are going to offend them. They are happy and feel no need to evangelise about it.
It tends to be on the wankers (gender neural) who get up in your face about it.
You would think (and actually stats back this up) that gamers would have an easier time telling reality from fantasy.
Point taken!
The point is not that you shouldn’t be able to decide what you want to paint and how and why. The point is what other people do with what you paint and the effect it has.
Like it or not, painting a scantily clad and scantily armoured women, even if they look just “sexy” to you, they’ll look “sexual” to many because of whatever reason.
Unfortunately this reinforces the cliché and that translates in behaviour that is totally unacceptable.
About your point of the woman in the full armour not even looking like a woman. If women went to battle, do you really think they’d wear a chain mail bikini?
Don’t get me wrong, there will always be idiots on both sides of the argument and machismo will probably never go away fully, but we as artists and as men, have the responsibility to help, and if that means finding new ways to portray “feminity” in the art world without making it overly sexual, then we should do that.
Easy? Maybe not.
Necessary? Unfortunately it is
Worth it? By all means!
There's too many screechy little grievance vultures & self appointed hall monitor types in the world. There's no pleasing or appeasing them.
Do what you want to do. Like what you like.
To hell with anyone who has a problem with it.
Sexist because Aleena ia about to show us her happy place under the tabbard? Okay, where would it benefit her to be wearing full-body chainmail armor but leave it crotchless? Sure, it might make it easier for her to pee, but still, it would leave her exposed.
But then, witch hunting tends to make for immense leaps of logic. Hell with them.
I would be cautious about representing yourself as courageous in shaking off the inconvenience of criticism and embracing the style of art that is mainstream and has been for decades.
Want to say those people are irrationally taking it too far? Fine, but to then imply there is no merit in thinking about how genders are represented differently in art is not bold, it's the norm.
@Leviatham - I'm not sure that the possibility of someone finding a drawing sexual constitutes the drawing itself being "bad" in some fashion. What is the link that you're asserting between even "sexual" art and "bad behavior?"
I guess the question becomes: Is there a way to depict "feminity" (and not merely hide it, as in the example Stuart gives) and not have it be sexual to some, and even if there were is this a desirable goal?
It strikes me that most people of either gender don't have a problem with feminine and sexual potrayals of women in art, so long as women so depicted are defined solely by that, don't always fall into traditional damsel in distress or femmme fatale traps all the time.
@Trey: I never said that it made the drawing "bad", but that the reactions that some people have to them can be.
As for the link, it's easy to ascertain by simply observing the behavior of the people who salivate at those type of drawings and they way they treat women and talk about them. Simply go to a pub one night and prick up your ears. It's most revealing!
You ask a good question and the answer is yes. Plenty of people have done that throughout the history of art, but for some reason (probably because it's a lot easier or we're too used to it) choose not to make the effort to find new ways to portray the feminine figure and women in general.
I like boobs. A lot. Being raised in a social progressive home, I was exposed to feminist thought, and felt there was something wrong with me liking boobs that much.
Then I met quite a few women who liked boobs too. A lot. These were not weak or meek women - or culturally ignorant ones. Quite the opposite. They just liked boobs too. So, I felt a lot better about my boob liking tendency.
I think the problem is some people treat women like they are boobs, instead of real life feeling, caring people who happen to have boobs.
As I get older, I have noticed that I now too have boobs - but I, and no one else for that matter - seems particularly impressed with them.
- Ark
Sexist is only sexist if it's one sided. In Boris' image above, or in the Conan movies, the men are as scantilly clad as the women. What's more, in the cultures being depicted, the societal norms are not our societal norms.
If we as artists want to be even handed, all we need do is keep 'balance' in mind, and the rest will work itself out. The loud voices will always be loud - regardless of how we live our lives.
Thanks for this post - it was an interesting read. :)
If you want to paint chainmail bikinis, paint chainmail bikinis. Like lightinthewoods says, it's unrealistic, but it can go both ways. But if your imaginary worlds are exclusively populated by big, strong men and their female sex-toys, you're kidding yourself if you assuage your guilt by putting on the mantle of expressive freedom.
Arkhein likes boobs. Some people like dick. I've never seen a Swords & Sorcery painting of a barbarian chick rescuing a naked guy laid out over an altar with his crotch or his ass in the air, you know? That's fine, but let's not pretend it doesn't mean anything.
Thanks for this! As a woman who loves fantasy art I've often felt inspired by pictures of women kicking ass, regardless of what they were or were not wearing. Art like Elmore's drawings is part of what made me more interested in Dungeons and Dragons and less interested in Barbie as I was growing up. Girls can look pretty... and slay dragons, not just go to the mall! Cool!
It's not to say I don't also like a woman in reasonable armor, but lately I have felt like it's sort of demonized to enjoy pictures of chainmail bikinis too: as if, in a fantasy context, there is something wrong with that which as a feminist should embarrass me. I certainly think there is a line where the bad representation can go over the top, but I don't think that line is "anything pretty or sexy, ever."
It's important for those of us who enjoy the aesthetic of the female body to distance ourselves from the mysoginistic, anonymous troll who inhabits comment boards on the internet. A lot of times we let ourselves get lumped up with them, which makes it very hard to disagree with some points but not others.
Fair is fair, absolutely let's have some men as scantily clad as the women - thanks to Conan and other varioous sundry barbarians we have that one covered. Let's have the strong women rescuing a weak man, or even another woman, and by all means let's see some pecs and some man-ass. As i understand it, the member itself is not as much of a draw for a woman as the breasts are for a man, but whatever it is, let's show it. Down with damsels in distress, let the fantasy woman be as strong as the men, and let some pieces of art serve up some beefcake.
Honestly, it's frustrating some times to want to see fantasy/sci-fi literature that is accepting to women when some of the most vocal critics seem to be terrified of the female form. I love it when fantasy and sci-fi are equal opportunity, but I hate it when it does so by being utterly sterile and scared to death of any sexuality, lest somebody develop a body image issue solely because of a piece of art or a portrayel in a novel/movie.
"I never said that it made the drawing "bad", but that the reactions that some people have to them can be."
I'm unwilling to declare cheesecake to be anathema, just because you're afraid of other people, Leviatham. And getting rid of all the art in the world, wouldn't do one damn thing to change the feelings of the people you're afraid of.
Who, in the G+ discussion, said that the Elmore art was sexist?
Red's outfit is stupid, but that, 'you are dead looking up at her' pose is awesome. :)
People can decide for themselves what was and wasn't said. Stuart posted a screenshot of the discussion here: http://twitpic.com/7ct14u
Thanks for the feedback everyone. :)
@Tracy: The full G+ discussion is posted here if anyone wants to slog through it. I wasn't going to share this publicly, but you already posted your edited version, so there it is.
To the comments about being equally minded here are some recents illustrations that I've done: male and female.
If I'm drawing S&S art with guys wandering around dungeons in leather skirts and fur boots it does raise the question about what the female adventurers would look like.
This got me thinking about why I'm so hung up on this stuff when other people are not, and thinking about my background, education, etc.
I agree with @Timeshadows that it's "stupid" to go adventuring in a loincloth, or a he-man metal harness or a chain mail bathing suit... but that's part of the suspension of disbelief. Just like magic and dragons.
I applaud you Stuart :) The women of the 1960s and 1970s worked too hard and risked too much so that it would be socially acceptable for them to be seen as Women, for us to spit on their achievement. Remember, women made the cover of Cosmo look the way it does as a statement of power. They were fearless, and did not meekly acquiesce when the Men in Power told them they couldn't do that. They were done with hiding. They were done with being kept hidden and silent. They were going to shout "We are Women, and we're damn proud of it!" and nobody was going to shut them up.
[posted without reading all of the above, limited time online.. will read all asap]
Hi,
I was linked to this post by an acquaintance. I'm coming at it from a perspective of someone who is not very familiar with your work, so my comments will be directed at artwork in general.
I am both a feminist, and a woman who is only attracted to women. I do not find the male form very appealing at all.
So, those caveats out of the way, here's my thoughts. If you have a woman posed in a way which is revealing, or the like, you are using her body to appeal to the viewers (likely straight men). This is not "bad" in and of itself, I appreciate looking at a good view as much as the next gal. The problem is this: these poses are not really ever used when displaying the male form. The state of undress is rarely used with the male form. So, you have an overabundance of imagery which tells society that women's bodies are for looking at, and men's are not.
This is not about anyone being repressed, or anything else. This is about women being told, over and over again, that they are sex objects, and that men are people. And again, I really enjoy looking at scantily clad women. However, I also realize that there's a pretty big inequity between men and women here.
If you don't want to be subject to criticism, the fastest way to avoid that is not to publish your artwork. However, I will point out that the criticism will likely help you achieve a higher level of ability.
If you feel that scantily clad women are the only medium you wish to explore, consider finding and promoting other artists who do the same, but with men. I am sure that there are plenty of straight or bi women out there who would like to see some scantily clad men. I'm all about everyone being able to appreciate whatever gives them their kicks. I'm just tired of straight men deciding what *everyone* looks at.
What I don't understand is why there can't be a mix of artwork, why can't a published book, with multiple pieces of art having something like you have at the bottom of the post and something like I suggested, which was a female version (without huge breasts please) of the templar? That way, I can get something that represents my melee characters and you can get something you like too. How is presenting only feminine women inclusive?
@Kelly: Thanks for stopping by today. I agree with this point:
The problem is this: these poses are not really ever used when displaying the male form. The state of undress is rarely used with the male form.
And you can see one of my illustrations here: http://designmeme.deviantart.com/#/d4f9uzm which is a male adventurer in the sexy/undressed form. The pose in this piece is all about showing off his back, which I was recently told by a woman was her favourite part of an athletic man's physique.
So hopefully that's the sort of thing you were hoping to see. :)
@Tracy: Like I said in our G+ discussion we can all like different things and I'm very much in support of multiple styles of art and ideas about things. My specific concern with the illustration of the Templar which I was discussing with someone else was I didn't know how to make it read as a woman if there were no curves, a closed helmet, and the same armour as a man. I think "I'd like some gender neutral characters in heavy armour" is a totally fair statement. Asking me (as an artist) to draw the templar in the same armour, including helm, and without any female curves (hips, breasts) to be a very difficult task. I literally don't know how I would do that.
Anyway, I totally recognize and respect that you and I like different things, and that's cool. I'm not telling you what to like, or what kind of artwork to make.
But I didn't say, no female curves. I just said no breast augmentation, meaning don't give her massive fake boobs. And don't make her pose in some strange manner just to emphasize the female curves and put them on display. I bet you could give her a slight chest and pull in her waist a little bit but keep the overall atmosphere of the image, which is a bad ass mofo who has been around the block a few times and is now coming for you.
My full explanation from the G+ chat:
I recognized the pose straight away as a baseball batting stance. However, I think the stance, and in particular where it deviates from a "proper" stance, were chosen not because it makes the character stronger, but because it allows Elmore to show the character's inner thighs. If she were intending to hit that arrow out of the ball park, her feet would be parallel to each other, with the outside of her left leg facing the "pitcher" and, in this case, the camera.
To me, the purpose of the tabard is to soften her and to play cat and mouse with the viewer. The pose is opened up to give greater access to her inner thighs but the "money shot" is hidden behind the soft, flowing tabard.
But let's take a step back for a moment. Why is she going up against someone with arrows, while in chainmail, without a shield? Why is her tabard so narrow compared to her body? Why is everything about her so new?
Compare that to the other image presented. The closed helm to me denotes grim resolve, a sort of, "I'm coming for you" as does his stance. The torn edges of his cloak and tabard show that he has history doing this and, given that he's still around, you might not want to mess with him. Now give me her in his outfit and pose (without a breast augmentation please) and I'll be in love.
Yes the "without a breast augmentation" is what I took to mean "no cuviness". Have you ever seen a woman dressed in chainmail? Here's a random one I just Google Image searched http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00925/SNF1004TVEF_280_925361a.jpg
Put a closed helmet on her, and make sure her hair isn't showing (you had previously said loose hair was also a no-no) and you have a figure that you could not tell if it was a man or a woman.
As for why she is going up against someone with arrows they're magic, she doesn't have a shield so she can cast spells (she's a cleric) and she looks new because she's a novice adventurer. This is an illustration from the original Red Box D&D. The only reason I mentioned this to you in the G+ thread was as a "hey, there's always been at least a a few non-sexy pieces that women could relate to - like this one".
And it went from there.
I think it's less that the picture of Aleena is titillating (I don't think it is; it's one of the first images I recall that spoke to my young mind of strong independent women). I think the problem is that some people found it titillating and were offended by their own arousal.
Blaming something for how it makes you feel is dumb. Your feelings are your own, nobody or thing puts them there. Acknowledge that the 'problem' lies with you and not the image.
The only thing I find 'offensive' about that image is that it's the moment before Aleena is brutally slain. I'd found a positive female role-model only to see her slain moments later.
CURSE YOU EVIL MU GUY! CURSE YOU!
I'm only annoyed when an artist seems to think the only way they can make women in fantasy art interesting and awesome is by making them cheesecake. Primarily because it's boring - it has been done to death and back again. Stretch your imagination and try to make it interesting without relying on the easy out of T&A. Or make the best damn fantasy T&A in the world and grow a thicker skin - your choice.
The issue, I think is one of equality and equal representation. If we're going to have sexualized pictures of women (and men), we should also have a good amount of non-sexualized pictures, showing women doing all the cool things that characters can do in an RPG. The real problem, I think, has been the Wayne Reynoldization of RPG art by WotC where instead of showing characters doing stuff, everything is this lame over-exaggerated portrait art, with just one character with a way too-wide sword. This only exacerbates the tendency of female characters to be portrayed sexually.
All that being said, I'm all for having artwork of hot heroic chicks doing cool shit.
If.
You.
Do.
Bad.
Things.
Because.
You.
Saw.
A.
Picture.
You.
Are.
Stupid.
And.
We.
Can't.
Build.
Our.
Culture.
Around.
You.
I'm female. I game. I roleplay. And I love me some Boris Vallejo art - both his naked lady pictures AND his naked men pictures. I objectify both sexes equally (I ain't even playing like beefcake pics aren't objectifying men, because they totally are). The heavy metal fantasy picture up there has a shirtless, heavily muscled man in a pec-strap and a pair of leather hotpants and a shirtless, well-endowed woman in pasties and a pair of metal undies. All the equality problems with that pic could be solved if the chick had her own sword (unless she broke its blade in the carcass of her enemy...or is a fearsome sorceress!). Both sexes are damn near equally naked. The dignity score on it is as follows: Men: 0, Women: 0. Nobody wins, except for the fact that that picture is totally AWESOME so everyone does.
That Elmore drawing may have a flash of the heavily chainmail-covered goods there (seriously, people, they’re covered in goddamn metal. There’s a leather bra, probably a padded jerkin, and most definitely an undershirt between her boobs and the lecherous gaze of menfolk. Tits don’t get much better protected than that). But the more important thing is that HOMEGIRL IS ABOUT TO FUCK THAT DOUCHEBAG UP. Seriously, if there’s something more empowering than applying a mace to the heads of your enemies, I don’t know what it is.
If you want what I think modern fantasy art should look like, look at the Pathfinder iconic class characters. You’ve got Turbotits the Sorceress (sorry, Seoni), Lady Chastitybelt the Very Sensibly Dressed Paladin, Elfy McChesticles the Magus with his rather daft armor design (I realize you can cast mage armor, dude, but you might want to cover up your vital organs if you’re gonna be wading into melee, just saying), and Drunky Stubblechin the Also Very Sensibly Dressed Warrior. I think they’re all hot in their own ways, even if some of their outfits are downright retarded from a “staying alive” point of view.
Don't know about the rest of you guys but that is some dead sexy right there. Needs to be on a shirt.
"This is not about anyone being repressed, or anything else. This is about women being told, over and over again, that they are sex objects, and that men are people. And again, I really enjoy looking at scantily clad women. However, I also realize that there's a pretty big inequity between men and women here."
It's more like we're often (not always) being told "Women are sex objects and men are unfeeling bastards, who think with their dicks," but not every depiction of people and/or sexuality takes this view.
And if you don't notice that part about "men," then you're never going to see what's really going on.
A thing that particularly fucks me off has come up in the comments above and that's the idea that there's some equivalency in putting a man in the typical female sexy pose.
Balderdash and piffle.
A man in sexy female outfit or pose tends to look stupid - and vice versa.
Men and women's bodies are different. Our sexual characteristics - primary and secondary - are different. Of the primates we're amongst the most sexually dimorphic. The psychology of attraction, male and female differs.
A male sexy pose will be different to a female sexy pose.
There's a blog that bangs this particular fallacious drum with reference to superheroes, with comparative art. Wish I could remember which one it is.
Tina, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
@postmodertemstudios: I agree very much with that.
Sexy images of Men and Women are at their root about showing the human body in a way that makes you think they would be good mates.
The biological component is: Women with healthy curves to show you they are ready (and willing) for sexy time and baby making, and Men with healthy strength to show you they have good DNA for strong babies and will be helpful in taking care of their family.
Men in poses that emphasis their non-existent (?) curves seem comical to us because they're being presented the way a woman would (sticking out their breasts and bums etc). How silly. The man masquerading as a woman is a classic comedy trope (e.g. Monty Python, campy Drag Queen acts etc). A man is being presented in a way that suggests he'd be a good mate for another man is just ridiculous, I mean why would any--
oh.
That's right, by presenting men in sexy lady poses for comedy it's actually playing on the same cultural fears that give rise to insults like calling a guy a "pussy" or any of the many "gay" insults.
Rather than help the target group (women) feel better about themselves, their bodies, and their own confidence it's actually damaging to a smaller minority by subtly reinforcing the gay = silly cultural notion.
So yeah, cut that shit out. :)
What a coincidence, I don't think your comment has any relevance either.
Victorian families didn't laugh at the Pantomime dame because it reminded them just how silly it is that people were only attracted to one gender or the other.
Your personal life and who you find attractive is a wonderful anecdote. It really doesn't change anything though.
The Pantomime dame is pretty funny though... I hope nobody cuts that shit out. :)
I think it's interesting that the two artists you used to display the "wrongs" of fantasy depictions of women are probably the ones who show the best balance in their work.
Frank Frazetta did the majority of his work in the sword and sorcery pulp market painting hard, muscular men in loin cloths and weapon harnesses and soft, curvy women decorated to their advantage. All of it was appropriate to the setting and all of them were equally clothed or unclothed.
Larry Elmore often created beautiful and athletic warrior women who wore what looked like functional armour. His aesthetic for armour didn't change much from men to women.
I think as long as you are fair in your presentation of both sexes there is little basis for people to complain about your exploitation of women. Even then, men and women are different. Artists should be allowed to explore those differences without feeling guilty or being told their art is; "wrong."
The "Aleena?" Picture's pose, far from sensual, that just appears to me how someone about to take a baseball swing with a two-handed blunt object to a frail old man would stand before unleashing said swing.
Maybe it's just me though.
@Zzarchov: I'm confident a photo of a baseball player was the reference, and not a swimsuit model.
@charlatan75 said...
"If you want to paint chainmail bikinis, paint chainmail bikinis. Like lightinthewoods says, it's unrealistic, but it can go both ways. But if your imaginary worlds are exclusively populated by big, strong men and their female sex-toys, you're kidding yourself if you assuage your guilt by putting on the mantle of expressive freedom.
Arkhein likes boobs. Some people like dick. I've never seen a Swords & Sorcery painting of a barbarian chick rescuing a naked guy laid out over an altar with his crotch or his ass in the air, you know? That's fine, but let's not pretend it doesn't mean anything."
I wanted to pick on this comment because I think it nicely summarizes the overall issue here. There's not much art depicting men in compromised positions naked and vulnerable. I suspect this is because not very many people find that sort of concept attractive or sexy, and I say that for both sexes. The sort of vulnerability that women find appealing in a man is the emotional kind, not so much the physical.
This can be explained by simple anatomy. Male anatomy dictates that men must play an active role in any coitus while women must willingly submit. There can be some swapping and blurring of the lines here but this simple biological mandate is hard to deny. Is this inherently wrong? No it isn't. It's natural, and to make any claim otherwise is to deny the importance of reproduction to a species. Of course the law of moderation in all things still applies, but there's nothing inherently wrong about depicting humans as sexual creatures in appropriate artistic mediums.
Now, I know plenty of women who appreciate swords and sorcery art, and a lot of them have no problem with the males depicted in them. Most of the girls in my circles find them a bit over-muscled, but I'd say that's more of a cultural thing than anything else. However women still love a bit of flesh and one only has to look towards the latest run of Old Spice commercials for evidence of that. However, those old spice commercials don't depict a man vulnerable and compromised, they depict him as direct and capable of bringing them (as women) to their hearts desire.
So I'd contest that the lack of men laid out all naked and vulnerable isn't due to some overall neglect for what women want in their art, but nothing more than a symptom of the fact that such art does not have widespread appeal and thus never became popular.
Wow, what a discussion! I really envy the level of involvement you generate, Stuart. I just wanted to toss this out for you to consider: Never allow anyone to force the term "political correctness" into a conversation. Make them use the honest name of the concept, which is "intellectual fascism." Because when the day comes that you aren't allowed to have an opinion because I don't agree with it, the Nazis have won.
I just have to say that I spent 20 mins this morning googling "the male gaze bugbear" because I didn't get the reference, and expecting to find something like this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HUKhyn_ue1Y/TBLtlFtDPGI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/44zY0AhzFJQ/s1600/cmofBugbear.jpg
until I realized that you were using bugbear in the other context. :p
Post a Comment