Teach Me Something Tuesday #25: Pat Buchanan and Shoulder Hair

Today I’m welcoming the handsome and talented David from Che Bello who is here to bring us another installment of Teach Me Something Tuesday:

—

Anybody who’s ever paid attention to a political race or any kind of opinion polling is familiar with a proportion. “100% of authors of today’s TMST think Kári is adorable,” a headline might read. Or “64% of Craig’s shoulder hairs have grown more than an inch in the past 12 hours.” These are both magnificent examples of proportions, one distinctly more horrifying than the other. But in political races, we’re often dealing with a population so large that we can’t ask everyone any given question. Even surveying all of Craig’s shoulder hairs would be a daunting proposition, imagine if you had to talk to every person in the country! So, how do we say anything about the population with any certainty at all? We construct the almighty CONFIDENCE INTERVAL!

::trumpets sounding, and all that jazz::

Let’s say you’ve been hired by me to find out how many people agree with the ideas of nutjob Pat Buchanan. (For the latest vile nutjobbery, see here.) It should be 0%, but, sadly, we don’t often see extremes in public opinion. You go out and do a survey of a randomly sampled group of people that is representative and proportional to the population along demographics such as gender, ethnicity, education level, etc. (if you were to sample gun-brandishing veterans who can’t find manufacturing jobs anymore and don’t mind blaming it on immigrants, your sample would be pretty biased (and wouldn’t have the collective sense God promised a doorknob)), and what you come back with is that 42% of the population agree with his statements. So, are you ready to definitively say that that’s the true proportion that you would get if you asked everyone? Since you only took a sample, it can’t be. We use confidence intervals to say “Given the information that we’ve gathered, we think the true value we’re estimating is between x and y.”

So how do we do that? The basic form of any confidence interval is our estimate plus/minus a margin of error. This margin of error has two pieces: a critical value from what we call the z-table, and the standard deviation of our estimate. The z-distribution is familiar to you as a bell curve; it’s the normal distribution. We use the normal distribution here because of the central limit theorem. With repeated sampling, we know that the distribution of our proportions would be normal. That is to say if we took lots and lots of samples and made a histogram of the proportions of support for Buchanan for each one, it would eventually take the shape of a normal model. Or, if we took repeated samples of ten of Craig’s exes, eventually we could get a good estimate of how long the famed Puntabuschlong really is. This is true of all sampling distributions, even if the underlying population you’re sampling from is highly skewed. (The population, not the Puntabuschlong.) If you’re having trouble believing this, and that’s okay, as it’s a pretty earth-shattering revelation, check out the fun simulation here. Given that, we can use the normal model to set how wide our confidence interval should be. For a 95% confidence interval, the associated z-value is 1.96, because on the normal model 95% of the data fall within 1.96 standard deviations of the mean.

The second piece of our margin of error is the standard deviation of our estimate. We find this by taking the square root of [(our estimate)(1-our estimate)/N], with N being our sample size. It should be intuitive that dividing by our sample size is a good idea — the larger the number of people you’ve talked to, the more precise your estimate will be. That’s just another way of saying that its standard deviation (the average distance from each observation to the mean) will be smaller. Talking to more people means you can more closely pinpoint where the true proportion lies given the data you have.

So, putting those pieces together, we take our estimate (.42), and add/subtract 1.96(standard deviation). Let’s say that you sampled 2000 people. That means our standard deviation is sqrt[(.42)(.58)/2000], or 0.011. Multiplying this by 1.96 gives us .0216. If we subtract that from our estimate, we get .3984. And if we add that to our estimate, we get .4416. And now we’ve constructed a confidence interval for the true amount of support for Pat Buchanan in the population: .3984 to .4416. That means that we’re 95% certain that the true proportion of support, if we asked everyone in the country, for Pat Buchanan would fall between those two numbers. If this were true, I would stab myself in the eyes. The last polling data on Pat Buchanan comes from the 2000 election cycle, but none of them indicate much more than 20% support at that time, and I doubt it’s climbed much given his encouragement of John McCain to go to war on Iran for electoral benefits.

So the next time you’re looking at political polling data, you’ll now be able to think critically about it. Most firms don’t even publish confidence intervals, instead just giving news outlets their point estimates and saying the margin of error is 3 or 4 or whatever number of points. That leaves it up to the public to add and subtract the margins of error from both candidates and see if they overlap, meaning that the race would be too close to call. But with so few people being mathematically-minded or statistically educated, most people take estimates at face value. Stop doing this today and you’ll be well on your way to impressing someone in a political discussion (and winning your way into this cute statistician’s heart.) By the way, the confidence interval for proportion of the time shoulder hair turns me on? 0.00 to 0.01.

categories TEACH ME | Craig | datetime October 27, 2009 7:40 am

139 Comments

  • By David from Brazil, October 27, 2009 @ 8:07 am

    It started out well, I mean I saw “handsome and talented David” and was like ooh, great minds think alike (or at least have similar names), and he IS cute, I cyberstalked his blog the other day. Then I read Kari’s name and I thought “sexy”, then I saw Craig’s reference and I thought “funny”, then I saw all those numbers and my eyes glazed over and my mind wandered and time skidded to a halt. Sry. :) You know I actually graduated as an economist and I hate math? I liked the theoretical area, world history/geography, etc. Then I started to work as a translator, go figure, so now I’m a wordsman I guess, with a long-time boyfriend who works for me and writes too. :) So boo math.

  • By Craig, October 27, 2009 @ 8:29 am

    LOL @ “Even surveying all of Craig’s shoulder hairs would be a daunting proposition.”

    Me and my shoulder hairs don’t need to stand for this! :-P

    Maybe it’s time we got an update from them?

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 8:44 am

    Yesterday I think I copied David’s answer, I’ll repeat today. Ditto.

    It was informative though once I forced myself to focus and got off the Kari is cute, Puntabuschlong bus. We are about to have an election any day (well, maybe not any day but in theory) and our politicians are glued to those poll numbers just waiting for one of them to be in the majority space then boom, we’ll all be running out to vote as they pray that public opinion won’t change in the 6 weeks it takes to run a campaign.

    Oh are we supposed to teach you something now? Ummm. It’s almost Halloween, the history of the jack o’ lantern or the fleshlight with fangs. Hmmm? What would Puntabupeeps like best? Probably this. Be Careful it Bites. The description is funny. There’s something for every fetish out there.

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 9:08 am

    David: In college I had “Statistics For Social Science Majors” which was just as difficult and relevent to actual life as it sounds. But we went over all this then. I recieved an A in the class and haven’t thought about any of this technical stuff in twenty years.

    All I know for certain is that 87% of people think Kari is gorgeous…and the of the others 1% are blind and 12% haven’t seen him.

    Or did I mean to say the Puntabuschlong (my brand new favorite word!)?

    And Tam, that thing is just horrific!

    HUGS….

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 9:41 am

    Oh, and Craiggers, I just used my 40% Borders coupon to get the last two seasons of Queer As Folk on DVD. With it, each one was like $25 bucks! Sweet deal!

    HUGS…

  • By Kimi, October 27, 2009 @ 9:54 am

    It’s wayyyyytoo early for math.

  • By Enrico, October 27, 2009 @ 10:45 am

    I’m all for hair (feat. Frank Mills?) but not on los hombros.
    El pecho? Si.

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 10:52 am

    I had a feeling everyone was going to say “ewww, maaaaaath!” and wield pitchforks at me. :-p

    @Polt: Statistics IS relevant to to everyday life! How do you think we know stuff?

    And Craig, the fact that your shoulder hairs can stand for anything disturbs me greatly. Next thing you know they’re going to be overthrowing the king or colonizing some far-off part of your body. (Let us pray it’s not the Puntabuschlong, which is also my new favorite word.)

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 11:09 am

    I LOVE statistics, I just prefer to leave it to the experts like you to tell me what’s what David. I love my trade stats at work. Pie charts, graphs, it’s all good.

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 11:23 am

    My favorite lessons to teach each year are the ones about all the different graphing methods. You’d be amazed at how many statisticians dive right into analyzing a dataset without making any pictures, missing all sorts of things that will take them hours to sort out later.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 11:30 am

    What if the responses of Craig’s exes are correlated?

    Take that, Central Limit Theorem! I have found your Achilles Heel.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 11:32 am

    I think its time for an intervention. Well not so much an intervention as restraining Craig while we go after his shoulders with wax and/or razors.

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 11:39 am

    Cupcake: Preferably, the wax and razors will be used seperately, cause using them together’s just gonna make one big mess. NOT that I speak from personal experience or anything….

    HUGS…

  • By jere, October 27, 2009 @ 11:39 am

    Political activists like myself know that all the statistical analysis in the world, regardless of how confident we are in the results, is no substitute for hands-on field research. Especially re: the famed Puntabuschlong.

  • By M. Nicodemus, October 27, 2009 @ 11:42 am

    Thanks dcm! It drives me nuts every time I see “statistical data” provided by the media without any of the details to back it up, especially around election time. Seriously, I think some of these news outlets are either taking polls during happy hour at the local cowboy bar, or have Punxsutawney Phil on permanant retainer.

    Tam: You would love this site.

    Enrico & Josh: this one is for you.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 11:52 am

    jere: Good point. We’ll have to take measurements while doing our shoulder hair intervention.

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 11:53 am

    @jere: I completely agree with you about the importance of field research, but even that doesn’t have any use beyond the anecdote if you can’t apply some thoughtful analysis to it. Things like “grounded theory” sociology papers drive me insane.

    @Ryan: Correlation happens between two variables (height and weight, etc.) — all their assessments of the size of the glorious Puntabuschlong are just one variable. The CLT *does* assume that the observations are independent, so if the exes are all talking to one another and saying “subtract a few inches, we’re gonna get Craig good!” then we may have a problem.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 11:59 am

    If I were Craig’s exes, I would coordinate answers so that the distribution looks like a penis.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

    Nico: I do, I LOVE graphjam. Nothing kills time at work better than surfing through some graphs. Some are brilliant, some not so much.

  • By Craig, October 27, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

    Even if they subtract a few inches it’ll still be off the charts.

  • By john, October 27, 2009 @ 12:10 pm

    The only statistic that matters is if 30 Helens Agree.

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 12:28 pm

    Being off the charts because you’re in negative territory isn’t something to celebrate, Craig. ;-p http://www.sadtrombone.com

  • By Mel, October 27, 2009 @ 12:34 pm

    I do so heart confidence intervals.

    Probably the most reliable method for evaluating the size of the Puntabuschlong would be to do a multivariate regression analysis with ambient temperature and state of arousal (for which you’d have to develop a scale – 1 to 10? 1 to 100?) as the independent variables. Then you could determine which contributes more to length and you could effectively predict how long it is at any given time. Just in case you left your tape measure at home.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 12:46 pm

    Craig: You could settle this with a quick trip to the men’s room with your iPhone’s camera.

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

    john: OhmiGOD, get outta my head! I was just THINKING the exact same thing! TKITH freakin’ ROCK!

    Cupcake: The Puntabuschlong may be too long for Craiggers to get in one photo by himself…it might be something that needs to be photographed from a distance to get it all in. I’m only 3.5 hours away by train, so I’ll volunteer my services…just for the sake of clarity, of course!

    HUGS….

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

    And I’m sure Polt would be happy to give Craig a sandwich while he’s there.

  • By Craig, October 27, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

    Yeah, unfortunately the iphone doesn’t come with a wide angle lens.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

    I guess you also need a tape measure.

  • By Mel, October 27, 2009 @ 1:22 pm

    *sigh* WordPress doesn’t like my comment.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

    If it had a link Mel it might tag it as spam then Craig can fix it. I found that happened to me one day.

    I’d think a yardstick should be sufficient Ryan.

  • By Mel, October 27, 2009 @ 1:26 pm

    No links. I just proposed a multivariate regression analysis to predict the size of the Puntabuschlong using ambient temperature and Craig’s state of arousal as the independent variables.

  • By john, October 27, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

    Tam: I hope so, above 36″ and it would be difficult to manage on a day to day basis.

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

    Cupcake: I’m always up for a good sammitch! :)

    Tam: Or a few yardsticks….at least that’s my expectation…

    HUGS…

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

    john: See, there again, be all altruistic like I am, I’d offer to help with that problem. I’m all about the giving…… :D

    HUGS…

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

    1. I get the impression that Craig believes that he needs a tape measure.
    2. Tape measures are less awkward even for sub-yard measurements.

  • By Craig, October 27, 2009 @ 1:33 pm

    Mel: Fixed! Sorry about that.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

    The spam filter didn’t like my post from a while back that consisted entirely of links to band descriptions.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

    Tam: GraphJam hates Twilight.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

    Ryan: Ummm. Yeah, who doesn’t?

    John: I agree, over 36 inches has to be awkward. I’m thinking something along the lines of the Nightmare Before Christmas hill that unrolls itself when needed.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 2:12 pm

    Since we’re talking penises and you guys have more experience owning one and all, someone I know said she read a book where the partner (I think it was a male so think moderate to larger hands) could not get both hands around the base of the other guy’s penis. I thought perhaps he was dating a horse because seriously, put your hands in that position (and I know you’re all doing it because I did) and imagine they can’t fit around a penis. Mutant right? Beyond porn-worthy and into circus freak category no?

    And seriously, how did we turn a thread on math and Kari’s cuteness into mutant penises? How do we do that? Is it a skill that can be learned?

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

    Tam: If we use my hands as a standard of measurement, I don’t think even horses are that girthy. It’s beyond porn worthy because the guy’s partner would have to do some circus freak worthy tricks to do any porn with it, even assuming the guy has enough blood to get an erection without fainting.

    Also, penises are on topic. The Puntabuschlong was part of the original post.

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

    Mel: You are my soulmate. Let’s calculate DFFITS scores sometime? ;-p

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

    Tam: I think that story is an example of things that are a lot more sexy on paper than in the real world.

  • By Mel, October 27, 2009 @ 2:28 pm

    Tam: By base they must have meant hips and ass inclusive. Either that or the guy’s mom took Thalidomide when she was preggers.

    Would got lost in my earlier comment attempts is that to devise a reliably accurate formula we’d need lots and lots and lots of measurements. More data points = narrower confidence interval. Who besides Polt wants to volunteer?

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

    Ryan: I agree, some editor needed to point out that realism does have a place in fiction.

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

    Next Puntabu-get-together? Data collection. Who’s with me?

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

    Mel: Perhaps you’re right, base may have been a vague term. I don’t think Craig would let me near him, girl cooties and all, so I’ll have to leave it to the boys to handle this one. ;-)

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

    Now, I’m curious about the distribution of penis sizes in erotica compared to the distribution of penis sizes in real life. I suspect the mean fantasy penis would be about 1-2 standard deviations above average.

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

    Tam: couldn’t get BOTH hands around the base or EITHER hand? Cause, seriously, not being able to get BOTH hands around it at one time is like, well, scary. Even to me. Now not being able to get ONE hand around the base, well that’s quite impressive, but not an impossibility. I can think of two instances right now where that was the case in my experience. And that doesn’t even include the Puntabuschlong.

    Who knew my knowledge or and experience with whory slutitude would ever come in handy?

    HUGS….

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 2:35 pm

    dcm: awesome idea, defintely worth the trainride. :)

    HUGS…

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

    No Polt it was both hands and was cringeworthy I’m told.

    Ryan: You are right, the deviation may even be higher. Occassionally it is referred to as “average” which is left to you imagination as to what average really is, but it gets a bit eye-roll worthy when every guy is the diameter of a beer can and 9 inches long. Yeah right. Where are these people (besides in Craig’s house)?

    One Saturday afternoon the “penis show” was on the health channel. They asked women on the street what they thought a good size for a penis was and based on hand measurements (holding your hands X inches apart) the average size seemed to be 9-10 inches. I think there were a lot of disappointed ladies out there. So I guess it stands to reason that written fantasy would follow the pattern.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

    Ryan’s Law of Erotica Penis Conservation: In an erotic story with two or more men, any deficit in one of the men in terms of penis length will be compensated for by additional girth such that penis volume is equal for all men.

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

    Cupcake: you are the only person i know who, when reading an erotic story, makes up mathematical properties, and laws and what have you.

    I’m a bit concerned, cause I know intelligence is a turn on for some people, but not when someone is trying to get turned on by erotica.

    HUGS…

  • By Craig, October 27, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

    Asimov’s Three Laws of Penis:

    1. A penis may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    2. A penis must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    3. A penis must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

  • By David from Brazil, October 27, 2009 @ 3:05 pm

    Other than very big (nice to look at but not very practical) or very small, I *rlly* dont think size matters much. It’s what you do with it that counts (and of course, the rest of the package) -snicker-. Package. :)

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

    Polt: The mathematical properties are derived after the main purpose of reading the story is finished.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

    I think I agree with the RLPCP. Usually if one is very long, one is very thick. Hmmm. There’s something to this.

    You been watching I Robot again Craig?

    David in B: Isn’t that what the under-endowed say to justify it? (I kid, I do honestly)

  • By David from Brazil, October 27, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

    I resisted the urge to post the size. I dunno, it felt so.. crass. But it’s pretty decent in my opinion. :)

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

    DinB: Crass? On Puntabulous? Never. Perhaps just a picture. :-D Or a third hand account from your BF.

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

    Cupcake: When I’m reading erotica (and really, with high speed internet available, what’s the need to READ it anymore anyway?), I don’t think I very often got the story finished…before I was finished. And when I did, mathematical properties of what I just read were nowhere NEAR my thoughts. But then, I’m a political science major, what do I know about math anyways?

    Tam: “Usually if one is very long, one is very thick.” I don’t know if this holds true…I can recall several….well, ‘pencils’ that I’ve seen on guys before. And I’ve seen a few…’fire hydrants’, short but thick. Always kinda felt sorry for the latter group…

    HUGS….

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

    DfB: two words my friend: “Prove” and “It.” :)

    HUGS….

  • By David from Brazil, October 27, 2009 @ 3:43 pm

    Well alright. According to my calculator (I had measured in centimeters after all) it is 7.0866 inches. Can’t prove it, but come on. If I was gonna lie i’d make up someth huge right? :)

  • By Craig, October 27, 2009 @ 3:45 pm

    I <3 my blog

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

    DavidfB: I think you have more significant figures that can be justified.

    Apparently, North Koreans are staying in the hotel next to my office.

  • By David from Brazil, October 27, 2009 @ 3:50 pm

    Yeah see, now I feel silly and slightly embarassed :) Anyway. I never asked or told that sort of thing to people I was flirting with through the Internet. Well. Once when I was just starting dating I specifically went out with one guy because he was famous for being well-endowed. It… ahm.. didn’t work out very well. But hey, learn something every day right?

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

    DfB: Perfectly acceptable don’t be embarrassed. We’re all family here. :-)

    To be honest I’m not a huge fan of PwP (Porn without Plot). I need the characters to actually have a brain and some plot and characterization beyond being able to produce copious quantities of ejaculate in a 15 min. period. I have a couple of those books and after 100 pages, 6 of which are comprised of plot it’s burn-out and totally not sexy. Blah blah, who cares, fuck fuck fuck, literally. Next. Maybe it’s a girl thing but reading is for reading porn is for … well, other things.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

    Ryan: They are spying on you and reading your posts as we speak.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

    Tam: While recently reading a gay romance, I found myself skimming the final third of the couple’s first weekend of sexual exploration. By day three, I want more plot than sleep and breakfast.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

    Craig: If you really loved your blog, you would be taking pictures right now.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

    Exactly Ryan. When you are skimming the author has lost you. Yeah, I get it, they’re hot for each other. Now what? I’m curious who the author was. Maybe I’ve read it.

    I just got a crap load of yaoi yesterday from the Book Depository but I got The Fathom’s Five – The Cross of Sins by Geoffrey Knight. It’s supposed to be a really good adventure story.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

    Tam: Caught Running ~ Abigail Roux & Madeleine Urban

  • By josh, October 27, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

    I’m a Pisces and am too sensitive too even existerskatez. Penises lead to relationshitz (at least for me) and therefore are frustrating and make me sad. Booo. I’ma be celibate forevaz.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 4:50 pm

    Oh my, that’s a classic. I’ve read it. Hmmm. Have you read Josh Lanyon? Less sex, more murder. The Ghost Wore Yellow Socks is really good and Somebody Killed His Editor is really funny. Not usually Josh’s style but it’s the start of a series. I think I laughed out loud literally in the first two pages.

    If you like horror/mystery Jordan Castillo Price writes some good ones, the Psycop series is great (I binged one weekend and read 4 in a row) or the Channeling Morpheus/Sweet Oblivion series with Wild Bill and Michael is pretty spooky and bloody (vampires).

  • By Chris D., October 27, 2009 @ 4:50 pm

    I can’t add much to this discussion. But, I can say that when The Argyle Deity wears tight pants his package is prominantly distracting at times. ;) I have never been obsessed with size. Perhaps that is due to certain activities I have not experianced. I always found shape and perkiness to be more of a turn-on for me. The first and thus far only guy I have been with was very well shaped.

    Despite my aesthetic sense, I would rather fall in love with a good guy with an OK cock than a bad guy with an amazing appendage. I know I need much more than physicality.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

    Hang in there Josh. Someday your prince will come. Or so they tell me.

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

    @Josh: I think you’re on to something, there. I can think of a lot of times I wished I had remained a little more priestly (ha…that’s a big assumption, a celibate priest). And being sensitive isn’t a bad thing — at least not to the good guys like me.

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

    Sassy josh: Penises (penii?) don’t HAVE to lead to realationships, AND I’m pretty sure you won’t be celebate forever, AND if you want proof of BOTH those statements…just let me know. I’m only a trainride away. :)

    Cupcake and Tam: See when we were talking about erotica, I immediately thought porn, not romance. I myself have enjoyed a gay romance-ish novel or two in my time. And then, plot is all important. However, in porn, plot’s not necessary. Hell, in visual porn, words aren’t even necessary. And sometimes, they’re not necessary in real life sex either……just sayin’….

    HUGS….

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

    dcm: oooh, sensitive good guys are fun. Especidally depending on where they’re sensitive. Bah-da-BUM! Thanks folks, I’m here all night.

    HUGS….

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

    Polt: Definitely a difference between the two, but for me visual porn without words is BORING. And subtitles don’t cut it.

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

    I think we’re nearing a discussion of the ways in which the overt sexuality of the gay community marginalizes and alienates some members.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

    I agree with Tam: porn without plot tends to be boring. It doesn’t need much plot, but it needs something to distinguish it from all the other porn out there.

    Although, it isn’t boring if I find the participants hot from previous work. I guess then I can make my own plot.

  • By Chris D., October 27, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

    Tam: I wonder if that is a male/female difference. I don’t need dialog in porn, and bad dialog can actually be a big turnoff.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

    Not necessarily dialogue Chris but total silence is weird. At least let me know you’re liking it. When all is silent you expect speech bubbles to pop up and some guy on an old timey piano to chime in with some background music. And it’s very likely a girl thing. :-)

  • By Chris D., October 27, 2009 @ 5:28 pm

    DCM: the level of overt sexuality in the gay community was a BIG turn off for me for a long time. I attended a coming out support group and had to work through a lot of my hangups. I am not promiscuous. I can’t have intimacy with strangers, and that is what I desire. However I want to avoid being sexophobic. It is a normal part of life, and I do belive that it is a part of building a relationship. When I meet the right guy I will want to be intimate with him, but for me it would be a part of deeper path. I do not hookup, I have been tested, and held to my values. Now, I try to be more open minded about the people in the gay community who are more permiscuous. To each his own. I am only the master and commander of the ship of my own destiny. (on iPhone sorry if spelling suxers)

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

    well said Chris D. And the spelling on your iPhone is better than the spelling from my laptop…with a spellcheck. :)

    HUGS…

  • By Enrico, October 27, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

    M. Nico: LOL! Exactly. “Song.”

    I think size does matter in a way. If it’s too small, they’ll probably be self-conscious and then act insecure. Confidence is the number one thing I look for. And often, that correlates to da p33n.

    I’ve only seen cuatro p33ns in real life (whore?) and the smallest one was siete.

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

    I completely agree, Chris. Everybody is looking for different things at different points in their life, and who am I to try to restrict someone else from fulfilling a bodily desire. But there’s a difference between fulfilling those desires and openly advertising with every form of communication that you’re available and willing for random hook-ups. I know that it’s intended as a joke around here, and I’ve participated in my own way, but it gets tiresome for someone who would like to believe that there are guys out there who are looking for the kind of true intimacy you’re talking about. Other than me, lol. I just spend a lot of time thinking about the stereotypes with which gay people get labeled (and coming from the South I’ve heard the worst of them), and am very conscious when we actively reinforce them — like by proclaiming to the world that we’re totally okay with lots and lots of meaningless sex.

  • By Chris D., October 27, 2009 @ 5:37 pm

    Tam: I agree, I am not a fan of silence in porn. I find some music in porn interesting. I that well done porn with powerfull music can be a very expressive art form. I often thought it would be cool to have a sexual soundtrack when I meet the right guy. Perhaps that would seem to choreographed. Good sex needs to be responsive and can’t always be timed to songs. I do however have what I think is a really good mid-orgasmic mantra in my mind to share with just the right person at the right moment. I hope I get to use it one day. :)

  • By Enrico, October 27, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

    Chris: You’re talking about “Keep Singing My Song” right!?

    And while I don’t have sex (unless David is the one defining my vida de sexo), I talk a lot when kissing! I’ll start kissing someone, then be like, “Oh yeah, in class today, blah blah blah.” I do it all the time. My friends are like “That would be annoying” but no one’s ever complained!

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

    Speaking only for myself, I can say that I take everything said here as a joke and for fun. I mean, that’s what Puntabulous is all about, after all. But if someone would be “toally okay with lots and lots of meaningless sex” then how does that affect someone else’s life at all, unless that someone else is being forced into meaningless sex. If we’re going to worry about reinforcing negative stereotypes, perhaps we should avoid the one where gays only care about large phalluses. Coining the term Puntabuschlong, while funny, could also play into negative stereotypes and labeling someone.

    Frankly, in my opinon (for what it’s worth) people need to lighten up and enjoy life instead of worrying about what other people think of them. Enrico had it right, confidence is majorly attractive, not obsessive concern with what others think of you or what you do.

    HUGS…

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 5:47 pm

    Enrico: You measured them all?

  • By josh, October 27, 2009 @ 5:48 pm

    This conversation is making me feel worse and worse about myself. I don’t want my sexual preference to even need such long discussions. I’m fucked up enough dealing with my own issues and then to have there be these stereotypes and pseudo-expectations put on how I am supposed to act is utterly frustrating. I constantly am in fear of having my past sexual experiences define who I am as a person, by others, but more specifically by myself, which hurts ten times more. Fuck.

    [this has to be the most serial post I have ever written, anywhere, ever.]

  • By Chris D., October 27, 2009 @ 5:49 pm

    Enrico: I like guys who are confident enough not to need to brag about how big their dick is. Sometimes too much confidence can make some one cocky. I like a guy who is confident, but also not afraid to be vulnrable at times. Sharing insecurities can be a part of real intimacy.

  • By Enrico, October 27, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

    Yes, yes, very true Polt. Just because you don’t personally believe in something, doesn’t mean you should talk bad about it (unless it’s Lady GaGa!)

    You all know that no, oh, oh, I do not hook uh, uh, up (I fall deep), but while I don’t personally identify with Polt’s sexual choices, I still respect that it is a POSSIBLE choice and isn’t ‘better’ than any other. And Polt’s right; if both parties aren’t looking for meaningful sex, then who is being harmed?

    But Polt, Puntabuschlong doesn’t enforce stereotypes… it’s just a nod to the awesomeness that is Craig.
    And now that Craig and I have compared (remember when everyone was paying for karaoke and Craig and I disappeared?) I think it’s time all the attention is on ME. Thanks!

  • By Enrico, October 27, 2009 @ 5:53 pm

    Ryan: Since I was actually WITH each person, I saw each one on several occasions and we talked about size. Doesn’t everybody?

  • By Enrico, October 27, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

    Speaking of gays: LOL!!!!!!

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 6:00 pm

    Ah, Enrickyricardo….what’s that saying, the wisdom that comes out of the mouths of babes? (and there was no sexual innuendo meant anywhere in that statement). :)

    HUGS…

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

    I would never presume to judge anyone else’s choices, nor would I condone anyone doing so. (Hello, atheism.) But when we make a message so pervasive as to give people the impression that it’s the only valid choice, that’s when red flags start getting raised for me. It’s the “pseudo-expectations,” as Josh put it, that we’re reinforcing. And I think there’s a distinction to be made between the size queen stereotype, which acts within our own community, and the stereotype of meaningless promiscuity, which has been perverted by conservatives over and over again to paint us as threats to the stability of society. You don’t see Anita Baker running around saying “Gays can’t teach in our public schools because they only sleep with people with huge cocks!”

  • By Craig, October 27, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

    OMG! That album cover is awful!

    Almost as awful as losing Enrico and I’s contest :-(

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 6:03 pm

    Chris D.: Cockiness is often a sign of insecurity. Confidence doesn’t need the reassurance of bravado.

  • By Chris D., October 27, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

    Josh: I think it would be of great benefit for you to work through your concerns. Either a therapist and/or a support group can be of great help. It helped me. I don’t like to see you in pain over these issues. You don’t have to suffer. I beleve that people can change, because I changed so many of my own negative thoughts and feelings over the years. You are young and it is OK to feel lost sometimes. You will find your way. If this thread really hurts you then do what you need to do. Stop reading this thread if that helps. You are the master and commander of the ship of your destiny. You can sail where you choose.

  • By jere, October 27, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

    DCM, interesting that you think overt sexuality is the problem message within the community. I feel strongly that the balance (at least on the coasts – and this is a regional issue) has shifted in the other direction, that we’re too hung up on assimilationist “we’re just like you” “don’t rock the boat” image projection for political gains that we’ve alienated the genuinely (and I use this word now in a broad context) queer. People who are unabashedly interested in fetish communities or gender subversion or any non-normative sexual/gender expression are told to stop making “the normal gays” look bad. We’ve begun to fetishize “str8-acting” and “guy next door” behaviors to the exclusion and alienation of those who do not and cannot meet those expectations

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

    That’s an interesting point, Jere, and I think there’s a balance somewhere that we haven’t yet struck. Mainly because our political and legal system hasn’t allowed us the freedom to define our own space in ways that are inclusive of everyone in our community. I think discussions like this are normal for any restricted minority, and are a symptom of what we have to change. The question becomes what’s the best way to gain that acceptance so that we *can* define ourselves in our own way. And I think I sometimes too quickly fall on the assimilationist side because of my own prejudices against behaviors that I can’t understand. I need to be more cognizant of your argument on a daily basis.

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

    I got comment 100! No more complaining from Craig that we don’t comment.

  • By Chris D., October 27, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

    Jere: that is a good point. In the coming out support group our facilitator made us aware of spectrum of the gay community. He was into the leather scene himself. Now that I am on the board of the Pride Center we always try to balance the concerns of all the different aspects of the GLBTIQ umbrella, including the fetish communities. It has helped to keep me open minded.

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

    dcm, I believe you meant Anita Bryant. Anita Baker is a musician. but if you don’t make a big deal out of my spelling errors, I’ll not dwell on a momentarily celebrity misname. :)

    I don’t really give a crap what the Anita Bryants and her ilk think about me and my life. I don’t think about her or her life at all. I’m not going to live my life so that I don’t upset someone’s impression of the way I, or anyone, should be.

    I’m not meaning to be condescending here, but I don’t know how old you are, I imagine it’s younger than my (almost) 42 years. I remember being younger and concerned about things like what others thought of me. But as I’ve aged, I realized I shouldnt, and don’t give a flying fig. Life is too short for me to worry about what some religious wingnut thinks about me. It’s not as if every single gay man in the world suddenly became celebate, it would change thier minds, or how they feel about us, or how they feel about our rights. They’re against us, and going to be, no matter what we do simpy because we exist. I don’t feel the need to give them power over me.

    But, look, we’ve upset Sassy josh, and brought this otherwise funny and entertaining post down to a morose level. Let’s just agree to disagree and get back to the Puntabufun!

    And really, I meant no disrespect about the Puntabuschlong comment, cause really, that made me laugh out loud in my office when I read it, and it does even now.

    HUGS…

  • By Chris D., October 27, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

    Apparently Craig’s equipment just need to be mentioned and we all go nuts with the comments. This is quite an intersting thread. It went from very sexual to philosohpical and now mildly political.

  • By Craig, October 27, 2009 @ 6:22 pm

    I have that effect on people ;-)

  • By Enrico, October 27, 2009 @ 6:22 pm

    Polt: I agree! Back to the fun (aka, why doesn’t anyone care that Craig and I finally compared?!)

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

    Very sexual, philosophical and mildly political….man, if we could just condense all these comments into a man, I’d marry on the spot (if we were in three or so states here), cause that sounds like my dream guy. :) Oh, and he should have longish hair too. :)

    HUGS…

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

    Enrickyricardo: we don’t care cause we didn’t get to see the comparing taking place.

    HUGS…

  • By Craig, October 27, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

    Seriously, enough politics, more dong comparing!

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

    Amen Craiggers! Amen!

    HUGS….

  • By dcm, October 27, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

    Anita Bryant! Whoops. :-p

    I’m completely on the same page about the Puntabufun, but I think you’re misunderstanding something key about what I’m saying. I’m not concerned about what wingnuts or others think about me, personally. But I am concerned about how perceptions of the gay community dictate legal and institutional structures that keep us oppressed. There’s a big difference in saying “I make my own choices, fuck off,” and saying “I don’t care what you think of the community to which I belong.” I’ll shout the former from the rooftops, but we have to understand that judgments about our entire community are what they use to maintain our second-class citizenship. That was Harvey Milk’s whole argument about the need to come out — once we make it about personal decisions people join us much more forcefully. But if we stay in the shadows and leave the public discourse about us to stereotypes and corrupt moral judgments, we’re going to continue to get beaten down.

    It’s all about power relationships. We’re required to think about what Anita Bryants and the like think of our community because we haven’t yet won our equality. We shouldn’t have to defend our individual actions to them, but until we move to a point where we’re treated equally in institutional spaces, we have to think about how we’re being characterized as a group.

    Okay. No more from me on this topic. And yay that we can have serious discussions and all still be friends!

    And Josh, we all love you! Nobody should be defined by prior choices, and if you run across people who do judge you based on them, you should know that they aren’t anywhere near being in your league. I don’t want to steal Polt’s signature HUGS… thing, so I’ll just give you a friendly ::snuggle:: instead.

  • By Chris D., October 27, 2009 @ 6:30 pm

    I thought we all just assumed that Craig and Enrico were hung like hamsters and stuff their shorts with socks. Feel free to prove us wrong guys. ;)

  • By Polt, October 27, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

    “if you run across people who do judge you based on them, you should know that they aren’t anywhere near being in your league.” Well said, dcm, very well said! you listening, Sassy josh?

    I could go on with this dicussion (and I LOVE debating nearly any topic usually until the other person just gives up in frustration, but this clearly isn’t the forum for it), but since we’re discussing comparing organs, I’ve lost interest. :)

    *shiny bauble, shiny bauble*

    See, FDot and Jere, I told you guys that’s all it took. :)

    HUGS….

  • By David from Brazil, October 27, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

    Heh, way to turn all serious all of a sudden. Where here’s a perspective from way South. Brazilian society is very progressive unless you actually ask them what they think about something. There is a lot of silent progress around here, and in a big metropolis like São Paulo it’s easier to be out or talk about it, while at the same time there is a fringe element (neonazi and their ilk) who can be dangerous. Most I think couldn’t really care less about what others do in bed, as the main focus for “popular” conversation is neither cultural or politics – its the economy. Most people are intensely worried about jobs, money, security, etc and political participation is very low – which is why politicans here can get away with a lot, unfortunately, because only a small elite layer of the population keeps them in check. The media is very open and critical of power (no “Fox news” around these parts), but not everyone keeps themselves well-informed. Lastly, thank goodness, the religious aspect is kept reasonably at bay. There is a traditional and historic catholicism, which is not very politically involved or combative (rarely will you see some priest go out on TV or whatnot to rail against the evil “gays”), and an evangelical component, which I believe is more interested in extracting money and power from its “faithful followers” than anyth else.
    Anyway I got lost. Where was I? oh yes. Peen comparisons. I want the next puntabulous meeting to have pictures and graphs!

  • By David from Brazil, October 27, 2009 @ 6:58 pm

    ooh, it strikes me that I finally taught you guys something. Well about Brazil and about me. :)

  • By David from Brazil, October 27, 2009 @ 7:01 pm

    Cliff notes version: the average Brazilian cares about a) how much money he has/makes and b) how he’s going to spend it. The culture wars afoot in America make no sense here, and the idea of an “oversexualized” gay community is silly to me. What makes us gay? The kind of sex we do. Therefore, sex is a big part of being gay. Plus, men are sex-addicted pigs. There ya have it. Deep insight! :)

  • By The Ryan with the Cupcake, October 27, 2009 @ 7:05 pm

    David from Brazil: It’s not just the sex we have. Who you sleep with doesn’t define your sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about both who you want to fuck and who you want to love.

  • By David from Brazil, October 27, 2009 @ 7:21 pm

    Oh come on Ryan. You really think that you had to add that? That I didnt know what love is, only sex? I kid a lot here, and I *do* have a dirty, dirty mind, but I’m pretty sure I know what love is. I’m 29 and have been with the same person – monogamous and living together for almost 11 years. I barely went out before that, and had sex with a grand total of 3 people before my boyfriend. So yeah. Being gay is about sex AND love, of *course*.

  • By Chris D., October 27, 2009 @ 7:27 pm

    Gee Craig and Enrico sure got quiet. ;)

  • By Xi_Heather, October 27, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

    Well dang, I should have read this earlier today because CONFIDENCE INTERVALS! Hey, I taught that this morning! But now the conversation’s drifted off into different territory….

    Still, I can contribute the observation that one of the more interesting articles I ever read about confidence intervals discussed (seriously) the difficulty of getting a good confidence interval for penis size. After pointing out the difficulty of self-reporting (and the observation that those concerned with penis size should make a concerted effort at getting people to self-report smaller-than-actual values, which will lead to a smaller “average” and allow more people can claim to be bigger than average) it went into detail about how the one group that really NEEDS a good confidence interval is condom manufacturers, and went on to discuss how they got a sample. I believe it involved spring break, Florida, and people drunk enough to allow someone else to measure them.

    (I occasionally bring this up in teaching, but I have to talk fast and skip lots of words so that I reach the main point before I realize how embarrassed I am to be talking about it, though I think it’s one of the more interesting real-life examples.)

  • By Craig, October 27, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

    Sorry me and Enrico got all quite. I’ve been taking some “vitamins” and demanded a recount :-P

  • By TwoPi, October 27, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

    Penises and Statistics reminds me…

    A few summers ago, I was teaching a class in “How to teach AP Statistics”. My students were five returning adult students, working on a masters degree in math education. They were a hoot and a half, as (no doubt) someone’s great aunt used to say.

    Anyways, in the midst of some discussion or other, one of the ladies in the class mentioned the topic of the typical measurement of male reproductive anatomy. (I think we were talking about sources of bias in surveys, and the problems of self-reported data came up. I think I mentioned the Kinsey report and its claims re: the frequency of sexual activity, which led to…)

    Anyways, when they all went off for a break, I did a google search to see what I could find out about how scientists determine the typical length of male genitalia. One of the more promising links was to a site that was gathering data using the internet, and offered to show graphs of all sorts of statistics (length vs girth, length vs ethnicity, etc…).

    I was considering the idea of showing the site to my class, when I got to the bottom of the webpage: “Methodology”. Naturally, for such measurements to be meaningful, it is important for everyone to do their measurements the same way. So the page gave detailed instructions on how to measure penis length and girth.

    What kept me from using this page in class: the instructions were illustrated with vivid, life-size photographs. And at that point, I had the sense that the page existed merely to serve as a forum for the guy in the photos. (I wonder if he ever sold a tea kettle on ebay?)

    MORAL: If you’re using the internet as part of a presentation in front of an audience, NEVER do a google search or navigate to a page unless you’ve checked it out in advance.

  • By TwoPi, October 27, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

    SECOND MORAL: You can’t trust what a dude says about his thang unless he posts life-size photos of it on the internet.

  • By Chris D., October 27, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

    TwoPi: And even then it can be photo-shopped. ;)

  • By Enrico, October 27, 2009 @ 8:42 pm

    We got quiet cause you guys weren’t talking about us enough.

    TwoPi: I love when my teachers click on inappropriate links by accident! My teacher once clicked on a link IN HIS SYLLABUS, that accidentally led to porn. Oops.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

    Wow, I go out for dinner with the ladies and what happens, you guys get all political and serious on me. Can’t leave you boys alone for a minute.

    Obviously as a straight girl I can’t comment on a gay lifestyle or sexual practices. As a Canadian I can comment on things like yes, everyone in Canada can get married to whomever you like (not counting your dog or your sister – we let Alabama have that one), we have hate crime legislation that clearly states based on sexual orientation, we have the charter of rights and freedoms which doesn’t allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation. We’re not perfect, yes gay bashing happens sometimes, but I hope we’re getting there. Most Canadians likely don’t care what/who people sleep with, but don’t want to see it either. They prefer not to think about it most often.

    I work in a pretty progressive government department and probably bureau. My colleague in the next office is gay and told me about his partner my first day in the division, there is another guy who is gay and I finally figured out why Mary Beth looked familiar, it’s because I knew her as Murray last year. I don’t think there will ever be acceptance by 100% of the population, there’s always someone who hates someone for something be it color or gender or sexual orientation, which I think seems to be and ugly side of human nature.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 9:41 pm

    Congrats on being 100 Ryan.

  • By Michelle M., October 27, 2009 @ 10:20 pm

    130 comments! We must be talking about penis!

  • By jere, October 27, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

    Not just any penis, Michelle, the famed Puntabuschlong! Which, according to the latest rumors, ain’t nuthin’ once you’ve seen the elusive Enrico-meat.

  • By Tam, October 27, 2009 @ 11:10 pm

    Yay, Michelle is back. Hope your move went smoothly Michelle and you love your new home.

  • By Michelle M., October 27, 2009 @ 11:18 pm

    Thanks Tam! Now that I have internet and tv, everything’s swell.

  • By dcm, October 28, 2009 @ 1:22 am

    134 comments and none of them from Kari, Object of My Devotion. ::sigh::

  • By TwoPi, October 28, 2009 @ 5:02 am

    Enrico: I’d laugh, but I don’t want to tempt the Fates. But it is hard to imagine how such a “mistake” creeps into your syllabus.

    I can just see the student evaluations at the end of the term: “He should show porn in class more often…”, or “My favorite part of the class was when we read the syllabus…”

  • By mkf, October 28, 2009 @ 6:49 am

    i read and enjoy you, but never comment–seeing as how my particular brand of neurotic darkness is so completely incompatible with all the lighthearted dorkiness that generally goes on here, i figure, why spoil things?

    tonight (prolly because i’m a little shitfaced), i’m gonna make an exception, because here’s the thing about buchanan: yeah, he’s ultra-conservative; and yeah, he’s probably a nazi sympathizer; and yeah, he’d undoubtedly love to throw all us homogays into concentration camps and fill our every orifice with concrete–believe me, i understand all that.

    what i also understand–and what most liberals either don’t, or won’t–is, he’s also a very shrewd, observant student of history, and has drawn some very compelling parallels between the fall of past so-called eternal empires, and what’s now happening to ours.

    in other words: yeah, he can be an asshole, but he can also be (and quite often is) right.

    [excuse me now while i crawl back into my bunker at ruby ridge, adjust my tinfoil hat and await the invasion of the black helicopters]

  • By Polt, October 28, 2009 @ 8:55 am

    Tam: And your extended comment is just ONE reason why Canada ROCKS and why I want to live there.

    Michelle M.: Yay, you made it!

    HUGS…

  • By M. Nicodemus, October 28, 2009 @ 12:11 pm

    Damn! I get busy at work and miss all the debates, I am sad now. And Josh, remember that for every a-hole that pre-judges you based on rando past hook-ups there are at least a dozen Puntapeople here who love you for being the Sassy Josh you are. Let me see, Polt has HUGS, dcm took ::snuggle::… how about I give you a friendly *goose* :)

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

WordPress Themes