1. Health
Cory Silverberg

Thoughts on a Campus Dildo Controversy: Sexuality, Power, and Privilege

By March 3, 2011

Follow me on:

Northwestern University professor John Michael Bailey is worried about what people will say about his on campus sex toy demonstration where two people used a sex toy (called a "fucksaw") as part of the after-class lecture series he curates.

So what's the problem?

The particular reasons Bailey is worried expose his deeply problematic understanding of sexuality, power and privilege. It isn't the first time Bailey has demonstrated a lack of understanding of these issues, and the impact they have on the lives of others (see Madeline Wyndzen's critique of Bailey's ill-conceived and poorly researched book, and Alice Dreger's extensive and fascinating account of the controversy which followed it's publication).

This time, let's start with the statement that Bailey sent to the 600 students in his human sexuality class and read out loud during a class. In it, Bailey describes his own experience of being "silenced" because of his research, and suggests that he let the dildo demonstration happen because to do otherwise would be to give in to "sex negativity." In response to his imagined critics who (if they were speaking up) might presumably say this kind of demonstration is harmful, he says this:

"Sticks and stones may break your bones, but watching naked people on stage doing pleasurable things will never hurt you."

How could he, or anyone, say something like this? Well, being an essentialist helps. But if you live in this world and you care about other people and their experience then you know that context matters. There is NOTHING that you can say will never hurt someone. This statement is making a universal claim about sex, pleasure, and experience. You can't do that because experience is always particular, always belongs to a person, a place, and a time. Our experience of something like watching two people on stage having sex is situated in other experiences of things like race, class, gender, embodiment, to name just a few. To be plain, I can think of lots of people who would experience what happened on stage as not only painful, but maybe even assaultive (it is worth noting that the "fucksaw" is actually a dildo attached to a reciprocating saw). Watching this demonstration might actually hurt someone. To suggest otherwise is to engage in a denial of others lived experience on an epic scale. Perhaps it's true that Professor Bailey would never experience this as harmful. But the world is not actually made up of a billions of Professor Bailey's.

This isn't a reason to ban such demonstrations on college campuses. I'm not suggesting that should be the response to Bailey's ridiculous statement. And I acknowledge that people might have chosen to leave the room before the demonstration had they thought it would be bad, dangerous, or unsafe for them to stay. But the idea that giving a warning means that everyone who stays has expressed their free and informed consent to be part of whatever comes next is a gross oversimplification of the very nature of consent and choice and, again, obliterates the context, in this case the subtle power dynamics of a college campus, not only as they relate to sex (in public and private) but also between professors and students. I'm not saying that on the one hand you've got consent and on the other coercion. Nor am I suggesting that professors (whoever they are) have 'the power' and students (whoever they are) have none. What I'm suggesting is that if Bailey had a more complicated understanding of power, privilege, and sexuality these kinds of events could be more thoughtful, educational, and safer for everyone. p>

In perfect PR fashion, Bailey has tried to "get out in front" of the controversy he anticipates by setting the terms of the debate, suggesting that he is sex positive and his detractors are motivated by only one thing: sex negativity.

He is suggesting that since it was pleasure on stage, everything must be okay, and anyone who suggests otherwise is engaging in censorship. But being sex positive doesn't mean everything is okay all the time. Being sex positive, in part, includes acknowledging that sexuality is a site of both tremendous pleasure but also pain which is something that becomes apparent when you pay attention to experiences and their contexts. Sure being sex positive means supporting the inclusion of more voices into public and private discussions of sexuality. But giving those voices a stage is not enough: a million diverse voices on a stage isn't a discussion--it's a spectacle.

So being sex positive also means listening and having inclusive conversations (that other meaning of the word 'intercourse') By casting any opposition to his events as sex negative, Bailey is preempting a conversation and is certainly not listening to students who might disagree with his particular constructions of sexuality, sexual pleasure, and the most productive modes for thinking about them.

Which brings me to the last point I want to make. In his statement (and, one presumes, in his everyday teaching) Bailey is not only silencing his students or anyone who would critique his way of thinking, he is engaging in an erasure of modes of pleasure, the opposite of what one would hope from a human sexuality professor. How is he doing this? Let's remember the context.

Bailey, we're told, has won a lot of teaching awards. His class, we're told, is very popular. Aside from the general power and privilege he experiences as someone read as white and male, he's someone with particular power around discourses of sexuality on the Northwestern campus. And he's inviting us lowly undergraduates to a special after class lecture where "real people' tell us about what's really happening with sex. He claims that he does this so students can see what sexual pleasure looks like. But what he's actually doing is carefully curating a kind of token sexual identity freak show.

Here's the sex offender (this is what a sex offender looks like!). Here's a swinger (see the swingers swing!). I don't mean to sound facetious but it's a kind of dated and lazy understanding of sexuality and sexual pleasure which really has no place in human sexuality courses. There are other ways of talking about sexual pleasure and engaging students (who let's not forget are "real people" themselves, perhaps with their own diverse experiences of sexual pleasure). Trotting out the panel of people to essentially be gawked at (as Eli Clare reminds us, gawking doesn't only take place at a zoo or a formal freak show, it happens in everyday life) may be something that's still commonly practiced among sex educators. But that doesn't make it educational, useful, or right.

Comments
March 4, 2011 at 1:04 pm
(1) The MamaSutra says:

early yesterday morning I was giving KUDOS to Northwestern University for supporting the faculty member in this situation. Th key words about this story are “after class”, “optional”. The reporter in the MSNBC clip I saw called it a “sex act, involving a naked woman and a sex toy”. Why not just say it’s a woman using a toy to pleasure herself? I like that the students were “shocked, but still [found it] educational.” And I think it’s important to note, most of the uproar about this topic is coming from people who were NOT present in the demonstration. I think any students present who may have been shocked merely reflect our society’s fear of sex.
I’m sorry you feel that way Cory. I disagree that it was inappropriate. I think there’s a lot to be learned from seeing something like this in this venue. Where else would a person have the oppty? Most places that have something like that are too shady for most people to comfortably attend (especially women). I’m a clinical sexologist and 98% of the people I meet who know my career choice want to talk about their experiences or have questions about sex. Sex is often viewed as shameful but yet most adults (college kids included) are doing “it”. Tell you the truth, I’m more interested in hearing why you feel so strongly about it.

March 4, 2011 at 3:18 pm
(2) The MamaSutra says:

I’m sorry Cory. I should not have added that last sentence. As I read it again I sound like I’m attacking you personally. My apologies. :)

My colleague Charlie Glickman, PhD recently put this clip in his blog on this topic. I think there’s nothing like a well placed video clip. :) Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLKMQtfZLUw&feature=embed_signin

March 4, 2011 at 3:46 pm
(3) sexuality says:

Thanks for your comment. You’re absolutely right to be pointing out the ways that the media coverage is both sex negative and reflective of the double standards we find in the dominant culture around sex and gender. I stopped reading after a few articles, but would expect no better, sadly.
To clarify my point, I didn’t actually say I thought this was inappropriate. I don’t think, per se, having a demonstration like this is a problem. I don’t even say in my post that I think this particular event was a problem. I wasn’t there, I don’t know how it went down.

In this post what I’m taking issue with is Bailey’s response, and how it reflects the kind of tokenism which is pervasive in the way mainstream sex education and clinical sexology construct ideas of sexual diversity and sexual pleasure.
(continued below)

March 4, 2011 at 3:47 pm
(4) sexuality says:

I guess I feel so strongly about it because I care. Because when I read this story and hear people in positions of power and privilege say things like like: “watching naked people on stage doing pleasurable things will never hurt you” I actually do feel silenced. I think of myself and I think of my friends, colleagues, allies, and the countless others who are being told the right way to be is to go with this, it’s pleasure after all. I think of those of us who have experienced sexual violence, I think of those of us who because of systemic marginalization based on race or class or gender or sexual orientation or embodiment or age don’t feel like they can stand up in a lecture hall and walk out. This notion that we’re all equal and we all have the same power is nonsense. That may be the way we want the world to be, but it ain’t the way the world is. I may be making a subtle argument, but that doesn’t make it less valuable.

Thanks again, I really do appreciate you taking the time to comment. I find blogging an comment threads are not actually a very good way to connect with people and ideas, so I hope that my comment hasn’t made my meaning even cloudier! Best, Cory

p.s. I didn’t read your last line as a personal attack, but that just goes to show you how tricky this kind of conversation is to have in spaces like this.

March 8, 2011 at 1:59 pm
(5) Helper says:

You may be making a subtle argument? You may think so, but it doesn’t seem subtle at all.

You apparently reserve the right to say that [anything-at-all] might be assaultive [sic], or “harmful” to someone. There is nothing, according to you, which can be claimed to be harmless to everyone.

That being the case, what follows?
Not bans, heavens no.
Just claims.

Like Bailey. Just claims.

The production “erases,” “silences,” “harms,” you claim. On the basis of, not his production, but his claim that the production will be necessarily harmless. Nice judo!

But if I have a choice (and I do) between Bailey’s claim that one won’t be harmed by viewing [some public sex act] and your counter claim that to even assert harmlessness is to assault and silence people, it’s an easy choice.

Your claim generalizes to a license to shut out and ignore the world. Bailey’s claim (even though it might be wrong!), opens the world and says “don’t fear.”

Even some who “have experienced sexual violence” might choose the latter claim and reject your implied right to speak on their behalf.

March 8, 2011 at 9:40 pm
(6) Missedtheboat says:

@Helper

You rather assiduously proved the subtlety of Cory’s argument. Unfortunately, you did so by demonstrating, quite clearly, that you did not understand it.

The notion that Cory’s argument is that “nothing is harmless to everyone, so we can’t talk about anything” is shortsighted, misinformed, and delivered quite spitefully. (Then again tone isn’t always clear in this format).

I believe it is fair to confine this concept of “potentially offensive” to already sensitive spheres. I think we can all agree that privileging a philological analysis of Apollodorus to a Deconstructionist reading will not damage the delicate fabric of emotional well-being. However, observing a production which I would imagine blends somewhat the relationship between sexuality and violence could absolutely cause some anguish given the diversity of experience belonging to those in attendance.

Even still, Cory doesn’t seem to be suggesting that the production was a mistake, or bad, or inherently evil. What he appears to be saying, with great merit in my humble opinion, is that a human being just might find that they are uncomfortable with that kind of display. To tell them that they are therefore sex negative and somehow detracting from healthy discourse is to make them feel, at least slightly, the villain. In that sense, you can absolutely see the potential for erasure, silencing, or harm. Exerting pressure to be nonconformist isn’t all too different from exerting pressure to conform.

A student who was made uncomfortable by this display has every right to be uncomfortable. They are equally entitled to question the value of the production as well as the methodology employed. To deny them their own opinion is inappropriate.

(At least I think that’s what Cory was saying. My apologies if I overstepped in my interpretation)

March 9, 2011 at 2:12 am
(7) Alex says:

If you’re so concerned about us poor little helpless students then why don’t you ask one of us how we feel? I can tell you for a fact that not a single student who stayed afterclass (AFTER-CLASS!!!) for the optional (OPTIONAL) talk (a VERY small portion of which was the fucksaw demonstration) had anything bad to say about it. In fact, I found it rather fascinating. Not because a woman had a dildo on a saw thrust into her, but because I was amazed someone would actually want to do that. No one there was hurt. No one there was coerced into staying. Everyone there was happy to be there.

March 9, 2011 at 2:16 am
(8) Me again says:

“Bailey is not only silencing his students or anyone who would critique his way of thinking, he is engaging in an erasure of modes of pleasure …” really? Have you been to a class? Have you ever spoken to him? Do you have any idea who you’re talking about?
The fact is that Bailey encourages comments, feedback, dissension and all other forms of dialogue. He is fully happy to give is own opinion on some matters, and is entirely happy to hear other people’s. In a 600 person class, Bailey here’s more from the students than some 30 or 40 person classes manage.
In fact, when students don’t give him feedback he’ll outright ask for it.
And as for the different lifestyles or sexual talks. The reason he brings out different people to talk about their unique lifestyles (see swingers swing or something like that?) is because they have a kind of sex that most people don’t have. Shocking? Nope, just another way of life. People ask questions not to gawk but because other people (probably people like you) don’t want to give students who are curious the chance to learn about these other ways of life. Problem? I think not.

March 9, 2011 at 8:06 am
(9) Helper says:

“Have you been to a class? Have you ever spoken to him?”

That… is not necessary. The proof has been given.

1) Prof said things like this* can’t hurt you.
2) But anything could hurt someone.
3) Ergo, Prof is harming (and silencing) the students.

The beauty is, you don’t actually have to know anything about the events or the participants to buy into this charade. It works for all values of this*. That we’re dealing with sexual matters here is actually irrelevant. Literally anything could be substituted and all of the same claims could be made. If a Prof makes a statement, he[!] shuts you up, cuz he has authority. Yes, subtle close argument.

And, is it just me, or are the goalposts in motion? “Could,” “potential,” “every right to be uncomfortable?” No only are we not dealing with subtlety here, we aren’t really dealing with argument.

March 9, 2011 at 11:06 am
(10) zelmar10 says:

Ridiculous! The demonstration itself, an exercise in professorial ego (see how controversial I can be….you sure won’t find lectures like this in your Physics Class!) and crass showmanship (step right up, see the 2-headed calf, and the woman who orgasms with a reciprocating saw)!

And really, what is there to be learned here? That power tools are, well, powerful? That genital stimulation can induce an orgasm? That some individuals enjoy the public exhibition of their sexual behavior and some like to watch.

There is always, in such incidents, an inverse logic at play: because it was “shocking”, it must be, somehow, worthwhile. It must be good. It must be revolutionary (as, very clearly, The Establishment reacted with easily foreseen outrage). Oh yeah.

In reality it wasn’t shocking so much as silly: an adolescent exercise in ‘acting out’ with no real purpose other than titillation & self-promotion. Prof. Bailey is charged with the education of his students. This education is designed to be focused upon sexual development & differentiation. Within such a broad outline, mek-sex and exhibitionism would undoubtedly be included, but are we to assume that every sexual variation will be live-demo’d in class? Not only would the class be endless as thousands of sexual varieties are catalogued, but what, truly would be learned from the equally endless, circus-like parade of eagerly naked participants?

Education is not about witnessing the infinite expression of human sexuality, rather it is understanding this multiplicity of expression. It is working to trace the origin and nature of sexual desire. It is the precise consideration of sexual behavior. It is seeking to understand the particularities of individual sexual being and how within society, such sexuality lives. These issues are complex and compelling. And a truly scholarly consideration of such ideas is in fact the exact opposite of LIVE SEX ACTS ON STAGE, ONE NIGHT ONLY!

March 9, 2011 at 4:02 pm
(11) Helper says:

If you can think of any way to make it more clear you have no idea what goes on in Bailey’s course, you be sure and post it — but I think you’ve set the bar pretty high for commenting from ignorance with that one!

March 9, 2011 at 5:00 pm
(12) Missedtheboat says:

@Alex Aside from how ridiculous it is that you would speak for your entire class (and assert as fact) saying that no one had anything bad to say about this reveals your naivety, as did your understanding of his argument. Take a moment to read the argument here. It is not to say that the presentation was itself a bad idea or that the class should be shut down because of it. He’s not saying that those poor students were all victims. It’s to say that those who might have been offended are entitled to that reaction without being made to feel stupid or wrong. The whole “Sticks and Stones” critique is a social pressure, exerted by someone in a position of power that serves to PREVENT discourse by those who would dissent on personal, emotional grounds. While the professor may discourage dissenting opinion in a scientific context, his statement seems contradictory in a context of revealing personal, emotional response. It’s unfortunate that some of your classmates who “didn’t have a bad thing to say” might have felt that they “couldn’t” have a bad thing to say, especially when their teacher is on record as saying they have no reason to say a bad thing. That is the crux of the argument here, and that is absolutely a fair criticism.

March 9, 2011 at 5:01 pm
(13) Missedtheboat says:

As for OPTIONAL and AFTER-CLASS. I myself went to Yale, I understand the academic rigor at a school like NU. In a competitively academic environment, students are always looking for a chance to get ahead. At times, the word “optional” doesn’t always function that way. Often it’s used because the professor would not be allowed to require attendance or additional workload, but somehow you end up being responsible for it in the long run. I’m not saying that this happened in this case. However, it’s possible a student felt compelled either because everyone else was doing it, or because they thought it might adversely affect their grade not to go. Again, and please don’t comment unless you’ve read this part: it is not Professor Bailey’s fault if these students DID arrive properly forewarned. It is NOT his place to write curriculum around these students going anyway. However, if they DID attend and they WERE upset, his “sticks and stones” statement characterizes them as not only subversive to his authority, but overly sensitive, and sex negative. That’s unfair.

Yes @Helper, I make a lot of qualifications. To speak in absolutes is to be without nuance (almost always). Qualifications help clarify some nuance. Taking Cory’s argument to its extreme is unhelpful. Desperately grasping at some case where his “this” is benign doesn’t address his point that some “this” examples are hurtful. You sir, or madame, are the one rapidly departing the realm of nuance.

March 9, 2011 at 5:01 pm
(14) Missedtheboat says:

As for the spectacle argument. I don’t believe Bailey is using a Howard Stern style shock approach. However, I wonder why the esteemed Professor held a panel discussion with Homosexual men without prefacing it with having them copulate in front of a live audience. People I know from NU who DID attend and have spoken to me about the demonstration thought it was wonderful and an eye-opener. There was no sexual demonstration involved. Why not bring in guests whose relationship with orgasm and pleasure is tied to these kinds of devices and have them share their same stories? Why have the demonstration at all? I, for one, think it was a rather bold move on the professor’s part to make a point. A point consistent with his “sticks and stones” point. To sit around discussing sexuality makes you an academic, not a pervert. To watch it live however, some might feel like perverted voyeurs. The professor seems to be saying that we shouldn’t feel that way. We must watch these kinds of demonstrations to escape that way of thinking. To challenge ourselves and to learn. For that he deserves a good deal of credit.

But as Cory said, to write off those who would still feel hurt or uncomfortable is not helpful to discourse or science, and it’s not conducive to a healthy relationship between a student and his teacher.

March 9, 2011 at 10:22 pm
(15) ramswrsw says:

(Part 1 of 3)
Cory, I think you are trying to say something important here. I also have the sense that the point(s) you are trying to make are challenging to articulate clearly because of the ambiguities inherent in the language and the many meanings that surround this issue.
As a white, middle-class male, I have had to confront my own privilege when I do sex therapy. I have had the extreme good fortune to never have experienced sexual assault or abuse. (That too could be an outcome of privilege.) As such, it behooves me to tread lightly in areas where I am inherently safe, but my clients are decidedly not.
My impression of Bailey’s statements (I was not present at his demonstration, and am not commenting on it) is that he does take a somewhat dismissive tone with his critics. As you note, he has been accused of being dismissive of other voices in his past.
However, I am struggling to conceptualize how one can adequately address the voices that would silence those of us who wish to be open, frank and demonstrative about sex.

March 9, 2011 at 10:24 pm
(16) ramswrsw says:

(part 2 of 3)
Sex therapist and author Dr. Marty Klein has spoken of having great sympathy for the sensibilities of sexual assault/abuse survivors, while being unwilling to allow their sensibilities to set the standard to which everyone’s speech about sex must conform. The accusations of callous ness and dismissiveness that have been leveled against him entirely miss his point. Sex is NOT inherently dangerous or harmful, and to limit sexual “speech” in the way that many critics want would put us into the society envisioned in Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron.”
More importantly, many of those who proffer such arguments speak from a demonstrably sex negative agenda, and exploit survivors sensibilities for their own purposes.
So, while I agree that to lump everyone who objects into the easy catch-all of sex negativity is entirely too high-handed, I am at something of a loss as to how to address the objections of those who were not there, and who are critiquing from a distance (in itself a position of privilege,
n’est pas?)
According to Bailey’s statement, Student feedback for this event…was uniformly positive.
If so, where then the damage? To what harm do the critics point? Klein often says that critics imagine themselves present at demonstrations like this one, experience negative emotions, and infer that others were damaged by the experience. This is the flip side of the sort of generalizing that you identify in Bailey’s statements.
I think it is very important that we have venues such as Bailey’s in which to learn, discuss, explore the many aspects of sexuality that a very powerful and privileged portion of society wants kept hidden and taboo. And I think it is very important to speak back to those who condemn a priori, from afar. To that end, I greatly regret that Bailey has now apologized for the demonstration “damaging” NU’s reputation. I would rather he’d countered with the ways in which it may be seen to have enhanced NU’s rep.

March 9, 2011 at 10:26 pm
(17) ramswrsw says:

(part 3 of 3)
While I agree with you that Bailey’s “sticks and stones” response was too cavalier, I fully agree with Bailey’s more recent response to the many cries of outrage:
Those who believe that there was, in fact, a serious problem have had considerable opportunity to explain why…But they have failed to do so. Saying that the demonstration “crossed the line,” “went too far,” “was inappropriate,” or “was troubling” convey disapproval but do not illuminate reasoning. If I were grading the arguments I have seen against what occurred, most would earn an “F.” Offense and anger are not arguments. But I remain open to hearing and reading good arguments.
So, I struggle to understand how, in any practical sense, it is possible to allow and encourage sexual speech, including demonstrations of this sort. How is it possible to expose students to a multitude of sexual voices and experiences without the sort of “dog & pony show” you seem to conclude Bailey’s after-class events amount to? And on what basis is that conclusion drawn? How do we bring these topics out into the open in a way that suits the needs of those who want to hear about and see them, while respecting the needs of those who do not? And is there ANY way to do so that will NOT leave itself open to criticism?

March 9, 2011 at 11:25 pm
(18) Chris O'Sullivan says:

Speaking of context:

The quote that you object to was taken from a recording of a six min long section of his class where he discussed the controversy, what else was said in that six min is unknown but six min of dialog or monologue can cover a lot of qualifiers

> “I think that these after-class events are quite valuable. Why? One reason is that I think it helps us understand sexual diversity,” he said, according to an audio file obtained by The Daily.

> “Sticks and stones may break your bones, but watching naked people on stage doing pleasurable things will never hurt you,” he said to loud applause at the end of his speech.

March 10, 2011 at 7:39 am
(19) Helper says:

As I said, you’ve kept the goalposts in motion.

The claim against Bailey amounts to one statement of his that’s claimed to “prevent discourse” or taking “a somewhat dismissive tone with his critics.”

What a laugh.

And as I said at the start, nothing here in this “critique” is limited to matters sexual. There are physicists who take “a somewhat dismissive tone with” their critics.

A professor making ANY categorical statement (e.g. “such-and-such is a recognized fact”) could equally be claimed to “prevent discourse.”

This discussion is a one-sided affair as the critics both refuse to follow usual rules of argument (“rules?” why those just close the field of debate and “silence” us!!) as well as refuse to acknowledge the extreme breadth of their case, such as it is.

“To what harm do the critics point?”

Great question. Keep waiting.

You might also ask, to the extent the “critics” have a valid point, are they able to state it in a succinct way and demonstrate that it could not also apply to a student offended by, say, an assertion of evolution’s factual basis?

Is there really any more to it than Profs Have Authority, therefore Their Assertions Silence Me?

March 12, 2011 at 12:53 am
(20) Alex says:

Perhaps I was hasty in my response earlier. I suppose I was more responding to general critiques, which in retrospect was not all that helpful.

However, I must say that while there may be students who feel uncomfortable about what occurred and didn’t feel comfortable speaking up about it, I find it doubtful for a few reasons. 1. There were repeated warnings ahead of time that any student who didn’t want to see anyone’s “naughty parts” and a shocking display should leave. 2. Bailey always asks for feedback after the talks and almost always received negative feedback. However, in this case he received none. 3. Bailey’s statement was issued after students would have given feedback through various different methods possible, and while it is still possible that they felt too uncomfortable about it to say anything I find this unlikely because he has received negative feedback about other things.

March 12, 2011 at 12:55 am
(21) Alex says:

(continued)
All that being said, I think that Bailey’s statement of “sticks and stones …” etc. can and does apply to those who are ready and prepared to see those pleasurable things. In this case, his audience was ready for those, and thus I personally don’t feel at all silenced by the statement (and I don’t think that others who choose to stay after class do either). Instead I found it an empowering one in which Bailey was saying something like: even though many other people in the country are going to tell you you should be scarred, uncomfortable and ashamed of what you saw, it’s okay if you don’t. I think that Bailey’s statement was more of one to affirm our feelings of acceptance of what we experienced than one to silence those who felt differently.

Of course, this is how I interpreted it. Being there at all of these occasions I feel that my interpretations have a certain amount of merit, but they are not the only ones that can exist. That being said, I can say that my feelings resonate with a large number (though perhaps not all) of the students in the class as I have spoken with a large number of them.

I hope this is a more reasonable statement. Please forgive me for my earlier more hot-headed one. Being at the eye of the storm makes one a little frustrated at times.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>
  1. About.com
  2. Health
  3. Sexuality

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.