I think you're missing the point - it's supposed to be offensive. At least, that's always been my read on this song. The lyrics come from a persona, not the singer. The whole cock-rock thing is the band's aesthetic.


Dan, I totally get that and address that! There's a difference between a consistent persona and a sung song from the perspective of a character. For example, not every R.E.M. song is from the perpsective of a stalker-type, even though some songs on Monster are. Michael Stipe's persona is a different thing, whereas these guys are smarmy on every song.


Yeah, I have to agree with Dan. Louis XIV's primary objective is personifying all rock & roll that came before them, and this includes the time between approx. 1975-1985 when female objectification was standard operating procedure. The album covers, the lyrics, the recording techniques, etc. Louis XIV is doing everything they possibly can to be UN-current.


I know that Paul, but what does that change? And when there are a few hundred other bands currently copping the same shtick, how is it not current? If anything, they are depressingly current.


You think? It's gotten to the point where The Strokes are the blueprint for a thousand bands, most of which I can't even tell apart unless I check Winamp to see what's playing. They're faceless clones (not that the Strokes do a great deal for me either). LXIV, on the other hand, strike a chord with me simply by doing something naughty, and doing it sloppy. Granted, I'm already to the point where I can take them only in small doses, but it's nice to see someone take revivalism all the way and not just the sort of premature ejaculation that's characterized a lot what's come out since 2002.


Well it's true that they take things a little further, and that's part of why they are better and more interesting. But icky is icky, you know? I think the sexism is just par for the course with a lot of hypermasculine music, it's not that shocking to me, but the casual racism is the thing the makes me go "wtf?" It's not a hateful song, but it's phrased in a way that is very questionable and demeaning.


I wouldn't say it's any more racist than "Brown Sugar," which, itself, is an ode to interracial lust.


I've met them and they are the "DICK" in that song.


matthew, i got your back here. this song repulses me. in fact, my take on it (which i might still write for pitchfork yet) would be much, much nastier. i think this IS a hateful song.


Of course it's repulsive, Amy. But why do people continue to take racial and sexual epithets so seriously in 2005? You think it's just white males who exercise this prerogative? Both sexes of every race on earth have members who use derogative jargon on a daily basis. Were LXIV ever in danger of becoming the voice of white male women-hating trailer-dwellers everywhere, I'd worry. As it is, though, their target audience can separate singer from song and recognize it as storytelling.


Paul, people take racial and sexual epithets so seriously in 2005 because they're racist and sexist, no matter what year it is. We don't exactly live in some sort of utopia where such things don't matter anymore, even if we'd all like to think that we do. I certainly hope that Louis XIV don't become the voice of ANYONE, but the fact that they're able to get away with acting like this, and nobody is probably going to call them on it, is cause to worry.

And who is their target audience? Hipsters? As if they're immune to racism and sexism!


I think it's prudent to regard racism and sexism with a fair amount of distaste, but I'm so exhausted by the hypersensitivity that developed somewhere in the mid '90s over the issues. True, I'm a white American male, so I'm probably at the top of the insult foodchain and have no real perspective on how it is "out there." But for fuck's sake, there's a difference between tongue-in-cheek poking at another sex or race and outright hatred for them. In LXIV's case, it's entirely the former.

That said, everyone just needs to loosen up. If you live your life being offended by everything, you'll end up like Pat Robertson.


These guys are so hilariously over-the-top -- from the lyrics, to the silly accents, to the riffs and solos -- that it boggles my mind anyone is taking this seriously. It's like trying to say Electric Six was pro-terrorism for saying they're going to start nuclear war on the dance floor.


I would say that the reality that most reviewers/promotors/fans/etc of nu-sleaze (Louis XIV or otherwise) are unwilling to address or criticize the creepier aspects of their act is a lot more offensive than the song actually is. To me, the song is just another put-on, but the fashionability of this sort of thing, ironic or no, is rather telling. I think that a lot of this bad boy anti PC act is a reactionary thing coming off of the more PC vibe of late 80s/early 90s, but I don't see that pendulum swinging the other way any time soon. This song is catchy and fun and sexual, but it's definitely coming from a place that is creepy and questionable. Yeah, yeah, it's obviously a cartoonish thing, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously at all.


song's catchy. it's like jet except i sort of like it. they are opening for the futureheads and hot hot heat next month.

as a black dude, the antiquated racism of this song is a little weird to deal with in the 21st century. it isn't because it's offensive, mostly because the delivery and lyrics are so incredibly forced and awkward. i'm not sure if they're serious or whatever. hmmmmm....

also, to be equivalent to 'ice cream', this song would need the best beat ever and someone loving a girl like their dick size.


The song commits the main sin of offensiveness: not actually being funny. It's also too vague to be really interesting. The concept's not that well-executed. You could do a version of this that would work, but they don't, really.


Is it supposed to be funny? I agree with you that whole lyrical setup is too vague to serve the concept behind it. It's tossed-off and pointless, and, despite how much it appears I've been arguing in its favor, is one of my least favorite of the band's songs.

However, there's not a single drop of malice to be found anywhere within the 4:13 running time. The dude's just horny.


Pitchfork recently gave "Ying Yang Twins - Wait" 4 stars, and that's got way worse lyrics like "Hey bitch! Wait till you see my dick!"

Or is Hip hop exempt, because as Chris Rock says, girls don't mind sexist songs as long as the beat's good?

I'm interested to seeing Amy's track review for this song on Pitchfork.


I think that Chris Rock quote is totally applicable to cock rock too.

I listen to a lot of music with casually (or aggressively) sexist lyrics, that's not really the issue for me so much as that somehow bands like this can skate by without ever being called on it these days if they go through indie-ish circles.


I may be fervently believing the complete Louis XIV persona is meant as tongue in cheek caricature just so I can justify enjoying their music. That said, I'm sure I'd enjoy the song just as much if the lyrics were about planting daffodils. Come to think of that, I'd probably like that even better! Cocky swaggering rude boys get all sensitive. It'd be unpredictable.


I find the Ying Yang Twins song just as repulsive, albeit way funnier and much catchier. But that does bring up a good point, one which Jessica Hopper wrote about in her P&J comments this year: white indie rocker folks aren't afraid to call out racism/sexism in their own community, but when it comes to "the other", well, I guess it's ok because that's their "culture".


lxiv are just another part of the strangely right wing hipster debauchery promulgated by, say, vice magazine, which posits that 'i can mock people of color/women/gays as long as i'm snorting a line and wearing a designer t-shirt when i do it.' c'mon ya'll: racism's the new counter-culture. didn't you hear?


It's not justified because of designer clothes. It's justified because it's funny.


I'll also add that this song makes more sense in the context of the album -- some of which is even more rediculous.


it takes a lot for me to get offended by a song. 'wait' doesn't offend me, i just think it's shitty minimalist nonsense with weak raps.


Well, I must admit that I was not particularly intrigued by the description of this band. But, after reading all of the comments, I just had to check it out. Honestly, while the lyrics are unimaginative and certainly in the Vice magazine mold of hip, coked-up racism, I thought they would be much worse based on everyone’s reactions. That said, I would be able to accept it as a joke or whatever if the song was in any way fun or exciting, but it is unfortunately as excellent an example of vapid, unoriginal, retread rock and roll as I can imagine. Honestly, I am considerably more offended by how boring, unimaginative, lackluster and bland this song is than by the lyrical content.

This band does not deserve any of these comments, good or bad. Let’s all band together and agree to no longer even acknowledge them (or their ilk) at all.


I agree with terrified this song is way too yawnworthy to devote this much attention to. I downloaded a bunch of shit from louisXIV off limewire...thank god i didnt drop good money on it.


I find the Ying Yang Twins song just as repulsive, albeit way funnier and much catchier. But that does bring up a good point, one which Jessica Hopper wrote about in her P&J comments this year: white indie rocker folks aren't afraid to call out racism/sexism in their own community, but when it comes to "the other", well, I guess it's ok because that's their "culture".

If anything, I've observed the opposite w/r/t indie rock - although I have heard the (poor) excuse that "its another culture" so it gets a free pass when discussing rap, indie rock is DEFINITELY more likely to get a pass on the sexism thing. Because, you know, its "ironic" or the fans are more "aware" or some other bullshit (see: LB's White Noise Supremecists)

Also Rollie - you really don't like "Wait"?!


I'd argue that the lyrics are terrible, that the band saying "Hey, we can say these things 'cause we're only funnin!" is a dubious argument at best, but luckily I can hate this song on it's own music merits: it's pretty awful no matter what way you approach it.


just when did lusting after the opposite sex become sexiest? and when did mentioning a person's skin color become racist? YES, i am a black woman who have hung out with Louisxiv and I plan on hanging with them again when they come back into town...but isn't getting laid by as many hot girls as possible part of the appeal of a man wanting to be a rock musician?


I was hardly making an anti-miscegeny argument!


I'm getting a strong E6 vibe off this song. It's being taken way too seriously...


Hip-hop never gets the "they're only joking" pass, Lil Jon is a threatening misogynist but these guys are being ironic even though, you know, Lil Jon is married etc.


Regardless of their true intentions, the band lacks any musical meritt...
Didn't the Mooney Suzuki do this shit like 2 years ago? And didn't it suck 2 years ago? Those clowns had the whole "I wanna fuck every girl i see" thing going on too...

Did you post the song because of the controversial lyrics and the fact that they are getting hyped right now or did you also think the music was unique?

To me it's just boring and totally not the exciting rock and roll that they are clearly trying to make...


Jesus...God help you kids. What would you have made of the mid-late 80s, when every other indie label band was singing about raping women or people looking like Jews?

Seriously, one of the funniest threads I've read in a LONG time.


Yeah dude, being upset about misogyny is like, so 80s.


Um, I think this is sort of like claiming that the Darkness aren't punk enough. Band seems to be stealing a schtick from Boston's Upper Crust (http://www.juvalamu.com/crust/), and making a ridiculous satire of privileged rock stars. From what I've seen they're up front about it, and claim the Louis XIV stuff is all loosely conceptual. Other songs on their EPs appear to bear this out -- check the song "Louis XIV" for even more over-the-topness.


I *know* that it's conceptual! You don't need to tell me that over and over again. Just because it's a conceptual act or a joke doesn't mean that it shouldn't be criticized or called out.

"It feels so 80s / or early 90s / to be political..."

I think it's a good song, not a unique song. I am not very hung up on stuff being "unique." I certainly don't mind listening to music that sound like a butch version of Spacehog.

I posted it because I like the song, and wanted to talk about why I am uncomfortable with its lyrics. I thought that it was odd and unfortunate that none of the press about them mentioned the questionable lyrics, and if the lyrical content was addressed, it was praise for their "rapier wit."


Hmm. Whether you like the song or not, it's distressing to see the concept of wit so devalued.


I guess it depends on what you consider to be witty. I'm hearing smarm where wit ought to be.

I really disagree with the couple people who are saying that it's like Electric Six. Electric Six has a similar aesthetic but they a) are not overtly sexist or racist in their lyrics and b) subvert the cliche with lyrics about Taco Bell and gay bars. There is nothing at all subversive about Louis XIV. What they are doing is more like dress-up and role-playing. There is no autocritique, it's just a bunch of dudes embracing a cliche that they obviously love. Now that doesn't have to be a bad thing, mind. As I've said, I'm more interested in how the core audience for this sort of thing will resist any critique of the casual sexism in the presentation.


i have to say, i'm glad that someone took the time to post the 'b-b-but i'm FRIENDS WITH THEM' post that i'd been expecting since this post first went up.


I don't get what is racist here. the song is about a guy who wants to fuck lots of chicks. what, cause he says "chocolate girl" and "asian friend"? why is that racist? it's racial, but not racist. i mean, is it any different than lou reed saying "colored girls" in walk on the wild side?


i thought it was racist when lou reed did it, and i think it's racist when louis xiv do it. it's these white guys casually pointing out the race of the girls just to show how "down" they are. like hey, i'm so cool, i even hang out with non-white people! it's like, what was that joke website? blackpeopleloveus.com or something.


This track like there ep is sleazy rock n' roll, taken on face value. It's a long time since I've read a thread so long on Fluxblog. As the saying goes 'If there's one thing worse than being talked about it's not being talked about' Louis XIV know what there doing and the fire there lighting is getting stronger by the day. The kind of feedback here sells albums!
Fluxblog are you on commission?


christ, this commentary is so depressingly academic.

i'd suggest listening to their other songs. i think "true love" makes a lot more sense in that context. hill is poking fun at gender roles and, well, sex in general. (it clearly isn't true love -- lust perhaps).

the pfm review suffered from the same self-seriousness that's plagued a lot of the criticism surrounding their releases so far. people just don't get it or maybe it's just that the contempt for the rock alpha male is so strong that people can't even accept it in satirical form.


I really don't see the satire in Louis XIV. Like I said, it's more like role playing than anything else. Where is the critique?


self-serious? my whole pfm review was one big joke!

and matt, you totally had me cursing myself last night when i happened to check fluxblog (usually i read it every day, but this week i'd fallen behind) and realized you beat me to the david lee roth angle. sigh. "some girls" it had to be, then.


The "dude its satire you just don't get it" critique is so very very thin. If we don't "get" it, doesn't that mean that THEY'VE failed? Acting like intention matters...how is the song recieved?


In other words, assuming that the audience should "get" it when its this poorly done = dud.


One more comment to JG: Most ink for this band so far has been POSITIVE. Press so far LOVES the alpha male bullshit. The PFM review was saying it's not only bullshit -- which is funny if irrelevant -- but (to David's point) poorly done bullshit.


to matthew: the song's "critique" is implicit. the come-ons are completely and intentionally over the top.

to marc: the self-seriousness referred to your attitude toward rock that came across in your review. as if somehow comparing louis xiv to the strokes, the white stripes, and green day made the band's efforts inherently bad. (the logic going something like: if this music sounds like some artists that are relatively current, it must be inferior... because, well, they're being trendy!... genius.)

genre records can be great. just because an artist's song sounds a lot like someone else's doesn't make it any less great.

to david: i think most people DO get Louis XIV. they understand it's in jest. it seems only a few critics can't see it. and it's debatable as to whether they qualify as people -- most of us don't analyze the political implications of a song when it comes on the radio.


david,

it's interesting that you took my review that way. i'll have to keep that in mind. those comparisons were supposed to be merely descriptive. the logic being: this is what the song sounds like.

the overall logic of the review was simply, "hey, these guys think they're rock stars, but they're actually quite mediocre and forgettable! haw, haw, haw!"


er, that was to JG, not david.


a slight tangent for a moment:

in reviews, how many contemporary artists are POSITIVELY compared to other contemporary artists? happens a lot in hip hop -- not so much in rock. I guess critics are more willing to let it pass in a genre with a shorter history, like hip hop. Whereas in rock the artist is seen as lazy if he rips off anything within the last 5 years.


I don't think that has anything to do with genre so much as the fact that music criticism is mainly built around the promotional cycle of the record industry, and thus favors novelty over tradition.


My wife introduced me to the band a few weeks ago, and this song has been at the top of my playlist since then... but I have a little bit of trouble with "Carrot juice / I'm gonna squeeze you every way until you bleed" (and so does she).


marc, i think your pfm review really nailed it. i was going to do a track review, but i don't think it's necessary anymore. it almost makes up for your TOTALLY WRONG tegan and sara review (haha j/k).


Wow, thanks, Amy! I must say I've really been impressed by your work so far at Pitchfork, no joke.

But I still maintain that T&S have no redeeming qualities unless you're an A&R exec trying to fool the kids -- or you REALLY liked that fake Rapture MP3 from kazaa! ;-)


gross, i forgot how yucky emoticons look in haloscan. apologies to all.


Hey,

I think that this is the first time that I've posted here, but I've been a long-time reader, so sorry for the lack of comments before. I have to agree with your assessment of this song. I had a similar debate in my mp3 LiveJournal a while back (check it out, I'd be interested in your feedback there) regarding Nina Gordon's cover of "Straight Outta Compton." I think that one of the best comments that I've read so far on this particular topic, though, is The "dude its satire you just don't get it" critique is so very very thin. If we don't "get" it, doesn't that mean that THEY'VE failed? (This is how I feel everytime I hear someone extolling the "artistic message" of Marilyn Manson.) I have to agree entirely. I am always up for being carefree in terms of music, and liking something just for liking it, but you have to also be critical so that you have a filter. If you just are going to abs


absorb something because it's "the new indie flavor of the month" then what are you gaining from it, and what is the point? It then becomes about posturing and being "cool" (while in reality being a complete poser), which, to me, is what this song is about. JG wrote "christ, this commentary is so depressingly academic." The point of mp3 blogs on some level is to be academic - we are all writing about music, not just being passive sponges.

What depresses me about this song is that they use racist/sexist references (i.e. defining a person based solely on their ethnicity/gender) so casually, without real thought or regard. All things considered, no, they aren't being white supremacists, but the fact that they toss this terminology around so thoughtlessly says something about the song, the band, the listeners, and our society as a whole. Should we just be passive listeners who accept something blindly just because a rock star says it? I don't think so. As it has been said, thes


these sorts of offensive terms can be used to create something artistic with a message, but from all that I can tell, this is not striving for that level of introspection, so why should it be exempt from criticism? I think something like Electric Six is a different story, because they are entirely over the top all the time and aren't claiming to be insightful rock poets. Maybe this band is not, either, but the fact that they don't offer themselves up as (for lack of a better word) a novelty act says that they do want to be taken seriously. I think the fact that something like this can generate this sort of discussion is reason alone to reconsider the values of the song. You aren't racist/sexist if you listen to this song, but it does reinforce a prejudiced mindset via the white male gaze.


the problem with the comment you quoted is that people DO get the satire. it's only the critics who are afraid the unwashed masses won't get it and will mindlessly latch on to stereotypes that are crying foul. i think you underestimate the average listener. people do get the song and they're laughing right along with louis xiv.

the fact that louis xiv is not a "novelty act" like electric six is neither here nor there. again, i think the trouble is that you're selling the listener short. they don't need to be wearing spandex for people to understand that there's a joking element to all this. it's a spoof as opposed to an outright parody. but i still think people can pick it up.


Some people do see it, some people don't, and I think I'm usually pretty open-minded to politically incorrect comedy (Strangers With Candy, Family Guy, Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, etc...).

The people who were wearing spandex (i.e. the people who Louis XIV emulates) were not joking - they thought they were being cool at the time. Look at David Lee Roth - total pig. If he and others like him are the model for this band's sound both when they are being serious (in their other songs?) and when they are not (as you say they aren't in this song), then how is the audience really supposed to be able to tell the difference? Is there one? You can spoof away, but when your inspiration for your "serious" music comes in the same form that you are spoofing, where is the difference? Something like Michelle Shocked I can understand and get, but this, no.

Aren't all spoofs novelty?


so in your world, there's just electric six and pearl jam? nothing in between?

maybe i missed the memo, but i don't remember reading anywhere that you couldn't have a tongue-in-cheek song in your catalogue. frankly, i find that move a hell of a lot more interesting than a band that chooses to dress up in cat suits on a regular basis.

it's just different facets of the band's personality manifesting themselves in their songs. nothing more complicated than that.


Sheesh! what's the problem, Andy? Some of us gals appreciate a little objectification now and then. It's hot. I'll bet you'll really have a problem with the song "Illegal Tender". By the way, i just checked out your blog, and with the exception of Mellowdrone, whom I love, yout musical tastes are a little, shall we say, "unexciting"(ie. WMBG).


edit: "your" musical tastes


Sorry. I must not be "exciting" enough to know what WMBG means. Someone might have to explain it to me.

If you like Mellowdrone, you should scroll farther down through my posts and check out The Floating City. You might like them also.

You can like objectification all you want. I have no control over that, or Louis XIV's freedom to write the music they like, or the freedom of the people who (like me) like the music on my LJ. That doesn't mean that none of those things can't be discussed critically - for example, maybe some of the music I like is boring, or - as a simple fact - a lot of women who are into objectification have a history of abuse, or mental illness. Oh well. I figure that if I get a snide criticism, I'm within my rights to do it right back.


I don't object to all songs that are misogynistic (i.e. the example of "Ice Cream" that Matt gave) although I do object to the misogyny itself. I just don't buy the excuse that its a "joke" or that because they give a wink, it no longer counts as misogyny. Aren't pitchfork readers supposed to be postmodern? Can't you guys "get" that this song will mean different things to different people, and frankly the Big Tymers do misogyny with a wink too, but I wonder how many people posting here would recognize them as being "ironic," and I wonder if that makes it any clearer why I don't by a wink and a nudge as an excuse for objectification. Especially when the song is so awful.


Actually scratch that last sentence.


Good point. You can't validate bad art by saying that there's some secret message that is too complex for other people to get.


but i'm saying the public IS getting it. most people hear it, enjoy it for the fun, silly rock song it is, and leave it be.

you're the only one who's making this more complex than it actually is.


True, I and the others are complicating it, but when you create something you have to be responsible for it, good or bad. Your attitude/the public's attitude - "most people hear it, enjoy it for the fun, silly rock song it is, and leave it be" - is, I think, I exactly what Matt, David, and I find troubling.


i hate the part about stupid chicks giving him dirty looks and smart girls with books and glasses. i was accepted to new york's best high school, stuyvesant and i don't have glasses. i do read, and i'm proud of it, but this song tries to make it offensive in some way. oh yeah, and stupid girls do read - they read cosmo magazines.


Good point.


77 comments for a band that no one is going to remember in a year, awesome.


ha ha ha

Is this enough "buzz" to make it onto MTV 2's "Music Buzz" show?


I think that the number of posts says a lot about the way people feel about these sorts of things. People get hot when other people don't understand them, and I think that the main people fighting for this song might be fighting so hard because of how their own enjoyment of it might reflect upon themselves, so they want to say, "It's not racist/sexist" just so they aren't by extension for liking it, which they would not be.


Can someone please mash this song up with Ying Yang Twins' "Wait"? I'd like to see the bloggers squirm.


i would just like to say, as a brown person who's lived in white nations, a hindu who has lived on both sides of hindu-muslim religious persecution (i.e. i've lived in Arabia), as a bisexual male raised single-handedly by his mother and as a dude with a tendency to date feminists... (sorry but i do insisting on providing you a little background on myself because i think what i have to say is relevant from a perspective of someone who doesn't fall neatly into any category.)

i have been discriminated against, verbally or in actions, by whites, blacks, chinese, and even people from my own roots in India. all of them shared the same root cause - i was different from my accusers...

we're dicussing just one song... from one band... in the midst of a deluge of media (how many of you will seriously remember this song 5 years from now?)

this racism/sexism discussion is NOT going to produce any real change in anything. convincing yourself otherwise is the exact same as the argument


that people who like the band are trying to justify their taste by avoiding the song's racist/sexist slant. if you really want to make a change, why don't we address the things that REALLY matter like job equity, hate crimes, acts of harmful discrimination where REAL people are affected, etc. Of course, this right here may not be the appropriate forum for it, but people you have to realize that on this forum right here, I see way too much hot air, yet no steam to power the engines of REAL change...

Media (music, movies, photographs, paintings, what's in the news / what's not in the news, etc. etc.) is flooded with discriminatory messages. if What helps people learn to filter right from wrong is discussion of the real issues, not about what the "intentions" of one particular song are.

Music is just music. I am not denying it of the force or power that it rightfully holds. But this music that we spend so much time dicussing to death is part of the music BUSINESS. plus, all


ye holy music "journalists" and "critics", yes your contributions to the popular culture environment are valuable and influential... we all have to understand: even if the music business disappears, even if the music disappears (e.g. some earth catastrophy robs all human beings of the sense of hearing)... racism and sexism will continue as long as there is FEAR. and usually this fear is psychologically based around the basic human needs of survival, of the individual, of the family/community, and of the species.

True love may be blind on a sexual level, for individuals. But hatred is blind on any level. At least, I hope some of you out there agree with me when I say that Goodness and Love on a Global Scale should be, ideally, in Full Color and 3-D.

MAKE LOVE NOT PEACE.


sorry, that got really long... but i just wanted to edit:

Goodness and Love on a Global Scale should be, ideally, in Full Color, 3-D and UNCENSORED.


as Bobcat Goldthwait said of Ted Danson's roast of Whoopi Goldberg, "I wasn't offened that it was racist, I was offended that it wasn't funny."


Dear SU,

die hippie scum.

sincerely,
JG


"a butch version of Spacehog. "

that's a good description!


dear JG,

i ain't no hippy.

you have genitals that don't work and your mother is a donkey.

luvya,
su.


Did anyone mention that they sound like the Stanglers? Who were also labelled as misogyonist? Except this was back in the 70's.

Just another retro rehash if you ask me. And I realise no one has.


this is just a good rock song.....get over it. worry about the much worse stuff out there.


This song makes me hot. It's like porn for my ears. Anybody got a problem with porn? True love may be blind but lust is all skin, people. Is this the irony of the song that everyone is alluding to, but no one is actually saying? I'll take an alpha male over a whine, self-absorbed white boy any day. Fear of alpha has made you all impotent.


I'm with su (sort of). Let's face it, at the end of the day, most of us wouldn't walk through Bed-Stuy at 3 in the morning (that I live there is besides the point), no matter what color we happen to be.


BED STUY DO OR DIE
(too kewl for Williamsburg)


i ain't no hippy.wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling


Look here to Buy sell wow gold, 奥特莱斯,家纺招商


十一结束,开始工作:皮带秤, google排名,电子皮带秤。Q


十一结束,开始工作:徐州网站建设, 徐州网站建设,入党申请书。fwegtwrtewteterGNKL


Name:

Email:

URL:

Comment:  ? 

 

Commenting by HaloScan