“With knives and branding irons, ancient Greeks would slice and burn criminals and traitors to denote their immorality or lack of fitness for regular society. Such a mark was called a “stigma”, and an individual bearing a stigma was to be discredited, scorned, and avoided.”
(Neuberg, Smith & Asher – from ‘Why People Stigmatize: Toward a Biocultural Framework’)

.

holocaust-tattoo bw ii

.

Stigma is arguably the concept that best describes the condition of paedophiles in contemporary WEIRD society. It is the background noise to our lives. Stigma affects both Radical paedophiles and VirPeds alike. It casts its shadow whether you are ‘out’ or whether you are ‘in’; whether you’re a life-long celibate or whether you’ve shared intimacy with a child; whether you’ve serving time for an ‘offence’ or whether you’ve never so much as looked at the kids’ section in your mum’s clothing catalogue.

If other people are the mirror by which we know ourselves, Stigma is what we see when we look into their eyes. Eventually it can become what we see when we picture ourselves in our imagination.

Stigma can take on disguises and surprise us, popping up in unexpected places. In one of my early posts (On Being Creepy) I touch on how I’d long assumed I’d escaped stigma, only to realise quite recently that my 30 years-worth of work as an artist has essentially explored stigma. Ever since, I have noticed more and more ways that stigma has left its traces on my life and shaped me.

This essay considers stigma from a theoretical perspective. At the same time I intend to give some general indications as to how the stigma associated with paedophilia fits into this framework.

What is Stigma?

A stigma is ‘blemish’ of the body, of the character, or of the identity which, in the eyes of others, reduces its bearer from a whole, normal person to someone tainted, discounted, dehumanised, feared and avoided.

In personal interactions a stigma acts as a screen interposed between the stigma-perceiver and the stigma-bearer and which prevents the perceiver from seeing those things that constitute the stigma-bearer’s true identity. Stigma dominates the perceiver’s view.

Some examples of stigmatised identities are: adolescents, blacks, the disabled, the disfigured, drug users, ex-convicts, homosexuals, the illiterate, the mentally ill, the obese, old people, people with cancer, racists, welfare recipients, women & zoophiles (note that some conditions are universally stigmatised, such as mental illness, others, such as obesity, are not).

We have all experience of being both stigma-bearers and being stigmatisers. For example: we have all been children, and children often do both.

Children are stigma-bearers in that they are considered and treated as incomplete humans.

Children also stigmatise their peers for the least of reasons – a funny name, wearing the ‘wrong’ clothes, having the ‘wrong’ friend, showing signs of poverty… As children we have all experienced being hollowed out and dehumanised for some infraction of some arbitrary rule imposed by one’s peers.

Stigma can vary in intensity. It can be life-changingly intense – leading to genocide and suicide, or it may merely result in someone being ignored or overlooked. Indeed stigma might be ever-present in social situations, but usually at such low levels that we don’t notice it and have no trouble in managing it, either as stigma-bearer or perceiver.

Stigma is also context-sensitive: an average-looking person may feel perfectly unstigmatised when socialising with his equally plain friends. But when he goes to a night-club where everyone else is beautiful, he will experience stigma. And not only during interactions. When not interacting he may feel his plainness being notice and may interpret a lack of interaction as a sign that he is being labelled by the beautiful people as not worth engaging with i.e. stigmatised.

Dimensions of stigma

Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman, in his classic book ‘Stigma: Notes on the management of Spoiled Identity‘ organises stigma into three categories:

  • abominations of the body
  • blemishes of individual character
  • tribal identities

Abominations of the body include disease, disfigurement and disability.

Blemishes of individual character are moral failings, such as dishonesty, unemployment and addiction.

Tribal identities include stigmatised out-groups, races, nations and religions.

Stigmas can belong to more than one category: the stigma associated with paedophilia is principally a ‘blemish of individual character’. However the stigma has elements of tribal identity (paedophile rings, elite paedophiles, celebrity paedophiles, islamic child exploitation gangs). And if we consider how the media depicts paedophiles, systematically choosing those representations that conform to the so-called ‘paedo look’, it also has elements of ‘abominations of the body’.

Another dimension Goffman identifies is that of ‘the Discredited’ and ‘the Discreditable’. This refers to the visibility and concealability of a stigma and intersects with the above categorisation.

article-2190538-003D4B4700000258-630_306x423
John Hurt playing John Merrick in ‘The Elephant Man’ (David Lynch, 1980)

Someone with a facial deformity has their stigma on permanent display and knows that all who see him are aware and affected by his stigma. In any interaction where he is visible he is ‘discredited’. Paedophiles, on the other hand, are ‘discreditable’: our stigma is not on display or readily detectable. Those with discreditable stigmas can manage their social interactions in such a way that their stigmas remain concealed; they can appear normal; they can ‘pass’.

Edward E. Jones et al (1984) propose another categorisation which intersects with Goffman’s:

  • concealability
  • course of the mark
  • disruptiveness
  • aesthetics
  • origin
  • peril

Concealability corresponds to Goffman’s Discredited/Discreditable.

Course of the mark refers to whether the stigmatising blemish becomes more or less salient over time (e.g. multiple sclerosis vs congenital blindness).

Paedophilia is a stigma which has a ‘course’, specifically an onset. Two factors determine the onset of the stigma:

  • the desirer must have reached an age (generally puberty) at which society is willing to consider the bearer as having sexual preferences.
  • the desirer’s age must have pulled away from the age of the desired by a significant margin.

This means that people with younger chronophilias (nepiophilia and paedophilia) can, in theory, become subject to stigma as soon as they enter puberty.

Disruptiveness refers to the degree to which the stigmatised characteristic interferes with the flow of interpersonal interactions (e.g. stuttering vs homosexuality). Paedophilia is not, in itself, disruptive.

Aesthetics relates to the perceived unattractiveness of the stigma. This applies as much to ‘blemishes of character’ (e.g. the gut-reaction against paedophilia) and to ‘tribal identity’ as it does to ‘abominations of the body’.

Origin: there are two categories of origin:

– ‘existential stigmas’ derive from a condition which the bearer either did not cause or over which he has little control (e.g. congenital deformity, epilepsy, injuries sustained in a natural disaster);

– ‘achieved stigmas’ are earned through conduct, or because the bearer contributed heavily to attaining that stigma (e.g. child molester, tattoos, smoking-related diseases).

The question of origin is probably the most important factor in determining the public’s attitude towards a stigma. It tells us how responsible the bearer is for their stigma. Bearers who seem to have chosen their stigma provoke hostility, whereas those whose stigmas have been imposed on them provoke sympathy or pity.

This explains the public strategy of the Virtuous Pedophiles, and their enthusiasm for Dr James Cantor – who claims that paedophilia is a congenital (and therefore ‘existential’) condition rather than an ‘achieved’ one. Accordingly, Virpeds systematically take the position that they are paedophiles against their own wills, and often express the wish that they could be rid of the condition.

It’s a strategy that appears to work: members of the public who are persuaded of their sincerity generally become more tolerant of paedophiles than those who aren’t. However, this tolerance only applies to non-offending paedophiles. A paedophile who offends becomes a ‘child molester’ and activates a whole new dimension of responsibility, that effaces any tolerance gained from the stigma’s ‘existential’ status.

Peril refers to the perceived danger to others of the stigmatising condition (e.g. a contagious disease vs being overweight). Paedophilia is, of course, considered as being intensely perilous.

When there is a consensus that a stigma is merited, stigmatisation can be deliberate, willed, and supported by society and its institutions (as happens with paedophilia).

People can also be unaware that they are stigmatising, as is often the case in interactions with people for whom we feel compassion, such as old people or children.

Individuals and societies can sometimes be in conflict with our stigmatising responses. We can be aware that we have stigmatising responses, but fight them – this has happened, on both individual and institutional levels (positive discrimination) with respect to homosexuality, racial minorities, the disabled and women.

The following table (from “Social Norms and the Expression and Suppression of Prejudice: The Struggle for Internalization” by Crandall et al) presents a list of stigmatised groups ranked according to how acceptable it is to express prejudice towards them. As we go from ‘Child abusers’ (the most acceptable targets for prejudice) to ‘blind people’ (the least) we observe a general shift from ‘socially approved hatred and disgust’ to ‘socially approved compassion or pity’.

Screenshot crandall

the functions of stigma I

Stigma is necessary.  It is a response to peril which ensures that the group is sensitive to, and has a coördinated response to, threats to its effective functioning and survival.

This response can take the form of repression, punishment, banishment, avoidance, treatment, discrimination, liquidation…

The stigma-bearer can respond through concealment, self-abasement, treatment, isolation, exile or suicide; or he may endeavour to repudiate and oppose the stigmatisation of his ‘condition’.

Reciprocity, Trust and the Promotion of Common Values are basic principles of group living. All societies stigmatise those who violate or undermine these principals e.g thieves violate the principle of reciprocity; cheats violate trust; subversives and deviants undermine the promotion of common values.

Paedophiles violate all three of these principles: ‘Reciprocity’ – because they violate parents’ ownership of their children, and steal their ‘innocence’; ‘Trust’ – because in western societies child-adult relationships must be conducted secretly and against the will of the parents and society; the ‘Promotion of Common Values’ – because paedophilia challenges the belief (fundamental to societies based on the nuclear family) that children are asexual (see here for an in-depth explanation of this).

To the above three principles we can add: threats from outside groups (which fuels tribal stigma), threats to physical health of the group, unpredictability (because social life requires adherence to rules and scripts), threats to reproductive fitness (including bearers of congenital diseases, rapists, homosexuals, paedophiles) and incompetence.

Stigma can also be generated by vested interests or the need to justify the status quo. Such stigma often involves institutional discrimination and segregation. An example of this is the way white America developed stigmatising racial ideologies that justified the seizure of lands from native tribes and the enslavement of negroes.

The distinction between Vested Interests and Promotion of Common Values is not always clear, but is one that is particularly relevant to the stigma associated with paedophilia: the stigma arises because paedophilia is a threat to common values, but it is amplified by vested interests such as the Child Sex Abuse industry.

Stereotypes

Stigmatisation can happen on three levels: prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination (which correspond to feelings, beliefs and behaviour).

mad_scientist-300x274
LSM working on a blog post

Stereotypes are by definition inaccurate. They are either entirely false, partially false, or exaggerations. An accurate stereotype is simply a ‘description’. To say ‘paedophiles generally see children as sexual beings‘ is not a stereotype but an accurate description; to conflate ‘the paedophile’ with the ‘sex-offender’ is a stereotype since the correlation between the two is far weaker than the stereotype suggests.

It is not always clear whether something is a ‘stereotype’ or a ‘description’. For example: the idea that paedophiles have a lower than average IQ has not been resolved. But what we can be sure of is that the general public has not derived this ‘knowledge’ from experience, or from rigorous and objective observation.

They have extrapolated this characteristic from an existing stereotype, such as that of the ‘paedo look’ – a ‘look’ which, like that of the ‘mad scientist’, has no empirical validity, but so well embodies society’s fears that people draw inferences from it, inferences perpetuated by photo-editors who have an interest in pandering to the public’s stereotypes.

pedo look mosaic

the functions of stigma II

Stigmas that elicit stereotypes can act as buffers against anxiety through enhancing real and perceived control. The stereotypes associated with such stigmas enable the perceiver to make inferences about the character and future behaviour of the stigma-bearer(s).

The stereotypes associated with paedophilia allow the perceiver to ‘spot’ paedophiles and make predictions concerning their behaviour. Given that stereotypes are, by definition, inaccurate this often means that stereotype-based responses are inappropriate or disproportional. At their most extreme they fuel moral panics and witch-hunts. This over-reaction, though unjust and troubling, is probably valuable to group survival: Nature generally opts for ‘overkill’ when there is little cost or risk for doing so (our instinctive disgust for faeces is disproportionate to the actual health risks it poses. This overkill is possible because there are few, if any, benefits to contact with faeces and no real cost to having an over-aversion to it).

Some stigmas can have a therapeutic function: comparing oneself to someone less fortunate can foster a sense of well-being and self-esteem. And stigmas that activate socially approved prejudice, if perceived as widely shared (again, the stigma around paedophilia is an example) also create a reassuring sense of social solidarity: ‘I may be a wrong-un but at least I hate nonces’.

self-fulfilling prophecies

Self-fulfilling prophecies happen when the targets of an initially erroneous stereotype end up behaving in a manner that confirms the stereotype. This specious confirmation of the stereotype then serves as proof that the originally erroneous stereotype is in fact correct.

Both the placebo and nocebo effects are examples of self-fulfilling prophecies. Another example is the effect of teacher expectation on pupils’ success or failure rates.

I suspect that self-fulfilling prophecy plays a major part in paedophiles’ lives. We shape our identity from the range of identities society makes available to us. If there exists no counter-identity to the available stereotype that most closely matches your self-perception (i.e. paedophile), then there is great pressure to adopt that stereotype (or aspects of it) as your identity. If you find yourself attracted to little boys and the only narrative you know for that attraction is that of ‘the Predator’ – then there is a significant likelihood that your self-perception will drift in that direction.

Think of someone living in biblical times suffering from the condition we today know as ‘epilepsy’. The only explanation for their symptoms is the highly stigmatising one of ‘demonic possession’. No narrative of neurological disorders existed in that society. So neither stigma-bearer, nor their society, could adopt the far less stigmatising narrative of a congenital, non-contagious neurological condition. The sufferer has no option but to believe themselves to be demonically possessed.

courtesy stigma

Stigma is contagious. Those who associate with stigmatised persons can themselves become proxy bearers of that stigma. This is known as ‘courtesy stigma’ and explains why, for example, in many cultures, people hide any mental illness amongst their family members.

Courtesy stigma increases the social isolation of stigmatised people, making those who don’t join in the stigmatisation pay a price. The price can be a heavy: during witch-panics those who defended witches, or denied their existence, often ended accused of being witches themselves. Or it can be low-level: those who care for the disabled or mentally ill generally being accorded a low-status.

The stigma associated with paedophilia is so strong that anyone who knowingly remains friends with a paedophile, or who casts doubt on the dominant narrative, is assumed to be a paedophile himself.

Another example of courtesy stigma is the witch-hunt of BBC employees, especially disc-jockeys, after the ‘revelations’ concerning Jimmy Savile, and the suspicion cast on politicians after the Westminster Paedophile Ring furore.

Even professionals are wary of working with paedophiles. Dr James Cantor in his 2016 paper “Non-Offending Pedophiles” (the first paper in his 14 years of research into paedophilia to actually use the word ‘stigma’) writes:

Clinicians who do offer treatment to this population may face prejudice and discrimination for simply providing services to non-offending pedophiles.”

systemic stigma

Those of us who have been outed, who have had dealings with the law or the mob, will be only too aware of the virulence and intensity of the stigma that comes from being ‘discredited’ in face-to-face interactions.

But given how easy (and necessary) it is for us to conceal our stigma I suspect that most paedophiles’ experience of stigma comes not from stigma-laden interactions with people who know they are a paedophile, but is picked up from the ‘system’ – culture, the media, from people who don’t know you are a paedophile, one’s upbringing and education, knowledge of the law &c

Despite the system being saturated with negative stereotypes of paedophiles and paedophilia, the literature, preoccupied with interactive stigma, hardly addresses this source of stigma. Granted, systemic stigma is less spectacular than interactive stigma, being a slow, steady erosion rather than a dramatic crisis.

Systemic stigma is hearing people you love and respect, and who love and respect you too, unknowingly misrepresent, reject and slander you, wish you ill, or even dead; it is knowing that the law, your community, your society, if they knew, would hate you above even terrorists and rapists.

Systemic stigma is picking up the newspaper and seeing people like yourself being prosecuted, persecuted, misrepresented and slandered; it is the sense of injustice and unfairness when child murderers and paedophiles are conflated; systemic stigma humiliates us: so often we have to kiss the rod and remain silent when those about us speak untruths.

Systemic stigma is our de facto segregation from those we love; it is children being taught to fear strangers and ‘paedos’, to reject an intimacy, affection and friendship that they may also need and crave.

It is knowing that those whom you consider friends, if they learnt of your stigma, would no longer see ‘you’, but see instead your stigma.

To be continued…

21 thoughts on “On Stigma and Paedophilia – a Theoretical Framework

    1. Thanks for that Libertine – the battle is on! And it’s a good sign that those who would mutilate their children are protesting – it shows that they are under pressure.

      >”Parents should remain free to act in what they believe to be the best interests of their children.”

      This is the crux of the matter – who does a child ‘belong’ to? Itself? It’s parent? It’s community? Abraham thought Isaac was sufficiently ‘his’ that he could sacrifice him to god. If a parent believes that being sacrificed to god is in the best interest of the child would Brid Hehir (the author of the article) defend the parent’s right to do that?

      I’m pretty certain he wouldn’t. The question then is ‘why?’ – because he recognises that the parents conception of the child’s best interests can be flawed, and that also Society has a say in what are the child’s best interests. Society says children should be educated – would he defend parents’ rights to leave their children uneducated?

      Some parents may feel it’s in their child’s best interest to share sexual intimacy with them. Would Brid Hehir defend their rights to do that? I somehow doubt it…

      Like

  1. I grew up in a strict religious (Muslim) household. I enjoyed recess because it was one of the few times during the day I was allowed to be outside. My parents would call the police and beat me if I was late walking home from school because I was watching a sports game or looking at the animals along the way.

    At home, I had to do homework, pray, and watch my younger siblings. If they did anything wrong it was my fault.

    I couldn’t go outside because the world is too dangerous. I’ll get sick, abducted, beaten up, convinced to leave my religion, etc.

    Today I spend a lot of time outdoors because of my job and I still hear voices in my head, of my mom telling me what my dad will do to me when he finds out I’ve been out of the house all day.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Pro-Balance/seXie…..

        Have you seen Hassam’s comment above?

        https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/on-stigma-and-paedophilia-a-theoretical-framework/comment-page-1/#comment-2082

        I hesitated long before approving it – and I don’t feel I can simply leave it as it is without some kind of response.

        But I thought that I might not be the best person to give that response, being a unapologetic critic of islam.

        Can I invite you (and/or any other reader) to give a response to Hassam’s comment?

        If no response is posted in the next few days I’ll remove Hassam’s comment.

        Like

        1. Dear blocker-apologist Lenny.

          Hassam’s on topic anti-Muzz comment is as valid as any other in it’s own right (or wrong).

          So, why waste time and energy ‘moderating’, ‘removing’ or, ‘blocking’ ANY on-topic comment?

          Or, next thing very valid if mebbe relatively inarticulate ‘Antis’, or even very welcum under age proactive ADULTOPHILES may be gettin’ BLOCKED – WTF?!

          True libertarians just let it flow bruv…..

          LUV,

          Pro-Balance/SeXy/YT-CommentsCommandos et al, no apology.

          Like

          1. I was suggesting you answer it, seXie – not moderate it.

            Since you do not wish to answer it – do I take it that you agree with the sentiments and opinions Hassam expresses? Or that you think such sentiments don’t need challenging?

            Please don’t tell me that you find his comment less offensive my saying that I find Jewish beauty particularly alluring?”

            I suspect that it’s more that you are unwilling to ever criticise a moslem (or islam) – even if what they are saying is profoundly and obviously depraved and wrong.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. This is a very sad story. Now that you have lost the physical shackles of your past, I hope you eventually lose the emotional ones also.

      Like

  2. haha – I typed in ‘pedo look’ into google images, ‘print-screened’ the results and cropped it down to the essentials – you could do similar searches (paedo look, looks like a paedo, paedo smile…) and do a series of t-shirts. I’m sure that it would be a hit on next season’s Parisian Catwalks!

    Like

  3. Funnily enough (hollow laugh) my longest-serving associate (so to speak!) in the gay world, a German fellow I came to know tweaking his VERY lofty and acutely-realised essayings when we stayed at the same student accoms together, is now at utter odds with me due to my pressing him to see the plight of paedophilia in the light of what I (no doubt somewhat ..vociferously) reminded him was the “blood, sweat and tears” expended by *interested* homosexual persons over decades… This has led to such hostility as you can’t imagine.. He has blocked me from his FB and even threatened to sever the communicational lines altogether.. this chap recently went from Berlin to Paris to marry his French lover in an enormous ballroom scene, in fact, and may generally be said to be riding high on the whole achieved shebang..

    Your essay above is purely lovely, LSM, and above all it satisfies – and that’s all there is to it! (Except I know there’s a whole lot more… ‘faster’, as everybody’s favourite Transhumanist God of the Internet likes to say…)

    I wanted to ask you if you managed yet to read Amy Adler’s essay (i gave the link) on how virtually the entire western world is by now obliged by dint of law-creation to see through the eyes of the stereotypical ‘paedophile’? This extraordinary situation surely never obtained for the gay folks, now did it!

    Like

    1. Your German friend has ‘thrown us under the bus’. As it happens, I’m at this very moment studying research on the effects of stigmatisation on LGBLT (Lesbian, Gay, Bacon, Lesbittuce and Tomato – I worked for a while in a sandwich shop…) youth in Canada and the US and Western Europe.

      It’s a fascinating exercise – and they do seem to suffer a lot.

      Which raises the question – if LGBetc youth suffer from stigma despite all the support provided them, and all the role models favourable presented to them, and the positive messages and community building – how much worse must paedophile youth suffer!? I suspect that it is a level of suffering, mental illness, suicide, depression etc that is of a whole different order to that of LGBLT youth.

      Which, I confess shamefacedly (as once I did to my overly-severe geography teacher when I forgot to do my homework) that I haven’t yet read the Amy Adler essay :-(. Indeed, in all the excitement of my recent stigma research I plain forgot about it.

      But thanks for reminding me – I DO intend to read it as it looks very interesting.

      In fact you’re reminder has prompted me to create a folder on my desktop called ‘to be read’ – that way those essays etc that I simply must read will be visible each time I fill up the boiler on my computer with water, put a lump of coal in it’s little furnace and crank the crankshaft to get it going (it’s a bit of an old one…).

      It might take me a few weeks to get round to it – I’ve a packed schedule of essays ahead of me and the Summer visits of friends and relatives is about to start.

      Like

      1. Actually, I think you should make an effort to read it, putting it at the head of the list.

        Whilst I don’t necessarily agree with everything Adler says, she says quite a bit that is relevant to stigma, e.g.,

        >>>>>>>child pornography may be a tool of seduction. The Supreme Court has noted that “paedophiles use child pornography to seduce other children into sexual activity.” Second, child pornography may incite its viewers to molest children. As Congress warned, it “whet[s] [the] sexual appetites” of paedophiles, creating their fantasies and stimulating them to victimise real children.(Adler, 2001, 216)

        and

        >>>>>> Child pornography law explicitly requires us to take on the gaze of the pedophile in order to root out pictures of children that harbor secret pedophilic appeal. The growth of child pornography law has opened up a whole arena for the elaborate exploration of children as sexual creatures. Cases require courts to engage in long detailed, analyses of the “sexual coyness” or playfulness of children, and of their potential to arouse. Courts have undertaken Talmudic discussions of the meaning of “pubic area” and “discernibility” of a child’s genitals in a picture at issue. But even when a child is pictured as a sexual victim rather than a sexual siren, the child is still pictured as sexual. Child pornography law becomes in this view a vast realm of discourse in which the image of the child as sexual preserved and multiplied.

        In some ways she is making the same points as Kincaid In Erotic Innocence, but she is doing so in terms of the law in the US, which gives it a little more oomph.

        In any event, she is proving useful for the revision and completion of the last essay draft I sent you.

        Ah, tuppence, at last.

        Like

            1. hi BJ,

              I don’t know if it’s got through yet, but I’ve sent you an email. There’s a half-formed essay I’d appreciate you having a quick look at – it’s a bit unusual and I need another pair of eyes just to tell me if I’m being completely misguided or not…

              Like

                  1. No worries. I hope my reactions were useful.
                    Did I send you the Houtepen paper? I can’t remember, and I’m too lazy to go back to the email and check…
                    DOI: 10.1080/0092623X.2015.1061077
                    Most of these academic papers are interesting, even though they fail, more often than not, to deal directly with the issues they are investigating. (Unfortunately I suspect that this refers also to me and my work.)

                    Like

  4. Great text, very lucid! Another clear example of stigmatization is homosexuals in the past who thought they were sick, stigmatized by the church and society … Sadly, there are also stigmatized and blamed pedophiles who may find themselves ill too …
    I look forward to the text continuation, hugs !!

    (“LSM working on a blog post” hahahaha)

    (Excuse me for some orthographic error, I still do not speak English and use an online translator to read and comment on your posts!)

    Like

    1. Thanks Rique!

      >”Another clear example of stigmatization is homosexuals in the past who thought they were sick, stigmatized by the church and society”

      You are right – paedophiles have a great deal to learn from stigmatisation of homosexuals.

      >”(“LSM working on a blog post” hahahaha)”

      It’s not the best picture of me – I was having a bad-hair day when that photo was taken.

      Like

........................... PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT........................... comments from the outraged will be approved only if they are polite and address issues raised in the accompanying article or discussion. The 'email' field can be left blank.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s