Thursday, July 19, 2012

Vintage vs Body Image



A few of these images have been doing the rounds lately - adverts for weight gain products for women with taglines such as "Skinny Girls are not Glamour Girls". They've been used to support the idea that 50, 60, 70 years ago the "feminine ideal" was pleasantly plump, in contrast to the "unhealthily thin"* ideal of today. There's somehow this perception that in the 40s and 50s there was no pressure on women to be slim, that big was beautiful - the oft-parroted "Marilyn Monroe was a size 16"** line. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm afraid that's simply not the case.

These weight gain products are evenly balanced with weight loss pills and potions, tables of ideal statistics and diets so strict that I gave up after three days. Read those correct measurements and tell me again that a 25-26" waist for my height isn't considered slim by modern standards. It annoys me when people use vintage to call for a return to the body ideals of 50+ years ago, apparently as a way of justifying being overweight, and completely ignoring the fuller (no pun intended) picture.


"When 35-23-35 is a goal (in round numbers, of course)"
weight loss ad from 1957

On closer inspection, even these ads promoting weight gain aren't exactly the chubby-champions they seem at first glance - take these "curvy girls" - not exactly voluptuous, are they?



The ads are amusing just because they're the absolute antithesis of every "bikini body" article in every modern magazine. But that's all: They're not proof that in bygone eras the "ideal" was especially more realistic than now (though the curves were softer and the hourglass more pronounced than in the more firmly toned, athletic ideal today), or that there was any less pressure to conform to a body ideal than there is now - it's just that in modern society the average size has shifted further and further away from that ideal.

What there was, on the other hand, was help in the form of foundation garments. Occasionally outside observers to the world of vintage enquire how we can reconcile feminist ideals with wearing of corsets and other "uncomfortable" foundation garments designed to mould the body to be more appealing to men. But the way I see it, a corset or girdle is the easy way - far easier (for me) than spending hours at the gym or denying myself chocolate. Thanks to the corset I can eat cake and still achieve a 24" waist. That's what I call liberating.

I'm going to go ahead and publish this now - it's not the most eloquent prose I've ever written, but I think it says most of what I wanted to say. But what do you think? Please do share your thoughts in the comments - I'd love to hear your reactions.

* I've deliberately put that in quotes because I actually don't think the fashion industry and media do necessarily champion an excessively thin ideal. Yes there are some models (on the catwalk, probably) whose BMI is clearly below the healthy range, but for the most part, flicking through fashion magazines I see perfectly healthy looking, slender figures.

** In the 1940s and 50s, a standard size 16 was a 34" bust, 26-28" waist and 37" hips. Marilyn's recorded waist size varied from a teeny 22" (probably with the help of foundation garments) to about 28".



Size 16

43 comments:

  1. FABULOUS post. I LOVE it when you write about vintage bodies - your reasonable views are always backed up with pertinent (and often hilarious!) original articles and adverts. Top form!

    My mother and grandmother tried to make me gain weight as a child, as I was seen to be "unhealthily thin". It drives me mad when people say that "everyone in the fifties was curvy". For starters, curvy is not a synonym for fat. You can be thin and have a waist, or fat with no waist. Curvy is bust-waist-hip ratio, not the amount of fat on you! Second, do you really think the gene pool has diversified radically in sixty years? No! There were a variety of shapes then as now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those 'putting on weight' adverts make me uncomfortable because the 'too thin' they talk about isn't simply some fashion thing (as we might up the gym before our hols and lose a few pounds). Women didn't want to look scrawny and poor, to put it frankly. For the working classes of inner cities, 'too thin' meant poverty- things like kids with rickets, infant mortality, a 14 hr day at the factory on 'blind' scouse (meat stew...without the meat), young women who struggled to conceive as their diet was poor... right up to the 50s charities were handing out food aid in the UK. So 'too slim' was NOT a stand against a fashion for boyish, muscled frames... thinness was something to fear (or a marker for stigma/prejudice, if you were on the 'upper side' of the class barrier). Watch any social documentary on the reality of the 'good old days'- issues we now see in what we deem 'less developed' countries existed in London, Manchester and Liverpool. THAT'S why a woman would want curves! It wasn't spare fat as we might assume; do we want to go back to a time when showing you could feed yourself/family was an aspiration not a right?

    And the 'bigger' women... well, as you say, they were very specific about where one's curves could be, and my (by modern standards) slightly narrow waist wouldn't have garnered any compliments back in the day... I would have been just about avoiding their idea of 'chubby'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've hit it with your comment about equating body size with class divisions. A similar distinction is happening today. Nowadays, people who are overweight are seen as occupying a lower economic level (i.e. McDonald's patrons) and slim as upper-class (i.e. those who can afford organic food.) The amount of chemicals in food has increased since WWII. I'll bet that's partly why this shift has occurred.

      Whatever body shape is perceived to be less valued will be targeted by advertising, sadly.

      Delete
  3. I do wonder how much things like the severe lack of food during the war years, and the depression before it, had an impact on advertising like this? Being thin carried connotations of not having enough money to buy food = poor. Similar to having "sun kissed skin" was out in from the 1700's onwards due to it being a class divider - as in - working class spent more time outside and caught the sun - upper class didn't and remained lily white? Maybe?

    Not agreeing or disagreeing either way. Just like the "bikni ideal" of today - things like this don't usually hit my radar and get a reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's the "fat acceptance" side of it that gets me. I think the curves thing seems to related more to the idea of having hips and a bust, to *shape* rather than *size* in a lot of those adverts.

    They get bought up now by people who are trying to excuse the fact they sit on the sofa all day and eat 4 pizzas for tea. I don't think anyone should be miserable about their shape and size, but I think the relationship we have as a society with the connection between food, exercise, body shape, size and health is incredibly warped.

    I've had a post about this in my head for months, but I'm not quite brave enough to post it as I can't be bothered to be picked on :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "to *shape* rather than *size*" - agreed

      Delete
  5. Thank you for this enlightening post! I am glad you show both sides.
    I am also glad with articles in the blogosphere which teach you which fashion decade fits your body. It makes you accept your body as it is and dress (vintage) accordingly.
    I was a tiny bit offended though, with the sentence 'justifying being overweight'. I am sure most women who are (seriously) overweight see this as a problem they want to do something about (or not). If people use that reason to dress in a 40s or 50s style (even if they are miseducated) and they feel great, who are we to judge?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If someone is happy with the way they look that's fine and brilliant and power to them! But using vintage ads to justify looking the way they do indicates that they're not, in fact, completely happy with it (if they were, they wouldn't have to point at these images and say "see, it's okay for me to be fat because in the olden days they used to want to gain weight").

      xx Charlotte

      Delete
    2. Hmm... why should we 'dress accordingly' based on our body shape? My body shape is DEFINITELY a good match for 50s... but I dress in 60s-70s, and modern indie.

      I don't think people should compromise their taste based on their skeletal structure! I know some fashion advisors would urge me into 50s and out of big-print-maxis, but I like them!

      Delete
    3. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean that! I adore the 20s, but I wouldn't feel happy in a flapper dress. It just wouldn't fit me. The point I am trying to make (in my bad English...) is that everybody should wear what they want! I have worked in fashion for almost 8 years, and there are a lot of women who don't have a clue what fits them. Helping them find out what does, is very rewarding.
      And @Charlotte, of course you're right!

      Delete
    4. As a non-vintage-related aside, my sister is about to start training with House of Colour, who basically do image consultancy. They do a style analysis which is based on a combination of body type AND personality.

      We do all generally dress to flatter our own figures though, regardless of the era we prefer - even within your 60s/70s aesthetic, you tend to wear dresses with a fitted waist or empire line, rather than the angular shift dresses or trapeze dresses which were also popular during that era but don't work so well on your hourglass body shape.

      xx C

      Delete
    5. Oh, but I DO wear trapeses and shifts- I really like them. I actually don't care (provided they fit) that they're hiding my waist. I would never wear anything grossly over tight however I will err the other way, something that doesn't 'define' my figure - or even makes my legs look short- doesn't phase me at all.

      Delete
    6. I take that bit back then - it's all about the clothes that you feel happy in :)

      Delete
  6. Fab post! Yes, it does annoy me when people say "Marilyn was a size 16", they don't realise that's in vintage sizing. I've seen her costumes, they're bloomin' tiny!

    It seems to me that thin has been synonymous with rich for a lot of the 20th century too - despite the rationing and such like, thin was still desirable. I've never seen clothes catalogues from the '30s or '40s with anything but slim models.

    Thanks for this thoughtful post!

    Miss P xx

    ReplyDelete
  7. THANK YOU.

    As a fat girl, and part of the whole ~fat acceptance~ thing that's going around, nothing annoys me more than fat girls saying that they were "born in the wrong era" because "in the 50's it was okay to be fat", I've always known it was wrong, but this just puts the nail in the coffin a bit!

    I didn't actually know about the weight loss adverts myself [i suppose I hadn't really looked into it], but it's so interesting that there's two sides of the track to this one!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't think that many people use such ads to justify being fat. I suspect why they are popular, is that they remind us all that the fashionable ideal is a moving target, and the pursuit of it is just a hiding to nowhere for any woman. This is not the same as using them as a rationale for being a certain way.
    Believe me, when one is overweight and has been all one's life, one gets extremely tired of being told by anyone and everyone at all times, and from all directions - personally and via the media, internet etc etc, that one is lazy, useless, a pizza scoffing, couch potato burden, blah blah blah. There is a strong correlation or even a collapse together of the concepts of personal worth and appearance, as most women suffer from to some extent, but the constant association of fat with lazy and ridiculous on top of all that is not something thin people have to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the constant association of fat with lazy and ridiculous on top of all that is not something thin people have to deal with"

      No, but it has been said to me that I must be bitchy and snobbish, and that I must think of nothing but dieting, be boring to talk to, and have no fun. I'll admit it's nothing to the pillorying fat people get these days, but (pun intended) it's still no picnic being thin! No woman gets her body to herself these days. I don't even think of myself as thin - just normal, because this is what my body is like. I take size 6/8, but I always have.

      Delete
  9. What Perdita said. Class has to do a lot with it. But the "rich" (women) weren't supposed to be "fat" either. In todays western society the rich & royals mostly aren't plus size.

    In societies where there is not an abundance of food, being skinny isn't the safest way to survive. It's exactly why human bodies still store fat easily. The body shows how well it does in society. Depending on the society/class/culture/time you live in, that can mean being slim or more plus size.

    Still, all comes down to shape, humans are "programmed" to value the waist-hip ratio. So yes, curves in the right places suggest health and healthy off-spring.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio

    ReplyDelete
  10. The biggest thing that vintage has taught me about my body image is that clothes make such a difference in how my body looks and I think that's what people should take away from wearing vintage, not that it's ok to be overweight because that's the way it used to be.

    I'm now confident enough to wear 50s styles that flatter my figure most or the slimmer silhouettes from the 30s and 40s both now and when I was 25 lbs heavier.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Marylin's weight varied so the whole size 16 really gets to me as its not modern standards. Plus she also had to deal with the pressure of society and I read somewhere that she may have even had an eating disorder..
    I don't understand 'fat acceptance' but also body shaming isn't the right way to go either, we should all try to achieve what is healthy for our bodies and not shame either thin or 'curvy' women.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great post, and I also agree with Vee's comment! As a naturally thin woman, I get offended by constantly hearing "REAL women have curves". Despite my boyish figure, I'm still a real woman ;-P.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Okay, I do and do not agree. I like those posts, but not because they give me a reason to be overweight. Which I am and I'm trying my best to shed weight and become healthier, which still maintaining my curves.

    The reason I love these adds is because they show you can be beautiful because of your curves. I've never had that straight figure, when I was 13, I practically had child bearing hips, so what??? That doesn't mean I was any less attractive than the girls who could easily fit into juniors clothes.

    My point is both figures are attractive. But in this day in age it's the straight, no curves figure that is considered glamorous and sexy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. oh this is such a tricky one!

    What I do know is that size 16 in the 50s was small as I sew a lot and there's no way I would fit in a 50s 16.

    I think nearly all women have body issues which saddens me so much, me included I may add. I have had horrible problems with my weight all my life, by todays standard I wasn't fat when I was young but developed well ahead of my peers and so appeared fat fairly early. This was compounded by my doctor and mum insisting I diet at 16, when I think what I weighed then and what clothes size I was, I despair at their decision as instead of helping, it just made me feel bad about myself.

    I've been up and down all my life, I've been very fit, eaten well lost weight and still been above my 'healthy' BMI. I think I was within my BMI once for about 2 weeks, mmmmm I would say that indicates something about where I should naturally be.

    Anyway, my point being is that we shouldn't assume fat is unhealthy or thin is unhealthy, yes very extremes of these are but those are extremes. I know people who are skinny and people who are fat that are healthy. I know people who are skinny & fat that eat total crap and never exercise, we can't possible say they are healthy or not based on their BMI or weight surely?

    I am currently battling my weight again and being extremely successful, lost 25lbs so far, however it is tough, I just am determined to keep it up.

    I don't however crave ever to be super slim, sorry if you are super slim, no offense but it doesn't appeal to me, hey which is just as well as it's never going to happen ha ha!

    oh and btw not all people who are fat eat pizza and sit on the sofa all day, that's the same stereotype as someone who is skinny starving themselves and only eating lettuce leaves, sure those people exist, but don't assume

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BMI is really a fairly inaccurate tool for estimating body fat percentage, so if you have time/money/inclination to, you could always ask your doctor about having your body fat calculated a different way.

      It's been my experience that bodies have several "gears" for weight, and they might be 20lbs apart, so even if you couldn't maintain the same weight just inside your target BMI, you might be able to maintain a lower weight with no problem. Of course, if you don't want to, there is no reason for you to!

      Delete
  15. Excellent post. The Marylin statement often frustrates me. A vintage 16 is worlds away from a modern 16 (unless you're using a sewing pattern)..but even if you didn't know that information, just LOOK at her. Does she look like she's a modern size 16??

    People should just be content to be who they are, thin or fuller figured, without needing to find validation for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marilyn's size sixteen is an 8/10 in modern M&S.

      Delete
  16. Thank you for another astute post! I'd venture to say beauty standards were far narrower in the '40s and '50s than today, which many vintage fans don't seem to realize. The perfect hourglass is just another difficult-to-attain beauty standard, and many stick thin gals then probably felt as marginalized as overweight girls today.

    On another note, I have to hand it to dressmakers of that era-- they really made clothes to flatter any figure! That's why I think the '40s-'50s fashions have undergone such a keen revival lately; clothing labels today tend to make clothes that flatter the "ideal shape", and imply that women should alter themselves to fit them. One of the things I so enjoy about clothing from the past is the way they are tailored to make the most of a woman's figure, whatever shape it may be (foundation wear is great this way, too, as you mentioned!).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to have to disagree with you that 1940s and 1950s made clothes that flattered any figure. the styles in those era did not flatter were apple shaped.

      Delete
  17. Great post, it is interesting about what some of the other commenters have said about how being skinny was equated with ones economic status back in the 50's. Interesting! I have an ad about this same topic in one of my magazines..I'll have to see if I can find it. You can see how these ads nowadays would never make it to a magazine:)

    http://dividingmoments.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think it´s the mass market clothing culture that makes us all feel like our bodies are wrong. Trying stuff on at H&M or some place like that, it´s like a Procrustean bed for women. Having clothes made to fit our bodies would make us all feel better, look better, and it would be great for economy and environment.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Of course, the vintage weight-gain ads would make you think that every pound you gain would go either to your hips or your breasts! As a smaller-busted woman (I just got my vintage bra in a 34A and have to stuff the cups to get them anywhere close to normal-looking) I think there is a definite danger in confusing "curves," usually a full bust and full hips with a slim, defined waist and thin limbs, with "plump," which certainly involves full bust and hips but also arms, legs, and waist. Many older dresses and dress patterns expected women to have very slim arms!

    I feel like modern society is very democratic about weight: the majority of people are overweight, therefore we should embrace it, in spite of the risk that those extra pounds entail. I'm rather fond of the 50s advert that states "You're fat because you eat too much! That's all!" because I have noticed that the vast majority of the larger people I know have a very poor understanding of the correlation between food, calories, and weight. Perhaps is is the little label on your food that says "based on a 2000/2500 calorie diet" that leads women to think they actually need to consume that much food!

    Obviously this is a topic near and dear to my heart, I think I've ranted enough... thank you for your very thoughtful post! I think it's important to raise awareness and get a dialogue started.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Vintage gals knew the wonders foundation garments could work and they used them. I never really had a nice hourglass until I started using them, plus undergarments really change how a dress fits! I love my corset and girdles for the same reason you stated: Instant Diet! According to the vintage measurement ideals, I'm about 2 inches off in all categories but the hips (I'm shaped like a larger, old-style Barbie. All boobs and no hips!). It's funny because if you look back at my mother, she was two inches larger at her wedding than my grandmother was and I am two inches larger around than my mother was at my age. It's a cultural trend, for sure, and it won't be slowing down anytime soon. After all, before the 50s was the Victorian era, and before that was the Renaissance, and the Romans. The physiology of mankind is getting larger and changing in general. Using old measurements and number sizes just doesn't work very well on our modern bodies (and plenty of modern ones don't work either!).

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm glad someone is saying it. Those ads doing the rounds on Facebook irritate me no end. Mostly because any ad that tells women what they 'idea' figure is, is bad. To say 'this kind of body-image pressure is ok' is ridiculous. You can't complain about modern magazines, but then say that you love these old adverts.

    On Marilyn Monroe being a size 16, I wonder if you have read The Vagenda's post on that?
    Apparantly it's really not as simple as that at all.
    http://vagendamag.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/marilyn-myth.html

    You might find it interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I battled with anorexia for many years (and still find it lingering every few days or so. This is also what I implied in my latest blog entry, but didn't want to go into) because of the "ideal" image that was out there. While I do not like that media (no matter the decade) perpetuates an ideal, I must say that I like the mid-20th century ideal more because it falls more in line with what I already look like. I feel that people should be happy with themselves just how they are, as long as they are healthy. I believe that some studies have shown that you can look overweight, but still be considered healthy due to frequent activities and such. I also think that people can look good no matter how much they weigh or what their body shape may be, just as long as they are aware of it, and dress accordingly.

    xoxo
    -Janey

    ReplyDelete
  23. Weight, weight! I know of someone who was diagnosed with a rare liver cancer. She was offered a 'pioneering' operation which she accepted. They told her it was because her BMI was within the correct range - over that the risks were too great.

    The operation discovered not cancer but a blockage of a duct in the liver that copied the symptoms of this cancer. It was dealt with, but imagine if she had not had the op - chemotherapy and cancer fighting drugs. The threat of death hanging over her. Enough to keep me on the straight and narrow.

    Sorry to be grim, but there are more reasons than one to stay a healthy weight.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Great post! I actually have something relatively similar saved in my drafts. You're right, so many people tout the 1950's body ideal as one that is natural, forgetting that women wore foundation garments as well as some dresses even had hip and bust padding to enhance the hour glass shape. It's a bit of an off shoot, but bits of this post remind me of women who refer to the body types of the 50s as "real" women because they had curves. Aren't we ALL real women? Big, small, curvy, curve-less. Implying that at one time in history women had "real" bodies because they were curvier than what we typically see represented today as the ideal, is just a limiting and constricting as body image standards today. It's the same promotion of one body type over another that is prevalent today with being stick thin. As a feminist who writes about and discusses this issue quite a lot in an academic context, I feel we should be embracing and accepting of all body types, rather than upholding an either/or binary of desirability (curvy girls vs skinny girlsl).

    While there is a lot of misinformation out there about how women in the 1950s attained their shape, that they often wore painful and uncomfortable undergarments, that some even went through intensive body morphing and sometimes even plastic sugary to attain the coveted hourglass shape, I will say the revival of mid-century fashion has, in general, given me a lot more body confidence. I notice many other women who have embraced this trend, feel a lot better about their figures - big or small. Not because our figures suddenly look more like the mid-century ideal, but that the cut of many of these dresses is just so dang flattering - regardless of size.

    Charmaine x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hear hear! Also, I LOVE the phrase "binary of desirability" - I'm making a mental note of that to use at the earliest opportunity.

      xx C

      Delete
  25. This is a great post!! I love how people refer to Marilyn being a size 16 like it means she was some huge cow. Yes, a VINTAGE size 16, and at her heaviest, none the less! Her measurements say it all. She was teeny, but curvy. Also, when she was at her heaviest she got a lot of grief in the media for it. So even back then there was the ideal body type. I'm sure she felt the pressure to be thin just like women today do.

    Even though I dislike the too skinny expectations in fashion, I also dislike the new 'fat acceptance' trend (NAAFA). Their spokeswoman is obese and IMO not a good role model. It is not ok to be obese, just like it not ok to be anorexic. Telling overweight kids that it is ok to be obese is dangerous. Health should be promoted more, especially in schools. It is horrible that most schools no longer have recess and sports, not to mention bad lunches.

    I think modern women need to be realistic. They need to listen to their bodies and find their 'happy weight'. Being too skinny or too heavy is unhealthy and does not look good. They need to stop making excuses for why they are over weight, and they need to ignore social weight expectations and just get healthy!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I kind of squirm every time these ads pop up. I grew up with classic film, which shaped my vision of an "ideal" body type. I was hopelessly skinny, and got made fun of a TON when I was young. I was so very far from the ideal, it made me cover up everything I could and wear too-big clothes to try to mask it.
    It just goes to show you. Our perception of the ideal is so different. While scrawny fashion models were the craze I was lamenting not having any curves.
    Thankfully, as I get older I care less and less what people think of me and embrace more who I am, and what my God-given body type is.
    So often we hear about the extremes- back then too skinny was a bad thing, as was being too large. Now people tend to rebel by saying "real women have curves", but it's still got the flip side of the coin, too- there's women dealing with body issues- both underweight and overweight and anywhere in between. It's just embracing yourself and finding beauty in yourself, no matter where you fall in terms of body type.

    ReplyDelete
  27. As with any discussion re body size and issues this is a wonderful blog and lots of wonderful comments - again reiterating that generally as women we have issues with our bodies no matter what our shape or size and that is it, in a nutshell! There has never been a time when ALL body shapes and sizes have been acceptable amongst the fashionable set (and today that is pretty much mainstream for lots of reasons) - there has always been a fashion or a fad!! All of us just need to embrace what we have been dished out and our number one concern needs to be health - if our weight is affecting our health then we ideally need to do something about it - of course its a choice, there are people who chose to smoke, to take drugs, to drink excessively - all things that are bad for health and shorten our lives, and being under and over weight is the same!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. An interesting post. I have put on weight as I have become older and have developed some health problems but I have always been very hourglass at both ends of the scale, I find it hard to find clothes to fit, always far too big in the waist and this has become more so in the last few years for some reason, must be the way they cut things. I don't come from a background/culture that was ever particularly weight obsessed so it's not something that ever really impinged much upon me when I was young. I didn't like having large breasts though because I am quite short and I've always felt taken over by them! People should concentrate on being healthy and dress to flatter themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The thing that bugs me about this argument, too, is that really when you declare one ideal as what's attractive, somebody is always getting left out in the cold.

    I'm admittedly a big defensive as I am slim and not very curvy and so a lot of the skinny girls are unattractive stuff hits me where it hurts.

    But even without that, it's not fair to women to turn attractiveness into some kind of competition where somebody has to lose. Some people like curves. Some like slender girls. Some like larger girls. THAT IS FINE. There is, actually, plenty of love and appreciation to go around in the world without trying to shove others out in the cold.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Interesting post. It seems I'm not far off the vintage size 16. My problem is I always loose weight off my waist but gain on hips and bust. So even when I gain weight people assume I'm not that big because I'm an hourglass shape. I notice the adverts show weight gain on the bust and hip NOT the waist. So its abviously shape that's the focus rather than weight.

    ReplyDelete

I'd love to hear your thoughts!

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails