Photographer Documents An Incident Of Intimate Violence

(Trigger warning, for both this post, and for the links it contains.)

Photographer Sara Naomi Lewkowicz didn’t intend to be taking photos of Shane violently assaulting his girlfriend Maggie, but that’s how things turned out. This Time photo-essay is disturbing and well worth your time. For me, the photos showing Maggie’s two-year-old daughter Memphis attempting to protect her mother are particularly heartbreaking.

I had met Shane and Maggie two-and-a-half months before. Southeastern Ohio was still warm that time of year and brimming with small regional festivals. I had gone to the Millersport Sweet Corn Festival to shoot my first assignment for an editorial photography class. Almost immediately, I spotted a man covered in tattoos, including an enormous piece on his neck that read, “Maggie Mae.” He was holding a beautiful little girl with blonde curls. His gentle manner with her belied his intimidating ink, and I approached them to ask if I could take their portrait. […] Before they drove home, I asked if I could continue to document them, and they agreed. […]

After I confirmed one of the housemates had called the police, I then continued to document the abuse — my instincts as a photojournalist began kicking in. If Maggie couldn’t leave, neither could I.

After the photo essay, you should definitely read Amanda’s analysis, “Photo Essay Shows How Abusers Manipulate Victims,” which is spot-on. Here’s a selection, but please read the whole thing:

The images of the fight itself are arresting and disturbing, but Lewkowicz does more than bear witness to domestic violence. She also chronicled the entire process of domestic violence and how an abuser sets up the opportunity to beat his partner. I thought it might be a useful exercise to go through these photos (with links, because I don’t have the rights to the pictures) and explicate the steps an abuser goes through in order to manipulate the victim into accepting abuse.

1) Whirlwind romance. Shane and Maggie had only been dating a few months, but already they were living together and Shane was aggressively trying to become the father figure to the children, even though the older one was skeptical of him. Abusers commonly try to rush things, because it’s important to them to lock the victim down. They know, if only subconsciously, that if they don’t have it all locked down and they give into the temptation to hit their partner, the chance of the partner walking away goes up. This also helps establish the romantic narrative that their love is “different” from other people’s—more passionate, more romantic—which makes the abuse easier to write off as overblown passion.

2) Create dependence. As becomes clear in this photo essay, despite Shane’s economic woes, he provided a roof over Maggie and her children’s heads and by leaving him, she lost her housing.

3) Isolate the victim from her support network. Again, this makes it harder for the victim to leave, because she has no one to turn to and nowhere to go. From the photo essay: “Within a few months of their relationship, Shane moved Maggie and her children to a trailer park in Somerset, Ohio. The location was farther away than Maggie had ever been from her family and friends before, and she said her feelings of isolation only increased over time.”

Posted in Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 16 Comments

How To Fix “ShareThis” so it no longer adds “See more at…” message to text that you copy and paste

Without warning users, the folks at “ShareThis” added a new function to their social buttons plugin. Now, anytime someone copies text from a blog with “ShareThis” installed, when the text is pasted, a new message saying “See more at [insert url]” was placed at the end of the text.

After some googling, I did find a method to fix the problem, but you have to know where to add javascript code. Like a lot of WordPress users, I’m not especially comfortable with fooling around “under the hood” like that. Plus, I really don’t trust ShareThis anymore – they’ve shown that they think nothing about adding functions I don’t want, without my permission, and without reasonable (or any) warning.

So I’ve worked out an easy three-step fix:

1. Go to the “plugins” menu in your wordpress admin screens. Deactivate “ShareThis.”

2. Delete “ShareThis.”

3. Go to the “install new plugin” area, and install the Really simple Facebook Twitter share buttons plugin.

See? Very simple.

Update: Decided to try “Lazy Social Buttons” instead. It slows things down a bit for users (like me) who use the social media buttons, but it speeds things up a bit for all other users. Not sure if I like this, but I’ll try it for a bit.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 1 Comment

What Do Cultural Traditionalists Offer LGBT People And Abused Women?

There’s a teapot tempest going on over this Washington Post column.

I basically agree with Conor Friedersdorf when he says “There Probably Isn’t Any Neutral Way to Report on Homosexuality.” A person who complains that the Washington Post’s “Date Lab” – a fluffy blind-date series that almost never includes lesbian or gay couples – is biased towards gays, is a person who objects to same-sex couples ever being presented in a neutral light. (How is the Post supposed to “balance” a “Date Lab” article, anyway – should the reporter alternate describing the date with quotes from John Piper on how gay marriage means America has lost its soul?)

But I thought “Nathan” in the comments of Rod Dreher’s blog, made a good point (I’ve added paragraph breaks and corrected typos):

And while we’re on the topic of biased accounts of marriage (and sex), it’s worth noting the traditionalists’ own biases. There is a tendency for traditionalists to paint the modern conception of marriage as motivated largely by individualism and hedonism run amok. America got rich and then America got immoral. And there is, to be fair, some of that. People do like that they can indulge their sexual peccadilloes (or perversions, as some traditionalists would have it) so long as they can find a consenting partner.

But it is not as if the traditionalist conception of marriage was never tried. It was tried and abandoned. And it was abandoned, in large part, not for reasons of hedonism but as a response (and admittedly, perhaps an overreaction) to genuine injustices abetted by the traditionalist understanding of marriage. Arranged marriages resulted in poor pairings or marriages for the wrong reasons. The unavailability of divorce resulted in much mistreatment of women. Homosexuals suffered grinding persecution. These are not small problems.

It is not clear to me, for example, how you safeguard against the abuse of women in bad marriages in the absence of permissive divorce laws. Nor is it clear to me what sorts of lives homosexuals can have in a resurgent traditionalist society. The modern conception of marriage is the answer to a set of questions. What are we to do with someone trapped in a marriage not of her own choosing? What are we to say to a woman who is badly mistreated by her husband? What are we to do with homosexuals? If traditionalism is to have any chance in the marriage debate, it has to compete with the modern conception. It has to answer these questions more compellingly than the modern conception does.

It’s not clear to me that traditionalists have met that burden. And if they don’t, then the victory of the modern conception is justified, is it not?

To that last question, I suspect that many cultural traditionalists would say “no.” I think many cultural traditionalists are simply indifferent to the fate of lgbt people, and don’t see anything wrong with that indifference. It’s not that they lie awake in bed shaking clenched fists in the air and going “grrr, grrr, gays, how I hates them!” in the manner of Gollum hating Baggins. It’s that as long as they get what they want – in this case, no legal recognition for same-sex marriages – they genuinely aren’t interested in what that does to lgbt people.

In their eyes, this indifference makes them neutral. In my eyes, it means they’re prejudiced against lgbt people. Prejudice isn’t only overt hostility; refusing to treat the interests of lgbt people as fully legitimate and equally important is also a form of prejudice.

Similarly, sexism doesn’t require someone to overtly hate women (or to overtly hate men). I’m sure that most traditionalists love and hold dear many women in their lives. That doesn’t change that permissive divorce laws give abused women a better shot at leaving bad marriages, and getting rid of permissive divorce laws will be harmful to those same women. And indifference to this outcome isn’t something I can sign on to.

I think of myself as pro-marriage. I want marriage to be stronger. I’m convinced by the evidence I’ve read that many people want but can’t find happy marriages; that marriage makes many people happier and healthier; and that for many people, marriage is a good way to form a family (including raising children). We’d be better off if fewer people decided they’d be better off divorced.

But I’m not and will never be indifferent to what’s best for lgbt people, and for abused women. If being pro-marriage means accepting laws that hurt those folks, then I can’t be pro-marriage. And I’m not alone in that view.

Posted in Families structures, divorce, etc, Same-Sex Marriage | 45 Comments

I Need Some Quick Help (If Possible) with Information about Rev. Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667)

For a talk I have been asked to give about the story I tell in this comment about the connection between Benjamin Franklin and the 13th century Persian poet Saadi, I am hoping someone can point me to some information regarding the context within which Jeremy Taylor wrote A Discourse of the Liberty of Prophesying. I am especially interested in what motivated him to write in favor of religious tolerance, at least for other Christian denominations.

Thanks in advance.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

A Teaching Experience That Changed My Life

I was cleaning out some files in my office at school the other day, when I found a copy of the introduction I gave in the spring of 2001 for two women who were doing an independent study with me in creative writing. The introduction was for their participation in the annual symposium at my school where students doing independent studies were required to present their work in order to get credit for the class. I’d met Cheryl and Edith (not their real names) the previous semester when they took Advanced Essay Writing with me, which I taught as a class in writing the personal essay. Each wrote a piece early on about the sexual abuse she’d survived as a child, and each had approached me separately about the fact that she wanted to be a writer and that the issue of sexual abuse was at the core of what she wanted to write about.

Responding to their work in the context of their ambition confronted me with a serious dilemma. I had already been writing about my own experience of abuse for some time, but I’d also always made sure to keep those details of my life separate from my work in the classroom. It wasn’t so much a distinction between personal and private that I wanted; after all, I was performing at readings and trying to publish poems that dealt with my abuse. It was more that I feared allowing too much of my own vulnerability into the classroom would undermine my authority as a teacher.

Edith’s and Cheryl’s were not the first student essays I’d read about sexual abuse. Indeed, by that point in my teaching career, I’d read more than a few essays in which students talked about their encounters with blackmail, domestic violence, alcoholism, and even female genital mutilation. Edith and Cheryl, however, were the first who told me they wanted to be writers writing about their issues, that they wanted to claim a public voice in which to speak not just for its cathartic or therapeutic value, but also about why what their abusers had done to them should matter to their communities–Edith was Latina; Cheryl, Haitian-American–to women as a group, and to society at large. Even more than writing instruction, talking to each of them quickly made clear, what they wanted was a mentor/role model.

My first response was quintessentially teacher-like. I recommended books they could read and I talked to each of them about the value of counseling in coming to terms with their experience, but they wanted more. Edith was especially articulate about this. What she wanted, she said, was someone she could talk to, someone of whom she could ask questions face-to-face, someone who had been through what she was going through, not just the abuse itself, but the desire to go public, with all its intimidating implications, and come out whole on the other side–precisely what she was afraid she would not be able to do. I asked to take another look at her essay after that conversation and, as I read it a second and third time, I ticked off in my mind each moment where I could tell she was holding back, where she was purposely not saying what she was afraid would split her world so wide open she might never be able to make it whole again, and I decided to come out to her as a fellow survivor, as just the kind of writer she’d been telling me that she was looking for. I wrote a long response to her essay and, when I got the second draft of Cheryl’s piece, which showed exactly the same kinds of weaknesses, I did the same for her, opening up a whole new level of conversation with each of them about what it meant to be a writer and what they wanted their writing to accomplish.

For most of the semester, those conversations were separate, but then Edith approached me about the possibility of doing an independent study in essay writing, since there were no more classes she could take. I suggested that she might want to talk to Cheryl as well, saying only that Cheryl also wanted to be a writer and that I thought they might have a lot to say to each other. Edith did; Cheryl agreed; they did the required paperwork and our independent study began in January of 2001. It was a remarkable experience, but I want to write about here is what happened towards the end of that semester when I reminded them that they would have to read at the symposium some portion of the work they’d produced. Frankly, they were terrified. The symposium would be attended not just by independent-study faculty, other student presenters and their guests, but also by the college president, academic vice president, vice president of student affairs, and other administrators. How, they wanted to know, could they possibly read any of the intimate, sexually explicit, sometimes violent pieces they’d written in front of that audience? What place did their stories have, what right did they have to place their stories, side by side with the scholarly and academic work that would be presented by the other independent-study students?

There was no easy way to answer those questions, nothing I could say that would make them feel safe, because they were right. Their stories were, at least from a traditional point of view, the antithesis of the scholarship that other students would be presenting. Not only were my students’ essays not research essays, but Cheryl’s was about the first time she was able to have an orgasm from penetrative sex, which her abuse had made it very difficult to do, and Edith’s was an angry and explicit condemnation of the male dominant heterosexuality that gave men permission to treat her like an object and of the men in her life who had done so, starting with the man who’d sexually abused her while her mother managed not to know about it. Each woman, in other words, had good reason to be afraid, and the more we talked about that fear, the more it became clear to me that I had to do something to share its burden with them, that this was the moment to be the role model they had asked me to be. So I told them that when I introduced them, I would do so by talking a little bit about myself as a survivor of sexual abuse and what being able to work with them had meant to me. This way, anyone at the symposium who had a problem with the content of their essays would have to come through me first. Here is the text that I read:

Twenty years ago, when I was beginning to come to terms with the sexual abuse I survived as a teenager, there were no male voices out there that I could use as models in making sense of what had happened to me; and there was as well much misunderstanding about what it meant to be a man who was once a boy whose body had been sexually violated. I remember going to the Syracuse University library when I was in graduate school, for example, to see what had been written about my experience and learning for my troubles from a study I remember little else about that most people believed boys who’d been sexually abused by men were most likely to become homosexuals, as if we had invited and enjoyed the abuse. I felt alone and afraid, and I think one of the reasons I became a writer is that the act of my putting my words on the page, their physical presence in the world outside myself, provided at least some reassurance that my experience was real, that it was important and that it deserved an audience, even if only an audience of one, myself.

The women who are going to read for you tonight, Cheryl and Edith, were also sexually abused as children. They are fortunate enough to have come of age at a time when the silence and fear that once surrounded this subject no longer dominates our public consciousness. Nonetheless, writing has been for them a way both of breaking the isolation that abusers inevitably impose on their victims and of making meaning, personal and political, out of their experience. I am honored, humbled and simply happy that they trusted me enough to help them learn the craft necessary to speak that meaning as compellingly as you will hear them speak tonight.

What they read may make you uncomfortable. It should. Abuse is ugly, and confronting it is never easy. If you look closely, however, and are willing to listen, there is beauty to be found in that confrontation–not the easy and often reactionary responses you hear from politicians and the media, but the carefully polished and hard-won moments of hope that let you know healing and transformation, both personal and collective, are possible.

When I finished reading it, you could hear a pin drop, and the uncomfortable silence continued until Edith, who read first, looked up from the last page of her piece, and received a well-deserved standing ovation. When Cheryl finished reading her essay, the audience stood for her as well, and not a few people–students, faculty, administration–came over to congratulate them afterwards. The only one of my colleagues who said anything to me was a guy from the Math department who complained that I’d made a mockery of the event by allowing my students to read such inappropriate pieces of work. We argued for a bit, neither persuading the other, and when he left, I was happy to recede into the background. Neither my decisions as the supervisor of the independent study nor the revelations I’d made in my introduction were the point of the evening, which was supposed to be Cheryl and Edith’s moment to shine, and I was happy and humbled and proud that they were indeed shining.

For myself, however, delivering that introduction was transformative. It was the first time that I’d publicly claimed my identity as a survivor of sexual abuse not just for its own sake, but as a legitimate perspective through which to understand and make decisions about actions I wanted to take that were not directly connected to my own sexuality. It was, in other words, the moment I first began to work through what a “politics of survivorship,” or at least my politics of survivorship, might look like. And I have Edith and Cheryl to thank for teaching me that.

Cross-posted on my blog.

Posted in Education, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 4 Comments

Clothes Never Shut Up

"Judgements," by Rosea Posey

[Description of photo: Legs of a young woman wearing a black skirt. She is lifting one side of her skirt high. We can read labels written at various heights on her leg, suggesting different skirt lengths, starting high on the thigh and ending on the lower calf: “Whore, slut, asking for it, provocative, cheeky, flirty, proper, old fashioned, prudish, matronly.”]

“Who said that clothes make a statement? What an understatement that was. Clothes never shut up.” –Susan Brownmiller

More info about photo and artist.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Gender and the Body | 2 Comments

Olson and Boies’ Supreme Court brief against Prop 8

David Boies & Ted Olson after Prop 8 oral arguments at 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

For discussion, I’m posting the entire introduction to Olson and Boies’ Supreme Court brief, which is excellent.

I especially like, and agree with, their point that it is the opponents of marriage equality who are “redefining marriage” with their “cramped definition of marriage as a utilitarian incentive devised by and put into service by the State.”

You can read the entire brief here. You can read the entire brief from the folks defending proposition 8 here, in pdf form. (If you don’t have time to read the whole thing, read pages 20-26).

The text of Olson and Boies’ introduction, with most of the legal citations omitted to make it more readable, is below. Credit for this edit of the text belongs to Rob Tisinai of the excellent blog Waking Up Now.

This case is about marriage, “the most important relation in life,” a relationship and intimate decision that this Court has variously described at least 14 times as a right protected by the Due Process Clause that is central for all individuals’ liberty, privacy, spirituality, personal autonomy, sexuality, and dignity; a matter fundamental to one’s place in society; and an expression of love, emotional support, public commitment, and social status.

This case is also about equality. After a $40 million political campaign during which voters were urged to “protect our children” from exposure to the notion that “gay marriage is okay,” and “the same as traditional marriage,” and thus deserving of equal dignity and respect, Proposition 8 engraved into California’s constitution the cardinal principle that unions among gay men and lesbians are not valid or recognized as marriages, and therefore second-class and not equal to heterosexual marriages. Proposition 8 thus places the full force of California’s constitution behind the stigma that gays and lesbians, and their relationships, are not “okay,” that their life commitments “are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships,” and that gay and lesbian individuals are different, less worthy, and not equal under the law. That “generates a feeling of inferiority” among gay men and lesbians—and especially their children— “that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954).

Proponents accuse Plaintiffs (repeatedly) of “redefining marriage.” But it is Proponents who have imagined (not from any of this Court’s decisions) a cramped definition of marriage as a utilitarian incentive devised by and put into service by the State—society’s way of channeling heterosexual potential parents into “responsible procreation.” In their 65-page brief about marriage in California, Proponents do not even mention the word “love.” They seem to have no understanding of the privacy, liberty, and associational values that underlie this Court’s recognition of marriage as a fundamental, personal right. Ignoring over a century of this Court’s declarations regarding the emotional bonding, societal commitment, and cultural status expressed by the institution of marriage, Proponents actually go so far as to argue that, without the potential for procreation, marriage might not “even..exist[ ] at all” and “there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.” (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, under Proponents’ peculiar, litigation-inspired concept of marriage, same-sex couples have no need to be married and no cause to complain that they are excluded from the “most important relation in life.” Indeed, Proponents’ state-centric construct of marriage means that the State could constitutionally deny any infertile couple the right to marry, and could prohibit marriage altogether if it chose to pursue a society less committed to “responsible” procreation.

This, of course, reflects a complete “failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake,” not to mention matters such as love, commitment, and intimacy that most Americans associate with marriage. As Proponents see it, marriage exists solely to serve society’s interest; it makes no sense to speak of an individual’s right to marry.

Proponents view this case as a referendum on whether the institution of marriage should exist in the first place, focusing almost exclusively on why it makes sense for the States to grant heterosexuals the right to marry. But this case is not about whether marriage should be abolished or diminished. Quite the contrary, Plaintiffs agree with Proponents that marriage is a unique, venerable, and essential institution. They simply want to be a part of it—to experience all the benefits the Court has described and the societal acceptance and approval that accompanies the status of being “married.”

The only substantive question in this case is whether the State is entitled to exclude gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage and deprive their relationships—their love—of the respect, and dignity and social acceptance, that heterosexual marriages enjoy. Proponents have not once set forth any justification for discriminating against gay men and lesbians by depriving them of this fundamental civil right. They have never identified a single harm that they, or anyone else, would suffer as a result of allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. Indeed, the only harms demonstrated in this record are the debilitating consequences Proposition 8 inflicts upon tens of thousands of California families, and the pain and indignity that discriminatory law causes the nearly 40,000 California children currently being raised by same-sex couples.

The unmistakable purpose and effect of Proposition 8 is to stigmatize gay men and lesbians—and them alone—and enshrine in California’s Constitution that they are “unequal to everyone else,” that their committed relationships are ineligible for the designation “marriage,” and that they are unworthy of that “most important relation in life.” Neither tradition, nor fear of change, nor an “interest in democratic self-governance,” can absolve society, or this Court, of the obligation to identify and rectify discrimination in all its forms. If a history of discrimination were sufficient to justify its perpetual existence, as Proponents argue, our public schools, drinking fountains, and swimming pools would still be segregated by race, our government workplaces and military institutions would still be largely off-limits to one sex—and to gays and lesbians, and marriage would still be unattainable for interracial couples. Yet the Fourteenth Amendment could not tolerate those discriminatory practices, and it similarly does not tolerate the permanent exclusion of gay men and lesbians from the most important relation in life. “In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage, Supreme Court Issues | Comments Off on Olson and Boies’ Supreme Court brief against Prop 8

Evolution and The Purpose Of Marriage

Evolution

In an article by Ross Andersen at The Atlantic, I read:

Evolutionary biologists tell us that we owe the singular bundle of feelings we call “love” to natural selection. As human brains grew larger and larger, the story goes, children needed more and more time to develop into adults that could fend for themselves. A child with two parents around was privy to extra resources and protection, and thus stood a better chance of reaching maturity. The longer parents’ chemical reward systems kept them in love, the more children they could shepherd to reproductive age.

Let me say right away that I have no idea if what ‘evolutionary biologists’ say in this case is solid science or not. (Evolution itself is proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that doesn’t mean that every theory someone has about how a particular behavior developed is well proven). But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that this is true.

It’s interesting to compare this to the arguments made by opponents of marriage equality. On the surface, the evolutionary account of sexual love fits well with the anti-equality account of marriage; just as pair-bonding sexual love evolved to facilitate successful child-rearing, the purpose of marriage, we are told, is to facilitate child-rearing.

But the analogy immediately fails, because when we look at the evolutionary account, what it tells us is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples actually have a lot in common. The chemicals that rush through straight couples’ brains when they are in love, which encourage them to stay together and raise children effectively, are the same chemicals that infuse the brains of lesbian and gay couples in love, and can serve the same purpose. In an evolutionary (and chemical) sense, same-sex couples fall in love for the same reasons straight couples do, including the need to facilitate healthy child-rearing.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 12 Comments

“Portrait of Lisane da Patagnia” nominated for a Nebula Award

Congratulations to Mandolin, whose gorgeous novelette “Portrait of Lisane da Patagnia” has just been nominated for a Nebula!

So awesome!

Posted in Mandolin's fiction & poems | 1 Comment

If You Like Chess….

…you should definitely check out Arunava Sinha’s translation of “The Game,” by Humayun Ahmed. Here’s an excerpt:

At babu Nalini Ranjan’s farewell on the rainy July afternoon, therefore, the subject of chess cropped up repeatedly. And at the end Suruj Mian – president of the meeting, secretary of the school committee and chairman of the municipality – announced in a most mysterious manner that he had made arrangements for a fitting display of honour for babu Nalini Ranjan, the pride of Niyamatpur, unbeaten at chess. He was giving the school fund a cheque for fifteen thousand rupees. Anyone who defeated Nalini babu would get this money. And if no one could, the school fund would get the money after Nalini babu’s death.

There was tumultuous applause. The headmaster had to hold the cheque up high to show it to everyone. No one had imagined such a dramatic move from Suruj Mian.

On an October evening Nalini babu had a severe attack of asthma. The air seemed very thin. He strained to fill his lungs. A pulse in his throat bulged repeatedly. But despite the state he was in, he sat down to play the final game of chess in his life. He would play it to lose. Today he would lose to his old friend Jalal sahib, who would win fifteen thousand rupees. The money would be used for Nalini babu’s treatment. Warm clothes would be bought for winter, for he suffered terribly terribly in the cold. Jalal sahib had persuaded Nalini babu after a great deal of effort. One defeat would make no difference.

The game was being played in the school hall. Jalal sahib was playing the challenge game. Many spectators had gathered out of curiosity. Nalini babu’s position worsened. A careless move lost him a bishop. Soon afterwards, one of his rooks was pinned. A murmur rose amongst the spectators. Nalini babu saw tears in Jalal sahib’s eyes. The undefeated chess champion of fifteen years was about to lose. Jalal sahib’s face was unnaturally pale. His hand shook as he moved his pieces.

via The Game: Humayun Ahmed | translations.

Posted in Recommended Reading | 1 Comment