Via Media

Via Media


Lost Rites

posted by awelborn

Well, I finally got around to watching last week’s Lost.

(Explanation: I usually don’t watch it when it airs because Katie has basketball practice, and doesn’t get home until around 9:30)

(Yeah, let’s go into why 8th grade girls are having to hold their practice from 7:45-9:30 at night. Or let’s not, if we want me to keep my temper)

(Anyway, I tape it for her, and usually wait til the next night to watch it with her.)

Interesting, if not very exciting, and clearly a set-up for what’s to come. Religious imagery was once again in the forefront: British drug addict rock musician Charlies is having dreams, which involve flashbacks to childhood, Catholic imagery, and danger to Lostaway Claire’s baby. The common theme seems to be salvation. As a child, Charlie was put in a position, because of his musical talent, to "save" his family. Which he did, then didn’t, then, in the end of the backstory, as his fellow drug addict brother rock musician sold Charlie’s beloved piano so he could try to rescue his life – he did, albeit without consenting to, and at great price.

So he becomes convinced that this baby is in danger, and then gets it in his head, thanks to faux priest Mr. Ekko, that the danger lies in the fact that the baby is unbaptized. Which he spills to Claire, who is still furious with him over the fact that he is still harboring drugs in the Virgin Mary statues (told you there was religious imagery) and, well, keeps on stealing her baby and getting found about to walk out to sea with it or something. But, a bit worried despite it all, she goes to Mr. Ekko with her questions and worries, and he promptly gives her a deeply mangled catechesis on baptism (declaring that when John baptized Jesus, Jesus was cleansed of sin), and then, in a montage, privately baptizes them – we don’t hear what he says, but we see him pouring bits of water, not just over their heads, but over their shoulders as well, in sort of a sign of the Cross.

Well, the big debate is – is all the baptism stuff wrong because the writers are morons or is it purposeful? It would make perfect sense for it to be purposeful since, well, Mr. Ekko isn’t actually a priest, but a former warlord and drug runner who despite being Catholic himself, presumably would not have had much training in Liturgy 101. But then, it’s also clear that at least since coming on the island, he’s been studying the Bible – he’s full of Biblical references and stories for every occasion and his Jesus Stick is carved with Scripture verses. So you’d think he’d have run across that whole Jesus-John the Baptist encounter and grasp the basics of it.

Thoughts?



Advertisement
Comments read comments(38)
post a comment
Keith

posted January 30, 2006 at 6:16 am


I think that if polled a lot of Catholics in the pews on Sunday, they might get the whole Jesus being baptized thing wrong too. We are told that baptism washes away our sins (I always watch in awe at Easter Vigil when adults are baptized and I realize all of their sins are gone at that instant-what a miracle). Not more than once have I heard a Catholic or Protestant for that matter be a little confused by Jesus’ baptism. If we are told it washes away sins then that must be what happened with Jesus. The point I am making is that people are confused about what happend or why Jesus’ baptism happened. It wouldn’t suprise me that a former warlord wouldn’t know the actual meaning of it all. I like you wonder whether the writer intentionally get it wrong or are just ignorant. I would hope that with all this religious imagery they are getting themselves into, that they are doing their homework.



report abuse
 

Agnes

posted January 30, 2006 at 7:59 am


So why did John baptize Jesus?



report abuse
 

MomVee

posted January 30, 2006 at 8:21 am


Not to try your temper, but why does my 10-year-old son have basketball practice from 8-9 pm?



report abuse
 

Herb Ely

posted January 30, 2006 at 8:33 am


There is another theme going on here, and it has to do with yesterday’s gospel. Charlie is caught in the grips of his addiction. Even if he is not using, he is still clinging to the thought that he can go back. He will only get out of its grip with some sort of exorcism. In order to do that, he will have to acknowledge his dependence, seek help from a higher power (through Eko or Locke?), and make amends for the harms he has committed in the past. The script writers probably wont make it explicit, but it will look like a 12-step process for Charlie.
As my son, David noted back in May “”Every character that the show’s featured so far had a reason for being in Australia, and all of those reasons involved confronting demons. Most of them didn’t do a good job of it, and the island is their next chance.”
BTW, there was one scene in which Locke looked positively angry, almost satanic. If I remember correctly, this was when he heard that Charlie was going to “save” Claire’s baby. Looks like we are going to see a contest between three powers: those of the Island represented by Locke; scientific rationalism represented by Jack and Christianity; represented by Eko.



report abuse
 

RyanL

posted January 30, 2006 at 8:38 am


I agree with Herb that there looks to be a “contest between the powers” brewing; with the portrayal of Christianity so far, the outcome doesn’t look good. But then again, the outcome didn’t look so good from the cross, either…
God Bless,



report abuse
 

captainyips

posted January 30, 2006 at 8:54 am


Charlie and Eko are parts of doublets: the boy Eko saved his brother from the warlords, and the grown brother by his death saved Eko during the smuggling fiasco. Charlie’s relationship with his brother is less symmetrical, but the thread of salvation runs through it. Charlie and Eko are also (quite ham handedly, I think) another example of the dark-light duality that crops up now and then. I suspect that Charlie and Eko will develop as complementary charactes.
We don’t know a lot of things-is Charlie using again (did anyone count his statue cache the first time we saw it versus last week? I didn’t)? Were his dream hallucinations drug induced? What is the rest of Eko’s backstory? When he was a boy, before he saved his brother from the gang, was Eko headed for the the priesthood?
I agree that the muddled theology of baptism is odd. I suspect we’ll have to wait to see what effect it has on Claire and possibly Aaron.
Lots of layers to this onion.



report abuse
 

j-g

posted January 30, 2006 at 8:55 am


I think Graham Greene’s whiskey priest was easier to understand than all o’ this. Maybe that’s what the writers are shooting for?
And as for gym time: My guess is that…
your parochial school is relatively large (more than one classroom per grade), so
you have 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade teams
possibly more than one sport
you have teams for boys and girls
perhaps even two teams for certain grades
Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, cheerleaders, … (ad nauseaum,much?) also want gym time

E v e r y b o d y wants to use the gym, and your progeny’s coaches, or their availability after work -and- dinner, are not at the top of the pecking order for gym-time picks.
By the way, happy Catholic Schools Week everyone. . .



report abuse
 

John J. Simmins

posted January 30, 2006 at 9:27 am


I don’t know if a completely ignorant person wouldn’t naturally come to the conclusion that Jesus was being regenerated during baptism strictly from the NT accounts. Maybe your character hasn’t gotten to the letters of Paul in his self-study.



report abuse
 

em

posted January 30, 2006 at 10:37 am


I also have heard the “Jesus cleansed of His sins in Baptism” stuff – sadly it was in a Catholic Bible study, not just on TV…
I think we need better catechesis in the pews on this one.
For those who want further info – CCC 535-37; 1223-25.



report abuse
 

Sandra Miesel

posted January 30, 2006 at 10:42 am


The mangled theology made me cringe but it was possible read Eko’s lips and see that he was saying during the baptim, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father…”
Charlie didn’t seem to be using, only thinking about it. He has never been healed of the damage from his addiction and that may or may not happen. Almost everyone in the cast has had a hallucination, something produced by the Island? What’s Locke’s purpose in keeping the statues, in the gun room to which only he now has access? The baby in danger that his hallucinations warned about is himself, not as he thinks, Claire’s baby. (Any significance to Claire’s name meaning “light”?)
Locke has been acting out of character for the last several weeks perhaps to set up some new direction. He’s symetrical to both Eko and Jack; Eko is also symetrical toward Charlie. The show likes dualities.
My Son the Media Buff thinks there are two groups of Others, the ones who snatched Walt from the raft and a different group which had attacked the tail section people.
Libby is clearly leading Hurley on, perhaps she knows about his money and wants some? They have some prior connection, maybe when he was in the mental institution. Or she’s a plant by the Others.
LOST just won the SAG ward for ensemble acting in a TV show, having recently won a Golden Globe as best dramatic TV show.



report abuse
 

John P Sheridan

posted January 30, 2006 at 10:45 am


I think Eko’s mistake was the writers’ mistake. I think the Eko character is supposed to be well-informed about religion, so if he said something wrong it is because the writers themselves don’t know any better.
Also, I think we are supposed to believe Charlie at the end of the show when he tells Jack he isn’t using.
After making such a big deal about the heroine, why doesn’t Locke destroy it? Something is up with that.
Is it possible Eko is a priest? It is hard to imagine how he could get ordained in Nigeria, having been a notorious criminal. But why would he lie about being a priest? It seems uncharacteristically sacrilegious and dishonest. Perhaps he was ordained in Australia?



report abuse
 

Chris-2-4

posted January 30, 2006 at 10:47 am


Would have also been nice if “Fr. Ekko” had been man enough to confess that he’s the one who was responsible for the drugs in the statues instead of leaving Charley on his own. Charley was doing fine until the new temptation was discovered and Ekko ought to take some responsibility about that, no?



report abuse
 

carrie ryckman

posted January 30, 2006 at 10:50 am


Isn’t it possible that Ekko could’ve become a priest AFTER his priest-brother died? I don’t remember any dates given that would preclude that option, but then I could be totally off.



report abuse
 

Chris-2-4

posted January 30, 2006 at 10:52 am


btw:
I agree with John P. Ekko could in fact be a priest. With the way they give us the backstories in little snips from week to week, it’s very possible that after his brother was shot at the airport Ekko made a full repentance and was validly ordained a priest.



report abuse
 

chris

posted January 30, 2006 at 11:04 am


We’ve been of the mind that Ekko did become a priest proper, though of course anything can be revised/updated by a flashback on the show.
However, the line about what happened during Jesus’ baptism was rather sad.
Also- I’ve erased the tape now, but I don’t think we actually hear Ekko tell Charlie that Aaron should be saved by baptism. He only told Charlie that perhaps he should take his dreams to mean that he, Charlie, needs to save Aaron. Then the next thing we know, Charlie is telling Claire that Aaron needs to be baptized. So it seems to me that Charlie made the Saving = Baptism equation. I had assumed that we were being set up for a bit about saving Aaron from the others.
And just to throw this out: Where’s Rousseau?



report abuse
 

Mark Adams

posted January 30, 2006 at 11:10 am


I’d like to second (or third or fourth) those suggesting the possibility that Ekko may indeed be a validly ordained priest and that his ordination may be portrayed in a future episode.
Aside from Ekko getting Jesus’ baptism entirely wrong (which is no small thing) I was very pleased with the episode. When Claire asked if she and her child would go to different places if he was baptized I was fully expecting Ekko to give a mealy mouthed answer. Instead I was pleasantly surprised to hear him tell her that she should be baptized also. And despite accusing Jesus of sinning, it was nice to see baptism actually linked to sin instead of being portrayed as some kind of new age re-birth (not that re-birth is not a fundamental part of baptism but it is sometimes easy to dwell on that and forget about the whole sin thing).



report abuse
 

Mike

posted January 30, 2006 at 11:26 am


I think the problem lies in the fact that secular writers are trying to use Christian (specifically, Catholic) imagery to advance a story and they’re in over their heads. They’re no match for a well-tuned Catholic mindset, one that immediately starts thinking about the validity and licitness of the sacraments administered (luckily in this case this is not an issue for baptism). Not everyone is like my mom, who during nearly every episode of Survivor will ask “So when do they find time to go to mass?” The writers are just in over their heads. There is a chance that Eko is at some point ordained (time may have passed between his brother’s death and the flight 815 crash).
The best that can be said is that (so far) the Catholicism is portrayed in a positive light and with redemptive qualities. This is a far cry from the typical homosexual Neo-zen Buddhist character that represents “spirituality” on the typical show.



report abuse
 

Tim

posted January 30, 2006 at 12:01 pm


So why did John baptize Jesus?
I saw this episode (though I’m not a big Lost fan) and saw the flaw in Eko’s explanation. But it raised the same question Agnes asked above and I was hoping someone would respond here. I haven’t seen any thing about it so I went looking on the web and came up with this website.
Does anyone else have any input?



report abuse
 

Bender

posted January 30, 2006 at 12:34 pm


Charlie is caught in the grips of his addiction. Even if he is not using, he is still clinging to the thought that he can go back.
Charlie, then, is just like any of us. Like sin generally, we stop and confess, but usually still cling to the possibility of doing it again.
And, no, Eko is not, and could not be, an actual priest. The time between his brother’s death, shortly before the drug plane crashed on the island, which Locke estimated at 2-3 years, was not nearly enough for someone to be educated and ordained a priest. Besides, other than the baptisms, he has not celebrated or administered any of the other sacraments.
And, yes, the error is purposeful, as was the mangling of Psalm 23, to show that Eko is not actually priest.
Also, I was struck by how his mum in the vision says, after he unwraps the piano, “You’re special love, some day you’re going to get us out of here, all of us.”
Watching it the first time, I thought it was a flashback, and she was talking about their family, but now, because it was part of his vision, and because he turned into his adult self in the vision, I’m wondering if he is not “special” like Walt and Aaron have been said to be, and that the poor loser Charlie will be the one to save, not his family, but all the survivors on the Island.



report abuse
 

Lily

posted January 30, 2006 at 12:40 pm


Ekko might be an ordained priest. It’s unclear what occured after the plane left the runway in Nigeria and Ekko showed up on the island….and the time between is uncertain.
His brother’s body looked like it had time to enter into some level of decomposition so there might be a time difference that would allow for an ordination…..?
I thought the baptisimal scene was lovely and done well. The 2 adult actors looked the parts: one, a loving priest, the second, a hopeful mother. Nice for Hollywood.
Something’s up with Locke hiding the statues in the safe and changing the safe combination.
I’m rooting for you Charlie…..



report abuse
 

Anglican Peggy

posted January 30, 2006 at 12:46 pm


Tim,
I think that St Paul talks about it somewhere. I dont have a head for these things, but I think he makes it pretty clear that it was out of obedience to the plan so that everything might be fulfilled. Something like that. I am of that school myself. I agree that he did it out of obedience and also with the idea that he was identifying himself with humanity. I also think that Jesus always led where he wanted us to go. He didnt ask of us a whole lot that he didnt do himself first. With his baptism, baptism was instituted for us who really need it. Other than that I think the website that you found pretty much covers it.



report abuse
 

Bender

posted January 30, 2006 at 12:54 pm


As for why Jesus was baptized —
It has been remarked that part of it was to further participate in mankind, as one of us, and the Catechism explains that it was also an annointing (“Christ” means “the annointed one”), a consecretion or coronation (like other kings), and to participate in the baptism of His bloody death.
When watching The Passion of the Christ, seeing all the sins of man so graphically thrust upon Him, it occurred to me that perhaps His baptism was the same. That is, after our baptism, where clean Holy water was poured over us to cleanse us of our sin, that same dirty, sin-infested water was poured onto Christ, such that He took our sins upon Himself. I don’t know how theologically correct that might be, but it was a thought.



report abuse
 

Emily Stimpson

posted January 30, 2006 at 1:14 pm


On one hand, the group of Lost addicts who come to my house every week to watch the show, as well as I, think Eko is supposed to be a real priest. Locke’s guess about the timing of the crash was just that, a guess, plus the writers may not have a clue about how long it takes to actually become a priest. Going along with that hypothesis, Eko’s mistake could just have been the mistake of some theologically uninformed writers.
But….
During the episode with Eko’s brother, the writers got so much right about Catholicism. The theology of confession and repentence was dead-on. How could they get something that difficult so right and get something as basic as Jesus being sinless so wrong?
Me thinks it’s time for Barb Nicolosi or one of her minions to volunteer their services to the Lost writers.
Still, this show is more addictive than a variety of illegal narcotics.



report abuse
 

dw

posted January 30, 2006 at 1:15 pm


I think Jesus has John baptize him to model what He wanted us to do. What a loving teacher!
My own theory is that Eko had a major conversion that day on the runway, and though he most likely not a real priest, he does have a priest’s heart and considers himself ‘called’.
I think Charlie is trying to save himself, and maybe by keeping the heroin, really overcome the temptation to use it. After all, quitting heroin is easier if you live on a deserted island with no heroin on it. I think Charlie needs to quit the drug through his own power rather than by just running out of it. I have a very suspicious eye on Locke. Libby too.



report abuse
 

Bender

posted January 30, 2006 at 1:44 pm


On a related topic, can anyone remember how many times baptism has been portrayed or featured in movies or TV (other than biblical movies)?
The most famous (infamous?) I can think of is Godfather I. After that, I remember Tender Mercies, which gave us a full immersion (Baptist?) baptism.
The most touching I think is Black Robe, where the chief of the sick and dying Huron asks the newly-arrived missionary priest, Fr. LaForgue, how long he will stay with them, and he responds, “all of my life,” and the chief asks, “If we take the water sorcery, we will not be sick? The other blackrobe said so.” The priest answers, “No. Baptism will not cure you. He only meant that we can ask the help of Jesus.”
And then the most touching part, which never fails to leave a tear in my eye —
the chief then asks, “You must help us, Blackrobe. Do you love us?”
And, after thinking of the many Indians he has encountered, with tears in his eyes, Fr. LaForgue answers, “Yes.”
“Then baptize us,” the chief says.
Just thinking about that scene leaves me all misty.
But other than those three movies (and the offensive Simpsons baptism episode), I can’t think of any others.



report abuse
 

al

posted January 30, 2006 at 1:54 pm


I think John P. may be right about Mr. Eko. First of all the thesis attributing his ignorance to the writers is underscored by the scene with Eko and his brother in the Church. In that scene, the brother comes out of the confessional, supposedly while hearing confession, without any stole on. This seems a fairly obvious oversight, so I think any difficulties are attributable to the producers ignorance.



report abuse
 

Steven

posted January 30, 2006 at 1:58 pm


Why assume Eko is a faux priest? I think in further back story that we do not know, he went on to become a priest after the incident on the runway. He clearly has serious religious devotional practice, e.g., he went on a 40-day, silent fast after killing one of the attackers when the plane crashed. The kind of pious gravitas he exudes would not be consonant with an outright lie to Charlie. “So, are you a priest?” “Yes, I am.”.
Of course, maybe there’s much more we don’t know and maybe we’re getting trapped in discussing the finer points of writing that may not be all that consistent or orthodox?



report abuse
 

John J. Simmins

posted January 30, 2006 at 3:12 pm


My own impression is that Jesus, time after time, sanctified what was unclean. When he touched a leper, instead of becoming unclean he made the leper clean. When John baptized Jesus, He made the act regenerative and a sacrament.



report abuse
 

Herb Ely

posted January 30, 2006 at 3:23 pm


Eko may have been thinking of the priesthood in a larger sense, such as in the “priesthood of all believers” and the words sometimes used in the baptismal liturgy designating the baptized as priest, prophet and king.



report abuse
 

Mrs. S.

posted January 30, 2006 at 3:26 pm


I was always taught that Christ’s baptism in the Jordan was salvific in nature — that in His baptism He shows his obedience to the Father and willingness to take on our sins. In a sense, Jesus baptism, by its very nature, does impart a kind of blessing on all the waters of the world.
There’s a charming legend on this theme. The story is that when the Holy Family was travelling to Egypt they were sheltered by a group of wanderers. Mary asked for water to bathe her infant Son. One of the women gave her a basin of water and mentioned to Mary that her own son was ill. Mary instructed the woman to bathe her sick baby in the water used by Jesus in his bath (which was much cleaner than when he was immersed). The child was immediately cured. The legend goes on to say that the child was the infant Dismas — the Good Thief.



report abuse
 

Sandra Miesel

posted January 30, 2006 at 4:07 pm


Another legend has Dismas a bandit chief who spares the Holy Family en route to Egypt and is blessed by the Christchild.
Eko may be considered a priest in a functional way, justified by the priesthood of all believers, rather than a sacramental sense. I doubt that enough time has passed for him to have gotten through the seminary since his brother was killed.
Knowing why most of the regulars were in Australia, it’s not impossible that all were manipulated by outside forces into being on that particular flight.
This week’s episode is a repeat from last season, in which Hurley goes looking for Rousseau. Perhaps this is to prepare for her reappearance. (I naughtily speculate that she’s been having it off with Desmond in the underbrush but that’s just facetious.)The next new episode is supposed to be about Sawyer.



report abuse
 

Karen LH

posted January 30, 2006 at 4:22 pm


My assumption right now is that Mr. Eko really is a priest (ordained after his brother’s death), and that the theological error is the writers’. As for the use of the KJV version of Psalm 23, I assumed that that was done simply because that is the version that most Americans are familiar with. If they had used D-R or NAB, the average viewer would likely not even have recognized it.
Locke’s reaction to Charlie could have been due to disappointment that he was apparently using again and lying about it, and fear for Claire and the baby. However, Locke has also acted as a “priest” once in the show — when he gave Boone to the island as a sacrifice.



report abuse
 

Bender

posted January 30, 2006 at 4:37 pm


As for the use of the KJV version of Psalm 23
The error regarding Psalm 23 is that they transposed “valley” and “shadow.”



report abuse
 

Anglican Peggy

posted January 30, 2006 at 5:12 pm


Tim,
Here’s another way of looking at it.
Because he was sinless, Jesus didnt have to die. But he did. For us.
Because he was sinless, Jesus didnt have to be baptised. But he was. For us.



report abuse
 

Hartmeister

posted January 30, 2006 at 5:59 pm


I, too, am one of those who assumes Ekko is priest after the death of his brother or at least is so ignorant that he thinks he is a priest. I think I want to see something from the time of his brother’s death to the time Ekko went on the plane.
I assume with his money, Ekko left Nigeria for a neighboring country (or went all the way to Australia), entered a monastery and became a priest.
One thing that has not been mentioned is the significant age of the skeletons on the plane. Anybody want to give an idea of how long the plane has been on the island?



report abuse
 

Sandra Miesel

posted January 30, 2006 at 9:47 pm


If Eko were truly an ordained priest, he’d have better theology.
The DR version of Psalm 23(22) is both clunky and unrecognizable. Wouldn’t have worked at all. What translation do contemporary British/Anglophone Africans use?



report abuse
 

Radactrice

posted January 30, 2006 at 10:08 pm


LOST isn’t a Catholic catechism. It’s a TV show. And St. Blog’s can disect the finer theological points of Clare and Aaron’s baptisms, but it still remains a moving and reverent moment which was intended to be taken seriously. Just as the 23rd Psalm might be the Protestant version and ergo not what Eko if he were really a priest would have used, but it clearly was meant to be taken seriously as it was shown over actions of genuine kindness and giving. LOST gives faith and religious expression serious credence. It deserves credit for that. And Evangeline Lily, the Kate character, is on record as saying that at first she was to have had a nude scene and she didn’t want to do it so the writers redid it so she would be in a tank top and shorts. LOST is a bright spot in the tv wasteland.



report abuse
 

Bender

posted January 30, 2006 at 11:49 pm


Evangeline Lily, the Kate character, is on record as saying that at first she was to have had a nude scene and she didn’t want to do it so the writers redid it so she would be in a tank top and shorts.
Does that mean we should re-name the show “Paradise Lost”?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.