Carol Nader reports in the SMH today that the Official Generation Code-Naming Authority?—?there is one, right? an important body that declares that Generation Z is so 2009??—?has decided that as of the 1st of January, Generation Alpha is being born. (Apparently we aren’t yet using non-ASCII characters here in the future.)

This means of course that everyone is birthing alpha-status children now. In the future, everyone is high status. So that’s new and exciting. But I see that in the future, the youth of tomorrow will still be “job-fickle”, and when it comes to the reproductive rate, it’s still all about the women, and when it comes to women, it’s still all about the reproductive rate:

However, [social researcher Mark] McCrindle predicts one in three alpha females will not have children.

Alpha males of course will continue to be invisible when it comes to society-wide reproductive trends. In other breaking news, ON NOES the children, they will be obese! Have you heard of the impending childhood obesity crisis? Just checking.

In other words, in all the important ways, you can be assured that the bright new tomorrow is pretty much exactly today. Funny that.Similar Posts:

• Today’s fabricated panic: “Delayed” birth interventions causing childhood obesity? by Lauredhel
• Duncan Fine talks sense on BMI by tigtog
• Nuance for Dummies by tigtog
• Two Unusual Tales by tigtog
• A better future by tigtog

This was on SBS last night.

The second film in Channel 4’s landmark documentary series focuses on the younger children in the group of seven overweight youngsters on their journey towards adulthood, to find out what it really feels like to be growing up fat.

Generation XXL is a chance for the nation’s obese children, some of them as young as six years old, to reveal what life looks like through their eyes as they begin to realise that the food they eat can affect the size of their bodies.

London-based seven-year-old Libby is a notoriously fussy eater: she won’t eat anything but calorie-laden carbs and constantly battles with her single working mum over the issue of food.

Seven-year-old Lucas scavenges food from his extended family, who all live on the same street in Bradford, and Kelsie, who’s also seven, comes from a family of big girls.

The youngest child in the series is six-year-old Bethany, whose mum believes that healthy eating in schools has gone too far.

Filming over the coming years and documenting their often candid, inspiring and amusing observations, and daily routines and worries, Generation XXL aims to discover how obesity will affect these children as they grow up. Will their weight drop off with puberty, as some of their parents hope, or will they always struggle with their size?

I missed the first one. Did anyone see it?

I spent a lot of time eye-rolling. The male voice over seemed determined to say that these children being overweight was only due to food. However, it did get better. The kids went to a University where they were weighed and measured and their BMI worked out (eyeroll) but they were also scanned and their amount of body fat relative to their lean muscle mass calculated. That was interesting and certainly an eye opener for the parents. I’m pretty sure the kids weren’t in the room when the fat percentages were discussed so there wasn’t fat shaming there. Lucas’ fat to muscle ratio showed that he was quite active. (edited M)  They also got the kids to run on a treadmill, which seemed to me to be more about showing the parents what the kids were actually capable of rather than anything else. They said many parents were surprised at how much exercise their children could actually undertake.

At the end they revisited the children a couple of months later. Lucas had lost some weight, about one size in clothing, and was doing more organised activity outside school and taking a packed lunch to school so that his Mum had more portion control. He had been filmed eating seconds and considering thirds of custard and dumplings at school for lunch and although not said aloud, there was the very strong implication of “this is why he’s fat”.  Libby had started classes with her Mum learning about cooking eating different food and now eats a much more varied diet. The other good thing was that she had reconnected with her Dad who was teaching her to swim so not only did she get to spend time with him, she was also more active.  Kelsie was also undertaking a lot more organised activity. So for these kids it became more about being active and healthy at any weight, while also eating a varied diet which I thought was good.

Bethany, the six year old was a little bit different. Her Mum didn’t see her being overweight as a problem at all, and seemed to think that the school’s push for healthy lunches was a bad move. I couldn’t work out her motivation. She said as a child she and her siblings ate lots of chips etc and never got fat so she couldn’t see why it was a problem for her children. She also said she preferred her daughter to be overweight because it made her cuddly and she thought it looked healthy. Her parents also expected her to lose a lot of her weight as she got older, which she may well do. Her Mum said she did try cooking different foods, but Bethany wanted to eat her old diet so it was easier to just give in. Although she didn’t put it in words, I think Bethany’s Mum thought that Bethany should be able to eat intuitively. I can’t recall but I don’t think Bethany’s activity levels increased. The one of the doctors on the program did state clearly that lack of activity was a bigger problem than simply being overweight.

Thoughts?Similar Posts:

• Peeve Time: “The Obese” as Walking Dead by Lauredhel
• More confected fat-baby epidemic panic? The “increasing trend” that isn’t. by Lauredhel
• Emphasis mine by tigtog
• CSIRO report: levels of childhood obesity have remained largely unchanged for the past decade by tigtog
• “Hospital overwhelmed by child anorexia rise” by Lauredhel

For those wondering how on earth aid to a disaster area can exist without huge-scale donations of infanf formula from the United States, or wondering how to explain this to others, this press release from ILCA, and the links therein may extend understanding.

[notes: I prefer the terms "cross-nursing" or "shared breastfeeding", which don't so much recall the monetary implications and classist/racist history of "wet-nursing". Emphases and some links are added by me. You are welcome to reproduce this anywhere, with a backlink.]

Summary:

- Donate money, not stuff.
- Formula kills in an emergency, even when properly prepared.
- Even in the context of HIV, exclusive breastfeeding (including cross-nursing) is safer than artificial feeding.
- There is not a shortage of breastmilk in Haiti; 99% of young infants were breastfed before the emergency.
- Feed mothers and keep them safe; promote and support expression (when separated) and re-lactation.

Press Release by ILCA, February 1, 2010

FOR HAITI ORPHANS WET NURSING CAN SAVE LIVES

A new statement issued jointly by UNICEF, the World Health Organisation, and Pan American Health Organization, reminds relief workers, healthcare professionals, and the public that in an emergency such as the Haiti earthquake, the key to survival of all infants, including orphans, is breastfeeding. When a child is motherless or separated from his or her mother, wet nursing, that is, direct breastfeeding from another lactating mother, is the safest feeding option. Since the breastfeeding rate in Haiti is very high[99% of 0-5 mo are breastfed], there is a good likelihood of being able to find wet nurses for large numbers of motherless infants.

UNICEF, WHO and PAHO have recommended wet nursing, also called “cross nursing” or “shared breastfeeding,” for infants without mothers to “ensure their survival in an emergency situation.” There are a very small number of pathogens that may be transmitted via breastfeeding, including HIV. However, the risk of transmission of HIV via breastfeeding is low. The alternative to wet nursing for motherless infants is use of infant formula. The situation is Haiti is such that formula feeding presents a greater risk than the possibility of HIV infection via wet nursing.

Formula feeding in an emergency is extremely difficult and dangerous. Even when properly prepared, infant formula actively and passively harms the immune system of young babies, placing them at risk of life-threatening diarrhea and respiratory illness. [The Emergency Nutrition Network provides information on how formula can cause deaths due to diarrhea in an emergency.]

Formula feeding also requires extensive investment from the supporting aid agency. This includes a constant supply of infant formula; a stable supply of clean water; a stove and fuel to boil water; a pot, kettle, and feeding cups. Bottles and teats (artificial nipples) should never be used in emergency conditions because they are too difficult to adequately clean. Caregivers also need a clean storage environment, education on minimizing the risks of formula feeding, and medical supervision. This support should be provided not just in the immediate emergency, but until the infant is 12 months old [note Article 6.7 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes .

According to the International Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA), wet nursing is not new, and has been practiced since the beginning of time not just in emergencies, but for convenience of mothers. The practice was made more visible with reports of actress Salma Hayek, who breastfed a suffering child in Sierra Leone last year, and Chinese police officer Jiang Xiaojuan, who was reported to have breastfed five additional infants besides her own after the May 2008 earthquake in China.

ILCA provides additional recommendations on supporting breastfeeding mothers consistent with directives from international relief organizations, including:

* Feed the mother so she can, in turn, feed her infant.
* Provide a safe environment for breastfeeding if needed, including providing a private area or a way to breastfeed discreetly, if the mother desires it.
* Assist mothers who are separated from their infants with regular milk removal to avoid engorgement and maintain their milk production for when they are reunited with their baby.
* Assist mothers with re-establishing their milk production if they have already weaned their baby.

ILCA also strongly encourages the general public to avoid the temptation to donate infant formula to Haiti and, instead, to donate funds to relief organizations for use in meeting highest priority needs. Aid agencies supporting infants in Haiti that cannot be breastfed have procured the supplies that they need. Donations of infant formula only complicate the secure and sanitary provision of aid by workers on the ground. The organizations providing aid to breastfed and formula-fed infants in Haiti include: UNICEF, Save the Children, Action Against Hunger and World Vision.

ILCA has several free downloadable resources for families, health care providers, and relief workers in English, Spanish, and French. The website also has a user-friendly “Find a Lactation Consultant Directory” of available International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs) worldwide who can assist new mothers or relief workers with lactation.

CONTACT
Jim Smith, Executive Director International Lactation Consultant Association 919-861-5577 jim@ilca.org
Weekend/Evening Requests:Cathy Carothers, cathycarothers@ilca.org
ILCA Press Room

Similar Posts:

• Face of rescue: Women’s work by Lauredhel
• Haiti In Pictures: “You Can’t Show THAT” by Lauredhel
• Call to activism: oppose infant formula promotion in Qld Indigenous communities by Lauredhel
• 13 000 babies hospitalised from melamine in infant formula by Lauredhel
• PSA: The CDC on swine flu and breastfeeding by Lauredhel

GMTV sparks breastfeeding row

“GMTV has reportedly sparked complaints to media regulator Ofcom after a programme expert claimed that breast milk can be “as bad as cola”.

Midwife Clare Byam-Cook made the remark yesterday while being interviewed on air by Lorraine Kelly, The Mirror reports.

She is quoted as saying: “Breast milk beyond the age of 2 isn’t necessarily good because it’s very, very sweet. The fact that it’s breast milk doesn’t make it any different to a glass of Coca-Cola.”[...]

GMTV’s ability to be impartial on the subject of breastfeeding has been called into question in the past as its weather slot is sponsored by baby-milk maker Nestlé.

A spokesperson for the morning programme insisted: “This item was fair and balanced.”"

Yes, she said that. Word for word.

You can view the whole segment here at The Lactivist. Sorry, no transcript yet. In summary, it’s a panel with Ann Sinnott, who wrote a book on Breastfeeding Older Children, Nicola Harris, who is tandem breastfeeding her four year old and infant, and Byam-Cook. Sinnott and Harris come across as remarkably practical and level-headed, in contrast to Byam-Cook’s discomfort. I particularly like Harris’ response to “Why do you do it?”, which starts with a simple, “Because she asks. Because I can.”

During the show, on the subject of breastfeeding past two, Byam-Cook says “I don’t see why mothers need support.” She compares breastfeeding beyond the age of two to a toddler sitting up till midnight watching TV and eating lollies. She also gets quite agitated about breastfeeding as “snacking between meals”, which she believes preschoolers should not be allowed to do. Cos, y’know, FATTY MCFATFAT. She says over and over and over again, with a screwed-up disgust face, “breastmilk is very sweet. Very, very sweet.”

Note that her assertion that breastfeeding leads to higher rates of tooth decay is debunked. Breastmilk, in fact, contains ingredients such as lactoferrin that actively fight the bacteria involved in tooth decay, and there is no evidence of a role for full-term breastfeeding in the genesis of caries. The idea that children who have breastfed for more than a few months are FATTY MCFATFAT and have disturbed relationships with food is also straight out of some bizarro opposites-world.

Byam-Cook also writes for the Gina Ford website. The site and Ford’s books have been widely excoriated for an insistence on strict scheduling (including a bald declaration that normal babies feed no more often than every 3-4 hours), leaving young babies to cry, routine very early bottle-feeding, and not “spoiling” those horrible manipulative infant with things like excessive love and human contact. Ford also appears to have a nasty habit of suing chat forums for allowing participants to snark at her methods.

I’d like to see Byam-Cook try to raise a kid on 750 ml of Coke a day and nothing else.

* Water, sucrose or HFCS, caffeine, caramel, phosphoric acid, flavours.

VS

* Water, lactose, fat (including various essential fatty acids), protein, phospholipids, oligosaccharides, nucleotides, amino acids, immunoglobulins (for whatever current environmental threats there are), lactoferrin, lysozyme, calcium, iron, copper, zinc, potassium, magnesium, chromium, manganese, iodine, selenium, fluoride, molybdenum, vitamins A, C, D, E, K, thiamin (B1), riboflavin (B2), B6, B12, niacin, folate, biotin, hormones, a variety of growth factors, enzymes, probiotic bacteria, antiviral mucins and glycoconjugates, cytokines, live white cells, and possibly around 100 other ingredients not yet fully characterised. Composition changes from hour to hour, day to day, month to month and year to year according to demands/needs.

Wait, no, I wouldn’t recommend that. THOUGHT EXPERIMENT ONLY. Don’t try this at home. Similar Posts:

• Bad Science Translation: I do not think that means what you think it means. by Lauredhel
• Stanford Journal Symposium on Parenting, and the Giant Iconic Bottle by Lauredhel
• Everyday Codebreaking: Aptamil advertising by Lauredhel
• California Dairy Industry Tries to Trademark “Got Breastmilk?” by Lauredhel
• Salma Hayek cross-nurses needy baby in Africa by Lauredhel

In the news:

Image one source.

Image two source.

Description: Two media images of babies being fed in Haiti. The first is being breastfed. The entire breast is pixellated out. The second baby is being bottle-fed by a gloved hand. The bottle logo is very prominent. The bottle company, Avent, is one with long-standing global violations of the World Health Organisation Code (WHO Code) for the Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.

I’ll leave you with a slide from the UNICEF presentation, Infant and young child feeding in emergencies in the media [PDF]

“We distributed children’s clothes and about 40 mothers showed up with their babies, we…taught them how to use the milk powder we had received in big quantities.” Source: Real Medicine Foundation News. Sri Lanka, Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004/5

ETA: No, wait, there’s one more thing I want to say. Many of these resources focus on babies and the immediate effect of (mostly) well-intentioned but misplaced infant formula “aid. There is much less focus on the effect on women. For many women, the only method of child spacing available to them is exclusive breastfeeding. With a lot of women’s breastmilk supplies disrupted by inappropriate milk replacements, where are you six months down the track? If the babies survive the artificial feeding in the first place – and, contrary to the ideas of some ignorant Westerners, diarrhea is not a mere nuisance in a disaster – you have a cohort of women who are not only scratching to spend a large proportion of household income on a continued supply of breastmilk substitutes, but are also pregnant again. Irresponsible “aid” doesn’t only affect babies, it contributes to poverty and illness for mothers.

Further reading:

The World Health Organisation, UNICEF, and World Food Programme “Call for support for appropriate infant and young child feeding in Haiti”

Infant feeding in the post Indian Ocean tsunami context: reports, theory and action [.doc format; also available in PDF here]

ICDC Focus: The Code and infant feeding in emergencies

Media Guide on Infant and Young Child Feeding in Emergencies

IFE Core Group resources

Similar Posts:

• For Haiti Orphans, Cross Nursing Can Save Lives: ILCA, UNICEF, WHO, PAHO by Lauredhel
• Face of rescue: Women’s work by Lauredhel
• The big pink M logo and the corporate appropriation of breastfeeding by Lauredhel
• Call to activism: oppose infant formula promotion in Qld Indigenous communities by Lauredhel
• PSA: The CDC on swine flu and breastfeeding by Lauredhel

I thought the BoobyWall was objectifying and tacky. I thought “Save the Ta-Tas” was dehumanising, and missed the point badly. I thought the “every mouthful” nipple-water-bottles were eyeroll-worthy. I thought that instructing us that if only cismen had boobs, they’d look after them better was disparaging and rude. I thought “Save Second Base” was creepy, and Bringing Breast Awareness Back Into the Workplace was creepier.

It gets worse. A lot worse. A Sociological Images commenter spotted this twelve-dollar “Breast Cancer Awareness” T-shirt being sold on campus (here’s the flyer)

The logo has a series of colloquial names for breasts in the shape of a ribbon – “breast boobs ta-tas fun bags honkers melons jugs dirty pillows rack headlights chi-chis the girls cans zonkers knockers”. The caption reads:

No matter what you call them, check them … or I will!

Seriously. The wearer of this shirt is quite willing to walk around proclaiming that he will sexually assault you if you don’t “check” your breasts.

I poked around for other examples and found this:

A black T-shirt says in hot pink text on the front

“I {heart} BOOBS”.

The heart has a ribbon shape superimposed on it. The back of the T-shirt reads:

“You Check Them OR I WILL! Breast Cancer Awareness”

with more pink ribbons.

But wait- there’s more. “Funny Cancer Shirts” brings us this:

A white hoodie has a line drawing of a creepy-looking bloke’s head, and a raised open hand. A pink ribbon lies in the background of the text, saying:

Mr McFeely says…

Check Them, or I Will!

Do you feel safer yet? Oh, but this is hilarious, right? Because no-one ever ACTUALLY touches breasts against their owner’s will! See? It’s SATIRICAL. Don’t you get it? The threat is just a JOKE! Lighten up, chicks! God, you’re so SERIOUS.

Douchebags, stay the fuck out of my health, my activism, my breasts. Really. Go get a new cause, and while you’re at it, just stay the fuck away from women altogether. Similar Posts:

• “Bring breast awareness back to the workplace” by Lauredhel
• Mount Franklin Breast Cancer ads. Let’s start a Brown Colon Cancer Awareness campaign. by Lauredhel
• “Save Second Base!”: The Reaction responds by Lauredhel
• More “Teehee! Boobies!” from the breast cancer awareness industry by Lauredhel
• Faves: Bodies, Breasts ‘n’ Birth edition by Lauredhel

A former Miss Argentina has died from complications after cosmetic surgery, leaving behind her husband and eight year old twins. According to newspaper reports “the woman who had it all died because she wanted a slightly firmer ass”.  Not because she felt she was under any pressure to be beautiful no matter her age and the fact that women’s bodies change with age and pregnancy. Not because she was constantly bombarded with messages that her personal worth is bound up in her appearance. She just wanted a firmer bum.

What a complete load of codswallop.Similar Posts:

• On women “competing for male attention” by tigtog
• I’ve just realised exactly why this obstreperates me by tigtog
• But why are women so worried about their looks? by tigtog
• Ticking all those boxes by tigtog
• Friday Hoyden: Joy Nash by tigtog

Fairfax has a piece on myths about obesity that is sensible and properly science-based, and which they are promoting in the banner area of the front page? Maybe there’s something to all this approaching-2012-apocalypso after all.

The layout is better in the dead-tree edition, where the SMH felt no need to illustrate it with a headless torso as they have done in the web version (at least it’s not an OMGDeathFatz headless torso this time).

Gary Egger and Sam Egger originally published a version of this article in Australian Family Physician, and the gist is this:

We assessed the best available evidence on weight loss and maintenance and used this to compile a 20-statement survey – with true or false responses – which we then gave to two groups of people: 173 GPs and 129 truck drivers and tradesmen.

We found doctors were almost as confused as truckies and tradies. The doctors disagreed with most of the supporting evidence on 40 per cent of our questions, the others on 49 per cent.

Another failing of the web edition is that it does not reproduce the table of results for the survey which is shown in the dead-tree edition. Here’s the data in the table seen in the dead-tree version reproduced manually using a spreadsheet:

It’s depressing to think that nearly 3 out of 4 in both groups believe incorrectly that dairy products do not help weight loss, that more than 1 in 2 in both groups believe incorrectly that fat people get more hungry than lean people, that roughly 2 in 3 in both groups do not know that weight lifting is good for burning fat while nearly 1 in 2 believe incorrectly that sit-ups will burn abdominal fat. On the other hand, at least 3 out of 4 doctors agreed that BMI is not a good measure of body fat, which seems to represent some sort of progress with the medical education on that even if it hasn’t trickled down to Joe Tradesman.

On the gripping hand, doctors don’t seem to have absorbed much in the way of basic biomechanics, believing falsely that one loses more weight doing exercise that you are good at, while the truckies/tradies seem to know the truth – the better you are at something the more efficient you are, therefore the less energy you will burn while doing it. (This effect is possibly/probably confounded somewhat by the aspect that if you are good at something you are more likely to enjoy doing it, and are therefore more likely to do it for longer and thus burn more energy than doing something else for a shorter interval, so this question is not as clear-cut as perhaps the authors intended).Similar Posts:

• Friday Hoyden: Krista Scott-Dixon by Guest Hoyden
• New site independentgirls.org (seeking writers) by tigtog
• CSIRO report: levels of childhood obesity have remained largely unchanged for the past decade by tigtog
• BBUK: Angel and Noirin: Fake-fat-shaming and the induction of self-hate as a motivational tool by Lauredhel
• Generation XXL by Mindy

As we’ve come to expect, Kate strips away the fluff and goes straight to the bone of just why this particular example of Democrats throwing their voters under the bus may have been the final straw.

Suddenly, for a host of different reasons, progressives are sending the message that we will not support these people if they keep breaking their promises and acting against our interests.

It’s an exciting moment, and there’s a chance to make a real difference if this latest swell of righteous indignation doesn’t lead directly to the same old shit: Some of us panic about losing a Democratic majority and start hollering at others to quit being so picky and oversensitive about our “single issues” and take one for the team. (Again. Still. Always.) If we can work together as a bona fide progressive movement, rather than a bunch of competing groups who will all ultimately settle for holding our noses and blocking the worst Republicans, we might actually force the Democrats to give us more than empty shout-outs on the campaign trail. But if some of us will sacrifice gay rights for a chance at advancing our own agendas, and others will sacrifice reproductive rights for a chance at advancing theirs, and a ludicrous number of self-identified progressives will sacrifice pretty much everything they claim to believe in, just because the words “Democratic majority” sound so much better than the alternative, then nothing will change.

So the wise, objective, pragmatic mansplainers can go ahead and tell us little ladies How This All Works one more time, but now we’re telling you: We’ve not only heard it, we’ve tried it. We’ve tried electing “moderate” Democrats who would be obvious conservatives in any era marked less by far-right lunacy. We’ve tried compromising our values in hopes of taking baby steps forward. We’ve tried sacrificing the rights of women and every minority group under the sun, so as not to look unreasonable or oversensitive to those who resent having to share this country at all with people they find undesirable. And we’ve seen where it leads: “We choose to play nice, our party trades on our freedoms. We choose to object, our party resents and blames us for failure.”

Really, when those are the options, there’s only one logical conclusion: This is not our party. We’ve known that for too long, and yet the Democrats have known too well that they could bank on our money and our votes as long as the GOP remained even more not our party. But something’s changed. Sixty-four Democrats voted to block women’s access to legal medical services. That may not be quite as repulsive as some Republican shenanigans, but the difference is only one of degree. If the point of women voting for “moderate” Democrats is to avoid a majority that’s actively hostile to women, then those who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment just proved that there’s no point at all.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.Similar Posts:

• The Federal Senate ballot for NSW by tigtog
• The second election: who will control the Senate? by tigtog
• A Green balanced Senate looking more likely by tigtog
• Pennsylvania Primary: what are the good reasons and what are the bad reasons to vote for either Dem candidate? by tigtog
• “Are Republicans healthier than Democrats?” by Lauredhel

It was on early this morning. The start was a take off of anti-smoking advertising “Every burger is doing you damage”. Then it showed a picture of a young woman’s bottom and waist with voiceover “this is a healthy woman” then a shot of the same woman, with added muffin top and an outraged voiceover “and this is a muffin top”. So basically eat Sumo Salad.

But let’s just explore a couple of issues here. Firstly that hamburgers are doing you damage. It depends on what type of burger you are talking about. I’m guessing they mean their competitors products which can be high in fat and low in vegie serves. However, unless you are eating them every day then the occassional one as part of a healthy balanced diet probably isn’t going to do too much. Secondly – “this is a healthy woman” – perhaps, or she could be a thin woman with a lot of fat packed around her internal organs. You can’t tell. “This is a muffin top” yes, so what? The model you have used still has a waist measurement under 80cm (from looking at the ad) so that means that she is healthy too, muffin top and all. So get lost with your fat hate. Healthy bodies come in all shapes and sizes. And in male versions too, although you wouldn’t know it from looking at this ad. In fact Looking at this ad you would think we were all just bottoms and waists. So I’m afraid I won’t be supporting Sumo Salad. Fat shaming is not on.  Lazy advertising strikes again.

Edited to add: you can see the videos at Mumbrella. Apparently they also target man boobs and cankles.  In the comments at Mumbrella someone mentions that there is a radio ad for Subway playing on 2dayFM which tells fat people not to try and fit into last year’s swimwear, and to stay off the beach to keep Australia beautiful. Has anyone heard it? Do I have to avoid Subway too?Similar Posts:

• In which I judge a book by its cover by Guest Hoyden
• Still scary after all these years by tigtog
• “So in studying the human figure we must have a standard of grace and beauty with which to compare the abnormal figure.” by Lauredhel
• Photos painting pictures by tigtog
• Fish-wives, savages and the curse of Eve by Lauredhel