Would you give up meat for Natalie Portman?

27 10 2009

natalie_portman_01

Natalie Portman penned an article in the Huffington Post today about Jonathan Safran Foer’s book Eating Animals, which inspired her to “convert from a twenty-year vegetarian to a vegan activist.”  Throughout her impassioned article, she argues that we should all be vegan because animals have personalities and feel pain, because the torture of animals under mass farming is unacceptable, and because the consumption of meat is detrimental to our health.   She lists a number of health concerns, including the development of new bacterial strains due to the overuse of antibiotics on animals and the respiratory ailments caused by “the copious amount of pig shit sprayed into the air” on mass farms.

Portman then asserts that our food is reflective of our personal beliefs, and in this way, eating meat out of respect for one’s dinner host and tablemates when meat is served is akin to accepting rape to please one’s dinner hosts.  It’s a compromise of principles. 

The main problem with Portman’s argument is that she is confusing environmental health and animal abuse concerns with the general morality of eating meat.  It is possible to be an animal rights activist and still eat meat.  Those of us who are undoubtedly against mass farming and the animal torture it necessitates have the option to cook with only antibiotic-free, free-range chicken, or only wild fish, or only kosher beef.  

Environmental pollutants certainly do taint our food, but instead of arguing that we should stop eating fish as a result of water pollution, why don’t we work to combat the source of the problem?  Water pollution poisons fish, but it also poisons our drinking water.  E. coli taints spinach and tomatoes in the same way that it taints red meat.  To simply stop eating meat is to ignore the issues of pollution and irresponsible farming that are really causing all the health concerns.

If Portman is going to argue that eating meat is immoral because animals have personalities and feel pain, then she should embark on a mission to stop animals from eating each other.  When a coyote kills a cow, it hurts the cow just as much as when a  human slaughters it.  You can’t stop another species from ever feeling pain, and you can’t remove any species from the food chain for protection.

I respect veganism and vegetarianism as personal choices, but I have a hard time respecting those who judge and proselytize. The ability to be vegan is a privilege– there are whole communities of people that would not survive without the ability to eat meat, and millions of people here in America simply can’t afford to feed their families tofu, broccolini and whole grain rice every night.  So if you’re going to be an activist, protest the overuse of antibiotics on farms, or the unnecessary torture of chickens, or the fact that factories are allowed to dump their pollutants into the Great Lakes rather than the dietary habits of your neighbors.  

What do you guys think?  Would you give up meat for Natalie Portman?

Advertisements

Actions

Information

37 responses

27 10 2009
Richard

Even Natalie Portman will get old one day… But bacon never will.

6 01 2015
Kevin Gates

No I would not..I prefer women with actual breasts,

27 10 2009
Sara

Timely post, LB–Did you know Natalie Portman is the vegan guest on Top Chef this Wednesday night??

And no. I won’t give up meat for Natalie or anybody. Vegetarians are dealbreakers.

27 10 2009
alsolovespoopjokes

I’m a vegan, I swallow manjuice, and I think proselytizing about the cause is obnoxious. If [we] vegans are going to make arguments about how humans can CHOOSE not to eat animals (the argument suggesting that this is what sets us apart from animals, countering “circle of life” arguments), then we have to accept that other human beings can choose to eat animals. That’s the fun part about choice. The real crime is badly baked vegan desserts. They should be outlawed. Also, NP’s vegan shoe line wasn’t very cute.

27 10 2009
Southern Girl

Oh wow! I hope I didn’t hurt that snake’s feelings when I beat the crap out of it with a golf club and tossed it over the fence. But then again, I probably saved the life of some tiny little birds-to-be still in their eggshells, because the snakes around here love to climb trees and eat the eggs right out of the nests. It’s the food chain, Natalie. And we’re part of it. Get a grip.

27 10 2009
el

In fact the cow would be in a whole lot more pain when eaten by a coyote than when shot in the brain by a huge metal bolt as in a slaughterhouse (killing it nearly instantly). I’m all for people eating less meat, as I think it’s not particularly healthy and it’s bad for the environment (especially factory farming), but it’s a personal choice that shouldn’t be forced on others any more than religion. I was a vegetarian for a few years and even then was annoyed by the prosthelytizing types who think they are better than everyone else for their actions or views.

27 10 2009
graber

WOW and the winner goes to the first person to use “manjuice” in a comment. solid stuff!

I was raised Kosher and now I put bacon on anything that seems even slightly reasonable but I would absolutely give it all up for Natalie Portman. It would be tough but c’mon. (valid argument)
The harder question is if you had to give up cheese or oral sex?

I do think that telling people they should live their life in any certain way is uber obnoxious. And in reality, she should go shove it, but would I give up meat for Natalie Portman to enjoy my “manjuice?” Faster than it takes to cut the head off a delicious chicken.

27 10 2009
districtramblings

Is there any way for me to steer the conversation away from “man-juice” and back to vegan activism? No?

27 10 2009
VJane

Southern girl – did you really kill that snake with a golf club ?? I am so proud of you. And districtramblings, I will not mention the word you asked us not to mention. I just want to say it is gross and just when I am about to go mix my five oclock toddy and get my bowl of cheetos and enjoy until I cook my chicken thigh (oops, I hope it didnt hurt the chicken when it was dismembered) and yes, eat a salad and hopefully the lettuce isnt tainted as spinach was awhile ago and many fruits and vegetables grown in Mexico.

27 10 2009
BS

is this a serious question? have you seen her inside the actor’s studio interview?

i’d push most of my friends out of a window for her.

28 10 2009
bros

I think this goes to how we consume meat. I think that is the thing simmering beneath the surface of her meta argument about cruelty, waste, and poisoning ecosystems of which we are a part. in other cultures around the world and pretty much since time immemorial, people eat meat in a far more conscious manner than industrialized countries, the USA in particular. I am continually impressed when I watch my hours and hours of food tv and anything on the travel channel with the care taken to eat every part of an animal that dies in the service of human consumption.

almost every other culture consumes almost every part of an animal and nothing is wasted. there is an economy in the way other people eat that is not done here. the way animals are dispatched and then eaten is done with far more care and respect and with a closeness, intimacy, and affinity that is almost painful to watch because it makes the absence of this here so stark. people

I have absolutely no moral objection to meat eating that is done with responsiblity and care and with economy the way it is done all over the world where people have a much closer relationship to their ecosystems as well as the production of food than we do. perhaps natalie should be advocating for this kind of meat-eating approach which is moderate, often ritualistic, crucial to a community’s survival, and bound to a deeper respect for life than simply eschewing meat altogether. her position is truly argued from a position of intense privilege which she should have learned at her fancy school.

28 10 2009
districtramblings

Beautiful point, Bros. As to your final sentence about privilege, I think the ability to be vegan in a healthy way is a privilege that many people around the the world can’t afford. To always buy whole grain rice, nuts, various soy products and the variety of vegetables a vegan needs to get enough protein and maintain a balanced diet is quite expensive. Without milk, eggs, cheese or meat, a lot of people would go hungry.

28 10 2009
Edward Dandyhands

Don’t we have omnivorous teeth? Aren’t our stomachs equipped, nay, built for meat consumption? I can’t 100% recall the details of what I’m about to type, but cooking meat and subsequently eating meat is what gave homo sapiens the competitive advantage to thrive when all those other homos were dying out. Eating raw veggies and raw meat required a lot more chewing time and a lot more mandible/jaw strength. Once homo sapiens figured out how to cook meat, it required less effort to chew and digest. Over time, this caused the mandible to shrink. The mandible used to stretch all the way around and connect in the back of the homo skull. Less chewing eventually lowered the jaw to where it resides today (look in the mirror). This allowed for the homo sapien brain to further develop and expand. I’m sure this more eloquently documented somewhere else on them interwebs, with more detail too, but alas… just getting my point across… we would not be where we are today without cooking and eating meat.

Sorry for the liberal use of homo, but I’m referring to all those other pseudo humans….homo erectus? Jugo de hombre.

28 10 2009
Chris

hey Laura, I enjoyed our discourse over at Rooshes blog, and so I came over to give you some comment love.

Assuming you mean the question in the context of a guy who will quit eating meat “for” Natalie Portman, because he is or wants to be in a relationship with her, here is my answer: No, I wouldn’t quit eating meat for Natalie Portman. Why? Is it so she will show me affection? That would likely be the case, and it is a bad reason for a man to take part in any indirect action to this end.

Men shouldn’t change themselves, especially something as fundamental as diet, for women. Men should be themselves. Changing, or otherwise, acting indirectly to gain certain things from people, especially love, is taking part in a manipulative act. If people were honest, they wouldnt act indirectly for love and affection, and they wouldnt require irrelevant actions of others for the same. However, if she were to convince the man of vegetarianisms benefits on its own merit, than that would be different.

I was a vegetarian for a few years, about seven years ago, until my skin started to dry out in a bad way. I dont think that it is healthy for humans, in spite of all of the carbon footprint and animal pain arguments. Our biology is primarily that of a meat/fat eater, pure and simple, rather than that of a sugar/carb eater. You have to act according to your biological nature. Just my opinion. Belligerent vegetarians generally walk a fine line between amusing and annoying…

28 10 2009
Andrew

One of the problems with discussing this topic is that mostly no one can engage in an objective, dispassionate conversation. The problem for some vegans and vegetarians is that eating meet is a question of morality – topics in morality are almost always, necessarily emotionally intense, for they deal with value, with feeling. Singer, a Princeton Bio-Ethicist and Ethical Utilitarian – when it comes to animals rights, at least – demonstrates what an argument against animal suffering looks like from a non emotional view point. For meat-eaters, the problem is that they are necessarily cruel if they agree with the arguments of vegans. They didn’t make the conscious decision to eat meat; they just make it now not to not eat meat. They grew up eating it and, as a result, it is a part of them, a part of life, a part of their essence. “we are what we eat,” to quote that oft used phrase. How can we objectively consider animal welfare when our identity is caught up in their suffering? It’s very hard, either way, but surely more so for the meat eaters, particularly the self-proclaimed animal rights proponents.

That said, it is not impossible to have this discussion. Unfortunately, and I will be a bit bold here, it is not a winnable argument for meat eaters. With every passing year, more and more information comes out regarding the complexity of and intelligence of animals, their thought process, emotions and personality. See the books I listed below and also the major series on the intelligence of elephants as reported by the nytimes. As this information works its way into the mainstream, it becomes very difficult to argue that one is in favor of animal rights, in any principled sort of way, and also eating meat i.e. the systematic killing of animals. (The words are necessarily harsh because they do not euphonize reality. For example, I might refer to your ‘bacon’ as pig flesh, because, well that’s what it is. The special term is purposeful. It is not essential for nomenclature purposes. It is to relieve the mind of having to consider what it may find abhorrent, albeit tasty as well. This phenomenon occurs everywhere: hot dogs are colored, blood is drained, the meat is shaped into neat shapes that remind us of puzzle pieces rather than animal parts, and, honestly, how many of you have been to the butcher recently, much less slaughtered your own beef?)

Of course, principles can be terribly idealistic. As such, they are difficult to follow. But that shouldn’t prevent us from attempting to follow them to the best of our ability. In that sense, meat eaters need to come to terms with the contradictory nature of their position (as do many other people, though that is outside the scope of this topic). Yes, eating animals is decidedly linked to being an animal rights proponent. Does eating them make you wantonly and inherently cruel? No, of course it does not. But, it makes you, in this limited realm, a low level supporter of the rights of animals. Sure, you may want all animals stunned before they are killed, but, in the end, you are still engaging in the systematic destruction of living organisms, which in and of itself is a cruel act. Besides, does anyone other than PETA actively pursue this sort of regulation?

The bottom line: is meat eating i.e. killing animals, just, simply, a consumer choice? Is it just a live and let live thing? Because, if you argue that, as people do, than you really open up the flood gates. The issue is much more complex than some people would like to admit. Is it just a simple consumer choice to kill dogs? Think about that. Why can we not kill dogs in the US (by the way, they kill and eat and torture them in Asia) but we can kill other animals? Why is our sense of decency appalled when we see animal cruelty in general, but even more so when it is committed against our household pets? Yes, it is a fact that in nature, things eat things. But, are we troglodytes, subject to a simple and unyielding determinism? Are we slaves to our wiring or are we rational, intelligent beings capable of making choices, even hard ones?

Unfortunately, in this day and age, we, as a culture at least, have come to a point where this sort of cognitive dissonance must be addressed. Not only for the welfare of animals, but for our welfare as a people. The fact of the matter is, yes, our consumer choices are other peoples’ business (at least in the respectful advocacy way), particularly when it has become increasingly and undeniably evident that where we spend our dollars is of the utmost political importance. Do we want to continue to buy products from Walmart, a store that imports products made in other countries by the poorest of people who are, in many ways, enslaved? (it’s just a consumer choice, i.e. no one elses business right?) Do we buy from the local guy or the big agricorp? Similarly, do we continue to buy meat products that come from companies that pollute aggressively, destroy resources, abuse government sponsorship (yes, grazing land for cattle farmers has mostly been leased by our government to these people for pennies on the dollar, oh and so has the industry’s water consumption been subsidized to the tune of a 1lb of beef costing about 5 dollars rather than 40), mistreat their workforce, lie about the salubrity of their product, lobby congress aggressively, and spend millions on cultural manipulation, e.g. “Beef, it’s what’s for dinner.” In essence, our every dollar is a political statement. Whether we choose to see it that way or not is another question. But, to those of us who do – and we are right in doing so I would argue – the choices of others become that much more connected to our own wellbeing. It is paramount that we realize and accept our growing interconnectedness.

Eating meat is an accepted norm. Eating is one of the most emotionally fused behaviors in which we partake. I don’t begrudge anyone this choice or action. I do wish, however, that the lazy rhetoric and intellectual malaise, both of which are all too common in the “to meat or not to meat” discussion, are abandoned. It’s morally indefensible. The evolutionarily necessary argument is antiquated. The individual choice argument is readily defeated. The inferiority of animals argument is myopic, chauvinist, and becoming scientifically disprovable. The health and protein argument has been thoroughly squashed with some exception for people such as body builders and other special interest needs. What we have left is custom, tradition, and taste. And I understand: culture is a powerful force. Try living outside it your whole life and see how difficult that is.

Animal Liberation – Peter Singer
The Souls of Animals – Gary Kowalski
When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals – Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson
Inside the Animal Mind: A Groundbreaking Exploration of Animal Intelligence – George Page
Wild Minds: What Animals Really Think – Marc Hauser
The Food Revolution – John Robbins – for a look at the vast environmental and medicinal problems with not only industrialized meat production but also simple, local animal consumption.

28 10 2009
Joshua Sophy

Here is the latest ground beef recall due to E. coli poisoning: http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/13596#more-13596

28 10 2009
bros

Andrew, unfortunately, your whole argument is still caught in the evolutionary trajectory you are advocating for us to dismiss. you present not eating meat as ‘the only moral choice’ and that people who recognize animal suffering are on a higher moral plane and thus, the only civilized, enlightened choice is to abstain from meat. vegetarianism is therefore the eschatological outcome of advanced civilization. I completely disagree with the assertion that there is no way to morally consume meat or be an enlightened omnivore as cultures around the world practice this every single day. it is actually our advancement and industrialization that produces our complicity with wasteful, inhumane and indifferent meat eating, and not the other way around. plenty of other cultures are up close and personal in a way we never are with the suffering of their animals that are to be used for food and are killed by someone’s hand in a way that is impossible to disassociate from, which links predator and prey in a time-honored ritual that is expressed in the act of flesh becoming flesh, and it is done with respect and gratitude and all parts of the animal that can be eaten are eaten because the labor of raising, feeding, and killing need to be conserved. this is not unnatural by any means and only becomes so when the production of meat is so far removed from its consumption. that gap is where immorality comes into play.

28 10 2009
Andrew

Bros.
I appreciate your response. Indeed, idustrialization is (at least partially) a major problem. But, the point was that we are complicit in it if we spend our money on it. The act of physically eating meat meat – preparing, cooking, cutting, chewing, swallowing – does not make it so in and of itself. I think that point was clear, but if not, it is now. My point about the industry was that it’s megalithic presence, combined with our growing interconnectedness, justifies the interest in others in our personal consumptive habits.

Also, however, that we enable the killing of animals, by eating them, is morally unsound, regardless of whether it’s a time honored ritual, regardless of whether it is done “humanely”, regardless of whether it’s all organic and done in our yards etc. That’s not to say that we should never engage in immoral acts. Morality doesn’t compell the starving person, nor should it. Similarly, our morality shouldn’t necesarrily compell the Vietnamese much less rain forest aboriginal peoples. I just asked that we recognize that regardless of the cultural, social, economic, ritualistic, or edible value in killing animals there is an immorality inherent in taking their lives, despite evolutionary, digestive, food chain, homo sapien superiority arguments to the contrary. I compared our eating of certain animals to our not eating of certain animals to demonstrate the cognitive dissonance in our current thinking. I think, if we are to be honest with ourselves, we must recognize, at the very least, that while we wish animals no harm generally, we do them harm in practice. We may be justified in eating them, but, in any case, it is immoral.

Further, in no way was I prescriptive. That you feel like I’m asking something of you is the feeling everyone must have when faced with a conflict of choice: you engage in the act and accept it to be righteous and normal, but there is an independent morality that suggests your act may be otherwise. I’m not a missionary for my lifestyle. All I reccomended was that, if we engage in this ritual, that we at least recognize that it is immoral in the sense that we kill creatures with feeling, emotion and intelligence. I paid homage to this conundrum in the begining paragraph and the last. I admit that this is something highly charged and I regret the discomfort and even pain that this sort of thinking may cause.

Since we are complex beings capable of evolved and highly intricate thought, I think we are capable of holding contradictory beliefs to the light without being smitten by the iron fist of judgement. Shit is complicated and relativity is the rule, not just in physics.

28 10 2009
bros

you are still being contradictory. “Similarly, our morality shouldn’t necesarrily compell the Vietnamese much less rain forest aboriginal peoples. I just asked that we recognize that regardless of the cultural, social, economic, ritualistic, or edible value in killing animals there is an immorality inherent in taking their lives, despite evolutionary, digestive, food chain, homo sapien superiority arguments to the contrary.”

on the one hand you concede that morality is a relative concept and constructed socially around the world; on the other you still want to argue for a universal Truth that killing animals is immoral. who says? based on what value system? Cognitive dissonance is a fine concept- a construct tethered to and located within a western enlightenment and science tradition, but certainly not a universal concept. I would argue that our so called cognitive dissonance doesnt exist in many places and that it doesnt exist doesnt mean that these cultures who are not suffering from cognitive dissonance are somehow either misguided or missing out. it doesnt occur to them because it doesnt exist. and that is perfectly ok, despite your socially constructed and culturally contingent definitions of what constitutes immorality.

28 10 2009
animals are delicious

I can’t touch the bros-Andrew argument with a 10 foot hand-sharpened boar killing spear, obviously I haven’t been to enough “fancy schools” myself… but I will say that having done a good deal of hunting and fishing for years, bros your commentary on the connectedness to one’s food rings 100% true for me. Our ability to enter a supermarket and buy factory-produced meat products that don’t even resemble the animals they come from is making us lose touch with the reality of what a privilege it is to consume these tasty critters in the first place. If people had any idea of the quantity of blood, sweat and tears (for all the parties) it actually takes to get them from the wild to our dining room tables, or how hard all things living will fight to remain living, I think there would be a lot more respect for the natural environment, and probably life in general. You certainly find it in spades among the hunters and fishermen I know.

28 10 2009
BS

i’m enjoying the bros / Andrew back and forth.

Questions for both:

Andrew–I’m curious to know if you feel that killing another human being is an absolutely and universally immoral? If you’re going to argue that killing a human being is morally wrong, but you may be inclined to be immoral in a case where it’s necessary (self defense, for example), then what real purpose and function does your ‘morality’ have? Religion without God is still religion.

Bros–While I more or less accept your analysis… what is your solution to fixing the current system? I will argue that that the rise of WalMart has killed the role of small businesses and resulted in devastating labor situations both here and in China. However, I still see it as a sign of human progress (despite its many contradictions) and would not suggest that we have to dismantle WalMart and head back to mom and pop stores. So what are your suggestions to fix the current food production system?

28 10 2009
bros

my answer to you would be to read In Defense of Food or the Omnivore’s Dilemma, both by Michael Pollan and both tomes on how to fix this bullshit way we eat. and i would argue to dismantle walmart.

28 10 2009
BS

define dismantle.

and then what? should we start buying our clothes from our village tailor? Should I go get my car from a black smith?

28 10 2009
bros

its not a zero sum game between walmart and the blacksmith. i know you know this.

28 10 2009
Edward Dandyhands

This is just like the scene in Bad Boys II when Martin Lawrence finds out his sister got kidnapped by the Drug lords.

“Shit just got real.”

29 10 2009
BS

i haven’t read Pollan, but have read his interviews. He does a great job of describing the problem. However, i hope his prescriptions in his book are much better than just telling people to eat X or Y.

There’s no reason that the gears of the food production can’t be altered to produce the foods that Pollan says are good for humans to eat. There’s 5 billion people on the planet; we can’t just expect them all to ‘eat local’

If i were going to ‘dismantle’ Walmart, I’d:

-Nationalize it immediately
-Take the profits and start giving all the employees a living wage, full health benefits and a retirement plan.
-Allow for workers to elect their managers and their bosses

that would probably be a good place to start with the food industry as well.

Does Pollan touch on any of these?

30 10 2009
Jme

Andrew –

None of your argument makes any sense. Here is why:

1) I don’t suspect you have a very strong background in either plant or animal physiology or biochemistry to properly qualify your moral grounding regarding the killing of plants vs. animals. I do. If your beliefs are based in the fact that animals are capable of feeling pain and reacting accordingly you should be surprised when I tell you that the biochemical responses to environmental stress (e.g. what you would love to define as pain) between plants and animals are extremely similar. I assume that you would love to picture a more developed neurological pathway in animals as compared to plants as a great distinction in the way the two domains “react,’ “think,” “feel,” “communicate.” Plants may be (relatively) stationary but they are more than capable of these behaviors, at least on a biochemical level. Have you ever taken asprin? It is made of salicylic acid, a hormone used by the genus Salix (Willow) to react to their immediate environmental pressures, communicate with neighboring trees, and respond accordingly, in the form of movement. Crazy right? I think you should dig a little deeper in to how you separate different domains or organisms in terms of which ones can be killed morally or immorally.

2) Eating morally is simply taking what can be taken sustainably, whether it is a plant, fungus, animal, bacteria, or protist. If Arctic-dwelling natives were forced to abandon their meat-eating, they would then be forced to subsist on vegetative protein sources that eaither do not exist, or exist in a delicate enough balance that harvesting even a small abount of them would cause an entire ecosystem collapse. This would lead to the eminent, slow, painful death of hundreds of animals. And the end of this collapse, guess who dies? Yep – humans. Of course, the relevant governmental organization would step in before they did and feed them with meat harvested from a massive cattle farm in Brazil which was responsible for the death of millions of different kinds of organisms, including the animals which you consider to be so high above the rest. Maybe some even went extinct? That would suck. But at least those damn natives didn’t kill that single whale. If that is more moral than offing a single whale and feeding a shit load of people for a long ass time, I would love to know how

30 10 2009
districtramblings

Brilliant comment, Jme. Thanks for weighing in.

22 04 2013
raspberry ketone supplement images

My spouse and I absolutely love your blog and find almost all of your post’s to be just what I’m looking for.
Does one offer guest writers to write content for yourself?
I wouldn’t mind creating a post or elaborating on a number of the subjects you write with regards to here. Again, awesome web site!

31 05 2013
shtu4ka.com

My partner and I stumbled over here by a different page and
thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i am following
you. Look forward to looking at your web page again.

4 06 2013
flawless raspberry ketone

Thank you for sharing your info. I really appreciate your
efforts and I will be waiting for your further post thanks once again.

4 06 2013
adidas tron legacy light up hoodie

I believe that is among the so much significant info for me.
And i am satisfied reading your article. But want to statement on some general things, The website style is great, the articles is in point of fact great :
D. Excellent activity, cheers

6 06 2013
Bettye

Greate pieces. Keep writing such kind of info on
your site. Im really impressed by your site.

Hey there, You’ve done an excellent job. I’ll certainly digg it and in my view
suggest to my friends. I am sure they will be benefited from this site.

19 06 2013
build your own website

There’s definately a great deal to learn about this topic. I really like all the points you have made.

15 04 2014
hire

I’m really loving the theme/design of your site. Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility problems?
A few of my blog visitors have complained about my blog not working correctly
in Explorer but looks great in Firefox. Do you have any
solutions to help fix this issue?

11 09 2014
maximum shred reviews scam

maximum shred reviews scam

Would you give up meat for Natalie Portman? | District Ramblings

6 01 2015
Kevin Gates

No I would not..I prefer women with actual breasts,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: