Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Fat Acceptance Movement

1…1516182021…49

Replies

  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    canadianlbs wrote: »
    i think there's a lot of visceral hate among anti-fat folks, to be honest. now that obesity has become an acceptable Thing to get all bent about, it's gained a set of terms and 'concerns' to dress itself in. but i still don't grok looking over the fence and giving a damn about somebody else and what they do, don't do, or are. so i think the hatred is there. and i think it's really the same thing that it always was.

    the original fat acceptance movement was something i might have been around for, if what i saw in the later 90's was its inception. i liked it. it sought to get at the real, psychological sources of what 'fat' people deal with, and it sought to call the vilification for what it was in hopes that everybody would grow a little and some things would change. but isms usually evolve pretty fast to find ways around whatever is put up to block them ime. so since then the haters have gone sideways into this host of easily-accessed medical and social justifications. it seems like this particular group just wasn't mentally swift enough to resist the temptation to answer in kind. but so what? when the focus remains only on what the lunatic fringe are saying, then it's a closed loop, a static circle - just an endless cycle of hate revolving between two poles that are pretty much fixed.

    it's still just two groups of toddlers calling each other poopyheads, to my mind.

    The difference is that in the modern construct, you're required to help foot the bill for the bad choices made by said toddler poopyheads.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    canadianlbs wrote: »
    i think there's a lot of visceral hate among anti-fat folks, to be honest. now that obesity has become an acceptable Thing to get all bent about, it's gained a set of terms and 'concerns' to dress itself in. but i still don't grok looking over the fence and giving a damn about somebody else and what they do, don't do, or are. so i think the hatred is there. and i think it's really the same thing that it always was.

    the original fat acceptance movement was something i might have been around for, if what i saw in the later 90's was its inception. i liked it. it sought to get at the real, psychological sources of what 'fat' people deal with, and it sought to call the vilification for what it was in hopes that everybody would grow a little and some things would change. but isms usually evolve pretty fast to find ways around whatever is put up to block them ime. so since then the haters have gone sideways into this host of easily-accessed medical and social justifications. it seems like this particular group just wasn't mentally swift enough to resist the temptation to answer in kind. but so what? when the focus remains only on what the lunatic fringe are saying, then it's a closed loop, a static circle - just an endless cycle of hate revolving between two poles that are pretty much fixed.

    it's still just two groups of toddlers calling each other poopyheads, to my mind.

    The difference is that in the modern construct, you're required to help foot the bill for the bad choices made by said toddler poopyheads.

    Yep, we live in a society. Like it or not society has to pay at least some of the cost for the "questionable" actions of its members.
  • BrunetteRunner87
    BrunetteRunner87 Posts: 591 Member
    I think the fat acceptance movement means different things to different people. There are people who think it's OK to love themselves as they are at their current weight, but work toward bettering themselves. I don't think there's anything wrong with that and it's what I usually strive for. For example, when I go to yoga I have to accept that my body can't do certain poses the way they are intended and be OK with that, but I still work to get better at them and challenge myself.

    What I do NOT think is ok are the people who take fat acceptance to an extreme and think their bodies should be celebrated just for existing. That's like giving out participation medals. You can celebrate your body for a new PR or something you worked to achieve but there's no reason to celebrate your body being a vessel for you to sit on the couch and eat cheesey poofs all day. I think these people tend to put others down who are trying to lose weight or be better. I read an article one of these folks posted about how dieting is always bad and you should never ever diet because you can't love yourself if you diet. That's ridiculous, you can want to diet to be healthy or even lose weight for reasons other than vanity, like if you want to run a marathon but you don't want that much weight on your knees. And then they blame stores for not selling clothing in their sizes (i mean like size 28) and they blame the store...I mean it seems like humans are not really supposed to be that big. Are these people hurting me? Well, no not directly, eventually I'm sure they will become a burden on the healthcare system, but if someone wants to chastise me for wanting to better myself, at the end of the day why should I care?
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    I couldn't care less what an individual decides to do as long as this does not impact others.

    I begin to care when the money I earn is forcibly taken to fund the healthcare of those individuals leading unhealthy lifestyles.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    canadianlbs wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    The difference is that in the modern construct, you're required to help foot the bill for the bad choices made by said toddler poopyheads.

    we all foot the bill for what each of us does. that's why this one makes no real sense to me. to me it just seems like an arbitrarily-picked scapegoat issue. and it seems to me like it's one that got picked because it's safe and it's so directly personal you can make targets of specific people, without having to think very hard or extrapolate very widely.

    you could get yourself equally bent about all kinds of things, and i can see so many that make far more actual sense to me, in terms of having a better ethical justification to them and a better payoff for time spent wrt the topic of suffering. domestic violence and unhappiness cost society a fortune every year. racism does, poverty does . . . our kids and grandkids will pay for your neighbour's pretty green lawn in some way at some point down the road.

    but nobody's peering sideways and gossiping and wittering to their more-evolved friends about what a weak-minded selfish schmuck your neighbour is for wasting gallons of water a day just to keep the neighbourhood friendly to him. nobody's deconstructing the subtle pressures and social forces that twisted his values that way. we could all be militant fanatics on the topic of cars - that one would really make sense. we could go rank on so many things that seem to me to be so much more worth the mental time spent.

    but fat is an easy target because it's so concrete and immediate.

    I know that this is an obvious statement, but you've clearly never seen my forum accounts or Facebook page. I have tangents against nearly everything you mentioned here (up to and including being a staunch non-interventionist). It just looks like I only rip on the obese and their damage done, because it's relevant here.

    I am perfectly okay with letting people do to themselves as they so desire. I am Libertarian individually first, and systematically second. Since the individual part is very easy to cover (I leave you the *kitten* alone, you leave me the *kitten* alone), I end up spending most of my energy on the systematic side of things. Let the obese do their thing. Just stop making everyone else pay for it. You want the freedom? Take the responsibility.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    canadianlbs wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    The difference is that in the modern construct, you're required to help foot the bill for the bad choices made by said toddler poopyheads.

    we all foot the bill for what each of us does. that's why this one makes no real sense to me. to me it just seems like an arbitrarily-picked scapegoat issue. and it seems to me like it's one that got picked because it's safe and it's so directly personal you can make targets of specific people, without having to think very hard or extrapolate very widely.

    you could get yourself equally bent about all kinds of things, and i can see so many that make far more actual sense to me, in terms of having a better ethical justification to them and a better payoff for time spent wrt the topic of suffering. domestic violence and unhappiness cost society a fortune every year. racism does, poverty does . . . our kids and grandkids will pay for your neighbour's pretty green lawn in some way at some point down the road.

    but nobody's peering sideways and gossiping and wittering to their more-evolved friends about what a weak-minded selfish schmuck your neighbour is for wasting gallons of water a day just to keep the neighbourhood friendly to him. nobody's deconstructing the subtle pressures and social forces that twisted his values that way. we could all be militant fanatics on the topic of cars - that one would really make sense. we could go rank on so many things that seem to me to be so much more worth the mental time spent.

    but fat is an easy target because it's so concrete and immediate.

    I think because it is visible and other ways of endangering your health (my sleep example, or being reckless in general) are not -- people can do them under the radar. I do agree that other things don't seem to engender the same reaction even so, though, which makes me think there is something else going on.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Apart from HAES, though -- my knowledge of them is largely based on the descriptions here -- who is saying we can't talk about obesity being a negative or problem? From my observation, this is commonplace, and I have no problem with it.

    I am maybe being too literal, but I don't know what is meant by saying society does or doesn't accept obesity. How do we community to a fat person (assuming she has no idea that this is the view, which I think is a false assumption) that being fat is a negative or not acceptable, for example. How it's not healthy is easy (and IMO unobjectionable): that's covered in the press, doctors tell you, there are governmental efforts, wellness programs through insurance, etc.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    edited October 2016
    zamphir66 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Ah, I finally figured out my Googlefu. For anyone laboring under the illusion that there's any pretense of "health" in HAES, check this out:

    https://www.sizediversityandhealth.org/content.asp?id=152
    The Health At Every Size® Approach

    The Association for Size Diversity and Health (ASDAH) affirms a holistic definition of health, which cannot be characterized as simply the absence of physical or mental illness, limitation, or disease. Rather, health exists on a continuum that varies with time and circumstance for each individual. Health should be conceived as a resource or capacity available to all regardless of health condition or ability level, and not as an outcome or objective of living. Pursuing health is neither a moral imperative nor an individual obligation, and health status should never be used to judge, oppress, or determine the value of an individual.

    The framing for a Health At Every Size (HAES®) approach comes out of discussions among healthcare workers, consumers, and activists who reject both the use of weight, size, or BMI as proxies for health, and the myth that weight is a choice. The HAES model is an approach to both policy and individual decision-making. It addresses broad forces that support health, such as safe and affordable access. It also helps people find sustainable practices that support individual and community well-being. The HAES approach honors the healing power of social connections, evolves in response to the experiences and needs of a diverse community, and grounds itself in a social justice framework.

    This is among the most vapid nonsense I've read in forever, and I have an MA in English lit.

    Try reading anything coming out of critical theorists work and you get this, word for word. It's post-Marxist communist theory.
  • Noreenmarie1234
    Noreenmarie1234 Posts: 7,492 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Look. Being overweight has negative health consequences...that is a fact. A society with high obesity rates is impoverished by this because taking care of people with habitual health issues costs a lot of money. Therefore society should discourage obesity. For society to be able to discourage obesity we have to be able to talk about it as being a negative. Acting like that is hurtful to people's feelings so we shouldn't do it is the PC nonesense.

    I'm not saying that you as an individual should yell at fat people and call them fatty-McFatpants or something its just as a society we should encourage people to be at body weights that are most conducive to health because what is the point of a society if it isn't to steer the general population away from harm and into positive outcomes. Not by force, but by what the society accepts versus what it does not accept.

    Yes this exactly
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    edited October 2016
    canadianlbs wrote: »
    "lemurcat12 wrote:
    I think because it is visible and other ways of endangering your health (my sleep example, or being reckless in general) are not --

    heh. the canadian medical system has just put out for me and my lifestyle, to the tune of a doctor's appointment, a pelvic and hip x-ray, and who knows what might come next if that doesn't show anything. if i were part of some third-party 'extended coverage' system the costs of supporting my little hobby would be a lot more because i'd be hitting the physio and other paramedical systems as well.

    simple solution: quit lifting weights. your fun's getting expensive for everyone else. but i like lifting weights the same way someone else might like eating oreos. our poisons of choice are both costing The System. my needs are directly induced by my lifestyle of choice, but what makes mine 'better' on some moral plane? it's a theoretical question, i know. but it is true that since i got interested enough to actually seek out 'active' communities, i've found an incredible wealth of medical activity being talked about as if it were perfectly fine. my own doctor has certainly seen more of me since i discovered barbells than she's seen of me in the previous ten years combined.

    so yeah. i'd agree the dichotomy's false. i've now suddenly gotten interested too in the fact that judgeyness and derision are endemic in lots of gyms, but almost nobody justifies their nitpicking about other people's lifting form by reaching for this 'money out of my pocket' card. huh.

    You do make a good point.

    But, there may be a limit to that as well. If what you're doing is hurting yourself, by the same logic people are using against obesity, you should back off or modify in order to reduce the risk of injury and therefore needing less medical intervention than you would need if you keep doing things the way you are doing them. There are plenty of alternatives.

    Example. A cousin of mine played some rough sports when he was younger. He broke his arm at least four times and his nose at least 4 times and his leg at least twice. We thought he was being pretty silly, to put it nicely. People (especially outside of the natural bias of MFP) don't actually approve of people exercising/doing "healthy" things to such an extreme that it becomes detrimental.

    And joining an active community where the medical activity is not negative... is just like joining a HAES group where they think the medical activity isn't negative. You're in a group of like-minded individuals so it is normalized. Even MFP isn't going to be without bias on this topic.

    So, playing devils advocate, yes, what you are doing is as bad for the system and I don't think it's a one directional "card". The people at the gym probably aren't going to say anything as a lot of them may think the same - that costing the medical system due to sports injuries is better than any other way because exercise is "always good".

    And on the other side of the fence... "free" resources are provided to people who need to lose weight such as dietitians. And while physio is sometimes covered... a personal trainer (the actual solution for learning proper lifting form) will never be covered by the medical system. So it is different from that stand point, which might make people judge more heavily on the obesity issue than the over/improper use issue. Hmm.

    (Again, I'm just trying to express a possible opposing point of view. I'm also one who costs the system more than they "should". I'm not trying to represent any of my personal beliefs).
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    edited October 2016
    canadianlbs wrote: »
    "lemurcat12 wrote:
    I think because it is visible and other ways of endangering your health (my sleep example, or being reckless in general) are not --

    heh. the canadian medical system has just put out for me and my lifestyle, to the tune of a doctor's appointment, a pelvic and hip x-ray, and who knows what might come next if that doesn't show anything. if i were part of some third-party 'extended coverage' system the costs of supporting my little hobby would be a lot more because i'd be hitting the physio and other paramedical systems as well.

    simple solution: quit lifting weights. your fun's getting expensive for everyone else. but i like lifting weights the same way someone else might like eating oreos. our poisons of choice are both costing The System. my needs are directly induced by my lifestyle of choice, but what makes mine 'better' on some moral plane? it's a theoretical question, i know. but it is true that since i got interested enough to actually seek out 'active' communities, i've found an incredible wealth of medical activity being talked about as if it were perfectly fine. my own doctor has certainly seen more of me since i discovered barbells than she's seen of me in the previous ten years combined.

    so yeah. i'd agree the dichotomy's false. i've now suddenly gotten interested too in the fact that judgeyness and derision are endemic in lots of gyms, but almost nobody justifies their nitpicking about other people's lifting form by reaching for this 'money out of my pocket' card. huh.

    Unlike many, I would see you denied public funding right alongside the obese. Since I am a smoker and my lifting contributed to my injury potential, I would see me denied for any injuries and illnesses resulting from my personal choices as well. I'm nothing if not consistent, and I do not believe that I should benefit from the system anymore than anyone else.

    Hell, given my stance on all of it, I feel that I have a bit of a moral obligation to not take advantage, regardless of whether or not anyone else thinks that I should.

    For the record, despite several lifting injuries, and getting backed over by a truck at work, I haven't been to a doctor since I was 16.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    edited October 2016
    And all this ridiculous "you owe it to everyone in society to be perfect" disappears if you reject collectivism.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,563 Member
    But ultimately, who gets to define what would be labeled risky behavior for the purpose of denying benefits? Riding a road bike? Running? HIking? Walking on an uneven path? Falling off a treadmill? Not getting a yearly screening for preventable diseases?
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    People are people, humans. Tall, short, skinny,chubby, fat, hairy, hairless, dark hair blond hair, blue eyes, green eyes. Some ride motorcycles, some skydive etc (if healthcare is your issue). Where do we draw the line?

    Independent of any origination individual people should be accepted as we all like to be. Perhaps we don't accept the amount of food they eat, nor would we accept their body composition but they are more than that with thoughts and feelings.

    Usually people have issues accepting themselves and with others lack of acceptance drives them to these types of organizations for the simple need of human companionship of some sort.

    Also there is so much information out there that folks sometimes just freaking give up because they don't know what to do.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    canadianlbs wrote: »
    i think there's a lot of visceral hate among anti-fat folks, to be honest. now that obesity has become an acceptable Thing to get all bent about, it's gained a set of terms and 'concerns' to dress itself in. but i still don't grok looking over the fence and giving a damn about somebody else and what they do, don't do, or are. so i think the hatred is there. and i think it's really the same thing that it always was.

    the original fat acceptance movement was something i might have been around for, if what i saw in the later 90's was its inception. i liked it. it sought to get at the real, psychological sources of what 'fat' people deal with, and it sought to call the vilification for what it was in hopes that everybody would grow a little and some things would change. but isms usually evolve pretty fast to find ways around whatever is put up to block them ime. so since then the haters have gone sideways into this host of easily-accessed medical and social justifications. it seems like this particular group just wasn't mentally swift enough to resist the temptation to answer in kind. but so what? when the focus remains only on what the lunatic fringe are saying, then it's a closed loop, a static circle - just an endless cycle of hate revolving between two poles that are pretty much fixed.

    it's still just two groups of toddlers calling each other poopyheads, to my mind.

    Do you know that the original organized fat acceptance movement actually has unsavory underpinnings?

    At its genesis in the ... I want to say 70's, the man who got the ball rolling was a feeder?

    The women who had tried earlier in the 60's to launch some sort of movement hitched their wagons to his star when his group started to gain some traction.

    I find the whole story ultimately sad. The women sold out their ideals to further their dysfunctional behavior and put themselves in bed with a fetishist all in the name of getting some political standing.

    And now, here we are.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Apart from HAES, though -- my knowledge of them is largely based on the descriptions here -- who is saying we can't talk about obesity being a negative or problem? From my observation, this is commonplace, and I have no problem with it.

    I am maybe being too literal, but I don't know what is meant by saying society does or doesn't accept obesity. How do we community to a fat person (assuming she has no idea that this is the view, which I think is a false assumption) that being fat is a negative or not acceptable, for example. How it's not healthy is easy (and IMO unobjectionable): that's covered in the press, doctors tell you, there are governmental efforts, wellness programs through insurance, etc.

    Actually, the fat acceptance movement holds that speaking of fatness as a negative is fat shaming.

    Even saying that it's not healthy isn't acceptable. All of the things you mentioned about the government's efforts, press coverage and doctors? They're all wrong and fat shaming.
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    edited November 2016
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I'm not a fan of HAES and I think the idea that obesity is perfectly healthy and outside our control is nuts. But that said, I am curious about some things:
    Elise4270 wrote: »
    But I don't think it's okay to open the door to accepting unhealthy behaviors.

    What are you concerned about happening that would result in "accepting unhealthy behaviors" more than we as a society always have (in that I'm not going to comment on what someone else chooses to eat, none of my business). Maybe it's different subcultures, but it definitely doesn't seem to me that it's considered preferable to be overweight or desirable at all or that anyone is being told (outside of non mainstream groups) that obesity is healthy. Quite the opposite -- when I was a kid being fat was a bad thing because people thought it was a size of laziness and unattractive, but I don't think people were nearly as conscious of it as a health issue.

    I'm pretty unconcerned about obesity being encouraged or even not discouraged socially or by health professionals, so when people claim to be worried about this, I wonder what they mean.
    Sure, a few pounds here or there isn't likely to cause adverse health effects, similarly a few drinks here and there aren't likely to cause adverse health effects. We should be supportive and be helping one another, no matter the challenges of their journey. No matter their hang ups.

    What do you think we should be doing? It might be that we agree on that stuff (education or some such), but from what you say I can't tell if you think it would be useful to go up to random fat people in the grocery store or some such and tell them they eat too much, which -- as a formerly fat person -- I can't imagine being helpful at all.

    Now if someone asks me about how I lost weight, sincerely, I'm always happy to be helpful and supportive, and as seeing others lose weight was inspiring to me I hope that my having done so and living an active life is maybe inspiring to some others.
    We really need to be addressing for what it is, a disorder. Love the people, treat the disease.

    Again, what do you mean by this?
    No one is shaming large people. I think that's just political crap.

    I've seen plenty of insults yelled at fat people and the like (was told I was fat and disgusting as a teen even though I objectively was not), and I see a lot of more subtle fat shaming (mocking people for being overweight, not directly to their face, discounting people for being fat).
    It's okay to not take care of yourself physically, mentally or spirituality? Did the insurance companies come up with this?

    Why would the insurance companies come up with it? Their motive is to charge you more if you are more of a health risk (i.e., fat), which isn't exactly like saying it's cool. And now that they can't, really, their motive is to cut costs by pressuring people to lose weight. If insurance companies or the medical establishment could figure out good ways to combat obesity, they'd be all over it. (My insurance plan, like many, has a health and wellness program that focuses a lot on weight -- even though it didn't change what I paid, I liked being able to score well on it and make improvements.)

    Also, I never know what people mean when they say something is "not okay." I spent months sleeping far less than is recommended, for example, which is a health risk. Let's agree that's not okay (although I kind of think it's my business). What does that imply to you? That if you know it (since it's less visible than my weight and I don't have to admit to it) that you can come up to me and lecture me? What? I honestly don't understand what you are really saying here.

    I don't think it's responsible to not follow the news or not know who the members of the Supreme Court are, or the Cabinet, or how our governmental system works, or basic history. Yet, from what I see, lots and lots of people don't care about that at all. I guess I kind of think that's not okay, that they are choosing to be ignorant and not taking care of their mental development or being a responsible citizen (heck, I think not reading books falls into this category, and yet again many people are in it). Should I proclaim that we all must accept that this is NOT OKAY? And if so, what should I demand?

    I'm saying, I don't understand the fat shaming issue. I was told by a larger person that they don't like people that work out. That's fine, no one is forcing another person to live as I or anyone else sees fit. Be fat if you want. But it's not healthy. I never cried skinny shaming.

    Ya know, people are *kitten*. They criticize others on childish whims. I could wear something stupid and be ridiculed for it- I don't have to be fat.

    I have no idea why you think confronting "fat" people would be ideal or even a sarcastic solution.

    Get the chip of your shoulder.
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    You don't have to accept people's lifestyle choices to accept the person themselves.

    You may smoke, I don't - but I can accept you and not accept your choice. That's all I'm saying.

    Again I'm talking about individuals not the organization.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    johunt615 wrote: »
    You don't have to accept people's lifestyle choices to accept the person themselves.

    You may smoke, I don't - but I can accept you and not accept your choice. That's all I'm saying.

    Again I'm talking about individuals not the organization.

    This is essentially how I handle it. I see a lot of butthurt over some of the terms that I use to describe the obese (including my former self), but I have never once directly attacked an individual, other than myself. Now, of members of a larger group identify with the terms that I use enough to get upset about it, that's not my problem.

    Also, those who get offended on behalf of others can be discarded out of hand.
  • xmichaelyx
    xmichaelyx Posts: 883 Member
    chocolate_owl wrote: »
    And why would being happy with my body keep me from improving it?

    Sorry, this comment really depresses me :( Loving my body would be such an accomplishment, I don't see how it's "giving up."

    The whole point of the HAES and FA (Fat Acceptance) movement is to settle with what you have. If you attempt to improve yourself, those communities will absolutely shun you.

    Be happy with your body. Or not. As long as you're working on self-improvement, you're on the right path. I am Random Internet Guy, and my opinion is as useless as everyone else's. Certainly nothing I say should depress anyone; I'm just not that important.
  • walkjem
    walkjem Posts: 47 Member
    RonnieLodge wrote: »
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    I don't care if people want to be happy with their body size as long as they realize being fat at 70 isn't the same as 30 or 40. I work in a hospital and if you are fat and make it to 70 chances are you are going to have to have a bed side commode (potty next to the bed) and have me wipe your butt because your little skeleton and joints aren't young anymore. People NEVER think about this. Basically this means you will end up in a nursing home with little independence.

    I work in healthcare as well and see a great deal of very large people (requiring more manpower, equipment, $$$$ and time to treat) and plenty of older people (65yrs +).

    Don't see that many obese older people though.

    Yesterday, my RN daughter had a 300+ pd 70 yo patient who is bedridden and can only move her arms. It took 2 nurses to roll her over to clean her butt. Daughter's back is sore as heck today. :(
This discussion has been closed.

Categories