Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:36:20 EDT

From: Raku2u@aol.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

Good stuff, Skaz. Much to enjoy and ponder.

>S:Well, that's not exactly true, but the character is somewhat unpopular. Chekov was a second season addition to Star Trek designed to appeal to the perennially uncool "Tigerbeat" crowd. I think the character still carries some of this onus for old timers. It's similar to the way some Voyager fans

Yep.

>resent 7 of 9 because of the overt way the show's production team thrust her on the viewing public as a piece of cheesecake for growing boys of all ages.

Another yep, but I still enjoy what they're doing with her, humor-wise.

>Chekov also carries some Wesley Crusherish qualities of naive enthusiasm. And as most will agree, naive enthusiasm is not a characteristic that individuals tend to seek in a lover.

Hmn, well, yes and no. Seems to me that a lot of Spock slash is predicated on his being naively enthusiastic. Maybe a height thing. Interesting how much less clout Vorik has among the Voyager fans (Vorik being short) than Spock did/does among the TOS fans.

Um, even for those fans who were 10-14 year old *girls*?

>KG: Well, we were *only* 10 to 14 years old. I think we can be forgiven for our lack of imagination. PB Wrapper has a theory that it's 'imprinting,' that a girl never quite gets over the first man type of male that sends a shiver down the girl type of spine.

And for men, what? rice pudding?

>Hence the Chekov fixation. I tend to agree, unfortunately, in my case it was a dead heat between Peter O'Toole and Peter Sellers in "What's New Pussycat?." Hence, I've never remarried (once bitten,

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Peter Sellars? Pity the fool... Imagine the wedding night, when he steps on the bride, cuts the bed in half, falls out the window only to land on someone else's balcony... Funny yes, erotic no.

Um, perhaps your spouse felt this way about Sellars? O'Toole at least has some class.

>KG: Oh well. What makes Chekov an attractive slash subject for you?

>S: Oh, he's definitely made for hot 2 boy action. Although Chekov's portrayed on the show as being adamantly heterosexual, he has passionate attachments to strong men in his life -- like Kirk and Spock. He also has a very easy and comfortable relationship with Sulu.

Hmn. YMMV. Oddly I have a very hard time imagining Sulu with any man. Lord knows I've tried. Dunno why.

>It's not hard to imagine any of these relationships taking on sexual overtones -- given the right circumstance. And since he's young and impulsive, it's much easier to figure out plausible situations to put him in than for Kirk or Spock -- no burden of command, no waiting around for pon farr, etc.

Just hot 2-boy stuff, right? ;)

>He is a sensual and hot-blooded character. This makes him fun to write -- particularly in slashy situations. Chekov also has the advantage of having the demonstrated potential to be either a comic or tragic figure. Because the writing on the show was inconsistent and sloppy for the minor characters, we saw Chekov being everything from cocky and easygoing, to being a complete anal retentive puritan. This

Where puritan, please? Must have missed that ep.

>gives the fan writer a wide range. Walter Koenig has recently been going on in interviews about how much more "well-rounded" the character of Bester is. That's

Bester is the new sci-fi dude he's playing? Or is he now a character in Mad Magazine (cartoon guy named Fester Bestertester...showing my age, I am)

>lovely for him, I'm sure, but as a fan fiction writer, I don't necessarily want to work with a character that's already been completely figured out for me.

Oh yeah, absolutely.

raku, much enjoying this.

_______________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:47:23 +0100

From: "skazki" <skazki@globalnet.co.uk

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

I'm not sure you can rationalize any of this. Maybe over an entire population, *most* people will find *most* tall people more attractive *most* of the time, but the intense, once in a lifetime crush doesn't obey these rules. Vorik is simply uninteresting, as presented on screen. No pheromones waft electronically into my living room when he's around.

>PB Wrapper has a theory that it's 'imprinting,' that a girl never quite gets over the first man type of male that sends a shiver down the girl type of spine. And for men, what? rice pudding?

Let's just say, the superficially female members of Chekov fandom are not speculating where they have no expertise.

Hmn. YMMV. Oddly I have a very hard time imagining Sulu with any man. Lord knows I've tried. Dunno why.

As a service to members of SSD, if you care to post the unfinished stories in which you have attempted to imagine Sulu with... well, with anyone at all, really, the SSP (Society for Shameless Plagiarists) will complete your masterpiece and post it to ascem under our own names.

According to this morning's news, even respectable British politicians are admitting to the existence of hot 2-boy action in their pasts. This is *not* a plea for a Chekov/Portillo crossover.

>saw Chekov being everything from cocky and easygoing, to being a complete anal retentive puritan. This

>Where puritan, please? Must have missed that ep.

The Way to Eden. On the whole, better missed.

Jane

_______________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:26:30 EDT

From: Raku2u@aol.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

In a message dated 99-09-09 10:43:13 EDT, you write:

>According to this morning's news, even respectable British politicians are admitting to the existence of hot 2-boy action in their pasts. This is *not* a plea for a Chekov/Portillo crossover.

Say what?

Info appreciated, until I relocate my links to UK newspapers.

Cheeses. I know, I know, you're just trying to keep up with our Grand Impeachment Carnival, the likes of which only the US could provide. The French are *still* snickering at us. Man oh man...

raku, curious

_______________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 09:56:45 -0700

From: "Nicki" <nicki.a@angelfire.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:47:23 skazki wrote:

From: "skazki" <skazki@globalnet.co.uk>>According to this morning's news, even respectable British politicians are admitting to the existence of hot 2-boy action in their pasts. This is *not* a plea for a Chekov/Portillo crossover.

Oh pl-ease, I haven't had tea yet, Chekov and Portillo, what a vile and repulsive idea. Urgg *shudder*.

Nicki

Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

_______________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:08:00 +0200

From: "Briony" <briony@gibnet.gi

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

Delurking as a new member to the List: Jane wrote: According to this morning's news, even respectable British politicians are admitting to the existence of hot 2-boy action in their pasts. This is *not* a plea for a Chekov/Portillo crossover.

Splutter! Jane, don't *go* there, pleeease.

Raku asked: Say what?

Ah yes, darling Michael. Used to be my MP (Member of Parliament), was tipped to be a future leader of the Conservative Party and held what was thought to be a 'safe' seat, ie one in which the Tory (nickname for the Conservatives) majority was so large, no one ever thought he'd be voted out.

Unfortunately for Michael, last election he was <vbg>. And that was a very happy day, for which as one of the people who voted him out I graciously accepted the thanks the next day of very many people who didn't live in his constituency <g>.

The man's policies I (and many others, including even some people who are Tory Party supporters) find distasteful.

It was widely known in the constituency that he had gay tendencies, but he wasn't 'out' as such. This morning it was on the news that he admits to having had homosexual encounters during his time at Cambridge University, but hasn't done so since.

I can't comment on this, but can say that for all I dislike him, at least (unlike some other gay politicians who aren't out) he has never exhibited any anti-gay sentiments--so he isn't a hypocrite.

The Labour Party politician (a man) who replaced him in my constituency, incidentally, is openly gay. Actually, come to think of it, so was another prior MP of mine, another Tory turned media pundit, called Matthew Paris who is well known in Britain for outing on TV yet another gay Tory MP...

>Cheeses. I know, I know, you're just trying to keep up with our Grand Impeachment Carnival, the likes of which only the US could provide. The French are *still* snickering at us. Man oh man...

Nah, no impeachment. They resign first...

Briony ***more testosterone than a vicar***

_______________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 10:17:12 PDT

From: "Skazi netilsky" <skazi90@hotmail.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

>a plea for a Chekov/Portillo crossover.

>Splutter! Jane, don't *go* there, pleeease.

Don't put it to her that way. She'll just interpret it as a challenge and be sure to write it now...

_______________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:54:01 +0200

From: "Briony" <briony@gibnet.gi

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

Skazi netilsky wrote: a plea for a Chekov/Portillo crossover.

>Splutter! Jane, don't *go* there, pleeease. Don't put it to her that way. She'll just interpret it as a challenge and be sure to write it now...

<groansMe and my big mouth. I should've learnt after the Paris/Neelix debacle...

Briony ***more testosterone than a vicar***

_______________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:01:20 -0700 (PDT)

From: Karmen Ghia <stormal@yahoo.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

Skazi netilsky wrote: a plea for a Chekov/Portillo crossover.

>Splutter! Jane, don't *go* there, pleeease. Hey, wasn't this guy Major's last foreign secretary or something? I've seen his picture in the Economist. I don't think he's Chekov's type, rilly, I don't.

I don't think we should even try to stifle Jane's creatively. After all, she did crank out a very convincing Mc/C when I certainly never thought it could be done in this dimension.

Karmen

_______________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 13:31:33 -0700

From: "Nicki" <nicki.a@angelfire.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:01:20 Karmen Ghia wrote: >

From: Karmen Ghia <stormal@yahoo.com>Skazi netilsky wrote: >>a plea for a Chekov/Portillo crossover.

>>>Splutter! Jane, don't *go* there, pleeease.

>>Hey, wasn't this guy Major's last foreign secretary or something? I've seen his picture in the Economist. I don't think he's Chekov's type, rilly, I don't.

He was the defense secretary. Frightening thought or what. I agree he's not Chekov's type, I'm not sure he's anyone's type

>I don't think we should even try to stifle Jane's creatively. After all, she did crank out a very convincing Mc/Ch when I certainly never thought it could be done in this dimension.

Yes.... but Portillo.... * still shuddering*

Nicki

Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

_______________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 22:26:42 +0100

From: "skazki" <skazki@globalnet.co.uk

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

Yes.... but Portillo.... * still shuddering*

Oh, people, please! I have *so* much background to do this *really well*.

Jane

_______________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 14:57:56 -0700 (PDT)

From: Karmen Ghia <stormal@yahoo.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

--- skazki <skazki@globalnet.co.ukwrote:

From: "skazki" <skazki@globalnet.co.uk

>Yes.... but Portillo.... * still shuddering*

>Oh, people, please! I have *so* much background to do this *really well*.

THEN, BY GOD, I VOTE YES! LASSIE, GO OUT THERE AND KILL KILL KILL!

Karmen

_______________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:42:33 -0700 (PDT)

From: Karmen Ghia <stormal@yahoo.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

--- Raku2u@aol.com wrote:

From: Raku2u@aol.com

>Also, many of us who like Che originally started liking him when we were the sort of 10 to 14 year old teenyboppers the network was aiming him at. We tended to obediently have "Tigerbeat"-ish heterosexual fantasies about the character and a mysterious Marysue version of ourselves rather than consider him as a prime candidate for a little hot 2 boy action. Um, even for those fans who were 10-14 year old *girls*? Well, yes, of course Raku. I'm sure *anyone* could should and did fall in love with Chekov. Alas, many moved onto Bobby Sherman.

>So! Does this mean you have thing for Chekov? KG:

>Well, we were *only* 10 to 14 years old. I think we can be forgiven for our lack of imagination. PB Wrapper has a theory that it's 'imprinting,' that a girl never quite gets over the first man type of male that sends a shiver down the girl type of spine.

>And for men, what? rice pudding?

>I guess I've heard of men getting those icy fingers up and down their spines but have never seen it in action. I'll take your word for it and stop this evil discrimination I've been practicing all my wicked life! Hence the Chekov fixation. I tend to agree, unfortunately, in my case it was a dead heat between Peter O'Toole and Peter Sellers in "What's New Pussycat?." Hence, I've never remarried (once bitten,

>Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Peter Sellars? Pity the fool... Imagine the wedding night, when he steps on the bride, cuts the bed in half, falls out the window only to land on someone else's balcony... Funny yes, erotic no.

Oh, worse, Raku, worse. All through What's New Pussycat he wore a Marlo Thomas/That Girl flip wig. It's amazing I was ever straight. Rent the video, you will die laughing.

>Um, perhaps your spouse felt this way about Sellars? O'Toole at least has some class. Yeah, well, O'Toole was pretty nutty in that film but very very sexy.

>KG: Oh well. What makes Chekov an attractive slash subject for you?

>S:Oh, he's definitely made for hot 2 boy action. Although Chekov's portrayed on the show as being adamantly heterosexual, he has passionate attachments to strong men in his life -- like Kirk and Spock. He also has a very easy and comfortable relationship with Sulu. Hmn.

>YMMV. Oddly I have a very hard time imagining Sulu with any man. Lord knows I've tried. Dunno why.

That's interesting. I'm stalled in a S/Su and wondering why. I can see Sulu with Chekov or Uhura but no one else, except Spock and I'm working on it. God, could imagine him with Kirk for one nanosecond? Why is that? Does Sulu have that laid back San Francisco het guy cool that doesn't even have to defend its masculinity? Does anybody know what I'm talking about? I'm not even sure anymore.

I have trouble putting Chekov with a female or letting him top. He just has that wide eyed, virginal, 'take me' charm that makes him a great bottom.

But I might be completely wrong about this.

Karmen Still trying to get Spock and Sulu in bed somehow

_______________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 12:17:56 -0000

From: Scarlet <scarlet@mbox301.swipnet.se

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

Karmen Still trying to get Spock and Sulu in bed somehow

I'm praying to Freya that you will succeed. Will Chekov by any chance walk in on them?

Scarlet, greatly amused by this discussion

The Scarlet Zone: http://www.oocities.org/Paris/Gallery/3114/

_______________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:55:43 EDT

From: Raku2u@aol.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

In a message dated 99-09-10 00:45:39 EDT, you write: Karmen wrote:

>Oh, worse, Raku, worse. All through What's New Pussycat he wore a Marlo Thomas/That Girl flip wig. It's amazing I was ever straight. Rent the video, you will die laughing.

And this man is a sex object for you? Karmen, you're a little odd, anyone ever tell you that?

>Um, perhaps your spouse felt this way about Sellars? O'Toole at least has some class.

>Yeah, well, O'Toole was pretty nutty in that film but very very sexy.

And wore no wigs. At least in that role.

raku, wondering about Karmen quite a bit

_______________________________________________________

Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 08:10:47 PDT

From: "Skazi netilsky" <skazi90@hotmail.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

>That's interesting. I'm stalled in a S/Su and wondering why. I can see Sulu with Chekov or Uhura but no one else, except Spock and I'm working on it. God, could imagine him with Kirk for one nanosecond? Why is that? Does Sulu have that laid back San Francisco het guy cool that doesn't even have to defend its masculinity? Does anybody know what I'm talking about? I'm not even sure anymore.

Hmmm. That's interesting. I tend to see Sulu as the sort who has plenty of bisexual bhuddist tolerance for all things and all people. But I just can't see him with Kirk. Are they too different.. or too alike?

_______________________________________________________

Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 08:34:43 PDT

From: "Skazi netilsky" <skazi90@hotmail.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

>Good stuff, Skaz. Much to enjoy and ponder.

Thank you. We aim to please.

>Another yep, but I still enjoy what they're doing with her, humor-wise.

I liked the ep. where she had to sing and wear bobbi sox... And they say fanfic gets weird...

Chekov also carries some Wesley Crusherish qualities of naive enthusiasm. And as most will agree, naive enthusiasm is not a characteristic that individuals tend to seek in a lover.

>Hmn, well, yes and no. Seems to me that a lot of Spock slash is predicated on his being naively enthusiastic.

Well, yeah, I can see that... But he's more covert about it, I think. It's a cute quality in the bedroom, but embarrassing in public, maybe?

I guess my talking about naive enthusiasm as a turn off for fanfic readers would have to be strange for someone who came to slash via Voyager, wouldn't it? P/K is all about enthusiasm... naive and otherwise. I think that's what I found so refreshing about Voy slash -- particularly the "Kimmies" -- the lovers in those stories actually enjoyed themselves... k/s, when I first started reading, used to almost always stretch angst to the point of being positively morose.

>And for men, what? rice pudding?

If that's what men want. Rice pudding, eh? Wish someone had told me that a long time ago...

>Bester is the new sci-fi dude he's playing?

Yes. A bab5 creature.

_______________________________________________________

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 21:53:30 EDT

From: Raku2u@aol.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

Skaz. replied:

>Hmn, well, yes and no. Seems to me that a lot of Spock slash is predicated on his being naively enthusiastic. Well, yeah, I can see that... But he's more covert about it, I think. It's a cute quality in the bedroom, but embarrassing in public, maybe?

Yeah, I guess, until it turns into sexual harassment. I mean, that's covert, eh?

I guess my talking about naive enthusiasm as a turn off for fanfic readers would have to be strange for someone who came to slash via Voyager, wouldn't

Ah, if you mean me for example, I came to slash via KS, and picked up Voy. later when looking for fresh meat so to speak. But your point remains, nonetheless, I think.

it? P/K is all about enthusiasm... naive and otherwise. I think that's what I found so refreshing about Voy slash -- particularly the "Kimmies" --

I think there's prob. an age difference going on. The TOS fanfic people (not even restricting it to K/S) whose ages I know are none of them under 35 with the possible exception of Sasscat--depending how you count her. The Voy people are all over the board, and lots of them are late teen or in twenties--a different take on all kinds of human experience of course. Stop me before I start making big generalizations about Today's Young People.

the lovers in those stories actually enjoyed themselves... k/s, when I first started reading, used to almost always stretch angst to the point of being positively morose.

True from what I've seen of modern K/S. I think probably part of that must come from one's experience of gay/lesbian life, yes? I mean, prob. a bunch of the earlier ficcers were pre-Stonewall, correct, whereas those who're in even their 20s now grew up in a world that had much more overt same-sex play, if not more. Madonna, e.g., just to pick the name (horrible name) that comes to mind. So for the KS crowd we're still struggling more with *justifying* same-sex stuff, when for those younger it's less a big deal. Or so I guess... But then you add in international elements--attitudes toward gay folk in different countries--and I don't know *what* you end up with...

raku, still wondering who this Portillo guy is...

_______________________________________________________

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 23:00:13 -0600

From: Kaki <kaki4@ipass.net

subject: RE: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

>In general, this may be true, but I do know of several TOS fanfic readers/writers who are under 35, even a couple under 20! Just FYI

----------

From:Raku2u@aol.com[SMTP:Raku2u@aol.com]

_______________________________________________________

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 23:22:43 EDT

From: Dunyazad9@aol.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

Raku wrote

>I think there's prob. an age difference going on. The TOS fanfic people (not even restricting it to K/S) whose ages I know are none of them under 35 with the possible exception of Sasscat--depending how you count her.

and Kaki replied,

>In general, this may be true, but I do know of several TOS fanfic readers/ writers who are under 35, even a couple under 20! Just FYI.

In my observation, raku's observation that TOS folks are over 35 is true for TOS fans of the zineish persuasion, and certainly it is true of K/S printfen. I think the younger K/S fen have mainly come in through the net.

And wow, is it ever true that early K/S fan fic bears the stigmata of its pre-Stonewall origins. The pair, especially Kirk, agonize over the m/m issue, and Vulcan, usually personified by Sarek, is none too pleased.

I used to say that it is no longer possible, in our era, to write the kind of stories the early K/S fen wrote, that you can't go home again. But some K/S printfen have proved me wrong.

Judith

_______________________________________________________

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:32:26 EDT

From: Raku2u@aol.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

Judith noted:

>Vulcan, usually personified by Sarek, is none too pleased.

Yeah, but I can still see how that would work, on the Logic argument. That is, *even* if you imagine zippy, effective reproductive technology, so far as canon shows it Vulcan reproduction is still heterosexual in nature and so one could argue that other formats were not, well, logical.

raku

_______________________________________________________

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 07:42:13 +0100

From: "skazki" <skazki@globalnet.co.uk

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

Judith noted:

>Vulcan, usually personified by Sarek, is none too pleased. And Raku added:

>Yeah, but I can still see how that would work, on the Logic argument. That is, *even* if you imagine zippy, effective reproductive technology, so far as canon shows it Vulcan reproduction is still heterosexual in nature and so one could argue that other formats were not, well, logical.

My first (and for me personally, chief and last) reason for slash being so compelling is not the 'coming out' argument, on behalf of myself or anyone else, but almost the exact opposite. Given when TOS was first written, a gay attraction would have been a more powerful and distressing 'alien possession' for two male characters to deal with than anything Gene Rodenberry and his usual team of writers could come up with. (And of course, being an internally generated 'alien possession', it has even more dramatic force.) That feeling of panic and dislocation is still there, imposed over the top of what the writer intends maybe, when I read or write TOS slash today. Voyager, by contrast - a ship where no one seems to find it in the least odd that the entire ship's complement sometimes ends up in gay relationships - offers no angst that grows out of the basic fact of a same sex relationship. If you want 'Help, we're breaking all the rules!' angst in Voyager, you need to look at people who have cultural problems with a new relationship of any stripe: Tuvok, and maybe Janeway, who are already in committed relationships, anyone who thinks Paris is trash/traitor but falls for him anyway, anyone who breaks Janeway's fraternization rules (but that would require consistent writing, duh) etc. Slash in a *sixties* show is a great way for me, reading or writing, to put my foot down hard on the angst pedal

Jane

_______________________________________________________

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 11:16:27 PDT

From: "Skazi netilsky" <skazi90@hotmail.com

subject: Re: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

>Ah, if you mean me for example, I came to slash via K/S, and picked up Voy.

When I wrote this, I thought I might be misremembering when and how you said you'd started reading slash. Sorry. Didn't mean to underestimate your years in the erotica trenches...

>True from what I've seen of modern K/S. I think probably part of that must come from one's experience of gay/lesbian life, yes?

True, that's got to have an effect.

Also there's the view that slash serves as a metaphor for heterosexual relationships for women writers. Maybe the increasing percentage of "happy slash" could indicate women's increasing ability to accept and enjoy their own sexuality... whatever form that might take -- het, bi, or any other suitable abbreviation...

_______________________________________________________

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 17:06:59 -0600

From: Kaki <kaki4@ipass.net

subject: RE: An Interview with Skazinetilsky

----------

From:skazki[SMTP:skazki@globalnet.co.uk] Reply To: SocForSlashDiversity@onelist.com Sent:Thursday, September 09, 1999 6:47 AM To: SocForSlashDiversity@onelist.com

subject: Re: [SocForSlashDiversity] An Interview with Skazinetilsky

From: "skazki" <skazki@globalnet.co.uk>

>Hmn, well, yes and no. Seems to me that a lot of Spock slash is predicated on his being naively enthusiastic. Maybe a height thing. Interesting how much less clout Vorik has among the Voyager fans (Vorik being short) than Spock did/does among the TOS fans.

>I'm not sure you can rationalize any of this. Maybe over an entire population, *most* people will find *most* tall people more attractive *most* of the time, but the intense, once in a lifetime crush doesn't obey these rules. Vorik is simply uninteresting, as presented on screen. No pheromones waft electronically into my living room when he's around.

Ummm. Not that I've noticed. Maybe this works for tall men, though.

Kaki

_______________________________________________________

<end>

Back to Main Page