Sex Work

How to Tell if You're Being Sex Trafficked

|

Artist unknown/Wikmedia

"Everybody's trafficked by something." That's how Police Lieutenant Jim Gallagher, who runs a series of controversial sex work stings/salvation missions in Phoenix, Arizona, sees it. "People that enter into a life of prostitution typically don't do it because they want to. There are circumstances in their life that lead them to what is typically a really bad circumstance." 

I like Gallagher's statement because it succinctly captures the mindset of the nouveau anti-sex-trafficking brigade. Because all things being equal some sex workers might prefer to be secretaries or astronauts, they are "trafficked" into it. Voila! All prostitution is sex trafficking! That's easy. 

Artist unknown/Wikimedia

Sex worker and writer Tara Burns nicely challenges this idea by adopting the rhetoric of Buzzfeed. "Are you being sex trafficked?" she asks today at The New InquiryTake this short quiz to find out

"Being a sex worker means that people constantly try to explain to me that I'm a victim who doesn't know what I'm doing to myself," writes Burns in the quiz's intro. "It's exciting to think that women in the sex industry are forced into sexual bondage by evil men, but the boring reality is that most often we have to go to work to pay the bills, just like everyone else." 

So what are you waiting for? Go find out if you, too, might be a victim of sex trafficking!

Pretty sure you're not? The real point of the quiz is to spark conversation about "the complexities of choice, coercion, agency, and sex work." 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

134 responses to “How to Tell if You're Being Sex Trafficked

  1. There are circumstances in their life that lead them to what is typically a really bad circumstance.”

    A perfect example of how the law & order types are no different than the progs that believe no one has any free will or agency because of privilege and circumstance.

    1. “Doin’ right aint got no end”

      That sort of philosophy can justify pretty much anything.

    2. When you know what’s best for everyone, it’s a tough life.

      1. Tell me about it. Me, Hal, and Michael have a very busy schedule sitting in the Star Chamber.

        Wait, I wasn’t supposed to mention that, was I?

    3. Learn about gray areas. Liberals believe that people’s lives are to a certain extent determined by factors out of their control, and that in certain cases this should be mitigated if we are going to call our economy fair by any reasonable definition of the word.

      Perhaps you struggle because you are on the opposite extreme, seeing people as fully in command of the outcomes of their lives, thus justifying the Darwinian way you want society to treat them?

      1. Whack that straw man, Tony! Show it who’s boss!

        1. Even for Tony, this is no ordinary straw man. This one makes Burning Man look like it’s the size of a child’s toy.

        2. I was responding to a straw man.

      2. and that in certain cases this should be mitigated

        Yeah, fuck you. There is no limiting principle when you take that standard.

        It would be totally permissible–if the voters or politicians asked for it–to invent a whole host of “rights” to a job, a car, a house, etc because it isn’t “fair” that some people can’t afford those things to some arbitrary standard of quality or ease of access.

        1. There is no limiting principle when you take that standard.

          I’ve always said that the War On Drugs is perfectly compatible with progressive ideology.

          1. Considering they’re the ones that started it and the ones that spend more per capita on it, it was a safe assumption.

        2. You’re right. But I fail to see why it’s preferable to have a set-in-stone limiting principle that we can never revisit over people getting to freely choose for themselves via the democratic process.

          It used to be the case that there was no right to education, and populations were stupid and economies unsophisticated. Now there is and the world’s a better place for it. I think it would be a great thing if society were advanced enough for us to be talking about a right to things now considered luxuries, because it would mean that basic needs are all met.

          1. Now there is and the world’s a better place for it.

            No it isn’t.

            populations were stupid and economies unsophisticated.

            Those stupid populations built those ‘sophisticated’ economies.

            I think it would be a great thing if society were advanced enough for us to be talking about a right to things now considered luxuries, because it would mean that basic needs are all met.

            Actually it would just mean we don’t know what rights are.

          2. *facepalm*

            You have no clue what a right is.

          3. over people getting to freely choose for themselves via the democratic process.

            You mean “freely choose for everyone else?” Freely choosing for yourself is an individual action, not a democratic one.

          4. Your “right” to education only became possible after societies, or more accurately, individuals cooperating in society, created the necessary wealth. You have the causation backwards.

          5. “It used to be the case that there was no right to education”

            Bullshit.

            There has always been a right to education in all times and places. No matter who you are you will be educated because the process of living and experiencing creates education.

            What is that, you mean a formal education? Yeah no right to that has ever existed anywhere despite the flowery rhetoric of justice crusaders. The best they have ever accomplished is to create a compulsion to sit in a chair for a certain number of hours per year for a certain number of years, education of that sort may or may not occur and it may or may not be desired by the student

          6. But I fail to see why it’s preferable to have a set-in-stone limiting principle that we can never revisit over people getting to freely choose for themselves via the democratic process.

            How terrible it is that 50+1% of us can’t decide to employ violence against everyone else.

            1. Who is talking about violence?

              You guys are weird. Metaphorical violence is bad. Government should only do those things that involve shooting and imprisoning people.

              1. …alright. I give up. I cannot for a second understand what on earth you’re even attempting to say here.

                1. (that was in response to Tony)

                  1. I think Toney doesn’t view, say, the government shutting down a business for not getting the right permission slip as violence. Because no one actually has pointed a gun at you or hit you.

                    Of course, if you ignore the government’s orders, they’ll fine you. If you don’t pay the fine, they’ll padlock the doors to your business and seize your property. And if you then try to defend your property, then the SWAT team will show up. But I guess that is just a metaphor?

              2. Government is violence. Full stop. There is nothing metaphorical about it.

                1. Therefore it should be limited to only those things that actually require violence on the first order, like shooting and imprisoning people?

                  If violence is bad then why are the worst things those that require the least violence (taxation, education, welfare)?

                  1. The worst things are the ones that require the initiation of violence. Derp.

                    1. You’ve certainly got the pamphlet memorized. If a guy walks across my lawn and I shoot him for trespassing, who initiated violence? Seems like we’re defining violence down to mean anything you don’t like.

                    2. Seems like we’re defining violence down to mean anything you don’t like.

                      Guess what happens if I don’t pay my taxes or try to run a business without jumping through the necessary regulatory hoops.

                    3. You are fined? Not exactly being shot in the face–which you’re perfectly OK with yourself or government doing to people if they walk on your lawn.

                    4. You are fined?

                      And if I throw that fine in the trash, nothing happens, right?

                      which you’re perfectly OK with yourself or government doing to people if they walk on your lawn.

                      Strawman down!

                    5. So you are bitching that you have to obey laws? I’m sorry.

                    6. I take it that’s your concession that laws are violence.

                    7. So therefore laws are bad?

                    8. All laws? No.

                      Initiating violence against peaceful people is bad.

          7. . . . over people getting to freely choose for themselves via the democratic process. . .

            Except that, (A) Your “democratic process” enshrines the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, just because something is popular that does not make it correct, ethical, just, moral, proper, or right;

            . . . even if the majority of the public specifically endorsed each and every particular act of the government, this would simply be majority tyranny rather than a voluntary act undergone by every person in the country. . .

            and (B) it is hardly “democratic” (majority rule).

            . . . Furthermore, even on its own terms, voting can hardly establish “majority” rule, much less of voluntary endorsement of government. In the United States, for example, less than 40 percent of eligible voters bother to vote at all; of these, 21 percent may vote for one candidate and 19 percent for another. 21 percent scarcely establishes even majority rule. . .

            The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 22: The Nature of the State.

      3. people’s lives are to a certain extent determined by factors out of their control,

        Indeed. Trivially true.

        in certain cases this should be mitigated if we are going to call our economy fair by any reasonable definition of the word.

        I’ve seen bowls of oatmeal that had less mush in them. Doesn’t seem a good foundation for getting your jackboot on, to me.

        1. Psst. He’s not real.

          1. Don’t ruin their fun! Responding to sockpuppets is what they do!

            1. It’s all a rich tapestry.

        2. One day, whoever handles him is going to slip and say something like “When Liz Warren is in charge I will be the first person in line to send you to the camps.”

          1. I think he has already done that.

        3. Principles are overrated. Nobody has it all figured out with respect to the ancient question of how men should live–not even libertarians.

          But you guys are the loudest voices in the room for forcing society to live according to the whims of the marketplace, so if it’s not going to be fair then you’re not even offering a good solution, let alone the best one.

          1. Principles are overrated.

            Clearly we should prostrate ourselves before the whims of the masses. Sounds great.

            You are extremely principled Tony you just lack the self-awareness to know it. You operate by the principal that everyone is a means to everyone else’s happiness.

          2. Jesus that’s weak. Troll harder.

          3. Libertarians openly admit they don’t know how people should live. At least not other people. It is sort of built in to the philosophy. That’s one of the reasons why we want to give people the maximum freedom possible to find their own path through life.

            You *think* you want to increase freedom by removing impediments to people’s ideal way of life. But the methods you have to adopt to do so end up limiting freedom in the long run, and prosperity.

            1. But let’s not open our minds so much that our brains fall out. We have figured out some things, for example, that people need food, water, and not being murdered. Among those three things you think the only thing government should concern itself is the last. Why? Who knows. It’s arbitrary, but you’re trying to tell me it’s God’s holy word.

              What are you not free to do that you think you should be free to do? Besides smoke weed.

              1. I’m not saying it is God’s holy word. The *reason* libertarians believe in the NAP has been explained ad nauseum. As have the myriad impositions libertarians would like to see removed.

                And for the record, I’ve never used illegal drugs, but if I did, psilocybin would be at the top of my list, not pot.

                1. And the NAP has been criticized ad nauseum as being either shallow and ambiguous (a thing that everyone agrees about) or, as is it pretty much universally used here, actually an excuse to justify literal violence when you combine it with property rights.

                  1. Read: The Ethics of Liberty, particularly Chapter 13: Punishment and Proportionality.

              2. It is not arbitrary at all. The “not” in “not being murdered” should be the giveaway.

          4. Principles are overrated.

            Spoken like a true fascist.

            But you guys are the loudest voices in the room for forcing society to live according to the whims of the marketplace, so if it’s not going to be fair then you’re not even offering a good solution, let alone the best one.

            Yes, it’s so unfair that you can’t employ violence to achieve your desired goals.

            1. Who is talking about violence? I want to prevent violence. Ensuring there isn’t a mass population of people in total destitution is an important aspect of that.

              1. Preventing people from engaging in voluntary trade is violence.

                1. Who wants to do that?

                  1. Dishonest much? Laws and regulations are not suggestions.

          5. “But you guys are the loudest voices in the room for forcing society to live according to the whims of the marketplace, so if it’s not going to be fair then you’re not even offering a good solution, let alone the best one.”

            As usual you don’t know what you are talking about.

            See if we did achieve our anarcho capitalst (or even minarchist) utopia you would still be free to set up contractual arrangements to live according to whatever rules you saw fit to live by, even rejecting interactions with the evil market based world around you by becoming self sufficient.

            In your world however EVERYBODY is forced to live at the whim of everyone else. Whatever arrangement gets 51% of the vote is forced on the other 49%

            1. If it’s only 51% then you don’t have a terribly huge burden to overcome to get your way instead. Just convince 2% to change their mind.

              What is the alternative? That the 3% of people who agree with you should get to dictate to 97%, because principles?

              You don’t seem to appreciate that there is no such thing as not imposing a social order on people. Laissez-faire is a choice, it’s not a default or state of nature, and even if it were there is no inherent virtue in that.

              1. Laissez-faire is a choice, it’s not a default or state of nature

                Wrong.

                there is no inherent virtue in that

                Wrong. It’s the only system that does not require initiating violence against peaceful people.

                1. No it just outsources it to mob bosses and CEOs.

                  1. You do realize how stupid this statement is right?

                    See without government to create corporations there would be no such thing as a CEO. The very existence of the modern corporation is an intrusion into the free market.

              2. “If it’s only 51% then you don’t have a terribly huge burden to overcome to get your way instead. Just convince 2% to change their mind.”

                Unless the 51% vote to remove the 49%’s right to vote first.But ok lets play that game. If America votes to reinstate slavery but only for Blacks and the vote passes does the fact that the 20% of the population who will be enslaved got to vote make it ok?

                “What is the alternative? That the 3% of people who agree with you should get to dictate to 97%, because principles?What is the alternative? That the 3% of people who agree with you should get to dictate to 97%, because principles?”

                Which part of ” you would still be free to set up contractual arrangements to live according to whatever rules you saw fit to live by, even rejecting interactions with the evil market based world around you” do you not understand?

                See in a libertarian free market nothing says you have to participate in the market on laissez faire terms. You are free to buy a plot of land call it tonyville, and have everyone who lives there sign a contract agreeing to live as an independent social democratic commune. Then everyone who believed in that system could go join you. You could then expand to create a whole network of them, each agreeing to only trade with other such enlightened places/people.

                1. Unless the 51% vote to remove the 49%’s right to vote first.

                  This is not a legitimate action because it undermines democracy altogether. I do have a couple first principles–everyone gets a vote being one.

                  If America votes to reinstate slavery but only for Blacks and the vote passes does the fact that the 20% of the population who will be enslaved got to vote make it ok?

                  It’s not made “ok” by any means, and it would be illegitimate for the reasons I just gave (you can’t support democracy by undermining it). But for less extreme examples, lots of “not ok” things are possible under democracies, but the alternative is worse.

                  You are free to buy a plot of land call it tonyville…

                  Somebody already did this, called it America, and here we are. Your system seems to depend on new people never being born. You were perfectly free upon reaching the age of majority to renounce your citizenship in the voluntary commune with a mixed economy known as the USA and try something else out. It is totally unclear what you’re asking for. And whatever it is, it seems impossible to get from here to there without making lots of impositions on lots of people.

              3. Laissez-faire is a choice, it’s not a default or state of nature

                So what was the default state of nature when man first traded beads, culture, and other things with other tribes?

                Trade by regulation, enforcement, child work laws, 40 hour weeks, overtime, vacation pay, OSHA inspections, FDA for food and drugs?

                I’m sure that’s the first thing the tribes thought when they ran into each other “we can certainly talk to and trade with them – but only after we check with our lawyers to make sure in doing so we’re not opening ourselves up to any potential lawsuits unnecessarily. Good thing we thought about raising a lawyer though – so we have our own in-house counsel. Though that’s only part of it – if the other tribe doesn’t respect the same rights we do – we must force them to do so, or never trade with them again. Lest it seem like we are advocating their behavior…..”

                Those wacky cave men – brilliant before their time.

          6. But you guys are the loudest voices in the room for forcing society to live according to the whims of the marketplace 537 people elected by thin majorities, as well as the millions of unelected enforcers of government policy.

            FTFY

      4. Strawman down!

      5. Liberals believe that people’s lives are to a certain extent determined by factors out of their control

        I don’t think that is controversial in the least. In fact, it seems blatantly obvious. What defines progressives, at least in this circumstance, is that they want to use a central government, supposedly run by highly educated experts following some ideal theory of social interaction, to try to impose their vision of fairness and equality. Rather than trying to give people more control over their lives, they want to try to control the myriad forces of a complex society themselves, through the state.

        Libertarians reject that. There are moral reasons, but there are also practical ones. Namely, the fact that society can’t be controlled and engineered, and attempts to do so almost always end in abject failure or at least sputtering mediocrity. A decentralized approach works better in the vast majority of circumstances. Expect people to be responsible for how they react to the wide world, and in most cases they’ll arrive a place that works for them. It doesn’t guarantee perfection, but where it is applied, the results are pretty spectacular.

        1. But you don’t reject it. You want to impose a social order on everyone, you just don’t call it that, you call it “freedom.” It’s all rather presumptuous.

          I’d like a single shred of evidence for your claims about decentralization, because when I look at history I call bullshit of the highest order. You are as free or freer than almost any human being who has ever lived, and you also live in one of the more connected and centralized societies that has ever existed. What makes it free compared to failures of centralization is democracy and a tradition of western liberalism. But nothing about history suggests that people were better off in small unconnected tribes or whatever it is you’re describing.

          1. Free markets are my favorite evidence of the power of decentralized control. Which is really just shorthand for a system of voluntary cooperation in the exchange of goods and services. Centrally planned economies are the extreme counter example. Most economies exist between the extremes, and the more centrally planned they are, the more they tend to lag. No one is talking about tribalism, and you know that. Though I could get behind running around naked.

            1. So we’re in total agreement–a mixed economy is best, and we’re just debating at the margins. I favor a few more restrictions than you do, a few more transfers of wealth, but it’s not like we’re at odds over fundamental moral principles.

              1. You have moral principles?

                1. From each according to his ability…

                2. Yes but I try not to get too worked up about them because all moral principles are fundamentally artificial.

          2. “But you don’t reject it. You want to impose a social order on everyone, you just don’t call it that, you call it “freedom.” It’s all rather presumptuous.”

            *Signs Dictatorial Libertopian Decree*

            Henceforth, all persons shall be free.

            Any person not displaying the requisite amount of freedom shall be put to death.

            Any person found to have acted in an unfree manner shall be put to death.

            Any person attempting to disrupt the “social order” of freedom shall be put to death.

            Any person found willfully feeding starving children or clothing wage slaves shall be put to death.

            So it is written, so shall it be. All hail Libertopia!

            1. That’s precisely the presumption I’m talking about. Take your bizarre and relatively novel little concept of how a society should be ordered, then slap the word “freedom” on it like a sticker. Well I think my form meets the definition of freedom much better. Thus it is so, I am for freedom and you are a tyrant. QED.

              1. “…bizarre and relatively novel little concept of how a society should be ordered…”

                “You don’t seem to appreciate that there is no such thing as not imposing a social order on people.”

                “Thus it is so, I am for freedom and you are a tyrant.”

                /derpity doo

          3. Yep – that’s newspeak for you.

            Where allowing people to do what they want – is “imposing freedom” on others.

            Whereas forcing people to do things like, pay for the healthcare of others – that’s freedom.

            Rare form Tony – appreciate the laughs. Thank you.

    4. Sometimes the moralistic right and the politically correct left make a weak pretense of not being bestest pals. Sometimes they don’t even bother to do that.

    5. Selection bias. He only sees the problem cases, therefore, there are no non-problem cases.

  2. First, are you attending a major private university? Second, is your contraception free? Finally, is whoring a lucrative alternative to some wage-slave job for suckers?

    1. Ask Belle Knox.

  3. How do you get into trafficking yourself for sex? Is there an audition or a driving test or something?

    Asking for a friend, of course.

    1. Craigslist makes you pass a CAPTCHA test before posting to casual encounters.

      Heard from a friend, of course.

      1. When will the discrimination against sex-bots finally end?

      2. No wonder I’ve been having such a hard time fulfilling my Helen Keller fetish through casual encounters. The discrimination against blind and deaf sex workers must end!

    2. Maybe it’s an upgrade option for major dating sites? Or perhaps that should be downgrade option.

      1. There is a niche dating site specifically catering to women who will date for food – http://www.bustle.com/articles…..urant-bill

        1. They really need to come up with one that matches up young, single women with young twinks for shopping, dining and dancing excursions.

          Not every young office girl can work in the arts, you know.

        2. “Dates based first and foremost on financial transactions just aren’t all that sexy.”

          Says who?

          1. Is there any other kind?

        3. Of course there is, this is the internet.

    3. I’m still working out the server problems, but Whorebay is almost ready to go live. Just sit tight.

      1. Are you using PayPhall as the payment system?

      2. Will you have “Fuck it Now” option?

        1. I did hear him say something about paying a flat fee for some annual program–WhoreBay Prime?

          1. That only covers cab fare.

          2. That’s right, free shipping on all whores, as well as free streaming of a wide whore selection.

            1. free streaming

              Why are you pandering so much to watersports enthusiasts?

              1. The demographic that likes to be peed on by fat whores has a lot of disposable income. Don’t you know anything?

                1. Hmm, I didn’t notice that it was a selection of wide whores rather than a wide selection of whores.

                  This is what happens when you don’t read the fine print carefully.

                  1. Warty encountered some shocking revelations when his CRM team reported their findings. But you have to take your market and your demographics as you find them, regardless of how disgusting and morally disturbing your potential customers may be.

                    1. regardless of how disgusting and morally disturbing your potential customers may be.

                      I thought we were talking about people who liked being peed on by rubenesque whores, not Episiarch.

                    2. Episiarch is a Reubenesque whore, you nincompoop. Er, wait. Maybe he’s Paul Reubens. I forget.

                    3. No, you were right the first time. He’s Reubensandwichesque.

                    4. Are you calling me fat, asshole?

                    5. I’m calling you a sour Kraut.

                  2. That’s why Warty has included shipping. You still pay for it, but the sticker shock is mitigated. I wonder if there’s a surcharge for delivery to a residence? Or a discount if you have a loading dock?

                    1. If you order more than one whore a week, it’s free shipping for whores under 150 pounds. No free handling, though.

            2. Following the Amazon model of the long tail, huh?

      3. Are your fees covered under Obamacare?

  4. “There are circumstances in their life that lead them to what is typically a really bad circumstance.”

    Uh….whut?

  5. Why is that woman in the funny hat talking to V.I. Lenin?!

    1. She’s in one of those places “largely run by foreigners.” OMG, foreigners! Commence freakout!

      1. Yeah, I noticed he is a little swarthy looking.

    2. And why is Stalin pouring brewskys?

      1. Fuck you, I’m on a conference call. On mute, thankfully.

      2. He was doing the cocktails but he’d order the execution of anyone asking for a White Russian.

        1. I thought Molotov was in charge of the cocktails.

  6. “People that enter into a life of prostitution typically don’t do it because they want to. There are circumstances in their life that lead them to what is typically a really bad circumstance.”

    In contrast, people who become authoritarian bumblefucks (like police lieutenants, for example) did so because they wanted to.

    1. Many people that couldn’t get into college or were not sure what to do became cops.

      The Lieutenants, were once regular cops.

      So, yes. If they were allowed to become doctors (and this is some real trolling), perhaps they wouldn’t need to work the slimy thankless job of cop or prostitute.

  7. OT:

    In a potentially game-changing moment for college athletics, the Chicago district of the National Labor Relations Board ruled on Wednesday that Northwestern football players qualify as employees and can unionize.

    http://espn.go.com/college-foo…..d-unionize

    1. If that holds up, we have just seen the end of most college sports – they will keep the revenue raisers 9football, men’s basketball) and enough womynz to keep title IX at bay and cut all the rest.

      Congratulations, gentlemen, you have possibly wiped out most of the scholarship sports.

      1. So the ruling just means they get a unionization vote? What are the odds that the school terminates the Football program prior to that vote?

        1. They do that, and they lose any ability to fund any other athletic program. Football pays the bills for every other sport, except basketball in some cases, at most schools. I don’t think they’ll do that.

    2. This is interesting. Apparently the argument for why they are employees goes like

      Football players at Northwestern are compensated for a service (i.e. football) with athletics-based grants-in-aid, or scholarships; they have supervisors (i.e. coaches) who control their schedules and monitor what they say on social media; they must abide by certain rules and regulations, and are held to different standards than other students; they can have their compensation taken away (i.e. have their scholarship revoked) for violating those rules and lose their jobs (i.e. their spots in the lineup) if they skip practices or games; and they have a contract (i.e. an athletic tender agreement) that stipulates what they must do to maintain their scholarship.

      It seems to me that at least half of those points could apply to students on scholarships who have to maintain a minimum GPA. You might be able to argue the remaining points, maybe. So I wonder if certain students will be considered employees?

      1. I don’t think so. Regular students on scholarship aren’t compensated for a service and don’t have supervisors, and can’t lose jobs; they are merely given conditionally discounted tuition.

        It was always plainly obvious that scholarship athletes are employees, and the NCAA was using its monopsony (or near-monopsony) power to keep their compensation low. This is a clever way of the athletes (as a bloc) gaining better footing to influence NCAA policy.

        The tax implications are fun here: if athletes are employees compensated with scholarships, they should be made to pay income tax on the value of those scholarships. Enjoy that one, kids.

    3. or just kick out all Illinois schools from the NCAA until they get there shit together.

  8. Police Lieutenant Jim Gallagher would make an excellent Marxist.

  9. Go find out if you, too, might be a victim of sex trafficking!

    Sadly, no.

  10. In a potentially game-changing moment for college athletics, the Chicago district of the National Labor Relations Board ruled on Wednesday that Northwestern football players qualify as employees and can unionize.

    Goatfucking Jeeziss.

    Nuke the whole fucking place from orbit.

  11. Get over it dude, seriously.

    http://www.EliteVPN.tk

  12. B. F. Skinner taught me that human behavior is not a choice, but operant conditioning. If you’re a prostitute, it probably means you were locked in a cage as a child.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.