Be young and shut up

A blog about student activism.

Russell Kane is a sexist bully

with 30 comments

Russell Kane, on Thursday night, was featured in a BBC Comedy Festival special from Edinburgh. In his short set, he said that women ‘moan’ about getting unwanted male attention but then ‘put a short skirt and makeup on’, implied that he has considered sleeping with vulnerable women with low self-esteem to make himself feel better, asked an audience to feel sympathy for ‘desperate, rapey gits’, and joked about putting women in vans and chasing women with limps in order to have sex with or rape them.

Some people may find this hard to believe. Russell Kane’s stand-up used to be gentle, thoughtful, even funny. But with his new image seems to have come a new, misogynistic persona. Put him away and get the old Russell back, please.

I found this routine pretty disgusting in its casual use of misogynistic attitudes, and makes light of women being harassed, followed home and threatened. Shouting ‘get in the van!’ or ‘chase her! She’s got a limp!’ at a woman can’t be construed as anything other than making light of kidnap, stalking, rape, sexual abuse and harassment – all very real threats that women have to face every day. Russell Kane, a male stand-up comedian, thinks he has the right to joke about the experiences that have plagued mine and millions of other women’s lives, all in the name of a cheap laugh.

Some might say that because he is also mocking men, that the routine isn’t sexist. Of course it is sexist – against both men and women. Men are not feral creatures, only after a shag. They’re people. Women aren’t virgins or whores. They’re people.

The fact that because he’s been single for a while (either in his comedy persona or in reality), apparently makes Kane thinks it’s okay to create humour out of horrific situations. He was mocking the weakest of the weak – rape victims, women with physical disabilities, people who are emotionally broken – and this makes him no better than people like Jeremy Clarkson or Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown. He is a bully. I hope women know better than to go out with him. I’ve been out with men like him before – they grind your self-esteem down so that you’ll stay with them. They’re pathetic misogynists. Find someone who wants you for you, who treats you with respect, and who is a big enough person to tell when they’ve made a mistake.

I already though Russell Kane was a bully, even before I took to Twitter to express my outrage.

I tweeted, ‘Just watched some pretty disgusting stand up from Russell Kane. Apparently if you don’t want to be perved on, don’t wear makeup… and we should feel sorry for ‘rapey’ men who harass insecure women… Kidnap, rape, all hilarious subjects obviously…’

I then tweeted Kane with my concerns, thinking that perhaps he might apologise and think more about how his material affects people. I said, ‘I saw you live two years ago. I was a fan. Then I watched your routine on Edinburgh Comedy Fest Live. That was disgusting… Even as a joke, telling women that if they wear makeup they deserve to get perved on is sick… As is making an audience feel sorry for ‘desperate, rapey gits’. Rape and sexual harassment are disgusting… Did you think that up to 1 in 4 women watching this show are rape survivors/victims? How do you think you make us feel?’

His response? To call me a ‘thick cunt’, a ‘reactionary weak fuck’, ‘INSANE’, a ‘tiny person’ and, perhaps the most insulting, he said that I ‘fellate the right and kowtow to it.’

Great response – call a woman feminist who criticises your comedy, fairly politely, a thick cunt, because that’s not misogynistic. Make a joke about blowjobs, because that’ll improve your feminist credentials!

Perhaps most laughably of all, he said to me, ‘Do you understand misogyny?’ and claimed his set was ‘creatively feminist’. If creatively feminist means ‘massively sexist’ then I suppose it was creatively feminist. And how dare he, as a powerful white man, ask a woman who’s been taking shit from boys and men for her whole life, if she understands misogyny.

Yes, I understand misogyny. It sickens me. Russell Kane, on the other hand, uses it to bully, to reinforce stereotypes, to ‘kowtow’ (a word he likes) to rape culture and to have a good laugh at rape victims’ expense.

I want him to donate his fee to Edinburgh Women’s Rape and Sexual Assault Centre and to publicly apologise. Anything less is insulting.


Written by CakeCakeCakeCakeCake

August 27, 2011 at 7:07 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

30 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I think you may have missed the main point of this routine. Surely it was a satire against men that feel the way that he claims to feel? The routine is about how desperate some men are, not that women deserve to be treated like that.

    Andy McHaffie (@AndyMcH)

    August 27, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    • I understand that, but to conflate desperate men with rapey men is no good. The idea that all men are potential rapists, they just need to be desperate enough, is incredibly dangerous and anti-feminist. Feminists don’t think all men rape. Men can control themselves. They aren’t animals.
      Also, I know you’re not saying this, but it’s worth just emphasising that no matter how ‘desperate’ a man gets, or how long he has been without sex, nothing justifies beating down a woman’s self-esteem or treating women badly.

      Thanks for taking the time to read.

      Kate Harris

      August 28, 2011 at 12:42 am

  2. Boo f*king hoo.

    tired male

    August 27, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    • *SARCASM KLAXON* I’m so sorry I’ve ruined five minutes of your time with my feminist claptrap. After all, only 5% of reported rapes go to trial in Scotland, so who really gives a shit?

      Kate Harris

      August 28, 2011 at 12:44 am

  3. This is the biggest load of bullshit i’ve ever read in my life.


    August 27, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    • Haha, I presume you never read the Daily Mail then

      Kate Harris

      August 28, 2011 at 1:21 am

  4. He hasn’t been single for “a while” in real life or on his stage persona. He said in his routine that he has only very recently separated from his partner (his wife actually) and being what he calls “a serial monogamist” finding himself single under such emotional circumstances was new and scary experience.
    The part where he asked the audience to cheer if they were newly single like him clearly passed you buy. If you wish to critique a performance so harshly, might I suggest that you actually pay attention to said performance in future.
    It is this revelation, that he has recently suffered a relationship breakdown, that provides the context upon which he built the routine. He was using his own personal pain to examine the male state and the person upon whom he aimed most of his “hate” was himself. Not women. It is very hard thing to put yourself directly in the firing line in that manner, so I applaud him for it. Admitting that he has found himself acting in a manner that he admits he feels shame about and recognises as being wrong

    “…this is on telly so I am worried about doing this next bit…the lowest moment of my year, I never pull after gigs because I can’t resist revealing this to show how weak the male brain is, I found myself doing the most odious thing, not sleeping with anyone, but trotting down to the side of the stage to survey the people that had been to my show, hunting for girls with low self esteem. What a depressing moment in a man’s life to find you can only be aroused by a girl with no confidence”

    I can not for the life of me see how Russell Kane could have made it any clearer that it was the male state he was examining, and doing so by revealing his in his own words “odious” behaviour.

    He has been described as a “rape apologist” can you point me to the part in the routine were he apologises for rapists?
    There is a bit were he describes the lonely guys you see hanging about in clubs on their own looking for women. The guys most woman give a wide berth to cause they seem a bit weird. When he refers to them as “desperate rapey gits” he meant not that they were potential rapists, but was employing the word as an adjective. It is quite common for young woman today to describe a man as being “a bit rapey” because they deem him to look a bit weird and desperate. It is unfortunate and frankly deeply tasteless that the word is now commonly used in that manner, but it is. Type it into google if you don’t believe me. That is what Russell was referring to. How woman perceive those men and expressing his fears that he is in danger of becoming one such specimen.

    Secondly as a woman I did not find Kane’s 3 minute comedy routine disturbing, what I do find disturbing is that ay person such thinks that a 3 minute comedy sketch is enough to a base a judgement of character as harsh as the one you have just dished out.
    Do you know Russell Kane? have you ever spent time in his company? witnessed his relationships with woman first hand?

    no? I thought not, so what on earth makes you think you are in anyway informed enough to accuse him of being a “sexist bully” or a misogynist?

    Did you at any point stop to think “hold on a second Russell Kane is a comedian who has a reputation for parodying perceptions of masculinity, he is also I presume a man of intelligence, perhaps I may have to give him the benefit of the doubt and consider his intentions before I tweet him accusing him of being a “rape apologist” and then instigate an internet hate campaign against this man I don’t even know”
    No? never? not even once?

    That baffles me.

    I doesn’t take much for me to engage my brain and be able to tell that Russell Kane is very far from being a “rape apologist” or indeed a misogynist.


    August 27, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    • Rapey is not an adjective.

      He might be very nice to women in his life, but 1 in 12 of his audience were likely to be rape victims, and that would’ve brought back a whole lot of shit for them.

      ‘Rapey’ is not a proper word. I’m sorry. If it doesn’t mean relating to rape, don’t use the word rape, don’t use a word relating to rape.

      Also, those ‘rapey’ guys do occasionally rape people, I was once followed home by a guy from a nightclub who threatened me and said if I didn’t fuck him or give him a blowjob he’d force me to. Luckily I managed to get rid of him by pretending I was meeting a male friend.

      I don’t know Kane personally and now have no wish to now. He called me a cunt. All I did was challenge him on it. I didn’t insult him other than calling him a misogynist. I was calling him out because I have been raped and assaulted, and thought he should know that his material is offensive to women.

      He should think about his actions and stop feeling sorry for himself. ‘Poor me, the feminists are having a go at me! THEY’RE ALL STUPID FUCKS and I’m going to SCREAM AT THEM’ was his reaction – whereas it should’ve been – I’ll re-watch that routine and see if it does come across badly/sound misogynistic’. If he’d done that, realised where he’d gone wrong and changed and apologised, I would’ve gone away. Instead, he dug himself a bigger hole by using gendered insults against a woman.

      Kate Harris

      August 28, 2011 at 12:55 am

      • This is going to be a long reply I’m afraid but it will also be a thorough one. Found it easier to address your reply in chunks rather than in one go, as I can be more specific in my points and also leaves less room for misinterpretation.
        “‘Rapey’ is not a proper word. I’m sorry. If it doesn’t mean relating to rape, don’t use the word rape, don’t use a word relating to rape.”
        I never said it was nor for that matter did Russell Kane. The context in which it was used within the routine and the context it is used in wider society are what matter. The word is used casually today to describe men who are over familiar or deemed to be a bit weird and yes sometimes downright creepy.
        eg “that guy looks well rapey”
        IMO it is not a word that should ever be used casually, I have a strong suspicion, form the way it was used in his routine, that neither does Russell. In the same way I object to ignorant people using the word gay to describe something that is bad or pathetic. I don’t like it, I never used it and have spent years as a youth worker pulling kids up on it as frequently as I do them for using the word ‘pakki’ or ‘chinky’ but there is no point in denying that it has entered the popular vernacular, no matter how much it makes you or I despair.
        I do believe that Kane provide sufficient context for us to know that he was not referring to rapists or the act of rape. It is one thing for no context to be given another to willfully ignore it when it is given as you appear to have done.

        “Also, those ‘rapey’ guys do occasionally rape people, I was once followed home by a guy from a nightclub who threatened me and said if I didn’t fuck him or give him a blowjob he’d force me to. Luckily I managed to get rid of him by pretending I was meeting a male friend.”
        That is horrific and I am sorry that you had to experience it. But it doesn’t change the basic facts of Russell Kane’s routine. The weird “rapey” guys who go to clubs on their own and are mocked by females and more virile men are no more likely to be rapists than the lads who turn up with a group of their mates “ pull birds” I do not need to tell you that rapists come in all shapes and sizes. The loner standing at the side as Russell pointed out may well just be a desperately lonely man after some, or indeed any kind of human affection who would no sooner harm any woman or force himself on her than he would jump off a cliff and would no doubt be mortified and hurt to know that he was being described as “rapey”.
        “I don’t know Kane personally and now have no wish to now. He called me a cunt. All I did was challenge him on it. I didn’t insult him other than calling him a misogynist.”
        That is not actually true though is it? Personally I couldn’t care less what insults you and Russell have exchanged over twitter. But you raised the subject there for it is up for discussion and where possible I always find it best to go back to the source and check for myself especially when having a debate such as this. Before you had even tweeted Russell you had used the hashtag #FuckRussellKane eight times. To go to the bother of inventing such an aggressive hashtag before you had even challenged or even more appropriately sought to clarify that you had indeed interpreted his routine correctly. You also referred to Russell as being “massively cunty” again before he had tweeted you or indeed you him.
        So what is the script you are entitled to call him a cunt but not he you? That is what I call hypocrisy and it actually saddens me that any fellow feminist would use such a disgusting word to describe anyone. Whilst anyone calling another by the c word is enough for me to despair at the best of times, the sheer hypocrisy in your outrage at being called one and the baffling lack of self-awareness causes me to despair even more.
        “I was calling him out because I have been raped and assaulted, and thought he should know that his material is offensive to women.”
        That is again horrific and I am so sorry. But given that you had been tweeting #FuckRussellKane incessantly and had already on your twitter feed describe him as a cunt and a rape apologist BEFORE you had even attempted to” call him out” is it any wonder you didn’t meet with a more reasoned reply?
        It seems to me Russell had no more justification to call you a cunt than you him. And that for a man to see himself described as a “rape apologist” is deeply hurtful and unsettling and you have no right to speak of him in such a degrading manner without anything to back up your claims. That being said he was out of order in his reaction. The first thing he should have done was hit the block button and not risen to it.
        “‘Poor me, the feminists are having a go at me! THEY’RE ALL STUPID FUCKS and I’m going to SCREAM AT THEM’ was his reaction – whereas it should’ve been – I’ll re-watch that routine and see if it does come across badly/sound misogynistic’. If he’d done that, realised where he’d gone wrong and changed and apologised, I would’ve gone away.”
        See my above point but also I might suggest you do the same thing. Have a look at how you responded and reacted, how it may have been perceived and try learn from it. There are ways to enlighten and educate people who are misguided or whose interpretation of the world is skewed. Spewing bile and hatred across the internet as you and your friends have done is not one of them. You succeed only in making yourself look worse than the person your anger is aimed at and in turn it merely feeds the problem.


        August 28, 2011 at 11:45 am

  5. Apologies for spelling and grammar errors in above post typed fast and sent it by accident before I had cheeked it.


    August 27, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    • Do you know him by any chance? Or are you trying to garner favour with a *swoon* celebrity?!

      Kate Harris

      August 28, 2011 at 12:56 am

      • Ah the old “If in doubt patronise and talk down to your opponent” number.

        Are you so arrogant that you can only see two options when someone has an opposing view to your own? They know him and are biased or they are just some silly wee fan girl.
        Well I hate to disappoint but I am neither.

        No I do not know him, yes I am a fan of his work and not that it is any of your business but he stands about as much chance of pulling me as he does of scoring the winning goal in this seasons FA cup final.


        August 28, 2011 at 11:52 am

      • I don’t understand – I get that you’re angry with Russel Kane, but why have you just attacked Fluella, rather than responding to her points? And why are you claiming you were so reasonable with Kane, when you actually called him a c***?


        September 4, 2011 at 12:44 am

  6. Regardless of whether one believes that Russell Kane is truly a misogynist, rape apologist etc, the fact remains that his material was tastless and it has clearly offended a lot of people.

    Instead of apologising to those that are quite rightly offended, he decided to insult their intelligence and use derogatory language, that seemingly further reinforces the viewpoint that lead to him being criticised in the first place.

    The fact that he is now being so callous as to seek sympathy and claims to have a ‘broken soul’ due to this episode, is frankly nauseating. He deserves no such sympathy and he has behaved like an absolute cunt (a word he seems to like using).


    August 28, 2011 at 1:52 am

  7. Next time you feel offended switch off nothing is forcing you to watch. Simples.


    August 28, 2011 at 2:17 am

    • It had already started happening, unfortunately. I don’t go around reading the Mail, watching Top Gear and generally flagellating myself.

      Kate Harris

      August 28, 2011 at 12:38 pm

  8. A lot of comedy will be offensive to someone. Richard Herring has done some carefully routines about race that some people found offensive. Others tackle paedophilia. Are there any topics that are off limits in comedy? I would say there are not. It’s all about intent. Russell Kane is hardly Frankie Boyle (who, personally seems to have forgotten about telling jokes and sets out to deliberately upset people).

    Comedians can’t avoid every subject that may cause offense. If someone does a joke about suicide, then there is very likely the possibility that someone who has had a friend or family member committ suicide will be in the audience. So I can understand that for you, the mention of rape was offensive on a personal as well as idealogical level.

    However, it’s perfectly OK for people to be offended. To cut every piece of material that could be seen as potentially offensive is going to leave a fairly twee show.

    Are there any other subjects that you believe should never be part of a comedy routine?

    Andy McHaffie (@AndyMcH)

    August 28, 2011 at 2:35 am

    • The old ‘it’s only a joke’ crap. There’s a difference between talking about race and calling people n*ggers. I don’t think rape is really a very good subject for comedy – I could be proven wrong but it doesn’t say ‘fun night out’ to me- but if he weren’t derailing and undermining the experiences of rape victims it would’ve been fine. It’s mocking women, which started 20 seconds into his set or so, that’s the problem. It’s making people feel sorry for harassing men. If it were about a tricky subject, but tackled well and obviously on the side of the oppressed, that would’ve been fine.

      Stewart Lee’s standup about Top Gear doesn’t offend me, I find it hilarious. And in that he says he wishes Jeremy Clarkson’s daughters would all go blind. But he clearly doesn’t mean it and is using it to show how Clarkson’s racism, sexism and other prejudices aren’t funny or clever.

      Kate Harris

      August 28, 2011 at 12:37 pm

  9. My first attempt at writing a comment had to be aborted (yikes, can I use that word!?) because I disagree with the tone and content of the original post and your comments more than any discussion could possibly reconcile. So I’ll just say this:

    Fluella clearly has some points, some of which seem truly unanswerable. I agree with the subjective ones, to say nothing of the /objective fact/ that you created a wildly unpopular #fuckrussellkane hashtag and called him a cunt before he called you one. You prance about haughtily talking about your MASTERS IN FEMINISM*, and accuse Fluella of having a special interest**, as if that changes anything.

    Do you honestly accept none of her points? Is the claim that she’s some teenage cavegirl moron – one completely eradicated by her erudite deconstruction of your post – really the best you can do?

    No wonder I get so much shit for being a feminist, if this is what people think of when I say “feminism”.

    *NB to non-Edinburgh students: all undergrad humanities degrees are Masters – it’s not as though you need to have a good bachelor’s to be a masters student.
    **For what it’s worth, I am not a friend of Russell Kane or even a particular fan.

    Trad Bricks

    August 28, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    • My tweets to friends and on my feed came out of anger, I don’t think they were massively wrong, but I’m not going to justify them either, they’re not really justifiable. I didn’t @ him anything that bad, whereas he called me a thick cunt, said I fellate the right, etc etc. Saying I’m doing a Masters was a heat-of-the-moment thing, in reality I’m a lowly undergrad but I was reeling from him calling me thick and saying I know nothing about feminism or misogyny.

      Whatever you think of me personally – to be honest, I don’t really care – the fact remains that that routine was completely unacceptable and smacked of someone who needs to work out their issues with women. I just wish he’d do it in private with a therapist rather than on the TV.

      Kate Harris

      August 28, 2011 at 6:37 pm

  10. As has been said already, there aren’t really any human groups safe from comedy – race, religion, disability, gender, sex, sexual orientation or whatever are all considered fair game. Whether or not you agree with that is a debate about comedy in general rather than Russell Kane specifically. So I can see why somemight say his routine was justified. You might even argue that using victims, the objects of oppression or the disadvantaged as a source of comedy is democratising and taboo breaking. Russell Kane apparently called himself ‘creatively feminist’.

    But threshing is… That’s bollocks. Because he wasn’t using misogyny in a feminist way, and te truth of this is visible in the way he responded to kate’s comments on twitter. How DARE he tell her what feminism is? How dare he, a man, tell her or any woman what it means to be female, to experience oppression by men, to survive abuse? How dare he call her a ‘thick cunt’, an insult specifically designed to equate her with nothing more than her vagina, because she disagreed with him and made it clear that she did so?

    Russell Kane is not a feminist, unless ‘creative’ has recently become synonymous with ‘bollocks’. He is a man who went for a cheap laugh at the expense of a group, women, who have been fighting for the rights to respect and consideration for generations, and then most abhorrently of all he got on his high horse and used feminism to justify it. With feminists like that who needs misogynists?

    If Kane were a feminist he would respect women. If Kane were a feminist he would recognise the ambiguity of his position and debate it accordingly. If Kane were a feminist he would have recognised in his comments the trappings of privilege, the privilege he holds as a man who can NEVER know what it is to be oppressed as a woman, and modified them accordingly.

    Kane is not a feminist.


    August 28, 2011 at 9:04 pm

  11. P.S. Apologies for spelling and grammar – big thumbs, tiny iPhone keys…


    August 28, 2011 at 9:07 pm

  12. Dear Kate,

    Your castrated response to Fluella’s measured post makes me think [hope] you have taken some of it on board.

    But I have to add a couple of points if you don’t mind.

    I was most unsettled by this:

    ‘Rapey is not an adjective.

    ‘Rapey’ is not a proper word. I’m sorry. If it doesn’t mean relating to rape, don’t use the word rape, don’t use a word relating to rape.’

    Where on earth do you get the confidence to make such a statement? I read that you’re studying at university – I implore you to reconsider these words and their implications carefully. I teach undergrads and they’re a cocky lot, some can be unbearably bombastic in class. But I have never heard someone who is truly engaging in debate tell another person so emphatically not to use a word, or suggest that some words must remain resigned in stasis. A simply bizarre position, and potentially a very dangerous one!

    As for the routine, it was patently satire. He went out of his way to make that clear at the start of it. I see you have since claimed you understood this, but I rather think this suggests otherwise –

    ‘Some might say that because he is also mocking men, that the routine isn’t sexist. Of course it is sexist – against both men and women. Men are not feral creatures, only after a shag. They’re people. Women aren’t virgins or whores. They’re people.’

    You introduce a ‘some might say…’ but not the obvious one. You didn’t make the basic distinction between the active propagation of stereotypes and the secondary, less serious, offense of engaging in language that underpins attitudes that allow said stereotypes to flourish.

    1) ‘fuck off you faggot!’ = homophobia of the first degree.
    2) ‘that’s gay’ = homophobia of the second degree.

    There’s an interesting and important debate to be had on the severity of type 2, its place within satire/irony and attempts at its subversion (successful at times, history has shown us). But Christ alive, we need to understand the difference before we can talk about it.

    I’m sure you the know the difference, so why not mention it? Are you perhaps being a little disingenuous here?

    ‘I was calling him out because I have been raped and assaulted, and thought he should know that his material is offensive to women.’

    Please don’t speak for women. You started that sentence in the first person, I wish you’d ended it so. I am a women. I was raped. I was not offended by this routine. Nor does hearing the word ‘rapey’ ‘bring back a whole load of shit’. Perhaps if you had your way and words were nothing but stagnant blacks and whites, such a reaction, however, might be understandable.

    You will soon find out that being offended on other people’s behalf is little more than an exercise in veiled egoism. I should know, I spent most of my youth doing it!


    September 1, 2011 at 12:33 am

  13. You’re all wrong.


    September 11, 2011 at 4:20 pm

  14. Fluella sounds like Russell Kane.


    September 12, 2011 at 5:44 pm

  15. Aah, I love it when a comedian gets people riled.

    • wow. I half drunkenly typed “I hate russell Kane” into google. Not because I actually hate him but because I am tipsy/ bored and have just watched a bbc 3 thing called Live at the Electric, which was childish, unfunny and puerile for the most part. But thats probably just me getting old. Anywho, what do I discover but this very interesting series of posts. Fluella – you rule. Kate – you are a fool and although several people have now mentioned it, you still havent responded to her (Fluella’s) post. Im fairly sure you dont have the intellectual rigor to debate this but your vitriol will probably carry you through. There were so many good points made by previous posts that I wont go into but seriously dont think you can talk for feminism, you should be worried about the paygap, the lack of female representation in local and national government, even though women are more likely than men to vote and the lack of credible, female, scientific/ linguistic (and I mean this in the broadest sense of raconteurs)/ activist figures represented in the media. And please dont think that just cos someone uses the word cunt that they are misogynist and imagining you a simply a passive, brainless, quivering genitalia, this show a complete and willful ignorance of the use of metaphor and how metaphors can, especially in swearing, drift away from their original meaning to became emotional statements rather than purely informational ones.
      Lastly your pathetic backtracking on saying you had a masters in Feminism when you are an undergraduate and claiming it was a heat of moment thing. A heat of the moment thing!? Its a lie, intended to confer respectability and intellectual superiority. To quieten your opponents with the weight of your (fictional) academic achievements. And lying like this, even a little lie, to make you feel more secure, in the heat of the moment, in the middle of an argument about correct, moral and inoffensive use of language makes you seem like a bellend.
      I dont want you too feel too bad about all this. Just find an enemy worth fighting cos Russell Kane dosent matter two shits.

      Not Telling

      June 9, 2012 at 3:34 am

    • This is the response I wanted to see!


      June 10, 2012 at 4:09 am

      • Thanks Laura. Vaguely remember writing this. Its actually quite lucid considering how drunk I was.

        Not Telling

        June 27, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: