Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on March 06, 2019, 09:54:07 PM
-
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/usdistrict_2_copy.jpg?itok=s1I-Fv1R)
Signs of decadence: Not a single woman in a dress.
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/another-look-inside-operations-regina-coeli-house-assistant-priests-staff-45732
-
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/usdistrict_2_copy.jpg?itok=s1I-Fv1R)
Signs of decadence: Not a single woman in a dress.
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/another-look-inside-operations-regina-coeli-house-assistant-priests-staff-45732
Modest professional office work attire. So what.
Maybe they save their dresses for Mass.
-
Let he without sin cast the first stone. We are nitpicking and nitpicking every day. I suggest, personally, that we worry about ourselves and our own salvation. It is Lent.
-
Modest professional office work attire. So what.
Maybe they save their dresses for Mass.
Even by secular standards those outfits are not professional office work attire for women. More for weekend wear, apart from the fact that all the women are wearing pants (loose fitting culottes would be more appropriate).
.
Do a search for business women's professional dress and you are sure to get a far more suitable selection.
.
I found this as well: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/small-business-attire-for-women-3514813
-
Looks more like a Planned Parenthood office than a trad cat publishing house.
-
Modest professional office work attire. So what.
Maybe they save their dresses for Mass.
Poche? Is that you?
-
Modest professional office work attire. So what.
Maybe they save their dresses for Mass. (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=51540.msg645780#msg645780)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=51540.msg645780#msg645780)Quote from: Anonymous (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=51540.msg645780#msg645780) on Thu Mar 07 2019 06:27:03 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Poche? Is that you?
No. It can't be Poche. It has something to do with the topic.
-
This is the typical makeup of corp america. 5 women who run things, the 1 funny, "big teddy bear guy" (who's not assertive so the women can boss him around) and the other IT-focused, expert who does most of the challenging work (and who doesn't want to manage people or be in charge, he'd rather focus on big-picture stuff, so the women don't give him a hard time).
-
Modest professional office work attire. So what.
Maybe they save their dresses for Mass.
Do you save your rosary for sundays only too?
-
Looks like a typical Novus Ordo parish office. Rome must be very pleased with this pic and what it represents/implies about contemporary sspx attitudes. Instead of the sspx looking for signs of the conversion of Rome, it is Rome seeing signs of the conversion of the sspx.
-
The latest post in the Catalog thread shows a very different attitude towards women in pants in an sspx article only 4 years ago.
-
This is the typical makeup of corp america. 5 women who run things, the 1 funny, "big teddy bear guy" (who's not assertive so the women can boss him around) and the other IT-focused, expert who does most of the challenging work (and who doesn't want to manage people or be in charge, he'd rather focus on big-picture stuff, so the women don't give him a hard time).
Oh, I want to thumb this up so bad! It rings so true with what I've seen, read, and experienced.
-
Looks like a typical Novus Ordo parish office. Rome must be very pleased with this pic and what it represents/implies about contemporary sspx attitudes. Instead of the sspx looking for signs of the conversion of Rome, it is Rome seeing signs of the conversion of the sspx.
You said it!
-
Modest professional office work attire. So what.
Maybe they save their dresses for Mass.
You GOT to be joking. You call yourself a Trad?
Do you save morality and modesty for Sundays?
I have many problems with women in pants:
1. Pants are not modest attire for women.
2. They allow women to do everything a man does. They "liberate" women in a bad way.
3. They show off the female form (men's butts are NOT equal to women's butts, any more than men and women are the same) Most women will joke about how men "don't have a butt" and it's true. There's a reason men wear their pants differently than women. They don't have nice wide "birthin' hips", they don't have a plump butt. Excess fat doesn't prioritize accuмulating in the butt area (it goes to their gut instead) and so on.
4. Men are more visual than women, and studies have shown that the 2 legs intersection (the crotch) is where the pants direct a viewer's eyes. As a man, I can tell you this is true. This would be a problem for men wearing pants as well, except that women aren't wired the same way or "instantly turned on by sight" as men are.
In conclusion, men can wear pants because A) they are supposed to do all the male jobs, which require pants, and they don't have a butt to show off by pants, and even if they did, women aren't visually oriented to be instantly turned on anyhow. And even if women were visual, they wouldn't be psychologically/primally looking for "nice wide birthing hips" since men don't give birth! Women would be looking at other features.
Again, I repeat: not letting your eyes follow a psychologically demanded path (right to the crotch) is about as easy as avoiding looking at a polka-dotted elephant that burst into the room. You can catch yourself, refuse any willful consent, etc. but you do it without thinking about it, even if you have quite a bit of virtue built up. And you do it the 1st time, the 100th time, and the 1000th time just as easily. It's like a reflex action. You ask yourself, "Why did I look? She's my grandmother." and so on. It has nothing to do with lust or leering at women.
Scientists can track precisely what a viewer looks at when viewing a webpage, advertisement, etc. and we're talking split-second movements and focus. They have advertising down to a science; it's scary. Anyhow, they used this technique on men looking at a woman in pants and they found that his eyes follow the two lines (legs) right up to the point of intersection: the crotch.
Women who wear pants want men to look at their crotch.
What? You were ignorant of this? That's not your motivation for wearing pants? Well, now that I've explained it to you, you either stop wearing pants or you don't care that your attire psychologically forces men to look at your crotch.
-
I know this article was on the Regina Coeli Report hard copy version, but I do not remember if the full body shot was used or if the picture was cropped. I have since thrown it away, so if anyway has the hard copy, please see if the same picture is there or if it was cropped.
-
I don't know. Those women look decidedly unattractive in those pants :laugh1: ... I think that few men would experience temptations against purity there. Of course, it would still be wrong in principle.
-
I don't know. Those women look decidedly unattractive in those pants :laugh1: ... I think that few men would experience temptations against purity there. Of course, it would still be wrong in principle.
It's not about objective temptations against purity. It's about tempting men to have temptations. It's about taking them by the hand and leading them to thoughts of your butt and crotch. It's the thought that counts.
-
It's not about objective temptations against purity. It's about tempting men to have temptations. It's about taking them by the hand and leading them to thoughts of your butt and crotch. It's the thought that counts.
XSPX as recently as 2015:
An even further consideration for men and women is to dress properly according to their nature, or respectively, according to their masculinity or femininity. For men, this means they should not wear tight-fitting clothes or in general, go shirtless in public (especially for fathers, even around the home in front of their children).
For the ladies, to dress like a man (such as wearing pants) is improper and contradicts a woman’s God-given femininity. That this is not merely an “old fuddy duddy’s” quibble, should be evident when we realize that the proponents of unisex clothing have also been the same “gender theory” people behind the promotion of sins against nature.
It is interesting to note that the “Lion of Campos”, Bishop de Castro Mayer, once famously remarked in a pastoral letter that he would prefer a woman to wear a mini-skirt rather than pants. For while the mini-skirt was immodest, it was at least feminine, while pants contradicted a woman’s nature (thus the former attacked the senses, while the latter warped the intellect).
Therefore, so-called “woman’s pants” (usually worn out of pleasure or commodity) are not the proper garb of a Catholic (or Marian-like) girl or lady, either in the parish, domestic or social life."
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/how-catholics-ought-dress-2203 (https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/how-catholics-ought-dress-2203)
[NB: It appears access to the link above is denied. However, the entire article is also available here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance- (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/how-catholics-ought-to-dress-(email-from-sspx)/)
-
You are wrong.
When God asks you why you had this or that bad thought, do you think He will accept "but she dressed provocatively "? No.
Free will demands that we control ourselves in all things.
It most certainly makes a difference!
We're talking about casual glances here, not leering. If the breasts aren't exposed for example, men don't have to be confronted with the choice "consent or do not consent", "enjoy or do not enjoy". Once the breasts are exposed for all to see, then each and every man within visual range must test his virtue.
Women are not guiltless when they cause men to have to test their virtue. You can pass the buck all you want "that's his problem".
God will judge. Try to quiet your conscience all you want.
-
When women dress provocatively they sin by their own free will. But in no way are they culpable for a sin a man commits as a result unless their goal was to entice a man to commit sin.
Women are culpable for a man's sin if they dress provocatively, not to the degree of the man, but not too far behind. It is the same as a man flashing his $100 bills in a bad neighborhood bar.
-
When women dress provocatively they sin by their own free will. But in no way are they culpable for a sin a man commits as a result unless their goal was to entice a man to commit sin.
This is simply not true. Even if a woman did not intend to entice a man to sin, she could be partly culpable if she knew that it could happen. Even more remotely, she could be culpable for that sin even if she simply neglected to properly form her conscience regarding the matter. There are degrees of culpability in another's sin. Now ... if she neither suspected that something like that could happen nor was negligent in forming her conscience, then she does not have culpability in his sin, not formally anyway even if she were materially responsible. You're being a bit too much of a subjectivist here.
-
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/usdistrict_2_copy.jpg?itok=s1I-Fv1R)
Signs of decadence: Not a single woman in a dress.
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/another-look-inside-operations-regina-coeli-house-assistant-priests-staff-45732
A picture is worth 1000 words. I am speechless.
-
What is interesting to me is that someone posted what the SSPX was teaching only a few years ago about women wearing pants.
Was the SSPX so overrun by the uncatholic feminist horde that it "had" to waive the white flag?
The only thing worse than an uppity, strident woman is a faggy man trying to ingratiate himself to them by taking up their cause.
I picture such men as effeminate little church mice, doing their wife's bidding at all times.
I see them in my chapel more than ever before: They are the ones taking the crying babies out of the chapel, or changing their diapers, etc.
Ultimately, this is all the fault of the men: If they weren't such wussies, and demanded to either wear the pants, or send the women packing, we wouldn't be in this shape.
Do any of these soft "men" know how to fight, drink beer, gut a deer, or change the oil??
By the way they soft-shoe around their wives at the chapel, one must be allowed to doubt it.
What is more disgusting than a gentle, subservient milk-toast "man?"
-
Now I fully understand why they never say anything about how the young girls dress every day (short shorts, belly exposed, tight jeans, tube miniskirts tank tops...…..). They do not give a hoot.
-
The former pastor at my sspx church only a year ago said that women should not ever wear pants in a sermon. There was also just a womens retreat with Colleen Hammond the author as a speaker.
I would imagine the US district office like Menzingen is totally cut off from the real trad world.
-
A picture is worth 1000 words. I am speechless.
I just had a revelation!
Did anybody else observe how four of the women, the ones fully visible to the camera, hold their hands. It appears they are somehow, either consciously or unconciously, aware of what the OP explained. It's almost like they are shamed. NOtice that the woman at the rear has her hands behind her.
-
(http://hidedoor.com/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/sgzde/p2/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/usdistrict_2_copy.jpg?itok=s1I-Fv1R)
Modest professional office work attire. So what.
Maybe they save their dresses for Mass.
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.
~ Apocalypse of St. John 3:16
-
The former pastor at my sspx church only a year ago said that women should not ever wear pants in a sermon. There was also just a womens retreat with Colleen Hammond the author as a speaker.
I would imagine the US district office like Menzingen is totally cut off from the real trad world.
As I have said many times, there is some residual Trad (dare I say, residual GOOD) to be found in the SSPX. That includes priests and faithful. However, just like the Novus Ordo, that percentage will become smaller with every year. The problem is that the organization as a whole, from the top down, has chosen a path that necessarily leads to destruction: adopting a peace with the Modern World. That can only end badly.
If you have a good priest who preaches unchanging (Trad) Catholic doctrine, GREAT! But who will replace him? How soon until he has to make a big choice? What choice will he make? He is the exception to the rule. The organization is still fallen, and still sinking. Even if you happen to have found a nice dry spot on the Titanic which will sink last...
Matthew
-
What is interesting to me is that someone posted what the SSPX was teaching only a few years ago about women wearing pants.
Was the SSPX so overrun by the uncatholic feminist horde that it "had" to waive the white flag?
The only thing worse than an uppity, strident woman is a faggy man trying to ingratiate himself to them by taking up their cause.
I picture such men as effeminate little church mice, doing their wife's bidding at all times.
I see them in my chapel more than ever before: They are the ones taking the crying babies out of the chapel, or changing their diapers, etc.
Ultimately, this is all the fault of the men: If they weren't such wussies, and demanded to either wear the pants, or send the women packing, we wouldn't be in this shape.
Do any of these soft "men" know how to fight, drink beer, gut a deer, or change the oil??
By the way they soft-shoe around their wives at the chapel, one must be allowed to doubt it.
What is more disgusting than a gentle, subservient milk-toast "man?"
Changing a diaper and soothing a crying baby is being more of a man than fighting. One shows that you're there for the family and taking responsibility and the other is useless and potentially lethal machismo that doesn't serve any purpose.
-
As I have said many times, there is some residual Trad (dare I say, residual GOOD) to be found in the SSPX. That includes priests and faithful. However, just like the Novus Ordo, that percentage will become smaller with every year. The problem is that the organization as a whole, from the top down, has chosen a path that necessarily leads to destruction: adopting a peace with the Modern World. That can only end badly.
If you have a good priest who preaches unchanging (Trad) Catholic doctrine, GREAT! But who will replace him? How soon until he has to make a big choice? What choice will he make? He is the exception to the rule. The organization is still fallen, and still sinking. Even if you happen to have found a nice dry spot on the Titanic which will sink last...
Matthew
As I keep saying, it is 1965 all over again. I'll update that now after seeing this picture of the female office workers in pants:
In a few years, it will be 1969 and the SSPX will be doing the Novus Ordo "right this time", in Latin and with "reverence" and the good SSPX priests will be independents.
-
Do you save your rosary for sundays only too?
I say the Rosary everyday and happen to love wearing dresses and skirts. I just don’t go around plastering photos online of people I don’t know who’s attire I disagree with just to make myself feel superior them.
Sorry to say but the plank in your eye is showing.
-
I say the Rosary everyday and happen to love wearing dresses and skirts. I just don’t go around plastering photos online of people I don’t know who’s attire I disagree with just to make myself feel superior them.
Ridiculous. It's the SSPX that put this photo out there in the first place. And that's the problem, as I indicated in the other thread. Secondly, this has nothing per se to do with feeling superior to anyone. That's just nonsense.
-
Here's my post from the other thread --
I think that what's causing such an uproar here is not the mere fact that the women are wearing pants, but the fact that an official SSPX publication published a photo of their official employees ALL wearing pants. Now, if one of them had had pants on, I think nobody would have said too much. I agree that you don't want to run around like Jansenists practically swooning from scandal every time you see a woman in pants.
But this is sending a quasi-official message, that there's NOTHING WRONG with women wearing pants. Think of the scandal caused here. Some people have mentioned that their local SSPX priest came out against pants. How does this not completely undercut him? Now, if someone tries to dissuade a woman from wearing pants, she could just whip out this photo and say, "See here. Even a Traditional Catholic organization has no problem with women wearing pants. Are you more Traditional than the SSPX?"
I had this same kind of issue at one point with my daughters. I don't let them listen to bad music, especially from depraved artists like Katy Perry. So our kids' perception is that we're very strict. But it's easier to win the argument against "but all my friends are allowed to listen" by simply pointing out that these are worldly people lacking faith. But one of the teachers at their Traditional school was talking about how much she liked Katy Perry. So now it's a much more difficult case to make. "Are you more strict and rigorous than even the Traditional Catholics?" If a Traditional Catholic husband tries to dissuade his wife from wearing pants, all she has to do is whip out this picture and the argument is lost. It would be quite another matter if unofficially the women dressed like this at the office, but FOR CRYING OUT LOUD DO NOT put a picture like this in an official publication. At least require that they dress up for "picture day".
-
I say the Rosary everyday and happen to love wearing dresses and skirts. I just don’t go around plastering photos online of people I don’t know who’s attire I disagree with just to make myself feel superior them.
Sorry to say but the plank in your eye is showing.
The SSPX is proudly promoting women wearing pants. That is a problem. We aren't the ones who felt the need to glorify women in pants -- it's the SSPX.
And it's messed up, so we're going to call them out on it. Doing so is virtuous for anyone who chooses to join in. We don't want to be alone in our virtue either, we want everyone to join in. We're not looking for superiority, but we are looking for the triumph of Christ the King. We want His laws to be victorious over all souls individually and in society itself. Christ is King.
End of story.
Matthew
-
I say the Rosary everyday and happen to love wearing dresses and skirts.
My comment about saying the rosary only on sundays was a reply to a page 1 comment that the pic was "professional attire" and "maybe they save their dresses for sundays". In other words, you can't be a catholic only on sundays, which is what they were condoning.
-
Sorry to say but the plank in your eye is showing.
So a bunch of posters are attacking females wearing pants as a concept (in the abstract) and for this, you are going to judge a half-dozen Catholics personally. Gotcha. You do realize how ironic that is, right? Not only are YOU the one guilty of personally judging, but we are actually NOT guilty of judging anyone to begin with.
By the way, fraternal charity only applies to HUMAN BEINGS with immortal souls. Organizations, corporations, policies, and political positions do not qualify for our charity, "making excuses for them", "giving the benefit of the doubt", "only thinking the best", etc.
As a matter of fact, sin and error in the abstract must be attacked mercilessly, harshly, relentlessly, giving NO quarter. It's only when applied to individuals that you should put on the kid gloves and be charitable.
If you know of any faults the various posters here are guilty of, PLEASE by all means attack these faults in the abstract in another thread. Be my guest. Sin and evil must always be criticized and attacked. But in the abstract, not making it personal or attacking individuals. Criticism of individuals is only appropriate when they are public figures.
I know that for females, everything is personal, everything is individual, and everything is about feelings. But not on a discussion forum. Quite the opposite! We are supposed to be talking about abstract ideas, principles, concepts, morality, etc.
I am all for acting as the saints did when it comes to INDIVIDUALS. Offer every possible excuse for their behavior, and assume only the best. Certainly do not judge them! But we're not talking about individuals here. We're talking about concepts, Catholic culture, morality, and the public policy of the SSPX as an organization.
No one has talked about (much less judged!) any of these women pictured as individuals. I couldn't care less about their private lives or individual circuмstances. My only concern is for the picture as a whole, and the organization (SSPX) which promotes/condones such dress for women as a general rule.
Matthew
-
Yep, this kind of emotional theology has plagued Traditional Catholicism. We're discussing principles, in the external forum, and not making judgments about any particular individual in the internal forum. We distinguish between objective right/wrong vs. individual culpability. It's really not that difficult.
So, for instance, those of us who believe in a strict understanding of EENS are routinely accused of relishing the fact that more people go to hell that way.
-
I agree that you don't want to run around like Jansenists practically swooning from scandal every time you see a woman in pants.
This was why I disagreed with OP’s original post, was because it sounded like the typical, ‘LOOK, look over here at these SSPX-ers and their loser wardrobe! Whatta buncha modernist libs!’
I mean, posters here don’t even need to say those exact words to come off that way. It is uncharitable and Traditionals lose credibility in an online public forum that others outside of their circle read too.
-
This was why I disagreed with OP’s original post, was because it sounded like the typical, ‘LOOK, look over here at these SSPX-ers and their loser wardrobe! Whatta buncha modernist libs!’
I mean, posters here don’t even need to say those exact words to come off that way. It is uncharitable and Traditionals lose credibility in an online public forum that others outside of their circle read too.
Once a Traditional Catholic begins to be concerned with what worldlings think about Traditional Catholics, it's all over for them. Put a fork in it; it's done.
It shows that love of the World has crept into their heart. It spells the end.
You either love God's thinking and therefore hate the World's thinking
or
Love the World's thinking, and chafe whenever you're confronted with the reality that it conflicts with God's thinking ("let's ignore/change the subject", "let's shoot the messenger", etc.)
Who cares what the ignorant (at best) or malicious fools (at worst) think about any subject!
Matthew
-
The women are NOT wearing professional attire, even by worldly standards. The men, also, don't look well dressed. I work twice a week at a NYC (Manhattan) business concern. If women wear pants, they must be pant suits, matching top and bottom with a jacket top that covers to the thighs. Men must wear conservatively colored three piece suits with the jacket or vest on.
What is pictured here would be acceptable only once a month on casual Friday. If an employee will be doing business in person with a client on that day, then formal attire is still required.
At my full-time job, dress standards are a little loser, but women are to wear modest skirts or dresses, and men suits and ties. It is permissible to remove one's jacket in warm weather, but not ties. Women may wear no shorter than 3" below the knee, and no shorter than 1/4 sleeves. Longer is preferred. This is a concern run by conservative Protestants. Also disallowed, tattoos that anyone can see, long hair or Jєωelery on men, male style or extreme hairstyles, excessive Jєωelry on women. Bare legs are also a no-no.
To my way of thinking, the SSPX office workers look generally too casual for the office. And really, whats with the high boots on the woman? It's immodest for some, and unprofessional for all.
-
Has anyone here notified the district office of their disappointment with their hypocrisy regarding women in pants? If so, please let me know what was said and by whom. It seems we are being tricked by someone. How sad.
-
Here's my post from the other thread --
I think that what's causing such an uproar here is not the mere fact that the women are wearing pants, but the fact that an official SSPX publication published a photo of their official employees ALL wearing pants. Now, if one of them had had pants on, I think nobody would have said too much. I agree that you don't want to run around like Jansenists practically swooning from scandal every time you see a woman in pants.
But this is sending a quasi-official message, that there's NOTHING WRONG with women wearing pants. Think of the scandal caused here. Some people have mentioned that their local SSPX priest came out against pants. How does this not completely undercut him? Now, if someone tries to dissuade a woman from wearing pants, she could just whip out this photo and say, "See here. Even a Traditional Catholic organization has no problem with women wearing pants. Are you more Traditional than the SSPX?"
I had this same kind of issue at one point with my daughters. I don't let them listen to bad music, especially from depraved artists like Katy Perry. So our kids' perception is that we're very strict. But it's easier to win the argument against "but all my friends are allowed to listen" by simply pointing out that these are worldly people lacking faith. But one of the teachers at their Traditional school was talking about how much she liked Katy Perry. So now it's a much more difficult case to make. "Are you more strict and rigorous than even the Traditional Catholics?" If a Traditional Catholic husband tries to dissuade his wife from wearing pants, all she has to do is whip out this picture and the argument is lost. It would be quite another matter if unofficially the women dressed like this at the office, but FOR CRYING OUT LOUD DO NOT put a picture like this in an official publication. At least require that they dress up for "picture day".
Correct, thank you. Please print this today, do your diligence and don't be afraid to share this with the district office. They need this.
-
Here's my post from the other thread --
I think that what's causing such an uproar here is not the mere fact that the women are wearing pants, but the fact that an official SSPX publication published a photo of their official employees ALL wearing pants. Now, if one of them had had pants on, I think nobody would have said too much. I agree that you don't want to run around like Jansenists practically swooning from scandal every time you see a woman in pants.
But this is sending a quasi-official message, that there's NOTHING WRONG with women wearing pants. Think of the scandal caused here. Some people have mentioned that their local SSPX priest came out against pants. How does this not completely undercut him? Now, if someone tries to dissuade a woman from wearing pants, she could just whip out this photo and say, "See here. Even a Traditional Catholic organization has no problem with women wearing pants. Are you more Traditional than the SSPX?"
I had this same kind of issue at one point with my daughters. I don't let them listen to bad music, especially from depraved artists like Katy Perry. So our kids' perception is that we're very strict. But it's easier to win the argument against "but all my friends are allowed to listen" by simply pointing out that these are worldly people lacking faith. But one of the teachers at their Traditional school was talking about how much she liked Katy Perry. So now it's a much more difficult case to make. "Are you more strict and rigorous than even the Traditional Catholics?" If a Traditional Catholic husband tries to dissuade his wife from wearing pants, all she has to do is whip out this picture and the argument is lost. It would be quite another matter if unofficially the women dressed like this at the office, but FOR CRYING OUT LOUD DO NOT put a picture like this in an official publication. At least require that they dress up for "picture day".
Bingo!
-
I'm surprised that this thread got bumped after 2 years -- nevertheless, it's important to remember that the SSPX is worldly and on a slippery downhill slope at this point.
-
Are these women married or single?
-
I do see baby bunnies! ::)