The Hottest Trend in Male Sex Toys Is Pretty Much a Dildo You Wear Over Your Penis

by Jessica Ogilvie

The guy in the YouTube video holds up a clear, stretchy tube as he gushes into the camera.

“[I’m] doing a review on… this product, which I love!!!” he exclaims. “I love it, I’m gonna scream it from the mountaintops, I love this thing… what is it? Let me tell you — it is the Fat Boy Cock Sheath. Yasssss!”

The item about which the reviewer, Brad Smith, is so excited is a sleeve that fits over the penis. Made by a Florida-based company called Perfect Fit, the Fat Boy Stretchy Cock Extender (the toy’s full, given name) is one of the few sex toys for men, and does pretty much exactly what it says it does — extend your dick.

Or, as Smith puts it, “It’ll make you super girth-y! We can all be more girth-y, right?”

Perfect Fit owner and CEO Steve Callow says he created the Fat Boy line in 2011 after recognizing an opportunity in the market. Most other extenders at the time were made from harder material, which could bring a promising evening to a quick halt. “The guy would lose his erection in the process of [having sex],” Callow says. “They were designed only for the receiver’s benefit.”

Wanting to create a product that would feel good to both partners, Callow developed the much softer SilaSkin, a blend of thermoplastic rubber and silicone that compresses as much as it expands. Fat Boys are made completely of SilaSkin, and come in four sizes that add anywhere from a half-inch to a full inch of girth. Lined on the inside with rims and nubs for texture, the toys have holes at the bottom for the testicles, providing stability as well as a little extra tug.

“The idea was to create movement on the penis, and also movement for the receiver,” says Callow. “We wanted both partners to be able to feel pleasure.”

The Fat Boy line is among the more popular extenders on the market, but it’s not the only one. Victor Tobar, the national buying and merchandising manager for the Pleasure Chest, says that most adult toy stores offer a variety of what are alternately called penis sleeves, sheaths, cock enhancers or extenders. They’re used for both partner sex and masturbation, and have a range of differences in design: Some are firmer, some more squishy. Some add a lot of girth, some just a little boost. They come in many different colors and shapes, and there are many add-ons like extra rims or tighter rings at the base.

Tobar adds that the reasons for trying penis extenders are as varied as the customers themselves — and it’s often not about enhanced size at all. “For some people, it’s about changing the sensation of penetration with one that’s super textured or softer,” says Tobar. “Other people want ones that are a little firmer, if they’re having erections that aren’t as firm as they would like them to be. Some are made to look like skin tones, whereas [some] look a little more hardcore and less discreet.”

As for how it feels to be on the receiving end, U.K.-based sex educator Rachael McCoy of Inspiring Sexuality says in her YouTube review, “It looks a little bit scary and daunting. [But] the girth that this is going to add to your man’s cock is insane. And if you’re not struggling in the old girth department, this is just going to make your man’s cock even bigger. … It made [her partner] feel really manly and masculine, but it also made me even tighter, because obviously it pushed everything in together.”

Maybe most importantly, McCoy also addresses the elephant in the room: Wouldn’t most men be too embarrassed to tell their partner that they wanted — or needed — a penis extender?

She claims absolutely not. If anything, she says, it can offer the best of both worlds: “Originally, I would’ve thought [it] would’ve made my man feel a bit inferior. But actually, it made him feel fantastic. We had lots of fun while wearing it, and when it came off, that skin-to-skin contact felt really, really good as well.”

https://melmagazine.com/the-hottest-trend-in-male-sex-toys-is-pretty-much-a-dildo-you-wear-over-your-penis-4deacf54ce0f

WIKK WEB GURU

The legal imagination

I have the right to remain silent (2017). Oil on canvas (35 x 25cm). Private Collection.I have the right to remain silent (2017). Oil on canvas by Albert Barqué-Duran.

Hypotheticals, fantastical beings, and a fictional omnibus: legal reasoning is made supple by its use of the imagination

Maksymilian Del Mar is a reader in legal theory at the School of Law at Queen Mary University of London. He is the co-editor of Legal Fictions in Theory and Practice (2015). He lives in London.

The legal world is wonderfully strange. Pull down a dusty volume of case law from a barrister’s bookshelf, and you’ll discover a parade of fantastical beings that could have been lifted from the pages of Jorge Luis Borges or Dr Seuss. In the law, constitutions behave like living trees, the island of Minorca is treated as a suburb of London, immobile houses suddenly zoom along beltways, Clapham omnibuses are packed with reasonable men, and spectral officious bystanders routinely spy on contractual negotiations. The legal realm is full of unlikely and improbable possibilities, as well as paths not taken, counterfactuals, mights, perhapses and maybes.

All of this draws on the faculty of the imagination. You’d be forgiven for thinking of a judge as someone who spends all day shoehorning ‘the facts’ into pre-fabricated principles, and laying down determinative rulings like geological strata. In fact, legal reasoning is a much more supple exercise. Individual judges must resolve knotty questions under conditions of uncertainty, and in a context in which there’s usually profound disagreement about both what has happened and what ought to be done about it. 

In these circumstances, imagination performs many salutary functions. Indeed, legal reasoning would be impossible without it. Imagination allows judges to explore what might be at stake in any particular dispute, and to provide a set of resources for future decision-makers. It lets them communicate doubt and express hesitation. And it brings the language of law alive, moving us and inviting us to imagine further – and so enables a thriving, interactive community of enquiry.

Of course, imagination also carries certain dangers. It might encourage bias, or signal a departure from common sense. But overall it should be celebrated – in law and, perhaps, in other domains where people must engage in the messy business of public reasoning.

Legal reasoning has at least four imaginative abilities at its disposal. The first is supposing: pretending that something is the case when you know or suspect that it’s not. Judges have been doing this sort of ‘as-if’ style of imagining for thousands of years. Courts in ancient Rome frequently used a mechanism known as fictio civitatis, the fiction of citizenship, which let authorities rule on the behaviour of ‘aliens’ as if they were Romans. As Gaius, a celebrated jurist in the second century CE, said:

If it appears that a golden cup has been stolen from Lucius Titius by Dio the son of Hermaeus or by his aid and counsel, on which account, if he were a Roman citizen, he would be bound to compound for the wrong as a thief.

Fictions are not just the preserve of the West. In 17th-century China, clans of villagers set up ‘companies’ that collected and distributed capital to their members, who were supposedly united by kinship with common ancestors. But as the legal scholar Teemu Ruskola at Emory University in Atlanta argues in Legal Orientalism (2013), ‘the idiom of the family was frequently only a legal fiction used to recruit members, many of whom were not even related by blood to the clan they joined’. Needless to say, this fiction often proved useful in raising revenue for the company.

However, I will focus on the common law – a tradition that comes from Britain, and in which the authority for a principle is settled through the slow accretion of case law and custom, rather than by setting out everything in statutes or codes. This mode of thought involves its fair share of judge-invented fictions. In the 18th-century case of Mostyn v Fabrigas, for example, a resident of Minorca – an island off the coast of Spain that was under British rule – claimed that he had been falsely imprisoned by the British government. To gain jurisdiction, the British court treated the territory as if it were a suburb of London.

Legal scholars usually dislike such judicial inventiveness. ‘[T]he pestilential breath of Fiction poisons the sense of every instrument it comes near,’ wrote the jurist and philosopher Jeremy Bentham in 1776. He said that imagination had infected the law like syphilis, ‘begotten in the bed of metaphor’ – something of an irony, given his own turn of phrase. Bentham claimed that legal language would reflect the truth of affairs only if it were direct and free of ornament, and accused lawyers of deliberately mystifying the law so as to retain sole guardianship over its mysteries – and thereby enrich themselves…

mores…

https://aeon.co/essays/why-judges-and-lawyers-need-imagination-as-much-as-rationality

WIKK WEB GURU

The Secret Playbook of Internet Trolls. “Disrupt, Misdirect and Control Internet Discussions”

internet troll

Relevant to the evolving Fake News saga, this incisive article was first published in 2014. The objective is to smear Truth in Media

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
What’s confusing you
Is the nature of my game

– The Rolling Stones

The reason that Internet trolls are effective is that people still don’t understand their game.

There are 15 commonly-used trolling tactics to disrupt, misdirect and control internet discussions.

As one interesting example, trolls start flame wars because – according to two professors – swearing and name-calling shut down our ability to think and focus.

And trolls will often spew divisive attacks so that people argue against each other, instead of bad actions and policies of the powers-that-be.   For example, trolls will:

Start a religious war whenever possible using stereotypes like “all Jews are selfish”, “all Christians are crazy” or “all Muslims are terrorists”.

Yesterday, the alternative news site Common Dreams caught a troll using scores of different user names to spew anti-Semitic bile. (Common Dreams discovered that the same troll was behind the multiple user names by tracking their IP addresses. And the troll confessed to Common Dreams.)

The troll is a “a Jewish Harvard graduate in his thirties who was irritated by the website’s discussion of issues involving Israel”.

He posted anti-Semitic diatribes – such as Hitler should have finished the job and killed all Jews – using one alias.  Then – a couple of minutes later – he’d post an attack on the first poster using a different alias, claiming that criticism of Israel is the same thing as anti-Semitism.  (Note: Holocaust survivors and Israeli ministers say it’s not.)

Why would a Jew post vile anti-Semitic comments?  Because normal people are offended by – and don’t want to be associated with – pure, naked anti-Semitism, and so they will avoid such discussions.  If the discussion was originally criticizing a specific aspect of Israeli policy, the discussion will break down, and the actual point regarding policy will be lost.

Similarly, anti-Semitic posts weaken websites by making them seem less reputable. Indeed, Common Dreams says that the troll’s anti-Semitic comments drove away many of that site’s largest donors … dealing a severe blow to its continued viability. That’s exactly what trolls spewing anti-Semitic bile are trying to do: shut down logical discussion and discredit and weaken sites which allow rational criticism of policy.

It is well-known that foreign  governments and large companies troll online. See thisthis this, and this. For example, the Israeli government is paying students to post pro-Israeli comments online.

And American students are also attempting to influence internet discussion.

While the Common Dreams troll claims that he’s not sponsored by the state of Israel, government  agencies have manipulated  Internet discussion for years. This includes the use of multiple “socket puppet” aliases.  The potential for mischief is stunning.

Unless we learn their game…

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-playbook-of-internet-trolls-disrupt-misdirect-and-control-internet-discussions/5581824

WIKK WEB GURU

Muslims Confiscate Wives Salaries – Where Are Feminists?

More Algerian women work, but husbands control wages

By AFP
Female police cadets perform during their graduation ceremony at the police academy in Ain Benian August 6, 2009. 
PHOTO: REUTERS

Female police cadets perform during their graduation ceremony at the police academy in Ain Benian August 6, 2009. PHOTO: REUTERS

ALGIERS: 

More and more Algerian women are challenging traditional norms by getting jobs, but many see their salaries confiscated by their husbands despite a law against the practice.

“It’s financial harassment,” lawyer Fatma-Zohra Benbraham said. “It’s a dangerous phenomenon that has been kept silent for a long time.”

Lawyers say that as more women go into the workplace, tensions over money are causing a surge in divorces.

lleviating poverty: 252 deserving women get buffaloes

Female employment rose from 10.2% in 2005 to 13.6 by 2015, with around 2 million Algerian women now in work, alongside just under nine million men. The number of divorces almost doubled from 34,000 in 2007 to around 60,000 in 2014.

Benbraham said financial disputes, particularly over control of wives’ salaries, are behind the rise. “The tendency to divorce has increased in recent years. Money is the main cause of marital breakdowns,” she added.

Women say they face financial blackmail. If a wife refuses to let her husband control her wages, she is forced to stay at home or even face divorce proceedings – a source of shame in the conservative country.

Women empowerment: Top aide says K-P to adopt bill on domestic violence

In other cases, fathers or brothers take control of their female relatives’ money. “Many women prefer to divorce so they can keep their salaries for themselves and their children,” said Benbraham.

In 2015, Algeria’s parliament adopted a law aimed at preventing husbands from taking control of their wives’ salaries.

It says “anyone who exercises constraints on their spouse in order to have access to their property or financial resources” can be imprisoned for up to two years.

But many women say the law does not protect them enough.

“I never see my money. My husband takes it all,” a woman identified only as Nadia told local daily El Watan. “The law should protect us.”

Nourredine Bekis, professor of sociology at the University of Algiers, said the practice was a result of patriarchal society.

“We have taught boys that financial power is the basis for establishing male domination,” he said.

‘Women should be given equal rights’ 

Algerian husbands are traditionally responsible for providing for their wives and children, while a wife’s money is reserved for her own use. But as they head to work, women have little choice but to hand their cash over to their husbands or risk their families falling apart.

The debate on the right of women to control their salaries was recently revived by Mounia Meslem, minister for the family and the status of women.

She provoked a wave of criticism on social media when she called on women to give their wages to the state to help it cope with financial difficulties arising from a fall in the price of oil, the country’s main resource.

“We can help our country,” she told the private television channel El Bilad. “It is not our income that gives us a livelihood, but rather our husbands who take care of us.”

Critics said her comment represented a step backwards for women’s rights.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1365408/algerian-women-work-husbands-control-wages/

WIKK WEB GURU

The Illusion of America: Has it Ever Really Existed?


by Ryan Cristian, Guest Waking Times

In the past, this country has always prided itself on the personal freedom and Constitutional rights of the individual, and oddly enough, it still does today despite the fact that the US currently ranks 41st according to the 2016 world press freedom index, and 11th on the Heritage Institute’s 2016 index of economic freedom, behind countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Chile.

However, the facts have yet to stop the government, or rather the faction that co-opted the government, from carrying out its will and broadcasting whichever story reinforces that will. From lying about attacks and epidemics, to fabricating them all together, what this country once could have been is simply no longer present, where sadly, it truly counts: within the government, save for a brave few. But the people remain, and that American Dream still resides within their hearts and longs to be realized. Regardless of whether that dream was ever truly seen to fruition or if it was sabotaged by some of the very men who took part in its creation, it has taken root in the very foundation that holds this broken country together, it has become eternal; it prevails within the deep-seeded beliefs of that which makes this country truly powerful: its people.

Those who have participated in this fabrication are terrified that the people will once and for all see through the lie, and find the sinister reality behind. And that is indeed what we are witnessing in real-time, as Americans finally begin to wake up to this gross manipulation.

This awakening has been a long time coming, and was brought on by many different occurrences. Yet, the one event that was always meant to reinforce the citizen’s blind faith and dedication to the system, the election process, has much to the establishment’s dismay, become the largest awakening event in American history. People are being hyper-exposed to the true nature of the government and those who have complete control over its actions, thanks almost entirely to WikiLeaks and those who anonymously leaked the information.

From blaming the Russians with zero evidence, and pitting Americans against each other with race, religion and political standing, to the classic ‘lesser of two evils” ploy, the entire past election has weirdly enough turned into one of the most important things that could have happened to the individual, as it shook us all out of our complacency to see the true level of corruption operating right beneath our noses, while being told we are living the dream.

Does the Government Represent the People?

In today’s “feelings-over-facts“ climate, when a study does not embody what one chooses to embrace as “the truth,” it is simply disregarded as “fake news” or some other catch-all measure of dismissal that allows the individual to ignore contradictory information, and do so with a sense of confidence, be it a false one. Which is the case with the following study, that wildly enough has not gotten much attention since its release, as something like this would only be ignored by a willfully uninformed populace. This study actually quantifies the irrelevancy of the American public in regard to their influence on the government and its policy.

Researchers at Princeton University looked at more than 20 years worth of data to answer a pretty simple question:

Does the government represent the people?

Quoting the Princeton study directly:

“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

(Click the graph to see the full video)
Many are beginning to come to grips with the reality that their opinion doesn’t matter in this country, and that the government truly doesn’t care what they think, and sadly… they are correct. But there’s a catch. Economic elites, business interests–those who have enough money to hire lobbyists–have an entirely different line on the graph above than the average America(the bottom 90%), and surprise surprise, it’s much closer to the ideal representation, which means these elite individuals do in fact directly influence policy in this country. So in other words, this study clearly demonstrates that money, and those who have it, dictate this country’s true direction, not the people and their faux democracy.

Ultimately, this shows that the elites have the ability to get what they what, regardless of the American majority-will, and the people pay for it, literally and figuratively. With one in every five American children born into poverty, the American people suffer the most expensive healthcare in the world, a floundering education system, and a catastrophically detrimental failure of a drug war, all spurred on with egregiously wasteful spending seemingly without end. Almost every major issue Americans face as a nation can be tied back to the realization brought on by the above graph: The average person has essentially zero influence on the passage of the very laws that affect their daily lives and the direction of their own country, which they then pay for with their hard-earned money, lest they be forced into a cage at gunpoint. Sounds like freedom to me…

more…

About the Author

Ryan Cristian is the author of website, The Last American Vagabond.

This article (The Illusion of America: Has it Ever Really Existed?) was originally created and published by The Last American Vagabond and is printed here with permission. 

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/03/27/illusion-america-ever-really-existed/

WIKK WEB GURU

Polish Poet and Nobel Laureate Wisława Szymborska on How Our Certitudes Keep Us Small and the Generative Power of Not-Knowing

Art by Salvador Dalí from a rare edition of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

“Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then be a valuable delusion,” the great painter Richard Diebenkorn counseled in his ten rules for beginning creative projects. “One doesn’t arrive — in words or in art — by necessarily knowing where one is going,” the artist Ann Hamilton wrote a generation later in her magnificent meditation on the generative power of not-knowing. “In every work of art something appears that does not previously exist, and so, by default, you work from what you know to what you don’t know.”

What is true of art is even truer of life, for a human life is the greatest work of art there is. (In my own life, looking back on my ten most important learnings from the first ten years of Brain Pickings, I placed the practice of the small, mighty phrase “I don’t know” at the very top.) But to live with the untrammeled openendedness of such fertile not-knowing is no easy task in a world where certitudes are hoarded as the bargaining chips for status and achievement — a world bedeviled, as Rebecca Solnit memorably put it, by “a desire to make certain what is uncertain, to know what is unknowable, to turn the flight across the sky into the roast upon the plate.”

That difficult feat of insurgency is what the great Polish poet Wisława Szymborska (July 2, 1923–February 1, 2012) explored in 1996 when she was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for capturing the transcendent fragility of the human experience in masterpieces like “Life-While-You-Wait” and “Possibilities.”

In her acceptance speech, later included in Nobel Lectures: From the Literature Laureates, 1986 to 2006 (public library) — which also gave us the spectacular speech on the power of language Toni Morrison delivered after becoming the first African American woman to win the Nobel Prize — Szymborska considers why artists are so reluctant to answer questions about what inspiration is and where it comes from:

It’s not that they’ve never known the blessing of this inner impulse. It’s just not easy to explain something to someone else that you don’t understand yourself.

Noting that she, too, tends to be rattled by the question, she offers her wieldiest answer:

Inspiration is not the exclusive privilege of poets or artists generally. There is, has been, and will always be a certain group of people whom inspiration visits. It’s made up of all those who’ve consciously chosen their calling and do their job with love and imagination. It may include doctors, teachers, gardeners — and I could list a hundred more professions. Their work becomes one continuous adventure as long as they manage to keep discovering new challenges in it. Difficulties and setbacks never quell their curiosity. A swarm of new questions emerges from every problem they solve. Whatever inspiration is, it’s born from a continuous “I don’t know.”

In a sentiment of chilling prescience today, as we witness tyrants drunk on certainty drain the world of its essential inspiration, Szymborska considers the destructive counterpoint to this generative not-knowing:

All sorts of torturers, dictators, fanatics, and demagogues struggling for power by way of a few loudly shouted slogans also enjoy their jobs, and they too perform their duties with inventive fervor. Well, yes, but they “know.” They know, and whatever they know is enough for them once and for all. They don’t want to find out about anything else, since that might diminish their arguments’ force. And any knowledge that doesn’t lead to new questions quickly dies out: it fails to maintain the temperature required for sustaining life. In the most extreme cases, cases well known from ancient and modern history, it even poses a lethal threat to society.

This is why I value that little phrase “I don’t know” so highly. It’s small, but it flies on mighty wings. It expands our lives to include the spaces within us as well as those outer expanses in which our tiny Earth hangs suspended. If Isaac Newton had never said to himself “I don’t know,” the apples in his little orchard might have dropped to the ground like hailstones and at best he would have stooped to pick them up and gobble them with gusto. Had my compatriot Marie Sklodowska-Curie never said to herself “I don’t know”, she probably would have wound up teaching chemistry at some private high school for young ladies from good families, and would have ended her days performing this otherwise perfectly respectable job. But she kept on saying “I don’t know,” and these words led her, not just once but twice, to Stockholm, where restless, questing spirits are occasionally rewarded with the Nobel Prize…

more…

https://www.brainpickings.org/

WIKK WEB GURU

Everything That’s Ever Been Said About Boning Before Sporting Events

by Andrew Fiouzi

1. The idea that celibacy breeds maximum athletic performance dates back to 444 B.C., when Plato, of all people, opined, “Olympic competitors before races should avoid sexual intimacy.” A few centuries later, Aretaeus of Cappadocia, a celebrated Greek physician, gave Plato’s thinking a little more color: “If any man is in possession of semen, he is fierce, courageous and physically mighty, like beasts.”

2. The most detailed explanation, though, can be found in Philostratus’ Gymnasticus, the oldest text on sports known to man: “Those who come to the gymnasium straight after sex are exposed by a greater number of indicators when they train, for their strength is diminished and they are short of breath and lack daring in their attacks, and they fade in colour in response to exertion. … And when they strip, their hollow collar-bones give them away, their poorly structured hips, the conspicuous outline of their ribs, and the coldness of their blood. These athletes, even if we dedicated ourselves to them, would have no chance of being crowned in any contest. The part beneath the eyes is weak, the beating of their hearts is weak, their perspiration is weak, their sleep, which controls digestion, is weak, and their eyes glance around in a wandering fashion and indicate an appearance of lustfulness.”

3. Perhaps that’s why Cleitomachus, a star pankratiast (sort of an ancient form of MMA that was a big event during the earliest Greek Olympics), is said to have never slept with his wife, and would avert his gaze when he saw two dogs mating.

4. To ensure that a male athlete’s seed was never spilled — intentionally or otherwise — Galen, another prominent Greek doctor, recommended the following around the 2nd century, “A flattened lead plate is an object to be placed under the muscles of the loins of an athlete in training, chilling them whenever they might have nocturnal emissions of semen.”

5. That said, not everyone thought a little pre-game bacchanal was the mark of a loser. In fact, in 77 A.D., Pliny the Elder, author, philosopher and inspiration for a delicious beer, as well as a naval and army commander of the Roman Empire, argued directly against Plato and everyone else above when he wrote, “Athletes when sluggish are revitalized by lovemaking.”

6. Despite the passage of about 2,000 years, our thinking on the topic has not gotten any clearer. And the methods some athletes have gone to suppress their libidos are no less barbaric than sticking lead plates down their pants. For instance, Antonio Miguel, head of medical services at the Club Universidad Nacional Pumas, one of the top soccer teams in Mexico, has said, “At the end of the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s, people thought that sex diminished the players’ performance. Coaches gave us nitrate salts (potassium nitrate, a substance used to prevent erections) because, according to them, this would inhibit the sexual desire.”

7. With or without nitrate salts, Muhammad Ali, according to several reports, abstained from having sex for six weeks before a fight.

8. After all, WOMEN WEAKEN LEGS:

9. All of which seems backward, since a 1968 study, “Muscular Performance Following Coitus,” found that men who hadn’t had sex for six days did no better on a strength test than men who’d had sex the previous night.

10. Same for a 2000 study in the Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness involving 15 high-level athletes between the ages of 20 and 40 who participated in a two-day experiment. Its conclusion? Sexual activity had no significant overall effect on how the athletes performed during exercise and mental tests.

11. In fact, Emmanuele A. Jannini of the University of L’Aquila in Italy has found that sex stimulates the production of testosterone. “After three months without sex, which is not so uncommon for some athletes, testosterone dramatically drops to levels close to children’s levels,” he told National Geographic.

12. Of course, Joe Namath didn’t need Jannini to tell him that. “I try to [have sex the night before a game],” he explained in his 1969 Playboy Interview. “Before one game last year, I just sat home by myself and watched television, drank a little tequila to relax and went to sleep fairly early. But most of the nights before games, I’ll be with a girl. One of the Jets’ team doctors, in fact, told me that it’s a good idea to have sexual relations before a game, because it gets rid of the kind of nervous tension an athlete doesn’t need.”…

more…

https://melmagazine.com/everything-thats-ever-been-said-about-boning-before-sporting-events-e737ca33e1c1#.63byqwokg

WIKK WEB GURU