A Kevin Spacey Update, The Sexual Harassment Feeding Frenzy, And A Guide To Sexual Harassers In The Workplace

This photo seemed appropriate somehow…

Kevin Spacey, it is now fair to say, has been a habitual sexual harasser.

We did not know that when Anthony Rapp made his accusation against the actor in a Buzzfeed interview. I would be very interested in knowing whether Rapp knew that. The posts here (this, and this) began with the assumption that Rapp’s motivations were as he stated them, and he did not say or suggest that Spacey was, like Harvey Weinstein, an active predator.

But in the ensuing days,  the pattern typical of accused harassers who really are harassers has emerged regarding Spacey. Other alleged victims came forward with their accounts.  Next  the employees on Spacey’s hit Netflix series “House of Cards” expanded the narrative…from CNNMoney:

Spacey made the set of Netflix’s “House of Cards” into a “toxic” work environment through a pattern of sexual harassment, eight people who currently work on the show or worked on it in the past tell CNN. One former employee told CNN that Spacey sexually assaulted him.

That, as they say, is the ball game for Spacey. He has even followed the hackneyed script for so many celebrities caught in misconduct: he’s getting “treatment.” Well, he doesn’t have many options. His show has been cancelled; his agency has dropped him. Spacey is very talented, but it will take him a long, long time to even partially recover from this, if he can.

I am going to write this anyway even though it won’t register on most people: the fact that Spacey turned out to be a lot more than a guy who got drunk and treated a 14-year old actor inappropriately at a party three decades ago doesn’t retroactively make the way Rapp’s ambush accusation fair or right. If he knew that Spacey was a present day harasser and made the accusation to break the dam, that’s something else, but again, he didn’t suggest that.

I’d guess that he’ll say that now, whether it is true or not.

Since Spacey was accused, several other celebrities, including Dustin Hoffman, have been fingered. The latest development is that several female members of Congress have said that they have been sexually harassed by their male colleagues, and of that I have no doubts whatsoever. Nonetheless, we are still in the witch hunt yellow zone, creeping into the red.

Here is part of a cautionary LA Times op-ed  by Cathy Young:

The fallout from the Harvey Weinstein scandals and the ripples from the “#MeToo” movement are having indubitably positive effects — above all, exposing and bringing to account predators who have enjoyed impunity due to their power and status. But there are some pitfalls. Many people — not just men with skeletons in the closet — fear that careers may be destroyed over minor misconduct and ambiguous transgressions. Troubling rhetoric abounds, condemning all sexually tinged dynamics in the workplace, stereotyping men as abusers and women as perpetual victims in need of quasi-Victorian protections.…Concerns that the post-Weinstein climate may lead to witch hunts against any man who flirts with a female colleague have been met with angry comments along the lines of “flirting in the workplace IS HARASSMENT.” A tweet by singer/songwriter Marian Call that got more than 2,000 retweets and nearly 6,500 “likes” asked, “dudes are you aware how happy women would be if strangers & coworkers never ‘flirted’ with us again … this is the world we want.”

But is it? It’s certainly not the world I want: Except in college, nearly every man I have ever dated was either a co-worker or, once I switched entirely to free-lancing, someone I met through work. This is not unusual, even in the age of dating websites and apps.

This has always been the aspect of sexual harassment law that renders it inherently unfair and to many, incomprehensible. In many cases the exact same conduct is harassment if unwelcome, and successful mating strategy if welcome.  Don’t bite my head off, but this was what Donal Trump was alluding to in his repulsive conversation with Billy Bush. He was claiming  that women like being sexually assaulted by the rich and powerful. In many cases, he may be right. Legally, when he’s right, it may not be sexual harassment. Ethically, it is still wrong. If the women feels compelled not to object to the sexual overtures because of an inequality of power, it is very wrong, and illegal.

What about an encounter that a women welcomed at the time, but eventually came to believe was sexual harassment, because it was retroactively unwelcome?

This is from Ella Whelan at Spiked, writing about a recent accusation leveled by drama critic Kate Maltby against a member of Parliament:

A man has been accused of sending a text and touching someone’s knee. Thankfully, the prime minister has launched an investigation into this harrowing claim.The man is Conservative MP for Ashford, and first secretary of state, Damian Green. His alleged victim is theatre critic and scholar, Kate Maltby. Maltby made her allegation against Green in a column for The Times. Her accusation consists of ‘a fleeting hand against my knee — so brief, it was almost deniable’, and a text from Green which read: ‘Long time no see. But having admired you in a corset in my favourite tabloid I feel impelled to ask if you are free for a drink anytime?’

It is easy to laugh at such a risible accusation. But this sex-pest panic is no longer a laughing matter. As a result of Maltby’s opportunist and crass allegation, her transparent attempt to be part of the celebrity #MeToo movement, Green is being investigated by the state. He has released a statement, saying ‘this untrue allegation has come as a complete shock and is deeply hurtful, especially from someone I considered a personal friend’. But even if it were true, whose business is it that a man asked a woman out, and ‘fleetingly’, ‘so brief, it was almost deniable’, touched her knee?

I think Whelan goes a bit too far at the end.  As in my original posts about Rapp and Spacey, I hold that this kind of complaint should be handled privately before it is turned into a public spectacle, but unwanted sexual attention from a man in power is society’s “business.” There are standards of conduct to agree on. Thus I am troubled by defenders of former President George H.W. Bush, who in his 90s has suddenly been revealed as a serial groper from his wheelchair. Bush’s unwanted attentions, accompanied by a smoking gun joke (He says his favorite magician is “David Cop-a-feel”—“The Prez will be here all week, folks!”) are “innocent,” they say. No, they are not innocent. Doing something in 2017 that was dismissed as “boys being boys” in 1962 is not “innocent,” no matter how old you are. It is wilful ignorance. For the honored and elderly, it is taking advantage of deference to abuse women.

With that segue, here is an Ethics Alarms Guide To Sexual Harassers, compiled from multiple sources. Remember, there are two kinds of sexual harassment: quid pro quo harassment, where an employee is pressured to submit to sexual overtures to avoid adverse consequences, real, implied, or threatened, and hostile environment harassment, which must sufficiently “severe and pervasive” that it creates a toxic work environment. The methods employed by harassers, however, vary.

There are at least 16 types, and they often combine to form ugly hybrids:

1 The King. This is the “quid pro quo” harasser who uses his (or her—women harass too) power and his assumed special status in an organization to prey on subordinates, employees, aspiring job applicants, or less anointed  colleagues.  Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Weinstein…these are all in this category.

2. The Mentor. A mentor engenders trust by nurturing a paternal, teacher relationship, then gradually converts it into a sexual one. This is the guise of the predatory professor, but also occurs in business settings. In “All That Jazz,” the Bob Fosse-styled director picks out a needy and attractive dancer in whom he pretends to see great potential, but his objective is to sleep with her.

3. The Gang Leader.This is the executive or sexist leader who encourages an entire staff to marginalize women. It is sexual bullying.

4. The Serial Harasser. Often a simultaneous persona of “The King,” the Serial Harasser sees the workplace as his dating bar, or harem. Every woman he finds attractive is potential quarry.

5. The Groper. Always looking for an opportunity to shoot lecherous stares, make lascivious comments, or “cop a feel,”  these tend to be frat boys, socialized jerks, or privileged seniors.

6. The Opportunist.  The Opportunist will exploit an opening if he sees one, and then easily transitions to 2, 8, and 11.

7. The Bully.  The Bully is an insecure member of the workforce who uses gender discrimination to feel superior. He is your basic misogynist and bigot.

8. The Pal.  Here we have the advocate of Harry’s theory of relationships in “When Harry Met Sally.” He pretends to be seeking a Platonic friendship, but only to eventually seek a sexual escalation.

9. The Undeterred. A hopeful romantic who refuses to take “no” for an answer, the Undeterred is the most sympathetic victim of sexual harassment law.  By its standards, many of the heroes of the most beloved romantic comedies are offenders. Moreover, undeterred hunks can often keep asking until they get a yes, while the nice, polite, homely clerk gets reported to HR after two “nos” and an offered bouquet. Sigh.

10. The Conveniently Impaired. The individual who uses alcohol or drugs as an excuse to harass also assumes a greater margin of tolerance, and has a plausible defense.

11. The Sympathetic Predator.  This bait-and-switch harasser often isn’t seen as harassing. He saw a target weeping, or obviously distressed, and moved in as a rescuer, or a shoulder to cry on. His goal, however, is not consolation but an opening for sexual conquest. This is a betrayal of trust.

12. The Gallant. This is a personal obsession with me: the boss that compliments women in public settings for their beauty (and brains, as if a smart woman is a freak), and refers to them in personal terms that would be regarded as weird if applied to a man. The glass ceiling is constructed as he speaks, and the workplace is instantly less fair and equal.

13. The Caretaker. Closely related to the Gallant,  the Caretaker uses condescending , paternalistic tones to diminish women in the workplace by treating them like kittens, children, or china dolls.

14. The Nerd. Here is another sympathetic harasser, the socially inept individual, often with Asperger’s Syndrome,  who desires the attention and affection  of his target, who does not reciprocate these feelings.

15. The Stalker. The most dangerous of the harassers.

16. The Blunderer. This is an accidental harasser who is ignorant, untrained, inexperienced, or inept, and who would not intentionally harass anyone.

_________________________

Pointer: Advice Goddess Blog

41 Comments

Filed under Arts & Entertainment, Business & Commercial, Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Etiquette and manners, Gender and Sex, Journalism & Media, Romance and Relationships, Workplace

41 responses to “A Kevin Spacey Update, The Sexual Harassment Feeding Frenzy, And A Guide To Sexual Harassers In The Workplace

  1. Steve-O-in-NJ

    The list gives new meaning to the expression “it’s good to be the king.” I’ve known almost all of these types, and (sigh) even been a few. I’ve known two #1s, one a senior partner at a law firm who was also a 4 and a 5, the other a judge who was also a #2 and a #10, who was thrown off the bench after he went to a party that the probation officers threw (where he shouldn’t have been in the first place) and proceeded to grope a half dozen women in one evening. I don’t think I’ve met any #3s. I’ve known a few #4, even let my eye (but nothing else) roam a bit with the summer law clerks when I was younger, until I hit 30 and faced up to the facts. My own grandfather was both a #5 and a #10, especially a #10 (he embarrassed the family several times after he’d had too much). I’ve known countless #6s. I’ve played #8 too many times, in the hopes that being friends would lead to something more (it never does, so I gave up years ago). #9 is a particularly sucky role to play, when you are at best average looking, and therefore more at risk than a hunk (though I’ve seen my share of Gastons get shot down decisively) and #14 and #16 aren’t far behind. There are times I wonder whether it might not have been better if my parents had bowed to the advice of an impatient principal and an old-school school nurse and shipped me off to special ed, and I was now the town hall or school janitor who comes in after everyone else is long gone, then hurries home to the basement apartment his parents have set up for him, instead of an attorney who can do his job but who never quite fits in, and is thankful his office does not contain any attractive women and hasn’t brought in summer law clerks for 3 years now.

  2. Steve

    The single incident harassment going to result in less women being hired. Some of these incidents that are popping up are so minor that it makes women look ridiculous and weak. Given 2 equally qualified individuals for a job it is safer to find a reason to hire the male over the female. If all the publicized incidents of harassment were serious incidents then this may be reversed but they’re not, the trend of outing every instance out perceived harassment is going to hurt women.

    • Steve

      To be clear, I am talking words, not deeds, not Quid pro quo. Harassment claims of any type always makes me think that we have opened the door to ending the first amendment. The line of hostile work environment seems to be getting grayer and the burden of proof shifting to the accused.

    • Still Spartan

      Or hire all women.

      • “Or hire all women.”

        That’s the answer?

        X-Chromosomal Units are not above heterosexual and same sex IPV, despite what the Domestic Violence Industry would have us believe.

        Also, Y-Chromosomal Units are not only “profiled” but more reluctant report abuse.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men

        This is nothing new.

        “In 1977, Suzanne Steinmetz released results from several studies showing that the percentage of wives who have used physical violence is higher than the percentage of husbands, and that the wives’ average violence score tended to be higher, although men were somewhat more likely to cause greater injury.

        “She also found that women were as likely as men to initiate physical violence, and that they had similar motives for their violent acts (Steinmetz 1977-78). (bolds mine)

        Her 1977 paper (The Battered Husband Syndrome) was met with threats of both violence & death; I fight to keep an open mind as I ponder from whom.

        That being the case, is there any reason to believe an “Only Women Need Apply” directive would eliminate harassing or abusive behavior?

  3. Rick M.

    Was it Oprah? Was it Rosie? The latest comment is one I have heard repeated many times in the last month: “Everyone knew.” This one was regarding Kevin Spacey. We heard it with Harvey Weinstein. “Everyone knew.” This confirms my own opinion that “Hollywood” is ground zero for cultural rot. If you knew why were you silent? As a former teacher, the song that sings is “Mandated Reporter.” I would feel quite comfortable if investigators started to focus on the perps and those who say, “Everyone knew.”

    • Steve

      If someone habitually hits on all the attractive people who come into thier orbit but no body objects than everyone can know but where is the harassment? Unless someone objects and the behavior continues than by definition it is acceptable behavior. Hollywood has accepted this behavior in their profession, everyone knew.

  4. Kyjo

    I think you mean that those romantic comedies are beloved, rather than believed?

  5. JP

    Great list Jack. Will you archive it like the rationalizations so it can be used as a quick reference?

  6. Matt

    Excellent post

    I would add one category of harasser I particularly loathe though…

    The Bragger. This individual has a perfectly normal, consensual sexual encounter with someone in the office then proceeds to spread the news through the office either directly or through innuendo thereby harassing post-encounter. For example:

    “Let’s have Mary take lead on this project, she’s really good at A”

    Harasser: “Trust me, that’s not ALL she’s good at” wink-wink*

    I find this type of post-encounter harassment more despicable in many ways as the harasser is smearing the reputation and violating the trust/privacy of someone who gave them their trust in the most intimate of ways. Thoughts?

    • Greg

      In my experience, women involved in workplace sexual affairs are more likely to talk (and, yes, to brag) about it than men. I have never learned of a workplace affair that almost all of the women in the office did not know about before almost any of the men did, the reason being that the woman involved had told all of her girlfriends about it, usually (at least when the man was generally considered attractive) with some measure of pride.

  7. Ash

    16 needs more explication because 16 could easily be a victim of overreach, I’m not sure where the harassment is in 8 as you’ve framed it, and flirting in the workplace is often behavior both women and men initiate with each other, even if it is understood to go nowhere. And don’t forget xkcd 642.

    Americans spend more time at work than waking hours at home, or in time socializing. Turning all workplace environments into even more of a soul sucking, gray, cube factory, ticket solving experience by removing any and all flirtatious behavior isn’t progress.

    I’ve never worked at a company that didn’t make dating between employees an HR offense, and yet, at most of these companies managers were dating and married to each other.

    There needs to be some recognition adult human behavior is errorful, and part of being an adult is understanding how to handle the behaviors of other adults in the workplace that you dislike.

    We’re not all going to work for a Google of Social Justice Co-workers, we’re going to be working with Christians and Baptists and Catholics, Lutherans and Protestants and gun nuts and Jews and Gays and Moslems and White Sox fans and football haters and transgender and older people and minorities and white people and people of color and former military and vegans and pilots, surgeons and lawyers. And there will be people who believe in strong induction and those who believe in weak induction.

    Some large group, even majority group of women and men will be able to handle, and look forward to seeing their fellow diverse workers and communicating with them in adult, mature, ways. Talking over the tasks of the day as well as politics, sports, and making jokes, many of which may fall flat.

    Mistakes will be made.

  8. RomanBW

    Jack, thanks for taking the time to compile and covey this very worthwhile informative summation Sexual Harassers guide.

  9. Chris

    Very good post. Cathy Young is one of my favorite right-leaning writers.

    I have one objection, and I’m not even sure it’s an objection, as you may be entirely right. But what if Rapp thought it was possible that Spacey was a serial harasser, and had treated others the way he had treated him, when he made the accusation public? Is it really the burden of a victim to “know” that their harasser is a serial harasser before making an accusation public? Was this only a burden on Rapp because the event had happened so long ago? It strikes me as likely that Rapp has lived with the knowledge that Spacey may have done this to other people…perhaps even other children, and perhaps even ones who didn’t have the know-how to run and lock themselves in the bathroom.

    Thankfully, none of the other allegations that have come forward about Spacey have involved children, and hopefully none will. But I’m not sure Rapp had any obligation to know that this may have happened before coming forward. For me, the possibility is enough. And I think it *does* justify his initial accusation that more have come forward, if in fact the possibility of more victims was on Rapp’s mind when he made the accusation.

    • Other Bill

      I agree, Chris. Why does the accuser’s accusation need to be so narrowly construed? Strikes me as bizarre.

    • “And I think it *does* justify his initial accusation that more have come forward, if in fact the possibility of more victims was on Rapp’s mind when he made the accusation.”

      Moral Luck.

      No justification.

      Time frame of event to accusation + Golden Rule still compel personal and private confrontation before public accusation.

      • Chris

        If one considers the possibility that there are more accusers who will come forward once one makes the initial accusation, then it is not moral luck if that happens. Moral luck is when a good result just happens as a result of a bad action. I’m describing someone rational considering potential consequences and then acting in a way that is planned to deliver those consequences.

        I also continue to disagree that a victim of harassment has any obligation to confront their harasser privately.

  10. Can we have a mathematically rigorous definition of sexual harassment?

  11. Isaac

    “The Mentor” is a special kind of insidious because of the vulnerability of the victims. It’s the reason why sexual abuse is rampant in the world of yoga and other professions where women are encouraged to develop a close, one-on-one relationship with a “guru” or “life coach.”

    And may I suggest a 17th category: “The White Knight?” Given the sheer number of prominent and outspoken male feminists and “anti-misogynists” in media now being busted for abuse and harassment: Sam Kriss, Matt Hickey, Devin Faraci, Sunil Patel, Robert Marmolejo, Glenn Fleishman, Jamie Kilstein, Juan Thompson, Christopher Goldberg, Stuart Campbell, Andy Signore…

  12. Rick M.

    I think it is now time for me to clear my own conscience on this issue since I have been guilty in my very distant past. I will ask for no sympathy or support and simply detail my crime as best remembered. This goes back 42 years and I am waiting for the hammer to finally fall.

    I was at my future wife’s apartment which she shared with her twin sister. My wife would occasionally invite me over for a pre-nuptial display of her culinary skills (I happen to far exceed her abilities in the kitchen), but back to the case at hand. She was at the stove attempting to non-burn something when I came over and grabbed her ass. Simple as that. Or was it? It happened to be her twin sister who turned around and gave me “The Look” and I promptly apologized.

    I plead for mercy and hope my now sister-in-law avoids any public exposure for my youthful indiscretion.

    • Your experience would fall into the “Mrs. (grope) Burke, (grope, grope) I thought you were Dale” category.

      And if you would be so kind as to elaborate on “The Look;” for those with…um…creative imaginations (like yours truly) it could mean pert-near anything from “You Rat Bastard” to “You feel it too?”

      • Rick M.

        Well, Paul, I assume you are an experienced male who has been exposed to sisters, spouse and a mother. The Look is that innate ability to say with one weathering glance what a thousand words cannot. My wife and her sister are twins so there is a certain commonality of expression. What it usually is with my wife is a downward look, a slight eye roll, a twitch of the nose (think Bewitched) and a snicker (not the candy bar). I have discovered through trial and error – especially error – that attempting to remove a fresh kill from a starving lioness with my bare hands would be far safer and it is best to retreat to the man cave and seek sympathy and support from other males for being emasculated without a word being spoken.

        • The X-Chromosomal Units in my wheelhouse are four younger sisters, a Dear nearly 90 year-old Mother, and the only gal I ever asked to marry me.

          Any of the ~ 99.9 % self-inflicted discomfort with the family is quickly, if nervously & clumsily, diffused with well-honed, timely, self-deprecatory, instinct-driven, survivalist wit.

          My lovely and long-suffering wife? No “looks,” just withering, leveling ”sighs” which bolt right past cognition to the “Ruh Roh” portion of my amygdala.

  13. Interesting. I didn’t read the whole thing. I usually do. I guess I’m getting tired of the apparent naïveté of these posts and then the head bobbing virtue signaling in some of the responses. Chris had one of the few responses that (usually don’t agree with him) I thought was relevant.

    Rose McGowan should be a great example of the idea of confronting the accused personally is total rose in eye archaic thinking. It has noting to do with ethics. Is she unethical for at one time accepting payment to be quiet but has reneged and come forward? These people have been abused and they owe nothing to the abuser. Just because the abuser hasn’t been tried in a court of law does not mean it didn’t happen. Our new social media system is enabling people to approach subjects that are real but have never been able to be publicized. Can it be abused? Sure it can (as your Ella Whelan call out shows). When the accused then checks into rehab and doesn’t deny the accusations then what? It’s interesting how there is no statue of limitations on accusations and then their devastating effects. Maybe if the accusations were false they would then be considered unethical?

    It seems to me that the resistance to allowing the abused to just let it hang out with regards to the abuser is in some way cringe worthy and itself a lack of ethics especially when the accusations are found out to be not just accusations but reality. Kevin Spacey still hasn’t had them proved but we are all agreeing that it probably happened just like it’s been said. The court of stone throwing? The response to false accusations should be stern.

    Kevin Spacey’s master acting class on Master Class seems to be gone. I wonder if it included the proper responses to advances made on the casting couch or at industry parties.

    • Other Bill

      I agree, Paul. I think these people like Spacey need to be called out. If they’re innocent and the accuser is a fraud, that will become apparent pretty darned quickly. I think I have a fairly whacky view on these things. I think if wrongs go unaddressed and unchallenged, the universe gets a little out of balance. If we let wrongs go unaddressed, the lack of balance begins to accumulate and things get bad. So confronting wrongs is really important.

        • Other Bill

          I’m mystified by the response here to the Rapp/Spacey story. We were supposed to be worried about Spacey committing suicide but are to condemn Rapp for not being sure there were other instances and his encounter was a one off? Shooting the messenger anyone? If this is where ethical analysis gets us, what good is it?

          I honestly wonder whether the difference between how Spacey and Weinstein have been treated here isn’t the difference between a highly regarded stage actor (I had no idea he was artistic director at the Old Vic. If that’s not being an acting God, I don’t know what is.) and a sleazy, over weight, carbuncled, slovenly, Hollywood producer/money guy.

  14. Neil Dorr

    Jack,

    We may sometimes disagree, but your thoughts on sexual harassment are always thoughtful and precise (it is part of what you do for a living). I’d seen versions of the list you presented, but never before so completely. Thank you!

  15. Still Spartan

    If the allegations are true, this is far more than harassment, it’s assault and statutory rape.

    I’m not sure that criminals need to be treated ethically by their victims. Of course, the State has this duty, but not actual victims.

    • I think it’s an intersection of at least two continua:

      1) The non-ethical consideration of emotional response. Closer in time to the offending act, I think we can forgive the victim for not having an ethical attitude towards the offender, I think to a degree we can understand unethical conduct from the victim towards the offender. But, I think, as time wears on, and the fervor of those emotions wears down to where they should no longer override an individual’s ethical obligations, there is no longer a “forgivable response” phase.

      I would posit, that time frame is much shorter than we’d initially offer.

      2) The severity of the crime or offense inflicted. Which I think can extended or decrease the continuum described in #1.

      I think though, ultimately, any “liberty to act unethically” towards a criminal from a victim, is ultimately revenge impulse. And though we can forgive and understand the impulse, I really don’t think we can forgive the conduct, unless it occurs in very very close time-proximity to the original act.

      But the whole idea of having a judicial system, is to impute the authority to enact redress of grievances onto the community, so that it can be handled in an ethical manner.

      • Chris

        But there is nothing unethical about telling the truth about one’s victimizer. It wouldn’t have been unethical for 14-year-old Anthony Rapp to publicly accuse Spacey, if the allegations are true; I don’t anyone is going that far in their argument except for you. So there would be no need to “forgive unethical conduct” on Rapp’s part if he had done that, since he wouldn’t have done anything unethical.

        What Jack is saying, if I understand correctly, is that Rapp making the accusation now is unethical because so much time has passed and Rapp could have the details wrong. I don’t think I agree with that either, but it was a plausible argument…before the rest of the allegations came streaming in. We now know that Spacey was a repeat abuser, and exposing him was absolutely ethical. There’s no way the possibility that Spacey abused others wasn’t on Rapp’s mind when he came forward–it would have been on my mind–and continuing to be silent would have given Spacey more opportunities to abuse more people.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s