Ace Tropes: Acebaiting

This is part of a series on tropes in fiction with ace characters. To link or follow this series, please use the “ace tropes” tag on this blog.

It’s a valid sexual orientation.
-Dr. Wilson

In 2012, the popular TV show House, M.D. debuted a trailer for a new episode featuring asexual characters. The trailer included a scene with Dr. Wilson delivering the quote above. This got a lot of people on AVEN excited, and many people who didn’t watch the show said they wanted to tune in.  I even found an old post by yours truly expressing excitement.

The House episode, called “Better Half”, went down in history as the absolute worst ace representation to have ever existed. If you can stomach the highlight reel, you’ll find that Dr. Wilson is not stating his own opinion but quoting an article he read, which he may or may not believe. Dr. House then goes on to prove that the two asexual patients are just sick and lying respectively, and has a smoke over his success.

Here, I will not analyze all the things wrong with the episode, I will just talk about the marketing. The trailer promised a positive representation of asexuality. The episode spectacularly failed to deliver. The difference between the promise and the delivery is what I’m terming “acebaiting”.

This trope is derived from “queerbaiting“, most often used to describe homoerotic tension that draws in queer audiences, but which fails to ever resolve. The romantic/sexual subtext is the promise, and there’s no delivery on that promise. This can make queer audiences feel cheated out of real representation, apparently by creators who don’t want to alienate the homophobic segments of their audience. In the worst cases, creators deny clear subtext, say it’s all a joke, or even make fun of audiences who ship the characters (looking at you, Moffat).

Acebaiting does not need to be intentional. The writer of “Better Half” didn’t know she had produced the worst thing ever. In fact, I recall that she was initially more worried about her portrayal of Alzheimers (in a separate story arc of the same episode). Nonetheless, the marketing inspired a lot of us to tune in, and to say we were disappointed would be an understatement.

I started out with the most spectacular example of acebaiting, one that we can all agree on. But to talk about acebaiting as a more general phenomenon, we must see that most examples are more marginal, and more subjective. When a story or creator makes a promise, we might read different things into that promise. When the story finally delivers, some people may find that delivery more disappointing than others.

Acebaiting also changes over time. In the past, many aces would be happy to get the tiniest suggestion of asexuality. Later, we looked forward to any explicit mention. Now that ace fiction is more common, if a story promises ace representation but only has a mere mention, I would be sorely disappointed–but I speak only for myself.

Because of the subjective and critical nature of this trope, I will break from usual Ace Tropes format, and list no examples at the bottom of this post. However, if you look through my reviews of ace webcomics, or Sara’s reviews of ace novels, you will find many works of fiction that have very little ace content, or none at all. In some cases, we still enjoy the works with or without ace content, but the marketing can still feel manipulative.

Since I am the resident ace webcomics expert, I will talk about the current state of acebaiting in webcomics.

I find most ace webcomics through listings, and primarily through the LGBT webcomics list. The “promise” of an ace webcomic arises from its placement in the “asexual/aromantic” tag. I don’t always know how the tags are assigned, but sometimes authors tell the listing curators directly, and sometimes they say so elsewhere.  And those are mixed in with webcomics where it’s clear from the story itself. Authors aren’t necessarily trying to make a big promise, but the discreteness of the tag prevents me from seeing any gradations of promises. (There are tags for “major”, “moderate” or “minor” LGBT content, but unfortunately these tags are not ace-specific.)

The “delivery” of ace webcomics can be hard to evaluate because of their serial nature. Maybe there’s a big delivery, but it simply hasn’t happened yet! Maybe it never will happen, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes webcomics just go defunct. Sometimes they deliver but it’s a much smaller mention than I expected. Sometimes the delivery has already happened, but it was so small I missed it. In my most pessimistic imaginings, authors just headcanon their own characters as ace, but don’t actually have plans to put it into the story.

Sara tells me that as far as novels go, LGBT+ publishers are usually good about how they tag ace and/or aromantic fiction. If they tag a work as ace and/or aromantic, it means that at least one character (possibly a minor character) is obviously ace and/or aro. The tags, however, do not promise major or even moderate representation. There have been a few instances when the publishers have messed up and tagged a work incorrectly, and there have been instances where the publisher later corrected their own inappropriate tagging. Publishers which do not specialize in LGBT+ fiction are much more likely to downplay ace content than to engage in acebaiting.  The tagging of self-published fiction is less reliable because, whereas the LGBT+ publishers have staff to establish consistent standards, each writer has their own notion of how to market their own work, which sometimes means they promote a book without explicit ace content as being ‘ace’.

One possible solution is to make fewer promises. For example, a creator could just say nothing, and let it be eventually revealed that a character is ace–but that comes with its own problems. How can we support ace fiction if we can’t even find it? Doesn’t that just punish the most honest creators?

It would also help for creators to be moderate in their promises. For instance, years after the publication of Guardian of the Dead, the author publicly downplayed the promise of her own book, which makes sense given our now rising expectations of ace fiction. But it’s still on reviewers and curators to make it clear whether the authors had made big promises or little ones.

The other possible solution is to make a better delivery. To achieve that, I not-so-humbly recommend the Ace Tropes series.

Discussion questions:

1. At what point does alleged ace fiction have so little ace content that you feel that it’s failed to deliver on a promise?
2. Why do you think a creator might engage in acebaiting? Does it make a difference whether the creator is ace themselves?
3. What can we do, as creators, critics, and consumers, to address the problem of acebaiting?
4. Although the idea of acebaiting is derived from queerbaiting, they may manifest in different ways and raise different issues. What do you think are the similarities and differences?

About Siggy

Siggy is a physics grad student in the U.S. He is gay gray-A, and makes amateur attempts at asexual activism. His interests include godlessness, scientific skepticism, and math. While not working or blogging, he plays video and board games with his boyfriend, and folds colored squares.
This entry was posted in Articles, Media and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Ace Tropes: Acebaiting

  1. Sara K. says:

    1. Since much of the ace fiction I’ve read has come from LGBTQ+ publishers, their baseline – having a clearly ace and/or aro character (who may just be a minor character) – has become my baseline too. I want more ace representation than that when I’m looking specifically for ace fiction, so I’m generally disappointed when a work only meets this minimal baseline, but I won’t feel like the creator/publisher/etc. broke a promise.
    2. To answer the second part of this question – as a reader looking for ace fiction, it does not matter to me whether the creator is ace. If I was looking forward to a fiction having ace representation because of the way it was marketed, and it ain’t there, it’s equally frustrating whether the creator is ace or not.
    3. Creators/publishers can be more specific about what they promise (though sometimes they may want to avoid specifics because of spoilers). Critics can write more reviews which describe the level of ace representation in works (this is one reason why I put the ace content level rating in my reviews – it’s a fast way to communicate just how much ace representation a work has). Consumers can turn into critics and write reviews and … much as I don’t like to say it, consumers can also lower their expectations. A year ago, I was a lot more enthusiastic about ace fiction by aces than I am now because, in my experience, I’ve experienced more acebaiting from ace creators than non-ace creators. By now, I’ve been burned enough times that I’ve learned to lower my expectations of ace creators, which is sad, but hopefully means I will be disappointed less often. But maybe the problem all along was that my expectations of ace creators was too high, not what the ace creators have done.
    4. One major difference is that I think allo people are a lot less likely to intentionally acebait to pull in ace audiences than non-queer people are to intentionally queerbait to pull in queer audiences. I don’t think allo creators/producers/publishers/etc. think of ace audiences as being big enough to be worth baiting. Ironically (and this ties into question 2) I think one reason ace creators are more likely to acebait than non-ace creators (at least according to my very subjective judgement of what acebaiting is) is that ace creators are more aware that there is an ace audience to appeal to.

  2. Siggy says:

    In response to my own questions…

    1. I basically want fiction that tries to say something about the ace experience, even if it’s a small something. If a character is just incidentally ace–even if it’s a main character–I find that disappointing. But I admit I’m more forgiving of works that I like as a whole, independent of ace content.

    2. I think a lot of acebaiting comes from creators having lower (or different) expectations from their ace fiction than I do. Some of it could come from the fact that expectations increase over time, and it takes a long time to create something. When a creator is ace, I think that could raise or lower their expectations.

    3. I think most creators are on our side, so if they were simply more aware of the problem they would be more careful about it. I’d like list curators and publishers to be more detailed about the degree of representation.

    4. Most acebaiting today comes from marketing and other material that is extrinsic to the work. Queerbaiting, as it is currently discussed, usually comes from the content of the work. It seems to come with an implication of malice on the part of the creators. And it also seems to specifically refer to ship teasing. The way I chose to discuss acebaiting in this post is in some ways representative of how I wish queerbaiting was understood. I wish there was less of an implication of malice, and I wish it referred to queer representation more broadly, instead of just representation of same-sex pairings.

  3. Rachel says:

    1. First, what do we mean by ace-content? That’s something worth discussing. Ace characters whose plot-stuff revolves around being ace? A major or minor character who just so happens to be ace but whose story doesn’t focus on the aceness in of itself? I think that the standards ought to change with these conditions.

    Clariel, my favorite bit of ace rep, only lightly, though explicitly, touches the protagonist’s aro aceness and the rest of the story isn’t relevant to her orientation. To be honest, I prefer stories with ace characters that don’t revolve exclusively around their asexuality: ace people are more than just their orientations. In the end, I don’t really know how to strike a balance between these two opposing ends: having characters whose asexuality is so incidental as to be superfluous, and characters who are just there to ace and have nothing to them besides that.

    2. I’m gonna be cynical here: ace baiting might be used by allo authors to show their SJW-cred (see how enlightened I am to include this uber-osbscure orientation!)… although I highly doubt that’s common, in large part because asexuality isn’t sexy. By contrast: gay subtext and shipping is definitely titillating to straight viewers.

    4. Acebaiting and queerbaiting show a lot in common in that they are meant to entice LGBTQ+/ace audiences and build fandoms in those communities (or more cynically, to show off their wokeness) all the while without actually committing and thus triggering a lot of pearl-clutching from conservative viewers. Basically baiting is wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

    Concerning the differences, a question of my own: am I the only one who has noticed that baiting for aces vs. allos often requires mutually-exclusive interpretations of identical cues?

    • Sara K. says:

      “Concerning the differences, a question of my own: am I the only one who has noticed that baiting for aces vs. allos often requires mutually-exclusive interpretations of identical cues?”

      I’m not sure what you mean – could you clarify, maybe with an example?

      To date, the only story I’ve found where the ace character’s story revolves exclusively around asexuality and nothing else is Ace (yes, that is his name) in the webcomic Kimchi Cuddles. Generally, even minor ace characters have at least some function in the story which is not just about asexuality.

      Though I am not a mind-reader, I suspect that you are right, that there are allo creators who put in ace characters to show off their SJ cred. I don’t think it’s a problem if they write a good ace character, it’s when they write a really shallow or otherwise bad ace rep that it’s a problem (I think Kimchi Cuddles may be an example of this, but once again, I ain’t a mind reader).

    • Siggy says:

      First, what do we mean by ace-content? That’s something worth discussing. Ace characters whose plot-stuff revolves around being ace? A major or minor character who just so happens to be ace but whose story doesn’t focus on the aceness in of itself? I think that the standards ought to change with these conditions.

      In most lists of of ace fiction, we’re just told that it’s ace fiction, with no further explanation. Those are the conditions. You don’t know if it’s a major or minor character, you don’t know if the plot revolves around it or not. Where does that set your expectations? What kind of story would you find minimally satisfactory?

    • Siggy says:

      Reading your comment again, you seem to be thinking of acebaiting in a slightly different way from me. For instance, would you consider Sherlock, Doctor Who, and Sheldon to be examples of acebaiting? Because they’re popularly interpreted by fans to be asexual, but creators refuse to commit any of it to canon?

      I don’t consider Sherlock/Doctor Who/Sheldon to be examples of acebaiting–at least not to me–because from my perspective these characters do not offer the slightest bit of promise, and I do not have any (positive) expectations that they might fail to meet. However, if you find such characters to be promising, and thought they failed to live up to that promise, then it would constitute acebaiting from your perspective.

      • AceAdmiral says:

        On the contrary, I think BBC Sherlock is absolutely an example of acebaiting. Sherlock was identified as a possible asexual character early on at a time when headcanons were all one could expect, probably partially due to the character’s history but also due to a conversation in the unaired pilot. As members of the asexual community began to reach out to the cast and crew, they were clearly surprised and confused, but their initial reaction was to “welcome” ace fans. At least until the airing of the second series, when they decided to give interviews and what-have-you specifically against an asexual interpretation of the character.

        I agree with you that Sherlock was never going to be declared to be asexual on the show (even though they wrote entire scenes that made no sense unless he is???), and in that sense there was no expectation/promise. But in the sense that queerbaiting is the deliberate manipulation of an audience to get them to watch your show conducted out of the sight of “ordinary” viewers, the conduct of the cast and crew definitely was.

        • Siggy says:

          I wasn’t denying that Sherlock and the other examples were acebaiting, but rather commenting on my personal perspective which might have led me to wrongfully omit such examples from the OP. I mostly dislike TV so it’s kind of a blind spot for me.

          • AceAdmiral says:

            The point I was trying to make is that the lens of promise vs. delivery is not the only way to look at the thing. Rachel was getting at it in the original comment, but it seems to me in your comment (and I’m sorry if this wasn’t what you were doing) that you’re positioning the distinction of baiting vs. not as a difference of perspective only along that scale.

            In this particular instance, yes, you could make arguments that Moffat & co. made no promises, or that the character had promise that was betrayed, or that in fact they wrote an asexual character and just didn’t know they did because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what asexuality is and a heteronormative blind spot a mile wide. But what I think makes BBC Sherlock an inarguable example of acebaiting has nothing to do with either promise or delivery and everything to do with cynically seizing on the opportunity to manipulate viewers. This is a situation that is really only going to happen in a serialized medium, granted, but I don’t think I’ve seen you mention that happening in any webcomics(? I don’t read webcomics, so we are really coming at this from opposite directions :P)

            An example of this same dynamic of manipulation-or-not might be Supernatural (which, full disclosure, I do not watch personally). While it has a lot of problems with queerbaiting generally, I don’t perceive a problem regarding aces specifically not because the show does or doesn’t make promises that it does or does not keep, but rather because the cast and crew (especially the guy who plays the asexually interpreted character) are respectful of the asexual fanbase and sensitive to the fact this character is important to them.

            Like, to go back to the House example: yes, there was a gap between the teasers and the actual execution, but from interviews with the writer of the episode, there was also a *respect* gap. As you say, she actually *thought* she was doing a good thing. But because she didn’t have the proper respect for the humans in the real world, even if there hadn’t been the promise/delivery gap, I would still term that as a minor form of acebaiting.

          • Siggy says:

            Yes, perhaps we need multiple lenses to understand acebaiting.

            However, I think you’re mistaken in thinking that Sherlock does not fit into the promise/delivery paradigm (ETA: or maybe that isn’t what you were arguing). If ace fans tuned into Sherlock, that clearly means they had some expectations. You’re right that people didn’t expect outright explicit ace representation, but perhaps they at least expected that the creators would give a nod to it, or at least not be jerks about it. The promise exceeded the delivery.

            But not from my personal perspective. Because again, I mostly don’t like TV. A TV show already exceeds my expectations if I don’t hate it. Also, I’m used to reading fiction with explicit ace representation, so the prospect of watching a TV show where characters could merely be interpreted as ace does not sound the least bit enticing to me. Ergo, I was not personally disappointed. And when I was thinking of examples of acebaiting, the only TV example I came up with was House because I was a fan of that particular show.

            The manipulation lens just doesn’t work for webcomics. I just don’t see any of these artists as being manipulative.

        • Sennkestra says:

          Actually, a minor note on Sherlock – I actually would say there definitely was a “promise” of sorts, at least an indirect word-of-god style one. Benedict Cumberbatch described his character as asexual in at multiple early interviews, and even Moffat even described him as “He’s not interested in [sex]. He’s willfully staying away from that to keep his brain pure—a Victorian belief, that. But everyone wants to believe he’s gay. He’s not gay. He’s not straight.”

          It’s only after people started connecting an asexual sherlock to the asexual community that Moffat and Cumberbatch started backpedaling so hard (and even then they keep contradicting themselves by still saying that he’s asexual, but that it’s just because he’s *too genius*, not like those weird real life asexuals).

          Sherlock is a slightly different example, though, in that they weren’t using ace baiting to try and play to ace or queer or SJW fans – I don’t think they knew the community existed. Instead, they were trying to appeal to straight fans by being like “wow, this man has no sexual interest in anyone, isn’t that soooo totally sociopathic and edgy and unique?” Only to be tripped up by the fact that oops, there’s actually a whole community of asexual people who are not edgy sociopaths.

          • AceAdmiral says:

            Because it was so long ago/nobody seems to know about it, I actually tried to find contemporaneous writings on the subject earlier this evening to make sure I wasn’t going crazy. Reading what was said at the time, I think it’s hard to make the argument that there was ever any promise of asexual representation. Like, this goes into what Siggy says about the subjectivity of the promise–either of the character or by the writer. It’s my opinion that they delivered exactly what they promised: an almost inhuman not-sex-having guy. That’s not asexual representation, and it was never going to be, but it was in series 1 and continued to be as the show went on something that could be interpreted as (and I would argue only makes sense as) an asexual experience.

            But I do remember a period, in between series 1 and 2, that they just sort of went along with what asexual fans were saying and smiled and nodded and put out *just enough* to get aces excited. That’s the thing I’m objecting to and that I think exists outside of the promise/delivery calculation. They had a completely different intent, stumbled upon this group of people they didn’t understand, decided the best course of action was to string them along to keep their options open, and then dumped them once they decided which direction they would go in. It’s only because the circumstances surprised them that they even had the opportunity to make the cynical choice. And then they reinforced their disrespect by, as you say, insisting that “asexual” doesn’t mean what we think it means.

            A lot of the ur-examples of queerbaiting I can think of come from exactly this place: protesting out of one side of their mouth that they didn’t mean for it to be gay and everyone was reading too much into things while at the same time continuing to purposefully write in scenes rife with homoeroticism and wink and nod behind the scenes, all in a climate where an on-screen coming out was 100% never going to happen. I did not subject myself to Series 4 of BBC Sherlock, but Series 2, 3 and the special all had scenes that discussed Sherlock’s sexuality and incorporated themes of love and companionship and sex, and no one could say the showrunners were unaware of the asexual interest in the character at the time. They encouraged asexual viewership at the beginning by implying that an asexual interpretation (while not intended) would be respected, and then went out of their way to be terrible about it later.

            (I’m using a pretty narrow definition of “promise” in line with the OP, is the only reason why I’m trying to draw this distinction. Like, Moffat and Cumberbatch made a promise of sorts that they broke–of respect–but the OP only seems to talk about promises of representation either explicitly from authors/publishers or implicit in the subtext, probably because novels don’t lend themselves to this nonsense and webcomic creators aren’t big jerks.)

      • Rivers says:

        I think this depends on what criteria you establish for what qualifies as acebaiting.

        To a certain extent, “acebaiting” and “queerbaiting” can be rather subjective, if the criteria for them depends on the viewer being sucked in. With that definition, then the whole thing is dependent on the individual viewer.

        On the other hand, this is not the case if the criteria for acebaiting is the intentions of the writer/creator. In this case, acebaiting is anything that has the intention of reeling in ace audiences without any real payout for them, regardless of if it actually does.

        Note: I’m not saying that either of these definitions are “correct” or “better”. It’s just important to distinguish between them in order to have a healthy discussion about acebaiting.

        • Siggy says:

          I’m glad for these comments because they really broke down how acebaiting could be understood in different ways. I don’t want to box in the meaning of “acebaiting” just because I wrote the first article talking about it.

          I do think it needs to be broader than just looking at creator intent. Often we don’t know the creator intent. Even if creators do speak out, not everyone in the audience hears what they said. If audiences are manipulated, it seems odd to say we don’t know whether it’s acebaiting until we can see into the minds of the creators and determine that it was deliberate.

          On the other hand, in cases where we do hear from the creators, it does seem to be relevant to the question of whether it’s acebaiting.

          • Rivers says:

            And that’s where having multiple definitions/criteria/perspectives on acebaiting comes in. There are many different sides to it, and it’s something that’s important to be conscious of when talking about it.

  4. Siggy says:

    Another thought. I think the above thread was getting a bit caught up in the question of whether acebaiting is subjective or objective. I was trying to discuss it in subjective terms, talking about whether something is or is not acebaiting from my perspective, independent of whether it may be acebaiting from anyone else’s perspective. AceAdmiral countered that Sherlock was “absolutely” acebaiting. Which at first felt a little like denying what I had explicitly labeled as my own personal feelings on the thing? The fact is that I neither felt disappointed nor manipulated by Sherlock–at least not for that reason–and you can’t tell me that I felt otherwise.

    But I suppose it is also useful to think of acebaiting in objective terms, in order to criticize creators’ bad practices. “Sherlock is acebaiting” is a much more powerful statement than “Sherlock is acebaiting from many people’s perspectives”.

    • Rivers says:

      I think that people just got a little too tripped up in the fact that there is both an objective and subjective way to look at acebaiting (it looks different depending on the criteria). Both are useful in picking the whole subject apart. And you honestly can’t really critique one by saying it’s not like the other one because it’s not suppose to be.

  5. Rachel says:

    *Looks at the mountain of replies above*


    *Just decides to type a new comment to respond*

    1. To answer Siggy, I tend to assume a main, or at least central, character when talking about ace content. I prefer ace-content that explicitly addresses asexuality, rather than just hints at it, but otherwise focuses on other things. Tbh, I often find stories primarily dedicated to a character’s inner workings to be dull, so ace stories that focus on exploring the depths of their asexuality specifically sound unappealing to me. Again, Clariel struck a good balance for me: her asexuality wasn’t the crux of the plot, but still treated as relevant.
    I can’t help but feel that the bar is set low for what we call ace content. Oh, look, this book/movie/tv show has *one* supporting character that’s ace, whose asexuality is only barely explored! Huzzah, we have rep!

    4. To Sara K., I mean that I’ve noticed a certain amount of incompatibility when it comes to ace vs. allo representation. See Ace Admiral’s post here to see what I’m trying to get at:

    What I was getting at more broadly, is that ace-friendly media pretty much requires characters be interpreted in ways that are incompatible with allo relationships and standards. See Sherlock: a great example of a non-sexual, non-romantic QPR in media, or is it just all the gay and the creators just refuse to commit? Should Jughead be interpreted as aro ace (ignoring the modern comics canon for now) due to his pronounced lack of interest in women, or closeted gay for the exact same reasons? You can’t champion these as both without decidedly talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    And speaking of Jughead, wasn’t the community in a uproar not too long ago that Jughead is being straight-washed in the tv show because he’s been engaging in allo-coded behaviors? Because allo-coded behaviors like hissing/hugging/dating/having sex are never things that aces do or anything.

    …Okay, that got away from me there. I’m kind of salty about the hypocrisy on display that aces are allowed to engage in physical intimacies identical to allo peers IRL and still be *really ace* …until a prospective ace character does the exact same thing, and then its *erasure.* And that illustrates my core point from earlier: gestures of physical intimacy are either indicative of sexual/romantic desire or they aren’t. For any given situation, interpreting physical intimacies as asexual, and therefore not containing or being motivated by sexual attraction/desire, is mutually exclusive with interpreting these exact same intimacies as being grounded in sexual attraction/desire (be it gay, bi, straight, etc.).

    • Sara K. says:

      Now I think I know what you’re talking about. Yes, I’m only comfortable with labelling fiction as ‘ace’ if the ace cannot be (reasonably) interpreted as allo. I do think there is value in having some works with ambiguity wrt whether a character is ace or allo, but at this point, it seems to be much harder to find *unambiguous* ace representation, so the later is what I crave, plus I don’t like having an ambiguous representation later be taken away.

      Ambiguous representation definitely sometimes is ‘ace or closeted gay’ but it can take other forms too. For example, last night I saw Measure for Measure, and it struck me that Isabella is one of the very few (if not the only) Shakespeare heroines who never falls in love and gets to the end of the play neither married nor dead. Could be aro/ace, but maybe she is ‘just’ a really religious allo.

    • Tabitha says:

      (Jughead is canonically aro and touch-averse in the comics–the words haven’t been used, but he’s always been portrayed as fitting into those categories–as well as ace, so that’s why the community is upset. While he could still be ace, his touch-aversion and aromanticism have definitely been erased. And there’s no indication that they’re actually going to make him ace either.)

Leave a Reply

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

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

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