Lesbian Romance — Becoming Visible with a Little Help from our (M/M) Friends by Radclyffe

Lesbian romance novels are not a recent invention, although they are often grouped into the “lesser known” or “emerging” genre category. Lesbian fiction has been around since the 1920s, but novels recognizable by today’s standard as romance novels (love stories between two women with a happy, optimistic ending) appeared on the scene a little over 50 years ago. I’m not counting the lesbian pulps of the 1950s and 1960s, which were without a doubt groundbreaking and for readers of the time, revolutionary and, in their own ways, affirming. Almost anything that represented lesbians in the popular media at that time was affirming, even if those stories did not have happy endings. At least they suggested to thousands upon thousands of isolated women that they were not alone in their affections, their dreams, or their desires.

In the early 1970s the first popular romance novels depicting love between women began to appear from lesbian presses in ever increasing numbers, but even today I receive emails from academics studying the emergence of LGBTQ fiction, and notably queer romances, who seem to think the entire phenomenon started with M/M romance. That misconception is understandable. I remember my excitement and perhaps a little skepticism when I saw the first panel focused on “alternate romance” offered at the RWA nine or ten years ago. I wondered to myself, “Who’s going to go to this?” To my delight, the room was packed, the audience excited, and the tone upbeat and optimistic. What confused me at the time was why no one on the panel was discussing lesbian romance. I didn’t have to wonder very long to figure out why that was–visibility in the media is often directly related to the size and influence of the audience. While hundreds upon hundreds of lesbian romance novels have been published over the last 50 years, the readership is primarily lesbian (although everyone knows it’s very difficult to determine the demographics of an audience because we can’t know who is buying our books). When one has an invisible market (some would say a “niche” market), one’s product tends to remain invisible as well. So what has changed in the last decade?

In some cases, lesbian publishers have gone mainstream in terms of marketing and publishing models, and that has helped expand the reach and availability of lesbian romances to readers, but despite these efforts, we still weren’t seeing much exposure in the popular media until very recently. The audience for LGBTQ romance is as diverse as every other romance audience–some readers like paranormal, some like historical, some fantasy romance and on and on. The same is true for LGBTQ romance readers–those who read M/M romance almost never read F/F romance, and vice versa. And the audience for m/m romance is unarguably larger and more mainstream.

The explosion in popularity of M/M romance in the last few years has suddenly catapulted LGBTQ romance into the mainstream with reviews in magazines like Romantic Times Book Reviews and Publishers Weekly, entire conventions focused on LGBTQ romance that draw hundreds of readers, and more panels at the RWA on the subject. Now we see lesbian romance, which in terms of its historical presence has been around a lot longer, gaining visibility and inclusion in mainstream fora, often because our friends who are publishing, editing, and writing M/M romance make an effort to reach out and be inclusive. While we who write LGBTQ romance may have different audiences, we have a common theme, and what unites us is far more significant than what separates us. As in all things human, that is often the case and something we might all try to remember in more ways than just what we write. I am delighted to be part of queer romance month, to be a queer romance writer, and a fan of all LGBTQ romances.

About Radclyffe

Radclyffe has written over forty-five romance and romantic intrigue novels, dozens of short stories, and, writing as L.L. Raand, has authored a paranormal romance series, The Midnight Hunters. She is an eight-time Lambda Literary Award finalist in romance, mystery and erotica–winning in both romance (Distant Shores, Silent Thunder) and erotica (Erotic Interludes 2: Stolen Moments edited with Stacia Seaman and In Deep Waters 2: Cruising the Strip written with Karin Kallmaker). A member of the Saints and Sinners Literary Hall of Fame, she is a RWA/FF&P Prism, Lories, Bean Pot, Aspen Gold, and Laurel Wreath winner. In 2014 she was awarded the Dr. James Duggins Outstanding Mid-career Novelist award by the Lambda Literary Foundation.

She is also the president of Bold Strokes Books, one of the world’s largest independent LGBTQ publishing companies.

Her most recent work is Taking Fire, a First Responders Novel.

 About Taking Fire: A Fire Responders Novel

Taking Fire 300 DPI

After two years and too many lost troops, Navy medic Max de Milles is ready to go home. Her last tour is up in four days and she will soon be catching a transport to the States. Life is looking good until she gets detailed to evacuate a humanitarian group in south Somalia.

Rachel Winslow and her Red Cross team are caught in the crossfire during a vicious civil uprising, but she refuses to abandon her team members as the rebels close in on their camp. By the time Max and the Black Hawk arrive, it may already be too late.

Hunted by extremists, Max and Rachel are forced to work together if they are to survive, and in the process, discover something far more lasting.

Grab a copy on Amazon USOr on Amazon UK

44 CommentsLeave a comment

  • what a great post! as someone who writes both m/m and f/f it always feels a little weird to me to participate in things that are m/m only. Especially if they are described as ‘queer’ and then only include m/m. I very much hope that one of the outcomes of m/m romance’s more mainstream success is that more readers become interested in f/f and other kinds of queer romance.

  • Thank you, Rad, for this wonderful post.

    The visibility of m/m compared to f/f is definitely something that I hope will change, and is changing as queer/LGBTQ (whatever you want to call it) romance becomes more accepted by the genre mainstream.

    While certain types of m/m and its roots in / connection to fanfic can – in some ways – be problematic in terms of appropriation and fetishisation and the all usual political stuff … something I think it has been instrumental and important in accomplishing is breaking down the assumption that queer is only for queers.

    Obviously there’s always been a queer-focused corner of the litfic market but I think – with a few notable exceptions (Waters, Hollinghurst, off the top of my head) – it’s very much produced and marketed in a “by queers for queers” kind of way. And the rest of the world only really looks that way when they wish to Demonstrate Not Being Homophobic. But what the romance market, and m/m specifically seems to have done, is create a much broader market for books about (if not always for) queers… at least if they’re dudes.

    And that’s, of course, a good thing. Except for the only dudes bit. The thing is, perhaps wrongly, I get a sense that while the presumed audience of m/m is women with some queer men thrown in, the presumed audience for f/f is still largely queer women.

    I wonder if that’s where the connection to heterosexual romance becomes less helpful than it could be. Obviously reader identification is very complex and there’s nothing to stop readers identifying directly with the hero in romances, but just in terms of writer attention given … I find it’s often quite difficult to deeply identify with heroes in a lot romances because they’re fulfilling a particular role that is less about engaging that direct connection. And I think you can make a genre-leap from that quite easily to reading about two men, since you’re already genre-trained to know how to respond to a Hero, even if he’s also a Protagonist. But I can see it being harder to bridge the gap from het to f/f if you’re not already inclined – either by nature or reading habits – to view female characters in the same way that het romance trains us to view male ones.

    • I wanted to comment specifically on the last paragraph (great post by the way ) because I ma very interested in the topic of the lesbian hero and how we write and read her. Remember that most queers grow up reading het fiction because that’s mostly what’s out there — although not so much today :). And we become very adept at mentally conferring gender changes on the character of our choice. So Edward Rochester isn’t always a dude in every reader’s mind. It is widely presumed that female readers of the het persuasion relate to the heroine in a romance, but I don’t know that that is categorically true (that’s a study for another day). What I “do” know is that some lesbian readers relate to the lesbian hero and some to the lesbian heroine in a f/f romance (these are gender non-specific roles if one studies story structure as a non-gendered construct). And I “think” that some female readers who are non-lesbian/bi who read my books probably do the reverse gender re-assignment either consciously or unconsciously and view the lesbian hero as male. Reading, like sexuality, is a fluid and complex process and isn’t that amazing?

      • I love this way of thinking about it. The reader identifies with some aspects of the hero, some aspects of the heroine, etc. and those aspects aren’t defined by gender.

        I have lots of thoughts about the social conditioning of women against our own sexual agency, and how that affects readership crossover, but I’m finding it hard to put into words. I think there is a correlation to the way women are raised to see sex as dangerous and immoral and our attitudes toward women who enjoy sex in books. I think there is a correlation to the way women are raised to see each other as competition for the role of token female (“not-like-other-girls syndrome”) and the way we see characters other than the protagonist in books. I think you throw those things together with two women having sex with each other, and we have a lot of cultural baggage to sort out, and many readers don’t want to examine that very closely, because that means questioning some frankly unflattering attitudes we’ve been internalizing for a long time.

        All that said, I think it’s changing, I think our attitudes towards sex are very slowly creeping out of the dark ages, and hopefully we’ll see more romance readers embracing lesbian stories and discovering how wonderful they are.

        • One of the great things about romance fiction in general is it allows us as readers and writers to explore/discover/consider/experience emotion and desire and sexual expression within the context of an interesting, exciting and compelling plot. We all bring cultural and social preconceptions to every experience, in life and in fiction, and sometimes we don’t realize we have incorporated messages that have held us back. I was once asked if the sex in lesbian romances was “prescriptive” — i.e., defining what sex between women should be. My answer was I think, from the many messages I’ve received, the sexual intimacy in lesbian fiction is more often “permissive” – allowing the reader in many cases to feel validated and affirmed regarding their physical and emotional desires. Not every f/f romance has graphic sex, but the intimation is there, as in all romances, that the developing emotional connection has a physical component.

  • This is a wonderful post to get QRM started. It seems so wrong that already marginalised for being women, lesbian writers and readers are seemingly marginalised yet again. I hope we will see further change and soon, it would be too sad that in a genre promoting diversity and support for the invisible or outsider’, we end up mimicking the heteronormative patriarchal society we aim to improve upon.

  • In my experience as a reader, I wanted to read lesbian romance, but didn’t know where to find it or if it was even a genre. It wasn’t until Jezebel reposted a list of books from Autostraddle, and from there I was able to find more by publisher and “if you like this…” lists on Goodreads. It’s hard to know where to look without any other friends reading in the genre, and without mainstream romance blogs giving equal coverage compared to het and m/m romance (although it’s getting a little better). Even now I know I can usually trust Bold Strokes Books and a handful of other authors, but beyond that have to rely primarily on a few other trusted Goodreads reviewers.

  • Very good post. I have to admit to being more drawn to m/m than lesbian or f/f romance, but that really doesn’t make a lot of sense as my first major foray into queer romance was “The L Word” & it was totally my favorite show for the last 2 years it was on! Whereas when I tried “Queer as Folk” it didn’t have the same appeal &I totally think it was difference in degree of “romance” factor between the two, at least, as I saw it at the time.

    I think with lesbian romance books, there’s kind of a self-perpetuating lack of visibility: If you haven’t read much of it, then you don’t see those ads on Amazon, etc., suggesting more of those kinds of books you might like. It seems like the trick is to find an author or two you really like, then you will start getting suggestions, hopefully, for more of the kind or genre of lesbian romance that will most appeal to you.

    I hope QRM will really help to push lesbian romance more into the limelight; I know that, personally, just in helping to prepare for QRM I’ve already run across a couple of titles I’m excited to try 😉

  • Wonderful post! I love seeing the recognition and inclusivity making its way to all human experience. I read lesbian fiction (with romantic elements but not romance) well before I read m/m romance, so for me m/m still feels very new. I admit I tend to be a glutton reader. I will keep reading in a particular genre or sub genre until I climb out of the hole I’ve fallen in to. I have been on an m/m binge for quite a bit, but as you said, the m/m community has been touting reading outside of that one box, and that’s honestly helping me dig my way out. (Too bad that does nothing for my TBR pile I amassed while stuck down there!) I feel I’m getting much better now with my balance since I want to have a broader reading experience. There’s so many interesting stories out there, and while I’ve resigned myself to missing out on most of them, I’d still love to enjoy a great sample.

  • Thank you for posting this article Radclyff. I have experienced first hand how difficult it is to get a lesbian romance into mainstream literature or really any visibility at all. Though I have had several reviews by readers and on blogs, my book is basically invisible. I didn’t know queer romance month existed but am very happy to have come across this article. I, too, am proud to be a queer romance writer and a fan of all LGBTQ romances.

  • So sorry everyone for being late to the great party! I had an overflowing well on the farm yesterday and spent all day running in and out with hoses and no running water that is essential for so many things (like coffee and um – toilets). One of the great things about QRM is we can see the diversity and depth of the lgbtq spectrum of fiction, and visibility is so important. If we don’t know about books we can’t ask for them in libraries, order them from bookstores, or read and enjoy them. Like never meeting people whose lives and cultures are different than our own, we miss out in the end on new experiences. I’ve done quite a lot of “mixed” events lately with authors writing all kinds of queer romances and other lgbtq fiction and the energy has been great, the audience engaged, and best of all – willing and eager to try new reads. I am so happy to have been able to contribute to this QRM gathering. THANK YOU so much for commenting and most of all – supporting all lgbtq fiction. Happy reading – Rad

  • It is great to see Lesbian romance novels becoming more visible. As a reader, and a possible hopeful writer, it would be good to see progress in helping readers find the works they are interested in. I think its very true to say that M/M romance readers are not likely to read F/F romances, and the other way around (at this point in time). But still many retailers do not separate out these categories. It me its equivalent to putting fantasy fiction in the same group as historical fiction. It makes it hard for people to find the books they wish to read. I think without an identity being established, it will be hard for a dedicated focus that creates momentum. If this existed to me it would seem more likely for the genre to be used in derivative work. This would allowing marketing to have an obvious target and democratic. I see this as a natural stepping stone towards the eventual acceptance of F/F or M/M romance as part of general romance literature. It would be important to create the identity get the acceptance, then merge the identity into the mainstream for this to happen. I would hope this would lead to the point where a film director would not be debating adapting a novel based on the type of romance withing it. But instead would be focusing strength of the characters, plot, and narrative. This to happen there has to be a focus and visibility.

    • This question of how to “categorize” lgbtq fiction comes up a lot — shouldn’t a romance just be a romance regardless of the gender combinations of the main characters? Well, yes and no :). We have “genre” categories for better or for worse so readers can find the types of books they want out of the hundreds of thousands published every year (and a very large portion of those are romances). So if placing my romances on the “lgbtq shelf” helps readers who want lgbtq romances then I’m okay with that. I also make sure my book blurbs identify the f/f pairings. So I agree, the first step is being recognized–in more ways than one :). Rad

  • QRM? Queer – what a horrible word! Seriously can’t you think of something better? Degrading to say the least.

    • I’m sorry you find the word queer degrading. Do you mind if I ask what troubles you about it? Obviously it has roots in a hate term, but obviously while one can never really claim consensus for anything as fluid as language, I think it’s fair to say that queer is a broadly accepted term of identity for many non-straight humans (including, coincidentally, one of the QRM organisers who didn’t feel particularly degraded last time he checked :) ). Hence: LGBTQ.

      We actually thought very carefully about the best word to choose for Queer Romance Month.

      M/m Romance Month was obviously out as we wanted to include the entire rainbow, not just gay men. Gay Romance Month, for similar reasons. Even though ‘gay’ can nominally include gay women as well as gay men it implies gay men, and moreover excludes a whole range of other sexual-identities – most notably bisexual, but also pansexual, omnisexual, and asexual.

      And while we could have gone with an acronym, there are so many to choose from, it was next to impossible to find one that neither includes some groups that may not want to included while also excluding some groups we definitely wanted to include, like bisexual,and asexuals, and queer identified trans* people. Also QUILTBAG Romance Month is a bit of a mouthful don’t you think 😉

      Part of the reason I like ‘queer’ over the alternatives is that it’s very much an opt-in identity – and it *is* an identity, rather than a behaviour. I don’t necessarily think we have to be defined solely by who we want to bonk, if we want bonk, and in what fashion we want to bonk. That – to my mind – is rather reductive.

      And finally – gosh, I did warn you we thought about this a lot – I think – as KJ Charles remarked somewhere else on this site – the thing about Queer Romance is the emphasis is very much on both elements: I think *anyone* can support queer romance, regardless of their own orientation or identity, so I feel it keeps the door open for allies and friends.

      All the same, language is a tricksy beast. In good faith we thought queer was the most inclusive option. For having made you feel excluded and degraded by that, then we’re very sorry.

      • Thank you for that! But to me the word queer means WEIRD and never female! I do not consider myself weird and I don’t think that m/m and f/f relationships are even remotely the same and for that reason I feel offended.

        • That’s interesting. I mean, yes, queer derives its power an insult from the idea that there is something, as you say, weird about non-straight people and non-straight relationships. To me that is also the source of power in its reclamation as a term of identity and celebration.

          This might be about the UK versus the US but I know about as many women who define their identity as “queer” as I know men. But that’s obviously a biased sample and not meant to be a universal declaration.

          I think all relationships are different to each other, regardless of gender-identity of participants. But, honestly, I do believe love is love and, in this, I would hope that we can all find something unity with each other. And something worth celebrating. However, if you feel that m/m and f/f and m/f are unbridgeably different – which is a perfectly acceptable position, though no my own – I think perhaps the whole ethos of Queer Romance Month might trouble you, along with the name :)

  • Thank you. You have just proved my point! You are QUEER and act Queer and that is why I prefer not to be associated as the same

    • You are free not to identify as queer or use queer to refer to LGBT issues and people, but please DON’T use it as an insult like you are clearly doing here. Please respect this space and the people who have put so much time and effort into making it a success. Some of us feel a strong and important connection to the word and the community it represents and it’s inappropriate and unkind to try and twist that around on us just because you don’t agree with how we define ourselves.

    • It begs the question of why you’re on a website called Queer Romance Month in the first place, if the classification is so distasteful to you?

  • What I am trying to say is: if I walked into a library and was looking for a book on history it would be in the HISTORY section. If I want to read a LESBIAN romance I want to look in the LESBIAN section! Queer is non descript and vague……..and is just weird

    • Yes, that’s true but we’re talking about chosen identities here, not library classifications. There’s a difference between “people who choose to call themselve queer are degraded” and “people who choose to call themselves queer are making it inconvienent for me to find books in libraries.” And, honestly, I’m not sure either adds up a reasonable argument against queer as a generic catch-all for QUILTBAG folks.

      On the other hand, I do see your point that genre classifications are a complicated matter, and that not being able to find the books you want to read can be very frustrating.

      Rad made the point above that the advantage of a ‘generic’ shelf of LGBTQ books is that it grants reader access and might encourage people to read more broadly in the genre. Which is an argument in favour of marketability and outreach, not necessarily one of personal usefulness :)

      • I have no inclination whatsoever to “read more broadly into the genre” which is why they don’t put “Cheerios” with “corn Flakes” into the same box and try to sell them as Cereals…

        • And that’s entirely your choice :)

          But, you know, some people buy those 7-packs of cereals with lots of little boxes 😉

          And some some writers could possibly find it advantangeous to be found and read by people outside the relatively narrow sub-section of humans already looking for their books.

          Generally selling books to people who already know who you isn’t the problem, it’s reaching that wider market.

          And arguably there are advantages of LGBTQ reaching that wider market.

          But I agree this is scant consolation for you.

        • we do have a cereal aisle in the grocery store, where both cheerios and cornflakes can be found in their individual boxes so that lovers of many cereals can see all the choices available to them

          signed, yes a queer woman

  • I enjoyed this post and feel you made some good and valid points. Having been in the romance world for a while, first reading m/f, then m/m, and now almost exclusively f/f, the explosion in popularity of m/m has given more exposure to f/f, which has been good.

    I would comment on the labeling in helping find and giving exposure to f/f though. When I first started reading it, I had an extremely hard time finding it. If I went to a pub’s site, they would have classifications: historical, mystery, scifi etc. and you had to look through that to find a GLBTQ book. Then they started adding the GLBTQ section with the explosion of m/m. But when I went looking in the “glbt” section, I would have to wade through pages and pages of m/m to find that usually only one or two f/f. It was very frustrating.

    I had to put in a lot of effort to find it, which I don’t think the average queer or non queer reader who might read, enjoy, and want more of, would be as passionate about in doing so. So making it easier to find is important.

    Even sites like Amazon were awful in that if used the search term lesbian, mostly what came up was erotica or porn books for men, which… no, I wanted romance.

    One good thing that came of that for me was the discovery of Bold Strokes Books and other publishers that pubbed a lot of lesbian books, which expanded my options and opened my world even more.

    Things have come a long way and I have noticed separation in the glbt sections, making it easier for those of us who do like f/f to find it. I know I often complained to pubs that I would buy their f/f if they made it easier to find. And Amazon and sites like All Romance Ebooks are way better with their search engines in that if I type lesbian romance, I get a crap ton of books that I want to read. But I still feel it can be better.

    I think there is a readership for it even though it’s common to hear and read there is not, but making it visible is a big part of that.

    • I love Bold Strokes Books because I have so many followers on tumblr who message me or make posts saying WHERE’S THE LESBIAN GENRE FICTION and I can always (gleefully) point them to Bold Strokes Books and it makes me so happy to know I’m sending them to a publisher with a vast and varied selection of stories with at least a few that are sure to please. I’m hoping to see other LGBT publishers also building their selection of “not M/M” so I can give these people even more options. Nothing makes me happier than connecting readers with stories they haven’t yet been able to find.

        • We really appreciate your comments and your engagement with Queer Romance Month. We also understand that you find of the word ‘queer’ personally offensive – and we’re sorry for having made you felt excluded or degraded by its use.

          But as several people have very politely pointed out to you they like the word, identify with the word, and feel empowered by it.

          There are several words available for describing QUILTBAG folk in general, and several for romantic fiction where the two protagonists are women. All of which have their advantages and disadvantages. “Lesbian romance” for example is obviously great for women who identify as lesbian. Not so great for women who identify as bisexual, but still want to read books about women falling in love with women or *shockingly enough* sexuality-fluid women falling in love with women.

          The point is, language is a charged and emotive business, especially when you’re dealing with marginalised groups, because marginalised groups are diverse, and obviously will encompass people who are marginalised among different axes.

          I’ve already outlined the reasons for why we chose Queer: we knew some people wouldn’t like it, but we felt it included the broadest sweep of non-straight humans. If you want to discuss alternative titles with us for next year, there’s a contact form on the “Get Involved” page and we’d be really happy to listen to your ideas.

          But I feel it’s got the point where your personal objections to a single word are essentially derailing the discussion, as well as – to some degree – personally insulting several members of the community to which you belong, and presumably are here to support. While I definitely don’t think all queer people have to agree on everything, and I think any topic is fair game for discussion I also think that when that discussion starts actively denigrating the choices and identities of other marginalised people it has outlived its usefulness.

          And, moreover, Rad has written this very wonderful article, all about increasingly the visibility of f/f fiction both in m/m, in GLBTQ and the mainstream. So I feel the most fruitful and respectful thing we could do at that stage is actually, y’know, talk about that.

          But I said above, if you’d like to continue talking about our choice to use the word queer, you’re more than welcome to get in touch with us.

        • I was using the term “lesbian” because that was the term used in the comment I was replying to, and the topic of discussion at hand: “lesbian romance”

          but if we’re being pedantic, I do get requests on tumblr from readers for “stories about queer ladies” too as in “M/M is great n’all but WHERE ARE THE QUEER LADIES”

          often from women who either don’t identify as lesbians themselves, or are happy to read f/f of many orientations and not just about lesbians and thus they want to be inclusive in their language.

          I can defend the usage of the word “queer” as an umbrella term without needing to fill some quota of using it in every comment I make, just btw

      • Thanks for spreading the word :). Lots of industry studies have shown that one of the two most common ways readers hear about new titles is “word of mouth.” While we have a free monthly newsletter at Bold Strokes with blurbs on all the new titles and sample chapters, and blogs, fb, twitter and the other important social media tools, nothing beats a personal recommendation. I’m glad you’re finding the books!

        • With pleasure! I’m stoked to be able to connect these young women with the fiction they’re searching for. Nothing makes me happier tbh, because I would have killed to have these books as a teen and it feels great to contribute to making things better for other people than they were for me.

    • I am really happy you kept looking for titles and am glad you’re finding it easier to discover them. We’re all working very hard to reach more readers in every way we can. I will tell you unequivocally, there is a vibrant and dedicated readership for f/f fiction of all genres and lots of new titles coming out every month.

  • Radcylffe, what a powerful post. And what simultaneously academic and engaging writing. I’ve actually thought quite a bit about this topic, but have shamelessly not given the effort to be informed outside of some male privileged guilt. I’ll shall remedy that. Soooo adding your books to my TBR list. And, another bonus? You’ve gotten a debate going on your thread. Always a sign of powerful writing. You’re not really a writer or changing the world unless you make it possible for people to choose to be offended. Good work!

    • LOL. Thanks and I’m delighted you’ve added me to your TBR list. I hope you enjoy. As to the debate, words are power and how we choose to use them and interpret them and relate to them often changes over time as a community grows in visibility, cohesiveness, and empowerment, socially and culturally. Queer is one of those words and others have discussed it eloquently and enough :). I write queer, specifically lesbian, romances because I want to tell the stories that reflect the hopes and dreams and lives of women like me. I hope, like all good stories, those stories can be read and enjoyed by those who are “not” just like me, that somewhere in those stories readers will recognize the emotions and desires and dreams that are simply “human.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: