Navigate / search

Why is the phrase “a symbol of” (1 Cor 11:10) not in the Greek?

Head Covering Questions
Why is the phrase “a symbol of” (1 Cor 11:10) not in the Greek but it’s in my English Bible?

Before we tackle this question let’s take a look at 1 Cor 11:10. It reads:

Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

In many Bibles you will find the phrase “a symbol of” appears in italics whereas the rest of the sentence does not. The reason it appears this way is to let you know that the words in italics have been added by the translators to improve clarity. It’s not that they’re adding words to Scripture, but rather they’re making sure what the author meant doesn’t get lost in translation. This is a necessary process when going from one language to another that should not cause concern.

Here’s how the NASB translation explains the use of italics:

ITALICS are used in the text to indicate words which are not found in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek but implied by it.

And the NKJV puts it this way:

Words or phrases in italics indicate expressions in the original language which require clarification by additional English words, as also done throughout the history of the King James Bible.

So let’s strip away the additional words for a second and take a look at how it would read without them:

Therefore the woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels. (1 Cor 11:10)

The woman is told she has to have “authority” (or power 1) The KJV uses the word power. ) on her physical head. It sounds a little confusing doesn’t it? The reason it makes you scratch your head is because authority is immaterial and immaterial things can’t be put on a persons head. So how do the translators know it’s a symbol? First we know this isn’t a new thought since he uses the word “therefore”. “Therefore” connects this sentence to what was previously stated. So that means we can look at the context and see what he meant by a woman having authority/power on her head. When we do this we see that he’s been talking about an artificial covering that is to be worn (or not worn for men) when engaged in certain worship acts (1 Cor 11:4-7). We also see that if this practice is transgressed it’s “dishonorable”. That tells us that there’s meaning behind a covered head since having/not having something on one’s head isn’t dishonorable in-and-of itself. Only if a covering represented something would that charge make sense. So the covered head has meaning in this context, but what meaning? Well, Paul goes on to explain how a man cannot have his head covered because he’s the glory of God (1 Cor 11:7), was created first (1 Cor 11:8) and is to lead (1 Cor 11:9). He’s describing the creation order and authority structure as it relates to men and women having a covered head. It is then that he says, because of all this (“therefore”) women must have authority on their heads. Since “authority” can’t go on your head, the covered head must represent that authority. So the covering is a symbol and that’s why translators use those words to help clarify what it is that Paul meant when he says “authority” must be on her head.


 The KJV uses the word power.

Jeremy Gardiner

Jeremy is the founder of the Head Covering Movement and the author of Head Covering: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times. He lives in Alberta, Canada with his wife and five children. In 2010, he founded (and continues to run) Gospel eBooks, a popular website that provides alerts for free and discounted Christian e-books. Jeremy also holds a Biblical studies degree from Moody Bible Institute.
Jeremy Gardiner

Latest posts by Jeremy Gardiner (see all)


therocknb100 .

I believe that the part in 1st Corinthians 11 9&10 that speaks about the Angels refers to the angels were present in public worship and that they are aware of Lucifer’s falling because he did not a sortie over him Darius order and head chef and when that is not recognized rebellion is the result and we all know what happened to Lucifer when he rebelled and took the covering of of his head so to speak

Rachel Ramey

This entire argument relies on the logical fallacy known as “begging the question” — that is, the necessity of assuming the writer’s conclusion to be true in order to arrive at the conclusion that his conclusion is true.

“The woman is told she has to have “authority” (or power 1)

) on her physical head.”

On what basis do you determine that this verse refers to the physical head? It’s the same word used earlier in the passage in a clearly less-than-literal way. It is assumed to be the physical head because the thing being placed on it is assumed to be a physical object. If we don’t begin with that assumption about the authority, we don’t have to make the same assumption about the head, either.

Jamie Carter

I think it is a modern weakness to think of a connection that ‘head = authority over’ look at all the definitions of head in a modern context: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/head
I’m not sure we can we really be certain that a two thousand year old Greek word for ‘head’ also meant ‘authority over’ just as we use it today. Also, this blog: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/category/women-and-ministry/
has a series of posts about Lucy Peppiat’s book that spent a lot of them looking at 1 Corinthians 11 especially. A lot of the things they’re talking about this site hasn’t even begun to address. (back and forth communication, quoting and refutation, for example.)
My favorite translation of the verse recognizes it as an idiom and instead of suggesting that the woman must wear a symbol her physical head it says:
“That’s why, the woman must exercise control over her head, out of respect to the angels.” (original: Por eso, la mujer debe ejercer control sobre su cabeza, para respeto a los ángeles. – TLA)

Rachel Ramey

That’s an interesting interpretation!

Do you not think, though, that “head” as used in the early verses of the passage (the husband is the head of the wife, etc.) implies authority?

Jamie Carter

According to ‘Women, Authority, and the Bible’ by Alevera Mickelsen, the heart, not the head, was seen as the center of emotions, the spirit, and central governing place of the body. If Paul is using a head/body metaphor then to imply authority he should have said ‘heart’. A possible metaphorical meaning for ‘head’ is origin or source he could have used it alongside it’s regular meaning of the head on a body.

Jamie Carter

1 Corinthians 11:3 (context 11:2-16); kephale seems to carry the Greek
concept of head as “source, base, or derivation.” “Now I want you to
realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,
and the head of Christ is God” (NIV). In this passage Paul is discussing
how men and women should pray and prophesy in public church meetings. His
instructions apparently relate to the customs, dress, and lifestyle in Corinth
and the tendency of the Corinthian believers to be disorderly. Paul
discusses women’s and men’s head coverings and hair styles. {Veils are not
mentioned in the Greek text.) Paul says, “man was not made from woman, but woman
from man” (v. 8), he also says, “woman was made from man” (v. 12). This
suggests that Paul used “head” in verse 3 with the meaning of “source or
origin.” Man was the “source or beginning” of woman in the sense that woman was
made from the side of Adam. Christ was the one through whom all creation
came (I Cor. 8:6b). God is from God”}

When we recognize one Greek meaning of kephale as a source or origin, as
Paul explains in verses 8 and 12, then verse 3 does not seem to teach a chain of
command. Paul’s word order also shows he was not thinking of chain of
command: Christ, head of man; man, head of woman; God, head of Christ.
Those who make it a chain of command must rearrange Paul’s words. In fact,
Paul seems to go out of his way to show that he was not imputing authority to
males when he said, “For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of
woman. And all things are from God.” (1 Cor 11:12) – from http://godswordtowomen.org/head.htm

Jeremy Gardiner

Wayne Grudem is the go-to guy on this topic as he’s spent so much time researching this word and defending it against egalitarian arguments. For a scholarly treatment you can read:

“Does Kephale (“Head”) Mean “Source” Or “Authority Over” in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples”

He also responded to objections in this paper:
“The meaning of κεφαλή (“head”):
An evaluation of new evidence, real and alleged”

Jamie Carter

But he’s not the only go-to person; men and women have been going back
and forth over the question for decades. here’s the other side of the
We have to remember that Grudem is one side of a back-and-forth conversation on the subject and he’s not infallible – he doesn’t get everything right all the time. If you were to take 2,336 examples of the word head from this year, you’d be hard pressed to prove that it always meant the same thing the exact same way in every single use.


That’s a paper I was unaware of, Jamie. Thanks for linking to that. (I haven’t really pursued the discussion beyond the early 2000’s).

I certainly think there is a case to be made that head includes the meaning source, but my reading of the passage is that this is one of the explanations as to why the man has been placed in authority. However, there is also a re-working of what authority means, especially within the rest of the NT.

I guess one of my problems remains that there is such appeal to “culture of the time” without equal appeal to the whole biblical corpus. I’ve said it before: I agree culture illuminates meaning, but I don’t think it determines meaning.

Jamie Carter

Sometimes it’s easy to forget how multi-cultural the Bible is. The dates for the various New Testament books range from 45 – 100 A.D., but they weren’t canonized into the Bible until around the middle of the 3rd century. Paul was a Jew raised in the Greek-speaking area of Tarsus. He could have used the word ‘archon’ for leader or one who has authority over. In stead he chose ‘kephale’. I find it hard to believe that he meant authority this time even though the meaning of authority for kephale is quite rare in general. It would be like a scholar finding a letter of mine two thousand years from now with the word ‘run’ and deciding that I meant ‘to fill a tub with water’ as opposed to meaning ‘to move swiftly’ because all of the scholars agree that ‘run’ usually means to fill a tub with water and only rarely means to move swiftly. That’s the problem we have with kephale and the association with authority.


However, if your letter said, “I needed to run down the path”, it would be very clear that “run” did not mean “to fill a tub with water”. That’s the clarity we can seek with kephale and the association with authority. 😉

Jamie Carter

That’s true where the context is not ambiguous – but were the context: “she runs well” it’s a little more difficult to tell whether I mean that a person runs well or my car is operating well. With kephale the association with ‘authority’ is not particularly common, sure this could be one of the rare instances where it is authority meant – but the verse makes sense in all the other senses and it could be equally valid to understand it as meaning source or origin, in which case authority is not implied directly by the word kephale or the context in which it is used. We have to remember that is our English rendering that associates head with authority far more frequently than it would have to them back then in their language. We are so used to it that we expect to see it especially give our saying like ‘head honcho’ or ‘head boy’ or ‘head girl’ (British English) ‘heads of state’ etc., and we’re not surprised when our expectations are fulfilled. It’s far more challenging to approach these verses from the original audiences perspective. I’m trying to find which use of kephale was most frequent when Paul used it – but the various lexicons aren’t making that easy. one lexicon does not even list ‘authority’ as a possible sense of the word. One lexicon does. One side uses the former lexicon and the other uses the latter. It makes it difficult to figure out which uses Paul used most particularly in this passage where’s not using just one sense of the word.



Two things, and then I’m done.

1) Kephale refers to authority to read the verse as talking about a physical covering, though the sign on the head will obviously represent authority.

2) You are trying to find out which use of kephale was most frequent when Paul used it…and yet in your previous comment you suggest that scholarly agreement on the most common use of “run” does not necessarily lead to an accurate interpretation.

Once more I have to say the text is supremely important here. You may not agree that 1 Cor 11:2-16 talks about physical head coverings that refer to authority, but it is a possible and quite acceptable reading of the passage. I can see that it is possible to try to read things a different way, but I haven’t seen an admission from you that my reading is possible. That concerns me, and makes me question how worth while these discussions are.

For other reasons (I have a lot of responsibility on my shoulders ;)) I am bowing out of this discussion. All the best.


Correction. No.1 is meant to say “We don’t need to understand kephale as referring to authority to read the verse….”

Jamie Carter

I understand, most people have a hard time keeping up with me. I will tell you that aside from kephale there is a word in these verses that says that the person referred to has authority; it was used by the centurion speaking to Jesus, when he said “for I am a person under authority, when I say come here, a person comes. When I say do this, a person does it.” It’s the word exousia and it always refers to the subject of the sentence, not the object. It’s used in the verse ‘for a woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels’. I just find it odd that the same word being used to describe being under authority shows in one instance a centurion who while being ‘under authority’ actually wields authority and gives out commands. Yet when this woman is ‘under authority’ she has no power to wield authority is and is forbidden from giving out commands.If Paul wanted to say in no uncertain terms that man was ‘the leader of’ the woman, Christ was ‘the leader of’ man, and God was ‘the leader of’ Christ, then archon would have been the word to use – but he used kephale. I’m not sure that the argument that leader or authority is meant in the head verses is a strong one given the word choice.


“I understand, most people have a hard time keeping up with me.”

I don’t know if you kept reading what I wrote on my blog, but I discussed three ways of reading that sentence over there under the post, “Angels Watching Over Me, Part 1”, including “A women should have authority to do what she wants with her head” which contains the use of exousia in the way you discussed just now.

I would suggest ask that you strive represent the other side accurately. To read that woman is under the authority of the man does not mean that woman has no power to wield authority or give out commands, nor does it mean we cannot be nuanced in the way we use the word authority. To be on the receiving end of such misrepresentations means that people might stop bothering to keep up with you :).

Well done. You got me to write another comment :).

Jamie Carter

The question is – what is the belief of the other side? Some churches allow women to teach, some don’t. Some churches allow women to speak from the music stand beside the stage, some churches allow women to preach from behind the pulpit from center stage, some churches do not allow either kind of speaking at all. One complementarian church can use the exact same verses, but apply them in totally different ways.

One blog put it this way – Notice the terms he uses for a husband’s role: “benevolent
responsibility to lead, provide for, and protect women.” And a woman’s
role: “a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength
and leadership from worthy men.” This is the complementarian
non-negotiable: it’s about roles and it’s about hierarchy and it’s about
males being leaders and women being submissive.

– from: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/08/17/that-complementarian-non-negotiable/

Until all complementarians agree on what that looks like, then I cannot represent them correctly as what I get for one group of complementarians will invariably incorrect to another. The best I can do is to stick with generalized examples and hope that it covers larger group.


Or, alternatively, you can:

1) approach the verse apart from what you have experienced/read about and ask yourself, “If this verse did teach that woman is under the authority of man, what would the Bible say that authority looked like?”, or

2) ask the person you are in discussion with what their particular view is rather than applying generalised examples and hope that it covers them.

Ok, I will attempt to leave it there .

Jamie Carter

I’m not so sure that it does teach that. When Jesus spoke on authority, he said it ought to look like the greatest being the least, the first being last, and the one who gives out orders as the one who takes orders. He said that they ought not lord authority over one another. In theory that’s all well and good, but in practice, there are instances where the mis-use of authority leads to domestic violence: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/doctrine-of-headship-a-distortion-of-the-gospel-message-of-mutual-love-and-respect-20150226-13q2xc
The theory might be biblical, but the practice isn’t always – and churches usually help the abusers by continuing to teach the doctrine of authority / submission and they usually hurt victims by not holding abusers accountable for their actions.


“The theory might be biblical, but the practice isn’t always”

I agree completely (though I acknowledge you say you are not sure the theory is biblical).

So the question is, do we throw out the Biblical theory, or challenge the unbiblical practice? I believe the first option would not please God, the second one would.

I admire you for continuing to draw comments out from me. Either that, or I don’t admire myself for getting drawn into commenting :).

Jamie Carter

You deserve a rest – why not answer me in like two days? (I really don’t want to wear you out. I can wait for a response.)

I think that we have to remember that we don’t do everything exactly like it was done way back then. Men don’t usually wear robes in public as they would have, it’s not considered polite to wash each other’s feet as they did, we don’t greet each other with a kiss, so as our practice have changed from theirs, so our application of Scripture cannot be identical to theirs. We should focus on the principle behind the scripture, not carrying out it’s specific action.

We have to hold abusers accountable for their actions, but we have to understand whatever teachings that are used to permit the abuse must be challenged. An abused wife should not be sent back to her husband with the instructions of ‘have more sex’ or ‘don’t do what you did to make him hit you’ or ‘submit more / be more submissive’ (abused wives don’t sit around all day planning on how they can provoke their husbands, they try to figure out how to keep him calm). Elders should be educated about the nature of domestic violence, they should be able to explain it’s causes, it’s signs, and have a plan in place to help abused wives and their children escape the realities of a violent household. The emphasis shouldn’t be on ‘Biblical’ for the sake of ‘Biblical’ but on love. If you love an abused wife, you’ll want to her to be free from fear and her children free from a violent environment. If you love an abusive husband, you’ll want to remove from him that which he abuses so that he won’t feel so upset that he hurts the thing he loves and doesn’t understand why. Then you can begin the process of helping them both come back together, but on her terms – he has to prove that he can maintain a level head and she should not be forced back too soon. Marriages don’t break in a day, and they take more than a day to fix. That said, headship teachings are contributory – if it’s not being taught incorrectly, then something about what is being taught enables abuse – and I suspect even Jesus would be saddened to know it to be the case.


Isn’t diversity in obedience part of the picture of us trying to work out how to honestly obey God? Churches practice baptism and communion differently, but I do not advise them to stop practicing the ordinances simply because they do not do it uniformly.

Jamie Carter

There’s is a difference in diversity and contradiction. With baptism and communion, anyone can do either. There’s historical precedent for women baptizing others and it being counted as valid and there’s no verse in Scripture saying that a woman cannot baptize others or that only men must baptize. And women are frequently volunteers who are involved with communion just as the men are – both giving it and taking it. In the case of complementarian churches there’s no consistency on what women are allowed to do in every single church – some say yes to a short list and others say no to every item on it. Until they’re all on the same page whatever I say misrepresents one group, but totally fits another. It cannot be helped.


Jamie Carter, it seems you would advise Paul to use the much more clear word “archon” for leader rather than the word “kephale” for head if he wants to talk about hierarchal authority here. That got me meditating on the question – why would Paul prefer the word head/kephale, both here and in Ephesians 5?

I think it is because there is something beautiful in the imagery of a head and a body. They are synergistic. They work together. My hand does not rebel against my head. My head does all it can to protect and nurture my body. They are one. What hurts one affects the other. This beautiful equality and unity is how Christ relates to the Father (John 17) while yet submitting himself to the Father. When I consider it this way, there is no fear in submitting to my husband as head. Perfect love casts out fear.

What a glorious reason to use the word kephale!

Jamie Carter

We have to remember that when Paul was writing the household codes, precious few families married because of love which is why the Bible so often instructs men to love their wives and women to respect their husbands. Most marriages were arranged and were little more than a business arrangement between families meant to strengthen the bonds of community and their own positions within it. He begins Ephesians 5 talking about mutual submission in verse 21, then he specifies three types of relationships: husband/wives, parents/children, and masters/slaves. I don’t think that he meant to nullify verse 21, it applies over all relationships – including friendships, and other ones that weren’t specified. A husband was generally the head of the household in an economic sense, he could do business in ways that his wife could not, he was a provider in keeping with the culture in which he lived – a patriarchy. So in that sense, he was the source (kephale) from which all others were nourished; wife, children, and slaves. But that doesn’t mean that it works in a modern contest where our household are often five people, not eighty. There are instances in the Bible where Sapphira submitted to Ananias and she was killed for it, and Abagail did not submit to Nabal’s that David be sent away unaided and she was rewarded for it.

One major problem I have with these teachings is that single people, such as myself are often side-lined. The emphasis on ‘marriage, marriage, marriage!’ hasn’t caught up to the statistical reality that there is not a ratio of 50:50 single men to single women in Christianity and there will never be one, ever. The head covering movement affirms that all women (married or not) must wear head coverings, but only some women (wives) must submit to certain men (their husbands) (and single daughters to their fathers) (and widows to church elders) in order to fulfill these verses. They forget that ultimately the source (kephale) of men and women, single and married, is Jesus who is God. Some of the teachings technically border on the heresy of the Eternal Subordination of the Son which Athanasius fought so hard for when Trinitarian doctrine was formed at the Council of Nicaea.

Amy Unruh

Sapphira died (there its no evidence that anything but her own fear killed her)because she lied. She submitted even though she must have known that lying was going against God, and that is a case example of when it is not right to submit. How is a household to run efficiently if both the man and woman both have authority over each other. When in the woman to rule? When the man? How does this interpretation jive with the idea that God said women’s desire will be for her husband, and that he will rule over her. Lastly, if a physical covering here were not being referred to, why did women cover their heads?

Don Partridge

where do you get that Saphira submitted?? It doesn’t say that in the text. She may have agreed with her husband and wanted to do it. She may have eve been the instigator.
It is so clear, what is meant, God is over Christ, Christ is over the man, man head of household is responsible for the woman. Authority implies protection. It is a covenant. Covenant people, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord. The children and even non-Hebrew ethnic slaves were in the visible covenant people of God by virtue of their head.
That is why we see full household baptism based on the faith of a parent, head. They are in the visible covenant. The promise is to you and your children… it still continues in the new administration of the covenant of grace. headship, order, structure responsibility.


Hi Rachel,

Here’s only a very quick response to the idea that “head” in this verse is “less-than-literal”. I suspect it won’t satisfy you completely, but I thought I’d at least contribute. I was commenting on the interpretation of v10 that says, “A woman should have authority over her man.”

“Obviously the idea that a woman’s head is man is taken from 1 Corinthians 11:3, but
it’s out of place in verse 10. There is nothing in the whole passage that supports this idea. Even if Paul has done an amazing turn around in the middle of his explanation about women covering their heads, nothing before or after this verse makes any use of it. It would be an idea that came from nowhere and goes nowhere. As long as we accept that Paul was careful and capable of writing so his words made sense, this option is not going to work.”

Rachel Ramey

Now I’m a little confused about who thinks I was responding to whom.

I was pointing out that the argument in the original post logically fails. It claims that the thing being referred to as on the woman’s “head” in v. 10 must be a physical object because the head is her physical head (i.e., that thing containing her skull). But there isn’t anything except presupposition to prove that the word “head,” as used in that verse, *must* be her physical head.

The very fact that her husband (as noted earlier, in v. 3) is obviously not her physical head demonstrates that Paul does not use the word homogenously throughout the text, but is intentionally making use of the word’s multiple meanings.

There has been a lot of interesting material added in these comments, that I’m looking forward to checking out further!


I was responding to your first comment and giving a specific argument why we can at least discount the figurative use of “head” in v3 for v10.

Contrary to your opinion, I think the arguments in the original post are pretty strong. Yes, the word “head” can have different meanings, but as in any language, context helps us out. Within the context of 1 Cor 11:2-16, there are two meanings for the word head – a literal one and a figurative one. There would need to be strong reasons for a third to be introduced which the context just does not provide.

I have already given my contextual reasons for rejecting the figurative meaning already used in the passage (added to Jeremy’s in the post). That leaves the literal meaning – the physical head.

(I’m aware terminology like “meaning” “literal” etc is not technically accurate, but I’m using generally understood terms).

Rachel Ramey

Oh, I gotcha!

Those aren’t necessarily the only two options, though. If I say I “have a lot of responsibility on my shoulders,” it would be absurd to say that “responsibility” must be a physical object because it’s obviously talking about my physical shoulders. But that’s extremely parallel to what we see here.

If anything, it would make *more* sense to view it from the opposite direction: since “power” or “authority” is not a physical thing, it must not be talking about literally placing something on the shoulders. I think it’s a little of a stretch to automatically make that assumption, too (‘though less of a stretch). The most hermeneutically-sound way to look at the text is to consider all possibilities and see which one most logically fits with the remainder of the text.


Hi Rachel,

I agree those aren’t the only two options. However, I don’t agree that we should consider all possible meanings for a word and see which one most logically fits with the text. That would be impossible. Instead, we need to read the text and follow its internal logic. If you can think of another meaning that fits, then it’s quite appropriate to try it. But as I said, there needs to be a reason to import a new meaning into a text where other meanings have already been in evidence. I don’t see one in this passage.

As for the phrase, “I have a lot of responsibility on my shoulders”, you are right if the phrase is used in isolation, or in a context where it means what we’d normally understand it to mean. But, if it was written in the context of a discussion about cloaks worn by mayors of cities, and one mayor was simultaneously mayor of a number of cities, it would be quite appropriate to read, “I have a lot of responsibility on my shoulders” as saying, “I have a lot of [signs of] responsibility (i.e. cloaks) on my shoulders”.

Do you see what I’m trying to say? The context can determine a meaning, and in 1 Cor 11:2-16 they are talking about covering heads. Therefore, it is very plausible to read v10 as talking about something physical covering the head. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try other meanings, but the best reading in this context is to read “authority” as referring to a physical covering.

Rachel Ramey

You may certainly conclude that that’s the most probably meaning. I don’t agree, but I’m okay with agreeing to disagree. 🙂

But it is still a logical failure to assume that the “authority” must be a physical thing because the head is a physical thing, without having established any basis for concluding that the head is a physical thing. (Particularly in a passage where we already know the word is being used in more than one sense.)


Rachel, you may certainly disagree. Unfortunately you don’t seem to be picking up what I am saying, i.e. that there is a basis for concluding the head is a physical thing. Nor are you allowing that there is a basis in context for reading authority as “as symbol of” even though I have explained how that can work in my comment immediately before this one. I’m happy for you to show me where I am wrong, but to merely re-assert a logical fallacy doesn’t really further our discussion. I’m not even sure that Jeremy is trying to say, “Because head is physical, authority is physical”. My reading is that he is taking the whole concept of physically covering heads and consistently applying it to this verse.

Sorry, I don’t have time to keep going around on this. Thanks for your responses.

Leave a comment


email* (not published)


Send this to a friend