Academy of Ideas

By academyofideas

The Academy of Ideas has been organising public debates to challenge contemporary knee-jerk orthodoxies since 2000. Subscribe to our channel for recordings of our live conferences, discussions and sal... more

3.9

77 ratings

Download on the App Store

Download on the App Store

Get it on Google Play

FAQs about Academy of Ideas:

How many episodes does Academy of Ideas have?

The podcast currently has 488 episodes available.

Academy of Ideas episodes:

December 12, 2014 #BattleFest2014: Our morals, their moralism?
The charge of ‘moralism’ or ‘moralising’ is
always complicated. Nobody endorses immorality, we all know the
difference between moralism and morality. Or do we? The former implies
an unattractive self-righteousness; the latter is ‘the real thing’. But
without righteousness, does morality have any meaning? The obvious
danger with rejecting moralism is that we abandon any attempt to talk
about right and wrong. Indeed, contemporary culture seems uncomfortable
with the language of morality. Terms like good, bad, right, wrong,
should, should not, duty and obligation are often seen as moralistic
‘tut tutting’ that unfairly stigmatises people.
To some extent, the kinds of moral judgements that are acceptable or
not change with the times, such as attitudes to slavery or eugenics. But
do changing moral norms always reflect more enlightened attitudes, or
just changing prejudices? For example, is the routine denigration of
those who embrace traditional ideas of morality any more than a new form
of ‘moralising’? Earlier this year, UK Supreme Court judge Lord Wilson
of Culworth declared that the nuclear family had been replaced by a
‘blended’ variety, and that Christian teaching on the family has been
‘malign’. Paradoxically, though, something like homosexuality was not
only once considered immoral and now seen as fine; one’s attitude to it
has become a marker of one’s own moral standing: ‘enlightened’ or
‘bigoted’. The intriguing result is that those who still frown on
homosexuality might well protest against the ‘moralism’ of those who
condemn them, while the latter retort that some moral judgements are
beyond debate.
In other cases, moral etiquette changes for seemingly more fickle
reasons. While judgementalism about sexual mores is ostensibly frowned
on, the intense moral reaction that followed recent allegations of
historic sexual offences seemed to go beyond particular crimes to
condemn old-fashioned attitude to sex, and even the past itself. Or take
the sphere of public health, in which medics and politicians cite ‘the
science’ while engaging in what otherwise looks like a moral crusade to
change attitudes to what we eat, drink or smoke, showing a remarkable
willingness to tell others what they can and cannot do, or else. The
zealousness of those policing behaviour in relation to lifestyle choices
points to another apparent contradiction in today’s moral landscape. If
religious moral values are seen as too narrow, we seem less troubled by
formalised norms dictated by rigid codes of conduct, ethics committees,
or ‘you can’t say that’ speech rules, the last of which cast certain
words as morally reprehensible, and dubs those who may utter them as
beyond the pale.
Such discrepancies are hard to explain rationally, perhaps because
they have less to do with individual or collective moral judgements than
with moral ‘fashion’. So is it possible to engage in serious moral
debate that avoids both self-righteous groupthink and relativistic
indifference? Are morals best left to individuals, or is there a place
for ‘intelligent moralising’?

Speakers

Dr Hannah Dawson

historian of ideas, New College of the Humanities; author, Life Lessons from Hobbes

Kenan Malik

writer and broadcaster; author, From Fatwa to Jihad and The Quest for a Moral Compass

Alister McGrath

Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion, University of Oxford

Chair

Dolan Cummings

associate fellow, Institute of Ideas; editor, Debating Humanism; co-founder, Manifesto Club
...more
1h 15min
December 12, 2014 Our morals, their moralism?
The charge of ‘moralism’ or ‘moralising’ is
always complicated. Nobody endorses immorality, we all know the
difference between moralism and morality. Or do we? The former implies
an unattractive self-righteousness; the latter is ‘the real thing’. But
without righteousness, does morality have any meaning? The obvious
danger with rejecting moralism is that we abandon any attempt to talk
about right and wrong. Indeed, contemporary culture seems uncomfortable
with the language of morality. Terms like good, bad, right, wrong,
should, should not, duty and obligation are often seen as moralistic
‘tut tutting’ that unfairly stigmatises people.
To some extent, the kinds of moral judgements that are acceptable or
not change with the times, such as attitudes to slavery or eugenics. But
do changing moral norms always reflect more enlightened attitudes, or
just changing prejudices? For example, is the routine denigration of
those who embrace traditional ideas of morality any more than a new form
of ‘moralising’? Earlier this year, UK Supreme Court judge Lord Wilson
of Culworth declared that the nuclear family had been replaced by a
‘blended’ variety, and that Christian teaching on the family has been
‘malign’. Paradoxically, though, something like homosexuality was not
only once considered immoral and now seen as fine; one’s attitude to it
has become a marker of one’s own moral standing: ‘enlightened’ or
‘bigoted’. The intriguing result is that those who still frown on
homosexuality might well protest against the ‘moralism’ of those who
condemn them, while the latter retort that some moral judgements are
beyond debate.
In other cases, moral etiquette changes for seemingly more fickle
reasons. While judgementalism about sexual mores is ostensibly frowned
on, the intense moral reaction that followed recent allegations of
historic sexual offences seemed to go beyond particular crimes to
condemn old-fashioned attitude to sex, and even the past itself. Or take
the sphere of public health, in which medics and politicians cite ‘the
science’ while engaging in what otherwise looks like a moral crusade to
change attitudes to what we eat, drink or smoke, showing a remarkable
willingness to tell others what they can and cannot do, or else. The
zealousness of those policing behaviour in relation to lifestyle choices
points to another apparent contradiction in today’s moral landscape. If
religious moral values are seen as too narrow, we seem less troubled by
formalised norms dictated by rigid codes of conduct, ethics committees,
or ‘you can’t say that’ speech rules, the last of which cast certain
words as morally reprehensible, and dubs those who may utter them as
beyond the pale.
Such discrepancies are hard to explain rationally, perhaps because
they have less to do with individual or collective moral judgements than
with moral ‘fashion’. So is it possible to engage in serious moral
debate that avoids both self-righteous groupthink and relativistic
indifference? Are morals best left to individuals, or is there a place
for ‘intelligent moralising’?

Speakers

Dr Hannah Dawson

historian of ideas, New College of the Humanities; author, Life Lessons from Hobbes

Kenan Malik

writer and broadcaster; author, From Fatwa to Jihad and The Quest for a Moral Compass

Alister McGrath

Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion, University of Oxford

Chair

Dolan Cummings

associate fellow, Institute of Ideas; editor, Debating Humanism; co-founder, Manifesto Club
...more
1h 15min
December 05, 2014 #BattleFest2014: Kindergarten culture - why does government treat us like children?
In the past, government may have intervened
frequently in the economy, but our private lives were our own to live as
we saw fit. In recent years, however, government has largely given up
on being the ‘hand on the tiller’ of the economy and intervenes
regularly in once-private aspects of life. Smoking is now banned in most
public places, and smoking in cars in the presence of children is about
to be banned. Environmental concerns have led to new efficiency
standards for domestic appliances, and smart meters may regulate our
electricity usage from afar, while we are constantly told to reduce our
consumption of everything and there is serious discussion about how
procreation should be limited to save the planet. Even now, parents are
increasingly lectured to about how they should raise their children and,
in Scotland, the Named Person rules mean a specific government employee
will oversee each child’s upbringing.

Even non-governmental organisations, charities, voluntary associations
and academics increasingly see it as their role to ‘educate’
ill-informed, non-expert adults. From public health to environmental
campaigns, the assumption is that left our own devices, we will make the
‘wrong choices’. England’s chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally
Davies, complains that ‘three quarters of parents with overweight
children do not recognise that they are too fat’. How can we trust
adults who don’t understand the impact of their gas-guzzling family car
on the planet or that feeding their kids junk food is leading to an
obesity epidemic?

While such attitudes and interventions are viewed as annoying or
threatening in some instances, few people actively protest against them.
And often there are popular demands for more regulation and legislation
to protect us from harm. Why has government become so keen to make
decisions for us? And why do we not even seem to take ourselves
seriously as autonomous citizens? Or is such ‘infantilisation’ actually a
sensible response to our limited capacities and propensity to shoot
ourselves in the foot, based on a recognition that in fact, ‘there are
no grown ups’. Is it reasonable to allow the ‘experts’ to decide how we
live? If not, what should we do about it?

Speakers

Martha Gill

journalist, the Economist

Dan Hodges

blogger; columnist, Daily Telegraph

Ben Pile

independent researcher, writer, and film-maker

Chris Snowdon

director, lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; author, The Art of Suppression

Chair

Simon Knight

director, Generation Youth Issues; board member, Play Scotland
...more
1h 14min
December 05, 2014 Kindergarten culture: why does government treat us like children?
In the past, government may have intervened
frequently in the economy, but our private lives were our own to live as
we saw fit. In recent years, however, government has largely given up
on being the ‘hand on the tiller’ of the economy and intervenes
regularly in once-private aspects of life. Smoking is now banned in most
public places, and smoking in cars in the presence of children is about
to be banned. Environmental concerns have led to new efficiency
standards for domestic appliances, and smart meters may regulate our
electricity usage from afar, while we are constantly told to reduce our
consumption of everything and there is serious discussion about how
procreation should be limited to save the planet. Even now, parents are
increasingly lectured to about how they should raise their children and,
in Scotland, the Named Person rules mean a specific government employee
will oversee each child’s upbringing.
Even non-governmental organisations, charities, voluntary associations
and academics increasingly see it as their role to ‘educate’
ill-informed, non-expert adults. From public health to environmental
campaigns, the assumption is that left our own devices, we will make the
‘wrong choices’. England’s chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally
Davies, complains that ‘three quarters of parents with overweight
children do not recognise that they are too fat’. How can we trust
adults who don’t understand the impact of their gas-guzzling family car
on the planet or that feeding their kids junk food is leading to an
obesity epidemic?
While such attitudes and interventions are viewed as annoying or
threatening in some instances, few people actively protest against them.
And often there are popular demands for more regulation and legislation
to protect us from harm. Why has government become so keen to make
decisions for us? And why do we not even seem to take ourselves
seriously as autonomous citizens? Or is such ‘infantilisation’ actually a
sensible response to our limited capacities and propensity to shoot
ourselves in the foot, based on a recognition that in fact, ‘there are
no grown ups’. Is it reasonable to allow the ‘experts’ to decide how we
live? If not, what should we do about it?

Speakers

Martha Gill

journalist, the Economist

Dan Hodges

blogger; columnist, Daily Telegraph

Ben Pile

independent researcher, writer, and film-maker

Chris Snowdon

director, lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; author, The Art of Suppression

Chair

Simon Knight

director, Generation Youth Issues; board member, Play Scotland
...more
1h 14min
December 02, 2014 #BattleFest2014: What makes a great sporting leader?
With the England cricket team experiencing a
turbulent tour of Australia, culminating in a humiliating whitewash,
and the problems of succession currently engulfing Manchester United,
the issue of management and leadership in sport has been thrust into the
spotlight. Is a great sporting leader born or made? What are the key
factors for creating a football dynasty, whether it be Sir Alex Ferguson
at Manchester United or Bill Shankly at Liverpool? And can a manager
really make that much difference today at a time when money plays such a
big role in sporting success?
Have the requirements of a great sporting leader changed with time?
For instance, could a celebrated leader from the past such as Brian
Clough succeed today while having to deal with the money, the egos, the
politics and the pressures of modern football? Or can a great leader
succeed in any circumstances?
Is a key component of a great leader the ability to accommodate and
manage disruptive and difficult personalities, if they are vital to the
success of the team? Or do great leaders need to exhibit a ruthlessness
in the world of personnel and ego management? What makes up the winning
mentality in 2014, and are there common ingredients to successful
leadership, whether in sport, business or politics?

Speakers

Matthias Heitmann

freelance journalist; contributor, NovoArgumente; columnist, Schweizer Monat

Thais Portilho

journalist; campaigns and public affairs consultant

Luke Regan

research officer, The Sports Think Tank

Hilary Salt

founder, First Actuarial

Philip Walters

chair, Rising Stars (educational publisher), and the GL Education Group

Chair

Geoff Kidder

director, membership and events, Institute of Ideas; convenor, IoI Book Club; IoI’s resident expert in all sporting matters
...more
1h 32min
December 02, 2014 What makes a great sporting leader?
With the England cricket team experiencing a
turbulent tour of Australia, culminating in a humiliating whitewash,
and the problems of succession currently engulfing Manchester United,
the issue of management and leadership in sport has been thrust into the
spotlight. Is a great sporting leader born or made? What are the key
factors for creating a football dynasty, whether it be Sir Alex Ferguson
at Manchester United or Bill Shankly at Liverpool? And can a manager
really make that much difference today at a time when money plays such a
big role in sporting success?
Have the requirements of a great sporting leader changed with time?
For instance, could a celebrated leader from the past such as Brian
Clough succeed today while having to deal with the money, the egos, the
politics and the pressures of modern football? Or can a great leader
succeed in any circumstances?
Is a key component of a great leader the ability to accommodate and
manage disruptive and difficult personalities, if they are vital to the
success of the team? Or do great leaders need to exhibit a ruthlessness
in the world of personnel and ego management? What makes up the winning
mentality in 2014, and are there common ingredients to successful
leadership, whether in sport, business or politics?

Speakers

Matthias Heitmann

freelance journalist; contributor, NovoArgumente; columnist, Schweizer Monat

Thais Portilho

journalist; campaigns and public affairs consultant

Luke Regan

research officer, The Sports Think Tank

Hilary Salt

founder, First Actuarial

Philip Walters

chair, Rising Stars (educational publisher), and the GL Education Group

Chair

Geoff Kidder

director, membership and events, Institute of Ideas; convenor, IoI Book Club; IoI’s resident expert in all sporting matters
...more
1h 32min
November 20, 2014 #BattleFest2014: Cotton-wool campus?
When University College London’s students’
union banned a Nietzsche reading group in March, on the grounds that
discussions about right-wing philosophers could encourage fascism and
endanger the student body, many saw it as the reductio ad absurdum
of student-union bans in recent years. These have included bans on
Robin Thicke’s pop hit ‘Blurred Lines’, on the grounds that it might be
distressing for victims of sexual assault, as well as everything from
the Sun (thanks to Page 3) to ‘offensive’ T-shirts depicting
Jesus and the prophet Mohammed in cartoon form. So have British
universities become bastions of politically correct censorship? Or are
such restrictions - enacted by elected unions rather than the state - a
welcome attempt to ensure universities are safe spaces for all students?
Student politics has long involved political boycotts, going back to
campus bans on Barclays Bank in the 1980s (for operating in apartheid
South Africa), Nestlé products in the 1990s (for promoting baby milk in
the developing world), or Israeli goods in the Noughties (in protest at
the treatment of Palestinians). But for all their limitations, these
campaigns were an attempt to engage with the world of politics outside
the university. In the past few years, however, there seems to have been
a trend towards student politics turning inwards. Students’ unions have
instead become increasingly concerned with making campuses safe from
potentially hostile outsiders, by enacting ‘no platform’ policies, first
for ‘fascists’ and later other offensive speakers, from Islamists to
radical feminists.
For some this is a progressive move because student unions have a
duty to ensure that all students feel safe on campus, that no one feels
excluded from campus activities and that no offence is caused by those
activities. It is argued that women, LGBT and ethnic-minority students
are often especially vulnerable and must be protected from intimidation
and discomfort. Others feel the unions are engaged in acts of censorship
which undermine academic freedom and treat students as children rather
than adults. Do ‘safe space’ policies empower or infantilise students?
Are today’s students simply not as robust as previous generations and so
need protecting in ways their parents’ generation did not? Or have
unions simply become more sensitive to the needs of their more
vulnerable students?

Speakers

Tom Bailey

recent graduate, UCL; regular columnist, spiked

Ellamay Russell

postgraduate student, University of Sussex; writer, spiked

Michael Segalov

communications officer, University of Sussex Students’ Union; freelance journalist.

Harriet Williamson

columnist and blogger

Chair

Joel Cohen

administrator, Debating Matters; freelance writer
...more
1h 24min
November 20, 2014 Cotton-wool campus?
When University College London’s students’
union banned a Nietzsche reading group in March, on the grounds that
discussions about right-wing philosophers could encourage fascism and
endanger the student body, many saw it as the reductio ad absurdum
of student-union bans in recent years. These have included bans on
Robin Thicke’s pop hit ‘Blurred Lines’, on the grounds that it might be
distressing for victims of sexual assault, as well as everything from
the Sun (thanks to Page 3) to ‘offensive’ T-shirts depicting
Jesus and the prophet Mohammed in cartoon form. So have British
universities become bastions of politically correct censorship? Or are
such restrictions - enacted by elected unions rather than the state - a
welcome attempt to ensure universities are safe spaces for all students?
Student politics has long involved political boycotts, going back to
campus bans on Barclays Bank in the 1980s (for operating in apartheid
South Africa), Nestlé products in the 1990s (for promoting baby milk in
the developing world), or Israeli goods in the Noughties (in protest at
the treatment of Palestinians). But for all their limitations, these
campaigns were an attempt to engage with the world of politics outside
the university. In the past few years, however, there seems to have been
a trend towards student politics turning inwards. Students’ unions have
instead become increasingly concerned with making campuses safe from
potentially hostile outsiders, by enacting ‘no platform’ policies, first
for ‘fascists’ and later other offensive speakers, from Islamists to
radical feminists.
For some this is a progressive move because student unions have a
duty to ensure that all students feel safe on campus, that no one feels
excluded from campus activities and that no offence is caused by those
activities. It is argued that women, LGBT and ethnic-minority students
are often especially vulnerable and must be protected from intimidation
and discomfort. Others feel the unions are engaged in acts of censorship
which undermine academic freedom and treat students as children rather
than adults. Do ‘safe space’ policies empower or infantilise students?
Are today’s students simply not as robust as previous generations and so
need protecting in ways their parents’ generation did not? Or have
unions simply become more sensitive to the needs of their more
vulnerable students?

Speakers

Tom Bailey

recent graduate, UCL; regular columnist, spiked

Ellamay Russell

postgraduate student, University of Sussex; writer, spiked

Michael Segalov

communications officer, University of Sussex Students’ Union; freelance journalist.

Harriet Williamson

columnist and blogger

Chair

Joel Cohen

administrator, Debating Matters; freelance writer
...more
1h 24min
November 12, 2014 #BattleFest2014: Immigration: who should control our borders?
Immigration is a fraught political issue.
Those opposing immigration – and especially the EU policy of granting
freedom of movement to all EU citizens – argue that low-skilled workers
from the relatively impoverished East are now driving down wages in the
West. Then there is the spectre of the overseas benefits claimant,
taking out without ever giving anything in return. The pro-immigration
side counters that immigration is actually good for the economy.
Migrants in the UK pay more in tax than they consume in public services,
not least because inward migrants are more likely to be working age
than the population in general. So does immigration help or hinder the
UK economy?
Or does that question miss the point? While the much prophesised rush
of immigrants taking advantage of the exhaustion of the seven-year ban
on immigration from Romania and Bulgaria at the start of the year may
not have come to pass, there are still plenty who claim that immigration
is a big problem. To respond to public disquiet, the government has
concentrated its efforts on non-EU immigrants. But for all its talk of
caps and limits, the government seems incapable of enforcing anything of
the sort. And for some, that is exactly the problem. EU rules
effectively mean the UK government does not control its own borders,
rendering the debate about whether immigration is a bane or a boon
somewhat moot.
Moreover, it sometimes seems that what drives the nominally
pro-immigration side is not so much freedom of movement, but the
unsavoury associations of anti-immigration arguments. It is claimed that
anti-immigration parties like UKIP will prompt ‘kneejerk xenophobia’,
or exacerbate people’s ‘ill-informed prejudices’. Is this a
pro-immigration position or anti-masses sentiment? Where are those
willing to defend immigration on the grounds that everyone should be
entitled to freedom of movement regardless of their passport or their
skill-set? Is there a case for giving up on controlling borders
altogether? Conversely, are arguments against immigration too defensive?
Are secure borders essential to maintaining national sovereignty? Is it
time for a different kind of debate?

Speakers

David Goodhart

chair, Demos' Advisory Group; author, The British Dream

Philippe Legrain

visiting senior fellow, LSE’s European Institute; author, Immigrants: your country needs them and European Spring: Why Our Economies and Politics are in a Mess – and How to Put Them Right; former economic adviser to the President of the European Commission

Bruno Waterfield

Brussels correspondent, Daily Telegraph; co-author, No Means No

Steven Woolfe

UKIP Frontbench Spokesman on Migration and Financial Affairs
Co-ordinator EFDD Group, EU ECON Committee

Chair

Claire Fox

director, Institute of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze
...more
1h 22min
November 12, 2014 Immigration: who should control our borders?
Immigration is a fraught political issue.
Those opposing immigration – and especially the EU policy of granting
freedom of movement to all EU citizens – argue that low-skilled workers
from the relatively impoverished East are now driving down wages in the
West. Then there is the spectre of the overseas benefits claimant,
taking out without ever giving anything in return. The pro-immigration
side counters that immigration is actually good for the economy.
Migrants in the UK pay more in tax than they consume in public services,
not least because inward migrants are more likely to be working age
than the population in general. So does immigration help or hinder the
UK economy?
Or does that question miss the point? While the much prophesised rush
of immigrants taking advantage of the exhaustion of the seven-year ban
on immigration from Romania and Bulgaria at the start of the year may
not have come to pass, there are still plenty who claim that immigration
is a big problem. To respond to public disquiet, the government has
concentrated its efforts on non-EU immigrants. But for all its talk of
caps and limits, the government seems incapable of enforcing anything of
the sort. And for some, that is exactly the problem. EU rules
effectively mean the UK government does not control its own borders,
rendering the debate about whether immigration is a bane or a boon
somewhat moot.
Moreover, it sometimes seems that what drives the nominally
pro-immigration side is not so much freedom of movement, but the
unsavoury associations of anti-immigration arguments. It is claimed that
anti-immigration parties like UKIP will prompt ‘kneejerk xenophobia’,
or exacerbate people’s ‘ill-informed prejudices’. Is this a
pro-immigration position or anti-masses sentiment? Where are those
willing to defend immigration on the grounds that everyone should be
entitled to freedom of movement regardless of their passport or their
skill-set? Is there a case for giving up on controlling borders
altogether? Conversely, are arguments against immigration too defensive?
Are secure borders essential to maintaining national sovereignty? Is it
time for a different kind of debate?

Speakers

David Goodhart

chair, Demos' Advisory Group; author, The British Dream

Philippe Legrain

visiting senior fellow, LSE’s European Institute; author, Immigrants: your country needs them and European Spring: Why Our Economies and Politics are in a Mess – and How to Put Them Right; former economic adviser to the President of the European Commission

Bruno Waterfield

Brussels correspondent, Daily Telegraph; co-author, No Means No

Steven Woolfe

UKIP Frontbench Spokesman on Migration and Financial Affairs
Co-ordinator EFDD Group, EU ECON Committee

Chair

Claire Fox

director, Institute of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze
...more
1h 22min

FAQs about Academy of Ideas:

How many episodes does Academy of Ideas have?

The podcast currently has 488 episodes available.

More shows like Academy of Ideas

Making Sense with Sam Harris by Sam Harris

Making Sense with Sam Harris

26,335 Listeners

The spiked podcast by The spiked podcast

The spiked podcast

207 Listeners

Americano by The Spectator

Americano

266 Listeners

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast

33,968 Listeners

Academy of Ideas by Academy of Ideas

Academy of Ideas

565 Listeners

TRIGGERnometry by TRIGGERnometry

TRIGGERnometry

1,838 Listeners

The Brendan O'Neill Show by The Brendan O'Neill Show

The Brendan O'Neill Show

367 Listeners

Last Orders - a spiked podcast by Last Orders - a spiked podcast

Last Orders - a spiked podcast

50 Listeners

Quillette Podcast by Quillette

Quillette Podcast

789 Listeners

Planet Normal by The Telegraph

Planet Normal

194 Listeners

heretics. by Andrew Gold

heretics.

572 Listeners

The Rest Is History by Goalhanger

The Rest Is History

13,048 Listeners

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters by lotuseaters.com

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

536 Listeners

The Current Thing by Nick Dixon

The Current Thing

27 Listeners

Beyond Gender by Stella O'Malley, Mia Hughes, Bret Alderman

Beyond Gender

36 Listeners