Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Browbeaten into Submission

Now here is a blogger who believes that the proper role for a man in marriage is submission. Actually, the blog of this "Mad Suburban Dad" sounds like it is written by a woman. Apparently, if you don't acknowlege that men should kowtow to women in marriage, act frightened of their spouse's wrath, hide out in a tent like a wuss (see entry 4-4-2006 and 4-11-2006) and say you are "on strike" instead of confronting her, or otherwise kiss up to women at every opportunity--you are pegged as a woman-hater. What do you think--is this "guy's" blog satire or not?

Update: Normally, I do not care what other people write about my blog or me in their own personal blogs--it is usually of little interest. However, in this case of Mad Suburban Dad, I think his blog and commenters speak volumes about the way our society treats men and those of us who are female who do not toe the party line of the virtues of women and the sins of men. Just call them sexist, woman haters, racist or whatever to make them look bad. Sorry MadDad, this type of behavior no longer works--everyone sees through this cheap psychological maneuver.

Mad Dad calls my commenters (and me, by association) "women-haters and the women who love them," yet here are the statements from his commenters regarding myself, Cathy Young, and a woman named Heather:

Well, I have been a reader here for a while now and I have always thought your entries were well written and humorous. I can only hope my marrage is as happy as your is, we should all hope to be as lucky. I went ahead and read those two womens blogs and I have to tell you I am ashamed to be a woman right now. Those two humorless twits are ruining the reputations of women everywhere turning us into nagging humorless bitches who will leave you at the drop of a hat. Accckkkk... they make me sick. I appologize for the rest of us who are not bland, cranky, miserable, lackluster and emotionally repressive.

frankly they sound a couple of jealous ol' BFHs (Bimbo from a Terribly Hot Place ;-)w absolutely no sense of humor to me! I loved the story of the 'well-managed' man and think that tho Mrs Mad-Dad was apparently born a 'Yankee', that she's really a Southern Lady at heart (w all the smarts that being a Lady entails), and you sir are obviously a Gentleman (w all the courtesy that being a Gentleman requires).

Well MadDad, first of all, Heather is an A-hole. You know it, I know it, and the rest of blogland should know it..... I wonder what Dr. Helen & Cathy Young's relationships are like? Tee Hee.

Wow, it sounds like Mad Dad and his commenters are the woman-haters to me.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought I was the only one who went on strike.


8:49 AM, May 24, 2006  
Blogger BobH said...

I didn't read the whole thing, but it appears that he intended it all as a joke. Unfortunately, "humor" seems to be nothing more than an attack on somebody together with demand that this other person not be annoyed or retaliate, all so the attacker can demonstrate his or her wit and/or social dominance. For example, I've had women tell me that "The Scum Manifesto", which openly proposes killing men, is supposed to be funny. (It's on the Internet. Go forth and Google.) I'm not laughing! Moreover it's stuff like this that made me get rid of my sense of humor.

9:42 AM, May 24, 2006  
Blogger dadvocate said...

This has to be humorous. I would guess that it may well be a woman writing it due to phraseology. Would a man write this: "My spine straightens straight up and my ears are on full alert, like a deer who has heard a noise while sipping water from a creek."?

BTW - if you want to go on strike by a 25 foot Airstream trailer and park it in the driveway. It may well be more nicely equipped than your house. You don't want your "better half" to think your suffering.

10:04 AM, May 24, 2006  
Blogger dadvocate said...

I mean "buy" the trailer.

10:04 AM, May 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What do you think--is this "guy's" blog satire or not?"

I think I've figured it out. Mad Suburban Dad is a joint project between Dr. Helen, Instapundit, and Frank J. from IMAO.


10:32 AM, May 24, 2006  
Blogger The Gonzman said...

Yeah, I read "Mad Suberban Dad" and the word that pops into my mind is - un - "Kitty-whipped."

What a joke.

4:46 PM, May 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Get out in the real world. You're playing the Victorian with a case of the vapors and he's just laughing at you.

It appears you just can't recognize satire and humor when you see it. Well, the rest of us can. What happened to your development?

5:02 PM, May 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Mad Dad,

I'm writing this here because I KNOW you're looking. If it was humor and satire you were striving for, sadly, you missed by a large margin. Now, please give your wife the key so that she can put your testicles back in the lockbox.

Frank H

5:45 PM, May 24, 2006  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

...that was humor? I have a special love of satire, even when it's directed at me personally. But only if it's funny.

(It's like the difference between a Knowing Laugh and a Humorless Bark. Subtle only if you're emotionally invested in the joke.)

6:48 PM, May 24, 2006  
Blogger AmericanWoman said...

WWWAAAAHHH!!! My wife is mean to me! WWWAAHHHH!!!

Humor or not, I am sick of victim-mentality of any sex, age, race, religion, etc.

No one is doing anything to you, you are doing it to yourself.

Get therapy or shut up.

7:21 PM, May 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All fine and good to be sick of the mentality now that women no longer really benefit from it, and men are starting to get a little sympathy.

Tell you what go ahead and be sick of it, I'll just do what comes naturally...namely ignore the whining to a large degree....and those who want to try and get somewhere with the victim card can go right ahead.

Seeing as how you are the beneficiary of 40 odd years of "victim speak", you really should take your own advice.


8:57 PM, May 24, 2006  
Anonymous Mark said...

Ok now I'm totally confused. MadMom claimed, within the comments of this blog, that the post was satire in the vein of Swift's 'A Modest Proposal', but now MadDad claims that it was geniunely autobiographical and he's personally offended?!? -- what's MadDad not telling MadMom ;)

But I can appreciate that MadDad resents having strangers judge him and his marriage. So I won't.

And, yes he's a guy, he's not a milktoast, and his blog is worth following IMO.
One other point. It's not appropriate to judge blogs, or blog communities, by the rants posted in the comment section of a single post. Bloggers apply various standards to how they moderate a/o filter comments, some more liberally than others. That specific topic did seem to draw some pretty angry people. But others on gender issues have been much more moderate.

9:18 PM, May 24, 2006  
Blogger Wickedpinto said...

I'm BAD! BAD! BAD! at relationships myself, however I know many people who have had wonderful relationships, and the same people who had wonderful relationships 10 years ago have wonderful relationships now, so I think I can comment in terms of a third party observation.

Dating, and marriage is not a shackle. That is the first observation. ( I tend to speak in terms of stories) so here is a story.

A friend of mine (I won't say his name) had been married for about 6 years at the time, his wife was pregnant for the first time (it was the first time they could afford it) I loved both of these people, and I knew NOTHING about their relationship, UNTIL! another friend of mine got married, he married the wrong person, and he was the wrong kind of person for marriage (like me) and he needed a place to live with his wife while he was taking care of all of the "base housing" things he needed to take care of.

So friend2 was allowed to live with friend-group1 (the couple who had been married for 6 years) until all of the paperwork got taken care of.

The male, from friend-group1 came into work complaining and said "can we talk in the vault" (literaly, it was a "vault") and I said sure, our commander (this was in the military) signed off, and we sat down and talked. The Male from Friend-group1 just complained for a period of time, finaly, he got to the point, "They have never spent any time together, NEVER! they are gonna fail! (talking about friend2's relationship with his wife) and I don't wanna be blamed"

I admitted that I'm not built for this stuff, so he explained.

HERE is the actual story.

male friend from friend group1, we will call him "deuce" and his wife, I will call her "double" (she was pregnant.)

Anyways, "Deuce" says that friend2 thinks that getting laid is love and it's not, I knew that. Then he talks about how he would come home from work and EVERYDAY the friend1 was constantly pawing his wife, and his wife was constantly pawing him, they were ALWAYS together (not ALWAYS a bad thing, but ALWAYS is a bad thing, get it?)

Anyways, after "Deuce" gave me that bit of complaining, I later talked to "double" and I told the story that "deuce" gave me, and she agreed, she loved her husband "deuce" but she has her own life, she loves SHARING that life with "deuce" but "doubles" life doesn't mean that "deuce" must life that same life. Where as Friend1 thought thats how it is.

Later while at a party at "deuce" and "double"'s house, friend one showed up with his wife, and they constantly wispered, and then wouldn't take part in the party. and I said out loud, "this is ridiculous friend1! you've known us long enough to know that we will get the joke!" at which point, friend1 looked at me with something akin to terror. His wife said, "go ahead honey" or some such thing.

And when friend1's wife convinced friend1 to tell the thing that made him laugh, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS FRIENDS sat silent. We realized this guy was married to a retard, and we knew that HE knew he married a retard, but he liked the touch and the play. I don't know if we destroyed a marriage because of our prejudgements, but. . .

I never felt bad.

that aside, "Deuce" and "Double" gave me a bit of advice about relationships, cuz they loved me "Awwwwww" they did, I was a very nice guy at times.

Anways "Deuce" and "Double" said "You love the woman, and you have to accept her, you will almost never agree with her, but you love her, the important thing, isn't agreement, it's more about knowing that you love her" that was "Deuce"'s advice, "Double" said "I know that he is ALWAYS thinking about me, he is always worried about me, he does what he does, but I'm what is always in his mind, (my name) thats why I love him, thats why we love eachoter, cuz thats what love is."

I think that is the BEST definition I have ever heard in my life.

(I might have adulterated some of the quotes of others, but not mine, and it doesn't change the way I felt at the time, and the truth I felt in their words)

I mixed up the variables of "friend1" and "friend group2" and such, but "deuce" and "double" are the good couple, the friend that is only refered to as "friendX" is the one who got divorced within 6 months.

1:23 AM, May 25, 2006  
Blogger Chris Key said...

Dr Helen,

The simpletons from the other blogs are trying to divert attention away from the underlying theory of your argument, and they are doing that by using a variety of ad-hominem arguments (IE. Such as their insinuation that you MUST hate women because you disagree with the manner in which some of them act). Whether you hate women or not is irrelevant, as it does not alter the validity of your claims, nor does it refute the underlying theory of your arguments.

In my opinion, I don't think you hate women, as you are merely judging them by their behaviour and NOT by their sex, which means you're NOT generalising, and are viewing them by (i) their *minds*, and, (ii) their *actions*. It was the feminazi's who claimed that they wanted to be known for their minds and not their sexuality, therefore they shouldn't be angry that you're judging them by their *minds* and their *behaviour*.

You should be proud, as there are a few liberal women who are angered by your site - they post under the alias of 'Anonymous' - and any woman who uses factual evidence and logic to anger a feminist-liberal is a candidate for the "Woman of the Year" Award.

In my opinion, you're a very well-mannered woman and I think you're intentions are to help other people - especially men - which is an admirable feat.

As you are aware, the liberal-feminist women on this blog seem to hate me as much as they hate you, so I guess it shows we're doing something right.

Some of the female posters have claimed that I am a *misogynist* because I stated that the biological structure of the male brain possesses a greater amount of innate ability than the female brain to analyse and interpret data. The response from the women is a classic example of an ad-hominem argument, as they have failed to refute the underlying theory of my claim, and they're merely stating that my comments should be ignored as they *think* I am sexist.

Of course there are SOME women who are smarter than men a lot of men, and there are SOME men who are intellectually retarded, however it does not change the fact that the majority of persons who possess an IQ over 170 happen to be male.

2:36 AM, May 25, 2006  
Blogger Chris Key said...

For the record, I refused to even view the *Mad Suburban Dad* Blog.

2:40 AM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it both interesting and worrying that you have failed to quote the other 23 comments on the blog. Why is it that you have chosen to go about picking at someone else's life instead of writing about your own? Contraversy is one thing, incerdibly insulting is another. And you call yourself a Doctor. If you paid all that money for a PHd and ended up at this level, I'd ask for a refund. Or possibly a brush-up course in manners.

3:40 AM, May 25, 2006  
Blogger jw said...

What concerns me about this flap is the accusations of misogyny.

I worked hard to improve the lot of fathers with custody of small children: For that I was called misogynist. I now work to improve the lot of male victims of violence: Again I am called misogynist.


Why is working towards a more free and fair society somehow against women?

Do you hear loud screams of misandry when a woman speaks out with real hatred of all males? Hmmm? Only a few men's groups members and a few concerned "small c" conservative women take a stand against such real contempt. Yet, men taking a stand against some women's bad behavior are called misogynist. The whole thing is ridiculous.

In the previous thread of this topic Cathy Young suggested I was misogynist due to my correct statement that my own hurt leaves me in a position wherein I have trouble countering real misogyny. I stand by my statement and extend from it the reality that if male victims of violence where treated with even the least kindness, care or concern my own problem would have been ended many years ago.

We cannot end gender based problems without caring about males every bit as much as we care about females. Yet, any attempt to point out this fact is greeted with waves of "you hate women."

Stinkin thinkin!

3:55 AM, May 25, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...


Thank you for your comment.

7:36 AM, May 25, 2006  
Blogger dadvocate said...

I originally thought that the MadDad, etc. was all a joke. But given all the hostility emanating from that direction, maybe not. Maybe it's some women's dream, and most men's nightmare, of how married life should be.

It is funny how all the name calling starts from the "feminist" side. Of course, what else can they do when there is no logical, rational argument to fall back upon?

8:28 AM, May 25, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Hmmmm. I tried to follow the controversy and ideas but got lost. I decided that it was likely not worth my time to sort it out. I did notice that Dr. Helen was discussing the posts she read while I could not really follow what Mad-Dad was trying to say.

One part I DID get was when Dr. Helen was criticized for NOT THINKING LIKE A PSYCHOLOGIST. You know, not being leftist and seeing everyone as a victim and feeling their pain.

Thank God. That is one of the main reasons I read this blog! Psychology is being used to EXCUSE behavior while it is best used to UNDERSTAND behavior. Too many in our field have become professional rescuers (in a drama sense) and so that has become part of our public persona. YUCK.

I feel better now!


1:47 PM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like MadDad, he is funny and has a good sense of humor. "Well managed" goes for both husband and wife. Both spouces make compromises and that is what "well managed" is. You change and consider your spouce, instead of always thinking of yourself. When your married, you have to think of things as "us" instead of just me all the time. That's well managed.

1:58 PM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, if it's valid to judge a blog and a blogger by using selected comments, the following comment is one people can use to judge Helen.

3:51 PM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All women are viscious, selfish, and wothless pieces of crap! I'm sure Helen agrees with me!

3:51 PM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And Helen can't spell "worthless," either!

3:52 PM, May 25, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Hi Trey,

Yes, I agree that psychology has degenerated into a profession used to excuse behavior and perpetuate victimhood. I am glad there are psychologists out there such as yourself who still think that personal responsibility and accountability are important. It has harmed our profession that so many see it as a function of the left to be used to let people off the hook. I have read that juries rarely take defense experts seriously because of this left-leaning tendency. I can't say as I blame them.

4:01 PM, May 25, 2006  
Blogger Bob said...

Yes, that may be a part of the reason juries rarely take defense experts seriously. But let me give you an example of a child custody case I investigated for a District Court here in Colorado. The father was obsessed with portraying the mother in the worst possible light, because she had the nerve to leave him! He was very wealthy, and she left with nothing except herself and the children. He hired a forensic psychologist, who asked to talk to me after I had spent some time doing my investigation for the court, but before I actually sat down to write my report. It was so obvious to me that this psychologist was merely a hired gun with only one goal: help this man win his case without regard to the facts of the case.
His motives were so transparent, that I had no respect for him as a professional.

7:46 PM, May 25, 2006  
Blogger AmericanWoman said...

i Seeing as how you are the beneficiary of 40 odd years of "victim speak", you really should take your own advice.'

Do you know me personally? Do you know the facts of my life? I'm sure you don't so please don't make assumptions. And if there has been '40 years of victim speak' it would pale in comparison to the hundreds if not thousands of years of male domination over women. Care to deny that, or just conveniently forgot about it?

At any rate, I don't have sympathy for the victim mentality from any aspect.

9:16 PM, May 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems psychologists just can't keep from jumping on the victim wagon. Some choose one set of victims; some choose another. But most seem to be riding that wagon for all it's worth. It makes me wonder if psychology has any real substance.

11:21 PM, May 25, 2006  
Blogger Chris Key said...

AmericanWoman Said: And if there has been '40 years of victim speak' it would pale in comparison to the hundreds if not thousands of years of male domination over women. Care to deny that, or just conveniently forgot about it?

Chris Key Says: There is not a single shred of evidence to verify your subjective insinuation, which renders your argument as an ad-personam fallacy.

The feminists are quite willing to use the ad-hominem fallacy and ad-personam, as it's their way of shunning any form of factual evidence that refutes their insane ideologies, as they can then focus on the discussion of the *imagined or real* character flaws of their opponents.

For example, when a feminist says that men have oppressed women for hundreds of years, it causes their opponent to defend themselves against the personal attack, and this leads to the diversion of attention away from the original argument.

The purpose of an ad-personam is to appeal to the emotions of the majority, and suggest that their judgment of a person should be based on their character flaws and NOT the factual evidence that is provided within their argumentation.

If you're going to use such a statement, then you need to offer a citation to verify your insinuation - a process you have failed to perform. Are you able to offer a citation to an objective form of evidence that can verify your claim, or are you merely repeating the subjective and hysterical utterance of the feminazi's?

The lack of an even quota between the sexes has always existed.

A lack of an even quota between men and women in any given field does not correlate to sexism and oppression, as the differences of the sexes can account for the inability for one to compete with the other in many areas of society.

The poor technology of the past would have prevented the women from performing in the fields that are dependent upon the presence of muscular strength and spatial thinking, which is why men were so dominate in the workforce during the 19th Century.

The socialists-feminists of today are far too ignorant and unintelligent to understand that the only reason that women are able to perform in so many areas of society at the present point of time is due to the technological advances that COMPENSATE for their inferiority.

When those devices did not exist, women were unable to perform those tasks. If the women of today were forced to live on an island where they were deprived of EVERY MAN-MADE invention, then they would find themselves completely helpless and dependent on men.

That's the problem with the socialists, they're too insane to understand that the current standard of living could not have existed in the past, as the state of technology was VERY basis prior to the 20th Century.

12:18 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Acksiom said...

It seems americanwoman needs to be reminded of the earlier hard questions about (A) women's consistent presence in the elite dominant and dominating classes throughout human history, to say nothing of american women's, in particular, purchase, sale, 'ownership' and so on of male slaves in recent american history, as compared to their power relative to men within the strata of the social classes, and (B) as to whether she herself would rather be a male of those historical peon, peasant, subordinated lower classes, or a slave, than she would a woman of the elite, aristocratic, dominating classes, or slave-owner.

But of course she still has yet to provide a sensible answer to those points ITFP.

Thus actually demonstrating, behaviorally, her susceptibility to the identity cult of gender-based victimization-esteem. . .precisely as Dr. Helen, so to speak, diagnoses.

12:19 AM, May 26, 2006  
Blogger Chris Key said...

Anonymous Said: And Helen can't spell "worthless," either!

Chris Key Says: Your comment is merely a form of defamation, and if Helen really wanted to, she could file a civil lawsuit against you for libel.

12:22 AM, May 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You can't spell "worthless," either.

9:05 AM, May 26, 2006  
Blogger AmericanWoman said...

' Chris Key Says: There is not a single shred of evidence to verify your subjective insinuation, which renders your argument as an ad-personam fallacy.'

Subjective? Try reading any history book you twit. You are so far out there, you aren't even worth addressing.

10:20 PM, May 26, 2006  
Blogger AmericanWoman said...

I'm sure there were some male slaves that were better off than some wives of wealthy men. What is the point you are trying to make? That not ALL men were able to subject ALL women?

Me thinks you all doth protest too much!

10:23 PM, May 26, 2006  
Blogger Chris Key said...

AmericanWoman Said: Subjective? Try reading any history book you twit. You are so far out there, you aren't even worth addressing.

Chris Key Says: After reading the history books for many years, I have found a large amount of evidence to verify the fact that a LOT of legal impunity was conferred to women over the centuries, and that repudiates your claim that women were subjected by men.

The Old English Law system conferred a large amount of legal impunity to women, as did the 19th Century Law system, and a verification of these facts can be observed by reading the works of Belfort Bax and Christina Hoff Sommors.

(An alternative copy of the book can be viewed on the following Website)

The Legal Subjection of Men was written by Belfort Bax and a few other men during the early 20th Century, around the year of 1909/1910. The factual book has documented a wide range of actual laws from the 19th century that allowed women to commit the following offences with legal impunity:

- Women were allowed to slander men with impunity.
- Women were allowed to harass men with impunity.
- Women were allowed to physically assault with impunity.
- Women were alloweed to defraud men with impunity.
- Women were allowed to murder men on most occassions with impunity.

The early feminists of 1848 were adamant in their claim that men were allowed to batter women with impunity, however their claim was never verified, and has been refuted by a variety of actual laws which show that the act of battery against women was prohibited under Old English Law. In some areas, the punishment for woman battery involved the state flagellation the perpetrator at the public whipping post, while fines and imprisonment were utilised in other regions.

The so called 'rule of thumb' happens to be a mere expression that was used by the wood-workers of the 17th Century who were so precise in their measurement of the raw materials that they used the length of their thumb to calculate the total length of any object.

Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock stated the following: "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers ... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. Instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs."

The following article will allow you to develop an understanding of the Old English Law System.


The usage of ad-hominem arguments will not allow you to win this argument, as I have studied this subject for a few years and I have found a LOT of evidence to verify my claim, therefore you're immature outbursts are absolutely meaningless. Based on the manner in which you have responded during this argument, it seems you're just an uneducated American woman who bases her opinions of Human history on there unsubstantiated theories of feminist indoctrination.

2:10 AM, May 27, 2006  
Blogger Chris Key said...

AmericanWoman Said: Subjective? Try reading any history book you twit. You are so far out there, you aren't even worth addressing.

Chris Key Says: Around 24-48 hours ago I used factual evidence to expose the ad-hominem argument that was raised by AmericanWoman, and here she is using the same logical fallacy in response to my editorial, which shows that she has FAILED to learn from her past mistakes. The failure for one to learn from past their mistakes, and the belief that the repetition of an act with the hope of obtaining a difficult outcome is defined as a form of insanity (It's up to the reader to understand the underlying theory of this claim).

Another ad-hominem argument has been raised by AmericanWoman, as she has tried to insinuate that my argument does not hold any merit as she believes I am *out there*, however she has failed to address the actual soundness of my style of argumentation. If the woman were to have addressed the soundness of my argument, she would have realised that there is a wealth of objective evidence to verify my claim.

2:29 AM, May 27, 2006  
Blogger Darren Blacksmith said...

American Woman declares that for some undefined period of time (hundreds or thousands of years, shes not sure) men have dominated over women.

This is a variation of the claim by feminist women that women have been 'oppressed' by men for thousands of years (repeated so often that the public swallowed it for a number of years, hopefully they are waking up now).

However, for one group to be oppressed by another, that group has to be worse off in the presence of the 'oppressors' than if they didn't exist. So, do feminists REALLY think that women would now be in a better position if men had never existed (eg if women could have somehow reproduced asexually)? They would probably still be living a primative existance, lowwer than a hunter-gatherer, but a little higher than a chimp.

6:57 AM, May 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Are men oppressed by women?

12:33 PM, May 27, 2006  
Anonymous Acksiom said...

Look. As long as you continue to view the world exclusively in terms of gender-based power relations, your understanding of real life, and your consequential happiness and success as a human being, are going to be likewise severely limited. Such an exclusive focus upon gender-based power relations reduces your model of the world so drastically that you miss out on essential knowledge in a host of other areas.

The fundamental human competition and conflict is not between men and women, but between individualism and tribalism, between autonomy and dependency, between self-determination and authoritarian dominance. The ruling elites and their hierarchy of con-artist parasites who try to convince you otherwise are simply attempting to distract you from the real power relations -- the ones that the founding fathers recognized and used as a philosophical basis for the creation of our fundamental, revolutionary social contract between the State and the Citizen.

Bottom line, people who get you all whooped up about one gender oppressing the other are somewhere on a hierarchical continuum that runs from emotionalistic tools at the bottom to ruthless profiteers at the top.

The resentment of "men's historical oppression of women" is simply a programmed trance people get sucked into so that they won't notice how much of their wealth and energy are being siphoned off, and how much control over their lives is being established and maintained, by the very same people promoting and spreading that resentment.

Get it?

Your enemies are not the other gender. Your enemies are the people telling you the other gender is your enemy. And the other gender is not your oppressors. Your oppressors are the people today, and the people throughout history, who keep tricking you into resenting your peers and equals, so that you never notice how much the tricksters are taking from you, and how much the tricksters are getting you to do for them.

They're con artists and demagogues and liars, and the real enemy. And you need to let go of the warm fuzzy righteous indignation that their lies awaken in you. Because they're using you through that to distract everybody's attention from just how much wealth and power they've wrongfully acquired.

4:30 PM, May 27, 2006  
Blogger AmericanWoman said...

I can't argue the soundness of your argument, Chris, because I am not insane. I'll leave it to you to keep spewing it all over the place.

Darren - I never said that women were better off without men. I happen to like men (well most of them anyway). But it's not in my nature to ignore historical facts. Women were relegated to a subservient role in the past for the most part. In government, in education, in the arts, in religion. I also don't 'resent' this oppression or any other event in history that did not happen to me personally.

4:49 PM, May 27, 2006  
Anonymous Acksiom said...

And again it must be pointed that most people were 'relegated' -- or better said, subjugated -- to a subservient role in the past; and among the few class elites who did and benefited from said subjugating, women have been consistently well-represented.

The point invalidating her view of reality remains the same: that historically, there has been a vastly, overwhelmingly greater relative difference in freedom and self-determination between men and women of the subservient subjugated classes versus men and women of the ruling classes, in comparison to the relative difference in freedom and self-determination between men versus women within the subservient subjugated and ruling elite classes.

That is a crucial historical fact which she herself is indeed ignoring.

So again, americanwoman, was or was not virtually everybody relegated to a subservient role in the past for the most part -- in government, in education, in the arts, in religion? Yes or no?

And given the choice, which would you personally have rather been -- a typical male of the subservient subjugated classes, or a typical female of the ruling elite classes?

Which would you rather have been -- a typical male slave, or a typical female slave-owner?

7:06 PM, May 27, 2006  
Blogger Chris Key said...

AmericanWoman Said: I can't argue the soundness of your argument, Chris, because I am not insane. I'll leave it to you to keep spewing it all over the place.

Chris Key Says: Again the illogical decadent has failed to refute my comments, and in the process she has merely tried to divert attention away from her stupor by promoting an ad-hominem argument. The manner in which the decadent has continuously relied on the usage of ad-hominem arguments when her tactics have been exposed in full detail is a sign of insanity on her behalf, as she continues to perform the same action on a repetitive basis and hopes that the rest of the readers will not understand the intent of her mannerisms.

The 'woman' fails to understand the very definition of the arguments that she has utilised, and when her claims are repudiated by the men on here, she just resorts to throwing a tantrum and using epithets to 'intimidate' the rest of the readers.

Anyone who possesses an understanding of the history of Humanity can understand that the claim of "women have been subjected by men for thousands of years" is a fallacy, as a lot of women have held a great deal of power over many demographics of men throughout the centuries.

Acksiom has repudiated the claims that were made by AmericanWoman, and in the process he has exposed the logical fallacies of her argumentation. As a result she has just been able to ignore his comments. When I offered a citation to refute the comments that were offered by AmericanWoman, she just *dismissed* them and refused to acknowledge their validity, which shows that she is unable to analyse and interpret any form of data that does not appeal to her agenda.

Perhaps the following citation will offer some insight to the readers:


We must once more refer, on account of its wide-spreading popularity, to the cheap sneer by which some small but ''gallant" wits may endeavour to turn the edge of the foregoing observations, namely, the attempt to play of the muscular inferiority of women to men as an answer to any allegation of oppression exercised on behalf of the so-called weaker sex. When looked at fairly in the face, the point in question will he seen so preposterously absurd as to be hardly worth answering. But, nevertheless, absurd as it is, it undoubtedly plays a part, half unconsciously, in the apathy of most men on the question of female privilege. Because men are muscularly stronger than women, it is felt by many, and the feeling is supported by the class of cheap witticism above referred to, that therefore it is impossible for men to be seriously oppressed by women. A moment's reflection suffices to show that the question of muscular strength or weakness is absolutely immaterial to the issue. It would be just as reasonable to suppose that because the Czar of Russia and his high officials were less muscularly developed than the average Russian peasant, that the possibility of the Russian peasant being seriously oppressed by the Czar or his government was a proposition to be laughed at. The weakest and most frail woman, backed by the whole power of the State, may easily annihilate by the State forces summoned by her scream, a legion of Sarnsons or Hercules." Belfort Bax (The Legal Subjection of Men)


From all we have said, it will now be evident, one would think, to the most prejudiced reader that modern English Law, following obsequiously a deluded or apathetic stage of public opinion, has solved the problem of the division of rights and duties between the sexes, by conceding to woman all rights, and imposing on man all duties.

It would not be difficult to show, were it worth while, that even the disabilities of women in past times have been grossly exaggerated by apostles of the feminist cultus who have, of course, taken a brief to prove the wickedness of "horrid man" to the poor downtrodden female. Such disabilities as really obtained were for the most part the necessary outcome of women's position as non-combatants in a rude fighting age, and certainly did not originate, as is generally represented, in any deep-laid scheme of male devising. In return for a certain formal subjection, in some respects, they obtained not only the blessing of protection, then an important matter, but valuable privileges in other directions. An impartial student of history must admit that, however badly men have treated their fellow-men, they have always treated women with comparative generosity. The change from feudal to modern capitalist conditions, as regards the position of women, is characterised, however, not only by, at one and the same time, the abolition of every vestige of subordination or disability, but, in addition to that, by the extension of the old compensating privileges, which were the counterpart of the former, and by the further heaping up on the top of these of new privileges, the result having finally saddled us with the institution of that sex-noblesse the leading features of which we have sketched out in the foregoing pages." Belfort Bax (The Legal Subjection of Men)

11:26 PM, May 27, 2006  
Blogger Darren Blacksmith said...

Americanwoman said:

"I can't argue the soundness of your argument, Chris, because I am not insane."


It seems that American woman is saying that to argue against the soundness of your argument would be insane, therefore she is supporting your argument!

3:35 AM, May 28, 2006  
Anonymous TX said...

You are weird.

You go on somebody else's blog and attack their opinions and lifestyle choices on your blog? You could've made your point with out linking to him. Now you and your minions want to harass him?

Really! Get a life. If all psychologists are as judgmental and mean spirited as you are, all of us have been warned to stay away.

10:03 AM, May 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


12:11 AM, March 15, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區momokoko同學會視訊kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風 成人 論壇kiss文學區taiwankiss文學區

7:20 AM, March 22, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2008真情寫真aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室080影音視訊聊天室38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室520情色聊天室QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族080上班族聊天室6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片

7:20 AM, March 22, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

85cc免費影城 愛情公寓正妹牆川藏第一美女 成人影片 情色交友網 美女視訊 美女視訊 視訊情人高雄網 JP成人影城 383成人影城 aa片免費a片下載 a片線上看aa片免費看 ※a片線上試看※sex520免費影片※ aa片免費看 BT成人論壇 金瓶影片交流區 自拍美女聊天室 aa片免費a片下載 SEX520免費影片 免費a片 日本美女寫真集 sex520aa免費影片 sex520aa免費影片 BT成人網 Hotsee免費視訊交友 百分百貼影片區 SEX520免費影片 免費視訊聊天室 情人視訊高雄網 星光情色討論版 正妹牆 383成人影城 線上85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 免費視訊聊天室 85cc免費影片 85cc免費影片 080苗栗人聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 免費a片下載 免費a片 AA片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 日本av女優影片 av女優 av女優無碼影城 av女優 av女優 百分百成人圖片 百分百成人圖片 視訊情人高雄網 電話交友 影音電話交友 絕色影城 絕色影城 夜未眠成人影城 夜未眠成人影城 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 免費色咪咪貼影片 免費色咪咪貼影片 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 影音視訊交友網 視訊交友網 080視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊聊天室 成人影音視訊聊天室 ut影音視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊ukiss聊天室視訊ukiss聊天室 視訊交友90739 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 視訊美女館 視訊美女館 免費視訊美女網 小高聊天室 小高聊天室 aio交友聊天室 aio交友聊天室 交友聊天室 交友聊天室 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 免費線上a片 免費線上a片 嘟嘟成人網站 成人漫畫 情色文學 嘟嘟成人網 成人貼圖區 情色文學成人小說 微風成人區 情色貼圖區 免費視訊聊天 免費成人圖片區 愛情公寓 愛情公寓聊天室 寄情築園小遊戲 免費aa片線上看 aa片免費看 情色SXE聊天室 SEX情色遊戲 色情A片 免費下載 av女優 俱樂部 情色論壇 辣妹視訊 情色貼圖網 免費色情 聊天室 情人視訊聊天室 免費a片成人影城 免費a片-aa片免費看 0204貼圖區 SEX情色 交友聊天-線上免費 女優天堂 成人交友網 成人情色貼圖區 18禁 -女優王國 080視訊美女聊天室 080視訊聊天室 視訊交友90739 免費a片 aio 視訊交友網 成人影城-免費a片※免費視訊聊天※85cc免費影片日本線上免費a片 免費色咪咪影片免費色咪咪影片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看成人影城免費色咪咪影片

1:55 PM, April 05, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"免費視訊美女520sexy girl
免費線上 aa 片試看85CC
情色18 禁sex520免費a長片
視訊辣妹girl5320 貼片貼圖區
本土自拍影片qq 美美色網漫畫
小護士免費 aa 片試看
雪之深戀 080聊天網水之浪漫
高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
aa 片試看免費卡通
dudu sex免費 aa 片試看

3:29 AM, April 09, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

免費av成人 情色
視訊美女 寫真
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
sexy diamond sex888入口
成人免費視訊 完美女人
tw33 影片交流
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
domain hilive.tv限制級

3:30 AM, April 09, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

85cc免費影城aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片aaa免費看影片aaaaa片俱樂部影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片aa影片下載城微風成人av論壇免費a片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片小魔女免費影片免費視訊聊天 a片免費看a 免費影片觀賞免費視訊聊天室微風成人85cc免費影片85cc成人影城免費成人視訊亞洲禁果影城aa的滿18歲影片A片-sex女優王國aaaaa片俱樂部免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看A片-sex女優王國情色偷拍免費A片免費A片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片aaa影片下載城日本免費視訊av俱樂部後宮0204movie免費影片免費 a 片ut聊天室辣妹視訊情色美女視訊聊天室免費卡通影片線上觀看 ut交友成人視訊免費A片av1688影音視訊天堂aaa的滿18歲卡通影片s383情色大網咖視訊美女館aaaa 片俱樂部免費a片卡通aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片 杜蕾斯成人UT影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊78論壇免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片aa影片下載城色漫畫帝國kk777視訊俱樂部美女視訊5278論壇ut聊天室aio交友愛情館免費視訊聊天成人a圖片區小說頻道彩虹頻道免費影片jp成人小魔女免費影城免費 aa 片試看情色文學A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道亞洲東洋影片gay片免費下載卡通aa片免費看成人影片分享小魔女免費影片視訊高雄情人聊天室34c卡通美女a片免費試看av免費影片,視訊聊天go2av免費影片情色 網站sex女優王國高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片plus論壇080情人網免費av影片免費a片卡通浪漫月光論壇免費aa片avdvd無碼影音視訊交友 免費視訊辣妹情人視訊網免費視訊辣妹 免費視訊78論壇台灣kiss情色貼圖區sex免費看影片彩虹論壇免費視訊聊天室 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇月宮貼圖色妹妹嘟嘟情人色網日本美女寫真集,kk視訊成人情色 視訊21sexsexy辣妹視訊百分百成人情色圖片ut辣妹哈啦視訊聊天室 素人自拍免費影片線上觀賞論壇男人的最愛中國性愛城avdvd無碼aaa免費看影片bt電影下載,免費成人片免費a片卡通dudu sex

3:30 AM, April 09, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


2:19 AM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger 徵信 said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇

外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿

3:19 AM, April 20, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

10:46 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5 分鐘護半身視訊美女tvnet0204 我愛你視訊美女拳tvnet0204 我愛你視訊美女拳love 免費視訊美女影音觀賞love 免費視訊美女影音觀賞aa-dvdaa-dvd成人影城成人影城383視訊影音城383視訊影音城383成人影城383成人影城383movie成人影城383movie成人影城av383av383環球影音城環球影音城免費視訊聊天免費視訊聊天免費視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室免費視訊 173liveshow免費視訊 173liveshow

11:08 PM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home