Monday, September 25, 2006

If Only We Could Understand These Women

What is it about this September that is bringing female baby snatchers and killers out of the woodwork? So far, a woman has had her throat cut by a woman and her baby stolen in Missouri (the good news--the baby was found) and now another woman in Illinois has been killed along with her fetus and three children by a female baby-sitter. What is suprising to me is that no one seems overly frightened or concerned by this behavior, possibly because these crimes were committed by women. Face it, if two similar crimes this close together had been committed by males against females and their babies (take the Scott Peterson case, for example), the press coverage would be different, with the horrors of the perpretrator being discussed -- and with good reason given the nature of these crimes. But with the female perpretrators, the first thing called for is a psychological evaluation and, of course, a little understanding:

On Sunday, the community turned to prayer to understand the slayings at a service for the slain family.

“This is an opportunity for people to turn to God,” said Debra Kenton, a member of the New Life Community Church. “Who else can explain things like this?”

I doubt very much that the female killer, Tiffany Hall, in the Illinois case will get death by lethal injection like Scott Peterson, despite possibly having killed five people. Tell me, if you can, what is the difference?


Blogger Cham said...

Right now we know nothing about Tiffany Hall.

The months after the Laci Peterson disappearance we learned more about Scott and Laci and Amber than we wanted. A court of law and 12 jurors, along with public opinion decided that Scott was sane and deserved to be found guilty of murder.

We have a long way to go to make that same judgement about Tiffany. However, since the murder victim in this case doesn't include a cute white girl, I doubt the national media will tell us much about what motivated Tiffany to kill.

1:11 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger dadvocate said...

It'll be interesting to see what happens. Tiffany Hall didn't use a boat. Certainly a heinous crime deserving of capital punishment unless there is strong evidence of insanity which, somehow, almost always seems to be the case when women kill.

1:28 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger ronin1516 said...

Look at how easily Andrea Yates was able to play the "I have a mental illness" and the "I was oppressed by the ideology and teachings of my husband's conservative Church", to get away scott free after murdering her 5 children. I think we need to put curbs on the whole insanity defense, becasue stone-cold murderers like Andrea yates are getting away with it.
Yeah, she was a 'oppressed, mentally ill woman"(sarcasm), and I am the King of the World!! :(

1:32 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

My pet theory about why women abusers and killers get less attention is as follows: It is too damn scarry to think about. So we do not think about it.

OK, I am sure that part of it comes from the "men bad, women good" feminist schlock, but I think part of it comes from simple denial. Who has the most access to children? Who is supposed to do the nurturing? Who is supposed to have the better bond with the children because they were a part of her? Women. And it is very comforting to not think about dangerous women having access to and torturing and or killing children. Men have less access to children and are "supposed" to teach children to be independent and spend more time with them as they get older. But who takes care of children when they are at their most vulnerable (well at least post delivery), women. OK, this is leading my thoughts to how embracing abortion may have changed the cultural expectations of mothers, but I will not go there, or any further there in this post.

My point is that considering mothers as dangerous is so frightening that we would prefer them to be crazy. So we do the testing and find out that "of course they are crazy, no woman in her right mind would do that" while we men get identified as potentially dangerous from the get go. And I am ok with the last part, because I certainly am potentially dangerous and damn proud of it. God help the person who puts my family at risk, because I will get dangerous as hell to stop it and protect my family.

Also, we men tend to do things in a direct, sometimes blunt fashion. When we attempt suicide, it is in a more potentially lethal fashion, we get the job done mmore often that women in that regard. Nature or nurture, who knows, but I bet testosterone has something to do with it. So it is easier to see our blunt abuse than the more insidious neglect perpetrated by women. And since it is too scarry to consider, we ignore that the neglect is more deadly. So when women act like men with knives and stabbings etc, well then they must be crazy. Or we would be frightened stupid.

What do you think?


1:56 PM, September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The thing is, Trey, we don't ignore it, not Helen, and for the most part, not anyone who posts here, even those who lean toward the feminist direction.

The people that ignore it are the media, including those "fair and balanced[**cough**]" folks at Fox. It's been a well-know fact that women are responsible for more abuse being foisted on their children than men, but for some reason, be it chivalry or the Lace Curtain, the truth is not being told in anything vaguely resembling a fair and balanced way.

If it were, we'd see that men and women are far more equal than we'd realized, and not necessarily in a beneficial way.

2:07 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Kent said...

My gut feeling is that the most plausible of all the explanations offered for the difference in coverage is the "men bad, women good" angle. It's a myth that goes back long before feminists, however; it's deeply ingrained in our culture.

My own feeling is that someone crazy enough to deliberately and unjustly kill is dangerous enough to be put down. I would prefer to restrict the insanity defense to cases where the person is so looned out that they aren't aware they are killing someone. IANAL, but I think that's what the law was before Freud came along, and there's a lot of sense in it.

2:31 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

Anon 2:07 -- indeed, by a factor of 2:1

2:45 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...


I do think you are right, to some degree. Everyone has a mother and everyone--no matter how bad their mother is, wants to believe that she loves them, no matter what. I think it is a biological need--to feel that a mother loves us, in a way that is even deeper than the need for a father's love, perhaps (not always). Therefore, it is scary to think that the one who should love us, would harm or kill us. It is not imaginable. However, it happens and we have to face the reality that women can, and do harm children and others. I do not bring these issues up to focus on the badness of women, but because I believe women to be autonomous human beings who feel and engage in the full range of human emotions. To say otherwise is to be sexist--it is expecting women to be above the human condition.

Women can be filled with anger, aggression, fury and hate, just like men. They tend to express it differently at times, usually in the context of a relationship or with a friend etc. rather than with strangers. But as the entitlement of our society gives women more permission to engage in violence with it's "you go girl" culture, we will see more girls and women engage in senseless acts of violence. But as anonymous 2:07 above points out, the media does not vilify women for their violence, the way they do men. Probably because their ratings would drop. Say something bad about women--and you will get an earful of hateful email, letters etc.

Take a look at what some people say to me if I voice an opinion about "feminists" who support Clinton and imagine what happens to a television or news program that advocates that women may not be the angels they wish to see themselves as--too much of a backlash.

2:45 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Hmmm, really good point about what happens if you criticize or disagree with a feminist. And I would prefer to NOT read that stuff again! I guess they do not cover Ad Hominum attacks in women's studies programs.

I agree about the biological need for a mom's love. I mean, for MUCH of our most vulnerable time, she is it. I am at work too much of the time, and it is up to my wife to love and protect the kids most of the time. I could do it without her, and she without me, but no thanks! We do OK on our own, but we rule as a team.

Also, I have never noticed any anti-woman prejudice in your posts. But like issues of race, even commenting on the pc status quo seems to invite slanderous attacks from the pc crowd. But I wonder if that biological need for moms makes the thought of neglectful and/or dangerous women too much to stand for many, maybe most people.


2:57 PM, September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helen said:

"Take a look at what some people say to me if I voice an opinion about "feminists" who support Clinton and imagine what happens to a television or news program that advocates that women may not be the angels they wish to see themselves as--too much of a backlash."

*sigh* I could've let it go, until I read that.

Do I think this Tiffany Hall woman deserves the death penalty if she is convicted of murdering this woman and her children? Of course. Do I think society in general is reluctant to see women as potentially violent and evil? Yes.

But you're going to paint yourself as some sort of victim? Give me a damn break. You expressed your opinion, which you're entitled to do. Others expressed the opposing opinion. And....? You don't get to mouth off and then expect others to clap their traps. They're just "voicing an opinion" too. Were some folks rude? Sure. But you and some of your supporters here are plenty rude at times too. Are you going to let Feministing cast herself as your victim as well? After all, she is only "voicing an opinion".

Was there any reason for folks to bring up your breasts? No. And as far as I can tell, they look like quite nice breasts. But was there any reason to discuss Feministing's breasts or the outfit she was wearing or the way she was posing? Uh, no. It was a cheap and childish shot. And unfortunately, your blog is rife with such. Seriously, I wish you would learn a few things from your husband. Though there are many times I do not agree with him, he maintains a level of intelligence, rationality and credibility that I must perforce respect.

Play with fire and you're going to get burned. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
And all those other cliches.


3:20 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...


I think the psychological aspect as we discussed is only part of it. The rest of the resistance to female violence is that the current "feminist" agenda is a political one, not necessarily one that is good for women or fair. The main point of many of these "feminist" organizations these days seems to be special treatment for women in the legal and political arena and enhanced rights without responsibilities. Therefore, in their eyes, female murderers are not really responsible, they are victims of the system and kill only in self defense or for mental reasons--such as Andrea Yates. To be held responsible means that you can be punished like men and this is reprehensible to the "feminist" agenda. I think much of it started with the likes of Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin--both of whom were very destructive, in my eyes, to the real reason for feminism--equality between the sexes. Instead, their dogma sees women as children in need of "specical help"--the kind only they and their "feminist" sisters can provide.

Andrea or Greg Kuperberg sock puppet:
Do you just wait around here with baited breath to jump on me for whatever I write? Really--get a life.

3:28 PM, September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea, nice lecture on the benefits of constructive debate in a blog format.

I only wish you had read that point before starting your point. See, I can take your entire 'watch how big I am' moment and simply change a few words to be as condescending as you were.

'Seriously, I wish you would learn a few things from your [prior posts]. Though there are many times I do not agree with [them], they [seek to] maintain a level of intelligence, rationality and credibility that I must perforce respect.

Play with fire and you're going to get burned. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
And all those other cliches.'

Really, Helen is right with this one....get a life.

4:13 PM, September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


It's really kind of funny to watch you sputter when you see Helen or anyone else criticizes some woman's behavior ("Oh you're right, you're right, she DOES deserve her punishment {or some such claptrap}...) But...

Ahhh, yes. There's always a "but."

The thing is you've established a pretty consistent pattern of attacking, not the viewpoint, but the purveyor of the viewpoint. Kind of gives you some basis to claim the high ground, but not really. You don't actually attack the point because you can't. But by God you trash the source of the point as best you can. It the typical feminist/liberal tactic. It works best in live debate, but once you actually put it down in print, it fails miserably.

Andrea, if you can attack the point, then attack the point. But if you can't then STFU


4:25 PM, September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helen, anon 4:13 and Rusty:

Yeah, thanks for addressing my point and telling me to shut the fuck up. Speaks volumes. Really.

You're saying I'm bitchy to Helen? Ok, I'll cop to that, if it'll make you feel better. But isn't that a little rich, in light of her response here? "Get a life"? That's her measured response? Hey, I was only "voicing an opinion".

And I'm not the one whining on here about "what they say to me" when I speak my peace.

4:42 PM, September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea, the problem is that your opinions are predictable and not very bright.

Which I guess is why Helen thinks you're a Kuperberg sock-puppet.

5:04 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Dr. Melissa said...

To get back to the point, I do think there is a defense mechanism protecting women and it's not just feminists doing it.

No person no matter their gender can easily wrap their psyche around a hateful, abusive mother. Husbands and fathers don't want to believe that while they are away the children (or mor likely, one child) are being subjected to harsh, inhumane treatment--or worse. No woman who leaves her child in the care of another woman wants to imagine an abusive environment.

The helplessnes of children at the hands of a deranged woman, mother is not a picture anyone wants to imagine. It obliterates the madonna-whore female dichotomy. It obliterates the feminist self-view as women being lovingly superior. Women don't do violence.

Well, guess what, women can be just as vicious and callous, as men. It just seems worse when women are endowed biologically with hormonal protective mechanisms to prevent this kind of behavior.

The rationalization is this: mom must love me, there must be something wrong with me. Transfer that to society and psychotic women murderers get off the hook.

Personnally, I hope she fries. There is no rehabilitating this empty shell of a human being. Thank God for her moral military boy friend!

5:22 PM, September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Again, this is rich. Helen is as predictable as teats on a sow. She's a one-trick pony. And the trick ain't real impressive.

And again, you make my point. That the attacks are equal opportunity around here.

And I've come to expect little better so that's fine. She wants to be a one-trick pony who makes no pretense at fair-mindedness--fine. But she wants to claim some victimhood? That she's been put upon? Or that others are hypocrites?

Seriously, the lack of self-awareness and personal insight is jaw-dropping.

The bottom line is this: you think my opinions are predictable and not very bright? Fine. This is precisely my opinion of Helen. We're all entitled to our opinions. But let someone like me express THOSE opinions, something that doesn't go with the party line around here and NOW who's on the attack? Why it's Helen herself and all her buddies who were just now bemoaning the lack of tolerance on the left!

Don't wanna be tolerant? Fine, I don't give a damn. I don't NEED your tolerance. All I'm asking is don't give me the sob story about how YOU'RE not getting any. You can't have it both ways.

6:01 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

'Kay, I'm gonna try to apple-to-apple things here.

1) I don't think there's much question that the MSM plays up male perfidity when it comes to acts of spectacular violence. I don't think there's much question that when a woman is a perp that she is more likely to get leniency from the Court of Couric's Opinion. Or whoever. Much more likely the scribes and talking heads will look for a reason (or an excuse) if a woman is the alleged perp.

2) Statistically, I think the 2:1 ratio abuse/neglect ratio. I've seen various numbers churned out from neutral or reasonably neutral data houses re. XX/XY violence towards kids and women have been described as the perps in child abuse/neglect in the sources I've peeped in all of them. Ratios ranged from 58/42 to 66/34 in the US.

Still I think this is a little like the old saw that women make 80 cents for every dollar a man makes. It's loaded data, hasn't been normalized and if anything id even more complicated then economic data.

Let's look at what we do know.

Something like 50-60% of marriages in the US end in divorce. I do not have handy data for the percentage of these marriages in which children are produced nor do I have out of wedlock birth data. I also lack data for maternal violence against children in active marriages. So I've got some pretty serious holes to begin with, but I do have one important bit of information to work with. Women intiate (for good or ill, rightly or wrongly) divorce about 75% of the time and receive custody of the children about 66% of the time.

This is incomplete info but it's worth noting as a correlative factor. Just as men often make more money because they tend to work more hours, often in dangerous and more unpleasant jobs which require more hours and offer less security, women are far more likely to be single & have custody of kids then fathers.

It stands to reason that if a far greater number of kids are left in the custody of unwed mothers (conjecture) and divorced women then (observable), a relatively higher number of kids will be exposed to violent women then to violent men.

Now I brought up the socio-economic factor for a few reasons.

First, it's the best parallel of a complicated XX/XY Sex Wars apples-to-oranges data conflation I could think of.

Second, it's relevant to the issue at hand.

Young, never married women, especially younger women, make about 117% as much money as never-married men. This is another figure that needs to be normalized but it's relevant, I think. A number of reasons have been posited for this. Some posit that that just maybe these men haven't gotten hitched and are making squat because they're shiftless losers. In some cases, I'm sure this is true. Poorer male networking skills, more aggressive competition, social ostracization of men who "miss the first cut"--all of these should be considered likely correlative factors.

Another factor is that a lot of women are attracted to, and perhaps preferred as candidates, for highly routinized jobs which require a fair amount of education and offer a high level of security & greater flexibility in return for a limited financial ceiling.

Social work & (sometimes) teaching fall into this category.

I like to call it the pink collar ghetto myself.

These women (and many others) routinely marry up. Then they have kids. Then they get divorced. Then they get the kids.

So now this lower-middle/middle-middle level income, which was very appealing at age 25 when the woman was single, or at age 30 when she was married with or w/o children, is suddenly nowhere near what she needs to pay for the children which she now has custody of, not to mention herself, at say, age 35 or 40.

This creates an awful lot of stress. It doesn't go away and after a while it can be crazy-making. And violence-making.

Then there's the simple fact that most men, frankly, aren't interested in a woman who already has kids from a previous relationship, whether she was married or not.

That's a helluva lot of pressure, not something you might necessarily anticipate & from the woman's standpoint, the prospect of being pretty much alone forever after (except for the kids, who may become her raison d'etre and may become hate-objects--"It's YOUR fault Mommy's alone.")

Reason, not excuse here, but I have developed a certain empathy over the years for single mothers. Let's just say that 33-year-old men with chronic medical problems stuck in the welfare trap are sort of in the same boat.

Women generally look for security when choosing a mate. When you can't provide it, or even go dutch for lunch 'cause it's either lose insurance you desperately need or take the limited work options available, none of which provide the insurance you need to like, not die or go $100,000 into debt if you have a cancer remission, it doesn't matter how great a guy you are.

It's a lot of pressure. You get lonely, angry, reckless & usually end up either as a statistic or. If you're lucky and have a bit of an IQ & end education, occasionally you become a European or South American dictator or President For Life.

But that always goes wrong. Sooner or later you cross the wrong drug lord or get this idea in your head that it would be a great thing to launch a land war in Russia in the middle of winter.

You're not killing your kids, necessarily, but maybe everyone else's.

Anyway, I empathize.

I can't see myself killing the fruit of my loins or starting a land war in Russia but I can see how these things might happen.


...women in the US who have kids and were NEVER married have some different odds against. They're far more likely than not to have come from impoverished backgrounds, have less education, greater exposure to violence and social trauma themselves, more likely to be in dead-end jobs (or effectively lack access to even a dead-end job). I'd wager that never married moms are also more likely to have been exposed to street drugs, heavy alcohol dependence &/or a history of being subjected to violence, be it physical, emotional, sexual and/or economic then are single women without kids or divorced women without kids.

This sort of thing can also put one out of one's skull. And family violence tends to cycle from generation to generation.

Father-led single households, I rather suspect, tend to produce saner, healthier, less dead kids because fathers who get divorced or are single and get custody of their kids probably have a lot more money and influence. The courts remain heavily stacked against dad's in these spots. If Daddy wins custody, there's a pretty high likelihood it's because he makes a LOT more money then Mommy and can hire more formidable legal help.

He's also likely EXTREMELY stable--or a really good liar, but probably extremely stable and a really nice guy because familt courts remain biased against men.

What I'm describing is a kind of legal Darwinism, I guess, a system whereby a guy better be much more well off then his estranged, soon-to-be ex-spouse, much more stable & incredibly dedicated to his kids. If he ain't, he's just not gonna win custody. If things are more even, he gets vistation rights maybe, but that's less time he can spend around his kids to either help or harm them.

For what its worth, most of the data I've seen rates step-parents (both sexes) as the worst abusers of both underage and adult children, and by a significant margin. Natural mothers come in third and in the US at least, natural fathers are usually least likely to harm their kids.

But like most other kinds of XX/Xy abuse, my suspicion is that if you somehow normalize the data, give men more time to abuse kids, equalize resources, external stresses and all that, you'll probably get something close enough to a 50-50 abuse/neglect rate & I'd wager (especially with step-children) that you'd find that step-fathers & single fathers would be more likely to inflict physical violence on their kids and women would be more likely to neglect their kids & inflict emotional/verbal/financial abuse.

In any event, I do blame the MSM for playing the XX/XY card when it comes to villain or (deranged) victim whenever a high-profile family violence case pops up.

Understanding why is important, but when someone you love and trust to protect you drowns you, chokes you or bleeds you out, you're every bit as dead and the perp is every bit as guilty.

Just my two...slightly more then two cents.

But I felt compelled to point out that although the media is certainly culpable for XX/XY bias, a lot of complication and nuance goes into that "2-to-1" female-male child abuse/neglect figure that is often sited.

And I've known mothers (and fathers) who would legally qualify a abusers who made mistakes out of weariness and desperation and still loved their children very much.

Don't know any who killed 'em intentionally. That's hard to forgive. But I've known some who just fell into bad spots, made mistakes and punished themselves more then any court ever could.

Desperate, frightened & exhausted people with few options screw up a lot. Sometimes you can forgive them for it & should. Other times, you can't &/or shouldn't.

Worth mentioning.


(Incidentally, I drew a lot (but not all) of the seemingly more obscure economic data above from analysis of Census Bureau data drawn from Warren Farrell's most recent book length screed. I am drawing from the top of my head and although I don't forget numbers, I'm not entirely certain the never-married XX/XY pay discrepancy applies to all men & women or a limited age bracket, most likely 25-34. If there's a good there, it's my bad.)

6:19 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

Er, that is to say, regarding my recall of Farrell's data, "If there's a BAD there, it's my bad."

My bad.

6:20 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Evil HR Lady said...

I think part of the reason why women give other women a pass on horrible crimes is that we are so good at empathizing. And because the only way we could imagine ourselves doing something so horrible would be if we were totally and completely insane, the woman who does this type of thing must be insane.

I also think it has not been politically correct to label behavior as evil. If there is no evil then there must be another reason for the behavior.

7:22 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

Lots of excuses. No one should get a by on harming another intentionally or through neglect.

Some 'normalization' == 'rationalization'. If it flies, it flies to both sides.

"my suspicion", yep. That's all it is. Till that situation exists, you just don't know.

7:53 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

evil hr lady,

Yes, many people cannot put themselves in the mindset of a killer--they find it hard because they expect other people to share the same values for life etc. they have. Unfortunately, many people, including women, not only do not care what they do to others, but sometimes even get satisfaction from hurting others. Empathy has its place, but believing that all people think and feel like us is a mistake and one that leads people to ascribe motives to others that "make sense" rather than see them sometimes for what they are--heartless, evil, cruel, and capable of inflicting pain on others without remorse. I learned a long time ago in my work to put myself and my feelings aside in order to learn what makes someone else tick. It is a good skill to have, regardless of one's profession.

8:26 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger The Gonzman said...

I think part of the reason why women give other women a pass on horrible crimes is that we are so good at empathizing. And because the only way we could imagine ourselves doing something so horrible would be if we were totally and completely insane, the woman who does this type of thing must be insane.

Which also conversely implies that women don't - or don't bother - to empathize with men.


9:09 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Dr. Melissa said...

For a parent, a child can be a literal example of a royal screw up forever. Step parents see the child as their spouse's royal screw up and resent it. Since the stupid kid is the only thing between my happiness and a perfect life (couldn't possibly be my stupidity), I'll take it out on the kid who looks just like, acts just like the thing I hate most--probably about myself.

Keep in mind, in this case, the murderer was a female babysitter jealous of the life this woman had, ostensibly. She was not a mother to these children. She was a cold-blooded mass murderer.

The Cinderella story is iconic because it nails a stereotype. And it wasn't the step-father that was torturing the child.

9:28 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger AmericanWoman said...


Look at how easily Andrea Yates was able to play the "I have a mental illness"

Excuse me as I laugh at this statement. If you call suicide attempts, committment to a mental facility, and psychotic drugs 'playing I have a mental illness' then perhaps you also have one.

Let's also look at motive. Peterson killed because he did not want to be burdened with a wife and kid. Yates because she thought she was 'saving' her children. These women because they want a child. It really doesn't matter to the victims, they are dead. But motive is a mitigating factor.

9:41 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Pat Patterson said...

Interesting that Agamemnon was never forgiven, for mudering Iphegenia, by the gods or Clytemnstra. While Medea, at least in Euripides, killed her children and yet lived to return to her home without any punishment, divine or human. Maybe this is an argument older than Oprah.

9:52 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

Dr. Helen,

I want to thank you again for bringing this blatant and odious contradiction to the fore once again. The only remaining rights the male has in society is to obey the civil law, (society wants to deny a moral law) die in combat to preserves ‘our rights’ and to be a wage-slave to the woman, that is, once she decides to leave with the children under any specious pretense. If a man defaults on any and all 'responsibilities', he is called a dead-beat and may even be jailed to teach him a lesson. The lesson is this: the state does not want to pay any support for a woman who leaves her marriage, so the state demands that the man pays and relegates to him only one semi-authority: monetary. The state denies the man a moral authority, a religious authority and a marital authority. His 'dignity' is only based on his monetary support. If he were to break, like all these women are doing, there would be a man-hunt, incarceration and a death sentence; no understanding or questions at all. The reason why there is slight to minimal coverage concerning this topic lies in the word 'unnatural.' The modern woman (dare a say a creature) is abhorrent in her behavior, her predilections, her proclivities, her narcissism and she is treating her children (the greatest gift of life) like a mere accessory to a lifestyle. The modern woman is out of control and is becoming uglier by the day. These women, the majority of modern women make me think of one thing and one thing only: a verse from the bible.

"For you are like whitened tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."

This is how they are appearing to men these days, covered with clown-like make-up and a pretense of a dignity that is not theirs to presume and they think they can bamboozle men into thinking by mere appearance that they are something that they are not. Men need to wake up.

10:23 PM, September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Richard Aubrey said...

We are told that women are better at emphathizing, sympathizing, and identifying with others.

Suppose it's true.

I saw a situation in which the chief of an organization was committing a low level of sexual harassment--looking at porn on his office computer so that the two women who worked in the area could see it--and in the ensuing meeting of the rest of the group, the men were dead set against having him around and the women were far more sympathetic. I am sympathetic, in the sense that I think I understand what was going on with him, but I don't have the slightest interest in having him back.

Maybe men are more capable of separating identification, sympathy and empathy from their logically-derived conclusions as to the necessary action.

So, in this case, I'd expect men to be far more interested in seeing Tiffany Whozits get the big dirt nap, but smart enough to keep their mouths shut about it.

The other thing about sympathizing, etc, is that it is always the most obvious person who gets the benefit. The dead kids ought to deserve a little sympathy, but they'll be ciphers in no time, if they're not, already. And this is probably more a phenomenon with women than with men.

Think of the OJ trial. Who was the popularly-anointed victim? Which gender wanted him put down, or, I should say, which gender had more people wanting him put down?

When you figure one of the vics was his wife (female, here, female, all you feminists, she was a female), all you can say is...go figure.

10:44 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger J. Peden said...

Maybe the leniency shown to women has something to do with the fact that only women can have the babies. Women are thus the ones who perpetuate the species in perhaps a more critical way than do men: you don't need as many men as women to have enough babies among any population group. So women are more valued, thus less killed, regardless of the motive for killing them, in comparison to men.

Maybe this survivalistic motive for giving women a break will change. Or maybe it is not a factor to begin with, or not the only factor, especially as societies have evolved.

But also, Anthropologically, men have been the primary providers and protectors of women and children, women obviously being not so evolved in the direction of protecting the family in toto or the larger unit, as evidenced at least by the difference in male vs female physiques. So women are likewise not as much of a threat in the overall picture to human survival and so are perhaps, likewise, not dealt with on a par with men in regard to the crime of murder, for example.

Maybe this unequal treatment has then translated to other crimes by some susbconscious mechanism involving caution in the case of punishing women for crimes.

But, at any rate, the relative leniency toward women should at least be acknowledged, imo, instead of the issue switched to the men-are-the-cause-of-all-evil schema, which is sexist in relation to both sexes, actually:

In the end, women are not so unlike men as to be incapable of having responsibility for acts, even equal responsibility, are they?


4:20 AM, September 26, 2006  
Blogger jw said...

Graham Strouse: You've goofed up about lone fathers: Most lone fathers are such due to mom running away ... about 55%. Maternal abandonment in the largest cause of lone fathers and the guys tend to be a fairly normal cross section of the male population. In the other 45% there are clearly some of the men you describe ... not as many as one would think though.


An eldery Jamaican man once told me that for the Justice system you can safely divide humanity into three groups:

a) minority males who are treated much too harshly
b) white males and minority females who are treated exactly how we want our Justice system to treat people
c) white females who are treated MUCH MUCH too leniently

I've long thought he was right in his viewpoint. Thus, as the killer here is a minority female, we should reasonably expect a fair trial with fair punishment.

As to the press: The media is clearly FAR too gynocentric; dangerously gynocentric in point of fact.

I think Dr. Helen has the right of the thing in pointing out that for equality, women must face the same penalties as men and society must condem female violence in the same strong voice as it condems male.

Modern feminism seeks to allow women free reign to cause harm without penalty: This is a great wrong and a serious threat to every person.

5:29 AM, September 26, 2006  
Blogger Evil HR Lady said...

The Gonzman said...
Which also conversely implies that women don't - or don't bother - to empathize with men. Hmmm.

I think feminists have been so good at convincing people that women=good, men=bad that that certainly can be the case. However, I've seen a lot of women empathizing with deviant men. Look at women who do horrible things to their children so they can keep their new boyfriend?

I used to participate in an online forum where the mindset was largely liberal. Someone posted a newspaper article about a wheelchair bound woman who was mugged. Turns out the woman was armed and she shot the mugger. I was amazed at the number of people who attacked the wheelchair bound female in favor of the male attacker. "He doesn't deserve the death penalty for mugging someone," they chanted.

8:55 AM, September 26, 2006  
Blogger Evil HR Lady said...

Helen said
I learned a long time ago in my work to put myself and my feelings aside in order to learn what makes someone else tick. It is a good skill to have, regardless of one's profession.

That is a marvelous skill. I'm actually working on developing it myself. Being in HR, it can also come in handy. Right now I'm responsible for layoffs and I've learned pretty rapidly that how I would react to losing my job is not how everyone (or even most) people would react.

8:57 AM, September 26, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Graham Strouse (6:19) wrote - a really nice long, thoughtful post. Thanks! When I was scrolling up to find where I left off last night, I saw this long post scrolling and scrolling and scrolling and thought "Shit, another mindless rant."

Boy was I wrong. Your post clarified some mistakes I was making and helped me take a better, more accurate view of the issue. Again, thanks.


10:06 AM, September 26, 2006  
Anonymous Trey said...

Americanwoman wrote: "But motive is a mitigating factor" in comparing Andrea Yates and Scott Peterson. I am not sure I agree. Peterson is a slime, and Yates was a nutcase. But using their motivations to distinguish between deserved punishments does not work for me. They were and will be punished because they killed, not because of what they thought. It was their actions.

While I think that psychology is a wonderful tool to understand why people act the way they do, I do not think it should ever be used as an excuse. Peterson is no doubt Narcisstic and perhaps antisocial, both debilitating disorders. So what? That explains how he could do what he did, the psychic mechanism, but it should not excuse the murders. Same for Yates as far as I am concerned. Motive does not enter into it for me. Planning does, in terms of first or second degree murder or manslaughter, but not motive, that is only helpful in proving a case, not imposing punishment.

What do you think?


P.S. American Woman, the Guess Who song is a scathing attack against women. I am curious why you chose that as your screen name. Or perhaps I am showing my age in knowing the song and it predates your birth!

11:46 AM, September 26, 2006  
Blogger SarahW said...

I think she *will* get the death penalty, and I think its premature to lament how she is treated differently from a selfish sociopath male.

She wanted what she wanted when she wanted it, and she killed multiple others others to cover her own lies.

Barring a history of previous pshychosis and evidence of full on psychosis during the murders, her personality disorder will not save her from lethal injection.

Not in this case.

11:53 AM, September 26, 2006  
Blogger Wickedpinto said...

I was born this month, so all of the pathetic creatures on the planet wanna have a wonderful brilliant and entertaining child, so they are trying to latch on to some of this mad wickedpinto karma.

11:51 PM, September 26, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:47 AM, September 27, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...


I haven't sourced your stat but I'm inclined to believe it's pretty accurate. I'm not inclined to dispute it, either, based on my own statistical complilations--presuming that 75% of US divorces are indeed intiated by women one can extrapolate that a lot of women just bolt.

I see a whole new nest of variables opening up before me--socio-economic breakdowns of what shall we call them..."Running Women"?

Motivations become issues, again, although they'd be hard to quanttify in any statistical fashion in a way that would not leave them open to all sorts of political pollution. I can imagine a situation where a parent in a failing relationship might run because (rightly or wrongly) they believe that their presence harms their child and that the other parent is better able to take care of the child.

I can also see a lot of situations where the parent (either sex) is simply a deadbeat.

My mind is wandering back now to a scene from that classic John Hughes/Molly Ringwald class war/teen angst flick "Pretty in Pink" which, I confess, I own on DVD.

Andie (Ringwald) says to her still-keening-after-all-these-years-father whose wife, Andie's mom, up & left:

"She's gone and she's never coming back! Why can't you accept it? I did...I loved her, too, you know. She just didn't love us back."

Yes, I know the dialogue from the top of my head. Please don't think the worse of me for it...

Anyway, do keep in mind the 45% of women who didn't just up and bolt & leave father and child hanging fire. Things happen. The center does not hold & all that. Many people conflate the aggregate with the particular & this can have deadly consequences.

I know, for instance, based on CDC data that as of 2001, six out of seven young adult suicides (age 15-24) were male. This is not aberrant data. Like most suicide data (men outnumber women overall by about 4:1), it is routinely ignored and downplayed in the popular media and no one, even when it does come up, seems to wonder why so many men get to a point where they decide to die. When reasons are given, they're usually desultory, based on crass & ignorant assumptions and downplay the particular stresses that make men's lives of quite desparation so much more unbearable that we kill ourselves in such great numbers.

The XX/XY suicide ratio is especially steep when one compares deaths between young men and women & old men & old men.

Yeah, as of 2001, 86% of all recorded suicides that year amongst 15-24 year olds were male. Six out of seven.

Thing is, see, I knew the seventh. Pam was 24, a graduate student at UPenn & she was one of the most loyal and decent & toughest people I've ever known, a great friend & I was in love with her.

And without going into great detail here, I have to say that had I been in her situation, I might have done what she did. She had been grievously harmed by people she had trusted, was coerced into worse & she knew very well that her chances of recovering from the physiological and neurological damage she had suffered were not very good at all.

I really can't go into more detail.

Sometimes the numbers matter. Sometimes they don't mean a damn thing, not when it's a person and not a population.

I'll continue to excoriate media lackeys for ignoring male suicide statistics and their implications.

But I have a rather vested & deeply personal interest in the minority report on this matter.

JW, what you say about runaway moms does fit the the informational fragments I possess. It really does.

It's just good to remember that if 55% of single-father households were simply abandoned by the mother, 45% weren't.

Statistical outliers tend, in all times, to suffer tyannical majorities when we reduce them to numbers and forget that they are flesh & blood. We do that & they (we) are that much more likely to become statistics in the entire, stats and memories. And by the numbers, they tend to have fewer friends and allies to help them when they are in genuine need of aid and have done nothing to deserve the damage they've soaked. Their isolated status makes them so easy to ignore.

I don't mean to be hostile & hope I have not presented as such.

Statistics mean a lot when you know what to do with them, and that includes knowing when to ignore them.

Accumulation of observational evidence may bring you closer to truth, but it is not truth with a big "T." And it can obscure as well as define.

I just like to remind myself of this sometimes is all.

4:04 AM, September 27, 2006  
Blogger jw said...

Graham Strouse: Nothing wrong with what you said!

I brought up the 55% of lone fathers as that fact is crucial to understanding the numbers in regard to child abuse in lone parent families. Lone mothers do three times more child abuse than lone fathers who do twice as much as two parent families.

Some attempt to say the reason for this is that lone fathers are a select group ... which is only true to a minor extent. The biggest reason for the difference is the young-on welfare and with a bad history lone mother: These young women so distort the data set ... Add in the partial filtering of lone fathers due to discrimination against males and almost all of the difference disappears.

4:27 AM, September 27, 2006  
Blogger AmericanWoman said...

trey, I can't really disagree with your comments, except that Yates was diagnosed and under care and medication for serious issues BEFORE her crime was committed, which to me, leads to at least some question of negligability by her doctors and husband (in letting her out of the hospital and alone with children).

The diagnosis on Peterson is not in question since he pled innocent and not insanity.

Oh, and I picked the name not really for the song, but I do like the song, and it's kind of an 'FU' to people who feel that way about Americans in general.

7:07 PM, September 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Update: Today I was seeing a 10 year old boy for a psychosexual evaluation. Something did not sit right in the interview. So I got the DCS interview and report sent to me. What I read and found out floored me.

When the boy was 8, he was sexually abused by a 12 year old girl. They were having full intercourse at her request and knowledge. She encouraged him to touch his sister, 5, which he did. So did the 12 year old, more than touch her. The 12 year old engaged in sexual exploits that I have never tried, and would frankly fast forward through if it were done by two adults in a porno vid. The 5 year old described the acts in detail and said "Oh yeah, and my brother touched me twice."

The boy is sent for an eval and threatened with court, his statements are rock solid in line with what his sister reported. Everything points to him being victimized and acting out a bit, sad, but very treatable as he is fessing up. The 12 year old girl was not sent for an eval or to treatment because she denied it all.

I am dumbstruck. Two younger children made detailed and believeable statements about a girl who was 4 years older and 60 lbs heavier than her oldest victim, and the boy gets identified as the perpetrator while the girl is not a concern to DCS. I know the leader of the county, and we will have a talk tomorrow, but this is astounding to me.

I thought that more boys did not disclose sexual abuse because we are afraid of being victimized or think it means we are gay if it is a male perp. Now I wonder if DCS workers can identify a male victim of female sexual abuse. I felt like vomiting, not over the perpetration, but over the fear that hundreds of boys have been falsley identified as perpetrators when they are acting out their own perpetration at the hands of females, but DCS could not conceive that such a thing could happen.

11:44 PM, September 27, 2006  
Blogger jw said...

Anonymous 11:44

VERY common and to be expected in female offender sex assault cases. The sexism in these cases has to be seen to be believed.

As a survivor of a female offender sex assault I am extremely familiar with the size, scope, nastiness and sexism which IS --which defines-- female offender sex crimes.

4:39 AM, September 28, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Anonymous 11:44:

I am very dismayed to hear about your evaluation and hope DCS will hear what you have to say. I fear they will not. I have had several run-ins with DCS and case workers and have to say, they do not hire the best and brightest or they hire those with a rescue mentality that precludes the facts of a case. I had an evaluation where a teen age boy was perpretrating against boys and girls in a group home. I wrote it up in the report and reported the abuse to the head manager. The result? She came to my office, chewed me out and told me she would no longer send me business. My response..."fine." Her program was later shut down--I must say, I was happy to hear it.

Sometimes, all you can do is try to educate these workers and hope that they hear you. In my opinion, they often have too much power over children and parent's lives on one hand and do not intervene when necessary, on the other. Good luck with your case.

8:37 AM, September 28, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

but dont you realise it must be a man that made them kill those women and children.. women are innocent angels unable to do anything bad on their own..(sarcasm off).

4:51 AM, September 29, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

Thanks, jw!

I go over the top, sometimes. Honestly, if you normalize abuse statistics honestly, I think you'll find relatively inconsequential differences between incidents of XX on XY/XY on XX abuse, be it intimate or familial. Men and women have had millenia to learn how best to be horrible to each other. We've all gotten good at it.

I DO think you'll very different means of expression of this species of violence. I also think you'll find that when men use violence on women using male methods and women use violence on men using female methods that the consequences tend to rebound into future generations. Same for man on man & woman on woman.

Intra-family, step-parents are by far the most dangerous perpetrators where children are concerned, especially children from previous marriages. This goes for minor children (pretty fair amount of study here) and adult children with chronic medical problems, children (and no spouses) & other issues which force one into situations where the adult child must remain dependent on the natural (re-married) parent.

There is little or no study in this area.

I expect that one could interpolate a fair amount from accrued anecdotal information and macro-studies involving both anthropological and even zoological data analysis.

Here the dangers are very different for males and females. It is socially rather more acceptable for women then men past college age to move back in with their parents either to help them afford further education or to retreat from a bad spot.

Step-fathers do not take well to this. They are likely to use emotional violence, economic violence and threats to destroy their step-children.

I call this the "Kill The Cubs Syndrome" and have observed it repeatedly. Stepfathers do not, as a rule, behave decently towards late adolescent and adult male children of new wives from previous marriages.

They also are far more likely to become intra-family sexual predators of younger male children and female children (older and younger.) They represent a physical threat to female children from previous marriages.

They are NOT much of a physical threat to adult male children from previous marriages save under unusual circumstances for very obvious reasons.

Young adult males are older, stronger & much more likely to respond with physical aggression, at which they are more capable, by and large. They are also more likely to maintain some level of vigilance over aggressive behavior displayed by their stepfathers towards their natural mothers.

Stepmothers tend to be more subtle, sometimes less, sometimes more dangerous, possibly moreso towards girl-children from previous marriages. They are more likely to scheme & manipulate & "steal love" away from the natural parents of children of previous marriages. They tend to specialize more in verbal, financial & emotional abuse and are probably more of a threat to younger children.

This is a more tenuous game, I think, although mileage may vary. Women are still much more likely to marry up, whether it's the first marriage or fifth, and so long as the children are sharp enough not to assist in their stepmother's attempts to alienate their natural father who still, in all likelihood, controls the purse-strings.

There is a lot of speculation here & I could be inferring overmuch from anecdotes.

7:36 PM, September 30, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

The erudite Graham Strouse mentioned "zoological data analysis" about blended families and violence. I seem to remember that male lions who take over a pride first kill the cubs.

Also, in difficult divorces (what an interesting phrase, it offers that there are easy divorces) the child from the previous marriage will likely remind the new couple of the previous spouse. Can be a recipe for disaster, as it was here in Tennessee where a developmentally delayed child from the previous marriage was chained to a bed and starved almost to death.


7:59 PM, September 30, 2006  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

tmink --

And gorrillas will adopt orphans. So? Drawing conclusions from disparate species (like using birds for social implications of humans) is not only fraught with possibility for mistake, it is simply stupid. Just because lions and some birds are social means nothing. So the hell are ants, termites, Galapogos iguanas, a South American spider, Volvox and pirhana, to name a few disparate organisms.

Yes, the Tennessee case is horrible. Happens with birth parents too. More often, the child is treated neutrally or well. I counter your case with my friend Stephen Hutt who adopted the two girls from his wife's previous marriage and my brother who did the same for three, and kept them well even after their birth mother ran off.

One thing I notice is the tendancy to apply statistics to the individual. This is not rational as the individual can be at the center of the bell or the most extreme element of either end. All one can talk about is the tendancy of the group measured, not it's individual components or even other groups.

To do otherwise is to decend into Oprahism.

10:09 AM, October 01, 2006  
Anonymous Trey said...

Oli wrote: "Drawing conclusions from disparate species (like using birds for social implications of humans) is not only fraught with possibility for mistake, it is simply stupid."

You missed my point. I was making an interesting comparison, that is different from drawing a conclusion. And for the record, mammalian brains (lions and humans) are MUCH more similar than insect and mammalian brains in most cases.

"Yes, the Tennessee case is horrible. Happens with birth parents too." Agreed. The abusing father WAS the birth parent, and I bet things for their birth children were not much better. But, bio fathers are the safest men in a child's life. Statistics again, but factual. Why is that so? I am interested in thinking about it. Why not think about it with us?

Your post reads as if you thought I was condemning step parents. Sorry if it came out that way, that was the farthest things from my mind. I was thinking out loud in reaction to a post. For the record, my wife is a step parent, and she is a loving, kind person who loves our daughter from my first marriage with all her heart. I thanks God for her every day.

I thought that the most interesting part of my post was where I talked about the unconscious identification of the step child with the divorced spouse. Isn't that an interesting thought?


9:13 PM, October 01, 2006  
Blogger Oligonicella said...


"And for the record, mammalian brains (lions and humans) are MUCH more similar than insect and mammalian brains in most cases."

I'm a biologist in general and an entomologist in particular. In all cases.

My back reference was to a previous topic where someone linked to a paper by psychologists who used avians and lions specifically as models for human social behavior. So, the reference to the lion male seemed to be somewhat in this context. If not, apologies.

While the step-child reminds the spouse of their partner's previous partner, I don't at all think this is unconscious. It would take a pretty shallow person to not be conscious of the basic biology involved or the visual cues. I just don't give people that much slack in their abuse. When they abuse, I believe it is because they want to hurt. They may hide their motivations and lie about them, but they're aware of them.

The opinions expressed in this post are mine and mine alone and are not to be taken as representing those of any other human, animal or plant on this planet, Alpha Centauri or the Milky Way in general, although they bear a significant similarity to those of the Belanochronians of the NGC 4414 galaxy.

10:14 AM, October 02, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Hey Oli, I am confused (sadly a common occurance with me.) Are we agreeing about the lion behavior being interesting when considering human behavior or are we disagreeing? I think it is an interesting point for consideration, and it reads like you do too. I am thinking that lions are closer to us in terms of brain comparisons than birds. I bow to your expertice in this area, am I correct in that?

I do not give people slack in terms of abuse either, we agree. But I do think that for many people there are un or preconscious issues in a blended family. I may be a little more cynical than you about the mental functioning of people, but then I see a skewed sample for my work.

So, did I misread our disagreement?

Thanks for your patience.


2:48 PM, October 02, 2006  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

tmink -

Points in reverse:

I am extremely cynical in the mental functioning of people, but not in the flashes of awareness in what they do, if that at all clarifies my position. As an example, the broad who drowned her children drowned the eldest (those who would put up the most fight) first. That's an indication that she knew damn good and well it was wrong. Or, at least her kids would see it as wrong.

Lion <-> human behavior is interesting in the sense of parlor talk.

Feline brains are indeed closer to ours. On the order of two hundred-fifty million years. That's when mammals and reptiles diverged with avians diverging later in the Early Jurassic or earlier. The brain structure developed along seperate paths after that.

Reptilian brain
Avian brain
Feline brain
Human brain

Even though much closer, the feline brain is distinct and that can't help but influence behavior. Seems to me the mere fact that humans exhibit one-to-many, many-to-one, one-to-one-serial, one-to-one-lifetime and celebate lives indicates there's no hardwiring going on and drawing any conclusions about underlying "instincts" is foolish.

Enjoyable discussion.

Get me going on the distributed processing aspects of insect nervous systems and their expression of instinctual and intelligent behavior sometime. But, not today.

These views are just mine and the Belanochronians.

12:58 PM, October 03, 2006  
Blogger me said...

Very interesting discussion .... it is so true that people refuse to give women bad motives. People don't want to think women have the same capacity as men to do evil acts, whatever they may be (killing, sexual abuse, etc.). But denying it is in fact anti-feminist -- promoting either female superiority or the madonna-whore complex, neither of which promote equality. I have to say the woman in Illinois who was murdered by having her fetus ripped out of her uterus and then the murderer killed her other three children and left them in a dryer is almost incomprehensible. I cannot think of it without gagging and tearing up. From the sound of it, I don't think the woman was crazy --- the acts don't speak that way to me. Who knows . . . it is so frightening to think there could be someone on your street or in your apartment building who is capable of things like that . . .

12:07 AM, October 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This informative piece of writing on site will prove to be very beneficial to its reader in the long run. Join in with this group of readers.

1:31 AM, October 04, 2006  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

Spam alert - Anon 1:31

Not only not about writing, it appears to be mostly gibberish. I would suspect phishing here. Unless the author can describe the site (advertising servers) and it's purpose in a coherent manner, don't jump.

9:31 AM, October 04, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Oli wrote: "Get me going on the distributed processing aspects of insect nervous systems and their expression of instinctual and intelligent behavior sometime."

Can we remain friends if I don't? (shudders)

My interest in brains comes from being a psychologist who has and works with interesting brain dysfunctions, ADD, dyslexia, dysgraphia. I routinely talk about some types of anxiety being a reptilian processing. But insects and sea slug nervous systems are beyond the big toe I have dipped in neurology. Not that there is anything wrong with that.



6:24 PM, October 04, 2006  
Blogger A&E&ME said...

Just hours prior to the Amish School Girl massacre, a 31 year old mother murdered her two girls, aged 1 and 3, in Barrie Ontario Canada. She is said to have been involved in a custody battle. On the same day, Newfoundland issued a report on the Turner case where the mother, facing extradtition to the US for the murder of her son Zachaery's father, drowned herself and one year old Zachaery.
Links for these on my weblog

3:33 PM, October 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


12:35 AM, March 15, 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

7:47 AM, March 22, 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

7:47 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

2:26 PM, April 05, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


5:06 AM, April 13, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 吉澤明步QQ美女視訊秀 85cc免費影片aa影片下載城sex免費成人影片aaa片免費看短片美女視訊 sex383線上娛樂場av969 免費短片日本免費視訊aa影片下載城視訊網愛聊天室影音視訊交友 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇sex520免費影片aa免費影片下載城aio辣妺視訊 aio辣妹交友愛情館 jp成人影片aio交友愛情館馬子免費影片免費線上a片18成人85cc影城0204movie免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友s383視訊玩美女人34c高雄視訊聊天jp成人免費視訊辣妹 kk777視訊俱樂部xxxpandalive173影音視訊聊天室 sex520-卡通影片成人免費視訊 完美女人13060 免費視訊聊天sexy girl video movie辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室UT視訊美女交友視訊情色網百事無碼a片dvd線上aa片免費看18禁成人網ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊激情網愛聊天 情人小魔女自拍卡通aa片免費看夜未眠成人影城aio性愛dvd辣妹影片直播拓網視訊交友視訊聊天室ggoo168論壇視訊辣妹love104影音live秀 美女show-live視訊情色yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室s383情色大網咖視訊aaa俱樂部台灣情色網無碼avdvdsexy diamond sex888入口Show-live視訊聊天室

1:45 AM, April 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

免費 a 片aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部dodo豆豆聊天室sex520網路自拍美女聊天室天堂免費線上avdvd援交av080影片aa影片下載城aaa片免費看短片成人圖片區18成人avooogo2av免費影片sexdiy影城免費線上成人影片bonbonsex0951影片下載日本av女優sex888免費看影片免費視訊78論壇辣妹有約辣妹no31314視訊dudu sex免費影片avdvd情色影片免費色咪咪影片網av080免費試看日本美女寫真集辣妹脫衣麻將視訊聊天室性福免費影片分享日本美女寫真集,kk視訊aio交友愛情館免費成人美女視訊bt論壇色情自拍免費a片卡通tw 18 net卡通18美少女圖色情漫畫777美女小護士免費 aa 片試看百分百成人情色圖片a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fuckedsexy girl video movie情色文學成人小說sex888免費看eyny 伊莉論壇sexdiy影城自拍情色0204movie免費影片aio免費aa片試看s383情色大網咖sexy girl video movie草莓牛奶AV論壇台灣論壇18禁遊戲區環球辣妹聊天室 90691拓網aio交友愛情館拓網學生族視訊777美女 sex888影片分享區hi5 tv免費影片aa的滿18歲卡通影片sex383線上娛樂場sexdiy影城免費a片線上觀看真人美女辣妹鋼管脫衣秀比基尼辣妹一夜情視訊aio交友愛情館

1:45 AM, April 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520視訊聊天室v6 0plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂免費 a 片85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費A片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費A片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaaa片免費看影片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費A片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片aa影片下載城色漫畫帝國av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片

1:45 AM, April 14, 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

4:57 AM, April 20, 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

4:57 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..........................

11:00 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a咆哮小老鼠麗的情色小遊戲台灣情色網視訊 美女 168論壇情色遊戲情色小遊戲情色小站情色影片情色貼片美女視訊18禁地少女遊戲巨乳童顏巨乳玩美女人影音秀視訊美女情色視訊bt論壇色情自拍s101成人大喇叭免費視訊視訊聊天kk777視訊俱樂部18禁成人網ut影音視訊聊天室13077ut男同志聊天室免費視訊聊天aio交友愛情館

11:46 PM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home