Sex and the City
Well, today I received a copy of the book Sex and the City
from Harper Collins. They asked bloggers a while ago if we wanted one and I said "sure." The book is a companion to the movie and has lots of glossy pictures of the cast which are kind of pretty along with some behind-the-scenes stories from each of the actresses and crew.
I might make some enemies here, but I actually like "Sex and the City." I never watched it when it was out in the 1990's but saw it sporadically in re-runs on TBS. Then, last year while at the beach, my sister-in-law brought all six seasons
on DVD and I watched every one of them. I must admit that I loved them. Why? They were totally whimsical and silly and required not one iota of thought or analysis from me. I watch movies or TV mostly for entertainment and "Sex and the City" is entertaining.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but other bloggers have. For example, Ann Althouse didn't seem to like it much (here are some highlights as to why):
So, Sarah Jessica Parker is too stringy looking and Chris Noth is too fat. You know what? I don't care. I love Chris Noth. I don't care that he's fat, he looks fine to me. I have a few questions (and coming from a psychologist, this might sound weird) but why does everyone have to analyze everything to death? What's wrong with a little escapism now and then--can't I just watch the show or movie and just have fun doing so? Is that so awful?
And I see in this article that no real man would be caught dead going to the "Sex and the City" movie. Yes, I want to see the movie. But if I take my husband with me, this is proof that he is a wuss? Why?
from Harper Collins. They asked bloggers a while ago if we wanted one and I said "sure." The book is a companion to the movie and has lots of glossy pictures of the cast which are kind of pretty along with some behind-the-scenes stories from each of the actresses and crew. I might make some enemies here, but I actually like "Sex and the City." I never watched it when it was out in the 1990's but saw it sporadically in re-runs on TBS. Then, last year while at the beach, my sister-in-law brought all six seasons
on DVD and I watched every one of them. I must admit that I loved them. Why? They were totally whimsical and silly and required not one iota of thought or analysis from me. I watch movies or TV mostly for entertainment and "Sex and the City" is entertaining. I haven't seen the movie yet, but other bloggers have. For example, Ann Althouse didn't seem to like it much (here are some highlights as to why):
So if I have nothing to say then I wasted 148 minutes. To try to salvage my lost time, I'll go with a numbered list:
1. Why is a comedy 148 minutes long? Especially a comedy based on a half-hour sitcom. It was like 5 TV episodes stuck together. Except 5 TV episodes would have been more fun because there would have been a lot more random, go-nowhere plots and not a true-romance story arc for each of 4 characters. They'd have thrown in some extra bad boyfriends. Instead, each aging diva has the love of her life to come to terms with....
6. I say "our Carrie," because it seems we're supposed to identify with her, but why on earth do we? Is she our fantasy? We might like to maintain our skinniness as we age, but we don't visualize it turning out that stringy. ...
9. And if Carrie is so horrified by fat, why is she so hung up on Mr. Big, who is fat? Hey, I'm just seeing that Chris Noth (who plays Big) was born in Madison, Wisconsin. That's nice! But still, the man is substantially overweight, and in profile, at least once, it was very obvious that he was wearing a powerful girdle.
So, Sarah Jessica Parker is too stringy looking and Chris Noth is too fat. You know what? I don't care. I love Chris Noth. I don't care that he's fat, he looks fine to me. I have a few questions (and coming from a psychologist, this might sound weird) but why does everyone have to analyze everything to death? What's wrong with a little escapism now and then--can't I just watch the show or movie and just have fun doing so? Is that so awful?
And I see in this article that no real man would be caught dead going to the "Sex and the City" movie. Yes, I want to see the movie. But if I take my husband with me, this is proof that he is a wuss? Why?
posted by Helen at 11:02 AM
61 Comments:
Only men who have a low opinion of themselves would think that men seeing chick flicks or kids movies makes them something other than what they are.
Now I will be the first to admit that I have caught a few Zs during movies that didn't interest me. But that is the extent these "types" of movies affect me.
Papa Ray
A man takes his wife to a movie he has no interest in, and he loses his guy cred? If that were the case then no husband in the US would be considered a man anymore.
Suffering while maintaining enthusiasm at a movie is a real man trait.
Any movie that allows you to gaze at Kristin Davis for two plus hours can't be that bad for a guy. I always thought Sarah Jessica Parker was fence post homely, Cynthia Nixon looked like a lipstick lesbian (I called that one years before she really became one), and Kim Catrell was too old to look that trashy. Davis in contrast is a godess. She is absolutely beautiful and cute all at the same time. I have never watched the show or know anything about it beyond the fact that Davis is so wonderful.
Men will go with their wives or girlfriends to see these movies without a problem. Why? Because every other guy they know will go with their wives/girlfriends.
"But if I take my husband with me, this is proof that he is a wuss?"
Naw. Happens all the time.
"And I see in this article that no real man would be caught dead going to the "Sex and the City movie.""
Well, shows you how easy it is to write a misinformed article!
There are lots of reasons an actual man would go see the movie. A completely bona fide reason is to keep his wife happy. My wife lets me play golf and go fishing on occasion, it is right and fair and good to support and participate with her doing things that are more fun for her than they are for me.
Real men love their wife. Real men know how to take turns. QED Real men would go see SATC.
Trey
Davis is delicious, make no mistake, and might be the best reason to endure 2.5 hours of what is a perfect little bonbon at 30 min.
Yes, every character in the show would drive me around the bend in real life, but it's a silly show about self-absorbed, vapid people, and that is more or less what makes a sitcom. Problem is, when you try to make an extended-length movie of same, it either tries to take itself too seriously or runs out of interest a little past its TV length. I'm going to guess the former, in this case. Hey, you eat the whole box instead of 1 or 2, there are consequences.
Isn't that what movies are for? Entertainment? Am I missing something?
If you really don't understand how others might rationally disapprove of your finding entertainment in SATC the series or movie, I suggest you try imagining how black people might rationally disapprove of you finding entertainment in a series or movie that likewise favorably depicts the attitudes and behaviors of four white supremacist bigots.
As Kathryn Jean Lopez over at NRO had, in relevant part, to say:
"The movie, like the series, is an important cultural contribution. It’s a mirror. And you don’t have to be promiscuous or crass like Carrie and Samantha and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) and Charlotte (Kristin Davis) tend to be to see a reflection. There is a real focus on men, and on what women do to men: Women don’t forgive men. Women don’t think about men and their feelings. For as sensitive as the modern man is supposed to be to a women’s feelings and as sensitive as a man is supposed to look, he’s not really supposed to register an opinion. Or slip up. Or be honest."
Thus, wuss? Well, yes, actually. But because it's not so much a particularly NOT-A-MAN thing to refuse to pay money for the 'privilege' of wasting over two hours on being insulted and denigrated as it is a genderless ADULT SELF-RESPECT thing.
I will not rule out seeing the movie. I watch a wide variety and then blog about them. I have a penpal in Italy who enjoys the TV show. I do feel sorry for any men who might be forced to watch it to please their wife.
I tried watching the series when it was on HBO and had the same reaction to it that I had to The Sopranos: boring (and not well written.)
They were both bad soap operas--most soaps move along at a fast pace. These two shows (and Lost amongst others) dragged on and on. I saw episodes where it took fifteen minutes to resolve the simplest scene. There was a whole lot of yakking, and more yakking, and even more yakking, all saying the same thing over and over.
(The best comment I heard was that Sex in the city is about four gay men played by women.)
i thought it was ok, i liked the kim cattrall character as she was childfree in real life and on screen.
I found her to be the best of the 4, yes i saw some of them, but i do have an explanation.. insomnia and only thing on tv at that time..at least in the UK.
Acksiom,
Yes, I agree with your point--women should not treat men like objects--but as human beings. However, the movie may just teach that. Lopez also says this about the movie:
"Even the girls I walked out of the theater with might think twice before they stomp all over the hearts of their Mr. Big or Steve, and they might realize that the deeper message of the film is that it’s not hooking up but true love and marriage and children they want. If they went back to Sex after the tastes of “happily ever after” that came by the end of the TV series, then they might already know, deep down, that that’s what they crave — and Sex might just make some love happen."
So, perhaps there are also some redeeming parts of the movie that one can get if they so decide. I think at times our interpretations of movies are like Rorschachs--one can see a variety of things, some good, some bad depending on how they perceive the world.
I once got dragged to see 9 Months, a Julianne Moore/Hugh Grant movie. I suffered low testosterone for several days until I went to see Die Hard III.
If my wife asks me to go along I'll do so without any sort of second thought. I don't care what people think.
Besides, she gets to enjoy all the good action flicks alongside of me, might as well reciprocate.
Helen, I think there are some parts of the movie that you will roll your eyes at, but other parts that you will really like. I don't think that this quite counts as a spoiler, but I have to say that I don't think a series/movie can be all bad if the happiest guy is one who is bald and chubby and sweats a lot but who is devoted to his wife, family, job, and religion. I generally like Kathryn Jean Lopez's writing, but I walked out of the movie feeling as though I'd seen a totally different film from the one that she saw.
Is it a movie primarily told from a woman's point of view? Yes, it is. Know that going in. Do I think that implies that the message is that men's feelings don't count? No - I think it implies that this is a movie told from a woman's point of view. Not quite the same thing, IMHO.
Also, guys - it's a chance to see hot naked chicks in a setting that's girlfriend/wife-approved (and for those of you who don't find the four main characters attractive, they're not the only ones shucking their clothing here).
Helen, I'll be interested to hear what you think of the movie (and the Prof is well, if he goes along with you). I actually thought of you and Amy Alkon as I was watching the movie - one of the characters is a classic example of a "nice guy" as discussed in the No More Mr. Nice Guy literature. I'd say the ultimate lesson of the movie is to value and communicate with your partner, but maybe that's just me.
Marion,
Thanks for your reaction to the movie. I am really looking forward to seeing it!
"I do feel sorry for any men who might be forced to watch it to please their wife."
Me too, but I wonder how he would be forced. A gun?
Now I appreciate the wise man who goes to see it because it is in the best intrest of his relationship to go, or the man who enjoys the show, or the guy who hopes he will get laid afterwards. They have a reason.
Men do things that are unpleasant every damn day. Last week I listened to a schizophrenic embezzler tell me how great Hillarycare would be because he had a big hospital bill when he faked trying to kill himself instead of taking his French exam. And I kept my mouth shut.
Most unpleasant. But sometimes, dealing with unpleasant things is how I make it through life. Men can take anything for the right "why." We are perfectly willing to die for the right reason.
Trey
"I don't care that he's fat, he looks fine to me."
Ha ha. You called him fat!
I'm only making a point about his obesity -- I'm sure his BMI is at the "obese" level -- because the characters in the movie make a huge deal about Samantha's nearly imperceptible weight gain. I don't like the double standard.
I agree that Noth looks reasonably fine... though certainly not at the level that Carrie -- who is very appearance-oriented -- should be swooning over (unless you factor in his presumably fabulous wealth).
Oh, I should have also said that the happiest woman in the movie is one who values her husband and family, shows her appreciation to her husband, and considers a good sex life with that husband to be important.
That having been said, labels leave me cold, so part of the movie didn't appeal to me, but the movie shows some nuances there, too. Some. I think the clothing that Carrie wears in the movie is, on average, more attractive than the stuff she wore during the show, so that's something.
Note: My usual taste in movies runs toward ones in which lots of stuff blows up, not to chick flicks, but I liked the movie overall nonetheless - and I noticed a lot of male-female couples in the theater.
Ann: Maybe I'm still biased by memories of him from early "Law & Order," but I thought Chris Noth looked great. YMMV. Also, I personally thought the (brief) commentary on Samantha's weight gain was okay given that it immediately segued into a conversation in which she was told a) that she'd be beautiful at any weight; and b) that the weight gain indicated to her friends that something was wrong in her life. Which I think sudden weight gains often do indicate, whether the "something wrong" be medical or emotional. Again, YMMV - and this is from the point of view of Hollywood, through which the character of Harry (who I think is adorable) is considered to be less than handsome because he's bald and not super-buff.
I loved the series and the movie for the same reasons you did. It was smart, silly, escapist, shoe-handbag-and-fashion-loving fun. I liked the film as well. Was it the best film in the world? No. It was an excuse for my girlfriends and I to get together and see it, talk about how silly and wonderful some of it was, and have a girls day out. Nothing wrong with that...
I thought most seasons of the show were hilarious, and I loved watching them.
The sex stories were hilarious. Ms. Parker's physical comedy was hilarious. It was fun.
The cut-for-tv version is nowhere near as funny; the spontaneity, the irrereverance, and nearly all of Kim Cattrall is removed.
The more serious relationship stuff wasn't that interesting to me, and one of the middle seasons was a bit tedious, but overall, it was great comic tv.
I'm not interested in the film, though, because I don't see that format working. 25 minutes of silliness on a sunday worked well.
I know that someone above commented on Kim Cattrall being too old, etc.
As someone who has met Kim Cattrall in the not too distant past I can tellyou that she is not only gorgeous beyond belief but also very pleasant to be around socially. This was when she was married to Mark Levinson and the two of them treated me to a very pleasant afternoon listening to good music and conversation with them in their home. She is a truly class act.
Have never met the others but see no reason to believe otherwise about them.
I would not go out of my way to see the movie but if I were asked to see it by someone I wanted to be with, it would not shock my testosterone to watch it.
The cut-for-tv version is nowhere near as funny; the spontaneity, the irreverence, and nearly all of Kim Cattrall is removed.
It is my considered opinion that the more of Kim Cattrall visible, the better.
There's nothing wrong with a man going to see SITC, if his wife asks him to accompany her. Though, there is is something terribly wrong with a wife would ask.
If I was married or in a committed relationship, I would go see SATC. But I would be bored to tears.
I've watched a little of the TV show. None of the women particularly appeal to me. Sarah Jessica Parker's appeal is beyond me. She was cute many years ago but not now.
I usually change channels when the 4 women are sitting in the coffee shop talking. Listening to 4 neurotic women talk about their neurotic relationships bores me completely.
But if I take my husband with me, this is proof that he is a wuss?
No, he's, um, merely doing research for a post. :)
(Oh, all right, I'd be looking at it as an excuse to hang out with the spouse and pig out on popcorn. However, I'd love to be a fly on the wall listening to the commentary you two would come up with...)
I have seen bits of episodes, and the colors and feel of the movie remind me of Doris Day - Rock Hudson movies. Those were fun. I never enjoyed the sitcom but it's visually beautiful, as I'm sure is the movie.
The series/movie probably seem more innocuous from real America than from New York. In the city, the phenomenon Kyle Smith talks about is impossible to miss.
Er. . .nooo. . .since you quoted the last lines of K-Lo's article, I'm pretty confident in asserting that you know perfectly well how it far better supports my thesis than it does yours.
Furthermore, my point was more along the lines of being sure that while
(A) our putative analogous black moviegoer could find some redeeming parts and messages to a 'Segregation and the City' movie if they so chose, too, but
(B) nevertheless, somehow, I find myself doubting that you would try to use that to put an equivocating gloss of acceptability on the objectionable aspects of such a series or movie, let alone to rationalize your enjoyment of either, and therefore
(C) whatever part or parts of you whose questioning of the appropriateness of your appreciation of SATC motivated you to ask for feedback about that are thus at least somewhat validated.
In short, you wouldn't have asked if you didn't have doubts, and so here is one good reason why those doubts might have solid grounds, take all you want, eat all you take.
That's a lot closer to my point than the puerilely pollyanna-ish observation that objectification = bad -- something that very few people here need to be reminded of, let alone informed.
Every man should see the movie. Why? The film is filled with beautiful women in it. Some of them topless.
Enough said.
(My little theater had 5 men and 50 women in it. The women gave us a standing ovation at the start. It was great.)
Guys, while I often enjoy reading K-Lo over on NRO, I think she...somewhat misrepresented the movie. Not intentionally, but the movie she described was not the movie I saw. Now, if Helen describes it the same way as K-Lo, I'll be more inclined to rethink my approach, but I'd say that the movie is actually about the folly of women focusing on their own wants and feelings and ignoring those of their male partners, and the unpleasant results from that for both parties. I'd say it's also about the havoc that can result when one half of a couple - the male half, in this case - doesn't communicate his feelings/frustrations with his relationship, only to have them erupt at the worst possible time and in the worst possible way. Men who like sex and want a healthy sex life with their mates aren't the enemy in this movie - quite the opposite.
As I said, this is a movie from a woman's point of view, just as, say, "Sideways" is a movie from a man's point of view. I don't think it ignores that men are real people with real feelings - I think it shows us what the female characters are thinking and feeling in detail, and what the male characters are thinking and feeling in less detail (though we get the general impression).
I'll put this another way, and I apologize for the rampant stereotyping that's about to result: To the attached guys out there, don't you occasionally get roped into seeing chick flicks in return for your SO going to see action flicks? (I actually dislike chick flicks and love action movies, and I'm very much a woman, but I'm going on averages here.) Well, this is a chick flick in which there is no shortage of naked women who like sex. This is as close as you're ever going to get to seeing porn in a chick-flick wrapping. If you can sit through 2 1/2 hours and think of baseball when the characters are gushing about labels, I bet you can get more than one tandem outing to a summer action movie/bawdy comedy in return.
Well, I won't see the movie. I have nothing against sex, it's the city I can't stand. Now, Sex In The Country?
That's more like it.
Um, this is the internet, remember?
The modern pornucopia, so to speak?
Where the enactments of a hundred thousand niche fetishes are just a moment's googling away, in the privacy of one's own home, for mere pennies a day?
I'm curious -- what, exactly, is supposed to be the particularly greater appeal, in comparison, of expending ten+ bucks and two+ hours to see a few minutes of soft-core pr0n in a public theater?
If you like SATC, please, go see the movie and enjoy it. If you don't like SATC, don't waste your money and stay home. The movie isn't for me, so I stay home. Why? I live in a city and have had a lot of sex, I don't have to live vicariously through 4 actresses. But then again, I worked for 10 years in the waste business for the boys up in Jersey so I don't feel the need to watch the Sopranos either. BTDT.
With my cable network there are a bunch of channels on either side of the Lifetime Channel that I like to watch so I am alway surfing past Melissa Gilbert and her ilk. Lifetime is trying to attract a younger female viewer so they have embarked on a new programming strategy. They have made several movies that all have the same theme:
Depressed angry rich lady in her mid-30s who lives in the big bad city gets opportunity to save horses in the country and chase an emotionally unavailable country hunk who makes little or no money. Once she stays in the country and saves the horses she realizes the folly of her big city ways and settles nicely into country life with creepy silent guy while driving a pick-up truck.
I have no idea whether I should be buying handbags in NYC or chaps in Bumfuck, CO. Whatever floats your boat, I think I will just keep the life I've got sans the designer outfits and the ponies.
seneca: My reason for going, underwear and partial nude scenes. So I'm a pig. As one who is Kim's age +, I am amazed at how great she looks.
Sigourney Weaver, too, come to think of it.
Oink!
Hi Ann,
I get what you're saying about the double standard but I don't think that men are let off the hook much these days either. I just saw a while back that Noth was listed in the Enquirer (or was it the Star?) as one of the "worst beach bodies." It's too bad society is so appearance oriented in general. It puts too much pressure on both sexes really.
Listening to 4 neurotic women talk about their neurotic relationships bores me completely.
Leave The View out of this!
helen --
There's double standards in all humans. Some people think it's bad for one sex to show the lower portion of their legs but OK for the other. Feh.
trey --
And I kept my mouth shut.
Exactly why I could not do your job.
Me: "It's cheaper if you don't fake it."
Trey: I think that is good that you and your wife make exchanges with the movies you see together. I just don't see the point in a man going to see this, if he is strongly opposed to it. Now I am not, but I am also single. "Brokeback Mountain" is an example of a movie which I absolutely do not want to see. But what if the woman is begging the man to go to it and he doesn't want to? I'm sure there are movies that women wouldn't want to see either. Personally I'm not really into horrors. For the most part I am rather tolerant about the movies I see, but there are few that would probably disgust me. Now I do not know much about "Sex and the City" as a TV show or a movie. If it doesn't constantly belittle men, then I'm glad to hear it.
who says a man and a woman has to see the same films in a cinema.
if you both want to go out go out, and if you dont fancy a film, go to different ones.. does it mean you like them less no.. it just means you have the compassion to let the other not sit through something you may dislike.
Serket,
I realize you were not addressing me but I certainly would not beg anyone--man or woman-- to see this movie. I just think if a man wants to go, or is just being nice and accompanies a woman, his whole masculinity and reputation should not be called into question. I hope the movie does not belittle men. I would not want to pay to see that. But I did not find the series to be terribly belittling to men but maybe I wasn't paying much attention. I guess after watching it, I will know.
I'm certainly willing to bet that no, you weren't paying much attention to SATC's gender messages.
That's a lot more believable to me than the idea that IYO SATC was somewhat better about not denigrating males and masculinity than the usual mass media programming, which in fact is 'terribly belittling' towards males and masculinity as a routine matter of course.
easycure: Ok, I'm sold.
From what I've read across the net, going to see the movie would be a great place to meet females.
Not if you're looking for breadth or depth, mind you, but a great place to meet chicks.
Someone has mentioned that African Americans would find this show offensive for its lack of representation of skin tons darker than sunscreen rating SPF 45 allows for.
Although not an avid watcher of this show, I do enjoy and am looking forward to the movie. I find this show *far* less offensive in it's lack of representation than The House of Payne (TBS), The Steve Harvey Show (TBS), Big Momma's House (2000, 2006), and most other predominately Black casted sitcoms and movies.
In SITC "I'm" just missing. In these shows, "I'm" made to look and act the fool. Despite all the advances made towards equality, racial acceptance, etc., Blacks in the popular media are still the wise-ass, uneducated, uncouth, butt of every joke, sidekick, laughing-stocks.
Really, which is more offensive?
dvntwriter, Jennifer Hudson actually has a supporting role in the SATC movie, and she's definitely not playing the fool (okay, maybe she's a bit of a fool for love, but everyone is in a series like this one!). Her character also adds some welcome diversity of age. I really enjoyed the character, "token" or not.
About men going to see this film - the rationale should be about the same as any other porn flick - you might learn something, see something interesting to try, and see how other people do it.
SATC persisted long after the series first aired - cleaned up. Time and again movies with G ratings outperform and out-earn other ratings pictures. Yet instead of making a SATC that takes advantage of the moderated language version, they take the decades-old ploy of using the big screen to show more skin. Frankly, I would have rather they brought back beloved characters and toned down the language, toned down the sex part of the story, and gone for a PG rating at the most. Maybe make a movie you take the teens to, maybe a couple of times.
"Soft" porn, brad. And sanctioned at that. It's a chick flick!
That's what made it OK for me to post my thoughts above and get away with it.
Here is an interesting Newsweek article about the reviews SATC has been getting.
Helen: I just think if a man wants to go, or is just being nice and accompanies a woman, his whole masculinity and reputation should not be called into question. I hope the movie does not belittle men.
I agree. I've seen many movies that were targeted for children or women. I also thought that article of a real man seemed more like a parody than actual advice.
That's what transistor radios are for.
Cham: Does that mean you are a sexist or does it only apply to men? It seems to me that men are unsure about this movie because of their anti-sexism. But perhaps they have nothing to worry about.
Sexist? What are you talking about?
Haven't yet seen the movie, but I LOVE Sex & the City (called here "Sex & the Big City"). It was shown on our Channel 2 without edits and was my weekly escape from life on the edge... I felt like I was following the girls through the streets of New York. And I LOVE Mr. Big - Chris Noth is gorgeous no matter the age or extra body fat!
The movie is on here now, so I hope to see it soon! I vote for more escapism movies and fewer that make us think!
suzanne pomeranz, jerusalem, israel
Cham: Did you even read the article you posted to?
Serket: I said the article was interesting. Nowhere did I say I agreed or disagreed with the content.
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網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ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂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-sex520plus論壇sex520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aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片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 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
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..........................
080苗栗人聊天室性愛自拍UT視訊交友視訊辣妹av性感辣妹 sex女優彩虹頻道免費影片bbs論壇 限制級視訊交友網性愛免費色倩短片試看卡通a片18成人免費影片sex免費成人影片辣妹影片直播慣性背叛無限動漫色色網女同志聊天室ut 聊天室環球辣妹聊天室 90691同志色教館
Post a Comment
<< Home