Tough Love Needed
Rachel Lucas: "If you’re a 16-year-old girl and you have sex with a homeless man with the express PURPOSE of becoming pregnant, I am judging your ass off. Judge, judge, judging. I think you should be ashamed of yourself and that you should be embarrassed. Maybe feeling that way will help you learn a lesson that you so obviously need to learn."
It seems that girls at a Massachusetts high school made a pact to get pregnant together. Actually, it isn't just getting pregnant that teenage girls make destructive pacts about, it's other things--like cutting or becoming anorexic together. Too few adults in the world of these girls are sending them the message that what they are doing and thinking is stupid. The media and much of our culture is blaring the message non-stop that they are cool. Who do you think they are listening to? I would love to see Ms. Lucas in the role of school counselor to these girls--can't you just imagine the group therapy she would provide?
It seems that girls at a Massachusetts high school made a pact to get pregnant together. Actually, it isn't just getting pregnant that teenage girls make destructive pacts about, it's other things--like cutting or becoming anorexic together. Too few adults in the world of these girls are sending them the message that what they are doing and thinking is stupid. The media and much of our culture is blaring the message non-stop that they are cool. Who do you think they are listening to? I would love to see Ms. Lucas in the role of school counselor to these girls--can't you just imagine the group therapy she would provide?
posted by Helen at 7:44 AM
49 Comments:
One thing's for sure, if Rachel was my school counselor, I wouldn't have been as afraid to go in there when I was having problems.
Too bad more school counselors aren't like her.
This jumped out at me:If you have kids and you ever let them watch MTV - I mean ever - or half the other entertainment channels out there, you’re making a serious mistake.
I've had occasion to check out the MTV website recently after learning that my local Girl Scout council partnered with MTV for a fashion design contest. My letter to the coordinator received a useless canned response and has me rethinking our involvement with GSUSA, even though our troop consists of nice, normal MTV-free girls. Who, so far, would not dream of becoming unwed mothers.
"Too few adults in the world of these girls are sending them the message that what they are doing and thinking is stupid."
I think that stupid is just the half of it. What are they doing to the children they are having? What are they doing to us who will likely have to pay for these children?
This is wickedly selfish and borderline delusional on their part. Their parents suck.
Trey
I think insteadof blaming MTV and bad school counselors, we ouhgt to hold all tehse girls fully responsible. The yused their own free agency to get pregnant. They were not diabled kids whowere taken advantage of by 'evil males" the chose to go and h ave sex of theirown accord.they actedlike whores and ought to now be forced to face the consequences of their behaviour. Noone should bail these fools out. Take the babies away, have good families adopt them, because their future will be hell with momsl ike these losers.
Maybe this is what teen girls do instead of a school shooting. It'll be interesting to hear their explanations. Something tragic, I expect. I almost hope it's something tragic rather than something frivolous.
Sex in the City - the Next Generation.
SteveinTX
Bugs,
"Maybe this is what teen girls do instead of a school shooting."
Good point. Maybe it is their way of finding some kind of ritual to show they are turning into women instead of living as a perpetual adolescent until 35. Too bad our society extends adolescense so long and teaches our young people so little about responsibility that they would turn to such a destructive solution.
Too few adults in the world of these girls are sending them the message that what they are doing and thinking is stupid. The media and much of our culture is blaring the message non-stop that they are cool.
I can't stand this excuse. The basic question here is whether the chicken or the egg came first - whether the media is a reflection of how women feel or whether how women feel is a reflection of what the media tells them.
If the former is true, then it stands to reason that women are, in fact, human beings who are capable of making their own decisions and who should be held responsible [insert laughing here] for the consequences of their decisions. This line of reasoning, minus the whole being held responsible part, seems, to me, to be the case. What the media is doing today is merely catering to women. It wasn't that long ago that the media catered to men: news had actual content; women were portrayed as men wanted them to be; ridiculous behavior of kids didn't get front page news because the families took care of it.
Now, if the latter is true then women, sorry Dr. Helen, are nothing more than flesh and bone robots, incapable of making their own decisions based upon logic, reason, and with concern for the outcome of their behavior. Wait a second, isn't that how many of them are anyways [insert nods of agreement here]? As tempting as it is to say that this is the case, I just don't think that it is the case for the simple reason that major media didn't really start catering to women until it realized that it could make more money off of women than men. Magazines like Glamour and Cosmo wouldn't exist if women were not truly interested in the materials contained within. Day-time and prime-time TV wouldn't exist, or at least wouldn't exist in its current form, if women weren't interested in the characters and plots as they have been designed (which, as many people here know, is basically to show men as idiots and women as heroines). News stations and newspapers wouldn't exist in their current form if it weren't for the fact that women weren't interested in the news, but instead were interested in all of the trivial crap that now passes for news. In other words, almost all of media is catering to women.
Now, it could be argued that some women, and many girls for that matter, are dumb enough to believe that what they see in the media is, in fact, how real people live. I've known my share of chihuahua-in-the-purse girls (sorry, but I don't think that anyone that carries a chihuahua in her purse is a woman). I've known girls who've said that they like being pregnant but don't like kids. I've known girls who've cited TV shows when trying to argue that I should live my life differently (I've also known girls who've said that they couldn't control what their children watch so the government ought to do it for them). They're out there. I simply don't think they're the majority (I don't have any kind of relevant facts to back up that claim; I'm just optimistic about the entire future of mankind - which is in jeopardy if I'm wrong).
Now, everything that I just said is irrelevant when compared to the role that parents, mothers in particular, play in the development of their children. These girls are, in my opinion, the way that they are because of the parents. Their parents are bigger losers than they are, in my opinion.
By the way, there is a solution to this problem. I was recently talking to my older sister who lives in Indiana. She was telling me about her 12-year old son who she can't control. Apparently, he's at that age where he's starting to chase the girls around. She was telling me about how he would return letters that were given to him by girls with a note at the bottom asking for a blow job - because blow jobs no longer count as sex. Well, during the course of the conversation she started talking about her fear that he would impregnate some girl(s). Her fear wasn't so much that there would be a kid out there without responsible parents. Her fear was that there would be a child out there that she would have to pay child support for. Keep in mind that what I'm about to say is basically just hearsay since I haven't actually read the laws or case law involved in these kinds of situations. Apparently, because of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 a parent of a minor who has a child is responsible for the child support of his or her grandchild until the parent of the grandchild turns 18. Not being a parent or knowing anybody in this situation, this is the first that I've heard of this. I wonder how many other people haven't heard of this. If I was a parent, my child would never leave the house.
Young girls are naturally bad. Most of them, anyway. In higher percentages than young boys. That's been my experience, nevermind how "insensitive" an observation it may be.
The solution? A strict upbringing. I should say only a partial solution because it will only slightly curb their natural tendency to selfishness and cruelty. Yes, cruelty.
Where were we?
Yikes.
Maybe in a couple years, when these girls learn that a screaming infant is a little more troublesome to take care of than their other fashion accessories, they'll be willing to give talks in high schools about how their little pact was a really dumb idea.
It's going to be really interesting if one of those girls goes on welfare and the state goes after some homeless guy for child support. It'll be even more interesting if the state takes her word for who the father is, she turns out to be lying and the guy is so out of it that he signs the paperwork "admitting" paternity anyway. Of course, if he's still homeless, the state might be doing him a big favor by throwing him in jail for "refusing" to cough up the money.
To j.bowen
What you've heard about the boys parents being responsible for the child support is true. It's even true if the girl is, in fact, a women who has committed statuatory rape against the boy. In this case, the "victim" of the crime gets to give money to the criminal.
But, hey, America is a patriarchy when men horribly oppress women.
How far have we descended that problems with teenagers are identifies as a lack of government programs rather than an insistence on society as a large to treat budding adults as just that. We living in an increasingly infantalized society which coddles everyone at the point of a gun (the law.) Yet, the solution is to increase the coddling, to increase government intervention, rather than decrease it and insist on personal responsibility.
Unfortunately, churches have gone along with this lock stock and barrel. Unable to keep their flock in line, they've turned to law to do, in their minds, what they cannot.
I daresay that the feminist movement has utterly failed in this regard. They demand rights without accepting responsibility.
Incidentally, when it comes to the oral sex thing, look no further than Bill Clinton and all the whores, er, feminists who defended his behavior.
This is an obvious and widespread "in your face" rebellion against the adults in their community. From the tone of the article, this is pretty shocking to most of the adults there. The adults have been labeled clueless based on the clinic's stance that contraception is a solution to the problem. Actually, the article indicates that the community is very opposed to the idea. They may be clueless about something, but it doesn't have anything to do with them thinking that contraception will be a solution to the problem.
Well, pardon me if I'm disgusting but not surprised by this sordid development. All it does is graphically illustrate the pathetic level to which young women in this country have devolved to, which is something below primitive.
What does it say about a young woman that her choice for a mate, the father of her child, is some loser bum living on the streets?
First, it indicates her absolute lack of class, dignity and self-respect. Second, it proves beyond all doubt how utterly successful the media and culture, if it can be called that, have been in completely devaluing men in this society.
There is no end to this course other than total degradation, not even living at the level of monkey existence. Even a chimpanzee has the good sense to choose a dominant male to father her offspring. But not this girl.
It's beyond pathetic a young woman, who is given every educational and employment opportunity, certainly more so than any young man in her age group, can only find two avenues for drawing attention to herself: 1) having sex and 2) getting pregnant, with and by some anonymous street dweller at that.
It's easy to blame the parents for this sad state of affairs, and they certainly do bear their share of the responsibility. It's even easier to blame the school for not distributing condoms to teenagers. Excuse me, it was this girl's intention to get pregnant. Exactly what good would handing her a condom do?
The greater shame is ours, the would be adults who run this country, raise these monkey children, and allow the culture to run amuck. We have bequeathed to the next generation a doomed society.
It's too bad the mind matures at a much slower pace than the reproductive organs.
Stupid mistakes are made in the flash of an instant. Liberal thinking has compounded. When anything goes, eventually everything does.
Hey, our culture gives a lot of positive feedback to single mothers, especially single teenage mothers--free babysitting and special programs so they can still go to prom and be cheerleaders, we tell them they're strong and noble and good and wise for keeping the baby, we tell them pregnant women are the most beautiful women, when they're 30 every politican in the country starts pandering to them.
And our culture gives an incredible amount of negative feedback to single non-mothers.
I can't figure out why anyone's surprised or upset.
The media and much of our culture is blaring the message non-stop that they are cool.
Huh? I haven't noticed the media or the culture suggesting that breeding while in high school is "cool." To the contrary, the media and the culture are anti-breeding, even when it comes to adult breeding.
This has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with absent fathers.
One of the girls interviewed said that she just wanted to love her unconditionally. I've heard the same thing from older women too. Many times. The baby is there to fill an emotional hole. Never mind that a baby is really a bundle of unconditional need. Even when a child is old enough to feel and demonstrate love, I consider it child abuse for a child to be expected to provide for a parent's emotional needs. Children should be made to feel emotionally secure. They are the ones who should be loved unconditionally. They should not be given the burden of providing emotional security for their own parent.
The effects of this perverse arrangement will continue for generations.
Richard,
I meant that the media portrays teen girls as cool, not their decision to breed. The idolized image in our society is a teen or young woman. Girls and what they do is portrayed as good and righteous or an excuse is made for them if they do make destructive decisions. If they are violent, it is due to the patriarchy, if they are not the CEO of the company, President of the US or anything else, it is always someone else's fault or sexism, meaning that they are rarely held responsible for what happens to them. These girls trying to get pregnant are no different. I would say that as Cara above says, it is a mixture of teenage rebellion against clueless adults who they see as hypocrits, and a lack of feeling that they are responsible for their decisions--a very tragic combination at times.
One part of your post stands out to me: "Too few adults..." I think that we as a society have gotten so intent on isolating groups by age. I would bet that the only adults in most of these girls' lives are their parents and teachers. We adults know how hard it could be to relate to our parents at some points. And the teachers--they are easily shut out if the teenagers don't want to open up.
I see that part of my job as a mom to my kids is to surround them with other adults with whom I share values, to connect them to part of a larger community. In turn I seek opportunities to connect with other people's kids, too, by teaching Sunday School and being an interested aunt and neighbor. It's my hope for my kids that at an age when they can't or won't come to me or my husband, they might feel comfortable around another adult.
I wonder if this group of girls had been less isolated that maybe it would have been easier to see how patently STUPID this idea was. I'm not absolving these girls of their culpability here. And I don't think this wider community is a panacea. However, it seems that whenever a group isolates itself, the crazy ideas that emerge from the group don't look so crazy to that group.
Jason, great post with cogent and accurate points. I have not had my coffee yet, but even if I had, I do not think I could have made the points so well.
Trey
Must find more tax deductions and tax advantages...must find under-the-table streams of revenue...must labor to shelter every penny I can from the tax man...
I'm not paying for these sixteen idiots and their willful mistakes. I'm just not doing it.
I agree its a stupid thing to do, but you would think that this is sending some counter-intuitive message to feminists about what women and girls value in life (counterintuitive to feminists means intuitive to normal people). This may not be as dumb as waiting until age 40 to start looking for a guy to have a baby with.
"This may not be as dumb as waiting until age 40 to start looking for a guy to have a baby with."
No, it is much dumber. At age 40 a succesful person has many ways to start a family that make sense. There is no way you can say that having children at 15 to 17 makes any sense at all. It is in fact one of the strongest predictors of those children growing up in poverty.
Trey
It's not surprising that this happened in the first state to completely separate fatherhood from marriage. When marriage, parenting, and the associated moral obligations were a package deal, children had the normative structure to know not to do this. Once they're deconstructed, kids will mix and match in various harmful ways.
I don't know where I first read it, but if you finish high school, get married, and then have children, the likelihood that your children will grow up poor is low. Once you separate marriage and children, this is bound to continue happening.
This may not be as dumb as waiting until age 40 to start looking for a guy to have a baby with.
As Trey said: much dumber. I had my first child at age 41 after marrying at 39. I don't recommend that as a strategy, and it certainly wasn't my plan, but it worked out for me, and has for others. I suppose I could have had a baby at a much younger age, but had an aversion to single motherhood by choice - knowing that I alone could not give a child even half what a family with a dad could.
In the years before my husband and I met, I had a pretty good life which included (sometimes meaningful) work, lots of fun with nieces and nephews, and a little travel. By the time I hit 35 I figured husband and children weren't gonna happen for me, and though I didn't like that idea, it was still preferable to the other options.
Some of you are probably reading much more into this situation. These girls thought it would be neat to have babies, all at the same time and when they were young enough so they could get their parents to foot most of the bill for the first few years. They also could be excused from the rigors of high school, SATs and gym class. They had visions of hanging out in the park together with their babies rather than being stuck inside dealing with school and college applications.
To them it was a win win. This is what happens when kids are shielded from learning the negative consequences from potential decisions they could make. If life for someone is a bed of roses they don't much know any better and are prone to make decisions about what is right for them and to hell with everyone else. Perhaps society is spending a little to much effort worrying about what kids see or what kids hear. We've no child left behinded and Pedophiled-on-the-Internet and G-rated the kids so much they think there isn't a big bad world out there.
These girls are going to learn the very hard way they've made a really bad choice.
Could I offer a blindingly obvious point: women have an innate desire to have children.
(Modern society has contravened the human experience by strongly regimenting behavior into age groups. I'm more and more convinced that the American insistence of carrying High School to eighteen years old is a sociological disaster. The late obsession on college is only compounding this.)
This may not be as dumb as waiting until age 40 to start looking for a guy to have a baby with.
As Trey said: much dumber.
The point I was making was that having a baby becomes very dicey at that age. Marbel, you were lucky on both counts, finding an acceptable mate and successfully conceiving. I've been acquainted with quite a few women who had no luck conceiving a first child at that age.
Young women have been having babies since the dawn of our species. The problem today is that the state welfare system has replaced the extended family in assiting.
Children need a strong support chain, from loving parents, aunts, uncles, siblings and grandparents. If this were the case, children born to teenagers would be just fine.
Today we coddle youth well past the age where they should be assuming great responsibility for themselves. Children once worked (had to, to survive) with families and learned at an early age crucial skills.
There is almost no replacement for this. Some families may still press chores, but for the most part both parents (if both are still around) work, rely on public school and daycare to raise children. The children are far removed from the family support chain. Uncle Sam (or whatever welfare state you may live) takes tax money from the productive to pay for this.
It is a death spirial for raising well adjusted people. Humans are very much cavemen in suits, no matter how enlighted we may feel about modern society.
Mateo G said...
Young women have been having babies since the dawn of our species.
And, the fact that they do is what has allowed our species to survive and not die out. I think what is really concerning some people about this case is that these girls were not sufficiently brainwashed by the de-population agenda pushers.
The problem today is that the state welfare system has replaced the extended family in assiting.
There are a lot of interesting factors I see in this case. It is the inevitable end result of the "It takes a village kind of thinking." In fact, the girls themselves were forming a sort of little "village" of their own with their pact to raise their children together - being strong independent women who don't need no men, once they get the sperm they need to get pregnant.
I see this as the obvious end result of "her body, her choice." The girls made the choice to use their bodies to make babies, even if it involved shagging a homeless man in order to get the job done. (a friend of mine said she had seen an article that said the homeless man actually fathered more than one of the babies.) Hey, these girls were "empowered", and in a culture which worships female "empowerment" and demands that all "choices" of women be accepted regardless of how those choices affect other people, what the hell else do people expect to have happen? And, if they didn't mean for it to apply to all women, then why the hell didn't they specify the age at which that absolute entitlement is bestowed?
People can blame the parents all they want, but just in the last week in Canada a 12 y/o girl sued her father in court over being grounded and the judge overturned an attempt at parental discipline by the father. Maybe the parents just realized that, in today's climate of the state owning the children and being the ultimate parent, even if they had tried to place restrictions on their daughters that they might have been able to go to court and sue for the "right" to sleep with bums.
The complex system of monstrous interlocking fictions that the culture has been trying to live under for the past 5 decades is beginning to fall apart. But, as Mateo G points out - having destroyed the old cultural values which protected the young and stupid both from bad people and from their own unwise decisions, now there is nothing to take its place.
It would be tempting to think that maybe we have reached the nadir of this farce - with young women actively seeking out anyone who would impregnate them, even if they had to go trolling under a bridge in order to find one. However, I think we still have a ways down left to go before they run out of excuses to blame someone - anyone - for the choices that females, themselves, make.
It will be interesting to see how the femmies try to make this the fault of bad dads and deadbeats, and to see what measures they are going to suggest for turning known "bums" into paragons of moral virtue.
At least the next time some woman warms up to her performance of "The Victim's Lament" about men not "stepping up to" their responsibilities, I can have a good laugh about it and point to this event, plus this little bit of sage wisdom that Nice Guys really do finish last, because they are BORING.
http://dating.personals.yahoo.com/singles/datingtips/85967/dating-secret-exposed-why-nice-guys-finish-last
zed...we have DNA tests now. As the situation progresses, we can only assume the males will be found out, and held responsible.
Watch.
Mateo, we are no longer subsistence farmers. It is no longer necessary to have 10 kids to work the fields, milk the cows, slop the pigs, and churn the butter - knowing that 4 or 5 of them will most likely die from diseases that are not yet curable. Kids no longer need to have kids.
I don't believe I "coddled" my daughters. But I have not had the problems many have had, or do have, with their daughters. While there has always been a dad around for them, there has not been a mom.
Hmmmmmmm.... that may be the ticket, and what the feminazis are really scared that we will all find out to be true. Maybe the dads are who are needed, and not the moms, if single parenting is the preferred direction of the 21st century. I mean, once the buns are out of the oven, a man needs a wife like a fish needs a bicycle. Hoowah!
br549 said...
zed...we have DNA tests now. As the situation progresses, we can only assume the males will be found out, and held responsible.
Watch.
So, the DNA tests finger the homeless guy, and maybe a couple of 17 boys like this boy who hanged himself when his 15 y/o GF got pregnant.
http://blogwonks.com/2008/06/22/proof-that-statutory-rape-laws-and-prosecutions-have-gone-too-far/
So what? The girls are still pregnant, it is pretty difficult to get child support out of a bum or a corpse, and any father who has done his job of raising sons will have warned the young men to stay away from girls like this.
Geez, they used to say that the 1950s were sexually repressive. At least in those days sex was merely shameful instead of criminal. If the goal of social policy is to force decent men to become celibate and give the low-lifes all the breeding chances they want, I would say it is succeeding admirably.
Bad guys really do get the most Girls
"Nice guys knew it, now two studies have confirmed it: bad boys get the most girls. The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the "dark triad" persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs."
The unanswered question is still why some women find these traits attractive.
It wasn't that long ago that a pregnant teen realized in no uncertain terms that her childhood was OVER. It seems today that we're bending over backwards to allow them to have children and stay children.
Those girls will probably qualify for all sorts of welfare benefits like WIC, food stamps, and Medicaid. If they choose to stay in school, they'll have day care services. If they choose to move out of the home, they may well qualify for low income housing and other assistance. To a teen who dreams of being on her own, this may seem like a great deal. The reality is that these welfare programs will keep them and their children living in poverty.
I remember reading a news article several years ago about an analysis of what hourly income a person would have to earn to equal the welfare benefits of a family of 4. The amount varied by state but in many cases, but IIRC the person would have to earn over $15 an hour to break even. For girls with no marketable skills from an impoverished town, having babies and living on welfare may appear like a good career move.
Mateo G wrote: "If this were the case, children born to teenagers would be just fine."
Actually, the facts contradict your point. 8)
The leading cause of infant death is due to low birth weight babies. The primary cause of low birth weight babies is mothers unders 21.
This is why America has such a high infant mortality rate compared to other industrial countries.
Of course, there are also the psychological problems caused by having an unfit or disinterested or immature mom and no dad. Teenage pregnancy used to be something people were rightly ashamed of.
Trey
Trey
Follow up:
As I suspected, this turns out to be a hoax. The reporter distorted just about everything and completely failed to do her job. I don't think she set out to report a hoax, but was incredibly gullible.
The most incredible part is that she did almost no actual investigation. She based her report entirely on hearsay from third parties!
Regardless, the reporter should be fired with great fanfare and placed in the Stephen Glass hall of fame.
joe, even if it was not a pact, aren't there still 17 girls in that school who are all pregnant at this time? I caught the very tail end of a news blurb on the radio where evidently a school official stated that they could not say that the 17 pregnant girls in the school were the result of a pact. The head count was not, however, denied. That's a lot of kids in one school. Am I that far removed from the times. Is that a norm now or something? Anybody?
where's your head, zed? Did you read that part of my post with any understanding of what I meant?
Where's yours, Jr.?
Because 17 girls in a high school being pregnant is not a story; 17 girls making a pact to intentionally get pregnant is, especially if it confirms a prejudice toward white trash.
This is called a cluster phenomenon. There is no explanation. It just is. Unfortunately, far too many really bad news stories are written and subsequent laws passed on what is a natural statistical fluctuation. (Just about every cancer cluster falls in this category. Stories about predicted cancer clusters also arguably fall into this category.)
Two other points:
1) An average means you have values above and below the mean. Sounds condescending, but a surprising number of people don't understand that.
2) We actually DON'T know 17 girls got pregnant this past year in that town. The reporter lied about everything else in the article, why not the count? Why not boost it by two or three to make it sound more dramatic?
Honestly, joe, there are indeed 17 girls in that school, not that town, who are currently pregnant. According to Fox and CNN as of last night.
A liitle off color humor, but I would say it's a cluster of a different type, other than phenomenon.
When I was in high school (late 60's thru '71) there may have been one in a year. And it was a pretty serious situation. Seems now it's a badge of honor, if not a thorny crown.
Where, oh where, are the parents? Not now, but two, three, or four years ago, in these girls lives?
I spoke with my sister about this issue earlier today. She has two kids, 18 and 20 years old, and she told me that every time they head out the door she says (or her husband says):
wear your seatbelt
don't drink and drive
don't do drugs
and use protection if your having sex.
the kids moan and say Mom or Dad, your such a drag, bore, embarrasment to me, or my friend standing next to me...
BUT those two kids are doing great, successful, and a role model for their peers.
I have four kids age 5-10 and I hope my kids are just as respectful of themselves and just as verbally flippant at the same time.
Again, I say, where were the parents two, three, or four years ago for these girls..????
While the relationship with the homeless man is probably considered rape, I think it is obvious that the girl knew what she was doing. Did she ask the first man on the street for sex? The attitude that comes out of all of this is that men are only important for their sperm. This reminds me of the movie I Am Sam which I did a post about.
One of the teens claims there was no pact: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/16692720/detail.html
J. Bowen - I think it is a combination of media and natural behavior. Of course, originally there have to be people doing or capable of doing a poor behavior, but then the media can push controversial ideas or make something popular really quickly.
Zed, Here is that article:
Court overtuns father's grounding of 12-year-old.
Joe & BR549 - The article did claim that normally there are 4 pregnant girls at this school, but this year there were 17.
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..........................
本土自拍自拍貼圖aaa片免費看短片自拍美女聊天室 s383微風成人線上成人影片本土自拍性感辣妹成人網站成人光碟成人影城a片下載免費卡通a片成人光碟18成人成人聊天室85cc成人片成人電影成人圖片0204免費影片分享成人貼圖免費試看av成人影片
Post a Comment
<< Home