Are "choice mothers" really the best choice?
There appears to be a growing trend of "choice mothers" in the UK who are having children in their early thirties by artificial insemination as they have decided they would rather have a child than a relationship (via Instapundit):
It seems to me that kicking men out of the lives of kids and women is the goal of the media and radical feminists in the current milieu that we are living in. Last night, I watched a taped show of Suze Orman where she cheered a woman on for kicking a man out of her life for not being financially responsible enough (he had a lot of credit card debt). However, in the segment before, Ms. Orman had a woman on who owed $40,000 dollars in credit card debt but she sighed in sympathy with her as she explained her predicament. Why isn't Orman warning men about this financially irresponsible woman? Of course she wouldn't do that. Women are caught in bad circumstances, men are bad circumstances in her mind. It seems like many women feel this way.
The more our society pushes the radical feminist agenda that men are bad, irresponsible, or just not available, the more likely it is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In many ways, it already is, men are avoiding marriage and relationships and are finding other satisfying ways of living their lives. Women believe that there is no guy out there for them or they think of men as bad or irresponsible--which pushes them away further. Some guys will not even try to satisfy women who they feel they can never measure up to, or live up to their high expectations. In this rush to kick men out of family life and reward single motherhood (unless one has a Republican mother), I wonder what the repercussions will be on the next generation?
In many ways it is an extraordinary decision to use donor sperm in your early 30s because you are fed up waiting for a partner. Some campaigners argue that choice mothers are wrongfully depriving their children of a father. But many women in this position think long and hard about this aspect of their decision and often line up a host of male role models in advance. Gwyneth says of 10-year-old Helen: "I think there are some children who grow up perfectly well without male role models - and she has got my father, my brother and my nephew."
It seems to me that kicking men out of the lives of kids and women is the goal of the media and radical feminists in the current milieu that we are living in. Last night, I watched a taped show of Suze Orman where she cheered a woman on for kicking a man out of her life for not being financially responsible enough (he had a lot of credit card debt). However, in the segment before, Ms. Orman had a woman on who owed $40,000 dollars in credit card debt but she sighed in sympathy with her as she explained her predicament. Why isn't Orman warning men about this financially irresponsible woman? Of course she wouldn't do that. Women are caught in bad circumstances, men are bad circumstances in her mind. It seems like many women feel this way.
The more our society pushes the radical feminist agenda that men are bad, irresponsible, or just not available, the more likely it is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In many ways, it already is, men are avoiding marriage and relationships and are finding other satisfying ways of living their lives. Women believe that there is no guy out there for them or they think of men as bad or irresponsible--which pushes them away further. Some guys will not even try to satisfy women who they feel they can never measure up to, or live up to their high expectations. In this rush to kick men out of family life and reward single motherhood (unless one has a Republican mother), I wonder what the repercussions will be on the next generation?
posted by Helen at 1:56 PM
43 Comments:
Repercussions for the next generation? People who have no idea how to form or commit to relationships. The idea of marriage as a lifetime commitment is just about dead anyway; this may be the final killing.
"Choice mothers" - I am not easily offended, but this term disgusts me. As though I (and other married mothers) had no choice in the matter but had our children forced upon us. Well, most of the article disgusted me. What selfish, stupid people.
From the article: "I think there are some children who grow up perfectly well without male role models - and she has got my father, my brother and my nephew."
First, she is wrong that people without male role models grow up perfectly fine. Check out the incarceration rates, the drop out rates, and the poverty of people who grow up without a father.
Secondly, how will her daughter know what a healthy marriage looks like? From TV??????
Trey
I've heard some women say that they don't need a man to raise a child. I've often wondered how they'll act if their child happens to be a son. After all, they've decided that men are unnecessary, so what attitude are they projecting onto their son?
I also have to take umbrage at this article. My husband is deployed and I have noticed a marked difference in the attitudes of my children (girl age 5, boy age 2) without their father being here. My kids have plenty of male role models (3 uncles that live on the same street as I do as well as my father who visits regularly) but it is not the same as their father.
These women are incredibly selfish and narcissistic, which seems to becoming much more common. Nary an intelligent thought or concern for their offspring.
I read this from your husband's blog and hopped over here, betting it would be talked about. I too find the whole thing sad and pretty selfish. The tell to me was the 'advocacy' group's warning against using fresh sperm. Why? "There is very little information on the donors and you are not covered by any legal structure." Legal structure to what end? Protecting the woman or dinging the guy later for support?
I think most men give no thought to women not interested in them. Men don't "need" women, and most men who are interested in a loving relationship will eventually find one. Study after study proves how important fathers are to children, but these women are more interested in satisfying their own desire than doing what's best for a child.
If you read the womens' comments, you'll notice a pattern. Most acknowledge personal problems that make a successful relationship unlikely.
Also the writer's evidence seems to rely on the report of 'several' 30 something women showing up at a sperm clinic and a bunch of forum posts. They don't cite any actual data which would enable them to determine whether this is indicative of a trend.
What's strange though is the assumption of passivity - that men haven't arrived yet for these women. As though men were like rain.
I suspect that there are reasons that these women aren't likely to have a long-standing relationship, and that they recognize this fact.
There are plenty of men who are in the same boat. But The Guardian isn't about to herald them as trendsetters.
This is a truly ominous trend. Why women would decide to "stop waiting" for a baby is one thing; the prospect of their children growing up without fathers, relegated systematically to day care custodians and the tender mercies of public school authoritarians is quite another. Don't we have enough of that -- and enough of the associated social pathologies -- already?
And nothing can be done about it through the mechanisms of the law.
After all, they've decided that men are unnecessary, so what attitude are they projecting onto their son?
Who wants boys? They don't make good shopping partners and you can't share shoes with them. Just abort 'em.
It's turning into a radfem utopia....and women either don't care, don't notice, or both.
Sad.
Oh well, there's always Xbox...I'm too old for a family of my own...
To Factory...I'm a woman, I do care and I do notice. It is very selfish of women who want to have children without a father involved. Breakups happen for various reasons but both parents can have a positive input into the childs life. When a woman deliberately has a child and thinks the role of a father in that child's life is not important, then it becomes a problem. Children are the losers here.
Dr. Helen,
"...I wonder what the repercussions will be on the next generation?"
Is that a rhetorical question? The fact is, the more single mothers for whatever the cause, the greater the social instability of the West. That instability creates a vacuum which will be filled, very possibly by intolerant yet firm social systems, such as islam. Christianity seems to have lost the stomach for moral leadership, as a group, and has seemingly decided that doting affection and social action (both seemingly strongly secularizing) work as substitutes.
The question has been answered by the feminist movement "gains" in the destruction of society. The only question is, how far will it go before it is pulled back by us or forced back by them. Whoever 'them' happens to be (islam, of course, but it might well be less civil social networks (think Mexican style society), communism (though that in the long run will lose to islam), etc.).
I guess I am impatient with the thing, perhaps a simple, nearly complete, nuclear war might be the way to get the party to where it is inevitably going. Bah, I left my nukes in my Other pants.
Dr Helen -
Watching my husband - who is a father of our 3 children (ages 9-19) - interact with them --- there is one undeniable fact. There are different lessons that a FATHER can teach a SON or a DAUGHTER than those of a MOTHER.
The lessons are not better, not worse --- just different!!!
To deny children of the perspective of BOTH a father and a mother is to deny an essential part of their development.
"Role Models" don't do the trick --- there doesn't seem to be the same commitment.
Of course, I speak from my experience.
- my father left our family early and totally checked out
- my mother occasionally referred to my Dad as a "sperm donor"
- my designated "male role models" didn't do the trick
- I deal to this day with depression, insecurity, and trust issues
- my husband (24+ year) has had to deal with my evolving perspective on men
- my children are normal and thriving, thanks to the balance and non-drama my husband and I have built in their lives
...AND...
- my therapist is not surprised.
We all know stories of very successful people who have come from single-mother homes.
To a person, each of these successful people speak with heartfelt gratitude of the immense sacrifices made by their mothers in order to raise them properly.
How many of these "choice mothers" do you think will be sufficiently selfless to make that kind of sacrifice?
I'm not convinced fathers are of quintessential importance any more than I think mothers are. Throughout all of history, mothers were taken in childbirth and fathers in wars.
This isn't to say that what these woman are doing is okay--I think it's nuts--but it's not the end of civilization.
Throughout all of history, mothers were taken in childbirth and fathers in wars.
Are they equivalent, though?
The single by choice mother says "we don't need no stinkin' man" and, intentionally or not, teaches the child that. The single by death parent understands the empty space created by the loss of the other and tries to fill it or at least compensate for it. The child of the latter would not grow up with the belief that that the single parent life is "normal" and desirable.
Generally speaking, of course.
There seems to have been a time when a young, single, well-to-do girl could go to an orphanage and adopt a baby to raise. Girls' books of the 1920s and 1930s occasionally refer to this practice. At some point, the ward grew up and became a citizen. I wonder how often this really happened and what kinds of citizens these orphans made?
Doom wrote: "Christianity seems to have lost the stomach for moral leadership, as a group, and has seemingly decided that doting affection and social action (both seemingly strongly secularizing) work as substitutes."
That made me a little angry because you are completely correct. While it hurts to read, the truth is powerful medicine and good for me.
Trey
My immediate, visceral response: if these women consider us men disposable, let them fully suffer the consequences of their decisions and not have one shred of pity for what happens to them. Period.
Perhaps, any male children should be removed from their care if any are born to them: to let boys remain in their care is to expose such children to abuse.
Emotional and behavioral considerations aside, there's quite a bit riding on the actuarial chances of one parent here.
What happens if mom dies? Or becomes sick or disabled and can't work anymore to earn an income? At least with a father, there's a backup plan. And if both parents work, a little more income...part of which can be used for life and disability insurance.
Single mom working alone? What are the chances she is going to cover herself and her children? "Oh, I don't need life insurance. I have $50,000 from work."
(The fun REALLY starts if she loses her job because she's sick, then loses her insurance because she loses her job, and then dies.)
I am horrified by the narcissism of a parent who intentionally deprives a child of the other parent. Not by happenstance or circumstance, but, with foresight, decides the child will not have another parent by design. Mothers AND Fathers are not disposable. Children need both.
The choice moms remind me of voluntary amputees. Sure, you can get along without a leg, expensive prosthetics help, and lots of community support is required to do a lot of things, but you can get by without two legs.
Who would want to? Nobody with a lick of sense, that's for sure.
Trey
...very successful people who have come from single-mother homes.
We all can think of instances where a person from rose from poor circumstances to succeed, but much more often this is not the case.
"Role Models" don't do the trick --- there doesn't seem to be the same commitment.
Amen. How many times have you heard a grandparent say, "I can spoil my grandkids and then take them back to their home." And bailout when times get rough. (Not all do but depending on potentially available role models is a poor plan.
Throughout all of history, mothers were taken in childbirth and fathers in wars.
"In 1915, the maternal death rate was 608 deaths per 100,000 live births. By 2003, that had dropped to 12 per 100,000 live births,..."
Looking at this statistic, one could assume that children were more commonly raised by their fathers than they are now. Fathers have always played an important role in child rearing. To ignore or deny this is pure folly.
Impact of this on future generations? As if this is some new phenom arising out of nothing?
The divorce wave of the 70s damaged both men and women.
The divorce wave happened because of the sexual revolution which happened because of artificial contraception, which totally destroyed male-female relationships.
This is just the latest expression of a deep wound.
I must say, I'm not surprised at all. All kinds of people were encouraging me to go ahead and have a child on my own--even "good" Christians. I asked them who they thought I should hook up with--them (male) or their husbands or sons (female)? Were they volunteering their services and the next 18 years of child support checks? Backpedal...no, I wouldn't want that disaster to happen to US, but it's OK for YOU!
Seriously, I said, I love my father and I cannot imagine bringing a child into this world and intentionally depriving them of a father from the very start. It would be like spitting in my father's face. Unimaginable.
"Choice mothers" to me sounds like, "I've had a string of abortions, and now I'm choosing not to. The existence of a human being with personhood and rights depends on my will and opinion."
Since 1973, all mothers are choice mothers, because there is an option not to be a mother.
I'll defend Suze Orman. She's a financial adviser, not a family relationship manager. A prospective spouse who is irresponsible with finances is going to become a financial burden to a prospective husband or wife, and Ms. Orman doing everyone a service by pointing this out. One needs to look at the entire package when agreeing to enter into a marriage contract with a partner. As far as the woman who owed $40K, was she married? If not, then her debt was her problem and her problem alone. Someone who called Suze Orman concerned about their debt is admitting they might have a problem, as opposed to someone who has debt and doesn't care.
As far as these "choice mothers" are concerned, babies are all well, cute and manageable. However, when that baby turns 14 and quits listening to a word a parent says, they are less cute, less management and without 2 strong parents, these little darlings become a huge burden on the rest of society. Bad idea all around. People want what they want when they want it, and I don't see this trend turning around any time soon.
Cham,
"I'll defend Suze Orman. She's a financial adviser, not a family relationship manager."
Then tell her to stop acting like one. I have heard her on numerous ocassions telling women who call in to leave a man and get a divorce stat. She doesn't know the circumstances or what may be going on. If a woman takes the family money to shop and overspends on credit cards, she coos sympthetically, "girlfriend, you are trying to fill yourself with shopping. Are you upset at your husband, life etc.?" A man is expected to be responsible for his debt no matter what. I have heard Orman on very few ocassions tell a man to watch out for a girlfriend or mother who overspends his money, but it is rare. She talks a good game about "power" for women but in reality she sees them as helpless, irresponsible and unable to separate emotional from financial decisions.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I fail to see the end-state difference between these so-called 'choice mothers' and the single-mothers-by-choice aka female divorcees.
While their route to single motherhood-dom is different, they arrive at roughly the same state. Although one could make the case that the divorcee is advantaged due to her claim on a man's forcibly expropriated wages, where the 'choice mother' usually does not.
Personally, as the choice-mother option produces a small fraction of single-mother homes, I'm concentrating my fire on minimizing divorce, which produces the lion's share of dysfunctional families and maladaptive offspring, as TMink noted above.
As always, Dr. Helen, an awesome find and a good post. Thanks for all you do.
the choice-mother option produces a small fraction of single-mother homes
Not quite. 78% of the children born in Baltimore city are born out of wedlock. The murder rate for the same city is the second highest in the country right now, crime is through the roof. There is a big correlation between those two sets of statistics. Choice mothers? Just about all of the mothers around here are choice mothers.
Cham, thanks for the correction. What I should have written was this:
"...as the choice-mother option--man-not-included reproduction--produces a small fraction of single-mother homes..."
And the rest of my comment regarding divorce and maladaptive families does depend on the demographic that you are looking at. My comment holds true for whites but not for non-whites.
It's funny you should use the term "maladaptive", wapiti.
According to wikipedia:
A maladaptive behavior is a behavior or trait that is not adaptive — it is counterproductive to the individual. Maladaptivity is frequently used as an indicator of abnormality or mental dysfunction, since its assessment is relatively free from subjectivity. However, many behaviors considered moral can be apparently maladaptive, such as dissent or abstinence.
This would imply that there might be something wrong with being a choice mother. But choice mothers don't see anything wrong with what they are doing. Talk to them and they will tell you what they are doing is heroic, because they kept their baby and are raising him-her on their own. The choice mother may fail to tell you the part about wanting someone to love them unconditionally and wanting to have power over another smaller and more impressionable human being, and that they would never dream of trying to incorporate the baby daddy into the child's life. I don't see a big difference between getting sperm through artificial insemination or having a penis inserted into a vagina. The result is the same: Baby.
As you can imagine, around here you get to spend a great deal of time on jury duty. I don't know how many juries I have participated but the result is always the same. Some 17, 18, 19 year old is the defendant. He sits alone next to a court appointed lawyer in a cavern of a courtroom, accused of killing, maiming, robbing or selling a kilo or two of something. The horrifying thing is who is behind him in the courtroom: Nobody. By the time this boy/man gets to trial, his single parent momma is long gone, fed up with him, tired of trying to coral him, punish him or keep him off the corner. Because she failed to provide him with any oversight, somebody is dead, Tavon is on his way to a 40 year sentence and the rest of us get to pay for it. The sad thing is, Tavon isn't really all that bad of a kid, he just made a bad choice at 3AM with a gun his buddy gave him because somebody looked at him the wrong way and he didn't know how to walk away. This story gets repeated multiple times a day around here and it makes me sick.
I'm giving out special kudos to the fine State of Nebraska today.
so these sperm donors have zero liability to society for their offspring? just sign some form and no worries? neat trick.
a more fair system would be if the mom died or can't provide, the donor must.
"...just sign some form and no worries? neat trick."
Why not? Women do that all the time. Most times it involves converting a baby into a pile of warm red goo in the bottom of a PP trash pail, but I won't go there right now.
Parenthood long ago stopped being about the kids; the least society can do in this brave new world is hold men and women to the same level of accountability when it comes to reproduction.
"I don't see a big difference between getting sperm through artificial insemination or having a penis inserted into a vagina."
Cham, I have to differ with you on this one. Yes, the end result is the same, but women using the turkey-baster method do not have any man at all to cast any kind of shadow whatsoever.
At least a woman who fornicates, if nothing else, acknowledges the necessity of a man in human reproduction. A minor difference to be sure, but a difference nonetheless.
Of course, both fall well short of the very fragile and largely social construct that is fatherhood; that's why you have so many ghouls to judge in the jury box.
After the birth of our son, my ex declared that men should not be involved in bringing up children. I got hammered in the divorce court financially and battled years for pitiful amounts of 'contact'. I subsequently discovered she had done radical feminism at university before i met her and reading some of her stuff was frightening.
My ex-wife died 2 years ago and my son is now living with me full-time. It is readily apparent that professionals are hacked-off because he is doing so well. He misses having a mum, but does not seem to miss her. I always maintain a positive memory of her as i have no desire for my son to have bad memories.
It is ironic that she filled herself full of sexist hate and that it is now me, a male, looking after 'her' son. I would hate to think that men should become so embittered to reject relationships and decide the only way they can have children without fear of losing them is by similar choice as to that displayed by these women.
It does nothing to show that skills of relationship building can be passed on. But radical feminist ideology is probably not overly concerned with such humanity.
Typical. The word 'choice' to feminists in no way extends beyond their own personal desires. What 'choice' do their children have in the matter? None. What 'choice' do we have when we have to kick in extra tax dollars to support her kids if she's unable to? None.
What single motherhood by choice advocates mean is: "Our choice, YOUR responsibility."
Men, on the other hand, have no choice. In America, a wife can inform her husband that she is carrying his baby. She can then get an abortion, against his wishes, and there's NOTHING he can do about it legally. Women have legal UNILATERAL control over the reproductive process. Men are handed a death certificate or an invoice.
Why don't we level the playing field and give men the legal right to opt out of fatherhood? Let's offer men 'paper abortions.' I bet the same advocates of single motherhood would be slinging molotov's at the white house if that happened.
The single motherood by choice movement is just another radical feminist tactic to dismantle the traditional family and replace it with the state. Hell, that's already happened in America's poorer neighborhoods anyway by default. Why not make it totally legal and export it everywhere?
Children of single parent households have a MUCH higher incidence of alcoholism, drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, dropping out of high school, criminal activity, etc, etc. Study after study after study has shown this. And since family courts give primary custody to mothers nearly90% of the time, we can see that single motherhood by choice actually doesn't work. If you really want to see how single motherhood works, go to your nearest prison. About 80% of the population there comes from single mother households.
BTW - there are already plenty of single mothers by choice in America. Their called divorcees. Women file approximately 70% of divorces. Of course, you won't find this statistic on N.O.W.s website.
Modern feminism = radical narcissism.
In the article Helen linked I don't see any reference to modern feminism. The feminist's never weighed in. If you asked these choice mothers whether they are "feminists" I bet most of them would say no. This has much more to do with narcissism. I'm a big feminist and I'm not advocating going down this choice mother road at all.
cham:
"In the article Helen linked I don't see any reference to modern feminism."
Neither do I, but single motherhood by choice is very much a feminist sponsored idea. Just because Helen doesn't make the connection in her article doesn't mean there isn't a connection.
"If you asked these choice mothers whether they are "feminists" I bet most of them would say no."
So why don't you ask them? In fact, I dare you to ask them in a typical university setting.
We are slowly coming to the realization that mothers are not any more "necessary" than fathers.
The State can and does a far better job at raising children so they will become responsible tax payers.
The nuclear family is a thing of the past.
Raising a family is too burdensome and gives no reward.
Time to put an end to the suffering marriage.
Let's live and have fun!
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
色咪咪影片網aa免費看完美女人影音網免費視訊辣妹脫衣秀上班族聊天室&甜心寶貝直播貼片&成人免費視訊聊天區美女交友 聊天室85cc免費影城視訊電話ggoo自拍美女聊天室 s383網路美少女林欣怡色美媚部落格2免費a片線上看免費a片觀賞亞洲無碼電影下載kk777視訊俱樂部sex520免費影片080苗栗聊天室琉璃仙境聊天室 星光情色討論版0204視訊交友一葉晴貼影片卡通a片百分百貼影片區男人幫色論壇aio 視訊交友網080豆豆聊天室SEX520免費影片☆♀ 080辣妹聊天室 ☆♀yahoo 聊天室入口甜心寶貝淫片區kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片aa影片下載城AV女優王國情色影音聊天自拍美女聊天室av女優王國美眉影音視訊聊天室 飯島愛的情色醫院免費視訊聊天頻道視訊聊天交友aaa片免費看☆ 自拍情色圖貼照片 ☆色美媚部落格xxx383美女寫真電玩美少女瑤瑤照片網路交友聊天室85cc免費影城aa影片下載城免費自拍情色電影成人動畫免費看洪爺 影城情人視訊網童顏巨乳☆♀ 免費辣妹視訊聊天網 ☆♀080中部人聊天室辣妹視訊聊天網美女短片免費試看真愛視訊聊天室色情視訊聊天室☆♀ 成人影片 ☆♀a片線上看aa片免費看成人愛情交易所免費a片線上觀賞☆♀ 成人聊天網 ☆♀85cc免費影城aa片免費看豆豆本土辣妹視訊免費色情短片免費色咪咪影片網小魔女自拍天堂SEX520免費影片櫻桃不夜城歐美 a片成人寫真貼圖片080網愛聊天室醫生迷姦自拍影片分享18jack.com 免費a片下載網080聊天室4u成人動畫台灣論壇kk777視訊俱樂部☆♀ 888視訊聊天室 ☆♀☆♀ 激情網愛聊天 ☆♀激情成人聊天室女優王國視訊美女影片直播情人視訊網色咪咪影片性愛自拍情人視訊高雄網日本a片成人影片歐美模特兒寫真東東成人論壇自拍美女聊天室正妹視訊ggooaaaaa片俱樂部影片BT成人論壇sexdiy影城成人視訊聊天一夜情做愛聊天室甜心寶貝貼影片 觀月雛乃aa片台灣kiss情色網火辣美眉自拍線上免費a片網☆♀ 成人電影下載 ☆♀免費av18禁免費視訊聊天室入口免費色咪咪影片pg美人網85cc免費影城色情網站洪爺色情電影波波情色貼圖台灣美女貼圖區正妹交友ggoo正妹視訊ggoo777成人論壇痴漢俱樂部戀愛ING影音視訊sexdiy影城sexdiy影城aaaaa片俱樂部影片
情色卡通免費情色小說環球av情色大網咖臺灣情色網倉井空aaa片俱樂部一劍浣春秋kyo成人動漫avav片av女優travianavastavdvdav美女go2av38ga免費aa片avhello成人電影院javatt1069同志交友網av1688影音娛樂網av博物館
Post a Comment
<< Home