Why I will no longer watch Suze Orman
Okay, last night was the last straw. I turned on the Suze Orman show to see if I could learn anything about better money management and what I learned was that Orman, for some reason has stopped hiding her utter contempt for men and the women who marry them. It used to be that she would try to hide this contempt, had ordinary men callers and gave advice that was at least fair. Now she seems to be playing the role of angry feminist to the unenlightened female masses who are stupid enough to stay married to any man who causes them financial trouble.
Orman was in luck last night. The woman who called in with a question about her husband's finances did not require any advice to leave him for poor money management--he was already dead. Instead of talking about how hard this would be (she likes to give a lot of emotional advice--people first, then money, then things!) she asked the woman how shocking it was that this man had dared leave her with $100,000 in debt.
The female caller said that they had separated their finances but that she was now running his business (it must have been worth something if she is keeping it going) and that he had left her $250,000 dollars in life insurance. No mention that this man had not left her high and dry, that even after paying the debt, she would have $150,000 plus the business if it made money to help out. It was a non-stop ME, ME, ME, fest between the caller and Orman with no compassion for the man who had died--just a constant barrage of this woman's needs and how awful it was for her that this man had left her this debt. I might have pointed out that he had the forethought to get a life insurance policy and had a business if I were Orman but she wasn't about to let a man off the hook, not even in death.
Another female caller let Suze know that she had gone bankrupt prior to meeting her husband. She then married her husband who was generous enough not to want a pre-nup and she did not work during the marriage. But now, the couple is having problems and the woman wants to leave. She has few job skills and with her bankruptcy in the background, says no one wants to hire her or give her an apartment--so she might stay with the husband. Orman needled the woman until she got a response that the woman wanted to leave the man with her daughter but was afraid. There was a lot of talk about "you have the power, girl" but no mention of what a loser she must have been to get herself in a position of bankruptcy in the first place and not to have learned anything from it except how to blame a man. Where was he when she went bankrupt in the first place? They weren't even married. If this woman is bad with money, it's obviously her own fault. No man is required.
Instead, Orman talks about how you can't let a man take care of you (true) even if he insists on it and gives alot of platitudes about empowerment but no real advice about how not to be an idiot and stop blaming others for your problems. Orman tends to blame men for women's problems but when the shoe is on the other foot, the man is generally held responsible and needs to "man up." Maybe if she wants to set an example of "empowerment" to her female viewers, she should quit blaming men for so much of their financial troubles. It encourages in women a sense of entitlement and a lack of personal responsibility--both undesirable traits on the way to financial responsibility, one of Orman's goals.
So, I assume most of you reading this do not watch Orman and could care less. Good for you, I will be joining you and forgetting this nonsense except every once in a while to write a blog post or column. It's kind of sad to me though because for a period there, she was rational and fair to both sexes.
Orman was in luck last night. The woman who called in with a question about her husband's finances did not require any advice to leave him for poor money management--he was already dead. Instead of talking about how hard this would be (she likes to give a lot of emotional advice--people first, then money, then things!) she asked the woman how shocking it was that this man had dared leave her with $100,000 in debt.
The female caller said that they had separated their finances but that she was now running his business (it must have been worth something if she is keeping it going) and that he had left her $250,000 dollars in life insurance. No mention that this man had not left her high and dry, that even after paying the debt, she would have $150,000 plus the business if it made money to help out. It was a non-stop ME, ME, ME, fest between the caller and Orman with no compassion for the man who had died--just a constant barrage of this woman's needs and how awful it was for her that this man had left her this debt. I might have pointed out that he had the forethought to get a life insurance policy and had a business if I were Orman but she wasn't about to let a man off the hook, not even in death.
Another female caller let Suze know that she had gone bankrupt prior to meeting her husband. She then married her husband who was generous enough not to want a pre-nup and she did not work during the marriage. But now, the couple is having problems and the woman wants to leave. She has few job skills and with her bankruptcy in the background, says no one wants to hire her or give her an apartment--so she might stay with the husband. Orman needled the woman until she got a response that the woman wanted to leave the man with her daughter but was afraid. There was a lot of talk about "you have the power, girl" but no mention of what a loser she must have been to get herself in a position of bankruptcy in the first place and not to have learned anything from it except how to blame a man. Where was he when she went bankrupt in the first place? They weren't even married. If this woman is bad with money, it's obviously her own fault. No man is required.
Instead, Orman talks about how you can't let a man take care of you (true) even if he insists on it and gives alot of platitudes about empowerment but no real advice about how not to be an idiot and stop blaming others for your problems. Orman tends to blame men for women's problems but when the shoe is on the other foot, the man is generally held responsible and needs to "man up." Maybe if she wants to set an example of "empowerment" to her female viewers, she should quit blaming men for so much of their financial troubles. It encourages in women a sense of entitlement and a lack of personal responsibility--both undesirable traits on the way to financial responsibility, one of Orman's goals.
So, I assume most of you reading this do not watch Orman and could care less. Good for you, I will be joining you and forgetting this nonsense except every once in a while to write a blog post or column. It's kind of sad to me though because for a period there, she was rational and fair to both sexes.
50 Comments:
The REALLY scary part of mass media types like Orman is that they must be doing this because they think that it will improve their ratings. Apparently they believe that there are large number of potential listeners who love to hear other women bashing men.
Another example of this phenomenon is the Carrie Underwood song "Before he Cheats" which was the number 3 country song for the year a couple years back. The theme is that Carrie is having a fantasy about her boyfriend cheating on her, so she trashes his truck. (I'd love to hear her sing the sequel: "Paying to Have the Truck Fixed Before Spending a Year in Jail", but there's a snowball's chance in Hell of that happening.) Another example is Miranda Lampbert's song "Kerosene", where she burns down a guy's house because he broke up with her.
And then women wonder why men are more interested in looking at porn than in dealing with real women in intimate relations. The women in porn are pleasanter to be around.
She has always irritated me for some reason, something about the exaggerated motions and wording and the perpetual smile.
Also, I think she knows a lot about everyday personal financial issues, but she knows nothing about macroeconomics and the like - and I've noted (on Larry King and other places) that she is now a friggin' expert on EVERYTHING (meaning: she thinks she is).
I don't know why so many people seem to worship her. I'm starting to think that in America, you just need an extremely high level of self-confidence and apparently nothing else, not even competence.
bobh sez:
"Apparently they believe that there are large number of potential listeners who love to hear other women bashing men."
-------------------
Well, they're right. There are.
It might just be coincidence, but it appears that the behavior you're describing as of recent, man bashing, seems to be more pronounced since she came out.
Well, Dr. Helen, if you're looking for advice on money management, I would recommend several books: Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover; Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor; and Victor Canto's Cocktail Economics. There are others but these are among the very best I've come across.
To your larger point about not being dependent on your spouse, it applies to both sexes. The thing about a successful marriage is that it is a partnership. Think of it as a corporation with a chief executive and a chief financial officer. In most millionaire households, for example, the husband makes the business decisions and produces the income, while the wife manages the finances. (See Thomas Stanley's The Millionaire Next Door and The Millionaire Mind in this regard.) One would think that any woman married to a millionaire would be a housewife or a stay-at-home mom, and many are but most aren't. Interestingly, the career chosen by the majority of millionaire wives is teaching, followed by nursing.
Anyway, the point is that a partnership is two people working together toward a common goal--financial independence. There's only one way to achieve that. Minimize expense, maximize savings, invest in income-generating assets (preferably your own business). Any couple can be successful, as long as each keeps the other's best interests at heart and works to help each other reach their full potential.
However, the acrimony between the sexes generated by feminist dogma makes that difficult these days. And unfortunately, if not ironically, women suffer more for it.
I can't watch Suze Orman for 2 minutes. I've never watched her long enough for her to pull the men bad, women good routine (trust me, there are enough men good women baders out there too), but ole Suze seems to yell and chastise everyone. If someone has financial problems they already know they've made a mistake, Suze doesn't need to reiterate that a person has made a bad financial decision at the top of her lungs on a national TV program. A much better response would be advice on how best to deal with the financial mismanagement and move on.
But somebody must like the way she deals with her callers because there is definitely a viewing audience. I can always change the channel and not have to look at her so she doesn't bother me.
I would like to address Suze's attitude about marrying someone who makes bad financial decisions. I am amazed at everyone who marries a bad financial handler. Once you marry someone your finances become entwined, regardless of how many separate bank accounts you keep. I don't understand why this little nugget of information is suddenly a popular new topic now in 2008, it seems like the American people are just waking up to this.
Love doesn't conquer all, and it certainly doesn't conquer bad credit. I don't condone breaking up marriages but Suze might have a point. Someone who routinely makes bad financial decisions often don't change. If one spouse makes an effort to get their marital finances straightened out, the other one may continue mismanaging money regardless. Divorce may not be the answer but a fixed allowance and serious oversight for the financially wayward spouse may work very nicely. I've seen a couple work that way, and it works well.
Suze probably shouldn't be breaking up marriages but she should be driving the point home that people need to look at each others credit and criminal histories before walking down the aisle.
BobH wrote:
I'd love to hear her sing the sequel: "Paying to Have the Truck Fixed Before Spending a Year in Jail",
LOL!
Best comment of the day!
- TJIC
Divorce may not be the answer but a fixed allowance and serious oversight for the financially wayward spouse may work very nicely.
Current domestic violence dogma calls it spousal abuse if the wife is the subject of an allowance.
As to Orman, I note a strong tendency in lesbian politics to hate men rather than love women.
"Current domestic violence dogma calls it spousal abuse if the wife is the subject of an allowance."
-----
Right, "economic violence".
Pretty much anything the man does that the wife doesn't like is now emotional violence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"... the husband makes the business decisions and produces the income, while the wife manages the finances."
-----
Gee, what an equitable split.
Orman came out of the closet in 2007 and stated that she is a lesbian. Apparently she has been with her current partner, a co-producer of her show, for seven years --- which is longer than the average heterosexual marriage lasts.
I could care less about her gender preferences.
But it would be foolish not to suspect that she harbors some anti-male sentiments.
The majority of women eventually harvest whatever assets a man accrued during his lifetime of work, simply because they live on average six years longer.
Last time I checked, you have to still be alive to get the money honey...
Orman does make a valid point that it is not fair that if she should die her same-sex partner would be denied a substantial part of her inheritance because the law does not recognize their relationship as equivalent to a man-woman marriage.
Personally I do not like her style as a TV "personality" or her man-bashing, but the fact that she is in a lesbian partnership should not produce financial discrimination in choices available to her and her partner.
Anyway, the point is that a partnership is two people working together toward a common goal--financial independence. There's only one way to achieve that. Minimize expense, maximize savings, invest in income-generating assets (preferably your own business). Any couple can be successful, as long as each keeps the other's best interests at heart and works to help each other reach their full potential.
My wife and I have made our marriage a partnership. We spend long walks discussing things including finances on a regular basis. Walks are cheap and relatively free of interruptions.
Our strategy has worked well for us. We've been married for 25 years and are debt free except for the mortgage on a rental property. Being debt free with no mortgage is a comforting feeling in these uncertain times.
I've noticed the lesbian man-hating thing too. I know plenty of lesbians who get along with men and seem to like men as non-sexual friends just fine. But there are a some who, without any apparent rational reason, seem to hate men completely.
Curiously, I've never known a gay man who hated women.
Maybe, undertow is right about the coming out bit. Maybe Orman can't control her hate anymore. Like Cham, I can't watch Orman for more than a minute or two.
If she would not give the same advice with the genders reversed, then she's a misandrist, and MEN ought to protest the network. Women aren't going to take the lead on it.
Funny, men are probably the ones behind her show, without whom she'd b a nobody.
I seem to recall a day, long ago, when Rosie O'Donnel was called the "Queen of Nice."
Then she came out of the closet.
Then she became the Bitch Goddess of Daytime TV. 9/11 Troofer. Anti-gun hypocrite with armed bodyguards.
Why is it that as soon as Their Little Secret is Revealed, certain people take free license to hate, hate, and hate?
Talk about a complete renunciation of "polite society." Ormann, like O'Donnell, simply has no class.
Dadvocate - you make a great point - Orman's misandry is a political stance, and not born of her lesbianism. I have always felt that her show was more entertainment than educational - her anger at men drives the show regardless of the topic. What we're getting with the Suze Orman show is an invitation to wallow in the neurosis that is at the center of her life. I prefer to make my love of family the core of my life, but everyone is entitled to make their own choices...
A good choice would be to turn off the television...
If her financial advice is helping someone, fine.
I've watched her in the past. A few minutes at a time, while surfing. And if she was on about something when I surfed in that perked my ears, I stayed a few minutes. It seems she has been getting militant in the anti-male category as of late. It makes listening like finger nails on a chalk board. I can't do it, either.
Curiously, I've never known a gay man who hated women.
Andrew Sullivan?
Never met Andrew Sullivan and didn't know he was gay. A person's sexual orientation doesn't make a difference to me unless that person is a female I'm thinking about asking out on a date.
Andrew Sullivan seems pretty close to psychotic to me.
Dadvocate,
As a rule, I would say you are right, that gay men do not as a whole hate women. I did have an experience in the Castro district in San Francisco many years ago. I did not know the area and was staying with a Berkeley student there who was female. I went into a small grocery store to buy something and the men there looked at me and looked annoyed about my presense and it took a while to get waited on. I asked the woman I was staying with why they were so rude at that particular store and she stated that the men there were gay and didn't like women. I was a bit taken aback, to say the least.
Gawainsghost,
Thanks for the suggestions. I have read Ramsey's money makeover books and listen to him --although I have not seen his tv show but have heard it is very good.
Cham,
To be fair, Orman does tell people to check out credit histories before getting married.
M said:
"Orman does make a valid point that it is not fair that if she should die her same-sex partner would be denied a substantial part of her inheritance because the law does not recognize their relationship as equivalent to a man-woman marriage."
Meh, sorry not buying it M. Its a bummer that its not perhaps an automatic assumption of inheritance rights but thats easily by-passed these days and most smart married heteros (my mother and step-father) use trusts to avoid government and other sticky parties interference.
My father and his girlfriend had never married after oh 6 or 7 years of being together, living together in his house for 4-5 years. Dunno for sure but my impression was Dad wasn't gonna marry for a third time. His trust took care of his girlfriend just fine though. She got half his estate and executive control of it. His lawyer told me he (dad) had recognized the possible conflicts but felt his gf could handle it and be fair by me. Haha, yeah right. I was the jerk for bringing up financial serious issues and wanting to be kept in the loop. Last I'd heard, she'd shut his one business down not being able to find a seller (not surprising) after claiming she wanted to run it and sold his other business. If I hadn't pushed the sale of his properties, we would have missed the top of the RE bubble and been out serious cash (with serious mortgages hanging over the estate). But again, I'm the young kid (25 at the time, now 30) who didn't know jack squat and was a big ol uncaring meanie. She was in "mourning" as she worked hard to screw me over.
Andrew Sullivan can't be gay. I mean, no man who has so much concern for what has come out of Sarah Palin's womb could be, could they?
As for Orman's anti-male stance I believe her coming out has exacerbated her views toward men. She likely feels oppressed by the patriarchy in not being able to get the same benefits as a heterosexual couple. Personally I'd rather see civil unions or marriages available to same sex couples just to keep the funds from a deceased partner going to the state coffers.
Also, in part, I believe Orman's new screed is in recognition that with men deciding not to marry that women are going to have to pick up the shovel and dig themselves out of the financial hole their Prada pruses got them in. So then you've got a potential market that's well over half of the United States. And given the current attitude of most American women these days, she's likely hitting her target demographic.
"Also, in part, I believe Orman's new screed is in recognition that with men deciding not to marry that women are going to have to pick up the shovel and dig themselves out of the financial hole their Prada pruses got them in."
-----------
I see men getting manipulated and used for money every day. And not just by "Oprah's Army" of housewives while the husband works or by single men springing for dates, women really work the corners.
I don't think that massive source of funds for women is going to go away all that soon.
dadvocate --
Oh honey, you simply haven't known enough gay men then. Ever hear the term "breeder"? It simply drips with contempt when uttered. There are plenty and it may be that, knowing you are hetero, they kept it contained. Just a maybe.
I have had occasion to see and hear Orman while flipping the channel -- she reminds me of Susan Powter but not near as good looking.
She treats the women in the audience like children-- and it all resembles a pep rally.
Orman is a "misandrist "because it sells-- the women in the audience and at home lap up the man-bashing and blaming. It sells-- so Orman dishes it up.
Her being a lesbian is logically irrelevant-- but its absurd to deny the assertion that many more lesbians are anti-male then gay men are anti-female. Its almost instinctual in lesbians-- they regard men as the enemy and think men obsess about them ( when men could care less ) while gay men get along famously with women and they typically enjoy each other's company ( see the hilarious Jimmy Kimmel skit on "The Man Show"- Rent- A- Gay or something where married men reant gay men to accompany their wives shopping ... antiquing... house decorating... or cuddling after sex... ).
I don't know if its been systematically studied, but I think that lesbians are much more hostile to men than gay men are towards women.
Orman is selling a product-- herself... there is probably a need for advising women on their economic self-interest,,, but the adversarial nature of her advise reflects what women like to hear... or Orman would adopt another persona
sio
You may not be aware of this, but the issue with gay marriage and inheritance is not just about automatic rights of inheritance.
If one spouse in a marriage dies, they can leave an unlimited amount of money to their spouse without any inheritance tax being applied at all to the bequest.
For a committed gay couple, particularly one with a lot of assets, the death of one spouse can cause an enormous inheritance tax bite to come out of what is left to the surviving spouse. *That* is the fundamental unfairness in inheritance for long term committed gay couples who are not allowed to marry.
Off topic but I thought people here would find this article interesting. It's basically a guy rationalizing why he got married and giving in to the cliche that no man in his right mind would ever stay single.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article4833106.ece
From The Sunday Times
October 5, 2008
Guyland: stuck in the world of male spinsters
Is the bachelor lifestyle the preserve of sad male spinsters? The confirmed bachelor has become an object of pity
Dr. Helen,
I try to be open-minded. But I also choose to not waste time on a lost cause.
My wife and I have benefitted greatly from Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace program. We worked it together. It helped us save our marriage.
Ms. Orman is very off-putting and we never felt comfortable watching her program. It is a shame she has chosen to throw it all away.
One more program to quickly flip past.
Orman does make a valid point that it is not fair that if she should die her same-sex partner would be denied a substantial part of her inheritance because the law does not recognize their relationship as equivalent to a man-woman marriage.
This is pure doublespeak. Last I checked there's no problem leaving your estate to people who aren't related to you by marriage. Unmarried straights do it all the time.
Orman's misandry is a political stance, and not born of her lesbianism.
While it's true that one need not be misandrist just because you're lesbian, lesbian culture encourages it, just as black culture encourages anti-white bigotry.
Typo - "alot" is not a word.
Orman blows, except she obviously doesn't.
Had three marriages.
Since the last I built a business and sold it, and now have it squirreled away for retirement & sheltered in the same shelters our congress uses. Have fun getting your catamites in Congress to threaten their own tax shelters to get mine, Obama.
In the meantime, at almost fifty, the rest of my life is mine.
Problem solved.
Fish, bicycles, etc - that cuts two ways.
I guess I'm just a naive nutcase, but I don't see hating men as a lesbian thing. I know too many hetero females doing the same thing.
Sure, I will be told they are closet lesbians, but I think not. I think they have been brainwashed into being afraid of men.
Wall St. J. columnist Chuck Jaffe slams Orman in 2007 for giving poor financial advice and making outrageously risky investments with her own money.
"As for playing the stock market, Orman said "I have a million dollars in the stock market, because if I lose a million dollars, I don't personally care."...
"Suze is investing as if she was a retired grandmother with no heirs," adds Neiman, who is a founder of the Pride Planners group, which represents advisers who specialize in serving the gay and lesbian community. "That's not the description of the ordinary person who is out there taking her advice."...
"The big problem with Suze Orman is that she appears to be a below-average financial planner," says Bob Veres, a leading commentator on the financial-planning world and author of the new novel "Song of the Universe," in which the protagonist is a financial adviser.
"She scores very high on the personality index, but very low on the knowledge and understanding of the complex issues that face a lot of her audience. She's giving generic, simple solutions to people's most difficult problems, and judging from her portfolio she's taking them on a path she really hasn't traveled herself."
Orman's column appears regularly in "O" magazine.
Breeder, at least in my lexicon, means parents that have children but then fail to act as parental units after the fact.
Persuant to my other rant re Obama/Palin and the cult of the individual, Orman is little different than that Kiyosaki "Rich Dad" clown. Like him, she has branded herself as some kind of finance guru (there's a new one every month, it appears). Think of her as an Oprah of the Wallet. Her advice really isn't much to speak of, but she's carved out a niche and now she's exploiting her marketing position to indulger her misandry. Obviously, her audience is only too happy to goad her on.
It's not about information. Just cult of the personality.
Doc,
I've watched Miss Orman on occasion, and I noticed her bias long ago. For example, when an engaged WOMAN called, Suze would urge and admonish her to get a prenup. When a MAN would call, no such advice would be given; if he suggested protecting his assets, he'd be mildly upbraided for not sharing, or if an engaged woman called with a man wishing to do likewise, the man would be upbraided and the woman given sympathy. No, I noticed Suze Orman's double standard BS long ago, which is why I never liked her, nor watched her on a regular basis.
MarkyMark
"Feminist" talk and gold-digger walk :)
It's "COULDN'T care less" - if I had a quarter for every time people misuse this ....
Randian?
Are you being forcefully naive?
The point about gay marriage and inheritance has nothing to do with the ability to designate your heirs. It is purely a matter of the inability to benefit from the enormous (actually) unlimited sheltering of assets left from one spouse to another in a marriage.
If Suzy Orman has a fortune worth say (for the sake of discussion) $20 million dollars and she dies, she can leave it to her partner, but it will be subject to inheritance taxes (about 45%) so her gay partner would only be able to inherit $11 million.
If Suzy Orman died in the same circumstances and were married, her spouse would receive the full $20 million.
*That's* what everyone means by her same-sex partner being denied a substantial chunk of her inheritance.
50% of marriages end in divorce after 20 years.
So the idea that her seven year relationship lasts longer than most heterosexual marriages is wrong.
Orman is a staple on public broadcasting & a homosexual.
For those reasons alone I avoid her financial market place aggrandizement.
1) Gub'mint supported anything is antithetical to a free market & independent self direction. A large portion of Orman's exposure is through a subsidized outlet. True success would stand on its own.
2) Homosexuals are notoriously self absorbed & petulant with little regard or tolerance for a world beyond their own bitter perspective of their crotch.
Dr. Helen's blog post outlined a perfect example of these character flaws in action.
Orman lives a pathetic existence based around pieces of paper. When she is all dried up and her advice is no longer sought, she will look back and realize what a real waste her life was.
Suze Orman, like so many others male & female, live in a much different galaxy that most of us. Even though we're not all in over our heads with credit card debt, we still have concerns and issues in DAILY living and related expenses. We owe virtually nothing: home et al paid for and we manage our fixed incomes. But the reality of what Orman & Co dish out as "financial advisors" is so much sound bite hype. Yeah, it's a good idea to have an 8 month stash. Try doing that if you're both working and raising kids. Orman lives well in her Florida home (where she remains ensconsed for on camera shots with her perpetual tan). Okay, she's played the game well. But here's reality Suz old girl: Most WORKING people don't have the luxury of prime TV that brings in bucks as they blather on about how financially astute they should be. When's the last time you had a real job?
Orman is a No on 8 in CA and a No on Amendment 2 in FL advocate.
She supports gay marriage.
Yet, she rarely talks about pay equity for women- women earning the same money for doing the same job as men-- in real terms.
She also fails to talk about single hetero women in cities in California and Florida who must compete with two gay men who live together who because they are male make more money than a woman who does the same work-- whether married or not-and how that affects economic disparity for all single people. The cost of rent, etc becomes higher e.g. San Francisco.
Why doesn't she talk about this disparity against single people in cities competing with a two male household?
Hi --
Part of my concern with Ms. Orman is that she consistently recommends stock market investments, apparently with the idea that over time securities values always rise.
This needs to be carefully thought out -- there have been lengthy periods when the U.S. stock market has not risen and the Japanese stock market has never returned to its 1989 high. And once-touted individuals stocks have certainly not been a sure thing, just ask ENRON investors.
I have posted a longer look at this issue at:
Ourbroker.com
All the best,
Peter
I live in Singapore and watch Suze regularly with my husband. I didn't know that she had come out of the closet, but have always noted the "bad-hubby, bad-hubby" nature of some advices. Always figured that was her way of balancing things in the financial advice world. By and large women have few places to go for genuine old school common sense.
It's kind of weird that some of these comments are quite hateful about Suze Orman being hateful! I think she's quite fun
情色影音聊天免費視訊-聊天室自拍偷窺貼圖區金瓶影片交流區成人電影下載※免費檳榔西施摸奶影片※視訊聊天室百分百貼影片區視訊美女影片直播情人視訊網豆豆本土辣妹視訊微風成人sex888movie影城WII168一路發嘟嘟成人網站美女短片免費試看BT成人論壇☆♀ 情色電影院☆♀ 飯島愛a片☆♀ 情色成人影片 ☆♀免費視訊聊天免費色咪咪影片百分百貼影片區免費色咪咪影片網小魔女自拍天堂辣美眉173show影片自拍美女聊天室 joinsex520免費影片SEX520免費影片SEX520免費影片聊天室ut免費av18禁影片0800a片網一葉情貼圖片區85cc免費影片色情豆豆聊天室av女優王國Hotsee免費視訊交友※s383情人視訊※ez網愛聊天室成人美少女自拍貼圖sex520免費影片琉璃仙境聊天室夜未眠成人影城小魔女自拍天堂sex888免費影片甜心寶貝直播下載線上aaa片免費情色貼圖網美美色網貼片區免費漫畫帝國免費A片線上看aa片台灣kiss 情色網正妹視訊 聊天室成人免費視訊聊天區免費a片卡通a片女優王國免費色情短片性愛自拍情色貼圖區完美女人影音網一葉情貼圖片區視訊交友網激情網愛聊天☆♀ 免費辣妹視訊聊天網 ☆♀玫瑰公爵成人論壇自拍盜攝館she say 聊天室入口甜心寶貝貼影片上班族聊天室女優色情自拍a片線上免費看a片下載☆ 自拍情色圖貼照片 ☆美女交友 聊天室色咪咪影片網色色網85cc免費影城視訊電話ggoo色咪咪影片免費色咪咪影片線上a片分享區av美女080豆豆聊天室曼雪兒免費小說85cc免費影城aio交友愛情館383成人影城免費成人短片亞洲無碼電影下載卡通a片下載甜心寶貝淫片區童顏巨乳台灣論壇HI5 TV免費影片小杜情色論壇aa免費看aa情人皇朝聊天室真人美女辣妹鋼管脫衣秀 ut聊天聯盟☆♀ 免費影音視訊聊天 ☆♀影片免費下載激情成人聊天室免費色情a片天堂線上免費a片網線上免費a片網交友視訊※免費觀看視訊辣妹脫衣秀※免費a片線上觀賞☆♀ 成人電影下載 ☆♀免費成人影短片下載百分百貼影片區080苗栗人聊天室080苗栗人聊天室成人聊天室et正妹牆情色 後宮電影院免費色情影片0401影音視訊網路美少女林欣怡台灣kiss倩色網aio 視訊交友網吊帶襪美女色情遊戲免費色咪咪影片網,日本a片亞洲成人圖片區日本美女寫真集哈啦 聊天室ut383成人影城080中部人聊天室絕色影城
Post a Comment
<< Home