The Politicization of Psychology Continues
Shrinkwrapped discusses yet another study casting a negative light on (shockingly) Conservatives. The Toronto Star "interprets the study for us:"
By the end of the Toronto Star article, the author summarizes the study to conclude the following:
What about people who change their political orientation over time--were they really just whiny kids or self-reliant ones originally who fooled themselves?
Update: Michelle Malkin has a copy of the entire study if you would like to read more.
Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.
At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.
The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.
By the end of the Toronto Star article, the author summarizes the study to conclude the following:
It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities we've been stuck with since we were kids.
What about people who change their political orientation over time--were they really just whiny kids or self-reliant ones originally who fooled themselves?
Update: Michelle Malkin has a copy of the entire study if you would like to read more.
posted by Helen at 12:43 PM
58 Comments:
I'm one of those who switched during my 40's. Both my parents are quite liberal. I doubt they have ever voted for anyone other than a Democrat in any election. Perhaps they are "uncomfortable with ambiguity."
I voted for McGovern and Dukakis as well as Al Gore (Sr. and Jr.) for Senator. But, I began having doubts when Affirmative Action started. As my liberal mother taught me, two wrongs don't make a right. Although they did, somehow, in this case, even to my mother.
I also got tired of supporting a movement that continuously told me that I, as a white male of European descent, was the source of nearly every problem in the world. Now I'm just a "fascist Nazi" (or is it "Nazi fascist") for not supporting all the appropriate liberal causes.
My time in DC showed both sides (but especially the anti-American Anarcho-Commies) were whinny when they did not get their way.
The study was from Berkley, no basis there.
What was it Churchill said? "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."?
Dr. Helen,
My personal studies indicate that anyone who pays attention to a Berkley
social scientist is probably suffering from incurable hysteria and in need of much needed rest.
Honestly.....I am forever amazed at the number of people who refuse to think for themselves.
Atom
The line that cracked me up was: "Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. "
Heck, this study in good news for those of us who had children whom we were required to train not to whine. It means they're less likely to parade around downtown naked. I've seen pictures of some of those Berkley festivals and protests.
I hate to say it, but this is the kind of trash study that gives psychology a bad name.
Mike,
I thought psychology already had a bad name.
Gee... I must be a raging liberal and never even knew it! How strange.
No whining... check
Self reliant... check
Thinks the Berkeley professor is a moron... check (oops I wonder what group that puts me into)
Now now, let's read the whole article, like this passage:
"Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect." (Emphasis added)
Or this one:
"For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized that the world is a scary, unfair place.
Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just moral certainty.
The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual."
In my MBA statistics class a 7% correlation was considered essentially no correlation at all. And this is good enough for social sciences?!
Thom,
Perhaps one of the other influences was living in Berkeley--frankly, I might be whining too--and find the world a scary place if I still lived there during my school years--luckily for me, we moved from Berkeley when I was three months old.
I wondner if that same study was done at Appalachian State University or Georgia Tech what the results would be. What if the secure kids were the ones who identified most with their parents' politics (i.e., red state politics) and the whiners were those who didn't fit in (i.e, liberal). What do you think the Berkley professor would say? Would he accept the findings?
Mary Ann,
What--a liberal child in a red state? Why I bet the Berkeley professor would say that was child abuse!
At one point in my life I went to a psychiatrist to deal with depression.
The doctor quickly focused in on my libertarian/conservative attitude and indicated that he'd cure me of it and thereby allow me to be happier with my life.
He never saw me a second time.
Gee, maybe the kids who were "whiny and insecure" recognized even at that early age that Berkeley was completely disconnected from the real world. And that the lunatics were running the asylum.
Did that sound harsh?
Good.
As someone who's from Berkeley, I would agree that it's a very liberal community.
I think that the most reasonable conclusion that should be drawn is that a second study would need to be done in an anti-liberal environment.
My prediction would be that happy kids are more likely to end up with the political orientation that is popular around them. Why? Because happy kids will generally fit in better with people around them, and are likely to adopt their tastes. Whereas unhappy kids are more likely to grow up in a state of perpetual opposition to whatever is the usual orientation.
So I wouldn't necessarily doubt this professor's measured results, but I would be careful about drawing specific psychological conclusions, until some such control study has been done.
dadvocate, what took you so long? I knew McGovern was a loser at age 16, and grew up in a stright-ticket Democrat household.
This is odd. This isn't a study in any sense I am familiar with.
Maybe just a few questions will illustrate my problem with all this: (1) Are the parents conservatives? Do we know if that matters? Do conservative parents create conservative children? (2) Where did each of the kids go to school? i.e. what were the influences on them as they developed in the sense of making conservative vs. liberal attitude choices? Anyone beaten senseless by a liberal at some time? Abductions? Abuses? Anyone have real issues with their mom, "Moonbeam?" (3) Please define "whining." Also define "conservative" and "liberal" and ... (4) The teachers had a political philosophy--what was it? Do we know if kids being reared in conservative homes "whine" when being forced to fit into liberal social structures? The other way around?
... I guess it could go on for some time :) My point is that this seems to be the opposite of anything that could be called "good science;" it isn't so much a study as something to drool into a beer after losing an election or two.
[cough]
Great blog :)
I was a Reagan hating little Marxist shit for my adolescence and young adulthood.
And it was SOLELY because of what I was force fed in school.
It finally dawned on me ow leftists shade truth and spin every little thing to reflect their viewpoint and ideas. they don't teach you (me) to look through that stuff...when I did, I became much more unpopular with the people I used to know. Then again, Imade friends with people who had the same experience, one of which is a research chemist with Eli Lilly.
This report is as bad as those awful texts written to indoctrinate that the wonderful teachers educated in the 60's taught out of.
But, it's all water under the bridge...
Great blog, btw, and you're really hot. :o)
Regards
Wait, I thought conservatives were supposedly the popular kids and jocks from John Hughes movies writ large?
Um, do you think it made a difference that this guy focused on Berkeley of all places? Not very representative of America. Why didn't he study kids from rural areas and less left-leaning cities?
It would seem that growing up in Berkeley, an insecure kid, wanting to attract attention from his parents (and his peers) could do easily so by challenging their political orthodoxy. Since the political orthodoxy there is so uniformly left-wing, he would do so by becoming conservative.
You don't even need to get into this guy's methodology to see the flaws in this study. Basically, how can you make the sweeping conclusions that he has made by studying children in one of the most left-wing enclaves in the U.S.?
The only member of Congress to vote against the authorization of force in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 was Barbara Lee -- whose bailiwick includes Berkeley.
'Nuff said?
Personal anecdote: when I was in grad school at Berkeley a Berkeley professor (conservative by Berkeley standards, i.e., someone who wanted some education actually to take place at the secondary level) was a member of the school board. He had a son in Berkeley High who regularly got his ass kicked solely for that reason (according to a friend who attended high school with him).
I would have thought insecurity and paranoia would have been an entirely warranted response on that poor kid's part.
Axe, I don't have a link, alas, but the subject has been studied and the correlation between parents worldview (including political) and their children is around 85%.
Dr Helen, are you available for an interview for an IMAO podcast?
Hm. Weren't you all discussing a psych study of liberals here within the last month or so? You all seemed pretty happy and convinced by that one, if I remember correctly.
Anonymous, you'd love "Vision of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell.
(A link to the full text of the study can be found at Michelle Malkin's site.)
The author's biases show up pretty clearly in their summaries, which are anything but objective. For example, their take on conservative women is summarized as;
(Their summary:)
"Relatively Conservative young women were characterized as: conservative, uneasy with uncertainties, conventional, as sex-typed in their personal behavior and social perceptions, emotionally bland, appearing calm, and candid but also somewhat moralistic."
Their correlation table, however, is equally consistent with the following description;
(My summary:)
"Relatively Conservative young women were characterized as favoring conservative values, calm and relaxed in manner,straightforward and candid, moral, behaving in an ethically consistant manner, and regarding themselves as physically attractive."
The authors claim that their study "speaks for itself", but still feel the need to cherry-pick the data and shade the descriptions when telling us what it "really" says.
What would have been really interesting is to see how primary skills like the ability to draw correct conclusions from data and reason logically correlated with the "LIB/CON" index -- however, it is possible that Berkeley pre-school teachers may not be able to recognize these qualities.
American exceptionalism echoes a collective form Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
NPD is characterized by inflexible, deeply ingrained, maladaptive patterns of adjustment to life that cause either subjective distress or significant impairment of adaptive functioning within the world that they find themselves.
I wonder if it's the greater manifestation of Tofflers "future shock" where people become so stressed by a changing world that as a collective they become a dysfunctional culture.
It was Kantor who first described Narcissistic Personality Disorder , when you read through the clinical description its not hard to tick the boxes.
Kantor (1992, pp. 203-204) describes the clinical characteristics of NPD as:
* inordinate self-pride;
* self-concern;
* an exaggeration of the importance of one's experiences and feelings;
* ideas of perfection;
* a reluctance to accept blame or criticism;
* absence of altruism although gestures may be made for the sake of appearance;
* empathy deficit; and,
* grandiosity.
The idea takes a bit consideration to fully understand , essentialy it means that major sector of our society (on both left and right) has lots its bearings to their traditonal beliefs and values.
The ravings and put downs by both sides in this debate disturb me. If your on the right the left is out to get you and if your on the left on the right is doing the same.
What about those who are in the middle.
my mum is one party my bro is the other, i am stuck in the middle and not the stealers wheel song.
I've long had a problem with the Canadian press, including the Star, for their love of publishing studies with all the intellectual merit of something from Joe's Bar, Grill and University.
The Toronto Star REALLY adore publishing such stuff. I've no idea why.
pissed off old man:
YES! Neither the right nor the left bother listening to each other. We're in a society which is fracturing along myriad lines, including right/left.
As a moderate-pragmatist I see good and bad on both sides. It's a pity people have to insult each other, publish studies that are not studies, etc..
Let's go back and imagine a similar study done on people who pioneered the Civil Rights Movement in the South in the 1950s and compare them to Southerners who were for the status-quo. It's entirely likely that even as children, the eventual pioneers of Civil Rights were considered "whiny" and not self-confident by their status-quo loving teachers. Imagine if someone had published a "study" which attempted to show that the Civil Rights leaders who were upsetting things were whiny as children. Imagine if someone stooped that low?
That's what we're seeing here.
Its easy to laugh off this kind of junk science. But in some low-probability distant future where an extreme left-wing regime comes to power through some kind of crisis, 30-40 years of this kind of "research" sitting on a library shelf could be exploited to serve as the "scientific" foundation for political persection. Junk science can be dangerous.
What I find most interesting, most of the Liberals I know are unhappy with their lives. I once worked with a lady who was a serious Dem. She would talk about how her father would no longer loan her money, how you have to spend 200 bucks on a dinner once a month to feel better.
Me conservative, grew up poor, we never got along. And I said that to a person who worked with us, he said, "You ever seen her happy?" I said no, well are you ever really sad, I said no. There it was right there, she was angry and bitter.
Look at all the whining and paranoia rampant in this thread. Science, you win again!
This study has to be one of the most hilarious ones yet. Liberals are the ones that are self reliant?!?! ROTFLMAO. These are the people who can't even flush the toilet without government regulations and forms signed in triplicate. They want the government to control every aspect of their(and our) lives and they are the self reliant ones?
Guys, how about reading the study -- at least the abstract -- before you make fun of it? It does not say conservatives are whiny. It does not say anything about people who change their political views in time. It does not say other factors (school, family, socioeconomic situation, geographic location) have no influence on your political thinking. It does not say anything about the grown-up behavior of liberals or conservatives.
What it does say is that research done on two relatively small and relatively localized samples not very recently indicates that if you behave in a certain way when you are three, you are likely to have certain political views when you are twenty-three.
Now, you can discount the study on many grounds (sample too small, sample too localized, crucial part of the study done 40 years ago, assessment of behavior traits too nebulous). You can also say "so what?" I mean what if snotty kids grow up to be conservatives? What if liberals have crooked teeth?
But to dismiss the study because the author is based in Berkeley, or because Congressman Blowhard has tried to pull the author's funding five years ago -- to dismiss it on the basis of what conservative blogs are writing about a Toronto Star article about the study -- that's just childish, guys.
GayPatriotWest writes:
"It would seem that growing up in Berkeley, an insecure kid, wanting to attract attention from his parents (and his peers) could do easily so by challenging their political orthodoxy. Since the political orthodoxy there is so uniformly left-wing, he would do so by becoming conservative."
When I attended Santa Monica High School, in a very liberal community, I was one of a small number of non-liberals. (I fancied myself a liberal Republican, which is to say that my leanings were proto-libertarian.) The class valedictorian came from two VERY liberal (even by Santa Monica standards) parents. And so what was our class valedictorian big on? "International Jewish bankers conspiracy." He was an unapologetic John Bircher.
Last I heard, he had been accepted to Reed College, and was planning to go there. Oddly enough, I never heard anything about him being lynched there.
Bezerkeley is not only atypical of the United States--it is atypical of the very liberal San Francisco Bay Area. As I discuss here, a relative growing up in Bezerkeley created himself a bunch of peer group problems when he decided, at age 12, to stop doing LSD.
Using Bezerkeley kids as a representative sample of Americans makes about as much sense as doing a study of violence and aggression in South Central Los Angeles. Or studying attitudes about poverty in Beverly Hills. Or examining skin cancer rates by sampling people on Santa Monica Beach. Or understanding how Jews feel about their place in the world with a survey of Jews in northern Idaho. We would all laugh at anyone that tried to pass off a study of such highly atypical populations as serious science.
In my MBA statistics class a 7% correlation was considered essentially no correlation at all.
Same here in a college statistics class. Doesn't the fact that 7% is considered a decent correlation in social science sort of undercut all of social science? 7% would be considered no correlation in any other science. You could probably get 7% out of astrology and palmistry.
I recalled something to a guy I was corresponding with the other day that seems relevant to me. We were discussing the difficulties of being atheists who are politically conservative. That is, if you hang out with fellow atheists, they all tend to be knee jerk, Bush-hating liberals. If you hang out with fellow conservatives you end up getting an earful of God-ism. Can't win.
We got into a mention of what it's like to live in a community that is largely made up of people who hold beliefs that are completely at odds with your own. I told him:
Yes, there are some headline-grabbing grandstanders around who would think nothing of enforcing their religious beliefs on the rest of us, but they really aren't that significant. Like the wackos on the far-left who equate Bush with Hitler, they are an overly loud minority who get an inordinate amount of attention. I've lived amongst the religious zealots all my life and while they can be a nuisance at times, they generally don't make bad neighbors. Maybe I've grown more tolerant or lowered my expectations as I've gotten older, or maybe I've noticed that for all of the griping done by the left over the past 26 years (since Reagan first took office) the "Religious Right" has not managed to turn America into a fascist dictatorship.
I was a huge fan of the band Styx in the late 70s/early 80s (I know, I know) and I remember when Kilroy Was Here came out and I was right there with them. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and their ilk wouldn't take my music away or make me conform, damn it! But it was Tipper Gore at the head of the PMRC (seeing Dweezil and Moon performing on stage with Tipper playing drums years later I could hear the thunder as Frank rolled around in his grave.) And all these years and all those labels later, the music industry is a cesspool and rock seems all but dead and the government didn't have anything to do with it. Prince has sworn he won't sing Darling Nikki again all on his own. Sad.
Spacemonkey,
Sure, email me with what you want to talk about:
violentkids@hotmail.com
Guys, how about reading the study -- at least the abstract -- before you make fun of it?
factoid: Did you read beyond the abstract? It certainly doesn't look like it. A number of the things that you claim were not addressed in the study are actually in there. There are several pages on the correlation between political orientation at 23 and personality traits at 23.
To me, the most obvious source of bias in the study is the makeup of the people making these personality judgments. It looks like they were graduate students in education and psychology at Berkeley, which is probably not a terribly balanced group. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to think that they might be more critical of proto-conservative behavior than proto-liberal behavior. Which do you think will upset them more: a kid who whines about another kid hogging all the toys or a kid who whines about another kid trying to take his toys?
That's especially problematic with the personality assessments at age 23. If the person doing the assessment is a leftist, they're far more likely to see conservative beliefs as moralistic, judgmental, and otherwise unpleasant. You may also have noticed the strong implication that sex-typed behavior is a negative personality trait. If you just look at the personality trait descriptions in the CAQ, they clearly reflect a liberal bias.
I didn't look into the McClosky and Kerlinger studies he used to quantify liberalism and conservatism, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were equally sloppy. For one thing, there is a sentence in the Block article that is either very badly written or it claims that support for government price controls indicates conservative beliefs. Given the general sloppiness of the article and its tendency to define conservatism as authoritarianism, neither would surprise me.
More statistical tomfoolery: the asterisks indicate each "p" value that's below 0.10. That means that there is a 1/10 chance that random data could produce the result. In real sciences, you could only publish if the p value was below 0.05.
Even worse, there's good reason to doubt the statistical worth of even this p value. The last election produced a 90/10 Dem/Repub split in Berkeley, which means that the data for Repubs could be based on only 3-5 male subjects. This would allow one extreme outlier ot prejudice the entire analysis, which I suspect is the case b/c we are never given the actual political distribution - only the fact that it skews heavily liberal.
It's also hard not to call BS when you read gems like this:
To the extent there is skew, it follows that individuals toward the Conservative end of the
score distribution can be expected to be characterologically more homogeneous than individuals
toward the Liberal end.
Funny, no citation for that one. ;)
John Doe, it was Ben Franklin, and what he actually said was that to be young and conservative is to have no heart, but to be old and liberal is to have no head. This explains the study results perfectly. The kids who were whiny and dependent upon authority at a young age had an early opportunity to learn the liabilities of that approach to life, and experience taught them to abandon it. They learned early through experience - adult liberals are slow learners.
A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
anonymous: There is plenty of idiocy in the paper, but I think the statement about conservatives being homogenous might actually be defensible. He might simply mean that with a small number of conservatives, we won't see a very wide range of conservative beliefs and personalities. It's unclear and poorly phrased, but in context I think it's possible that what he meant to say was less objectionable that what you think it means. But of course there are plenty of other problems with the article that are less easily explained.
There's a simple formula for this sort of advocacy research:
1. Use a small, non-representative sample - here we have Berkeley, 'nuff said.
2. Define complex, constructed measures that can be made to come out any way you want depending on which factors are included, weighting, etc. - their 6-factor measure of liberal/conservative based on a variety of checklists, instead of just asking the subjects to rate themselves on the political spectrum.
3. Highlight any differences in your favor, no matter how meaningless - their tiny correlations of .2 to .3, explaining less than 9% of the variance (also using a 10% significance level, usually considered unacceptable).
4. Spin results your way, such as labeling a trait "confidence" if your favored group has it, "arrogance" if the other group has it- several examples here that others have noted.
5. Wait for media to simplify it down to sound bites that further obscure the truth.
It's a shame, since human behavior is something we really need to understand better, but this is the sort of thing that leads people to use scare quotes when discussing social "science".
I written a fairly long response to the article for those who are interested here: http://birdshow.blogspot.com/2006/03/conservatives-are-whiny-article.html
Many of the points are already made more succintly here by others, though, but it's there if you want it.
I do, however, want to point out my favorite, unintentionally humorous line from the article:
“Ironically, the sheer variety of changes and improvements suggested by the liberal-minded under-controller may explain the diffuseness, and subsequent ineffectiveness, of liberals in politics where a collective single-mindedness of purpose is required.”
My response:
Um, yeah. That’s why all of us social and religious conservatives, free marketers, libertarians, etc. are united in our complete agreement about everything, while liberals have so many different ideas (which ones exactly?) that it’s hard to get them to rally around one (Bush Lied!).
I tried to read the study but it was impenetrable. I do know enough about statistics to find it risible that somebody would cite a .27 correlation in a study with 95 subjects as significant. I could not determine what would seem to me very important data, such as how many of the 23-year-olds were classified as "conservative". It would not shock me to learn that there were fewer than 20.
BTW, I looked up Jack Block (the study's author) at Open Secrets, and yes, he's a moonbat--contributions to Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean and Move-On.
Pat,
The thing is, all the variables were measured continuously, so no one was classified as a "liberal" or "conservative," but placed on a continuum. Based on this, and the fact that the author didn't report the characteristics of the score distribution, there's no way to tell just how many conservatives there were. For all we know, the range could have gone from extreme left to moderate.
I don't doubt that there were a few true conservatives in the bunch, but I also find it quite telling that Block didn't go into much detail discussing the charateristics of his sample.
Check out Michelle Malkin's newest post on the study here:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004831.htm
If I knew all that before I read it, I wouldn't have wasted my time.
Off-topic, but have you seen this Dr. Helen?
2008真情寫真aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室080影音視訊聊天室38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室520情色聊天室QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族080上班族聊天室6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片
本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區momokoko同學會視訊kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風 成人 論壇kiss文學區taiwankiss文學區
"免費視訊美女520sexy girl
sogo論壇aa片免費看
免費線上 aa 片試看85CC
情色18 禁sex520免費a長片
av女優影片情色文學
日本av淫蕩人妻免費漫畫帝國
777美女dvd無碼av女優
視訊辣妹girl5320 貼片貼圖區
本土自拍影片qq 美美色網漫畫
百分百成人圖片avdvd
視訊辣妹找援交
dodo豆豆聊天室
成人影片下載免費線上a片
sex999日本美女寫真集
色情漫畫777美女dvdav
小護士免費 aa 片試看
網路自拍美女聊天室天堂
080聊天網桃園天堂
雪之深戀 080聊天網水之浪漫
sex888入口免費性影片觀賞
高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
aa 片試看免費卡通
百分百成人情色圖片
嘟嘟情人網影片
內衣模特兒寫真成人圖貼
免費視訊78論壇
拓網學生族視訊777美女
辣妹有約辣妹no31314視訊
dudu sex免費 aa 片試看
成人a影片論壇
"
免費視訊聊天
ut聊天室辣妹視訊
kk777視訊俱樂部
UT影音視訊聊天室
吉澤明步
85cc免費影片
立花里子無碼
aaa片免費看短片
美女視訊
台南視訊,080情人網
日本免費視訊
aa片免費看
視訊網愛聊天室
影音視訊交友
咆哮小老鼠分享論壇
sex520免費影片
aio辣妺視訊
百事無碼a片
jp成人影片
免費av成人 情色
免費視訊美女色美眉部落格
168論壇視訊辣妹
免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友
s383視訊玩美女人
34c高雄視訊聊天
yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
aaa俱樂部
jp成人
Show-live視訊聊天室
免費視訊辣妹
QQ美女視訊秀
live173影音視訊聊天室
真人視訊交友
辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
倉井空免費影片
UT視訊美女交友
視訊美女 寫真
視訊情色網
亞洲東洋影片avdvd
ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊
激情網愛聊天
秘密情人影音視訊網
av無碼,一夜情,偷拍,免費影片下載
色漫畫帝國sex888免費看影
拓網視訊交友
34c視訊網愛聊天室
xxx383美女寫真迷愛聊天
sex999免費影片兼職援交
辣妹視訊網
免費視訊78論壇
情色香港論壇
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
美女show-live視訊情色
美眉共和國080情人網
s383情色大網咖視訊
aaa免費看影片
kk777視訊俱樂部
小魔女影城
sexy diamond sex888入口
104免費成人情色文學小說
免費成人影片,g點
彩虹無碼av女優
成人免費視訊 完美女人
美女短片免費試看
tw33 影片交流
南台灣視訊網愛聊天室
sex888movie影城
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
洪爺免費線上歐美A片段觀看
情人辣妹影片視訊直播
QQ美女視訊秀
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
新浪視訊
日本視訊小魔女自拍
美女交友影音視訊聊天室
domain hilive.tv限制級
sex888免費看影片波霸美女寫真
love104影音live秀
甜心寶貝直播貼片自慰
捷克論壇
桃園援交小魔女自拍天堂
裸體高雄援交妹
gogo2sex桃園視訊妹
85cc情色視訊交友
視訊妹迷愛聊天
34c情人視訊網愛聊天室
南台灣視訊貓貓論壇
視訊美女
21sex美女視訊交友
34c美女寶貝視訊
免費a片線上觀看s383視訊
視訊交友90739,限制級,777美女dvd
免費成人影片,日本美女寫真集
080情人網,本土自拍貼圖
ut同志交友網
禁地論壇比基尼辣妹
dvd線上aa片免費看
show-live名模視訊
情人小魔女自拍
視訊自拍美女聊天室
85cc免費影城aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片aaa免費看影片aaaaa片俱樂部影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片aa影片下載城微風成人av論壇免費a片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片小魔女免費影片免費視訊聊天 a片免費看a 免費影片觀賞免費視訊聊天室微風成人85cc免費影片85cc成人影城免費成人視訊亞洲禁果影城aa的滿18歲影片A片-sex女優王國aaaaa片俱樂部免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看A片-sex女優王國情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費Ａ片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片aaa影片下載城日本免費視訊av俱樂部後宮0204movie免費影片免費 a 片ut聊天室辣妹視訊情色美女視訊聊天室免費卡通影片線上觀看 ut交友成人視訊免費Ａ片av1688影音視訊天堂aaa的滿18歲卡通影片s383情色大網咖視訊美女館aaaa 片俱樂部免費a片卡通aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片 杜蕾斯成人UT影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊78論壇免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片aa影片下載城色漫畫帝國kk777視訊俱樂部美女視訊5278論壇ut聊天室aio交友愛情館免費視訊聊天成人a圖片區小說頻道彩虹頻道免費影片jp成人小魔女免費影城免費 aa 片試看情色文學A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道亞洲東洋影片gay片免費下載卡通aa片免費看成人影片分享小魔女免費影片視訊高雄情人聊天室34c卡通美女a片免費試看av免費影片,視訊聊天go2av免費影片情色 網站sex女優王國高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片plus論壇080情人網免費av影片免費a片卡通浪漫月光論壇免費aa片avdvd無碼影音視訊交友 免費視訊辣妹情人視訊網免費視訊辣妹 免費視訊78論壇台灣kiss情色貼圖區sex免費看影片彩虹論壇免費視訊聊天室 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇月宮貼圖色妹妹嘟嘟情人色網日本美女寫真集,kk視訊成人情色 視訊21sexsexy辣妹視訊百分百成人情色圖片ut辣妹哈啦視訊聊天室 素人自拍免費影片線上觀賞論壇男人的最愛中國性愛城avdvd無碼aaa免費看影片bt電影下載,免費成人片免費a片卡通dudu sex
85cc免費影城aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片aaa免費看影片aaaaa片俱樂部影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片aa影片下載城微風成人av論壇免費a片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片小魔女免費影片免費視訊聊天 a片免費看a 免費影片觀賞免費視訊聊天室微風成人85cc免費影片85cc成人影城免費成人視訊亞洲禁果影城aa的滿18歲影片A片-sex女優王國aaaaa片俱樂部免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看A片-sex女優王國情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費Ａ片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片aaa影片下載城日本免費視訊av俱樂部後宮0204movie免費影片免費 a 片ut聊天室辣妹視訊情色美女視訊聊天室免費卡通影片線上觀看 ut交友成人視訊免費Ａ片av1688影音視訊天堂aaa的滿18歲卡通影片s383情色大網咖視訊美女館aaaa 片俱樂部免費a片卡通aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片 杜蕾斯成人UT影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊78論壇免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片aa影片下載城色漫畫帝國kk777視訊俱樂部美女視訊5278論壇ut聊天室aio交友愛情館免費視訊聊天成人a圖片區小說頻道彩虹頻道免費影片jp成人小魔女免費影城免費 aa 片試看情色文學A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道亞洲東洋影片gay片免費下載卡通aa片免費看成人影片分享小魔女免費影片視訊高雄情人聊天室34c卡通美女a片免費試看av免費影片,視訊聊天go2av免費影片情色 網站sex女優王國高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片plus論壇080情人網免費av影片免費a片卡通浪漫月光論壇免費aa片avdvd無碼影音視訊交友 免費視訊辣妹情人視訊網免費視訊辣妹 免費視訊78論壇台灣kiss情色貼圖區sex免費看影片彩虹論壇免費視訊聊天室 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇月宮貼圖色妹妹嘟嘟情人色網日本美女寫真集,kk視訊成人情色 視訊21sexsexy辣妹視訊百分百成人情色圖片ut辣妹哈啦視訊聊天室 素人自拍免費影片線上觀賞論壇男人的最愛中國性愛城avdvd無碼aaa免費看影片bt電影下載,免費成人片免費a片卡通dudu sex
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿
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..........................
sex520免費影片一夜情視訊s383視訊 a片85cc免費影片歐美免費影片77p2p影片網youtube影片sex888影片分享區成人影片影片土豆網影片終極三國影片小魔女免費影片UT視訊美女交友a片免費下載守護甜心影片楓之谷影片sex999免費影片youtube影片下載色情影片一葉晴貼影片區性感影片
Post a Comment
<< Home