Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Cognitive Simplicity--a Liberal Trait?

I often laugh when I read things written by liberal bloggers who try to interpret something that I have written. Granted, it doesn't happen often since this blog, hopefully, stays below the radar of most of the extreme lefty bloggers as it is small and targeted to people who tend towards being independent or libertarian types who believe in small government, something many on the left have no interest in (I acknowledge that the right also has problems with small government but that is another post!). That said, I have to point out the absurdity of some of the comments made by those of the far left persuasion to my recent PJM column that addressed a question by a male who said he had assertiveness problems and felt guilty even taking up space on the sidewalk. One of the several suggestions I made was the following:

I have seen this fear of manliness in many modern husbands and fathers. Some men today are afraid of appearing like their own fathers, whom they thought of as unfair, controlling or condescending to women—the son swears he will not act the same way. Unfortunately, he often goes to the opposite extreme of letting his wife or others run all over him. These men are often doing dishes, watching the kids and earning much of the money all the while feeling guilty if anyone is unhappy with them.

The problem here is not the man doing the dishes and watching kids (most modern men do nowadays, thank goodness!) but that some men act against their fathers and allow themselves to be doormats without saying a word to anyone. It is the guilt and harshness with themselves and the subsequent negative feelings that are the problem. Sticking up for themselves by setting boundaries and limits with others is reasonable. I would give the same advice to a woman who was supporting the family fully, caring for the children, cooking dinner and all the while feeling guilty that she was not doing enough.

Apparently, the above ideas are too complex for some liberals. For example, several of the comments at PJM that followed after Firedoglake linked there saw my response only in black and white:

Sundown asks:

Why do you think that men who do dishes aren't masculine? I say that's a very outrageous idea.

and Courtney says:

Oh, the HORROR of men washing dishes and spending time with their own children. Why is it that when women do the dishes, they're doing their wifely duty, but when men do the dishes, they're graciously "helping out" and "emasculating" themselves?? GROW UP. If a sink is full of YOUR dirty dishes, YOU WASH THEM. Same goes for YOUR OWN CHILDREN.

One of the commenters refers to me as Phyllis Schlafly in order to make it look as if I think women should be stuck in the kitchen while men go to work. If that is not black and white thinking, I don't know what is.

Another liberal, David Niewert talks about being a stay-at-home dad and states the following:

And there were moments — whispered comments, offhand remarks — where I was reminded that a lot of people, both men and women, privately viewed stay-at-home daddies as wimps or out-of-work losers. Sort of like Dr. Helen.

Niewert takes my statements out of context and projects his own liberal agenda onto them--look, he says, "she thinks stay-at-home dads are wimps!" I have never said that, nor have I ever thought that. If Niewert were not such a simplistic thinker, he would have done more than glance over Jane Hamsher's post on the PJM column and would have actually analyzed my post himself to see that I was responding to a man who was having assertiveness problems--and the man's problem was possibly a response of guilt to his own father being controlling and condescending towards women.

Some men are so guilty in that manner that they will not stand up for themselves in psychological ways with women or others. Apparently, this complexity of thought is more than Niewert or his cohorts can be expected to manage. My column had nothing to do with thinking that stay-at-home dads were wimps--and everything to do with men feeling that they are not allowed to express their feelings, something I thought liberal men were into. Apparently not. Men, in their book, are supposed to be the strong silent types that do dishes, watch kids, work all day, and never ever mention how they feel about anything. So much for escaping rigid gender roles.

For more on the supposed "cognitive complexity" of liberals, see this study on the traits of conservative vs. liberals here. My favorite line from one of the researchers is the following:

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

Apparently, Glaser doesn't read liberal blogs.



Blogger DADvocate said...

I followed this yesterday beginning with a post by your husband. Mr. Niewert's post is pretty hilarious. He begins with is "self-deconstructing" paragraph and goes downhill from there.

Niewart takes a swipe at juvenile conservatives and then writes a fairly juvenile post. That he was at all threatened by your comments says at least two things.

First, Niewart is way to ensecure in his masculinity. He is imagining insults where there are none. Maybe his wife needs to rub his shoulders and say, "Oh, you big hunk of man, you." :-) (Laugh, you liberals, prove you have a better sense of humor like you claim.)

Second, liberals go to great extremes to attack/insult your husband and yourself. They do this to such a great extent that they are essentially making up stuff by twisting it beyond the boundaries of logic and reality. Of course, this is rather pathetic juvenile behavior also.

10:10 AM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger David Foster said...

The antipathy of "progressives" to black-and-white thinking only goes so far. When it comes to passing moral judgment on Palestinian terrorists, they are all about shades-of-gray. But when it comes to passing moral judgment on Israel, or on the majority of Americans, we're in black-and-white city.

There *are* people who tend to be overly into "nuance," regardless of the topic, and I suspect that many of these folks are in professions in which they do not need to make firm decisions, under time pressure and with incomplete information. People who *are* in decision-making roles discover that, while it is important to see all the shades of gray when thinking about a problem, at some point you have to collapse all the nuances into the blacks and whites of actual decisions. Arthur Koestler had some useful thoughts on this subject.

10:19 AM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


Yes, I also saw a couple of posts about Niewart on other blogs. I don't know who he is but he does seem to take quite a bit out of context. My main point is that many liberals do not have engage in complexity of thought and in fact, seem very simplistic in their views when it suits their purposes. One of the real reasons they take this simplistic approach at times, of course, is that they want to marginalize anyone who is not with them 100% because they fear that some will leave their planatation and find other ideas that make more sense.

If they just call everyone who disagrees with them Phyllis Schlafly or a "wingnut," they figure no one will listen to the other's ideas. That quit working on some people a long time ago as people caught on to the propaganda but they still try.

10:26 AM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger David Foster said...

"One of the real reasons they take this simplistic approach at times, of course, is that they want to marginalize anyone who is not with them 100%"...that's certainly part of the story. But I also think that a lot of "progressive" verbiage has nothing to do with any serious attempt to change minds or even to reinforce beliefs on their own side..it is, rather, simply raw emotional expression by people who are not very good at self-control.

10:48 AM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

Projection is not a uniquely liberal - or rather, Liberal - problem, but they do take it to a wonderful and rarified degree. Perhaps it helps to be able to support cognitive dissonance at levels which would kill lesser creatures like myself.

12:10 PM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger leon said...

I am going to reply just because I am one of the Liberals who understands that we require
big government (for society not individuals ;)).

1. You were right in your column. You didn't say anything wrong nor anti-female.

2. One idiot does not represent all of us Liberals. Not all Liberals think like him nor would want to.

3. I think dadvocate nailed Niewert's MO. My only check there is that he lumps us all under one label. DailyKos and their ilk are not true Liberals, never were. Please understand that it takes more than just a belief in one aspect of ideology to make one a Liberal.

Too many today, especially in the Blogosphere are pretentious wannabes, poseurs as my very friend Liberal Professor would say.

How you answered your column, Dr. Helen, was spot on. You have nothing to be ashamed of or even be angry about. You must
understand that any defense of today's males will garnish attack from people who fire from the hip. Facts are not in their interest,
internet controversy and hit ratings are.

1:06 PM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger Adrian said...

I am going to reply just because I am one of the Liberals who understands that we require big government (for society not individuals ;)).

Now, I just want a three sentence quicky, here -- I'm not trying start a debate or anything. Why value society independently of or above and beyond or in addition to the individuals that make it up? What is that extra specialness that goes beyond the sum of its parts? (I really am just curious, and I'm sure if you are a self professed liberal then you must have your own personal sound bite to that effect.)

2:58 PM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3:46 PM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

(Once more, with spelling!)

Apart from my loathing - revulsion, even - of big government, leon is entirely my kind of liberal. In fact, having more like you might well remove the word from the list of common pejoratives. Now if only we could disentangle the Leftists from using the liberal title, whereas they are neither liberal nor conservative but something rather more sinister and hubristic, we might get somewhere. The language would thank us, that's for sure.

3:48 PM, August 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of the liberal/conservative dichotomy: I believe Peregrine John is correct. Comtemportary leftists are neither liberal or conservative. I probably should qualify that by mentioning that I sometimes prefer the 19th Century definitions of l and c. That is, the emphasis on personal liberty and laissez faire economics of liberalism and the conservative reverence for tradition and morality.

Today's left, on the other hand, is heir to the excesses of the French Revolution, rejecting what is good and necessary with conservative traditional values in the name of Liberty, then eviserating that with too great an emphasis on Equality. (Which does not, and cannot be taken that seriously, ultimately.) How Fraternity should survive in that environment I've never understood. In the end, they're left with nothing really desirable.

4:09 PM, August 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's so typical. I've had arguments with people like that and they just don't hear anything you say. It's funny how emotional their reactions tend to be - they sound like children. You'd think some people might try to cultivate at least enough self-awareness to be able to judge when they are taking things too personally.

4:12 PM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


"DailyKos and their ilk are not true Liberals, never were."

Then why do the Democratic candidates write for, hire and placate these people?

Thanks for your sensible response BTW, I wish all of us could be that understanding with each other.

5:38 PM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger gcotharn said...

I write to stand up for Phyllis Schlafly. Though she has only been mentioned in a slight way, I believe she deserves to be defended.

Phyllis Schlafly is an intelligent and interesting personality. I believe you would be delighted to visit with her. I believe she was and is demonized unfairly - much like the way William Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove are demonized. Phyllis Schlafly's ideas have held up extremely well over time. Her ideas have held up MUCH better than the ideas of those who could not refute her logic and her reason, and chose to attack via ad hominem.

8:38 PM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger DADvocate said...

One thing I left out earlier. I think a lot of liberals are feeling their masculinity threatened right now. Their most masculine presidential candidate is a woman.

9:35 PM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger Synova said...

Whew... just going by the tiny bit Niewert highlighted on his own blog of what you'd written I commented on a third blog as to what you'd meant by it. And I was right.

Just the highlighted part. It wasn't even ambiguous. At least I didn't think it was the least bit mysterious but I'm still glad that I hadn't misrepresented what you'd said.

10:53 PM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Call me crazy but I fail to see how loading the dishes in the dishwasher, adding the soap, and hitting the on button - emasculates me.

After all - last time the dishwasher broke - she had to wash the dishes - I just didn't know how.

10:56 PM, August 21, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

I would argue that many men lack confidence in their lives because they were raised without fathers. Boys look to their fathers for confidence and absent a present father are left with the familiar stereotype of modern man: the dumb Raymond who can't even make a decision without fearing that Deborah will hang him out to dry. Just how many commercials do were see everyday where the man can't even make a sandwich without screwing it up?

8:19 AM, August 22, 2007  
Blogger Serket said...

I think we should use progressive for the big government types and liberal for the freedom-loving types. Even Hillary agrees. :)

12:16 PM, August 22, 2007  
Blogger Dean Esmay said...

Niewert is rather famous for mind-reading, i.e. accusing people of having hidden (possibly subconscious motives) in everything that he is uniquely able to tweaze out. I've seen him do it to countless people, including me (a time when I approvingly linked a cartoon that loooked very vaguely like an old Nazi propaganda poster evidence of hidden support for fascism--yeesh).

4:16 PM, August 22, 2007  
Blogger jeff said...

eh. Projection or just not very smart?

"one of the Liberals who understands that we require big government (for society not individuals ;))."
Uh...what? Why?

5:07 PM, August 22, 2007  
Blogger The Monster said...

Your observation of simplistic liberal thinking fits in quite well with Evan Sayet's How Modern Liberals Think, in which he says that liberals have arrested much of their thought processes to a five-year-old level.

BTW, he's apparently going to refine this material into a book (working title "Regurgitating the Apple"). Whenever it comes out, you and Glen might want to interview him.

6:12 PM, August 22, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...

The Monster,

I saw that video from the Heritage Foundation--Sayet is a quite a captivating speaker. Thanks for the heads-up on the book.

6:35 PM, August 22, 2007  
Blogger wahsatchmo said...

Helen -

I read your original advice to the man seeking help, and can only nod my head in agreement. As a man who is currently undergoing divorce, I was the primary wage earner in the marriage while doing the majority of the housekeeping. My soon-to-be ex-wife was allowed to jump from job to job, to not work in order to find herself (we had no children together), to be excused from taking care of the house while not working, etc. It fell to me to make up for any deficiencies in the marriage.

I thought I was being the man by being responsible and being the provider. What I was actually being was unassertive. My ex was looking to me to define her role in the marriage, and I was looking to her to define it for herself. This did not make me a good husband; it simply created resentment between us.

Being polite and respectful is fine, but the man in question was not being polite and respectful - he was avoiding confrontation. I did the same thin in my marriage, which is why my spouse and I will be divorced soon. Sure, I keep the reputation of being a nice guy, but I did nothing to improve my spouse's path through life, even if I thought I was being considerate of her and her feelings.

7:09 PM, August 22, 2007  
Blogger 1charlie2 said...

Sadly, there's wayyy too much demonization going on for rational discourse. Heck, I feel the pull, myself. In the current socio-political climate, I sometimes use "Liberal" when I mean "unreasoning narcissistic whack-job." And in so doing, I want to allow the actions of a few -- the Kos kids and their ilk -- to nearly blind me to parts of the political spectrum whose points I should consider.


I realize this if I indulge myself, I am an idiot. I hope that when presented with a reasoned argument, I will consider it in full on its merits. Several of my co-workers and I have spirited debates since we are on opposite sides of several issues. Note that I said "debates," not screaming matches :)

More to the point of the column, some folks are so invested in the idea that only one gender can be (or can allow themselves to be) "stepped on," that any questioning of their intended utopia is heresy.

And so their beliefs become their religion. And they, in their True Believer zeal, brook no crimes against their Gods. "Heresy!" they cry. "Burn her!" they shriek. Sound familiar ?

The answer, Helen, is to write a book. Coulter (while I may not agree with her that often) makes a ton of money being taken out of context constantly. You should cash in :)

8:58 PM, August 22, 2007  
Blogger Panday said...

I've lurked here for a little while, and thought I'd finally leave a comment.

Evan Sayet says that Liberals are incapable of discriminating thought. Very interesting video here. Well worth the 47 minutes it takes to watch


10:10 PM, August 22, 2007  
Blogger dirty dingus said...

I wrote a post recently about the difference between "Some" and "All" which, it occurs to me, has some applicability here. As in the fact that some men do more than necessary to avoid being seen as patriarchal doesn't mean that all men, or all dads, or even all dads who do the dishes are being too subservient.

It applies to lots of other lefty causes too ...

8:31 AM, August 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

david - Liked the Koestler quote. My favorite part, which sums up the whole thing:

It is amazing to observe how in a crisis the most sophisticated often act like imbeciles.

I'm thinking about 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq - lots of other situations.

11:40 AM, August 23, 2007  
Blogger David Foster said...

From my review of a book called The Logic of Failure:
One very interesting angle explored by Doerner is the danger, in decision-making tasks, of knowing too much--of becoming lost in detail and of always needing one more piece of information before coming to a decision. He posits that this problem "probably explains why organizations tend to institutionalize the separation of their information-gathering and decision-making branchs"--as in the development of staff organizations in the military. (It may also, it seems to me, have much to do with the hypercritical attitude that many intellectuals have toward decision-makers in business and government--that is, they fail to understand that the effective decision-maker must reduce a problem to its essences and cannot be forever exploring the "shades of gray")

11:52 AM, August 23, 2007  
Blogger David Foster said...

Also, here's another Koestler passage which I think is relevant here: Koestler on Closed Systems.

11:54 AM, August 23, 2007  
Blogger Tom Royce said...

God Bless you Helen.

While is is wonderful that you have a husband like Glenn, it is also a shame that sometimes his shadow envelops your outstanding work on the web.

You have outstanding insights and a delightful way of expressing them. I am blessed to have the chance to read you as you capture many of the parts that make up a modern day conservative male.


11:55 AM, August 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.S. - I'm thinking the original non-assertive guy may not exactly be "ashamed" of his overly-assertive father, determined to do things differently. Growing up with such a person, he may have simply learned that asserting himself was pointless because someone who's more "powerful" would inevitably get their way. Also, it may have been dangerous - emotionally, at least - for him to push too hard. If his mother was relatively passive, he may have learned to cope by imitating her.

I think that for a man this situation could cause a lot of guilt. The whole "I promised myself I'd never be like him" thing could be a rationalization, hiding the true feeling that he's failed to become "his own man." In every situation he hangs back, waiting for the giant Dad in his mind to give him his orders. If he acts on his own, his anxiety increases as he waits for giant Dad to tell him he did it wrong and it should have been done this way (i.e., giant Dad's way).

It's really hard to live up to a larger-than-life father. Even harder to get him out of your head.

That's my phony-baloney theory, anyway.

12:14 PM, August 23, 2007  
Blogger SarahW said...

I confess I was bothered that your reply to the anxious gentleman veered off into a men's right's platform discussion, with dishes and father-figures and male guilt dragged into the matter. Those things, if they factor at all, may merely be, and I think they are, incidental attributes of an underlying social phobia or obsessive disorder with stronger roots in genetics and serotonin pathways than Helen Reddy anthems taken too seriously by modern society.

His description of his difficulties were typical of a variant of OCD, a kind of social phobia persistent involving excessive fears of offending others in social situations. He may have had a triggering stressor or social humiliation, but his letter layed out typical signs of this disorder. He is able to recognize his reation as over the top. He isn't mental, in the sense that he isn't psychotic.

The man probably needs to be evaluated medically, rather than being given a pep talk on how the world has taken away his permission to be a dangerous boy.

12:18 PM, August 23, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...

Sarah W.,

I proposed several possibilities for the "anxious gentleman." One of them was along the lines of what you are saying, I said that if he is shy or has problems with self-esteem, he may want to look into assertiveness training. I think jumping the gun to say that he has social phobia and a variant of OCD was not warranted.

1:01 PM, August 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we should use progressive for the big government types and liberal for the freedom-loving types.

I've remembered something recently which causes me to wonder about the substitution of "progressive" for "liberal" on the part of many on the left. Henry Wallace ran for president as the candidate for the Progressive Party in 1948 against Harry Truman and Tom Dewey. When one looks back at what that party stood for (it took a pretty soft line concerning the USSR, etc. at the beginning of the Cold War), I have to wonder why even members of the left would wish to be associated with it by taking on the label "progressive".

2:32 PM, August 23, 2007  
Blogger Cowboy said...

I talked to my wife after reading many of the posts dealing with the Neiwert piece. I explained to her that I thought Neiwert was presenting a diminished view of masculinity--and one not coincidentally, that matched him to a "T"--and that the "obsession" with masculinity seemed to be his rather than the cartoonish "conservative" bullies he describes.

A woman of fine sensibility and razor like insight, she merely said, "Well, he's just a dumb a**. Men and women are different, and even if he stays home with his kids, he takes care of them like a father, not like a mother. Then she told me she'd kill me if I ever entertained the idea of staying at home with the kids, that she didn't marry me because of my prodiguous housekeeping skills or my ability to take care of the kids.

God, I love that woman!

4:56 PM, August 23, 2007  
Blogger Colorado Wellington said...

Dr. Helen,

It is possible that liberals believe in men as the strong silent types who never complain about house chores but David Niewert strikes me more as the excitable, talkative type. Is he an exception to the rule?

10:24 PM, August 23, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Didn't someone say something about folks who think in black and white & don't listen to alternative perspectives? David, thanks a heap for implying that folks like me bear affection for the PLO. My father's family is European-Jewish & both of my grandparents fought in WWII. Oh, the laugh-riot stories I used to hear about the camps during the larger family gatherings, which weren't quite as large as they should have been.

11:51 PM, August 23, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


I was being tongue-in-cheek about liberals believing men are strong and silent etc.--many of them are excitable and never stop talking. Sometimes, I wish they would!

8:35 AM, August 24, 2007  
Blogger David Foster said...

Graham, not sure exactly what you mean by "folks like me." But surely it must be obvious that the romanticization of Palestinian terrorism in the U.S. is almost entirely a phenomenon of the Left. "Peace" demonstrations are rarely without kaffiyehs and signs denouncing Israel, right alongside the signs denouncing Halliburton and "U.S. Imperialism."

9:24 AM, August 24, 2007  
Blogger Quaestor said...

Of course the Liberals enjoy greater cognitive complexity; they must in order to preserve their illusions. If one starts from a false premise then one’s supportive arguments must necessarily be more complex, though this process always fails eventually. They find themselves in the situation of Claudius Ptolemaeus, who was forced to add layer upon layer of improbable complexities to his model of an Earth-centered universe in order to preserve whatever predictive power the model provided. A thousand years later a Polish cleric showed that simple thinking has its virtues by proving that a heliocentric model was just as good as Ptoloemy’s ludicrous contraption. Later, using a telescope and simple observation Galileo proved simplicity to be the superior cognitive mode. After that Ptolemy’s paladins gave up argument and started burning heretics, much as today’s cognitive elite quickly resort to arguing the man rather than arguing the facts. The case of the hoaxer Beauchamp and his torturous defense mounted and then abandoned by TNR’s editors and staff is just a recent example.

Let us thoroughly mix our metaphors and conclude that in the Duel of Ideas we conservatives deftly wield Occam’s razor whilst our opponents on the Left are merely waving spaghetti.

3:09 PM, August 24, 2007  
Blogger David Foster said...

Neal...excellent point about Occam's razon--the Ptolemaic system makes an excellent example, although Ptolemy himself should of course not be blamed for the bigotries later committed in defense of his system.

See also The Parable of the Poodle for an example of complex thinking gone awry.

4:21 PM, August 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Told you your blog was getting popular, Dr. You're visible and viable. Now they're coming after you.

Just got back home after another week in CA, working. It'll take two weeks to get over it. All the huge, expensive homes, SUV's, V8 hot rod gas guzzlers, and 'holier than you are no matter where you come from" attitudes. Affluence flaunted everywhere. Hypocrisy like nowhere else. They actually believe themselves, which I find hilarious.

1:26 PM, August 25, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


Welcome back.

7:51 AM, August 26, 2007  
Blogger Dan Collins said...

"If a sink is full of YOUR dirty dishes, YOU WASH THEM. Same goes for YOUR OWN CHILDREN."

Hahaha. They're far too large now to wash in the sink.

7:20 AM, August 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社

11:43 AM, February 04, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費A片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片

8:02 PM, April 13, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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..........................

11:28 PM, May 19, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home