Nature or...?
A seventeenth under-18 has died following a stabbing.
It is becoming agreed that children are growing up faster nowadays. 10-12 year-olds have been the new "teens" for some time, and we are increasingly hearing of younger kids in trouble for one thing or another.
His parents really ought to call the police before approaching this dangerous armed felon.
For example, the three primary schoolboys excluded from school over an alleged sex attack, who are too young to be prosecuted and it appears with whom the state has absolutely no ability to deal.*
I remember reading in one of Britain's stirling news outlets about a woman brutally stabbed 20-30 times by a six-year-old whom she was babysitting.
Stories like these are now regular. Some police chiefs think it's all because parents don't smack their kids enough. Others think it's because parents smack them too much, or too hard. If you read Frank Chalk - or his book - you will know that smacking is the least of our problems and that in fact it is now illegal to say "no" loud enough to leave a mark.
Personally, I don't think smacking has a lot to do with it. I think the word "no" does. I recently attended a domestic where a 14-year-old boy had thrown his mother on the floor, called her a "filthy slut" and kicked her. She was in despair, not wanting to get her own son arrested, but terrified of the knife-wielding, drug-using reprobate living in her house. Eventually we did arrest him, and she gave a statement saying she didn't want him prosecuted as long as he never came home. We didn't prosecute him, and Social Services told his mother she had no choice but to have him back.
This woman didn't need her son prosecuted. What she needed was to go back fifteen years to when she thought it would be fun to have three kids by different fathers who live in different towns all over the UK, never enforce any child support from said fathers and live off her taxpaying, un-baby-producing neighbours. The police could then install a knife-wielding, drug-using reprobate in her house for three weeks, and write the word "NO" in big letters on a piece of paper and give it to her.
If someone could bring out a law to do that, that would be great.
Meanwhile, computer games are telling ten-year-olds they are fat, and the Daily Telegraph is polling its online readers: Should sex education be compulsory for four-year-olds?
Are children growing up faster on their own, or are we making them?
* Apologies for this sentence. It's something to do with a night shift.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Diary of an On-Call Girl' is available in all good bookstores and online.
posted by PC Bloggs at 20:10
30 Comments:
""Should sex education be compulsory for four-year-olds?""
In the old days we told our children - don't do drugs and don't have sex.
5% did drugs and 5% got pregnant before 16.
Nowadays the Government approved way is to say "if you do drugs drink water, don't inhale, speak to "frank" etc", if you do sex wear a condom.
Now we have 30-40% who have tried drugs and 30% who are pregnant by 16.
I blame the Liberal do-gooders and the abolishion of "boundaries"
05 July, 2008 22:03
Walking past a school with my dog the other day, we stopped, because the children in the playground wanted to look at, and say hello to. the dog. Teachers swooped on them and told them to come away. When all adults are treated as threats, and to be feared, is it any wonder frightened children resist all adults and their authority in the end? There is no proper relationship with adults on a societal level any more. And our schools are encouraging this. It's only going to get worse. It's not just a question of adults being able to tell kids 'no' - it's a question of them being able to tell them ANYTHING without being suspected of being a paedophile.
05 July, 2008 22:31
Anyone that can write "no" loud enough to leave a mark can't be that blitzed by the night shift.
For me I don't smack, never have. Then again, I have only the one child by the same person I have been with for the last 20 years. We treat each other right and I hope he watches and takes it all in.
06 July, 2008 00:27
People will take the path of least resistance and to say no gets a bout of tears, so giving in be easier, you get NO tantrums, so easy, we learn what be successful, to get our immediate needs.
Some kids never learn the difference between a pain for hunger or pain for the toilet.
We all learn from the rewards we get for the noise we make.
Just to-day I watch a crow with its bawling brat,teaching it to get its own food , "squark , squark .....squark" says the brat, mother kept the food and flew off to the next tree, brat finally gives up squaarking, chases the mother , starts bawling again [ in crowin' " give me'] mother listens, keeps the food and flies off to next place there be food , keeping her food in her mouth, the brat starts bawling again , then suddenly gives up and picks up food from the ground , no more bawling for now. The mother flies off and brat beaks her food.
If a crow can teach its offspring to fend for itself why not humans?
dungbeetle
06 July, 2008 04:11
I am convinced that the complete lack of consequences for poor behaviour in school has to be a root cause of children with no boundaries at home or in society.
Barely a week goes by at work without some child getting away with verbal abuse of teaching staff with only the mildest of rebukes as a punishment. I find myself thinking: "how can he do that and only get a slap on the wrist?", before it sinks in that, of course, the culprit won't even have got a slap on the wrist and if anybody were to attempt to administer one they could be sacked, struck off and banned from working with children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teaching Blog here
Latest entry: 29/6/2008
06 July, 2008 06:38
As a teacher I agree that the total lack of discipline in schools is a big part of today's problems. The things kids get away with nowadays is shocking. We need to get them when they are young
06 July, 2008 09:22
A lot of the problem that we face is we (the Police) are usually the first people in their LIVES to say 'no' and not only actually mean it but have the willingness and capability to follow up on the threat, they don't like it and have a hissy fit.
06 July, 2008 11:04
So many parents I meet at work seem to genuinely dislike/resent their kids. Meanwhile, Social services appear to be increasing the 'risk' threshold and ignoring all but the most dangerously neglected kids around.
06 July, 2008 16:48
Funny you should mention this matter, you might be intesred to read the "I predict a riot" post on my blog ;o)
06 July, 2008 22:44
------
In the old days we told our children - don't do drugs and don't have sex.
5% did drugs and 5% got pregnant before 16.
Nowadays the Government approved way is to say "if you do drugs drink water, don't inhale, speak to "frank" etc", if you do sex wear a condom.
Now we have 30-40% who have tried drugs and 30% who are pregnant by 16.
I blame the Liberal do-gooders and the abolishion of "boundaries"
-----
Unless you're in China or some other totalitarian state and don't have access to these modern search engines such as Google, there's really no excuse for citing such ridiculous figures. I typed "Teenage birth rate u.k." into Google, and the first hit is a BBC article saying that teen birth rates have dropped 38% in the last 30 years.
So keep living in this fantasy that "the good old days" were better. I'm not saying that conservative policies might do a worse job of providing higher quality lives here and now; I tend to subscribe to many of the same thoughts. But you're deluding yourself in thinking that these problems mysteriously manifest in the last two decades, and you're doing a great disservice toward honest progress on these issues if you keep repeating nonsense such as this.
Anyway, the article is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2014175.stm
And incidentally, some of WPC Bloggs very thoughts (sans humor) are echoed by the subjects in this same article.
07 July, 2008 05:22
Ah anonymous - "teenage birthrate dropped iin the last 30 years"
Yes it was just a bit before that hedonism and feminism started.
Ex nuptials were not rare before that but most teenagers were not promiscuous and so self indulgent then. Mainly because they were more cash poor and more disciplined.
07 July, 2008 06:25
Withholding sex education doesn't stop people having sex. The push in the USA has been for promoting abstinence rather than telling people about contraception, and so they just go and have sex and get pregnant because they don't know how to stop it.
Of course, our lot presumably don't listen to their sex education lessons, because somehow learning is unfashionable. If only these people knew what a difference it makes to the world if you can actually understand it.
I know it's fashionable to blame the government for stopping teachers disciplining children, and stopping the police and the courts from issuing any meaningful punishments, but in a lot of cases I really think the rot starts with the parents. By the time the children go to school (and they go presumably only because it's compulsory and/or the parents want to get rid of them so that they can get wasted without any distractions), they're already uncontrollable. All I have to do is take a few trips on the tram to see pre-school children with their absolutely 100% stereotype-conforming mother, chatting on her mobile phone in a conversation which, from hearing one side of it, doesn't appear to be making any progress, occasionally pausing to shout at her brat who's screaming about something or other, or sometimes just rather keen to look out of the window at the city gliding past, but can't because the mother has declared that they will stand an inch away from being able to do it.
Okay, not all of them do that, some of them let their kids run riot and don't shout at them at all, but you can let children explore the tram and be curious and look out of the window without letting them run riot. You can turn it into a learning experience. If their curiosity is so suppressed when they're little, is it any wonder they're not interested in school?
07 July, 2008 07:39
Crikey, Bloggs, you don't hold back about unmarried mothers, do you? You must really hate and fear women; I think you need to take some diversity training.
07 July, 2008 13:42
"she thought it would be fun to have three kids by different fathers who live in different towns all over the UK, never enforce any child support from said fathers and live off her taxpaying, un-baby-producing neighbours."
Top comment, eloquent and spot-on (like most of your writing
Mossy
07 July, 2008 15:53
rogerborg, who said anything about her being unmarried?
mattw, if you thought the suggestion was that withholding sex education would stop people having sex, it was kind of the opposite, I think.
07 July, 2008 17:45
According to national statistics one in Three people over the age of sweet sixteen are not hitched at any given moment.
24 mil are joined in wedded bliss, the other 47 mil be enjoying scratching freedom from nagging life.
Each be seeking ways to have their senses be pleasured, [ sight, sound taste, smell, and feel].
dungbeetle
07 July, 2008 19:54
Re the fat girl
I don't quite follow the logic that if you swim once a week and go dancing every week you can't be fat. Stand outside any nightclub at 3 in the morning and see the quality end of the market falling out of their optimistically sized tops from the bottom end, and you will have proof that dancing does NOT lead to weight loss.
By the way, the Wii Fit doesn't call you fat. It says you are either overweight or obese.
I am down as overweight (16.5 stone). But I'm 6'6'', and frankly I look like I have to run round in the shower to get wet.
I'm trying to cope with the shame, and I'm taking it one day at a time.
07 July, 2008 21:07
There's no denying that society is in a bit of a mess, and it is all too easy to blame "single mothers".
I take it you have no kids Ellie, and are a career woman, your "family" being the police force?
As one national newspaper stated recently, being a single mum is about as glamorous as chickenpox!
Women do not set out to be single parents Ellie. Only the deluded and politically brainwashed think that they do. Get real.
Raising kids is THE hardest job in the world, crap pay, 24-7, 52 weeks of every year until they flit the nest at around 18 yrs or over...and even then "parenting" does not end Ellie. It's a job for life which has been UNDERMINED and devalued by this patriarchial system, which expects women to be "Superwoman".
Since so called liberation, which gave women the RIGHT to work and have their own money, independant from males, men have expected women to raise perfect kids, cook, clean etc AND bring in the money. Men "gave" women so called liberation by expecting them to do TWO full time jobs. Bum deal, where the kids miss out on quality time with mum and the attention they need, because mum is knackered.
The government bemoan the fact that not enough women are having kids, who would then grow up to contribute to the pension system.
Women are chosing career instead of raising a family. And at the same time the government bemoan those females that DO have kids and end up raising them alone...which is NOT usually the ideal lifestyle choice of the woman. Women WANT support from partners, who are often unreliable, which they do not find out until it is too late.
It is the NHS Health Visitors who have the first input into how kids are raised, by "parenting classes" for pregnant mums. There, they are instructed in so called "positive parenting", where firm discipline and smacking are regarded as "abuse of the child". Then there is pre-school playgroup, where mothers are "observed" by staff for any signs of abuse of the child....then there are the teachers when they get to school, and the school nurses, and education social workers... ALL of whom have been on a WITCH-HUNT for any parent who even dares to raise their voice to rebuke a child. All in the name of so called "child protection".
They have caused the problem by undermining the duty, rights and responsiblity of the parent [particularly mothers] regarding the raising of the child. They are over protective of children and at the same time showing disrespect to normal good parents, who they have placed under great strain.
Kids pick up on this and that they "have rights" and can get a parent "done for abuse", when the normal battles of will between child and parent take place. Same applies to teachers - loco parentis. End result, the mayhem that is going on in society today, because PARENTS have been robbed of the role of setting boundaries.
Yes, it is all too easy for those in the system to take the government line of spin and blame single mothers. That takes the heat and the real blame off those who ARE responsible for the mistake that they made with the Child Protection System.
Had any of those "professional" who received the letter in 1986, [which outlined the concept for the system to protect kids from sexual abuse] actually acknowledged it and consulted ME, the author and "mother" who gave birth to the idea.....It would NOT have been steered in the wrong direction by the abuser who highjacked it and passed it off as his own idea, smearing my name in the process. So, blame the various "systems" for their BIG mistake over 20 years ago, not single mums, please.
Single mothers have been the oh so convenient scapegoat for government and society, for far too long. There is nobody else who can be discriminated against legally. It used to be "ethnic" races, gays and disabled, but that is now against the law....so the only whipping "girl" society and its patriarchial systems have left to blame and pick on, is the unappreciated, overburdened, underpaid single mother.
The real blame for the mess that this country is in lays with an evil abusing male who mis-directed the Child Protection System.
He hated women and everything that is good and decent, which he sought to destroy, and very nearly succeeded.
VERITAS
08 July, 2008 02:39
No, single mothers aren't the problem and yes it's lazy to suggest that.
However, suggesting that *all* parents, single or otherwise, are saints in waiting, doing their very very best against the odds is total and utter, unhelpful arse.
Yes, parenting is the hardest job in the world. I wish some of the people I come into contact with would have at least the briefest stab at it though, you know, wash some clothes, buy food that isn't crisps, speak to their offspring without starting the sentence 'you little...' and that's in front of police so god only knows what goes on when we're not around.
It shouldn't even need to be said but kids learn from the example of their parents and no amount of screaming, swearing and threatening a child is going to set any boundaries or teach any lessons other than how to scream, shout and threaten.
Parenting classes? No evidence of that where I work.
08 July, 2008 03:52
"Women do not set out to be single parents Ellie. Only the deluded and politically brainwashed think that they do. Get real."
If that's the case, why are so many of the girls who get pregnant at school taking courses in child care?
It's hardly deluded or brainwashed to believe that a girl who has no academic or vocational aspirations, whose mother and grandmother were teenage single parents, who regularly has unprotected sex, and who doesn't have an abortion, might actually be have been inclined towards single parenthood.
The readiness of children in schools in sink estates to ask young, single teachers if they have any kids makes it quite clear that having children when young and single is a cultural norm on those estates, not a series of unfortunate accidents. I suspect that this is as obvious to the police as it is to the teachers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teaching Blog here
Latest entry: 6/7/2008
08 July, 2008 06:20
Once upon a time, we had saved up so much social and money capital that we decided we would eliminate the things that made us sad to see.
We thought that everyone was like us. We thought people were poor, or criminal, or bad parents ONLY because they had bad economic fortune. So we gave them money.
We're getting what we pay for, aren't we? And so very surprised. Because history and human nature shouldn't apply to US. WE are exempt!
"As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return. "
R. K. 1919
08 July, 2008 15:30
It may well be available for every woman to have children
But should they? And why should I pay?
Having a number of children, and then expecting the state to support you is a contributing factor to locking in social deprivation.
I believe it should be made crystal clear to all school age girls that if you have a child you will not get any state help until you are 18.The onus of cost will be with the family. Yes, I know there are many models of families, and it could mean young girls being kicked out, an attachment to earnings or benefit reduction would sort that in a jiffy.
Pursue the fathers by all means to contribute financially , failure by the mother to identify the father should inhibit their availability to all the financial subsidies at age 18.If the father is under 16 , pursue the family of the boy , again through benefits or earnings attachments , tough isn't it ?
Errant fathers should be identified and their dole/wages money capped as a contribution to the child.
Responsibility should be the watchword.
Please don't squawk at me; I’ve seen enough front and back yards littered with Argos toys broken after one play to know that there is money floating around and children don't starve...Like the Victorians did.
The very rare case of the child above the pub only serves to prove this.
08 July, 2008 16:20
"Women do not set out to be single parents Ellie."
No, but it's kind of careless to let it happen three times with different men.
Let's not confuse the definition of "single mother", which is a status that can come about in many ways, with the woman described in my post. Just where exactly did I say she was single?
"I take it you have no kids Ellie, and are a career woman, your 'family' being the police force?"
I had not realised that my restraint in not having children by numerous partners made me a "career woman". In any case, if you mean the phrase how I think, I am probably not a career woman. The blog might not be the best start if I were...
08 July, 2008 22:37
Apologies Ellie if I jumped to conclusions that your post was a dig at single mums. I have read so many bigoted snipes at single mothers on other blogs. I thought this was just another one. Oops!
Old Andrew wonders why so many teenage girls in school, getting pregnant, are doing child care classes. Well, because the child care classes ARE THERE and offered as part of the "learning courses" that are available. The thinking behind it is probably to educate girls to be "good parents" themselves, or to find work as child minders for those who do have well paid careers.
The fact that some of them get pregnant is down to sex education, which teaches that sex is a normal human activity, having moved on from the old fashioned notion that it is a sin. They get pregnant because they are not using contraceptives, obviously, so the sex education is clearly lost on some of them.
It has quite clearly escaped some people's attention, that the BIOLOGICAL URGE of many normal females IS to have a baby. That is what females hormones and biological clocks drive them to do, otherwise the human race would die out! Males are biologically driven to "sample the delights" and sow their wild oats, which no male can deny.
If the child care courses were not available as a learning module in school, well the girls would not learn about child care, would they?
Clearly children are not allowed to be innocents these days, due to sex education, sex on TV and in films. The desire for sex is as strong in a hormonal teenager, as the desire for food. Kids are curious and want to do what the grown ups do - drink, smoke and have sex.
In all the teaching about sex in schools, do they get taught that it is something very special, which a female should save for someone who treats her with the greatest respect and love?
P.S. Staghounds, nobody escapes without "paying" for sin, due to Universal Justice - the Law of Karma, to which we are all subjected, through reincarnation, life, death and rebirth.
Veritas
09 July, 2008 02:05
My point about child care related courses is that if pregnant teenagers had such a strong pre-existing inclination to take the course, compared with the girls who don't become pregnant, then it makes it hard to accept that *none* of their pregnancies were deliberate.
I wasn't suggesting the courses themselves were to blame.
09 July, 2008 09:31
"do they get taught that it is something very special, which a female should save for someone who treats her with the greatest respect and love"...
Glad to know it's just men who can shag for fun.
09 July, 2008 18:02
sto girl.... I have no doubts whatsoever that "girls" also shag for fun. Trouble is the double standards that "boys" operate by tends to mean that those girls, who do, get called slags, tarts, whores, loose women blah dee blah!
The "boys" secretly ALL want a perfect virgin, a so called "nice girl", when it comes to settling down. Hypocrites!
10 July, 2008 01:28
Dear Ellie Blogs.....I have read your post again and found that I was not mistaken and did not in fact jump to conclusions. You said the mother should go back 15 years etc, regarding having 3 kids by 3 different fathers in different towns, and not enforcing any child support from said fathers. So indirectly, you more or less gave a picture that the mother was an unfortunate single mum.
Veritas
13 July, 2008 00:42
成人電影,情色,本土自拍, 一夜情, 辣妹視訊, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊, 視訊美女, 美女視訊, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室, 視訊交友90739, 成人影片, 成人交友, 本土自拍, 免費A片下載, 性愛,
成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人電影, 成人, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 色情聊天室, 美女交友,
嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, A片, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, UT聊天室, 尋夢園聊天室, 男同志聊天室, UT男同志聊天室, 聊天室尋夢園, 080聊天室, 080苗栗人聊天室, 6K聊天室, 女同志聊天室, 小高聊天室, 情色論壇, 色情網站, 成人網站, 成人論壇, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, 成人聊天室, 成人小說, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色聊天室, 寄情築園小遊戲, AV女優,成人電影,情色,本土自拍, A片下載, 日本A片, 麗的色遊戲, 色色網, ,嘟嘟情人色網, 色情網站, 成人網站, 正妹牆, 正妹百人斬, aio,伊莉, 伊莉討論區, 成人遊戲, 成人影城,
ut聊天室, 免費A片, AV女優, 美女視訊, 情色交友, 免費AV, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 色情影片 成人影片, 成人網站, A片,H漫, 18成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片,
愛情公寓, 情色, 舊情人, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 情色交友, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 色情a片, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊美女, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, a片下載, aV, av片, A漫, av dvd, av成人網, 聊天室, 成人論壇, 本土自拍, 自拍, A片,成人電影,情色,本土自拍,
03 April, 2009 21:29
爆爆爽a片免費看, 天堂私服論壇, 情色電影下載, 成人短片, 麗的線上情色小遊戲, 情色動畫免費下載, 日本女優, 小說論壇, 777成人區, showlive影音聊天網, 聊天室尋夢園, 義大利女星寫真集, 韓國a片, 熟女人妻援交, 0204成人, 性感內衣模特兒, 影片, 情色卡通, 85cc免費影城85cc, 本土自拍照片, 成人漫畫區, 18禁, 情人節阿性, 做愛的漫畫圖片, 情色電影分享區, 做愛ㄉ影片, 丁字褲美女寫真, 色美眉, 自拍俱樂部首頁, 日本偷自拍圖片, 色情做愛影片, 情色貼圖區, 八國聯軍情色網, 免費線上a片, 淫蕩女孩自拍, 美國a片, 都都成人站, 色情自拍, 本土自拍照片, 熊貓貼圖區, 色情影片, 5278影片網, 脫星寫真圖片, 粉喵聊天室, 金瓶梅18, sex888影片分享區, 1007視訊, 雙贏論壇,
免費成人影音, 彩虹自拍, 小魔女貼影片, 自拍裸體寫真, 禿頭俱樂部, 環球av影音城, 學生色情聊天室, 視訊美女, 辣妹情色圖, 性感卡通美女圖片, 影音, 情色照片 做愛, hilive tv , 忘年之交聊天室, 制服美女, 性感辣妹, ut 女同聊天室, 淫蕩自拍, 處女貼圖貼片區, 聊天ukiss tw, 亞亞成人館, 777成人, 秋瓷炫裸體寫真, 淫蕩天使貼圖, 十八禁成人影音, 禁地論壇, 洪爺淫蕩自拍, 秘書自拍圖片,
aaaa片, 免費聊天, 咆哮小老鼠影片分享區, 金瓶梅影片, av女優王國, 78論壇, 女同聊天室, 熟女貼圖, 1069壞朋友論壇gay, 淫蕩少女總部, 日本情色派, 平水相逢, 黑澀會美眉無名, 網路小說免費看, 999東洋成人, 免費視訊聊天, 情色電影分享區, 9k躺伯虎聊天室, 傑克論壇, 日本女星杉本彩寫真, 自拍電影免費下載, a片論壇, 情色短片試看, 素人自拍寫真,
15 April, 2009 10:44
Post a Comment
<< Home