The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

RadFems vs. Trannies: Will Feminists Let ‘Gender Queers’ Boss Them Around?

Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 75 Comments

The ongoing conflict between radical feminists and transgender activists, which I first noticed in January and revisited last night in the context of the Dana McCallum rape case, has escaped the notice of mainstream liberal journalism. Liberals tacitly side with the transgenders in pretending that the radfems — a/k/a TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) — have no legitimate grievance.

What the TERFs perceive is that male-to-female transgenders are cynically seeking to usurp and co-opt the “feminist” label for their own advantage, thus shunting aside biological women and demoting them to second-class status within their own movement.

Of course, the instinctive conservative reaction to all this is to pop some popcorn and enjoy the schadenfreude. But the very fact that liberals want everybody to ignore this obscure conflict should be a clue that the conflict is, in fact, highly significant. Much like the Hugo Schwzyer “male feminist” controversy, which long raged on the margins of Gender Theory discussion before erupting into headlines, the TERF war against transfeminism (and vice-versa) tells us a lot about the problems of contemporary progressivism.

Let’s start with Cathy Brennan’s site Gender Identity Watch. Cathy Brennan is a radical lesbian feminist whose adamant defense of “female-only space” against transgender intrusion has made her a primary target of the anti-TERF campaign. Make no mistake: Brennan’s enemies are trying to destroy her, going so far as to petition the Southern Poverty Law Center to label her site a “hate group.”

Well, who is hating whom?

Brennan has chronicled some of the obscene, violent and threatening reactions she has received from transgenders and their allies, and why? Simply because Brennan won’t back down from her radical (“essentialist”) view that womanhood is a matter of biology and genetics, as opposed to the gender identity view that womanhood is a “social construct.” It doesn’t matter, for the sake of this discussion, whether you agree with Cathy Brennan, although I do. (“The science is settled!”)

Brennan probably hates my heteronormative patriarchal Christian conservative perspective even more than she hates the transfeminist gender identity crowd, but that’s OK: Cathy Brennan has a right to hate me, and her hate does me no harm.

Well, why can’t the trannies tolerate Brennan’s hate? Because it hurts their precious little feelings, that’s why!

The anti-Brennan crowd contains some of the most pathetic whiners imaginable, who insist that being called by their preferred label is so crucial to their identity that it’s an act of hate to use the wrong label.

Exhibit A? Charlie Hale, a British “genderqueer, kinky, polyamorous pan/bisexual” male who insists on the pronoun “they.” (No, I’m not kidding.) Hale wrote a guest column for a feminist blog calling for ostracism of anyone who associates with TERFs, a column which got a mocking rebuttal from a TERF blog here. When I say “mocking rebuttal,” I mean, they re-posted some of the photos Hale posted on Twitter:

Despite being male, Hale identifies as a “queer feminist” on Twitter, where he/”they” constantly whine(s) about “cishet male sexuality,” i.e., the way normal men have sex. Also, Hale is avidly pro-abortion, which is rather convenient in view of the fact that there is a near-zero possibility that Hale could ever be capable of making a woman pregnant, even if any woman were insane enough to wish to be impregnated by him. (Or, I should say, “them.”) Among his/”their” work is “An Introduction To Non-binary Transgender Identities,” which might just as easily be entitled, “How to Cooperate With Charlie’s Psychotic Delusions of Infinite Human Plasticity.”

What Hale’s “genderqueer” agenda boils down to is a desire to compel everybody to participate in his/”their” hallucinatory approach to sexual identity, an ongoing project of deconstruction: “We’re here! We’re queer! We’re hopelessly confused!” Neither male nor female, gay nor straight, “genderqueer” is sexuality as a multiple-choice exam in which the answer to every question is “none of the above.”

You may well ask, “How do people get that screwed-up in the head?” Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they spent so much of their adolescence wacking off to hentai cartoons that it left them permanently incapable of relating to normal human sex. However, you may wish to read Charlie Hale’s account of his adolescence:

I love queer, nerdy, kinky sex — and it’s the only sex I’ve ever known. At 16, I had my first “proper” relationship: it lasted about 3 and a half years, all told, and we were each other’s first sexual partner. On top of the standard teen sex-related anxiety, we both had unresolved gender issues . . . that neither of us were aware of at the time. . . .

(Charlie’s teenage girlfriend became a “transman,” i.e., a female-t0-male transsexual. We need not wonder why.)

This made following the “normal” scripts of sex quite difficult: PIV sex was basically impossible and, frankly, didn’t interest me a massive amount. As well as getting very acquainted with using my hands and mouth, it turned out we both had kinky interests, too: we laid our hands on a few toys (as far as we could in our nervous, impoverished teenage state) and messed around, experimented, and tried to find out what it was that worked for us. . . .

(So, “PIV sex” — penis-in-vagina, normal sexual intercourse — “was basically impossible”? Let me tell you something, Charlie: Whenever there is a vagina in my vicinity, it’s always possible.)

Creativity is what I think defines queer, nerdy, kinky sex: the ability to experiment and — as is often essential in the case of trans people — improvise. The world outside of cisheteronormative  sex is a wonderful one, but the social scripts surrounding sex are so strong that it doesn’t really come easily. . . .

(Pardon the unintentional double-entendre.)

While I had a very curious mind, and I’d had fantasies for years, the thing that really spurred us to experiment was the fact we couldn’t do what “all the other people” were doing. Our bodies and minds weren’t cooperative — due to things that, in hindsight, were probably caused by dysphoria — so we had to make our own way.
It wasn’t always rosy. Not following the ideas of sex that had been drilled into us was liberating but also challenging. Many times I remember my partner despairing, thinking that they weren’t “good enough,” because their genitals “didn’t work.”

Eh, you can read the rest of “Young Weirdos in Love,” if you wish. You get the point: Charlie spent three years in a dysfunctional relationship with a girlfriend whose vagina he never managed to penetrate with his penis, a failure he attributes in hindsight to “dysphoria,” probably because he doesn’t want to confess his own helpless sexual ineptitude. With his sour-grapes rationalization handy, however, he dismisses “cisheteronormative sex” with some intellectual jargon about “social scripts” that had been “drilled into us,” and congratulates himself on the wondrous “creativity” of “queer, nerdy, kinky sex,” as if normal male-female couplings are devoid of creativity.

This failed male, then, presumes to tell feminists they must banish from their conferences and publications — “no-platforming,” as it is called — anyone associated with radical feminists who refuse to accept transgenders as being the same as women. So if a feminist author participates in a “non-inclusive” (TERF) conference, then she must be blacklisted from other feminist conferences because, to quote Charlie Hale, “Inviting such speakers not only negatively impacts the climate of the movement, but actively makes marginalised people feel less safe and welcome in the event and the movement as a whole.”

And thereby — voila! — a man appoints himself the arbiter of who is acceptable within the Official Feminist Movement.

Does anyone think radical feminists are going to let themselves be bossed around by pathetic sissyboys like Charlie Hale?

Oh, hell, no.

If hard-core Marxist lesbians wanted to be bossed around by men, they might as well just invite me to their conference — call it “The End of Feminism: Surrendering to the Patriarchy” — and then they could all take turns making me sandwiches.

 

Category: Feminism, Gays

Ersatz Children

Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 39 Comments

by Smitty

“More young women choosing dogs over motherhood” reads the NY Post headline. Sure, this is a part of our Postmodern, “____ as a social construct” culture. Yes, it has a veneer of plausibility, because it’s pushed in the media. But it’s dreck.

Must we even say this? These are pets, not children. Blurring the distinction between the two is not Progress; it’s decay. This is just further moral decline. But, as with the case of gay marriage, I don’t think that waxing ‘Old Testament’ and getting all ‘Bible Thumpy’ is a help. Newton’s Fourth Law, “For every message, there is a javelin directed at the messenger”* applies.

So the task is to figure out the best way to laugh at this, bless these womens’ hearts. And laugh while the men and women are young enough to escape their perpetual adolescence and mature into functional adults that carry a civilization forward.

Actual parenthood is an essential part of the overall human experience, for those who can. It’s taken me forever to get there–this post is as much directed to my younger self as anyone else. Though I was too busy earlier in life, and, to be honest, it took my Afghanistan deployment in 2011 to wake me and Mrs. Other Smitty up, I absolutely never would have said that a pet is equivalent to a child.

Let’s recap:

  • Parenthood is great
  • Raising children is a job; anyone disparaging it is an idiot
  • Anyone saying Fluffy is a child, however, is an idiot

UPDATE: Americans are having dogs instead of babies

*I just made that up.

 

Category: Culture

Professor Herf Gets It Right

Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 15 Comments

Earlier this week, we noted Brandeis University’s cowardly surrender to the forces of political correctness (or perhaps, creeping Sharia). The president of Brandeis gets an earful from Jeffrey Herf, a University of Maryland history professor with a Ph.D. from Brandeis:

That the president of a university founded by Jews in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust should have rescinded an honor to a woman who has had the courage to attack the most important source of Jew-hatred in the world today is a disgraceful act and a failure of leadership. Instead of appeasing intolerance in your faculty, you should have taken this moment to reaffirm the values for which Brandeis has stood for so long and reconfirm the place of universities as models of tolerance and enlightenment in our troubled society.

Read the whole thing. If Brandeis University will not stand up against the forces of cultural jihad, who will?

 

Category: Education, Islam

Sixties Flashback: ‘Hey, Hey, LBJ! How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?’

Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 44 Comments

That was one of the slogans chanted by anti-Vietnam War radicals at protests circa 1967-68. Another one was, “Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is gonna win!” NLF was the National Liberation Front, otherwise known as the Vietcong, so that the Left was cheering for terrorists long before 9/11 and the Bush-era madness of Ward Churchill, et al.

The truth about the 1960s — especially the pro-Communist, anti-American allegiances of the so-called “peace movement” — is nearly forgotten now, and no one under 40 knows anything at all about it. Our education system is such a complete failure that the past is a tabula rasa for most young people, whose knowledge of history ranges from minimal to non-existent. And most of what young people think they “know” about the 1960s is substantially wrong. Anti-war protesters were not seeking “peace” in Vietnam, they were seeking Communist victory, and the reason they hated Lyndon Baines Johnson was because he was in favor of defeating the Communists.

It was therefore with astonishment that I watched MSNBC Thursday attempt to retrieve and repair LBJ’s reputation as a liberal hero. The occasion was the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Listening to hour after hour of paeans to LBJ’s wonders, I almost wished that someone might put the 1968 versions of Tom Hayden and Stokeley Carmichael into a time machine, and transport them to the MSNBC set where they could denounce Lyndon Johnson as the morally bankrupt old fraud he was.

There was once a sort of bipartisan consensus about this: Left-wingers hated LBJ for fighting the Vietnam war; right-wingers hated him because he wouldn’t fight to win in Vietnam. Quite a few young anti-war radicals of the ’60s grew up to become conservative Republicans and Reagan voters; the one thing they never became, however, was the kind of liberals who supported LBJ. This past week’s weird carnival of liberal Lyndon-love was offensive to me. Left-winger Michael Kazin also had about as much of it as he could stand:

LBJ, wrote my friend E.J. Dionne, presided over “a consensual period when a large and confident majority believed that national action could expand opportunities and alleviate needless suffering. The earthily practical Johnson showed that finding realistic ways of creating a better world is what Americans are supposed to do.” Not a word about those countless people in Southeast Asia whose lives reached their unnatural limits when they encountered an American infantryman with an M-16 or a bomb dropped from a B-52.
Of course, to remember what the United States, during LBJ’s tenure, did to Vietnam and to the young Americans who served there does not cancel out his domestic achievements. But to portray him solely as a paragon of empathy, a liberal hero with a minor flaw or two, is not merely a feat of willful amnesia. It is deeply immoral.

You can read the whole thing at the New Republic. Of course, Kazin is a Commie-loving pinko traitor, but at least he has the intellectual integrity to tell the truth about Lyndon Johnson.

 

Category: Culture, History

This Is Not The Time To Go Wobbly On #ObamaCare: Abort It With The Prejudice Of All Stone-Hearted Feminists Combined

Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 9 Comments

by Smitty

In this one-time, symbolic sense, I’m willing to be seen encouraging an abortion. And, yes, a plan for something better, that supports liberty, the economy, mom and apple pie needs to be described.
And then, Just. Bludgeon. ObamaCare. Like. A. Baby. Seal.

In ways they’ve never discussed before, senior administration officials now admit they feared late last fall that the entire law might collapse under the weight of Democratic defections and aggressive Republican calls for repeal. The mathematics of veto-proof majorities always argued against repeal, but the nightmare of HealthCare.gov followed by the “political lie of the year” on individual insurance policies filled senior Obama advisers with Affordable Care Act existential dread.

Make a fundraise out of it. Print a full copy of the legislation and amendments, drill a center hole, drop in some rebar, and then sell $5 ticket to take a whack at a monument do diabolical falsehood.
ObamaCare is a river of lies, with headwaters in Hell. Let its legend as the antithesis of our Constitution grow and instruct future generations that Progress was a fool’s errand.

via HotAir QOTD

Category: Health Care

The Imperfections of Victimhood

Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 44 Comments

Well, this wasn’t a conversation I was planning to have today, but after some Twitter discussion on the Dana McCallum transgender lesbian rape story — it’s like the Rocky Horror Nightly News Show or something — the misunderstanding exceeded what could be accomplished in 140 characters or less. So I said, “I’ll blog it and get back to you, OK?”

Do I really care what a bunch of San Francisco liberals think about me? I do not. On the other hand, San Francisco liberals are never going to have Second Thoughts if they think that the alternative to their worldview is ignorant bigotry, so occasionally it is worthwhile to demonstrate that our bigotry is not ignorant, and perhaps not even “bigotry” at all. That is to say, one may have entirely logical reasons for disagreeing with liberals and, even if your reasons are emotional or sentimental, it may still be possible to persuade liberals, by means of an articulate discourse.

The accusation that male-to-female transgender Dana McCallum raped her lesbian (biologically female) spouse @MadMelvina is one of those stories that strikes at the intersection of multiple contemporary ideological crusades of the Left:

  1. Rape Culture — This is the idea, popularized by feminists, that rape is not an individual act perpetrated by criminals. Instead, we are told, rape is the result of social attitudes about sex. By this pretzel logic, the person who makes a sarcastic remark about rape is complicit in the crime, because such remarks represent a cultural attitude that makes rape possible.
  2. Anti-Homophobia — As fashionable causes go, fighting homophobia in 2014 is like being a Freedom Rider in 1963 or a draft-card-burning hippie peacenik in 1968. Liberals have convinced themselves that prejudice against gays and lesbians is an existential crisis, and anyone who doesn’t constantly denounce homophobia might as well go join Westboro Baptist Church.
  3. Radical Feminism — Little noticed by the mainstream media, hard-core radical feminism is staging a comeback. And these man-hating lesbian separatists are angry as hell about the attempt of some transgenders to include themselves in feminism. From the radical (“essentialist”) perspective, these XY-chromosome sex-changers are simply men — the Oppressive Patriarchy incarnate! — employing a particularly sneaky way of co-opting the Womyn’s Movement.

It should not be necessary for me to say that I think all of these people are crazy. But all crazies are not created equal and, as crazy as the radical man-hating lesbians may be, they at least have valid science on their side in saying that “female” is a biological category — genetically determined, rather than being a “social construct.”

Readers will recall the January item, “Feminists Accused of ‘Transphobia’: Competitive Victimhood Derby“:

So, RadFem 2013 was a conference in London, which resulted in a gigantic controversy because radical feminists insisted on excluding the “transgendered” from their female-only event, and one of the featured speakers, Australian lesbian feminist Professor Sheila Jeffreys, was about to publish a new book, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism, that was deeply offensive to the “T” people represented in the LGBT acronym.
How crazy did that conflict become? At one point in April, the venue tried to cancel the event after discovering that “certain language was used and some statements were made about transgender people that would go against our equalities and diversity policy.” Another RadFem conference organizer, Cathy Brennan of Baltimore, was meanwhile all over Twitter announcing “transwomen are men” and comparing them to MRAs (men’s rights advocates). . . .
The Competitive Victimhood Derby is ultimately a zero-sum game, you see. There can only be one winner, and the transgender claim to equal victimhood is rejected by radical feminists, who view this as an attempt to usurp their own categorical claim.
It’s like a traffic jam on the Crazyville Road, where two politicized groups of wackjobs are compelled by the implicit logic of their arguments to fight each other for supremacy.

Strange as it is to say, however, I perceive in the RadFem position not only a basic scientific truth about who is a woman, but also an argument for the principle of free association.

What the RadFem organizers are saying is that transgenders wanting to attend their conference are like Nazis wanting to attend a synagogue or Klansmen wanting to attend an NAACP meeting. If the organizers of a feminist conference cannot decide who is invited (and who is not invited), whose essential liberty is being infringed?

Therefore, I accept that RadFems (who understandably do not want me and my oppressive patriarchal penis anywhere near their conference) also have the right to exclude XY-chromosome persons who present themselves as pseudo-females. And the only real argument that transgender “feminists” can make in response is that their exclusion from the RadFem conference hurts their feelings.

So what? Since when was it a civil-rights violation to hurt somebody’s feelings? Where do people get the idea that, if you call me a “hillbilly,” I can sue you for not calling me an “Appalachian-American”?

People do not have a “right” to high self-esteem!

OK, so when it was reported that Dana McCallum’s ex-wife had accused her of rape, a radical feminist rejected the categories:

Conservatives don’t usually find themselves nodding in agreement with angry radical dykes, but it’s difficult to deny the basic point here: If radical feminism is about advancing the interests of lesbians, then it is sort of an insult to radical feminists to label Dana McCallum’s (alleged) crime a “lesbian rape.” Such an inaccurate label wrongly shifts the blame from one group (transgenders) to another group (lesbians).

Radical dykes have feelings, too, you know.

Apparently, however, Dana McCallum’s (alleged) victim has an overpowering sympathy for the, uh, transgender community. (The alleged victim’s identity is not a secret, by the way: Anyone can figure out that @MadMelvina is @DanaDanger’s ex-wife.) The rhetoric about McCallum’s gender was upsetting to the alleged victim:

 

Hmmmm. It certainly would have been the wise thing to bite my tongue and say nothing. But my innate propensity for irreverent sarcasm is sometimes just too strong to resist:


 

Was I trying to make a serious point here? Yes, because it would seem like to me that if a woman had been raped by a member of the transgender community, this event might cause her to have Second Thoughts about her sympathies. In fact, maybe this unfortunate experience would cause a victim and her friends to question their entire liberal worldview, which is based on the idea that moral virtue consists chiefly of striking poses of political sympathy toward Oppressed Minorities and Other Victims of Society.

Maybe — and hey, I’m just throwing this out there, OK? — it makes more sense to look at human beings as individuals, rather than as members of collective identity groups. Maybe people who chatter constantly about “critical thinking” could apply some skeptical curiosity to the liberal habit of categorizing people as either (a) Victims of Oppression or (b) Perpetrators of Oppression on the basis of group membership. Is it possible that some gay people, for example, have problems more important than “homophobia”? Yes, I think this is possible, and I even think that if you studied the situation carefully, you would find that the vast majority of homosexuals aren’t really Victims of Oppression at all.

Far be it from me either (a) to foment transphobic bigotry, or (b) to engage in slut-shaming and victim-blaming. However, I would hope that @MadMelvina‘s experience with @DanaDanger might inspire her to reconsider her apparent belief that all transgendered people are Victims of Oppression in every circumstance. After all, if @MadMelvina‘s allegations are true, then she is the Victim, and @DanaDanger is actually the Oppressor. And I will repeat what I said before:

Some people have a “rescuer” tendency that leads them to get involved with damaged personalities. So if McCallum’s ex fled one abusive situation, only to end up in another (allegedly) abusive situation, this is perhaps predictable.

One does not have to be a perfect victim in order to be a victim. When a teenage hoodlum gets gunned down by rival hoodlums, we are not “blaming the victim” (nor are we “pro-drive-by-shooting”) if we say that such crimes illustrate the danger of adolescents becoming involved in youth gang activity. By the same token, when a teenage girl is sexually assaulted after getting passed-out drunk at a party, we are not “pro-rape” for mentioning the role of alcohol in the crime.

Knowing absolutely nothing about the facts of “the incident in question” involving @MadMelvina and @DanaDanger, I am nonetheless predisposed to believe the victim in this case.

Why? Well, a careful reading of Dana McCallum’s August 2013 speech to a high school LGBT group indicates that McCallum has a long history of mental illness. The careful reader with a background in psychology might see elements of pathological narcissism, impulsive behavior and “boundary issues” in McCallum’s story. Would someone like that be capable of sexual assault? Certainly, I think so.

But wait a minute: Aren’t the mentally ill also an Official Victim Group for whom liberals are required to feel sympathy?

And if the alleged rapist is a mentally ill transgender, doesn’t that double victimhood trump the rights of a mere woman?

The logic of the Competitive Victimhood Derby has led us to this strange place, where a rape victim fears transphobia more than she fears that other women may fall prey to similar crimes.

PSYCHO-TRANNY RAPE RAMPAGE
Women Savagely Assaulted by Sex-Crazed Shemales

Yeah, that’s a tabloid headline that would sell some newspapers. And as crazy as the news has been lately, who knows?

Maybe these musings won’t cause any San Francisco liberals to have Second Thoughts about their worldview, but I hope at least I’ve demonstrated that my bigotry isn’t entirely ignorant.

And perhaps it isn’t really bigotry at all. Think about it.

 

Category: Crime, Feminism, Gays, Sex

Separated At Birth: Eric Holder & Caillou

Posted on | April 11, 2014 | 10 Comments

by Smitty

One is a pathetic, infantile piece of beta-male work, and the other is a Canadian:

Inspired by Krauthammer video via Breitbart below the fold, for autoplay reasons:
Read more

Category: Eric Holder

Transgender Lesbian Dana McCallum Accused of Raping Lesbian Ex-Wife

Posted on | April 11, 2014 | 100 Comments

Accused transgender lesbian rapist Dana McCallum.

Maybe this proves the radical feminists right. Even after they get rid of their penises, men are still men and all men are rapists:

A prominent advocate for transgender and women’s rights in the tech world has been charged with raping her wife, The San Francisco Examiner has learned.
Dana McCallum, a senior engineer at Twitter who speaks and writes about women’s and transgender rights and technology issues, was arrested Jan. 26 and booked into County Jail on suspicion of five felonies, according to the Sheriff’s Department.
McCallum, 31, whose legal name is Dana Contreras, was charged Jan. 29 with five felonies, including three counts of spousal rape, one count of false imprisonment and one count of domestic violence, according to the District Attorney’s Office. She has since pleaded not guilty. . . .
McCallum’s attorney, John Runfola, says the case is simply about money.
“I’m just disgusted that, you know, this is going on,” Runfola said. “Dana is an employee [at Twitter] and is about to come into a large amount of money. … This whole thing is about money.”
The couple had been separated, he said, but were still having sexual relations. McCallum served her wife with divorce papers the day before the incident, Runfola said.
The incident in question, according to Runfola, happened in a small condo in the Mission district when four teenagers were in the house.
“No one heard ‘rape’ or fighting or anything,” he said.

Uh, why were four teenagers at this couple’s “small condo in the Mission district”? But never mind that distraction: Exactly how does a transgender rape her estranged lesbian wife? Can a woman be “raped” by her partner’s surgically created simulacrum of a vagina? One suspects that a detailed account of “the incident in question” would be an exceptionally strange story. Speaking of which . . .

The Daily Mail notices that McCallum has published “the text of a talk I gave to Bloomington High School South’s gay-straight alliance in Indiana on April 24, 2013.” Because, yeah, talking to high school kids about your sex life is the thing you want to do a few months before you’re accused of raping your lesbian wife while four teenagers are in your condo.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

UPDATE: A bit of research reveals that @MadMelvina is @DanaDanger’s ex-wife. She is about 15 years older than McCallum, and fled an abusive marriage to her previous husband. At least one of the couple’s friends is siding with the ex against McCallum:

Some people have a “rescuer” tendency that leads them to get involved with damaged personalities. So if McCallum’s ex fled one abusive situation, only to end up in another (allegedly) abusive situation, this is perhaps predictable. Speaking of which . . .

TERFs = Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists, i.e., lesbian separatists who don’t want trannies in female-only spaces. Weird to find myself agreeing with them, however limited the agreement may be.

 

Category: Crime, Gays, Sex
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin