Blog powered by Typepad

« Encourage, Not Just Permit, Same-Sex Marriage | Main | A Nation Divided »

April 04, 2005

Comments

Marty

As for an answer to why marriage has always been a man-woman institution, I think the above gives a great explanation. It is not some random coincidence or bizarre rite. Society has always defined roles as explicitly gendered. Men and women had different roles, and it was natural and important that marriage consist of a person in each of these distinct roles. I do not believe it is a coincidence that those groups, especially religious groups, which tend to delineate the most distinct and rigid gender roles also tend to be those most likely to oppose same-sex marriage.

So man+woman marriage was created by people in love with their own gender stereotypes, which we've since outgrown eh?

Of course it had nothing whatsoever (or nothing really important anyway) to do with the fact that only one man and one woman can create a child - aka "family". Pure coincidence...

You crack me up.

Galois

Marty,

Did I say it had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that one man and one woman can create a child? No. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason men and women had different gender roles in societies might have something to do with their roles in reproduction? Or do you think that is pure coincidence?

For centuries the fact that women carry and nurse children has been used as a basis for all sorts of legal distinctions between man and woman. See, for example, my references to Bradley v. Illinois in past posts. What we have outgrown is the idea that this fact of life inherently justifies different legal rights or enforced gender roles.

Marriage is obviously more directly related to the gender roles, though, which were in turn based on roles in reproduction. This can be seen by the fact that even elderly women could generally marry because they were still considered women and could play the role of women. It can also be seen by the fact that the few societies which did have same-sex marriage did so by having one person take on the role of the opposite sex. They could obviously not create a child, but they were still capable of stepping into a certain distinct role.

M

An institution as important as that should definitely not be denied to same-sex couples and their families.

I'm not sure you know the purpose of the gate yet. How do you know that the benefits of marriage to society don't flow, in some aspect or another, from a large number or from the residual effects of a large number of people taking gender roles in marriage? Many of the benefits seem to come from people being willing to make sacrefices that are incompatible with more liberal forms of marriage (ie, marriage works as a stabilizing influence on society to the degree that couples are sexually exclusive, and that liberal reforms on marriage, such as no-fault divorce, "wife-swapping", etc, have deluded the power of marriage, or ie, that marriage works because mothers and fathers are willing to commit to raising children and impart their unique gendered gifts to the children).

Marriage has already been tinkered with to a great deal. Some of the changes (race) seem to have had no effect (this is unsurprising since marriage began with no racial barriers since it's only later tinkering that excluded partners based on race), while others clearly did have a (surprisingly or unsuprisingly) negative effect (ie, women's property rights, no fault divorce). In the case where the change had an effect, we were only later in a position to discover how great it was and to muse over whether the change was worth the resultant damage to society. I think it is fair to say that marriage sits at a perilous state right now and I'm not sure how much more tinkering it can stand before irreparable, hugely-negative, perhaps even society-destroying damage is done.

The tiny portion of the population that have inalterable homosexual inclinations already receive the benefits of marriage that the rest of unmarried society receives. I don't see anything yet that justifies altering the definition of marraige in the most fundamental way yet proposed, for the benefit of a small number (which may indeed be out numbered by those would might drop out of marriage entirely if such a change were made), who already are allowed to engage in all but formal, culture-inculcating married behavoir (indeed, a main arugment for gay marriage is that it would remodel marriage for the culture and be emblematic of how gender roles are unnecessary and perhaps societal fictions). I suspect that, having won the right to redefine marriage, you will find that all you have done is destroyed it.

I find your whole crusade against gender roles to be (very innocently and with the best intentions) wrong-headed. It seems to presuppose that there are no gender differences of any importance, and so removing gender consideration from even the most fundamental aspects of society will do no harm. Given the complex physiological and psychological differences betweem men and women, I think trying to force society to believe there are no differences, and refusing to allow the government to account for those differences, is a recipie for collective misery.

Fool

M-

I’m not sure you see the purpose of the gate. That, or you have provided ill-chosen examples.

You identified sacrifices that are “incompatible with more liberal forms of marriage” such as “marriage works as a stabilizing influence on society to the degree that couples are sexually exclusive, and that liberal reforms on marriage, such as no-fault divorce, "wife-swapping", etc, have deluded [diluted?] the power of marriage, or ie, that marriage works because mothers and fathers are willing to commit to raising children and impart their unique gendered gifts to the children.”

Does that mean you believe that marriage between same-sex couples would not have the “sexually exclusiv[ity]” benefit? So, even with marriage available to them, same-sex couples would not be monogamous? That’s a gate built of a tired stereotype.

As far as no-fault divorce and “wife-swapping,” umm, not sure of your point. I assume you point to these as a weakening of marriage or, at least, the weakening of sexual exclusivity. Well, homosexuals have had no part in that. Except within the past year, no-fault divorce was not available to same-sex couples. While no fault divorce certainly makes it easier to get a divorce, isn’t the issue really with the couples who use the no fault divorce procedures? Doesn’t it speak more to the committedness of straight couples? It hardly seems justification for keeping the gate up.

Your final example implied that same-sex couples are unwilling to “commit to raising children”. I think you’ll find that statistics contract your assumption.

As far as the “unique gendered gifts,” it seems lofty language which, given the number of single parent households is hardly the reason for keeping the gate intact.

In fact, with the exception of one, none of your examples actually address the question you, yourself, posed: “How do you know that the benefits of marriage to society don’t flow, in some aspect or another, from a large number or from the residual effects of a large number of people taking gender roles in marriage?” A commitment to monogamy, children or the institution of marriage really has nothing to do with “gender roles”. They address themselves to the individual’s commitment to the relationship and their children – without regard to gender.

You also write: “The tiny portion of the population that have inalterable homosexual inclinations already receive the benefits of marriage that the rest of unmarried society receives.”

A couple points: One. If the portion is so tiny, allowing them to marry certain will not have the dire consequences you predict. It’s like adding one drop of fresh water to the Atlantic Ocean. It will not change the ocean as a whole.

Two. While it may be true that unmarried homosexuals have the same rights as unmarried heterosexuals, what unmarried heterosexuals do have is the right be able to marry someone of their choosing. They have that option. That is a big difference.

Marty

Fool: While it may be true that unmarried homosexuals have the same rights as unmarried heterosexuals, what unmarried heterosexuals do have is the right be able to marry someone of their choosing. They have that option. That is a big difference.

Nope, no difference at all. Heterosexuals -- like homosexuals -- cannot choose to marry someone of the same sex. The available choices are entirely equal. What is not equal, are homosexual's desire to make such choices. There's nothing discriminatory about it.

Galois

M,

Fool's pretty much covered it. Your examples are almost entirely not even about gender roles. That being said, I wouldn't doubt that there are some advantages in fixed gender roles, but I believe they are far outweighed by the principle of having the freedom to reject assigned gender roles. You write:


I find your whole crusade against gender roles to be (very innocently and with the best intentions) wrong-headed. It seems to presuppose that there are no gender differences of any importance, and so removing gender consideration from even the most fundamental aspects of society will do no harm. Given the complex physiological and psychological differences betweem men and women, I think trying to force society to believe there are no differences, and refusing to allow the government to account for those differences, is a recipie for collective misery.

At least this is an area where we can honestly disagree. There are a few who claim marriage has nothing to do with gender roles. Bear in mind, however, that a move to be free to reject gender roles does not presuppose that there is no difference in gender. I believe there are differences in gender, but do not wish those differences to be used by the government to dictate our role in society. I also believe there are differences in religion, and yet do not wish to deny equal protection on that basis. Many others agree with me that there are differences in gender, but would not have those differences be used to set universal rules for who may do what based on gender. For example, the "complex physiological and psychological differences between men and women" would certainly effect how one does other jobs--some extremely vital to society--but I would not use gender as a litmus test for these jobs. Likewise other differences between human beings can certainly effect what sort of spouse or parent one would be, and yet I would not have the government choose our spouse for us.

Marty

I personally could care less "who wears the pants" in a family. Still, there is no escaping the fact that the word "family" would not even exist were it not for the uniquely superior union of one man and one woman. No same-sex couple can ever approach that -- at least not without offending Mr. Howard by attempting to create Franekstein's omelete.

Fool

Marty:

We will certainly never agree since you frame the "choice" as "any person of the opposite sex" and I frame "choice" as "any person of one's own choosing".

Under your definition, that works and there is no inconsistency. Under mine, there's a problem.

Unless you're willing to permit the government, your parents or someone else to choose your opposite-sex spouse for you, I maintain that the right is to marry someone of your choosing - not merely someone (anyone) of the opposite sex.

If the right were simply to marry someone of the opposite sex, the government could choose your "mate" - even if you disagreed - and your rights would not have been impugned.

Fool

Further to Galois's response to M, in almost every other aspect of our society, taking those differences into account is not permissble.

For example, women cannot be excluded from being firefighters based on commonly acknowledged differences in strength.

However, if I needed to be rescued from a burning building, I would much prefer a male firefighter carry me our than a female. I think my chances of survival would be greatly increased.

This is a real, practical difference. However, women cannot be treated differently in this regard - despite the "physiological and psychological differences betweem men and women".

Marty

Fool: I frame "choice" as "any person of one's own choosing".

Any person? Lets go down the very short list of very minor restrictions:

1. You cannot choose to marry someone who is not "of age".
2. You cannot choose to marry someone who is a close blood relation.
3. You cannot choose to marry someone who is already married to someone else.
4. You cannot choose to marry someone of the same sex.

And neither can I.

Four rules, equally applied to everyone in the country, all of which limit both of our "choices".

So which rules are arbitrary and should be overturned? Which ones are crucial to both the meaning of marriage and the survival of our species? If you can overturn #4, then by what logic will you prevent me from overturning 1 2 and 3?

Galois

Marty,

I would just make a quick note about your restrictions 1-4. (1) discriminates on the basis of age (2) and (3) discriminate on the basis of existing legal relationships (in some states restriction (2) even includes non-blood relations) (4) discriminates on the basis of gender.

Marty

G, so you would strike them all? Because they all discriminate unfairly?

Galois

Marty, No. And I don't belive they do.

John Howard

Note that the first three restrictions were intended to prevent those couples from procreating. No one objected to any couple like that loving each other, living together, passing on inheritance, or visiting each other in the hospital. All they could not legally do, never ever, was procreate together, and therefore, marry each other. They all were supposed to look elsewhere to find someone to marry. All couples who are married are then allowed to procreate.

(And Fools right, in Massachusetts, it's not just blood relations, but relations through marriage as well - you can't marry your wife's mother, for example (after your wife dies, of course). Interestingly, a woman can marry her husband's father, and a man can marry his son's wife, but a man can't marry his wife's mother or a woman marry her daughter's husband. Like G.K. Chesterton's gate in the road, I suggest we keep those restrictions as they are.)

Galois

Note that the first three restrictions were intended to prevent those couples from procreating.

I would argue rather that they were intended to prevent the couples from having sex. Certainly the two ideas are intimately connected, but I think the distinction is worth noting. In certain cases where they can have sex, but cannot procreate marriage is permitted (like in AZ and several other states where marriage is ONLY permitted between first cousins if they can show that they CANNOT procreate). In certain cases where they can procreate, but cannot have sex (like a person donating an egg or sperm to a married couple but for which sex would be adultery) the marriage is prohibited.

Marty

This is getting very good.

JH: "Note that the first three restrictions were intended to prevent those couples from procreating."

GR: "I would argue rather that they were intended to prevent the couples from having sex."

I would argue that you're either having sex, or just fooling around. You know, doing those things we used to call "crimes against nature". Humans get hungry because we'll die if we dont eat. We get thirsty because we'll die if we dont drink. We get randy because we'll die if we dont mate! Having sex -- even gay sex -- is ABOUT procreation.

And besides, what business is it of the State, to decide who i can "have sex" with, by any definition at all? Are you arguing that marriage isn't even about "having sex"?

Galois

Having sex -- even gay sex -- is ABOUT procreation.

Well then people can stop saying that gay marriage would send a message that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. All sex, including gay sex, is about procreation and hence we should strive to keep all sex confined to marriage.

And besides, what business is it of the State, to decide who i can "have sex" with, by any definition at all?

You don't think it's any business of the state who you have sex with??!!! I think society has an interest in preventing sex with prepubescent children (even though they can't procreate). Sex has serious public health consequences, as well as emotional and psychological consquences. The fact that in cerain situations sex can lead to conception is also an extremely important aspect of the public interset in sex, but the public interest is not by any means limited to that aspect. Sex is a very serious issue.

Are you arguing that marriage isn't even about "having sex"?

Not at all. What gave you that impression? On the contray I was arguing that one of the reasons for some of the restrictions on whom may marry is that we do not allow the marriage of a couple for whom it is forbidden to have sex. Of course I wouldn't say it's only about "having sex", just as I wouldn't say it's only about procreation. I would say that it has something very important to do with both of those matters. For example, in terms of the sex issue marriage promotes committed monogamous sexual relationships. In terms of the procreation issue marriage helps a couple to face the challenges of raising children born to them.

Fool

Marty:

Okay. Point taken. There are currently other restrictions on persons who may marry – aside from gender restrictions. However, it seems a silly point to raise from someone who accuses others of engaging in gamesmanship. Particularly, number 4, which is the very subject of the discussion.

Even taking into account the three “other” restrictions you identified, it doesn’t materially alter the hypothetical I proposed concerning some third party selecting one’s spouse, which you did not address.

Allowing for restrictions based on age, blood relation and already married status, the ability of the state (or some other third party) to select your spouse would still no violate any rights if the right is defined, as you define it, as “any person of the opposite sex” (subject to restrictions 1-3).

If that is how the right is defined, then arranged marriages would not violate the rights of anyone subjected to such an arranged marriage. Since I assume that there are few courts, legislators or citizens that would tolerate state-arranged marriages, the marriage right must be something more than the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Theo

Marty writes:

Given the complex physiological and psychological differences betweem men and women, I think trying to force society to believe there are no differences, and refusing to allow the government to account for those differences, is a recipie for collective misery.

I'm tempted to begin a discussion here of the myriad and insidious ways that societies dictate those complex physiological and psychological differences, but I worry about the possibility that such a discussion wouldd degenerate into a "nature/nurture" debate ad infinitum.

And, besides, it's not really the point.

One of my professors is Deaf (the capital D denotes community membership). I would never suggest that she necessarily ought to pursue implants that would allow her some amount of hearing, but I do think society should accomodate differences without discriminating. Which is to say that we should all learn sign language, and our society should have no laws based on such physical differences except those that directly help historically disempowered groups.

A Buddhist friend of mine meditates daily, changing his psychology and physiology in complex ways. You'd justify, from that, a law restricting who he can marry based on religion?


Most generally, the point is that yes, due to a number of factors, there are differences between people. Nice people have different psychologies than mean people, and attractive people different physiologies than unattractive people. Some times it's ok to discriminate based on these differences --- no one's going to suggest that you have to higher just as many mean people as nice people --- but the laws shouldn't. And as much as we can it's valuable to work to change the culture to reduce these differences. This means first evaluating, say, meanness and niceness, because it would be much better to make everyone nice than make everyone mean. On gender, I wouldn't want everyone to be men or everyone to be women, but I do want society to give less importance to what gender roles someone adopts, and I want those roles to be more fluid and amorphous.

Pluralism values variation and diversity, and such variation and diversity would be increased by liberalizing gender: right now, two modes of behaviour and sets of roles dominate, whereas a more gender-liberated society would allow different people much more latitude to mix and match. Democracy values empowered equity --- a slightly different concept from formal equality (in which a law proscribing the death sentence for sleeping under bridges behaves equally against poor and rich people, as both are restricted from sleeping under bridges), equity requires proactive measures to assure that even people with profound psychological and physiological differences have the same access to resources and freedoms.

Maybe, and there is much debate on this, maybe heteronormative marriage laws are formally equal based on gender and orientation. But they certainly aren't equitable.

Marty

Theo, you are quoting "M", not me, above. That's not my post.


Fool, I'm not sure what you're getting at there -- because nobody is arranging marriages, least of all the state, and theres no chance of it happening - aside from some cultural and sub-legal situations among the immigrant populations.

But we all have the same limits to who we can marry, 1,2,3,4, they are all manmade, and have nothing to do with civil rights or sexual orientation. And they have everything to do with who you MAY (and hopefully (but not coercively) WILL) procreate with. Because The State needs smart and loyal kids in the pipeline, and those kind of kids need and deserve their real Mommy and Daddy. Til death do they part.


Lisa SG

The age restriction, it seems to me, arises from the importance of consent; we don't think people can be married without their full knowledge of what they are doing, and their consent, and we don't think underage people are mature enough to consent. That is a rational reason, not a discriminatory and irrational one, to prevent such marriages. It would also explain why people cannot marry animals and the like, another example the anti-homosexual marriage folks give.

Pete

The age restriction, it seems to me, arises from the importance of consent; we don't think people can be married without their full knowledge of what they are doing, and their consent, and we don't think underage people are mature enough to consent.

You mischaracterize the consent issue almost as badly as you mischaracterize pro-marriage arguments as "anti-homosexual." Yes, minor consent is an issue in contract law, and marriage is a type of contract, but the law allows minors to contract -- it just doesn't usually bind the minors to the contract. If the problem of marriage of minors was as simple as you describe it, then we'd handle marriage of minors in the same way that we handle most other contracts that minors make -- allow minors to marry, but then allow them to void the contract (i.e. nullify the marriage a la Brittney Spears) up to a reasonable time after they turn 18.

So the contract consent issue is not, in itself, a rational reason to prohibit minors from marrying. There is a rational reason for the prohibition, but to understand that, you'd have to take into account the actual definition of marriage, which defeats your argument.

Pete

One of my professors is Deaf (the capital D denotes community membership). I would never suggest that she necessarily ought to pursue implants that would allow her some amount of hearing, but I do think society should accomodate differences without discriminating. Which is to say that we should all learn sign language, and our society should have no laws based on such physical differences except those that directly help historically disempowered groups.

No; that's not what "without discriminating" means. What you said means that you want discrimination in favor of groups that you characterize as "historically disempowered." If we follow your logic through to its sinister conclusion, we would abolish music programs in schools (since the deaf cannot benefit from music), and abolish visual art programs as well (since visual arts cannot benefit the blind).

That's not pluralism. Kurt Vonnegut described that sort of program in "Harrisson Bergeron."

Pluralism values variation and diversity ... Democracy values empowered equity --- a slightly different concept from formal equality (in which a law proscribing the death sentence for sleeping under bridges behaves equally against poor and rich people, as both are restricted from sleeping under bridges), equity requires proactive measures to assure that even people with profound psychological and physiological differences have the same access to resources and freedoms.

All of this is true, but I am not convinced that you know what it means, since you are calling for the abolition of what I call marriage rather than trying to institute other institutions that bring the same resources and freedoms to groups that marriage doesn't work for. That's not equity; it's a coerced and artificial equality: you are rewriting my sexual identity and the sexual identity of a majority of Americans in order to accomodate the beliefs of a few.

When the FDA recognizes a Kosher category for food preparation purposes, it is not being Judeocentric; when it recognizes a halal cagegory it is not Islamocentric. When the FDA recognizes the category of "organic foods," it is not stating categorically that such foods are superior to others. When the state recognizes Kwanzaa, it is not being Afrocentric (or rather San Franciscocentric, since Kwanzaa originated in SF). These terms, like marriage, are not perscriptive, but descriptive.

In other words, make new institutions, rather than hijacking and redirecting old functioning ones. It's a pluralist country, and if you know what that means, you should know there is room for a diversity of ideologies and sexual identities. Stop trying to rewrite mine.

vch

bonny segretaria sesso
bonny segretaria ubriache
bonny soldato gruppo
bonny superpoppe masturbate
bonny tedesco merda
bonny teen sex
bonny zoccoleborghesi urinate
boob
boquetes
bottiglia cinema
bottiglia gratis
bottiglie in culo
boule de ga cha foto
boutique x anale
boutique x download
boutique x foto
boutique x gallerie
boutique x gratuito
boutique x klima
boutique x mpgs
boutique x sex
boutique x vid
box doccia
box doccia in cristallo
boy escort
bragas
bramare amante schizzate di figa
bramare amatoriali azione
bramare amatoriali gruppo
bramare amatoriali pompino
bramare amatoriali strip
bramare americano anale fotti
bramare americano pompino
bramare asiatiche anale fotti
bramare asiatiche fotti
bramare asiatiche merda
bramare asiatiche sesso
bramare asiatiche urinate
bramare bionde

Kevin

ass parade |
ass parade porn |
assparade dee sophie |
big ass parade |
assparade cherokee |
ass olivia olovely parade |
assparade latina |
xxx ass parade |
assparade adrianna |
ass parade sophia |

Bang Bros |
Bang Bros Free |
Bang Bros Ass Parade |
Bangbros Assparade |
Free Bangbros |
Bangbros Website |
Bangbros Gallery |
Girls Bangbros |
Bangbros Pictures |
Bangbros Tugjobs |

bang bros |
bang gang porn |
bang gang hardcore |
bang finger |
bang cum gang |
bang cum gang |
bang gang group sex |
anal bang gang |
bang golf |
ass bang |

big naturals bignaturals |
big natural jug |
big natural asian tit |
big natural latina |
big natural video |

couples seduce teen |
couples seduce teen |
couplesseduceteen |
coupleseduceteen |
couple jeanie seduce teen |
charlotte couple seduce teen |
married couple seduce teen |
couple movie porn seduce teen |
couple seduce teen victoria |
couple lystra seduce teen |

extreme asses |
free extreme ass pic |
extreme ass fucking |
extreme ass |
ass athena extreme |
agazha ass extreme |
extreme big ass |
extreme ass fucking |
ass extreme fucfing |
ass extreme holly |

girls hunting girls |
girl hunting boy |
girl hunting girl movie |
girlshuntinggirls |
fun girl girl hot hunting lesbian |
hunting girl photo |
blog com girlshuntinggirls |
clip free girl girl hunting lesbian |
girl hunting other girl |
girl hunting boy |

i spy camel toe |
ispycameltoe |
i spy camel toe trailer |
camel i intro spy toe |
ispycameltoe riley shy |
i spy camel toe preview |
ispycameltoe jenny vanessa |
ispycameltoe ispycameltoe |
com ispycameltoe sweet |
nikki i spy camel toe |

mega cock cravers |
megacockcravers black |
cock cravers cum mega |
megacockcravers free |
megacockcravers porn |
mega cock cravers pic |
cock cravers cum mega |
megacockcravers movie |
megacockcravers porn |
mega cock cravers pic |

mike in brazil |
mike in brazil |
mike from brazil |
mike in brazil trailer |
mike in brazil com |
luanna mike in brazil |
mike in brazil porn |
brazil in mike sara |
mike does brazil |
brazil in july mike |

milfcruiser milf cruiser |
milfcruiser natalie |
michelle milfcruiser |
milfcruiser nessa |
amberlyn milfcruiser |
milfcruiser sasha |
milfcruiser penny |
emiliana milfcruiser |
gabrielle milfcruiser |
milfcruiser kelly |

milfhunter |
milfhunter movie |
foto gratis milfhunter |
milfhunter gallery |
milfhunter kelly |
milfhunter sex |
milfhunter payton |
girl milfhunter more |
milfhunter jasmine |
milfhunter ndfreehost |

milfhunter |
asian milfhunter |
milfhunter sex |
lita milfhunter |
1 full milfhunter minute |
kate milfhunter |
diana milfhunter |
gianna milfhunter |
april milfhunter |
milfhunter rene |

my first sex teacher |
myfirstsexteacher |
my first sex teacher |
my first sex teacher mrs hayes |
amber first lynn sex teacher |
carla first mrs sex teacher |
my first sex teacher mrs michaels |
amber lynn myfirstsexteacher |
my first sex teacher mrs lee |
myfirstsexteacher carmen hayes |

my friends hot mom |
myfriendshotmom |
my friends hot mom |
blog myfriendshotmom |
friends hot mom torrent |
my friends hot mom movie |
mrs myfriendshotmom steele |
friend hot mom mrs starr |
friend hot mom mrs power |
blonde friend hot mom |

my sisters hot friend |
mysistershotfriend |
my sisters hot friend |
mysisterhotfriend |
my sister hot friend |
mysistershotfriends |
my sisters hot friends |
brianna friend hot love sister |
dani friend hot sister |
friend hot karina kay sister |

round and brown |
brown lori round |
movie roundandbrown |
round and brown com |
full roundandbrown |
brown kara round |
com roundandbrown site |
round and brown sluts |
round n brown |
pretty round brown |

sex |
anime sex |
love sex |
free sex story |
hard sex |
group sex |
college sex |
web cam sex |
sex tape |
live sex show |
live sex |
real sex |
indian sex story |
japan sex |
teacher sex |
sex gallery |
sex search |
teacher sex |
cartoon sex |
latin sex |
sex picture |
mature sex |
japan sex |
amateur sex |
sex film |
group sex |
celebrity sex |
amateur sex |
sex story |
anal sex |

teeny bopper club |
bopper club kara teeny |
teeny bopper club cindy |
teeny bopper club sunshine |
teeny bopper club |
bopper clip club teeny video |
bopper club teeny tiger |
bopper club kayla marie teeny |
teenybopperclub |
teeny bopper club veronica |

bangbus melissa |
bangbus torrent |
bangbus facial |
bangbus melanie |
bangbus maritza |
bangbus kyra |
bangbus password username |
bangbus janet |
bangbus worldwide |
alishia bangbus |

hardcore naughty office |
coco hardcore naughty |
allie hardcore naughty |
hardcore naughty office |
hardcore naughty office |
hardcore naughty allie |
hardcore naughty allie |
hardcore milf naughty |
hardcore milf naughty |
hardcore naughty allie |

xxx proposal xxxproposal |
xxx proposal |
xxxproposal |
free sample video xxxproposal |
free xxx proposal |
xxx proposal video sample |
faith xxx proposal |
crystal xxx proposal |
jacky proposal xxx |
xxx proposal movie |

xxxproposal xxx proposal |
com xxxproposal |
franchezca proposal xxx |
daryn proposal xxx |
proposal rabbit review xxx |

suck me bitch
amazinganal
amazing anal
amazinggangbangs
amazing gang bangs
analpals
anal pals
analsweeties
anal sweeties
asiantease
asian tease
boobieclub
boobie club
brownhairgirls
brown hair girls
celebhotel
celeb hotel
cigarettesluts
cigarette sluts
circuspenis
circus penis
clubheshe
club heshe
club he she
clubtitties
club titties
digitalchicks
digital chicks
dildodippers
dildo dippers
dirtyxxxsex
dirty xxx sex
dreamkelly
dream kelly
ebonycheeks
ebony cheeks
fistbang
fist bang
footcravings
foot cravings
freshauditions
fresh auditions
freshfacials
fresh facials
freshteens
fresh teens
fuckingtoons
fucking toons
gir for girl
girlforgirl
grandegirls
grande girls
hardcoretoons
hardcore toons
hotnudegranny
hot nude granny
indiauncovered
india uncovered
interracialsexfest
interracial sex fest
kinkymaturesluts
kinky mature sluts
kuntfu
kunt fu
latinasex
latina sex
lipsticklesbo
lipstick lesbo
manhunter
man hunter
miniboobs
mini boobs
perfectorgy
perfect orgy
pimp4aday
pimp 4 a day
pompomporno
pom pom porno
pregnantbang
pregnant bang
redhairsex
red hair sex
secretfetishes
secret fetishes
sheshuge
shes huge
shockingcocks
shocking cocks
slutmovies
slut movies
suckmebitch
suck me bitch
sugarmamas
sugar mamas
superbush
super bush
tabooinsertions
taboo insertions
teenbody
teen body
teenfactory
teen factory
videoseekers
video seekers

The comments to this entry are closed.