Bride of Christ, Bride of Industry
Joe Carter is one of my favorite "Godbloggers" (a term I'm both uncomfortable with and would, were I one, shy away from, but they called their confab the "Godblogcon"; when writing about Rome, write as the Romans do...). He's been a guest on the NARN show several times; he's always a great read and a thought-provoking guy.
He wrote a piece the other day, the evangelical outpost: Industrialized Sex:
How Christians Can Restore True Intimacy, which is, as usually, both highly opinionated and thought-provoking.
One of the thoughts it provoked, as it happens, is that one of his opinions is wrong. Of which more below.
The remainder of this post is rated "R" for the sort of subject matter and, possibly, language you normally find on Nerve.com or Blind Cavefish. And I mean a post-1990 "R", not a 1977 "R". We're clear on this, right? You've been warned. I don't wanna hear anyone squawking about Mitch working blue. Kids, and adults of delicate sensitivities; please flip to a different post.
No, really .
We're clear on this?
Second Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the contents of this post and my own life are purely coincidental, as are any differences. Unless expressly stated, nothing in this post is autobiographical.
OK. On to below the fold.
The timing of Joe's post - on the industrialization of sex, the turning of the whole act and aura of sex into a commodity - is perfect, of course; what is a better symbol of the debasement of sex than a bunch of overpaid buffoons flying prostitutes in for an orgy on a boat, after all?
That it shows how far the public ideal (forget about private practice for a moment; yes, I know Babe Ruth chased women through trains and Ty Cobb made Prince look like James Dobson; it's irrelevant, for now) for sex has eroded, even in most readers' lifetimes is obvious; that it shows some reserve of, well, reserve is mildly encouraging.
But only mildly. You don't need me to tell you that sex is an advertising hook, a commercial commodity (and only partly in the literal sense, prostitution; have you looked at what high school kids are wearing these days? Have you seen what gets on TV after 8PM?)
So yes; I'll go along with Joe when he quotes Wendell Berry:
It is odd that simply because of its ‘sexual freedom’ our time should be considered extraordinarily physical. In fact, our ‘sexual revolution’ is mostly an industrial phenomenon, in which the body is used as a idea of pleasure or a pleasure machine with the aim of ‘freeing’ natural pleasure from natural consequence.
Like any other industrial enterprise, industrial sexuality seeks to conquer nature by exploiting it and ignoring the consequences, by denying any connection between nature and spirit or body and soul, and by evading social responsibility. The spiritual, physical, and economic costs of this ‘freedom’ are immense, and are characteristically belittled or ignored. The diseases of sexual irresponsibility are regarded as a technological problem and an affront to liberty.
Industrial sex, characteristically, establishes its freeness and goodness by an industrial accounting, dutifully toting up numbers of ‘sexual partners,’ orgasms, and so on, with the inevitable industrial implication that the body is somehow a limit on the idea of sex, which will be a great deal more abundant as soon as it can be done by robots.
No argument so far.
In fact, of the 12 main point to Joe's thesis, I have to agree with the majority:
1. We should continuously point out that the term pre-marital sex is an oxymoron...Saying “I do” with the body may not carry the same consequences as it does in a marriage ceremony, but the effects on the soul are similar. [Hard to argue with that.]
2. Some people will claim that there is something valuable to be gained by having multiple sexual partners before settling down for lifelong monogamy. These misguided souls completely miss the point. Sex is not a technique to be mastered but a means of communicating...Having multiple sexual “partners” as a means of preparing for marriage is like mastering the art of lying in order to become a paragon of honesty. [Again, I agree - but we'll come back to this point later. There's a clinker here.]
3. The bookstores are filled with books and magazines that offer tips and advice on maximizing pleasure, providing multiple orgasms, and other ways to have “better” sex. This desire to improve and be more productive is a hallmark of industrialized sex. But there is no objective standard by which sex can be measured against. “Good” sex is not found by following a formula which will lead to the efficient maximization of sexual pleasure. Sex cannot be measured by the number of orgasms per hour (OPH) or any other idealized unit of measure anymore than a good conversation can be measured by the number of words spoken. [And we'll come back to this, too.]
4. How long should lovemaking sessions last? Ideally, from the beginning to the end...Watching the clock takes the focus off the proper object: one’s spouse. [True, and not really a contention.]
5. Although sex is not tied to the Gregorian calendar, it is cyclical, often following the natural rhythms of the female body. [Dude, I was married for ten years. Again, true.]
6. Having sex can lead to having children. Industrialized sex views this as a potentially unfortunate hazard that should be avoided. Deciding to have a child is a decision that should be made prayerfully and with God’s guidance. And the choice of using technology – whether a thermometer or the Pill – to avoid an untimely pregnancy is a matter between a couple and their Creator. But sex should never be completely stripped of its conceptive role. [I agree emphatically; while I support all family planning short of abortion, any view of sex that ignores the purpose it's really there for is flawed.]
7. Sex may be a joy and a sanctuary but it is also a marital duty...Denying our spouse food or sleep would be cruel and unjust. Withholding sex is no different. [Not really a contention.]
11. A last bit of advice for young people: You may foolishly decide that you need to “make your own mistakes” rather than rely on the hard-earned experience of those that have gone before you...With Christ there is redemption and the hope of restoration. But before you make a rash choice, weigh the cost. It is never worth the price of true intimacy. [Pretty true.]
12. Christian couples are not only joined in union with each other but are united within the body of Christ...The church, therefore, must take an interest in the sexual needs of couples just as it would in the other spiritual and physical needs. The community of believers needs to show that the Bride of Christ rejects industrialized sex. [Can't argue with that, either.]
There are biblical, moral and ethical grounds for all of the above; the Bible agrees with millennia of tradition in most human societies (and the exceptions exist and do nothing to sap Joe's point); none of the above should come as a surprise to anyone who takes Christianity seriously.
And this next point...:
8. While it hardly needs to be said, p*rnography has no place in marriage. Sex is intended to be viewed from the place of a first-person participant, not a third-person observer. One of the reasons pornography becomes addictive is because it leads to the attempt to fulfill an impossible desire. When observing p*rn, a person shifts from an I-Thou relationship to the place of the Other, forever outside, waiting to be invited in. That invitation never comes, leading to an endlessly frustrating search for fulfillment that can never be met.
Psychology aside - and Joe certainly paints with a broad brush in his description of it, a brush we're going to come back to shortly - any reasonable person should have serious ethical problems with the whole pr0n industry.
But let's look at the broad brush again. Joe's next two points are squishy. As it were.
9. Equipment belongs in the factory, not in the bedroom. If you need battery-operated tools to enhance your sexual experience you have a problem.
Am I the only one who's hearing Dana Carvey's "Church Lady"? "
Lights off, door locked, missionary position?"
Says who? Show me any biblical authority on this, Joe!
As Joe himself said earlier, "Sex is not a technique to be mastered but a means of communicating". And yet isn't Joe reverting to technique here - in this case, proscribing rather than prescribing the techiques by which couples communicate?
How different is it than saying "books belong in the bookstore" or "if you need a third party to enhance your ability to talk with your partner you have a problem?" If it's between two consenting, healthy, married adults, then how Joe Carter's opinion on their choice of toy (or lack of it) any more appropriate than one on their child-rearing choices?
And this next one - a little foggier, perhaps, but again...:
10. Most of what gets classified under the category of sex has nothing to do with sex at all. Fetishes, sadomasochism, dominance and submission, etc., are always about something else (usually power) and never about intimacy and communication. Sort out your psychological issues on your counselor’s couch, not in your marriage bed.
Again - says who?
The Bible is, oddly, silent on each of these; and yet even if Joe is correct and each of these practices is "usually" about "something else" - so what?
Marriage is full of "something else"; couples where one partner's education, verbal polish, income or accomplishment are vastly different than the other's have "something else" to deal with, a great disparity in power. They find ways to work around the difference - or they don't. If the way they work around the differences in a healthy, functional way, then it's a good thing. If they work around them in a way that on the other hand harms either of them (and raises a generation of screwed up kids in the bargain), then not so much.
And a "counselor's couch" is nothing but a form of communication, in this case via a third party; it's a third cousin of sex, twice removed. And many counselors agree that it's less effective than actually just learning to communicate on one's own.
So if a couple, within a marriage, decides that they want to communicate about power, dominance and so on via sex, and we assume that they're both in the marriage for each other's good (and we certainly hope that for any marriage, don't we?), then whose business is it exactly how they do it?
Isn't saying "don't use sex to communicate about this" just about as nonsensical as saying "don't talk about this?" Aren't they the same thing within a couple?
As Joe disclaims his post, the whole thing is aimed at couples who have a Christian outlook on life; the principles are likely enough foreign enough to non-Christian (or at least non-religious) couples as to be very difficult to reconcile. But if one assumes that a couple is Christian, and thus operating in their spouses best interests, then who is Joe Carter or any other prospcriptive evanglical to tell them how that is best done? Marriages are between a couple and their creator; if their physical relationship makes them a better couple, not a worse one - and that is the goal, right? - then what is the problem?
Posted by Mitch at
October 17, 2005 05:00 AM
| TrackBack
I guess I'd agree with Joe because the following "fetishes, sadomasochism, dominance and submission, etc" are pathologies...not good old healthy hornieness where you love your spouse (affection) and enjoy intimacy with them. It doesn't have to be such a big deal and I think those things mentioned above mean you can't function in a straightforward manner. Sure, it might not be up to Joe to say what couples should do, but I think he's correct to suggest that if you NEED to do any of that, you have deeper problems that should be looked at outside the context of your sex life.
Or else I'm just the "church lady" too. Ha.
Posted by: Colleen at October 17, 2005 12:48 PMI'm a member of the Catholic church. And when it comes to what other people do in their bedrooms - toys, or bondage, or what have you, I am definitely a member of the church of Mind Your Own Damn Beeswax.
I don't even HAVE sex, so I'm not defending my own lifestyle or anything - I just think it's best to mind your own damn business when it comes to stuff like this.
Posted by: red at October 17, 2005 01:11 PMColleen,
I can neither confirm nor deny what constitutes "good old fashioned horniness" (I mean, I COULD, but I won't). However, I'm loathe to proscribe something that's a "pathology" for some people and a "lot of fun" for others. That's not an uncommon thing; alcohol, cigars, poker, even sex itself are all pleasant recreation for some, life-altering diseases for others. As prone as I am to absolutism in so many areas, this isn't one.
Red,
To me, it's partly "MYOB", as you say; while any of these practices *can* be harmful, addictive or pathological, it's not a lock; if we assume that a couple is mutually-consenting and are looking out for each other's best interests - like, they *love* each other! - then why the assumption that it's a pathology? A couple is supposed to have the autonomy (and, ideally, judgement) to know if something is a good or bad thing for each other - right?
It's one area where I think the Jews have the right idea; between two consenting married adults, anything they say goes, goes. If people are looking out for their spouses' best interests, then there should BE no harm done.
Call me pollyanna, I guess. Goodness knows I'm no expert.
Posted by: mitch at October 17, 2005 02:47 PMWhat you just said, Mitch... and, by the way, good analysis.
No one in the Bible ever made any rules for marital sexual practice. If the wife and the husband both feel good about it, then why the hell not? People seem to have an extremely hard time not getting faith and sexuality mixed up--which has been a boon to artists like Prince and Marvin Gaye.
When I was in high school, a Jewish friend's parents had a sign next to their bedroom door: "It's a double mitzvah on Shabbos!" I had to ask his mom to explain it to me, and then remember being thunderstruck at how completely... um, "un-Catholic" this outlook was. And how refreshing too.
Posted by: Pete (Alois) at October 17, 2005 03:48 PMTrouble is, I think there are a lot of situations where the wife (more often than the husband) is NOT happy about it, but afraid that if she doesn't go along he'll look elsewhere.
Also, things that harm society DO end up being everybody else's business in the long run. I read that STD's are up 1500% in Great Britain in just a very short time frame. At one point in those relationships (!) it was two people doing what they wanted to and nobody's business. Once you start spreading the fun around it changes the complexion a bit.
And bondage, domination, etc. is NOT a healthy show of love and intimacy...toys and all that crap would just make me laugh! For dumb.
Posted by: Colleen at October 17, 2005 08:01 PMOne thing I do think important is that in former times, what people did with each other did stay their business and no one else had to know about
EVERY DAMN THING they did. That's the problem I have with gays...they have always been around, always will be I spose, and I don't care...but please, just shut up about what you do sexually!
Of course public health issues are everyone's business but my impression of the post Mitch linked to was that it was not about that. It was about appropriate sexual behavior within a marriage - and no, I don't think that is anyone's business.
If a couple decides they love to tie each other up and that's how they express love - even if others don't GET it, and wouldn't behave that way themselves - why should we care?
What turns me on may be seen as silly or stupid by someone else - does that mean I'm not expressing love? Or - there are certain practices that I find dumb - but who am I to say: "You are NOT expressing love with that practice."? How the heck should I know?
There is a leap from "I would NEVER do that" to "If you DO do that, then you are neurotic and should be in therapy". hahaha
Posted by: red at October 18, 2005 07:39 AMWell, maybe so...but where does the line get drawn? Is there NO line whatsoever? Can the family pet join in and as long as everyone participating is cool with it it's healthy? I think I stated above that there are some harmless fantasies and things that people like to play at that are probably not going to matter much...but bondage and masochism and "the like" are NOT indulgences of a healthy, Christian mind. Sure, lots of "Christians" do these things and worse (the BTK Killer...now there's a charming man that had a few little kinks), but it doesn't mean they SHOULD. I won't ever find myself telling anybody what they should do or not do, but I do think I can SAY that I think those practices are wrong or unhealthy...and furthermore, I think those who indulge know it, too. Makes it even better....Also, love isn't felt in the genitals so I would venture to say that isn't how people express "their love"...their lust, yeah.
Posted by: Colleen at October 18, 2005 06:17 PMI guess to me when I'm expressing my lust - which I don't do now in my life, more's the pity - but when i do - I am expressing my love. To me there isn't a difference.
I don't know. It seems like a really personal thing to me.
Posted by: red at October 18, 2005 10:49 PMColleen,
"Well, maybe so...but where does the line get drawn? Is there NO line whatsoever?"
Y'see, Colleen, that's simple; if one party doesn't like some particular activity and doesn't want to take part - there's your line right there.
" Can the family pet join in and as long as everyone participating is cool with it it's healthy?"
Only if the pet is party to the marriage.
" I think I stated above that there are some harmless fantasies and things that people like to play at that are probably not going to matter much...but bondage and masochism and "the like" are NOT indulgences of a healthy, Christian mind."
Again, it's the definition of "healthy" that's the sticker here. Since sex is communication between a couple - if that's how they communicate, and it makes them a stronger couple (which is the goal, right), then who's to argue?
It's like saying "a healthy Christian couple doesn't communicate by telephone - only in person!". Says who?
" Sure, lots of "Christians" do these things and worse (the BTK Killer...now there's a charming man that had a few little kinks),"
No, he didn't. He was a serial killer! There's a difference between a married couple that loves each other very much who happens to mutually enjoy something you think weird, and someone who ritually murders people.
Not at all the same as a couple who just happens to like their sex different than some others might...
Red,
That's the big thing, I think - if something expresses love, it's a good thing. And who decides what expresses love between two people? Ideally, those two people.
Or so I dimly remember.
Posted by: mitch at October 19, 2005 05:12 AMMitch-I wasn't comparing the BTK killer to married couples..sheesh. I was saying that some who look like "respectable" Chrisitan people are anything but...and like their sex kinky (you do know there was a sex angle to his fun, don't you? Not just a "killer"?).
I think you're full of it as regards the rest. Sorry. I just end up thinking "oh, brother". I'm sure you could care less, but there it is.
And hey, maybe you two should meet in the middle sometime! (Am I right that Red lives in NY?). Say a little B & B near Toledo! I'm a matchmaker at heart.
Posted by: Colleen at October 19, 2005 07:06 AM"I think you're full of it as regards the rest. Sorry. I just end up thinking "oh, brother". I'm sure you could care less, but there it is."
Well, whatever works for you and your spouse (and, perhaps someday again, for me and mine).
"And hey, maybe you two should meet in the middle sometime! (Am I right that Red lives in NY?). Say a little B & B near Toledo!"
New York or Toledo. Toledo or...New York. Hm. Tough call.
"I'm a matchmaker at heart."
Well, I'd probably have to develop a brogue and convert to Catholicism first. But thanks for the effort!
Posted by: mitch at October 19, 2005 07:39 AMVe-e-e-e-ry interesting thread.
Full disclosure: I am not a psychologist. Never even took a psychology course in college. Having said that:
I think Colleen is forgetting something here. Each and every one of us has had our sexuality formed by events in our past, both as a child and as an adult--but especially as a child.
Many of the sexual practices that Colleen would consider aberrant are really attempts to deal with long-ago issues; the absent father, the mother who could not be pleased, the cold-fish parents who showed little affection. To the extent that very few of us have had upbringings that are emotionally "ideal," sexual acting-out of one sort or another is bound to be quite common. Some people may prefer to deal with these issues by largely foregoing sex... but for others, the response will often be variations on the "usual" sexual themes. And if someone has a partner that is responsive to these variations, or at least is willing to deal with them, this is certainly preferable to spending tons of money on psychiatric counseling.
On the other hand, there are quite a few people who are simply uninhibited and view sex as a plaything, their favorite leisure activity. People like this tend to be experimentalists. In the context of a healthy marriage, Colleen, what's the problem here?
Incidentally, I am also speaking as a practicing Christian. Remember Maribel Morgan? She became rich and famous thirty years ago by letting her evangelical Christian target audience know that it was okay to play around a little in bed if you were married. A lot of us don't want to settle for straight missionary in the dark.
Just some food for thought.
Posted by: Pete (Alois) at October 19, 2005 08:58 AMTo me, intimacy is a sacred thing, which is why I don't share it with anyone I'm not, shall we say, committed to. Certainly not in a B&B in Toledo or any other random city!! I didn't realize that agreeing with Mitch meant anything other than agreement with Mitch.
My point is - that, for me - once the intimacy is there, the connection, the commitment - it's anything goes!
Well, no. Not anything. Family pets can stay out of my bed, please! :)
Posted by: red at October 19, 2005 09:16 AMPete, your last comment is very interesting, is really making me think a bit.
Are you sure you never took a psychology course??
Thanks for the insights.
Posted by: red at October 19, 2005 09:21 AM"Family pets can stay out of my bed, please! :)"
Family pets and serial killers are *right out*.
And agreeing with me is:
Posted by: mitch at October 19, 2005 09:29 AMa) all one does when one agrees with me,
b) in and of itself a wonderful thing.
Red, you totally rule. And I couldn't possibly agree more with everything you say. And my wife is a redhead too (Done gushing now).
I don't quite get what Colleen's hangup is--but when she equated sexual experimentation with the BTK Killer, I knew it was a hangup.
I'm basing what I said on women I have known, not any real familiarity with psychology (except in the "pop" sense). And I know that it is possible to "act out" and still be a mentally healthy person. It is also possible to act out and be in need of serious help. Colleen seems unable to make the distinction, but it IS a distinction. A major one...
Posted by: Pete (Alois) at October 19, 2005 09:37 AMI think one other thing to say about all of this has to do with chemistry. You need to mate up with someone who agrees with you on some level on these issues. Otherwise - you could get into a deadlocked situation. If you're into traditional sex and don't feel the need to experiment and swing from the rafters or whatever - then you probably need someone who feels the same way. And that's great!
You have to know yourself, and be courageous enough to be honest about this stuff with your partner.
Personally, I need someone (eventually) who is adventurous and takes the same view as I do. Again - I don't JUDGE people who feel no need to experiment. I just need someone who's open to that stuff, and doesn't think: "Wow. You are a freak from hell." Because - er - that's not really a basis for a relationship. hahahaha
Posted by: red at October 19, 2005 11:45 AM""Wow. You are a freak from hell." Because - er - that's not really a basis for a relationship. "
I'm here to testify.
Red's last point is huge; there are a lot of ways where couples' compatibility and ability to communicate with one another is a huge thing; communication, views on faith, views on family and kids, finances...This'd be one of them, at least for most people. A couple that is otherwise mentally healthy and mutually happen to be into power tools or outdoor frolicking or Cool Whip? If that creates a healthy family that raises good kids, then what's the problem with that?
And that speaks to my questions about the original Joe Carter post that started the whole thing.
I need a cigarette.
Posted by: mitch at October 19, 2005 12:10 PMArgh - the other thing to add to my last comment, just so it's not misunderstood:
Without love all of that chemistry stuff is meaningless to me. It's love that glorifies everything, and makes the chemistry sacred. (In my opinion)
I'm just saying that chemistry on a sexual level is a huge part of love - for me.
Posted by: red at October 19, 2005 12:12 PMAhem.
For what it's worth, the best relationship of my entire life was with a Freak From Hell.
And no, it didn't make us quit going to church. I still hold the door open for her (even the car door). And she worries about my being too cold, or not getting enough to eat.
I know I should be quite disturbed by this relationship. I just can't remember why.
Posted by: Pete (Alois) at October 19, 2005 12:55 PMHello, hello, Pete. I was NOT equating the BTK killer with sexual experimentation (I said that to Mitch...man alive). I mentioned BTK as an example of a professed Christian that had some very SERIOUS sexual "issues" going on and as this whole thread started out by addressing what a Christian blogger had to say on the subject of sex between married couples, I threw in there what some "Christians" can be like unbeknownst to the rest of us. Someone can identify as a Christian but that doesn't mean they toe the line in their personal lives even though they may look respectable on the outside-in many ways-not just sexually. It was meant as a curb on my own enthusiasm for advocating for a bit of what I call "decency" between sexual partners (I realize that's just my opinion, but apparently I'm not alone. See Joe.)and what actually HAPPENS when no one is looking. A married couple CAN and DO do whatever they want but it doesn't (necessarily) make it "healthy". Saying "then what's the problem with that" doesn't make it so. Eh, whatever.
And I wasn't suggesting a hook-up in Toledo for you two....maybe just a beer!
Posted by: Colleen at October 19, 2005 01:06 PMOh. The B&B part of your comment made me think you were saying hookup, obviously. If you had said "bar" or "pub", then I wouldn't have thought you were making an inappropriate suggestion.
I'll meet Mitch for a beer any time. I'm hoping it'll be at a Bloomsday celebration one of these years!! Joyce geeks, unite!
Posted by: red at October 19, 2005 01:13 PMPete - it is nice to know there is hope for adventurous "freaks from Hell" like myself. :)
Posted by: red at October 19, 2005 01:15 PMWhew. Airfare to Toledo is hellish. But Bloomsday should be about the time I get my tax refund; I'm keeping my fingers crossed and my beer tolerance at acceptable levels!
Freak from He...er, no, just a freak from Saint Paul-ily,
Mberg
Posted by: mitch at October 19, 2005 01:56 PMRed, any man worth his salt is just waiting and hoping for a Freak from Hell ;) Ask 'em!
Colleen--
"I mentioned BTK as an example of a professed Christian that had some very SERIOUS sexual 'issues' going on..."
To which I said earlier:
"I know that it is possible to 'act out' [sexually] and still be a mentally healthy person. It is also possible to act out and be in need of serious help. Colleen seems unable to make this distinction..."
You mention "decency between sexual partners"--and I don't think you mean in the sense of respecting each other's boundaries. This is that Church Lady thing again. "A married couple CAN and DO do whatever they want but it doesn't (necessarily) make it 'healthy'".
Can I (or Mitch, or Red) make this any plainer, Colleen? If it does not involve ACTUAL PHYSICAL HARM... and I like it... and my wife likes it... and it brings us closer together as a couple... then WHY isn't it healthy???
Finally, back to the BTK killer, etc. Men who commit violence against women are not involved in "sex" as it is conventionally understood. They are involved in VIOLENCE, in violating another human being. Totally different trip.
Posted by: Pete (Alois) at October 19, 2005 02:07 PMOh my God - that spam link in this particular comment thread is HILARIOUS
Posted by: red at October 19, 2005 03:03 PMOr ... is it not spam? Is someone trying to scold us?
Posted by: red at October 19, 2005 03:03 PMRed--
Obviously, they think we're missing out on... er... something.
Posted by: Pete (Alois) at October 19, 2005 03:10 PMGrooooaaaaaan.
My Blacklist has hit its 3,900 line limit again; Jay Allen isn't supporting it any more, and I need to upgrade to Movable Type 3.2. But I don't wanna do it until payday (budget reasons) - so I'm getting bombed with spam.
Hey, Red - are you fixing to upgrade your Moveable Type sometime soon?
Posted by: mitch at October 19, 2005 03:17 PMI do have to upgrade but I have to admit I have no idea how. My spam is also getting out of control.
Posted by: red at October 19, 2005 04:11 PMYou're doing a great work here. I enjoyed visiting here very much. Thanks! Corner can Win Grass: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/ , Hope Soldier is very good Girl Memorizing Table is always Coolblooded Game , Greedy Table Win or not to Fetch Gnome you should be very Faithful
Posted by: Juan Dickinson at December 4, 2005 06:25 PMcsLook this hirsute cunt
Posted by: mary at July 1, 2006 01:51 PMhttp://shavedteen.honeywhores.com/
old black hairy pussy
http://shavedteen.honeywhores.com/old-black-hairy-pussy.html
dick in hairy pussy
http://shavedteen.honeywhores.com/dick-in-hairy-pussy.html
muscular hairy chest
http://shavedteen.honeywhores.com/muscular-hairy-chest.html
hairy pussy free movies
http://shavedteen.honeywhores.com/hairy-pussy-free-movies.html