Sunday, March 24, 2013

Why are men silent?

Dr. Helen poses the question:
Perhaps this is why only women seem to be speaking up. It’s safer and they typically have a feminist bent anyway. Come on–The End of Men? Seriously? That’s easy. What’s hard is speaking up about the war against men in our culture, especially if one is a man with a career. Do you speak up when you see injustice against men in public, at work, or out in the world?
I disagree. The short answer to the question is that we're not silent.  We only appear to be missing from the public discourse because the female-obsessed media is completely ignoring the leading voices of men who are speaking out against the destructive incoherence and tyranny of sexual equalitarianism.  To understand how this process works, one need only look at the difference between the way in which Roissy and Susan Walsh have been treated by the media upon its discovery of the societal consequences of Game.  Now, it is no secret that I think highly of Susan. I believe she has taken on an important and difficult task.  And it is no criticism of Susan to note that Roissy has been around longer, Roissy is the more original thinker, and Roissy is the more influential writer. I also suspect the Chateau has a larger readership than Hooking Up Smart.  And yet, to whom does the media turn when it wants to discuss the ideas that the androsphere have been producing and kicking around for years?  Susan, naturally.

Meanwhile, Roosh only surfaces in the mainstream media courtesy of his appearance on the Southern Poverty Law Center's bogus list of so-called hate sites.

It's not Susan's fault. Not in the least. She's just doing her thing and she can hardly be expected to turn up her nose and slam the door when the media literally comes knocking.  But there are a number of men who are more influential in terms of how people are thinking about the societal consequences of Game than she is, and none of them are ever interviewed by the mainstream media even as the concepts they create and the terminology they coin leaks into it.  A link from Instapundit is about as mainstream as the coverage of any member of the androsphere can reasonably expect to receive.

This is not a complaint, it is merely an observation.  It is, in fact, no more than any theoretician of Game would expect.  But it is absurd to think that men are silent when there are dozens of them writing, speaking out, and being actively followed by tens of thousands of men and women.  Men are not silent, it is only that the mainstream media wants no part of any man who is not intellectually neutered, and is determined to hear no men, see no men, and say absolutely nothing about men that might, in some way, reflect insufficiently well on women.

But the cracks in the dam are showing. And when it breaks, there will be a deluge.

As to why men are disinclined to speak up on an individual level, that is because men dislike complaining and fear retribution both personal and professional.  I myself have lost both book contracts, (from Thomas Nelson and Lion Hudson), and jobs due to nothing more than intense dislike for my published opinions. However, as fewer and fewer men have anything they fear losing, and as awareness of Game grows throughout the male population, I believe the younger generation, which has been inoculated against the female imperative by constant exposure to it, will begin to speak out against the myriad of pretty little lies.

43 comments:

Brad Andrews said...

HUS has some good things, but it often seems like merely a kinder gentler version of what it seems to come against. At least that seems true when you dig into the comments and even some of the posts.

SD's site is much more forward and faithful, but does have a much smaller readership and will likely stay that way for that very reason.

Miss Conduct said...

"men dislike complaining and fear retribution both personal and professional."

Heh. You have obviously never met a truck driver in your life.

The Great and Powerful Oz said...

Because this is America. Men are not allowed to admit to feeling pain. Men are not allowed to complain. Doing so makes one a woman.

Ras Al Ghul said...

"as fewer and fewer men have anything they fear losing, and as awareness of Game grows throughout the male population, I believe the younger generation, which has been inoculated against the female imperative by constant exposure to it, will begin to speak out against the myriad of pretty little lies."

Let it be thus.

Stickwick said...

I myself have lost both book contracts, (from Thomas Nelson and Lion Hudson), and jobs due to nothing more than intense dislike for my published opinions.

It happens more often than people think. IIRC, Kim du Toit, who's been absent from the blogosphere for some time now, lost an important business contract within hours of when he was supposed to sign, because someone at the other end found his website. His stuff wasn't even as "extreme" as VP and AG.

Aeoli Pera said...

"Because this is America. Men are not allowed to admit to feeling pain. Men are not allowed to complain. Doing so makes one a woman."

Theoretically, I believe this is due to the feminine preference to avoid blemishes rather than pursue profit. And I believe this preference causes the feminine predisposition to avoid risk.

This urge will predominate more often in an r-selected society, which is what America has become. For example, in the corporate world it is better to have a resume with no glaring faults and no real accomplishments than a resume with both glaring faults and real accomplishments.

"Wow, I see you have a Nobel prize! But our credit check shows you also have a 10-year gap in your employment history..."

"Your credit check must have missed 1995-2005, during which I was doing research overseas."

"(I don't understand how an authority figure could be wrong, so I think you're hiding something.) We'll be in touch."

asdf said...

Miss Conduct,

Because truck driver is a shitty job.

If you want an above average income you more or less need to get into white collar work. You can be fired from white collar work for your opinions and not be able to find a similar job because a lot of high end white collar work is based on recent experience, contacts, and reputation.

Yohami said...

"For example, in the corporate world it is better to have a resume with no glaring faults and no real accomplishments"

Depends on who's doing the hiring. The more they do need you to make money for the corporation, the more your real accomplishments matter. If they just need to fill a role (instead of needing you) then all it matters is it looks good on paper and you're nice enough.

Yohami said...

As for men being silent, I cosign Helen. From all the men that I know in real life, the few vocal ones are actually sexist against men. I hear them complaining about women being mistreated in situations where the woman is actually the wrongdoer.

The vast majority of the remaining ones are clueless. The see the stuff happening, but it doesnt ring a bell. They are not vocal because the issues are out of their grasp. Male discrimination and female superiority are normal - nothing to talk about or notice.

Unknown said...

It's the same if you happen to be a minority of conservative or libertarian persuasion, or a have an abortion court trial that would be on national news 24/7, but it's doesn't fit the narrative.

Miss Conduct said...

asdf: Truck driving is a pretty good job for men with an IQ below average. Of course the smarter ones make much more money and have a better time of it, but salaries range from $35k-$65 for a job requiring only a CDL as a qualification. You can modestly support a small family on it, and if you're a road driver you can live in the boonies where the cost of living is lower.

I work on a railyard where truckers pull in intermodal freight to be put on trains--women are practically nowhere to be seen except in clerical positions such as mine. The modern truck driver believes with passionate sincerity that The System is his enemy; he hasn't yet pinned the blame on women. Your average white-collar androshpere denizen likely never encounters one of these guys. My workplace doesn't seem very feminized to me, which is one reason I like it.

FeminizedWesternMale said...

It is more complicated than having no voice (yet). The same principles hold to male/female relationships as do the displacement of White men from the declining Western Civilization. See KMAC addressing this exact issue today at http://goo.gl/JY8LX:

self-interest resulting in competition among Whites to engage in ever more ridiculous displays of self-abasement and love of diversity and multiculturalism

social learning facilitated by the prestige associated with dominating the intellectual high ground of the society

feelings of moral rectitude resulting from subscribing to the moral dictates of the society as defined by media and academic elites.

tz said...

Because with the MSM, it is a case of "if I want your opinion I will give it to you". (substitute "facts" for "opinion" in the worst cases). Dictation is not conversation.

Just as they are learning Game, they also know the media and the feminist guestapo/stasi enclaves and simply avoid them.

Meanwhile the publishers that do conservatives seem to be doing well, as well as the alternative (i.e. the non legacy in death-throes) media.

In one sense, the internet has spawned a more amorphous and virtual "Galt's Gulch" of sorts. Where ideas ARE discussed, information exchanged, Culture reclaimed and maintained. Just like no one pays attention to home-schoolers until the spelling bees where it is a rout even when the homeschool 3rd graders are up against those in highschool.

The "silent" scream is that the elite have been destroying things and not satisfied to do it only to themselves have tried coercion, and has been met with people going off the grid, or simply forming their own grids. I know more of what is happening in the world than almost everyone else around me. But I, like others, seek out the most truthful sources, not the most sycophantic.

Yes, you can be the ruler of your remote, but do you want to only have sycophants - either MSNBC or FoxNews providing you talking points, or find networks that will cause you to think (RT, Democracy Now, Al Jazerra). If you are a rabbit in either the blue or red warren, thinking will get you ejected.

In short, the men aren't silent, but they aren't part of the conversation - most don't even know it is going on, nor would they understand the language.

tz said...

Examples: MSNBC purged Pat Buchanan, FoxBusiness purged Judge Napolitano. MSNBC purged one of the Young Turks for not reading from the script as well. It becomes clear they want their acolytes to chant in unison. Forget even harmony.

Anonymous said...

tz - Pat Buchanan wasn't white enough for MSNBC. And their ratings weren't low enough yet, so they had to get rid of anyone with more than 10 viewers.

Mike43 said...

I miss Kim du Toit. That said, most men have just gone silent. Keeping our heads down, and doing our best to survive.

We will let the women continue to pontificate, and ignore them for the most part.

Think of it as passive resistance.

Maximo Macaroni said...

Perhaps it's up to the men who have survived the female-dominated professions and reached retirement or some other independent Nirvana like winning the lottery to provide the voice of truth. Wasn't it always the elders of the tribe that pointed out the idiocies of the young men and the women? After all, they have less to lose. And I've never - yet - heard of someone's Social Security or pension check being stopped because he endorsed Thomas Carlyle or David Stove.

Anonymous said...


It is simple. I have told more than one woman this obvious fact:

There is no point in a man talking if no one is listening.

Therefore, outside of blogs, and comments on articles, men have little to say. Why waste breath talking to a concrete wall?

Better to just GYOW.

A Man.

Phero said...

Because they know they won't get any pussy if their wife/gf hears it.

It's simple, if you want to be a PUA you never argue with her. You tell it's ok to be slutty, we don;t live in the 50s any more and that she should be out there exploring he sexuality (fucking anyone she likes) and is she has a ring, it's normal that one man could'nt possibly give her all she wants etc etc (see YaReally's comments).
One word is all it takes and your out, no sex.
And of course every women does what Adria did, they will shame you from the roof tops to all that will listen across any medium.

The only people speaking out are MGTOW and MRA as they have already resigned themselves that they may never get "any" again.

dannyfrom504 said...

sometimes, there's immense power in silence.

as one of the earlier commenters noted, most men hate whining. when i see that crap in the MSM i laugh now. i've noticed some women even pointing out the sexism (towards men) in many commercials.

"doesn't that bother you Danny?"

me- "no. it's just a f*****g commercial."

Slowpoke said...

Anonymous at 5:55;
On the top right of this page is a list of links named foundations. Read them; if you don't get OIC syndrome read them again.

Jack Amok said...

When a man goes silent, it doesn't mean you've won the argument. It means he no longer thinks talking to you with worth his while, and behind his silence he's debating whether to ignore you or beat the crap out of you.

Women do not understand this at all.




Johnny Caustic said...

I am new to this site. Could someone please provide a good reference for the game you often discuss?

I'll take this opportunity to list a few of my fave game sites:

http://www.pua-zone.com/
http://www.goodlookingloser.com/get-laid/welcome-to-good-looking-loser-get-laid/
http://blackdragonblog.wordpress.com/most-popular-posts/
http://krauserpua.com/

(Note to others: nope, not listing Roissy/Heartiste. It's still good if you read his archives up to mid-2010, but in recent years it's been too much slut-shaming and scientific studies and too little real-world experience.)

Toby Temple said...

why men are silent

Only if no one is listening.

Höllenhund said...

"It's not Susan's fault. Not in the least."

Come on, VD, you know better than that. OF COURSE it's her fault. The media turns to her because she makes it sure that the content and tone of her site is specifically female-friendly. You know that well. She makes that sure because she craves mainstream exposure by luring more and more average women on her site. You can bet your ass she wants book deals and invitations on mainstream TV and radio shows. That's why she bows to the demands of her female readers. "Dalrockgate" wasn't the reason - that's just her BS excuse. A long time before so-called "Dalrockgate" many of her female commenters were already complaining that they "feel attacked" and "offended" by some male commenters. And Walsh bowed to their demands.

Phero said...

Silence is tacit compliance. It only has power when accompanied with action.

I'm single and don't live with a woman, so I don't need to care but that is not the situation for the vast majority for whom divorce rape would be one step closer if they dare speak out.

But there is no action to give the silence power. Just be quiet, don't argue, get up early for work and make sure you take out the garbage.
And don't complain about anything she spend your money on.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Johnny and Slowpoke (Slow, I read this on a phone, that's why I didn't see those links myself.)

And this stuff really works on modern girls? You're not just a bunch of guys lying to each other about how much you get (a timeless, and harmless male pastime, so don't think I'm going to go all modern-American on you and criticize you for it). The reason I am asking if it's for real is that what you call Game was around at least as far back as my dating days (the '70's) and if a dude tried it on us, we'd wriggle away, usually politely, and then giggle about him afterwards. However, things have changed greatly since then, so that's why I ask: are you just having fun bullshitting each other, or are girls today really stupid enough to fall for Game? If the former, I won't tell on you, promise.

Michael Maier said...

If a guy tries it and it doesn't work, you might giggle about it after.

But if it does, you just enjoy the ride.

The first woman I "gamed", she had no idea I was gaming her until I told over a decade later. She just loved being with me on and off for a good number of years.

LostSailor said...

Anonymous: Yes, it works. Not all PUA techniques will work for all men or in all situations. I'm older than much of the target audience for this stuff, so I took from it what worked for me and ignored the rest. Maier is correct, though, you'll giggle at it if it is done inexpertly. If done correctly and with confidence, you probably won't notice. And that's the point.

Mike C said...

To understand how this process works, one need only look at the difference between the way in which Roissy and Susan Walsh have been treated by the media upon its discovery of the societal consequences of Game. Now, it is no secret that I think highly of Susan. I believe she has taken on an important and difficult task.

VD,

I'm genuinely curious....what do you believe is the difficult task she has taken on? As a long-time reader I have to admit it really isn't clear to me.

For example, you say here:

We only appear to be missing from the public discourse because the female-obsessed media is completely ignoring the leading voices of men who are speaking out against the destructive incoherence and tyranny of sexual equalitarianism.

Yet it is abundantly clear to me that Susan is more sexual equalist than anything else. When I've mentioned the captain-first officer model of relationships and marriages she has come out against it. If one advocates too strongly for "red pill" views she will often whip out the "misogynist" term. You just now have a comment about Dalrock and I would argue that Dalrock and Rollo are perhaps the most blunt about "red pill" views and certain aspects of female nature and Susan will be the first to brand them as women-hating sociopaths.

None of this is intended as an insult to Susan, and she is entitled to her views, but it is abundantly clear to me that she does not share the "red pill" view of intersexual dynamics....perhaps the overlap is some miniscule amount, and she certainly doesn't support male leadership in relationships...I could find comments that point this way.

Again, it isn't clear to me at all what her task is or why she should be viewed as an ally from the perspective of individuals who share the "red pill" outlook on male-female dynamics. I understand the political pragmatist approach of a "big tent" approach but a certain point core philosophies are so radically different that it seems like the goals/ objectives cannot possibly be the same.

Yohami said...

Mike C, her agenda is slut/manwhore shaming and an urge to go back to a more traditional landscape. It's an agenda, so HUS can be your ally if you share a similar one.

"Red pill" stands for "truth". Right now it's an agenda on its own, but, the premise at least is that you drop the dreamy lies and embrace reality and go to the core to awaken yourself, even if you have to face some ugly stuff. Which isnt HUS mission and it's in many ways contrary to it's agenda.

Dalrock has his own agenda, going back to an even more tradional ways. Rollo's agenda is to denounce the ugliness of female nature and it's impact on society.

For HUS a woman who's a serial monogamist and lands a decent man and settles is an ideal. But the same is morally rotten to Dalrock, and Rollo will point at the mechanics of how the woman dumped and switched and traded up and how it will keep happening. For HUS to work the analysis has to stop earlier. Happy endings and all. *Ignorance is bliss* and crap. Not for me, not for many.

Mike C said...

Yohami,

As always you have a way of getting to the core of something...

For HUS a woman who's a serial monogamist and lands a decent man and settles is an ideal.

I think you are spot on right here. More importantly, I think part of it includes creating a complete hazy fog over the idea of "settling". There was just a 2500 comment post "Failed Female Life Splitting" where really the core of the debate was the idea of a woman "settling". I tried to highlight the dissonance/contradiction of dating an alpha/high social status man and then later switching to a good beta provider type for marriage. It was pointed to me in the strongest possible terms there was no contradiction or settling here simply a different type of attraction occurring at a different period of time. The fact that the thread hit 2500 comments highlighted the intense nature of the debate. I think myself and Escoffier starting getting a little too close to "ugly truths" and then some of the nastiness came out such as comments about my "personal psychology".

I think you hit the nail on the head with this comment:

For HUS to work the analysis has to stop earlier. Happy endings and all. *Ignorance is bliss* and crap. Not for me, not for many.

Going too deep with the analysis about the core drivers simply is too uncomfortable to face especially if it means someone has to look hard into the mirror about their own personal choices and motivations.

Mike C, her agenda is slut/manwhore shaming and an urge to go back to a more traditional landscape.

The thing with this is manwhore/cad shaming is so stupid because it is completely ineffective. It literally is pissing in the wind.

The thing about going back to a "more traditional landscape" is how far do you go back. Susan simply wants to rewind back to the place before guys figured out the current arrangement really isn't in males best interests. I'm all for marriage and relationships but it has to come from a place of mutual value exchange not men serving the feminine imperative.

"Red pill" stands for "truth". Right now it's an agenda on its own, but, the premise at least is that you drop the dreamy lies and embrace reality and go to the core to awaken yourself, even if you have to face some ugly stuff. Which isnt HUS mission and it's in many ways contrary to it's agenda.

I suppose that was my ultimate disappointment...that it really isn't about truth and reality but about serving a particular agenda. But you are right that everyone has an agenda.

Anyways, thanks for the reply, and I hope all is well with you.




Anonymous said...

Thanks for the input, Michael and Lost Sailor. I guess at my age,53, I'll never have an opportunity to evaluate the experts as I'm unlikely to be targeted by one, so I'll just keep on observing from the sidelines.

Yohami said...

Lol, it must have been an intense debate for Escoffier to get closer to any flavor of truths.

There's no contradiction between shuffling alphas and settling with a beta, because the drive to do so isnt a logical one, but a convenience one. Similarly there's no contradiction with banging easy girls and then marrying a non slut. There's no contradiction at the core. The main dissonance comes when pretending that *all* the choices are equally virtuous, say, dick shuffling rollercoaster means you're really after love, like love was the root of everything good and virtuous, so the cock carousel was virtuous too: dissonance. While men banging easy girls are just pigs. The contradiction comes when embracing the pig attitudes and pretending they are something else. But girls wont go into the mechanics of why they do pig stuff, it makes them *feel* bad.

Then the other seeming contradiction is that women *wish* they could snag and make the alpha dick permanent (permanent meaning a couple of years, or whatever short term life-long-love-excitement last these days), no. They wish they could keep the *status* that man had and how it made her feel, not the man in particular but the whole fantasy. And the man they end up wasnt their first option, nor the second nor the fourteenth.

But in short there's no more contradiction to this than there's with licking icecream and then having soup for dinner. Replace morality with desire and convenience, replace principles and long term planning and character development with short term satisfaction and narcissim, and there's no contradiction with taking whatever you can right here right now. As long as it it makes you happy, it is *good*, if it doesnt make you happy, then it's *bad*.

Women want to be pigs and also want to hide all the mirrors and ban the "pig" word, but they will still use it in you and put you on the microscope. Contradicion? no. Convenience.

Mike C said...

Lol, it must have been an intense debate for Escoffier to get closer to any flavor of truths.

Heh. FWIW, the Escoffier of today in my opinion isn't the same guy that showed up at Dalrock's way back. I think he has actually embraced a good chunk of the "red pill" view of things which ironically has put him in contention with Susan from time to time. He actually got banned for a short period of time when he made the mistake of using any part of her personal life as an example. Not that it matters but I do respect his intellect.

The main dissonance comes when pretending that *all* the choices are equally virtuous, say, dick shuffling rollercoaster means you're really after love, like love was the root of everything good and virtuous, so the cock carousel was virtuous too: dissonance. While men banging easy girls are just pigs

Yeah, this is the part that I guess ruffles my feathers. It is that a woman following her hypergamous desires and trading from guy to guy and then eventually "settling"/optimizing on the one she can get for marriage is noble and virtuous and good, while the guy who follows his polygamous desires is "bad". But you are right it is all about convenience.

Big Bill said...

That's "Doctor Smith" to you, buddy, not "Helen". Rich white female Ph.Ds living with their chosen beta boys whose name they will not even take wonders why men are checking out of marriage and not complaining? What? Is she nuts? She and her neocon hubby are quite happy offshoring all working class jobs, living their double income life, sending their sprats to elite colleges and generally enjoying the benefits of feminism the way the rich white feminists intended it.

Marie Antoinette wrote a similar book. She called it "Why Don't They Eat Cake?"

"Doctor Smith" belongs to the neocon libertarian class. She has no conception of life in America for regular guys, nor does she have any sincere interest.

Big Bill said...

Roissy should give Doctor Smith and her utter obliviousness a real tune up.

But be careful what you say on her blog.

She doesn't like not-nice words. In fact their comment app rejects words like "fornicate". Neocons are a refined and sensitive bunch.

Like Victorians, they get the vapors and swoon at such words (publicly) ... and then they go home and watch "Girls" and giggle (privately).

Höllenhund said...

"For HUS a woman who's a serial monogamist and lands a decent man and settles is an ideal."

It's more simple than that.

HUS wants men to behave as if it was 1983. Churchians want men to behave as if it was 1953. And the handful of Western traditionalist that are still around, and universally ignored, want men to behave as if it was 1913. That's the only difference. Their underlying gynocentric mentality is the same.

Johnny Caustic said...

Anonymous, you're probably not reading this any more, but I'll reply anyway.

I define "Game" to be "behaviors that attract women." So your question "Are girls today really stupid enough to fall for Game?" makes no sense. If they don't fall for it, it's not Game, by definition. The real question is, which behaviors attract women?

Does it really work on modern girls? The stuff I use does. If you want my "qualifications," my new girlfriend is beautiful and two decades my junior. I picked her up at a coffeeshop two weeks ago with "this stuff."

What Game did I use? My very first words to her were light teasing. Talking about feelings, not facts. Ambiguous compliments and uncommon observations about her manner--telling her genuine things about herself I'm sure she's never heard before. Leading her to a bar for drinks. Touching her early and often. Physical escalation is the most effective part of game. I find that women are very forgiving of men who move too fast--they'll slow down my advances, but if they're sexually available (most women aren't, of course), they get excited and flattered and keep talking to me. Women are not forgiving of men who get physical too slowly--they get bored and quickly come to see the man as too weak or asexual. Once the window of opportunity is gone, it's gone.

Also, half the Game that's made the biggest difference to me is what NOT to do. I got way better with women when I stopped doing the following things: trying to impress them in any way; smiling too much (made me look weak and desperate); leaning toward them; telling them how I feel about them (like in the chick flicks--never works in reality); caring whether they liked me; thinking too much while with them. All things that I once thought were necessary to get women, and which I now know are repulsive to them.

Modern girls are looking for the right guy to fuck. The main thing us men have to do is make it as easy for them as possible.

Cail Corishev said...

As a male and an introvert, I tend not to speak unless I have something to say that I think will do some good. In the manosphere, there's a chance that my contributions will add to the knowledge that's being developed and help people to a better understanding. Certainly it works that way in reverse, with other people helping me.

In real life, the situation is different. Only a few close friends could be said to have any inkling of the red pill, and none are as conversant and comfortable with the topic as people on sites like this one can take for granted. Most people, including most men, especially older, blue-collar, middle-American men, don't have the first inkling about this stuff. The farmers, truck drivers, and construction workers I know are suspicious of any man who gets too emotional about socio-political issues. Talk to them the way we talk here and they'll have you written off as a quack before you finish the first sentence.

So before I run around spreading the Red Pill Gospel, first I have to figure out how to do that without just stirring up the natives so I end up either laughed off as a joke or tossed in their cook-pot. For the most part, I think that means approaching each individual differently. The frivorced 40-year-old weekend dad will listen to a different argument than his golden-anniversary-approaching father will, and a completely different argument may reach his teenage son. And a woman will require a completely different tack than any man will.

Radical ideas don't start with a bullhorn, I think. Take homosexual marriage: that didn't start by being promoted on MSM news programs; they would have been laughed/chased off the air. It started with little references on sitcoms, with comedians joking about how silly being "scared" of gays is, with articles in safe liberal ghettos where they could discuss strategy without causing a backlash. After decades of laying the groundwork, they softened up the public and learned what arguments worked best with ordinary people, and by the time they went mainstream, it already seemed like their victory was inevitable.

That's not to say if a guy like Roissy gets invited to appear on Hannity he shouldn't go, or that he won't reach a few people. But real, widespread societal change takes time and individual contacts, and we're only in the early stages of that. In the meantime, we can still try to open the eyes of people around us, but that will be quiet work.

Anonymous said...

Hi Johnny. Back in the day we called guys like you international, because you had Roman hands and Russian fingers! We were careful about being alone with you. :). Best to you and your girlfriend.

Anonymous said...

Mike C, her agenda is slut/manwhore shaming and an urge to go back to a more traditional landscape. It's an agenda, so HUS can be your ally if you share a similar one.

No. HUS's agenda is to enable her sluts to ride the cock carousel and then land on a beta - just like Susan Walsh did. If Susan Walsh ran a used car lot, she'd be selling clapped out cars the rental agencies will no longer keep, as "like new" by spraying fragrance inside, painting over the more obvious dents, and with rolled-back odometers ("Only 20,000 miles"!).

Susan Walsh's re-finishing school for sluts is an excellent example of the feminine imperative at work.

Nobody

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.