Monday, April 14, 2008

Should "visual sexual aggression" be against the law?

Apparently, there are some politicians and police officers in Maine who think the answer is "yes" (thanks to Peregrine John for pointing this potential law out):

Those who peer at children in public could find themselves on the wrong side of the law in Maine soon.

A bill that passed the House last month aims to strengthen the crime of visual sexual aggression against children, according to state Rep. Dawn Hill, D-York.

Her involvement started when Ogunquit Police Lt. David Alexander was called to a local beach to deal with a man who appeared to be observing children entering the community bathrooms. Because the state statute prevents arrests for visual sexual aggression of a child in a public place, Alexander said he and his fellow officer could only ask the man to move along.

"There was no violation of law that we could enforce. There was nothing we could charge him with," Alexander said.

He attended a talk with Hill a week later and brought the case to her attention. Hill pledged to do what she could, Alexander said, and the result was a change through the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee in the House, which made the law applicable in both private and public places....

Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12, according to Alexander.

Hill said she believes the move was necessary to correct what she called a "loophole" in the state's criminal law statutes.


I have a lot of questions about such a law. What does peering actually mean? Does staring at a teen who looks 25 when one is at the beach count? Does staring at some kids like I did a few years ago because they looked like they were trying to get into some trouble count or am I excluded from the law because I am a woman? A Class C Felony is a serious charge, will people (mainly men, I assume) be put in jail for the simple act of staring? How do you know the person had the intent of "visual sexual aggression"? How does one determine if staring or peering is aggressive or not? One person's aggression is another's peaceful gaze. This law seems very vague and unfair. Does anyone in Maine care?

Update: I have contacted and left messages and email for Representative Dawn Hill, who is sponsoring this bill, asking for clarification. As soon as (and if) she responds, I will post an update. I have also emailed the reporter of the article that I linked to above to see why there is a discrepancy between what this bill says and the story presented.

Update II: There appears to be an amendment to the bill here (thanks to commenters, and to readers for emailing it) and Dave Choate, the reporter of the article quoted above emails the following to me:

Helen,

As indicated to me, the person could be arrested if they were found to be peering at a child in a public place; i.e., beach bathrooms. In my interviews for this story, no one indicated to me that you would need to expose yourself. I believe the aim of the change was to make it a crime to peer in public.

Thank you,

Dave


Finally: Looks like the news story isn't true, based on my conversation with Travis Kennedy of the Maine Legislature.

131 Comments:

Blogger Cham said...

I wanted to do some reading before I posted. The first amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, apparently, I can say whatever I want, peaceably assemble, worship whatever I want and even complain to the government. But the first amendment doesn't really cover making a funny face at a child. That could be interpreted as "visual sexual aggression". Our beloved children will be able to point a finger at any one of us for anything at any time. This should make parents very happy but I am not so sure about the rest of us. Will parents be able to sue us in civil court after a "guilty of looking at my kid the wrong way" verdict in criminal court?

1:27 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger DADvocate said...

This law is ripe for abuse. People will be prosecuted because someone says they looked at a child wrong. Another step for the mommy/nanny state taking us closer to a totalitarianism.

The father, brother, mother, policeman should be able to just be allowed to smack lechers up side the head.

1:32 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Ronnie Schreiber said...

The next step will be making a man looking at adult women a crime. Feminists already have gotten "leering" to be considered sexual harassment on the job. Now they'll just criminalize it everywhere. If looking at a kid can be made illegal, so can looking at an adult.

1:33 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Marbel said...

Oh brother! But why should we be surprised?

Maybe someone should suggest a companion law forbidding preteen/teen girls from wearing provocative clothing, like pants with words like "juicy" emblazoned across the butt.

1:44 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

Dadvocate thinks this law is "ripe for abuse". Duh, please tell me what the correct use of the law is? There is no possible meaning of the term "visual sexual aggression". The law is completely arbitrary.

1:47 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

According to the article, the situation that spurred this piece of legislation was this:

Her involvement started when Ogunquit Police Lt. David Alexander was called to a local beach to deal with a man who appeared to be observing children entering the community bathrooms.

Did the man approach the children? Did he follow the children? Did he talk to the children? Apparently not. All he did was watch the children entering the community bathroom. I'm not so sure I have a problem with that even if it was Jeffrey Dahlmer or Son of Sam doing the watching.

Last I checked one can have any sort of sick twisted fantasy swirling around in their brain, but, as long as one doesn't act on their fantasies thinking shouldn't be a crime. At what point does supposedly protecting the children cross over to limiting the speech, movement and even standing around minding our own business of everyone else?

This isn't what I call "freedom".

1:48 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger dienw said...

The hatred of the male proceeds to destroy men and society. We men had better not look too long at any children: even if the kid(s) may be in trouble, the kid(s) may be causing trouble, or about to cause trouble. So I cannot sit on my stoop to watch my neighbor's kids run around? I better not even sit on my stoop lest my gaze fall upon them.

I can only assume that an 18 year old high school student better not look at the junior high schoolers or freshmen. There goes girl watching.

And how long before the age creeps up to 17 or under? And when will it apply to all women: this is a great was of stopping Mr. Wrong (i.e., poor or nice guy) from getting between her and Mr. Right.

Maybe we should let the religion of piece put women in burkas for several generations: at least we won't be accused of staring at them with lust or aggressively.

1:56 PM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I stopped talking to children years ago- & I don't even make eye contact with them either. I avoid children like they are AIDS. I've come to hate the sight & sound of children because it fills me with dread and fear of a false accusation. I would feel more at ease around Hell's Angels bikers or ex-felons than I do around children.

Women can never know what it feels like- no, not the 'sadness'- no- the FEAR & the insanity of living in a world where it doesn't matter if you do not do anything wrong or if you are a good person and abide by the law and have no intention and never have done anything wrong and never will- it doesn't matter, you can go to jail for NOTHING- if you are a man. This is what we need to begin teaching boys when they are young- that right and wrong does not matter & that being a good person does not matter- that if you are male, you can go to jail because someone does not like you for nothing and that everything is a LIE.

2:05 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger KG2V said...

I think we should just cut to the chase.

All males, once they are weaned from their mother will be locked in jail for the rest of the natural lives, with no chance of parole, for the crime of being male

2:13 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger TMink said...

Wow, people want a law for everything. The parents who noticed the behavior could have been responsible for taking care of it themselves.

They first could have asked the man what he was doing. If they did not like the answer, they could have stood between him and the view. Or they could have started loudly saying "Here is some pervert checking out the kids going to the bathroom."

Laws prevent very little, they are just a way to make someone uncomfortable if you can prove that they broke the law. Direct action is quicker and more likely to get results.

Who knows what this guy was doing, if he was a perv, the public attention would likely have moved him along just fine.

Trey

2:21 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Larry Sheldon said...

I find the juxtaposition of this item with the following one instructive.

WTF are we supposed to do?

2:33 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

Larry:

Make a phone call, write a letter, create a blog post, picket an advertiser, call the media, tell your friend who live in Maine to challenge the law.

2:44 PM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Make a phone call, write a letter, create a blog post, picket an advertiser, call the media, tell your friend who live in Maine to challenge the law."

Then he'll be publically accused of supporting 'child molesters.' Just watch.

2:46 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

Reality, there comes a point when you have to take a few risks in order to get anything accomplished.

2:47 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Helen said...

Larry,

"WTF are we supposed to do?"

People are standing up to this nonsense. If you read the article by Glenn Sacks, he states:

"According to Leo Burnett Worldwide's 2005 "Man Study," four out of five men believe media portrayals of men are inaccurate. The study found that men care more about the way they are viewed than was generally believed.

When Kate Santich of the Orlando Sentinel did a feature on "men-as-idiots" advertising in 2004, she says she was "astounded" at the amount of mail she received, almost all of it critical of the way men are portrayed in ads. In a Washington Times article in January, advertising-industry journalist Todd Wasserman described getting a similar reaction to a recent article he wrote on anti-male ads.

This sentiment was reflected in the popularity of the highly publicized campaigns we've launched against advertising that is hostile to males. Several thousand protesters participated in both our 2004 campaign against Verizon's anti-father ad "Homework" and our 2007 campaign against Arnold Worldwide."

There is pushback on anti-male bias--and it can be effective.

2:56 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger SFN said...

I watch people come out of a bathroom sometimes. It's called "waiting for your wife". One tries not to look any pervier than necessary, but fundamentally if you're hanging out anywhere near the ladies room there's some chance some idiot will think you're up to something.

3:08 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Admin said...

Larry,
If you are in Maine and the law passes you should accuse any government official who happens to be near a child of engaging in "visual sexual aggression" and demand that the police arrest them. After all, the law has to be enforced doesn't it? I would not recommend trying the same thing to police officials because this is not their fault. The merely have to enforce what the idiot politicians legislate.

3:12 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Birkel said...

This sounds an awful lot like the "Sunglass Industry Support Act of 2008" to me.

Every man will wear a pair of sunglasses so the direction of his eyes becomes unknowable.

3:13 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Mercurior said...

See, this law should be blind to sex, so could you claim a woman is doing it.. We are told it takes a village, but apparently only the females can do anything.

Thinks about all the female perdophiles. This law is a thought crime. Remember when someone said give a person a dirty look, instead of going to HR, what happens now.. is this law is extended as it would be to looking at women..

3:23 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Mercurior said...

When is a look, a leer, or a look of disdain?

3:24 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger wyzbok said...

As a single father of a 7yr old daughter, I have spent more than my share of time standing outside the womens' room waiting. I've noticed the stares and glares that I get from women who pass by or who go in and out of the bathroom. It's an uncomfortable feeling..honestly.

3:26 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Joe said...

And what about the waiting-for-your five-year-old-daughter scenario? Been there, done that many times. It's not just making sure they don't walk about and get upset when you're not waiting, but to watch for obvious weirdos going in. (Yup, I'll profile the hell out of you when it comes to protecting my children, even if they do drive me crazy.)

3:27 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

I feel sorry for the first schlub that has to challenge this law. Somewhere in the future is going to be some person waiting for someone outside a restroom who is going to get accused of visual sexual aggression. He/she might even win in court but his/her picture and name will be pasted all over the Internet and his/her life will be ruined. Heck, it might even be me...or you. Time to cancel that scenic Maine vacation.

3:31 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Larry Sheldon said...

Have I been banned? Two comments disappeared (one with an error code I asn't able to capture.

3:31 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger kmg said...

Note that the same people don't seem to have a problem with Honor Killings in London and Toronto, where a father kills a daughter for wearing pants.

3:31 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger kmg said...

US laws are getting to the point that there is a real incentive for men to emigrate out of the US. With the growing demand for expat jobs in Asia (which do pay well), we could see this start to be a trend that grows beyond just a trickle.

3:33 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Mercurior said...

will these children, be able to claim it. "ewww this person was looking at me funny.."

Arrest him.. I avoid children, but if i see them say torturing a cat, i would have to look at them, and then hopefully tell them off.

Yet with this law, you cant even look at the poor cat. This is the most dangerous law. Because it is all about perception. a thought crime. shall we avert our gazes when children are around, and women. lets pluck out the mans eyes so he shall not look.

3:34 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Brad said...

How about keeping convicted felons and child abusers in jail?

Maybe we'd see a dramatic drop in child sexual abuse, if they kept child rapists and murderers in prison instead of letting them go free, after six months. Just a thought.

3:41 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Bill - Of course, there is no correct use for this law. It is a law that will be used to intimidate and incarcerate men no matter what the wording may be.

A female legislator introduced the bill. In Ohio, a female legislator has introduced a bill for force parents to volunteer in schools. Forced volunteerism? A contradiction in terms.

As Larry pointed out the juxtaposition between this post and the previous is interesting. Maybe ad companies should focus on idiot law makers.

3:41 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger JohnAnnArbor said...

This article makes it sound more like it was prompted 'cause the guy kept following kids to the bathroom, and makes it sound like it's meant to stop stuff in bathrooms or dressing rooms. Still open to some abuse, but more circumscribed than what the other article says.

3:46 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger tweedburst said...

The next time I'm at a beach in LA and see a girl built like a supermodel wearing a string thong and tiny bikini top who happens to be 15 years old I'll be sure to turn myself in to the local authorities.

I'm all for busting the child molesters and perverts but "pervert" has been defined down to mean any man women feel like harassing. Isn't it funny how these types of laws can always easily be pushed in a direction that suits draconian political correctness? Gee, why is that?

3:50 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Mercurior said...

Its called function creep johnannarbor. one law, finds a loophole, extends the law, until free speech freedom of all sorts are curtailed.

This is a thought crime, the parents THOUGHT a crime was going to happen. No evidence (from the latin that which must be seen). But there is NO exceptions in this law. And thats the problem. ok following sounds bad i agree there. but it doesnt say following, its says LOOKING. This is open to so much abuse that its definatly not funny.

3:51 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger tweedburst said...

"kmg said...
US laws are getting to the point that there is a real incentive for men to emigrate out of the US. With the growing demand for expat jobs in Asia (which do pay well)..."


kmg - Any thoughts on the best place to pursue these jobs because I might be interested. Seriously.

3:53 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Will Stanton said...

I think that this blog post is basically a false alarm, triggered by shoddy reporting in the original newspaper article.

As I read the bill, a person needs to expose his/her genitals in order to be guilty of a crime.

Here is the entire text of the bill:

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 17-A MRSA §256, sub-§1, ¶A, as amended by PL 2005, c. 655, §1, is further amended to read:

A. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing affront or alarm, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age , in a public or private place, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 14 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime;

Sec. 2. 17-A MRSA §256, sub-§1, ¶B, as amended by PL 2005, c. 655, §1, is further amended to read:

B. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age , in a public or private place, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 12 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime;


The only new language that the bill inserts is the "in a public or private place" wording, which you can see in the mark-up HTML version on the state legislature web site:

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280027586&LD=2079&Type=1&SessionID=7

Maybe the reporter or legislator wanted to sell this as solving what they see as the problem of suspicious men hanging around children's bathroom doors (as the father of three daughters, I agree--that's me waiting for them to emerge and watching for perverts). But the information presented is so poor that the actual intentions are beyond determining, at least to me.

3:56 PM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Reality, there comes a point when you have to take a few risks in order to get anything accomplished."

You know, another reason men are such easy prey & do not 'stand up for ourselves' (supposedly) is not because a lack of concern.. it's BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING OUT ASSES OFF DAY & NIGHT & TOO TIRED TO DEAL WITH THIS S***. And who are we supporting? The very people who are doing this to us. Women.

3:59 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

Reality, if you choose to do nothing then expect nothing.

4:01 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger dienw said...

Well, this is a great excuse to stop going to kids dance and singing recitals, any children's plays, or even gymnastics. If any are held, the parents can only watch their own child. Can you see the havoc in demanding the arrest of entire audiences at children's activities.

Everybody will have to prove they are not practicing "visual sexual aggression".

Oh, and I cannot be a witness to criminal conduct by under 14 year-olds: that would mean I would be counter-sued by the kiddies' lawyers.

4:05 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger LZ said...

Some might enjoy the Polish movie Sexmission. It's about a future where men are abolished.

4:06 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Margaret said...

I just researched the statute to find out what this was all about, but now I see that Michael beat me to the punch. The reporter wrote an extremely vauge and misleading article. As someone who works regularly with bills and statutes, I can say that it is pretty typical for the press to misunderstand (or lazily overlook) the specifics of a statute.

Although I can understand why the term "visual sexual aggression" could set off alarm bells for anyone concerned about civil liberties and fairness, the statute itself is reasonable. You can only be arrested under this statute for exposing yourself to a child for the purpose of sexual gratification, or if you are peeping at a child's private parts for the purpose of sexual gratification. It seems odd to me that the Maine legislature felt it needed to clarify that this is an offense whether it ocucrs in public or not. The statute seems perfectly clear. Do we also need to specify that theft is still theft whether it occurs in public or private?

What I am still scratching my head about is the circumstances that led to the change in the bill. The article doesn't indicate that the alleged peeper was exposing himself or trying to get a glimpse of the children's genitals.

4:13 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Tex the Pontificator said...

The solution is simple. Scowl and look away from all children. There's a Hell of an incentive.

4:17 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger I R A Darth Aggie said...

In Ohio, a female legislator has introduced a bill for force parents to volunteer in schools. Forced volunteerism? A contradiction in terms.

Heh. Someone should ask her if she's heard of this thing called "The Constitution" and more specifically, Amendment 13:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Game. Set. Match.

4:19 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger davod said...

One country, I think it is Ireland, is looking at a law banning all single adults rom being in parks containing childrens playgrounds.

4:21 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Shawn Levasseur said...

And so was born the crime of "Looking creepy"

4:21 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger kmg said...

"kmg - Any thoughts on the best place to pursue these jobs because I might be interested. Seriously."

tweedburst,

I don't know what profession you are in, but I think the best approach would be to :

1) Find a target location. Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi, Seoul, Taipei, Bangkok, etc. have a lot of American and European expats (although still a small fraction of the general population), and thus a good support network to help you adjust. HK and Singapore have very low income taxes. Australia is also a good country where masculinity is not frowned upon, and where cultural adjustment would be a non-issue.

2) Peruse the Alumni network of your Universities(s) to track down Alumnus who may be in these areas. Talk to Alumni who are willing to share information with you. If you have a sibling or good friend who is willing to give you the login to their own Alumni network websites, extract contacts from that University's network as well.

3) Ask these Alumni for good headhunters/recruiters, and work with them on getting interviews.

4) Dig up a good online message board that is populated with people who have already done this or are about to, and extract as much knowledge as you can.

5) Be prepared to take one or more trips to the city of your choice in which to interview/network. This is cheap if you get one interview where they fly you out, and then stay back to network with others.

6) It may be easy if you already work for a large corp in the US, so can transfer to their Asia offices internally. IBM, HP, Microsoft, Intel, Google, etc. already have thousands of employees across Asia, some of whom merely transferred internally from their US jobs at the same company.

7) Be fully prepared to learn the local language IF you choose a place other than India, HK, Singapore, or Australia. While both your job and your social life can suffice with English-only if you socialize only with other expats, you still miss a lot if you don't know English.

Hope this helps.

4:22 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Helen said...

Larry,

Not sure why blogger didn't post your comments. It acts weird sometimes, I am unable to get on sometimes myself. Your last post got on so hopefully it is corrected now. You have certainly not been banned. Your comments are welcome here.

Michael and Margaret,

Thanks for the detective work. If the person is exposing himself, I can see the need for the statute but there is no indication of this, only that the person was peering and the article was alarmist: "Those who peer at children in public could find themselves on the wrong side of the law in Maine soon."

The article should have included the information about exposure etc. to make it clear to those of us concerned about innocent "peerers" being swept up in such a law.

4:25 PM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is just the first step in a clever campaign leading ultimately to a national transgression called Male Felony Existence. Further definition is left to the reader.

4:30 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Mercurior said...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/08/05/menino_boosts_patrols_after_girl_shot_in_park/

Boston police said they may move high-powered surveillance cameras used for security during the Democratic National Convention to parks considered hot spots for crime.

City Council President Michael Flaherty proposed banning adults from playgrounds unless they are accompanying children.

4:32 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Larry Sheldon said...

DWM. EWM?

4:35 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

I don't know how one could use a law banning exposing oneself inside a public restroom to a person fully clothed standing outside a public restroom. I can't even see how one could use any law to get someone to "move along" if they were standing in a public area not violating any law.

4:36 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Kel said...

What can you do about it? Call Represenative Dawn Hill and tell her she's a freaking idiot:

Her official contact information, as listed on the Maine website, is as follows:

http://www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/dhill/

And a campaign page even includes a cell phone and home phone number:

http://janus.state.me.us/house/hsebios/hilld_.htm

4:43 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Larry Sheldon said...

"I can't even see how one could use any law to get someone to "move along" if they were standing in a public area not violating any law."

Look around the VRWC blogs and see if you can find mention of the folks at one of the monuments (Lincoln?) this past weekend who where silently dancing. Went to jail, I think.

4:46 PM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(Yup, I'll profile the hell out of you when it comes to protecting my children)

There it is- that redneck attitude that generates all of this hysteria. I've got children too- they're grown up now, but I always kept in mind that when in public that other people did not ASK for me to impose my children on THEM. It does not 'take a village' & I don't want ANYTHING to do with your children or anyone else's children... ever- for any reason at all.

4:47 PM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, try emailing the editor who loosed this report on the world and tell them their report was misleading.

4:53 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

Larry: I looked it up, it was the Jefferson Monument and the offending officers were the National Park Police down in DC. I've had an unpleasant brush with them a few years back. The law and the DC National Park Police are two separate entities, you know, homeland security and all that.

5:01 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Larry Sheldon said...

Imposing children on people....

One of my favorite quotes from my daughters--not sure which one said if first or at what age--upon being assaulted by a screaming out-of-control kid at a restaurant.

Nobody had to put up with _ME_ doing that, do do I have to put up with it?

5:04 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Tucanae Services said...

Well lets give it enough time. Playgrounds will become 'Male Free Zones'. Considering the preponderance of sexual assault is committed by men. It can be the only conclusion of a law like this.

Is this where we want to go America??

5:09 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger paul a'barge said...

This law seems very vague and unfair. Does anyone in Maine care?

I don't know about Maine, but I live in Texas and I don't care. Throw them in jail.

5:12 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger the dogs' mother said...

Good grief!
You can't teach without having
the 'look of doom' to impose
on the little darlings from time
to time.

5:13 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

Paul: Throw who in jail?

5:18 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Larry Sheldon said...

"Well lets give it enough time. Playgrounds will become 'Male Free Zones'. Considering the preponderance of sexual assault is committed by men. It can be the only conclusion of a law like this."

One of the comments of mine that got eaten was a lengthy one where I related things that happened while my young ones were growing up. (Probably just as well that it got eaten--probably put myself in danger.)

But that was a time when the big hurt on men was about not spending time with their kids.

So I worked nights so I could go places with them.

Now I'll go to jail if I do.

And what if I am the rare male that has custody of his kid?

Are the Shakers still in business?

5:20 PM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't know about Maine, but I live in Texas and I don't care. Throw them in jail."

Well, OKEDOKEE, Jethro. I hope you look cross-eyed a stupid kid & get thrown in jail for nothing. That's the problem with you rednecks- you're so slow you can't even think one step ahead.

5:21 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Ronnie Schreiber said...

Maybe someone should suggest a companion law forbidding preteen/teen girls from wearing provocative clothing, like pants with words like "juicy" emblazoned across the butt.

I want to sell t-shirts that say "Dad, Mom, if you let them dress that way, don't complain when I leer!"

5:35 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

I saw a t-shirt last week on a large man that said, "If I want your opinion I will beat it out of you". Just like "juicy" the message gives you some idea on what is going on in the brain of the wearer.

5:38 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Ronnie Schreiber said...


Boston police said they may move high-powered surveillance cameras used for security during the Democratic National Convention to parks considered hot spots for crime.


You can expect gay activists to complain that this is targeting gays who cruise for anonymous sex.

5:44 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger paul a'barge said...

Paul: Throw who in jail?

The men leering at children.

5:54 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Mercurior said...

but paul, whats a leer and whats a look.. who says whats a leer.. looking for more than 3 seconds.. or if its less.. or its ok if you do it with your left eye but not your right..

5:57 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

How do you know when someone is "leering"? What defines leering? How do you prove it? Who decides who is a leerer? If you look at my child, any child, can I get you thrown in jail for it?

6:00 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Brian said...

Helen,

I just stared at your picture for 10 seconds. Thank God you are a beautiful woman above the age of majority or the Maine police would be at my door.

6:16 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Joe said...

There it is- that redneck attitude that generates all of this hysteria

That's not a redneck attitude, it's common sense. If when my daughters were younger and in a restroom and a cross dressing man attempted to enter that restroom room, I'd stop him. I fully assume you would have done the same and would do the same to your grandchildren. I'm not asking for a law--I made that pretty clear--but I'm not saying we should be a bunch of idiots either.

6:28 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

You know this law will only, with rare exception, be applied to men. When women behave inappropriately sexually towards minors people paint them as mental.

Take the case of Debra Lafave. Had she been a man, she would be in prison, but no one would question how a man could be attracted to a teenage girl. When it was a woman, however, everyone seemed to reject the notion that a woman could be attracted to a six foot tall male.

7:13 PM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad my kids are grown now, and I don't have to wait outside for my girls or my son to return from a public restroom. When my kids were inside, I glared at every adult of either sex walking into either bathroom.

Perhaps this law being proposed in Maine is only to get the representative with this looney idea in the news because she's running for some other office somewhere down the road. Crazier things have been done to get attention, to get a head above the crowd. Hell, I think Hillary is nuts now. There is absolutely nothing she will not say or do to get in the oval office.

7:17 PM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone outside of Maine ever heard of Dawn Hill before this? I haven't.

7:22 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

Br549: Here is the text of the bill. It has more to do with people exposing themselves and ogling naked kiddies than visual sexual aggression. The title of the bill, visual sexual aggression, is a terrible choice and misleading.

7:36 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Trust said...

@cham: "The title of the bill, visual sexual aggression, is a terrible choice and misleading."

I agree with that. Even if it the text is good, it should fail for that reason alone.

I don't think this law is necessary. Last I checked, ogling naked kiddies and flashing oneself is already illegal. Seems the biggest purpose for more laws outlawing what is already outlawed is more so a politicial can toot their own horn than to accomplish any real good.

7:41 PM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If this is the direction Western society is heading, then What.The.Heck. What complaint do we have with the Islamists? I'm really starting to think their Sharia law could be no worse.

I've backed Dubya 100% on the WOT and I think the troops in Iraq & Afghanistan have done a wonderful job. But for what? So the "leadership" at home can turn our laws into a laughing stock? So people will get arrested for keeping an eye on the kids?

The world is watching this and they KNOW (not think, KNOW) this is foolish and that a people who put up with it are either weak, stupid or a bunch of ninnies. And this is just the latest example of many.

As a straight, white, Christian male, I'm already a second class citizen in this country and assumed to be guilty of whatever I get accused of. Would it be worse under the Muslims?

I'm starting to think we NEED the Islamists to turn our culture upside down, drop a few walls on the sexual deviates, put Dawn Hill and her ilk in burqas, and send them home. Hate to say it, but they make more sense to me than she does.

The old bespectacled Imam on TV back in 2003 may have been right, "We're coming to help the West.". Lord knows, we need it.
Dudley

7:53 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger caseym54 said...

Does everything have to be a felony?

I'm pretty sure most of us are felons by now, although we probably don't know it.

8:27 PM, April 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

State Rep. Dawn Hill, D-York. is a greater threat to our freedoms than all foreign threats.

What is wrong with that woman?

Simple pandering to a constituent?

Her action is illogical and goes against much of what made America a half-way decent country.

The female politico's attempts at thought control and enslaving males makes me demand she undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine if she should be allowed to continue as an elected representative.

If the law does pass, I hope Maine citizens follow that whacky deluded female and report to authorities every time her gaze lingers longer than a few moments upon children.

Please, somebody try to determine to what extent that politico is mentally imbalanced since I can not conceive of anybody in their right mind even consider attempting to pass such a law.

Surely only a paranoid and/or delusional mind could conceive of such a bizzare statute.

8:53 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Trust said...

@obbop:

You're correct that her position is illogical. It is feelings based.

All decent people know that only a scumbag would stare at children with fantasies, and it makes all of us sick to our stomachs. It is this feeling that makes her pursue the legislation. Problem is, we just can't punish people for what we think they are thinking.

I once knew a woman who admitted she wished her husband would get killed in a car accident. Does that mean she should be charged with violent aggression? of course not.

8:59 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger blah said...

Look,, this is just stupid. Because we do not have the guts to do the right thing,, like real justice for sexual perverts,, we think up stupid idiotic ideas like laws against staring?? Real justice would be the death sentence or life without parole for any child rapist, predator or kidnapper! That would be a law I would support! This is just stupidity and dangerous! Taking people to jail because they stare is insane!! What constitutes a stare?? What if a child appears to be doing something dangerous and a person is looking to be safe?? What about playground monitors?? Would they need a special staring license?? Would you not have to engage in staring yourself to determine if the other person was staring??? People have lost their minds.

9:32 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger LMTravelrep said...

Can I still sing the old 60's song "I'm a girl watcher" if this law passes?

10:18 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Trust said...

@lmtravelrep: "Can I still sing the old 60's song "I'm a girl watcher" if this law passes?"

Sure, if you're Bill Clinton.

10:40 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Hector Owen said...

This appears to be a more recent version of the amended bill? From the center part of the Janus page, "Adopted Amendments."

11:01 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger Colonel Robert Neville said...

Sir, I must inform you that I'm arresting you on the charge of "visual sexual aggression". Yeah, Karen, I need an ID on a Mr Ray Charles...

11:23 PM, April 14, 2008  
Blogger M. Simon said...

Humphrey Bogart is guilty. He admited it.

"Here's looking at you kid."

12:30 AM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger Misanthrope said...

One day, in the not so distant future, one lawyer has his work cut out for him....

"Your Honor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, my client denies the charge of visual sexual aggression on the grounds that only a 'sick freak' would have a sexual attraction to children...

...We are also prepared to present evidence of his well-known misanthropy...

...My client does not deny that he was looking in the general direction of the children with an aggressive contenance...but maintains that since there was no sexual intent, that his has been falsely charged...."

Some days are kind of fun in the culture war.

3:04 AM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger AST said...

Aw, you know those kids are just ASKING for it.

4:43 AM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger Dick said...

Whoever dreamed this insanity up should be drug through the streets until dead.
The thought police cometh.

11:09 AM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger PunditJoe said...

This strikes me as coming from the same kind of people that would charge a 4 year old with sexual harrasment for hugging a teacher.

Some people are simply nuts. The sad thing is that too many join in the insanity while too few stand against it.

11:25 AM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger TMink said...

"That's the problem with you rednecks- you're so slow you can't even think one step ahead."

Actually, we just talk funny, we don't think funny.

Trey

1:11 PM, April 15, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's the problem with you rednecks- you're so slow you can't even think one step ahead."

Actually, we just talk funny, we don't think funny."

No, I've encoutered your type before & you DO think 'funny' (everyone think Bush)- that also explains why your attitudes are so bizarre on this blog- why your responses never make any sense & why you're unemployable. Everyone knows 'redneck' is just another way of saying 'trailer trash.' (Even if you live in a real house- what do you call trailer trash in a real house? Trailer trash in real house). That's right folks- our president is trailer trash.

1:25 PM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger DoYogaFeelGreat said...

DADvocate: thanks for summing up my position so well.

I'd just like to add, adults accompanying children out into public are responsible for their safety.

1:52 PM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger Der Hahn said...

It's a little tricky to figure out where the amendment text is, so I thought I would drop part of it in a comment.

For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person (in a private place), not the actor's spouse and not having in fact attained 14 years of age, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from such visual surveillance.

There is a similar establishing a different penalty if the person is under 12.

There is an indication that the phrase 'in a private place' may be dropped which seems to support the contention of the reporter that the law could be used to prosecute an observer who was in a public area. I'm not sure I buy the idea that it could be used against someone loitering outside a public restroom unless there was some reason to believe that they could see bare flesh, since observation is not a person in general but specific uncovered areas of the body.

2:01 PM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger Larry Sheldon said...

"responsible"

What is this word "responsible"?

You some kind of old fart or something?

2:08 PM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger TMink said...

reality, I would have responded earlier, but I was busy at work.

Some people have issues, you my friend have subscriptions with the back catalogue organized in those nice little binders.

One of us makes comments that nobody else understands though, I appreciate that you got that somewhat right.

Trey

3:26 PM, April 15, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One of us makes comments that nobody else understands though, I appreciate that you got that somewhat right."

When I need the advice of a 'redneck' that will for advice on how to date my sister- the only area you're an expert in- & that isn't going to happen.

4:58 PM, April 15, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee, reality. You make it sound as if you've already tried to date your sister but she wouldn't have anything to do with you, either.

5:53 PM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger TRex said...

Methinks something is afoul in the air in Maine, thats all.

Here is an article on the same day from the same Maine paper that reported about VA (visual aggresssion) regarding a woman who was offended by a *Hallmark* card because it supposedly promotes teen sex!!!

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080411/NEWS/804110427

Is Maine bringing back witch trials?

6:45 PM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger Ronnie Schreiber said...

reality2008 said...

When I need the advice of a 'redneck' that will for advice on how to date my sister- the only area you're an expert in- & that isn't going to happen.


Of course it isn't going to happen. To begin with you have to wait for your dad to be done with her first and that's going to be a long wait. In any case, you're too busy with the neighbor's dog to notice your sister.

I'll never figure out why so-called "progressives" (I'm proud to be a classical liberal and I won't let them sully a principled philosophy) think that disdain and condescension are persuasive debating methods. Perhaps it's because their philosophy is not based on principles but rather feelings.

To paraphrase Barbie, logic is hard. It's easier to call someone a name.

7:14 PM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger TRex said...

As a guy who has been unfairly arrested as a result of one of those well intentioned laws, I would like to register my opposition to any law against visual agression.

I was arrested when my adult step-daughter lied and called the police on me. Because she was screaming and crying in an Oscar winning performance, I was arrested. The case was summarily dismissed, but not before the damage was done, legal fees, my permanent record which is now besmirched with an arrest for assault and harrassment.

Although technically all of this can't be used against me, since this information is available to anyone with access to the internet and huge national databases, I can now be denied housing and employment because of the lies of my step daughter. All this because o a well intentioned law to 'protect' women from supposed abuse. I asked the cops why they arrested me and they said they had 'no choice'. Because in similar situations others had killed of their entire families I *had* to be punished, thrown in jail, my record permanently ruined. You cannot legislate common sense, nor can the state be expected to be the gaurantors of safety. Trying to protect a few by trampling on the rights of the many is anti-thetical to the ideas expressed in the Constitution.

8:33 PM, April 15, 2008  
Blogger Joe said...

Whither the redneck thing? Laws like this are the result of LIBERALS, not rednecks. LIBERALS/LEFTISTS are the ones who pushed first for hate-crimes and now for thought crimes. If you think it will stop there, you are delusional. (Just look at what's happening in Canada.)

12:13 AM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger papertiger said...

Here is a story without any annoying ambiguity about what the authorities intent is "Bee writer pleads not guilty in porn case".
The dude is sitting in the bleachers, videorecording a cheerleader tryout. He's a reporter for the local paper.
You put those three things together (male, videorecorder, women in a public place) and it spells "Sexcrime" in this feminazi ruled F'ed up country.

5:06 AM, April 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have experienced similar things as you, brazenturkey. In some ways worse. I have heard many stories from others. I have seen the goings on in divorce court over and extended period of time, and been literally shocked at what I've seen.

I've heard explanations that leap over and around logic. In my case, although the lawyers, police, medical professionals and judges involved were well aware of what was going on, everything stuck, and I was made evil. Even when my kids, one by one, called me up and begged to come back home to me, within 3 weeks - where they have been since.

I can't for the life of me, understand it. It does not make a particle of sense. But it is real, it is dangerous, and it is nuts.

This going on in Maine will have all sorts of unintentional repercussions (hopefully unintentional, anyway)and will further serve to confound and divide men and women in this country.

Happy couples who are pulling in the same direction in this life, doing the Three Musketeers type thing (as hoped on wedding day)are rare, and lucky. Say what they will about making good choices in spouses, etc. It's luck.

6:35 AM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger George Bruce said...

Let's just pass a law requiring all children to wear full length, head to toes coverings, like a burka, at all times, especially when going to the bathroom. That should fix the problem.

3:13 PM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger Serket said...

I think this law is way too vague and shouldn't be allowed, but it reminds me the admitted pedophile who surfaced last year. I think police officers should be allowed to ask the person to move to a different area, but they shouldn't be arrested. You make some good points about knowing what the adult's actual intent is.

6:08 PM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger Maxine Weiss said...

If the staring causes a disruption, and isn't reasonable, I think it's enough for a disturbing the peace charge. It's the same thing with loitering and prowling laws. What constitutes 'prowling' ?

If it's not something a reasonable person would engage in, in the normal course of daily activities,
and if it causes enough of a disruption, then it could very well be a cause for concern. That said, getting a conviction based on staring, or 'prowling' alone might be difficult.

7:46 PM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger Maxine Weiss said...

Prowling: "Walking about in a stealthy manner"

Uh-oh. Don't walk funny !

But, you know, these aren't knew laws. Prowling and loitering have been around forever, and the enforcement against such has been going on for many many years.

What is new is that men are more willing to scream and holler about it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that !

7:52 PM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger Maxine Weiss said...

"Joe" it's not always Liberals.

In very Conservative neighborhoods, if someone, or something looks out-of-place, or anything unusual......isn't always tolerated well.

If I live in an all-White neighborhood (I do) and I saw a Black man ambling/shuffling down the street, I might call the police and tell them there's a strange man who looks out-of-place in the general surroundings.

It's unfair. And, I'm kind of a paranoid ninny, but that's how it is.

There was a time when folks tried their utmost to blend in and conform, at least out in public. Now everyone wants the right to be quirky, rugged individualist, and assert their freedoms.

But, not when it bumps up against, paranoid child-molestation types.

8:01 PM, April 16, 2008  
Blogger Joe said...

Maxine, I'm not talking about not trusting strangers or people who are out of the ordinary; that's a normal and even healthy human response. I'm talking about using the power of government to be make those very thoughts crimes.

12:24 AM, April 17, 2008  
Blogger Serket said...

JellyToast: Would you not have to engage in staring yourself to determine if the other person was staring???

I laughed at this sentence, good point!

4:02 PM, April 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

papertiger, staring at a child is one thing, but taking a video camera under the bleachers to film what's under the cheerleaders' skirts is entirely different. There are already laws on the books against video voyeurism.

But yeah, if this law is passed, then kids should be forced to wear loose-fitting attire and burqas.....but no, they'll be encouraged to dress like mini-sluts and act as the Hitler Youth for the thought police.

1:38 PM, April 22, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lack of sexual intimacy, sexual dysfunctions, frustration, and disappointments repeatedly being rebuffed sexually can emotionally, and eventually physically, stall your sex drive. The same can happen for repeated lack of orgasm, impotence, premature ejaculation, retarded ejaculation, or other disappointments in the bedroom. http://www.levitrabliss.com/

4:22 AM, October 24, 2008  
Blogger tomebaden said...

I know visual aggression when I see it and it isn't a man trying to get a glimps of women in a toilet it is a guy who wants to kick your ass, we call it "maddogging" out here in california.

The fact that such a law actually was being disgussed (if it was) is just another stupid politician looking to be the patron saint of children. I am sick of all these assumptions that children are so G*Damb sexy that we adults and particulary us men can derive sexual gratification from just looking at them and cant keep our eyes off them. If such sexual proclivities are so wide spread then why do we think of them as "perverted"??

We are destroying our ability to feel comfortable around kids, and for kids to feel comfortable around adult men. Way to go bozo'S.

This all stems from the massive pedophile hunt via those that sit passively by and look at under age girls who post their porno on the net.

I too am tireing of the notion that those who passively sit on their computers and find child porn are "suporting" the child porn industry, what industry could survive when people do not pay for it?

I tell you what industry, the self produced, self published and self advertised porn industry that is all over the net. There is most likely not a single victim of child exploitation in 90% of the child porn cases.

Imagine that the pleasure that these girls get from exhibiting themselves sexually on the internet along with every thing else they do, it seems they dont even want to write in their diaries anymore they want to post a video blog in full makeup, and virtully nothing they do is worth doing unless it is being video'd and published so why not all their little sexcapades?

Now think of all the pain of so many years in prison that many men are suffering for looking at their stuff? I ask you who the hell are the real victims?
look at this poor fellow

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/09/another-sad-fed.html

The world is going insane with all this protect the children hysteria.


"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Rabbi Daniel Lapin

The feds actually post URLs on the net enticing people to come look at child porn and then they pass a law with a ten year sentance for merely clicking on the URL!!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html

We need to fight these bastards before they all have us registering as sex offenders for looking at a child more than a fraction of a second.

Go to my link above to see alot of material on sex offenders, laws, individual cases and youtube videos

http://meganslaw.angelfire.com

1:09 AM, December 21, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

搬家
搬家
搬家公司
徵信社
徵信
彩妝造型
新娘秘書
票貼
室內設計
室內設計
徵信
徵信社
外遇
徵信
徵信社
外遇
搬家
搬家
花蓮民宿
花蓮民宿
免費a片
a片
免費av
色情影片
情色
情色網
色情網站
色情
成人網
成人圖片
成人影片
18成人
av
av女優

情慾
走光
做愛
sex
H漫
免費a片
a片
免費av
色情影片
情色
情色網
色情網站
色情
成人網
成人圖片
成人影片
18成人
av
av女優

情慾
走光
做愛
sex
H漫
a片
アダルト
アダルト
アダルトサイト
アダルトサイト
離婚
抓姦
外遇蒐證
外遇抓姦
外遇
侵權
仿冒
應收帳款
工商徵信
Shade sail
nike shoes
水泵
电动隔膜泵
自吸泵
离心泵
磁力泵
螺杆泵
化工泵
水泵
电动隔膜泵
自吸泵
离心泵
磁力泵
螺杆泵
化工泵
水泵
电动隔膜泵
自吸泵
离心泵
磁力泵
螺杆泵
化工泵
隔膜泵
气动隔膜泵
隔膜泵
气动隔膜泵
隔膜泵
气动隔膜泵
a片
成人網站
成人影片
寵物用品
情趣用品
情趣用品
MBA
在职研究生
在职博士
補習班
花店
花店
補正下着
中古車買賣
貸款
婚紗
婚紗攝影
補習班
留學
情色
情色
百家乐
轮盘
21点
德州扑克
百家乐系统
真人娱乐场
百家乐
足球
德州扑克
电子游戏
英格兰超级联赛
德国甲组联赛
意大利甲组联赛
西班牙甲组联赛
法国甲组联赛欧冠杯
英超
足球比分
足球彩票
体育彩票
即时比分
堆高機
婚禮佈置
宜蘭民宿推薦
寵物用品
情趣用品
情趣用品
坐月子
植牙
牙齒矯正
租屋
催眠
房屋出租
租房子
xo醬
牛軋糖
牛嘎糖
代償
房屋貸款
信用貸款
失眠
減肥
眼鏡
金門高梁酒
變頻洗衣機

減肥
眼鏡
太陽餅
月餅

9:56 PM, January 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

色咪咪影片網色咪咪影片網色咪咪影片網色咪咪影片網色咪咪影片網色咪咪影片網色咪咪影片網色咪咪影片網色咪咪影片網色咪咪影片網情色自拍電影情色自拍電影情色自拍電影情色自拍電影情色自拍電影情色自拍電影情色自拍電影情色自拍電影情色自拍電影情色自拍電影情色貼片情色貼片情色貼片情色貼片情色貼片情色貼片情色貼片情色貼片情色貼片情色貼片麗的情色遊戲麗的情色遊戲麗的情色遊戲麗的情色遊戲麗的情色遊戲麗的情色遊戲麗的情色遊戲麗的情色遊戲麗的情色遊戲麗的情色遊戲台北女孩情色貼圖區台北女孩情色貼圖區台北女孩情色貼圖區台北女孩情色貼圖區台北女孩情色貼圖區台北女孩情色貼圖區台北女孩情色貼圖區台北女孩情色貼圖區台北女孩情色貼圖區台北女孩情色貼圖區色情卡通色情卡通色情卡通色情卡通色情卡通色情卡通色情卡通色情卡通色情卡通色情卡通絕色影城絕色影城絕色影城絕色影城絕色影城絕色影城絕色影城絕色影城絕色影城絕色影城plus 論壇plus 論壇plus 論壇plus 論壇plus 論壇plus 論壇plus 論壇plus 論壇plus 論壇plus 論壇plus論壇plus論壇plus論壇plus論壇plus論壇plus論壇plus論壇plus論壇plus論壇plus論壇美女貼圖片區美女貼圖片區美女貼圖片區美女貼圖片區美女貼圖片區美女貼圖片區美女貼圖片區美女貼圖片區美女貼圖片區美女貼圖片區清純美女色情圖片清純美女色情圖片清純美女色情圖片清純美女色情圖片清純美女色情圖片清純美女色情圖片清純美女色情圖片清純美女色情圖片清純美女色情圖片清純美女色情圖片av127一葉情貼圖片區 av127一葉情貼圖片區 av127一葉情貼圖片區 av127一葉情貼圖片區 av127一葉情貼圖片區 av127一葉情貼圖片區 av127一葉情貼圖片區 av127一葉情貼圖片區 av127一葉情貼圖片區 av127一葉情貼圖片區 aa片免費看微風論壇080哈啦聊天室6k聊天室成人聊天室上班族捷克論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室520視訊聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 a片a片影片免費情色影片免費a片觀看小弟第貼影片區免費av影片免費h影片試看 H漫 - 卡通美女短片小魔女貼影片免費影片觀賞無碼a片網美女pc交友相簿美女交友-哈啦聊天室中文a片線上試看免費電影下載區免費試看a短片免費卡通aa片觀看女優影片無碼直播免費性感a片試看日本AV女優影音娛樂網日本av女優無碼 dvd辣妹視訊 - 免費聊天室美女交友視訊聊天室 080免費視訊聊天室尋夢園聊天室080苗栗人聊天室a片下載

7:29 PM, February 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

白蟻
除白蟻
白蟻防治
跳蚤
除跳蚤
跳蚤防治
蛀蟲
除蛀蟲
蛀蟲防治
白蟻
除白蟻
白蟻防治
跳蚤
除跳蚤
跳蚤防治
蛀蟲
除蛀蟲
蛀蟲防治

4:15 PM, February 17, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

威創牙醫診所除了提供優質的植牙技術外還提供假牙|矯正|牙周病治療,是值得您信賴的牙醫診所

獅王紋身工作室提供專業的無痛刺青技術,獅王紋身在世界TATTOO大賽中,獲獎無數,獅王紋身給您最時尚的作品。

陳駿逸皮膚科診所提供了治療痘痘的服務,皮膚雷射權威,包括雷射脈衝光除斑等,讓您回復青春蘋果臉。

ck皮件處理棧提供專業洗包包|洗鞋子|各式皮件修理保養疑難雜症都有服務,清洗包包專門店讓您的包包、鞋子、永遠保持最新的況態唷。

杏儒中醫診所提供了糖尿病的治療。

9:27 AM, February 18, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

汽車旅館
消費券優惠
motel
消費券
薇閣
住宿券
廣交會
廣州飯店
廣州
广州
广交会
广州酒店
Canton Fair
Guangzhou Hotel
Guangzhou
広州
広州の交易会
広州のホテル

4:45 AM, February 23, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(法新社a倫敦二B十WE四日電) 「情色二零零七」情趣產品大產自二十三日起av女優AV倫敦的肯辛頓奧林匹亞展覽館舉行,倫敦人擺a片下載脫對性的保守態度踴躍參觀,許多穿情色電影皮衣與塑膠緊身衣的好色之徒擠進這項世界規模最大的成人生活展,估計三天展期可吸引八萬多好奇民眾參觀。

活動計畫負責人米里根承諾:「要搞浪漫、誘惑人、玩虐待,你渴望的我們都有。」

A片下載說:「時髦的設計與華麗女裝,從成人網站吊飾到束腹情色電影到真人大小的成人影片雕塑,是我們由今年展出的數千件A片產品精選出的一部分,參展產品還包括時尚服飾、貼身女用內在美、鞋子、珠寶、玩具、影片、藝術、a片圖書及遊戲,更不要說性愛輔具及馬術裝備。成人影片AV女優

參觀民眾遊覽兩百五十多個攤位,色情有性感服裝、玩具及情色食品,色情影片迎合各種品味。

大舞台上表演的是美國野情色蠻搖滾歌手瑪莉蓮曼森的前妻─全世界頭牌脫衣舞孃黛塔范提思,這是她今年在英國唯一一場色情表演。

成人電影以一九四零年代風格演出的黛a片塔范提思表演性感的天堂成人電影鳥、旋轉木馬及情色羽扇等舞蹈。

參展攤位有成人網站的推廣情趣用品,有的公開展示av人體藝術和人體雕塑,也有情色藝術家工會成員提供建議。

10:05 AM, February 23, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,成人電影,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,色情,成人電影,色情,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人,成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,成人電影,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,


微風成人,情色,成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,色情,成人電影,色情,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,打卡鐘,跳蛋,持久液,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,色情網站,色情網站,色情網站,色情網站,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,av女優,a片,a片,a片,a片,成人網站,



成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,情色,情色,情色,情色,黃金回收,黃金回收,黃金回收,黃金回收,借錢,借錢,借錢,借錢,植牙,植牙,植牙,牙醫,牙醫,牙醫,a片,a片,a片,a片,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,成人影片,

成人影片
,成人影片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,情色,情色,情色,情色,黃金,黃金,黃金,黃金,黃金價格,黃金價格,黃金價格,黃金價格,黃金買賣,黃金買賣,黃金買賣,黃金買賣,當舖,當舖,當舖,當舖,鑽石價格,鑽石價格,鑽石價格,鑽石價格,鑽石回收,鑽石回收,鑽石回收,鑽石回收,鑽石買賣,鑽石買賣,鑽石買賣,鑽石買賣,黃金存摺,黃金存摺,黃金存摺,



黃金存摺,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,情色視訊,情色視訊,情色視訊,情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室,打卡鐘,火鍋吃到飽,創業加盟,賺錢,吃到飽麻辣鍋

7:45 PM, February 25, 2009  
Blogger TRex said...

Whats with the Chinese?

9:37 AM, February 28, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

這家室內設計做的不錯!

你需要室內設計嗎?找這家準沒錯

室內設計的十種方法

室內設計面面觀

我家裝潢的很美耶!

室內設計要找哪家比較好呀!

室內設計公司通常都把家設計的很美!

室內設計公司光慧這家不錯唷!

優良搬家公司請找e時代

搬家公司怎麼選擇比較好

台北搬家公司哪間較好?

搬家公司的搬家流程

室內設計也包含空間設計!

租屋網刊登免費不用錢

杜絕流珉搬家公司要小心唷!

健身對身體很好的

好喝的茶葉哪買呀!

A片好多妹妹能看

SEO排名不好玩= =

何謂SEO排名呢?

SEO怎麼排比較快上!不告讓你啦

老婆和別的男人偷偷去motel

led手電筒照明超光亮的

二手棧板哪買?

房屋二胎是什麼?

隔熱紙用了就熱了唷!

你家需要照明燈嗎?

用wii健身你聽過嗎?

a383的網站在哪?

a383你知道網址在哪嗎?

二手家具又便宜又好用

a383來看看唷!

胸章美美的

車燈要裝才會看路清楚

文山搬家公司的服務電話

妹妹去酒店兼職

搬家服務地區如下:南港搬家,大安區搬家,松山搬家,中山區搬家,八里搬家,
五股搬家,
泰山搬家,大同區搬家,中正區搬家,士林搬家,萬華搬家,台北搬家公司,台北搬家公司

客人來做耶!

這家的情趣用品款式多樣!

情趣用品包裝隱密

你需要情趣用品輔助嗎?

情趣用品好好用!

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,,台中搬家公司,A片,台北市搬家公司,台北縣搬家公司

台中美食


台北美食


新竹美食


桃園美食


台中美食小吃


台中美食餐廳


大台中美食網


台北美食餐廳


桃園美食餐廳

桃園美食網

新竹美食網


新竹美食餐廳

情趣用品,
情趣用品,
情趣用品,
情趣用品,
情趣用品,
情趣用品,
情趣用品,
情趣用品,
情趣用品,
情趣用品,,消費券,情趣,
情趣,
情趣,
情趣,
情趣,
情趣,
情趣,
情趣,
情趣,
情趣世界好多人做= =

簡轉繁工具很好用的

保養品擦了就美美的了!

徵信社服務優良,絕不亂搞!

貨運公司搬貨都有固定價格

泡菜好吃耶

加油棒替棒球隊加油吧

統一發票對獎每月26號要對獎的

2:24 PM, March 15, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

フランチャイズ
カラーコンタクト
格安航空券
グループウェア

3:05 AM, March 20, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

漫畫貼圖貼圖片區熊貓貼圖區正妹牆 - 美女相簿蒐秘im vlog影音日誌VLOG數位互動電視嘟嘟圖片區情色自拍電影禁地論壇j2h搞笑街舞遊戲館熊貓圖片台灣情色網jojo 漫畫連載捷克論壇情色貼圖av女優貼圖區台灣kiss文學區奇集集kijiji免費 視訊免費a片免費aa片試看ktzone 論壇辣 妹妹 影音 視訊 聊天室情人禮品珍妹柔情聊天網真愛love777聊天室寄情築園小遊戲s383 live實境影音 視訊美女脫衣秀咆哮小老鼠影片分享區聊天王苗栗人聊天室梅子的家中部聊天室台灣成人交友甜心寶貝淫片區米克綜合論壇megarotic video 下載教學聊天室交友思源中文網美女圖片區自拍摩尼網bbs社區momokoko同學會視訊mobile01 論壇高雄正妹地圖艾雷學院redtube下載綺麗影城QQ美美色網qq 美美貼圖區qq美美色網影片QQ便利AV - 美美色網影片pps網路電視下載貼圖片區plus論壇plus論壇uthome視訊聊天室playboy國際中文網play104遊藝線上痴漢俱樂部情人用品薇珍妮pili討論區麗的線上小遊戲色情熟婦dvd影片p2pzone 無限論壇情色圖貼愛情國小 交友聊天室sogo 色論壇無碼情色影片啦咧華人視頻交友聊天室免費 視訊 美女 聊天室歌詞帝國OHYA電音網躺伯虎聊天室視訊網愛聊天室任天堂NDSL遊戲下載情色文學裸體辣妹妹影片北部人聊天室台北情色 聊天室好色客成人圖片新歌下載免費A片武則天 視訊 聊天室色情 視訊 聊天室免費 看 視訊av1688影音娛樂網520sex 視訊 美女視訊 網愛白川茉知 免費a片有村渚 免費aa片試看高井真穗 免費影片

3:32 AM, March 22, 2009  
Blogger adonismis said...

推薦宜蘭民宿

4:12 AM, April 01, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣
辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣

7:32 PM, April 02, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

溫昇豪blog|

瘦小腹魚湯

王建民桌布
伊能靜部落格
張國榮經典歌曲
愛情配對
任容萱照片
terrafugia
娜塔莎李察遜
許維恩 alex
黃金價格
張子妍電影
麥當勞優惠券 alex
黃金價格
星座運勢
環保洗衣球
趴趴看
小貓林振文
女老千劉蕾蕾
王儀涵
楓之穀遊戲
守護甜心漫畫
黎姿照片
周筆暢歌手檔案
川藏第一美女
西單女孩
劉蕾蕾
王儀涵
楓之穀遊戲
李察狄恩安德森
倾城之恋剧情
女星李钰去世
强生婴幼儿产品
香水女生事件
妻子的诱惑剧情
任斯璐 blog
林健吉
罌粟蝸牛
i-doser網路音樂
林子欽 steve
berobot機器人
吳尊部落格
剩女之歌
七彩神仙魚買賣
洪慧蓉照片
三角效應
周幼婷部落格
顏冠得 mail
岩隈久志nhk
顏冠得圖片
鈴木一朗影片
賈靜雯部落格
女模趙亞儀
電玩少女瑤瑤開球
朱麗倩照片
時尚服飾,服裝搭配
祕魯議員萊昂
最新發型
藤原紀香寫真集
哈拉论坛
汽车租赁

6:08 AM, April 06, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

搬家 搬家 搬家公司 搬家 搬家 票貼 借款 徵信社 徵信 補習班 多益 留學 在職進修 婚紗 補正下着 新娘秘書 汽車旅館 室內設計 室內設計 中古車買賣 植牙 坐月子 婚禮佈置 催眠 派報 漆彈 視訊會議 真空成型 Shade sail nike shoes MBA 在职研究生 在职博士 關鍵字廣告 租屋 花蓮民宿 花蓮民宿 花店 花店 花蓮民宿 租房子 xo醬 牛軋糖 牛嘎糖 代償 房屋貸款 信用貸款 失眠 減肥 糖尿病 日立家電 外遇 離婚 抓姦 外遇蒐證 外遇抓姦 侵權 仿冒 應收帳款 工商徵信 徵信 徵信社 外遇 徵信 徵信社 外遇 电动隔膜泵 自吸泵 化工泵 离心泵 磁力泵 螺杆泵 水泵 隔膜泵 气动隔膜泵 白蟻 花蓮民宿 美國留學 新娘秘書 汽車旅館 新娘秘書 催眠 花蓮民宿 搬家 搬家服務 搬家保障 搬家網 搬家估價 徵信 徵信的意義 徵信服務 徵信報導 徵信問答 徵信知識 婚禮佈置 婚禮佈置 http://www.life13.com 票貼 工作服 班服 團體服 糖尿病 勞工體檢 呼吸照護 資源回收 生日禮物 美國遊學 留學代辦 彩妝造型 新娘秘書 宜蘭民宿推薦 催眠 漆彈場 太陽能熱水器 減重 自助洗衣加盟 綠豆椪 床墊 創業加盟 資源回收 鋼戒 廢車回收 創業加盟 龍眼蜜 買房子 買房子 班服配件 團體服配件 團體服 班服 團體服 班服 團體服 眼鏡 創業加盟 室內設計公司 室內設計公司 室內設計公司 最好的婚禮佈置,婚禮佈置花園感官花園婚禮佈置,婚禮佈置最新消息,婚禮佈置專業多元化,為你量身定作完美婚禮佈置,完美的婚禮佈置請來感官花園。婚禮佈置時間雙休請來電預約,婚禮佈置周五正常營業。婚禮佈置地點遼寧街,婚禮佈置聯絡方式電話。婚禮佈置訂購方式,婚禮佈置請提前兩天通知,婚禮佈置請先完成付款及傳真或郵件傳送匯款單。婚禮佈置免費外送價格,婚禮佈置請參考列表。

9:28 AM, April 10, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費A片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520視訊做愛聊天室plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費A片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費A片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片

2:24 AM, April 15, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳

4:09 AM, April 27, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司台灣汽車旅館加盟網--
台北汽車旅館
台中汽車旅館
高雄汽車旅館重庆格子屋格子屋重庆格子铺格子铺牛初乳保洁公司

3:58 AM, April 29, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

85cc免費影城85cc免費影城85cc免費影城85cc免費影片85cc免費影片85cc免費影片85cc免費影片觀看85cc免費影片觀看85cc免費影片觀看85cc免費影城85cc85cc免費影城85cc85cc免費影城85cc85cc免費影片長片85cc免費影片長片85cc免費影片長片85cc免費影片欣賞85cc免費影片欣賞85cc免費影片欣賞

6:04 AM, June 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home