Saturday, March 25, 2006

On "sex-positive feminism" (1)

Even for those of us with backgrounds as political activists who thought we had some handle on sexual anxiety and its variations in this society, the revelations of shame, fear, and guilt that occurred after the Barnard Sex Scandal and the period of public controversy that was its aftermath--since labeled the Sex Wars--were simply overwhelming. The women who kept talking and working as publicly identified sex radicals, or pro-sex feminists, began to engage in an expansive conversation that was in no way safe but was powerfully revealing...and convinced me that very few people in our society believe themselves normal, think that their sexual desire and behavior is like anyone else's. Women talked about years of celibacy, self-hatred, rejection, and abandonment by lovers, helplessness after rape or incest, social censure and street violence, family ostracism and--overridingly--the fear of what our desires might mean.

...It is difficult, in fact, for me to frame any questions about sex without getting caught up in endless considerations of the meaning of the acts, sometimes quite astonishing philosophical, political, and spiritual treatments of meaning that I cannot being down to the level that interests me most--my everyday life. All the impassioned rhetoric serves no purpose but to lead to greater obscurity if it does not originate and flow from an examination of the specific: how we all actually live out our sexuality. Without that detail, I have concluded, there are no valid generalizations to be made about sex and women's lives except for the central fact that we are all hungry for the power of desire and we are all terribly afraid.

...Throughout my life somebody has always tried to set the boundaries of who and what I will be allowed to be: if working class, an intellectual, upwardly mobile type who knows her place, or at least the virtues of gratitude; if a lesbian, an acceptable lesbian, not too forward about the details of her sexual practice; if a writer, a humble, consciously female one who understands her relationship to more "real" writers and who is willing to listen to her editors. What is common to these boundary lines is that their most destructive power lies in what I can be persuaded to do to myself--the walls of fear, shame, and guilt I can be encouraged to build in my mind...I am to hide myself, and hate myself, and never risk exposing what might be true about my life. I have learned through great sorrow that all systems of oppression feed on public silence and private terrorization. But few do so more forcefully than the systems of sexual oppression, and each of us is under enormous pressure to give in to their demands.

...A decade later, many of my questions from the early 1980s remain unanswered. I find myself continuing to wonder how our lives might be different if we were not constantly subjected to the fear and contempt of being sexually different, sexually dangerous, sexually endangered. What kind of women might we be if we did not have to worry about being too sexual, or not sexual enough, or the wrong kind of sexual for the company we keep, the convictions we hold?

--Dorothy Allison, "Public Silence, Private Terror," from Skin: Talking About Sex, Class & Literature, 1993.


Dark Daughta said...

i love Dorothy Allison and count her as someone i've learned much from. Why is it so hard for so many wimmin to just admit how we've been shafted (pardon the unintended pun) sexually by patriarchy, heterosexuality and heteronormativity for that matter? There's so much work for us to do unpacking the lies we've been told and the lies we've perpetuated.

belledame222 said...

Well, I take it a lot of the feminist anti-porn (BDSM, what have you) folks believe that's what they *are* doing. And you know, I completely understand why someone would come to the conclusion *for herself* that, you know, I'm not having any, thank'ee; I Have Had Enough, and I don't like it, any of it. Or most of it.

What grates my cheese (well, among other things)is when said feminists then go, "and so, (name your consensual activity) is *bad for women.*" And, see, unless you're Whitney, you're *not* in fact Every Woman; I am a woman, too, my voice counts too, and certain of those activities may in fact have been (were, in fact) very, very good for me indeed. You don't have to like it. You don't even have to listen when I tell you *why* xyz is good for me (although it sure would help if we're going to seriously talk about this stuff). But don't speak for me, please. I have had enough of that, myownself.

Violet Socks said...

You could probably teach me a lot about sex positivism. I think for someone like me, sex-pos feminism can be bewildering because I've never been the slightest bit concerned about what other people think of my sexual desires. The first time I heard a feminist say she worried about being insufficiently feminist because she liked it doggie style, I was astounded. I couldn't imagine worrying about such a thing.

So to me, it often seems like sex-positives (not you in particular, just folks here and there) are demanding validation for their sexual practices -- while I'm just thinking, "why do you care? why do you even worry about whether other people approve of what you do in bed?" So then I read further, and I see the anger and the indignation and all that and come back to thinking again...why worry?

You know, I rather like doggie style myself, and if someone told me that liking it made me a bad feminist I would laugh. How silly. By the same token, I don't feel the need to join the Doggie Style parade and get validation for my preferences.

This probably sounds awfully insensitive, but what I'm trying to do is explain as honestly as I can why so much sex positive rhetoric just goes right past someone as clueless as I am. And that's what I am, no doubt: clueless. There's a battle going on that I just don't feel part of at all.

You know, I do think that a lot of what we crave sexually is bound up in the patriarchy, but that's true to some extent for all of us. Our sexual responses are conditioned by society, by our environment, by our earliest bedrock experiences. So if I say that I think BDSM has a whiff of patriarchy about it, I mean that as an observation, not as a value judgment that liking BDSM makes you a bad feminist. Individual human sexuality is such a tangled mess and rooted so deeply in our psyches that I think we have virtually no control over what turns us on. So we might as well just get on with it and enjoy ourselves.

I apologize if this is offensive. I mean it in the most open-hearted way, trying to understand your point of view and share mine.

belledame222 said...

No, I appreciate it, vs.

For me, part of it has to do with already being very sensitized to societal attitudes about my sexuality from years' worth of internalized homophobia. "Coming out" has meant more than one thing for me, and is a constant process. But I've never taken acceptance of--hell, ability to participate in, ever--my sexuality for granted.

The other part is that, while it's true that some of it is old shit about approval (and particularly from other women and/or people who are/were supposed to be on my side) it's not totally academic or social; there are legal and other real-life consequences as well. Private BDSM events (het as well as queer) or sex parties still get busted by the police; people can get fired from their jobs; people have lost custody of their kids.

And, too, there's a rather nasty history of the anti-porn folk getting in bed (!) with the religious right, to everyone's detriment, the most notorious case of which being the stuff MacKinnon (and Dworkin) set into motion. The results weren't exactly what they had wanted, as people often point out, but...actually I was going to go further into this in the next post on this. I'm boning up (hyuk) on my history before I do.

More later.

Bitch | Lab said...

I love Allison! I'm so glad to see this quote. I've been meaning to hunt down her work on sex positive femnism.

And yeah, vs, I was becoming aware of my teen sexual self in a small college down, where there were the wars between the college lesbian (androgyny, clitoral sex only) and townie lesbians who were fine with their role playing, BDSM, etc.

The townie lesbians (I was a townie, though young), just coldn't get it. And they weren't going to get very well because it was coming from women who were also people who regularly ridiculed them for, well, being hicks, townies, backward.

Cripe, I had to sit in women's studies classes and learn that sex with men was wrong in the late 80s!

so, I can see how it's possible to be isolated from those things. For me, it's bound up with critiques of class and race, since they are bound up with attitudes toward proper sexuality -- as Allison and Biddy Martin have pointed out.

But, in this interminable war, few people want to listen to those issues for reasons I can't fathom. But, if you go back and read the people who came to be identified with sex positive feminism -- they were, in fact, dealing with race/class issues but only knew how to understand it in terms of sex/sexuality. (There's a great interview with Gayle Rubin about this that I've been meaning to scan.)

belledame222 said...

Oh yeah--well, first of all, it's not, I don't think, a coincidence that many of not most of the best-known (well, to me, i suppose, which could make it slightly skewed, but) sex-pos feminists are either bi (Betty Dodson, Susie Bright, Carol Queen, Nina Hartley) or (mostly) lesbian (Dorothy Allison, Amber Hollibaugh, Gayle Rubin), and/or trans/genderqueer (Patrick Califia, Kate Bornstein--admittedly they branch out beyond feminism as most mainstreamers and/or rad fems know it, but to me this is a good thing). For any number of reasons, ranging from "if you're already marginalized you might as well dance" to...well, I suppose thinking outside the um, box, you know. I mean, what I keep coming back to is: if one isn't quite so concerned with the meaning of male-female relations for personal reasons, one might be more presdisposed toward playing with the roles more; one doesn't, perhaps, take it all quite so Seriously. that's not all of it, of course.

But I mean, certainly for Allison and Hollibaugh, at least, class is inextricably bound up with sexuality issues. You're right: a part of it comes back to being a "nice" girl; and again, if you're 1) not culturally raised to that and 2) already not considered "nice," then, well, you have a choice of several responses to this.

And then the other part is, I know, for a lot of the anti-porn (prostitution, etc.) folks, about abuse. And I do think it's true that some of the glossier, newer voices in the sex-pos, less feminist per se spotlight are less about basics like boundaries, or important psychological/CR stuff, and more all about going straight to the the Fun For All! technique, product placement! here are 99 handy flogger techniques, and here's how to squirt in patterns!

Which is all fine, don't get me wrong; I am all about the Fun. But I can definitely see where someone who had had difficult, painful experiences around sex (and frankly, there are few of us who haven't in one way or another at some point down the line) would feel alienated by that face of it.

Of course, Allison (for instance) is an incest survivor, and reading her work you understand just how seriously she takes her reclaiming of her body and desire; how important that is, not (just) in *spite* of her history of abuse, but BECAUSE of it; that her desire, named, claimed, and acted on, was like taking back what had been stolen. A part of her survival, not just some frippery.

I'm now thinking, too, of the dialogue you'd had with the author of f-words, where she'd titled an entry "I'll Have What She's Having."

which, as I'm recalling it, and certainly implied by the title, suggests a sort of half-wistful envy, half-intimidated, shying away of (I imagine is imagined, by a lot of women, I mean) the unutterably foreign. The Glamourous Life, you know: orgies! piles of men! (or women) piles of cash and validation by Patriarchal Society!

Which, well, maybe, for a few people.

But now I'm thinking in turn of MFK Fisher, oddly enough, who was a bit of an alien to some people within the "serious" literary field ("Why do you write about hunger, and not about wars or love?"), not to mention the nice, "average" folks who, in her later years, would laugh nervously and say, "Wouldn't dream of asking *you* [to dinner], of course." You know, the fancy gourmet, living in a rarefied plane of her own, dining on foie gras and caviar and fine wines every night, no doubt. Certainly would sneer at the plain ol' pork chops and lemon pie the nice, nervous "just folks" are having.

after which such remarks, she writes, she stops on the way home at the local market for a can of tomato soup and a box of rye crackers.

belledame222 said...

...And the other point of which association, of course, is that Fisher *was* writing about wars and love, very much so. Which is not to say she wasn't *just* writing about food, either; she was very clear that sensual enjoyment was worthwhile in its own right. Which notion, although perhaps more widely accepted wrt the medium of eating than of sexual pleasure (although that's been problematic too, and that's a whole post for another day, and I think maybe the other blog), is kind of inimical to this our Calvinistic, materialistic, mechanistic...patriarchal...among other influences of course...society.

But, for Fisher, if not for every "gourmet" writer, food, along with the act of eating/breaking bread, was a medium both imminent and transcendent. It was itself, and it was also something more.

And so it is, I think, for many of the best sex-positive writers (feminist and otherwise); I'd certainly include Bright and Queen and Califia and Allison among them, at the least. And, as you point out, sociopolitical critique on a number of intersecting levels is very present throughout their work. But I think, and this is the most glaring example of how sex-negativity does act as a filter just as much as misogyny (if one can ever truly separate the two), that people often take a cursory look at what these people are doing and saying and all they see is the shiny shiny latex and the fuck-me pumps and the cleavage. Just like, funnily enough, the sexists they're decrying. Yeah, actually, there *is* a brain in there, miniskirt, corset, strap-on and all.

and now i'm also thinking of a wonderful Samuel R. Delany essay--it might have been a whole book's worth of essays--about the meaning the old gay porn theatres in Times Square had had, how they provided a certain mingling of class and age and race and other demographics in a way that isn't/wasn't often enacted in other spaces.

Califia writes about this too, of course: how the privatization of sexuality is in line with the privatization of society in general, and how the erosion of the public square (in all its messiness) is directly related to the detriment of democracy.

Which, and you look at Times Square now, and sure, it's "safer" feeling for a lot of people (although the people who were most vulnerable were simply shoved uptown and out of sight, where they often became more vulnerable still), but I mean: is all the glaring Disney crap really better than the gay porn theatres? And, if so, better for whom?

Bitch | Lab said...

*nod* *nod* *nod*

about the sexpos being bi or lesbian.

*nod* fucking *nod* fucking *nod*

Rubin, for instance, talks about coming to write the seminal article, 'Thinking Sex' because of her involvement with the leather community and then doing an anthropology of leathermen.

Biddy Martin talks about how, Gloria Anzaldua's work, she reveals her desire to be femme was deeply associated with her Latina identity but she felt unable to be a femme within the lesbian community at the time.

Probably most passionate is Rubin's interview with Judith Butler. It's also where she sometimes gets, errr, catty about the radfems.

(Remember I said awhile back that I wanted to look at old documents and published writing to see how both sides of this war were unfair to one another early on.)

My whole thing with the sex pos stuff is that, it doesn't matter how much and what kind and with whom. You can be celibate!

Working through Rubin, though, she's onto something, as are Queer Theorists, trying to say that it's not so easy to read sexuality off patriarchy as if we're blank slates upon which our desires are written wholly without an ability to resist and redefine them.

And I think, OH! OH! yes!

I read Hugo's blog entry today on masturbation and fantasy and just had to point out that damn! dude! you just completely ignore the work of queer women on desire and fantasy. And dang! dude! you write all this based on your assumptions about fantasies and masturbation. How about research?

I wanted to go bang my head against the wall. glub glub.

Bitch | Lab said...

I'm thrilled to death to say that the word verification that came up next after I published the comment was...

drum roll, please!



belledame222 said...


See, I keep reading several themes within the current crop of radfem sites:

1) Mainstream, at least; or *all*, depending on who's speaking--obviously this isn't monolithic on the radfem end either--porn & prostitution are oppressive because

1a) they, or more specifically porn, here, reinforces patriarchal hegemonic structures and ideals, through the saturation of media images

1b) they/it reduces what should be an intimate, soulful inteaction into a meaningless cash transaction, the woman to be consumed by the male consumer. (Gay male prostitution is generally unacknowledged, but if someone else brings it up, it is swept under/into this same category, because the people who buy the services/consumers are stil men, and the prostitutes are still being exploited/consumed)

1c) most, or *all* women in sex work are doing this against their will, are badly exploited and abused in the process of *making* porn and performing sex work services--again, depending on which radfem is speaking. Obviously the more irritating and less sophisticated position is to insist that your own bad experiences/observations speak for everyone, and if a woman insists that hers is different she must needs be self-deluded and/or exploitive/abusive in her own right.

The fairer approach is to observe, correctly, that by far the majority of sex workers in the world, certainly, and probably including the U.S., at least, resemble the miserable children and women who effectively have no other viable economic choice, and indeed are often enough baldly sold into sex work, than the educated, relatively privileged (on a global scale certainly) sex-positive sex workers such as Carol Queen.

2) BDSM, again depending on which radfem is speaking, is either

2a) abuse and/or rape *in itself;* which is obviously the more frustratingly misrepresented position and therefore more difficult to argue with (and yet, it's a widespread enough misapprehension among not just feminists but society at large that one feels the need to point out the obvious whenever someone speaks with The Voice Of Authority that he or she's been there and done that and it's badbadbad);


2b) again, more sophisticated, BDSM is acknowledged as being a consensual activity or set of activities among adults, to be distinguished from abuse. But the criticism is based heavily on, again, a het-centric and radfem-framed view of power and its relation to gender, at least as much so as the "patriarchy" that is supposedly being deconstructed.


And actually, that's more than plenty right there. There's also the business of "raunch culture,"and its critiques, which you've been fisking thoroughly on your own site. And, I was gonna say, at least the old bugaboos of whether say penetrative sex was ever O.K. for a feminist hadn't resurrected themselves; then I read an allusion on violet socks' site to a discussion where this had indeed come up. oy. Where do you start?

But so, okay, these are enough for now, certainly, the Big Three (or two, or two and a half, depending on whether your critique of porn is primarily about the making-of-it end, which would dovetail into the critique of sex work in general; or whether one is also or primarily concerned with porn from the "consumer" end, that is, the media effects of its imagery on the collective consciousness. Which, the latter, is worth a separate consideration).

So, 1). Well, it seems to me that 1c) is by far the fairest and most troubling critique of the whole business: that is, the abuse/exploitation is real, it's widespread, and it's not gonna go away just because a handful of relatively privileged (on the global scale) women are finding a way to make not just a survival but a fulfilling career out of it.

But the thing is, as you observe, you cannot separate the question of class from all this, and that is most blatantly apparent here. And it's here where I think the construction of patriarchy as *the* all-encompassing frame to examine all this breaks down. While this is admittedly not my area of expertise, it seems obvious to me that if one seriously wants to examine sex work as exploitive because it transforms the workers into a commodity to be bought and sold, usually at the hands of grossly more wealthy and hence powerful consumers, then is is more accurate to pin the problem in this case, at least, as *capitalism,* not so much patriarchy. And that it would probably be more helpful to shift one's focus to a socialist or at least socio-economic lens than one dealing quite so centrally with male-female power dynamics, here.

More troubling to me is the way in which all the railing and blaming still does nothing in itself to help the actual exploited women, and in fact often ends up demonizing them or at least depriving them of their agency, any agency, through a patronizing tone. And again, going back to the socialist/capitalist lens, it seems to me that the most important work being done in this country, at least (I can't speak with much authority to sex trafficking in for instance Thailand, but this level of exploitation certainly deserves a separate and serious consideration), has been done by the sex workers themselves: organizing for better pay, better rights, and even, in some cases, (and this would be ideal, seems to me) taking over the means of production themselves. (There are concrete examples of this out on the Internets--what happened with the Lusty Lady, for instance; the organization of COYOTE; others; and I do have acquaintances who could speak to this far more knowledgably and personally than I, but I can't speak for them, and I'm getting crunched for time here, also).

And it's at this point where one comes to a crossroads: either one does agree that, okay, sex work is problematic primarily because it is exploitive as a money transaction in an ownership society, and that it is at least possible to *conceive* of a set-up in which sex work is, in the final analysis, work, no more or less. And can be viewed in the same way as all other work for pay, however one approaches that complicated subject. For example: the garment industry. There are many many women and children viciously exploited in hellhole factories throughout the world, and arguably this is as least as predicated along gender and racial lines as prostitution. Does this mean that all clothes production is inherently exploitive? Does one dismiss the experiences of say a fortunate handful of independent clothes designers, who work primarily for themselves and love their work? Does one lump an underpaid hash-slinger, perhaps one who's in the country illegally and accepts miserable conditions and below-minimum pay in order to not be deported, into the same category as a self-employed caterer who works out of her home?

Because if one reads all this and is still going, yesyesyes, but it's DIFFERENT. sex work is DIFFERENT,

then it leads us directly into

1b), which is predicated on the assumption that sex is something special, apart. That it is bound up inextricably with emotional intimacy, and that both physical sex and erotic intimacy are inextricably bound up with the idea of *relationship,* specifically and usually, a monogamous dyad. The traditional-family-values folks insist that this dyad must needs be differently-gendered; the leftier folks of this position broaden the view to include homosexual (monogamous, is usually the implication, at least) dyads, as healthy and desirable. And that sex is healthy and good...*within this set-up.* But not so much outside it.

Which tickles me a bit when it's coming from someone who positions her/himself as *radically opposed to patriarchy.* Because the assumption here is that sex, even if one accepts that it can be about fun and pleasure rather than just or primarily procreation (which is the right-wing sexual conservative position), 1) needs to be emotionally intimate in order to be a good thing, and/or 2) erotic emotional intimacy is only possible within the context of a long-term, monogamous, dyadic relationship.

Which assumption is surprise! surprise! brought to you directly from the Patriarchy (tm), here more specifically the Victorian version, with its emphasis on a domestically romantic love. What to do, what to *do.*

At which point one who is naturally predisposed toward monogamous romantic longterm dyads may well argue "well, gee, I don't do everything in order to subvert the Patriarchy. I do this because it feels right and healthy and natural. For *me.*"

At which point the sex-positive feminist, who is not necessarily so predisposed, goes, "DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!"

I'll speak to my own experiences in this in a separate post someday soon, I think, and probably in another blog. But briefly: what I learned in particular from my experiences with an organization called Body Electric, was that it is possible to have moments of *profound* erotic/emotional, even spiritual, connection with someone whom one barely knows, has little or nothing (superficaially) in common with, and will likely never see again after the weekend. And that further, the experience can be healing in a way that reverberates long beyond the actual encounter. And that while I did not do this as a paid sex worker, there were a number of people I encountered along the way (male and female) who do and did do this in their own lives; and clearly experienced such meaning in connection in the work they do/did. In this way the sex work is a lot closer to more traditional counselling (my own chosen path, or eventually) than to selling oneself as a consumer good.

Finally, I'm now thinking that 1a) needs to be treated in a separate sequence of posts, as it starts to get into the whole notion of "objectification," and i have a lot to say about this.


So the argument primarily deals with male dom/female submissive dyads. I have often heard the argument--well, maybe not often or coming from many, but certainly *loudly* enough to give that impression--that by far the majority of BDSM participants either play within this set-up. Or, if the players are gay or lesbian (I swear this is the one that made me lose it, even considering the source was a total choad, because so many feminists seemed to be taking him seriously; in fact as I recall this piece was given a spotlight place on IBTP, although I'll have to double-check before I say this with certainty), they are faithfully re-enacting the male-on-top-female-on-bottom set-up. Which would be quite news to most of the gay leathermen I know (I would love for the author of that piece to explain his views to a particularly large male bottom that he was, in fact, playing the "femme;"), and sure as shit is news to me from my experiences w/in the lesbian/genderqueer BDSM circuit.

...and actually there's more to say on this alone, and BDSM in general, scads more, but I am aware that this had become not just a post but a series of posts in its own right, and I have to get ready for work, so: more later.

Dark Daughta said...

Definitely, the whole speaking for all wimmin thing is huge. I've found myself working at writing sometimes simply to disrupt a constructed picure of homogeneic womanhood whether it be feminist or of color....
It's just so frustrating to see folks arrive at really simple conclusions and label their realizations as being about/for everywoman.

Anthony Kennerson said...

WOW..I feel like I'm finally home.

Being a sex-rad/sex-poz male (and a Leftist Black man), I have faced a lot of the same old tired BS as Dorothy Allison had to face with the Banard Feminist IX Conference 20 years ago...that quote from her brings up some real memories from my old "library rat" days. (More on that later.)

And the point about most sex-pos female activists being bi or lesbian (or gay male, or queer) is right on point....but with this caveat: I feel that the difference isn't neccessarily sexual orientation per se, but a willingness to buck the overall restrictiveness of the domainant conservative sexual moralities and explore their sexual autonomy for themselves and their own pleasures.

If I may also point this out, they all also happen to be extremely radical in other forms of social and economic analysis as well -- being outspoken socialists/anticapitalists and/or members of traditionally oppressed groups -- and they transfer their radicalism and their rebellion against inequality over to their personal lives. And they tend to focus much more on the institutional and materialistic function of inequality as it relates to how conservative ideas are passed on to the broader society as a means of retaining and maintaining economic privilege, rather than merely resorting to individualistic, atomized acts of therapy or New Age-styled pseudo cult-speak.

In short, their activism is based on experience and functional analysis, rather than personal prejudice...and they actually respect the people they represent as full human beings, not just damsals needing "rescue" from their plight.

This discussion is SOOOO badly needed...major props to you, Belle, for having the ovaries to post this.

And to Violet Socks: special props to you for your generousity and willingness to actually hear us (sex-poz radicals) out and share your ambiguities. If only the broader femininst community could have such a similar open mind and heart...and we can learn as much from you as you can from us.

There is so much more I could say..but work calls me. Outstanding discussion, ladies..I couldn't be prouder than I am now that I have such allies.


Anonymous said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛,A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網,sex,情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購

Somya Kumari said...

Model Call girls in Dwarka, Hifi Call Girls in Gurgaon
Our Model hifi Dwarka Call Girls are best in all aspects and will give u immense pleasure

Call Girls in Dwarka
Call Girls in Dwarka
Call Girls in Gurgaon
Call Girls in Saket
Call Girls in Mahipalpur
Call Girls in Vasant Kunj
Escorts Girls in Dwarka
Call Girls in Dwarka 5 Star Hotels
Call Girls in Vasant Vihar
Call Girls in Gurgaon
VIP Call Girls in Delhi
Call Girls in Gurgaon
Escorts Girls Gurgaon
Call Girls in Saket
Call Girls in Mahipalpur
Sexy Call Girls in Delhi
Escorts in Delhi
Call Girls in Gurgaon South City
Call Girls in Gurgaon MG Road

We offer Delhi hiprofile escorts for those are looking for high profile escorts in Delhi city. Our website gallery page

contains most attractive female escort service providers in India.

Model Escorts in Dwarka
Call Girls in Gurgaon
VIP Call Girls in Delhi
Young Escorts in Delhi
Escorts in Gurgaon DLF City
Sexy Call Girls in Dwarka
Escorts in Mahipalpur
5 Star Escorts in Dwarka Hotels
Escorts Girls in Dwarka
Beautiful Dwarka Escorts
5 Star Model Escort Girls in Gurgaon
Escorts Girls Gurgaon
Escorts in Mahipalpur
Escorts in Gurgaon
Escorts in Karol Bagh
Escorts in Gurgaon South City
Escorts in Gurgaon MG Road

Rupali sharma said...

Its awesome story
Escorts in MG Road
Escorts in sikanderpur
Escorts in bhiwadi
Call Girls Gurgaon
Gurgaon call girls
Hot Gurgaon call girls
Escorts in Gurgaon

Manmeet Swami said...

Call Girls in Vasant Vihar
Call Girls in Dwarka
Call Girls in Vasant Kunj
Call Girls in South Delhi
Call Girls in South Delhi
Call Girls in South Delhi

jessica gill said...

Chandigarh Female Escorts We can make everything you could ever hope for work out as expected and help you pick the best Chandigarh Female Escorts