Women can’t say no after sex has started,
By on Nov 1st, 2006 at 2:46 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I think that’s pretty reasonable. That doesn’t mean she couldn’t press charges under a battery theory, but it’s not rape if she consented.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:50 pmI think that’s reasonable. That doesn’t mean she couldn’t sue under a battery theory, but it’s not rape if she consented.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:53 pmI am sure the republicans are gonna love that ruling. They have been foucking America for six years, so they don’t have to stop now.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:54 pmDoes that mean that if someone asks you for money on the street, and you hand him a dollar, he can steal the rest of the money in your wallet?
Would the robbery then be called “consentual rough philanthropy”?
November 1st, 2006 at 2:55 pmThis is so backwards. Reminds me of the dumbass republicans.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:56 pm“so I said stop and that’s when he kept pushing it in and I was pushing his knees to get off me.” After she told him to stop, he continued to “keep pushing it in” for about “five or so seconds.”
come on. that’s not rape if you hardly had the chance to react, nor does the ruling say it’s not rape in other cases.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:00 pmSo much for women’s rights……..and the country is better than third world countries because of why???
November 1st, 2006 at 3:02 pmWomen should be able to say no at anytime. Sorry dudes. I agree it can be painful having blue balls, but figure it out, you have your hand.
I hope there would be a good reason to put the kabosh on sex after it has started. Like “here comes my dad with a shotgun”.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:04 pmYeah that kind of kills the moment when your partner is telling you to get off of them.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:06 pmAfter reading the decision, even though I think it is a horrible spot to put women in, it seems to me the court is just telling the legislators to improve the wording of the law to include such incidents.
With that being said I think judges can use a little room in applying the law to cases. Saying that rape ends after consent and can’t be reapplied until after the man or woman finishes is ridiculous. What if the man accidentaly comes out beofre he is finished? Can he put it back in without another form of consent? Foolish. The ruling could have been made with the judge telling the legislators to improve the law.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:06 pmHas this country been moving backwards since Bush took office, or what.
Laura tells George to stop all the time, he doesn’t listen.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:07 pmThat’s it, time to bust out movies and stuff, to clarify this law.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pmOk, so the Boehner promises to beat Kerry to death, and Kerry cannot stop him once it has started?
November 1st, 2006 at 3:13 pmwtf?! wtf!!!
November 1st, 2006 at 3:15 pmCameron is obviously someone with no female relatives
November 1st, 2006 at 3:15 pmor any sense of decency and morality. He’s also someone whose knuckles are in a constant state of bleeding from scraping along the ground while he walks.
This isn’t what I meant when I said I wanted a story different than Kerry blowing a punch-line. Sheesh!
November 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pmIt’s still assault, and I believe that under the law he could still be retried. But MD seems to have a very archaic rape law.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:18 pmthere are some losers lurking around here, now smiling real big…
November 1st, 2006 at 3:18 pm“yesss!… can’t stop me now!”
let’s hear it, pigs…
i agree, swordsbane… i’m off again…
November 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pmHow old was the girl?
November 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pmlet’s see, a woman says yes, but for whatever reason becomes uncomfortable, more than likely due to the pain. She says “no” and uses force to stop the penetration. Penetration still continues, increasing the pain and discomfort.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:21 pmNope, no rape there! /sarcasm off
Katy,
That’s assuming the losers can even get it up without a prescription drug.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:22 pmWhat about men?
I will read the new ruling but I have to wonder if men can also “say no” after sexual behavior begins and still press rape charges.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:22 pmI have to agree. No is no. If the guy is hurting her and he asked her to stop he should.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:23 pmSo we as a country can say “stop raping us” to this president after we consented to him coming into office but he doesn’t have to stop until he finishes off on the Constitution.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:24 pmWho cares? Maryland sucks.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:27 pmMen,
November 1st, 2006 at 3:29 pmIf you are ever, EVER, in a situation where the woman says “no”, even after penetration, she means NO, and that’s final.
Can’t handle that?
Well, in the immortal words of Jason M Hendler, You’ve always got one hand! Use it!!
the Blueballs Law
November 1st, 2006 at 3:36 pmI am uncomfortable with this ruling, it needs to be changed. But, in this situation, look at it like this. The girl is human, she makes a mistake in saying yes to the guy or after they start she changes her mind. That’s her perrogative and no means no. However, the guy is human. The girl is saying that because it takes him 5 seconds to restrain himself during sex, that is rape. It is wrong, but how many years do you recommend he spend in prison? We are taking her humanity into account. Are weing taking his humanity into account?
November 1st, 2006 at 3:50 pmIf she said no and he wouldn’t stop than she should bite him in the neck.
It’s got to be a idiot man that makes up this stupid rule.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:50 pmI bet Exley is packing his bags for maryland
November 1st, 2006 at 3:51 pmKnuckle draggers like exlax are working on not being able to say no after the first drink is bought
November 1st, 2006 at 4:00 pmAw, c’mon, Dog, probably not Exley, but definitely Jason!;-)
My god, I actually find myself almost agreeing with Paul on this particular case, it sounds like the guy did his best to get out as quickly as possible. However, the girl could have guesstimated ‘5 seconds’ and not really had any idea how long it took him. Still, the allegation of rape is extremely serious, and I find it hard to take a side in this particular example.
Regardles, the wording of the ruling, “The court further held that there is no rape under Maryland law if the woman consents to sex prior to penetration and then withdraws the consent after penetration” is way off-base.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:05 pmAny time a woman says No, then the guy better stop. Period.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:22 pmGuys, it should not take five seconds, ten seconds, or fifteen seconds to “restrain yourself.” Count it out–five seconds is a long time, especially when someone’s inside you and it HURTS. How fast would you be off the girl and buttoning up your pants if one of your parents walked into the room? We know you can react quickly, it shouldn’t matter if it’s the embarrassment part of your brain saying “no” or the girl underneath you.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:47 pmOf course the woman should be able to say “no” at any time. But speaking as a man, the woman who says “yes,” THEN says “no” is going to have a confused partner …
November 1st, 2006 at 5:06 pmHow old was the girl?
Comment by Kevin — November 1, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
not sure i wanna know what you mean… but age is irrelavent…
What about men?…wonder if men can also “say no†after sexual behavior begins and still press rape charges.
Comment by Fredric+L.+Rice — November 1, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
i’ll go there – you’re joking, right? … i will never… there is no way…
the Blueballs Law
Comment by GG — November 1, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
poor babies…
…The girl is saying that because it takes him 5 seconds to restrain himself during sex, that is rape. It is wrong…
Comment by paul — November 1, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
no… if after only 5 seconds he can’t restrain himself then he is 10 and it’s a whole nuther story… but any guy that can’t get out, get up and finish the job by himself is a lazy, inconsiderate lout… and a rapist.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:08 pm.
Aw, c’mon, Dog, probably not Exley, but definitely Jason!;-)
that’s what i was thinking…
My god, I actually find myself almost agreeing with Paul on this particular case, it sounds like the guy did his best to get out as quickly as possible. However, the girl could have guesstimated ‘5 seconds’ and not really had any idea how long it took him. Still, the allegation of rape is extremely serious, and I find it hard to take a side in this particular example.
you vindicated your first sentence with the last… imo :-]
Regardles, the wording of the ruling, “The court further held that there is no rape under Maryland law if the woman consents to sex prior to penetration and then withdraws the consent after penetration†is way off-base.
Comment by JaneESchneider — November 1, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
WAAAAAy off base… you’re correct… no is no.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:15 pm.
Of course the woman should be able to say “no†at any time.
mighty big and white of you, john…
But speaking as a man, the woman who says “yes,†THEN says “no†is going to have a confused partner …
Comment by John — November 1, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
poor baby … a REAL man would not be confused at all…
November 1st, 2006 at 5:17 pm.
Areal doll never says no.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:35 pmThat was for Exley. OR Hendler
November 1st, 2006 at 5:38 pmkaty,
more than likely the men who would defend this “man” are the one’s who have no idea how to treat a lady, or probably don’t even know how to last at least 5 seconds anyways
Okay hey, thank you very much, don’t forget to tip the waitresses, and goodnite….I’m outta here!
November 1st, 2006 at 5:39 pmWow…I really do not know what to say. But for what it’s worth, at least I have an answer to one more legal question I had.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:50 pmAreal doll never says no.
Comment by ForTruth — November 1, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
That was for Exley. OR Hendler
Comment by ForTruth — November 1, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
real glad you cleared that up!
November 1st, 2006 at 6:27 pmComment by DRxJ — November 1, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
yep… and/or…
November 1st, 2006 at 6:30 pmC’mon – if a woman consents to sexual activity, then decides to change her mind after the activity has begun, that is her choice, but that doesn’t mean that the man involved wouldn’t be hurt or confused by it. The perfect man might not be confused by it, but I would wager that a lot of us “actual” men would be. Our confusion doesn’t mean that we can engage in sexual activity over her objections. I would never say that. But if I were in that situation, it would sure as heck confuse me … but I don’t expect to find myself in such a situation anyway, because I don’t go around forcing myself on women who are unsure whether they want to be with me. I don’t think that most men do.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:34 pmI think it’s bullshit. Why? Because I don’t care if she was all up and down on him, if she suddenly feels weird about it – he needs to stop. If he doesn’t… it needs to be considered rape. Same thing applies for men who feel uncomfortable with the situation. This is just gross.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:38 pmPS – what kind of man weird relationship did they have going there? She consented, on the condition that he had to stop when she said so? Clearly, she was not ready to engage in sexual relations on her own accord, and the man in question should have recognized that on his own. He should have never even started under those circumstances.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:39 pm@36,
November 1st, 2006 at 6:46 pmof course you can react in 5 seconds, but you still can’t define this as “rape” in general and not mentioning that in the post is very misleading.
do you really want to send someone to jail for 5 seconds of not reacting?
of course it is wrong, but it is hurting someone, not rape.
Comment by John
John,
I know this other guy who told me, when he was in high school, he was with his girlfriend, there had been lots of foreplay, and right when this guy was going to put it in, guess what? She said no, and she gave him the reason as being: she saw a tv show that said even the little bit of semen that may be released before an actual ejaculation, can cause pregnancy.
This other guy stopped immediatly, and understood what was going on. Yes he had blue balls for a while.
So John, the possibilities are limitless, there can be a legit reason for suddenly stopping, and the guy understands.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:28 pmOh and John,
The other guy came back and told me the girlfriend ended up being diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, she was a nut.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:29 pmI don’t think there’s any question that the guy would have to stop, immediately, no questions asked … I would never say anything to the contrary.
But at the time, I bet your friend was thinking “Huh? If you knew that BEFORE, why’d you say yes?” Again, not saying that it’s wrong to change your mind, nothing of the sort. Just that, in lieu of an explanation like that, the guy would be confused by the sudden reversal of consent. Or at least, I would. With that explanation, it would at least make sense. ‘Cause guys have feelings, too, and a sudden reversal like that would make me ask “what is wrong with me? What should I do differently?” and so on.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:55 pmSure John, I’m sure that guy felt inadequate and shit, but he didn’t get accused of rape.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:14 pmOverall the chances of this happening are pretty slim. And in this case, there were likely other things going on that we don’t know about.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:16 pmWell done, ForTruth.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:31 pmStefan,
Have you ever been raped?
November 1st, 2006 at 8:35 pmThanks Zooey.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:39 pmAny time a woman says No, then the guy better stop. Period.
Comment by Wayne — November 1, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
Has no one here ever had kinky sex? Sometimes no means yes after you have already said yes the first time. Granted you should know your partner, but i would hesitate if some guy said okay and suddenly changed his mind. Do you all only do it missionary style too?
November 1st, 2006 at 8:51 pmSex is going to have to become a contractual matter.
“Please sign here and initial here to indicate your consent.”
(It’s a joke!)
November 1st, 2006 at 8:54 pmWow, wonderful, that makes as much sense as marijuana being illegal.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:00 pmRape isn’t funny, and women being thought of as things isn’t funny either.
Sorry ladies, once it’s in, it’s out of your control.
Bullshit.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:15 pmIf my partner is on top of me while we are having sex and I tell her to get off me and she doesn’t can I have her charged with rape?
I asked one of my female friends about this and she said that it is totally different than if a woman tells a man to stop “but a man is penetrating a woman and inside her body that is why it is so bad when a woman says stop and the man doesn’t. Men just can’t understand that.” I then said wait a minute wait a minute “men have a part of their body completely enveloped by another person’s body. Maybe a woman can’t understand that.” She didn’t have a retort. That stumped her. Having a part of your body penetrated involuntarily or having a part of your body totally enveloped involuntarily. Do we have a double standard here? I find it interesting how each of the sexes sees things from their own perspective to the excusion of all others.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:51 pmfrancais,
Generally, men are bigger than women, and can keep them from moving away from being penetrated or penetrated further.
As far as I know, women do not have vice grips in their vaginas, so I don’t know where you’re going with that argument.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:03 pmSo does that mean guys who like to beat their women get off since the girl says yes. Well……..WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Libertarians have to be behind this, they’re the only ones stupid enough to propose this as being logical.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:43 pmThis is the kind of logic that makes sense to men. They miss the days when they could rape us with impunity if we happened to be out alone at night.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:32 pmThey miss the days when it was legal to beat us and rape us and kill us on a patriarchal whim.
This ruling is a vestige of those days and the fact thatmany,many think it’s “fair”means those days aren’t over.
I found it fascinating that the ruling was rooted in Biblical and Middle Assyrian Law. In other words, “traditional values!” It also followed “dicta” from an earlier case.
So, yes, when the Theocracy of Evangelical Christiandom is complete, women will return to their annointed role as chattel, that is, property, belonging first to their fathers, then to their husbands. Their sole purpose in life is to look pretty, begat children and keep the household. And when their looks fade, the husband is free to take on one or more mistresses, or concubines.
Remember, girls, black men got the right to vote before you did. And once your legal status is properly restored to that of chattel, well, property can’t vote. Property can’t press charges for rape, assault nor battery. Only your father or husband can press those claims. So what if it’s msogynistic: it’s Traditional Family Values.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:11 amI then said wait a minute wait a minute “men have a part of their body completely enveloped by another person’s body. Maybe a woman can’t understand that.†She didn’t have a retort.
Tell you what, let’s have Exely give it to you up the back door, and let’s see if you can then provide an objective comparison and contrast between being the penetrator and the penetratee.
This whole thread makes me ill, not because of the particular event (we don’t, after all, know the details, and there are numerous possibilities), but for the absurdity of the ruling, the basis behind the ruling (Biblical law, give me a freakin’ break), and some of the bonehead commentary made above.
Any man who does not have absolute control over his urges is, in my opinion, less than a man. He has every right to be angy and upset by the situation, at least if he is being “teased”, but he has zero right to continue for more than the second that it should take to respond to the demand to cease. Again, the case in hand may not amount to rape (depends on the details), but in general terms, deliberate continuation after a clear “stop” is most certainly rape (or after the “safe word” for you kinky types).
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:47 amgorn. you make good points and I agree with most of what you say. I would just like to take this opportunity to cancel our date for tomorrow night.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:15 amWell, if rape is defined as non-consensual penetration, it wasn’t rape if the person consented to the penetration. If that’s the case, the judge did what the judge had to do.
It would seem to me that there were (and maybe still are) about 987 other ways to make the person accountable (battery, other forms of criminal sexual contact, assault, etc., as well as via civil liability). If the prosecutor went for rape and rape alone as a strategy, and jury didn’t buy it, then that was an error in strategy.
Saying it isn’t rape doesn’t mean it’s ok.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:24 amReading through this whole thread: Here is the difference:
A lot of people here have taken this judgement as being a reflection of the judge being a scumbag, something I agree with. His judgement, is fatally flawed in such a manner as to harm the law, and should be overturned, but I haven’t seen anybody here arguing that physical harm should be done to the judge for his judgement.
On the other side of the coin however, from the mouths of such pundits as Ann Coulter, and her brood of wannabees, I have heard neoconservatives calling for the deaths of liberal judges.
Maybe I am just percieving things from my own personal bias, but that is one of the reasons, why I think of being a liberal is the morally superior position.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:29 am“I find it interesting how each of the sexes sees things from their own perspective to the exclusion of all others.”
Gorn
I think you made francais’ point with your post. And I think he would call it “enveloped and enveloper” not “penetrater and penetratee”.
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:07 amI think some of you are missing one important point. If she says no after she has said yes, for whatever reason, and the man (or woman) still continues, then the individual is psychotic. Deviant. Period. If they can get off or keep it hard and keep going after knowing the person they are doing it to no longer enjoys it..for whatever reason…then they are sickos who revel in either dominating someone else, must have their wants met regardless of the consequenses to others, or they revel in the pain they cause. And those people should have consequenses.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:55 amMy stance is that there need be no mention of “sex” in any criminal law. There is either assault or there is not. Placing sex into the argument merely muddies the waters. A person is being hurt or they are not.
In my mind this type of case borders more on the idea of “false imprisonment.” If you are disagreeing with a friend and he/she blocks the door from your leaving so that he/she can finish what he/she is saying would you lay a false imprisonment charge. You may? It depends on the circumstances and a judge would need to rule on the reasonableness of your claim.
We have the idea of mens rea in law. Do we give a different amount of leaway for circumstances with different emotional involvements? In otherwords, I block your exit from a building but you don’t know me, or on the other hand, I know you well. I believe these are two distinct situations.
There is a huge difference that needs to be recognized between consentual sex and non-consentual sex. It is a similar relation that exists on a football field. When can a football player charge another player with assault? I have not played soccer for over a month now because last time I played I broke some ribs. I give the game all I have. I have in one instance reported a player for threats of assault while playing. The police did go to visit him and he withdrew from playing soccer with us. In another instance, a player from my own team assaulted me after our game. I reported that to the police who told me to “take a baseball bat and hide somewhere and then clobber him with it.” The police officer’s idea was that it is a guy thing. Sorry it is not a guy thing it is assault. I reported the police officer for his stupidity.
The criteria in the “rape” case needs to be looked at from the perspective of was the alleged victim hurt? Was the hurt caused by the “accused” intentionally? Was the degee of hurt as a result of a condition that the “accused” did not know about.
What if I had played soccer this past month and one of my ribs snapped and pierced my lung in a heavy tackle by a player from the other team? Would that be assault? Pehaps it would be. However, if it were found to be an assault the piercing of my lung is not what makes it an assault nor what determines the degreed of damages. The culpability of the other player would rest on his intent to do damage and whether he had knowledge of the extent of my previous injury. It would also be taken into account my own culpability for being so stupid as to play such a demanding game with broken ribs.
I have a hard time imagining that any Court would take to seriously my claim of assault against another player even if in the middle of a play I threw up my hands and said, “Oh don’t come at me so fast I am afraid you will hurt me” and the other player crashed into me.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:03 pmThe thing I find very strange is this: how could someone go from consenting to sexual intercourse one minute, to charging the same person to whom they consented with rape? It’s a HUGE swing. It just seems so weird to me. I can understand saying “stop, you know, I changed my mind,” but their relationship must have just been very weird for this series of events to occur, IMO.
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:00 pmLook up “dyspareunia” – via Google or any other search engine of your choice. Painful sex DOES happen, it IS a real medical problem, and anyone who would willingly continue hurting his partner is, at the very least, an insensitive, inconsiderate boor – and very probably a rapist.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:19 pmSo Doug, it seems to me that you are corrolating sex with soccer, am I right? So according to you, when a person has sex, it is implied that there is an inherent risk of being physically hurt by your partner and that if you enter into a sexual encounter, you take on that risk? Excuse me- this seems pretty sexist to me. What inherent physical risk does the male have to worry about? Getting sore? Please…
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:26 pmWhen you compare it that way, you are basically saying if a woman wants to enter a sexual relationship, she had better be prepared to get hurt. She might, she might not, but if she does, she should have known ahead of the time it was possilble, so she gets what she gets. YOU SUCK! Sexist pig!
I think some of the responses seem a little lopsided. The guy took 5 seconds to respond, and people are saying he should be a rapist. Under Maryland’s sentencing guidelines, first degree rape has a recommended 15 year minimum imprisonment associated with it, which is what he originally was sentenced to.
Is a guy in that situation inconsiderate? I’d say yes, unless it took those 5 seconds just for the command to register. Was it battery? Less probable, but not impossible. Was he a rapist, deserving of 15 to 25 years in jail? Somebody stop the train, I’d like to get off.
Never mind that men aren’t 100% alert while in the middle of intercourse. Never mind that the gal gave him permission to start. And never mind that time seems a lot longer when you’re in pain (I swear the twenty seconds after I broke two ribs felt like a week and a half).
Just consider, for a moment, this hypothetical (and I apologize for any vulgarity). A woman is having intercourse with her husband/boyfriend/lover/etc. She is on top and in control. In the throes of passion, a very sensitive part (or two) of her partner gets between them, and is promptly crushed.
The man expresses immediate discomfort (and believe me, he will), and in the resulting confusion the woman continues for several seconds before complying with his wishes for speedy termination of the activity.
Is she a rapist, deserving of a 15 to 25 year jail sentence? If not, why the double standard?
Look, I’m not defending that kid’s behavior leading up to the incident, and I’m not defending a conclusion that there is no rape if consent was initially given. I’m just saying that to call him a rapist for taking an estimated 5 seconds to respond seems more than a little heavy handed.
November 8th, 2006 at 10:47 pmCrazy people put meanings to madness all the time. The issue for me has nothing to do with time sexist beliefs or ancient law. The fact has to be what is the definition of rape? Does rape occur at penetration or at any point during the sexual act? The example in the case aside, should the law allow the woman to climax then tell the man to stop and that be then considered rape? Its totally foolish that the categorization of rape should be down to minutes or seconds or anything else after penetration and that this has to be subject to the constantly changing wills of women.
For me if its rape it has to be before penetration. A man should not have start to have sex with a woman who laid such a condition on him. The fact is there is so much confusion in starting the act and during the act that men should at all times be on guard for those wavering females. If you want sex get all details settled up front it makes for much more pleasant living.
January 15th, 2007 at 5:46 amI been there is very tight situation and it was no fun at all- sheer fear inside of me as date rape is so real – Beware of Brazilians !!!
January 21st, 2007 at 10:39 amYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 8:55 amSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 1:51 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 5:23 pmGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 8:23 pmFree Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend’s Hot Mom
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 2:23 amBlack Pussy Black Lesbian Porn Fat Black Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 4:41 pm