Chinese one-child policy creates sociological nightmare

posted at 2:55 pm on April 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

What do you get when you combine a Big Brother governmental decree on procreation with a cultural preference for one gender?  A sociological bomb that will eventually destabilize the Big Brother government.  China now has 32 million more men than women, a disparity that will continue to grow, thanks to their draconian one-child policies.

Expect trouble:

China has 32 million more young men than young women — a gender gap that could lead to increasing crime — because parents facing strict birth limits abort female fetuses to have a son, a study released Friday said.

The imbalance is expected to steadily worsen among people of childbearing age over the next two decades and could trigger a slew of social problems, including a possible spike in crime by young men unable to find female partners, said an author of the report published in the BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal.

“If you’ve got highly sexed young men, there is a concern that they will all get together and, with high levels of testosterone, there may be a real risk, that they will go out and commit crimes,” said Therese Hesketh, a lecturer at the Centre for International Health and Development at University College London. She did not specify what kinds of crimes.

The study said analysis of China’s 2005 census data extrapolated that males under age 20 exceeded their female counterparts by a whopping 32 million.

Beijing may get more population reduction than they bargained for.  Marriage and procreation have a civilizing effect on young men, one of the reasons why human society has valued marriage and long-term commitment.  By making that unattainable to millions of their subjects, the Chinese autocracy has literally created millions of potential criminals and malcontents that will shortly find themselves launched into society and straitjacketed by a lack of choices.

In a way, it’s an echo of what we see in large societies with plural marriages.  It has the same effect; when older men take on multiple wives, it denies many younger men the opportunity to marry and procreate, which gives them less investment in building a community.  In those cases, it feeds either wars or radical behavior, as the men have to compete to have any chance at all for marriage and for stability, and some simply choose to opt out entirely.

Have the Chinese opted to re-think their criminalization of procreation?  Of course not.  Now they’re banning gender-specific abortions, despite the regime’s blessings on abortions in general — state-provided and highly recommended, and in some cases, demanded.  The problem will be trying to determine intent for abortions, especially since Beijing is inordinately enthused about them overall.  Besides, won’t banning gender-specific abortions just send these families to the back alleys to get them anyway?  Where’s NARAL when you need them?

A rational approach would have allowed people to make their own decisions on procreation, while the government could have set up incentives for smaller families through taxes, entitlements, etc.  They could still do that and attempt to return some sanity to their population management.  However, given the brutal nature of the one-child policy in the past, I’m guessing Beijing will have something more Biblical in mind as a corrective.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Maybe like some African frogs, Chinese males will spontaneously change from male to female?

csdeven on April 10, 2009 at 4:32 PM

What do French immigrants have to do with this?

NoDonkey on April 10, 2009 at 4:34 PM

Have they tried internet dating? heh

becki51758 on April 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Maybe like some African frogs, Chinese males will spontaneously change from male to female?

csdeven on April 10, 2009 at 4:32 PM

You’re thinking of Thailand.

DarkCurrent on April 10, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Have they tried internet dating? heh

becki51758 on April 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM

“The only single girl in your city of 10 million, wants to meet you!”

NoDonkey on April 10, 2009 at 4:40 PM

If this is the best you have to say something nasty about the one-child policy is some unsubstantiated bigotry against single men, then the one-child policy is a great success! And I ask anyone who replies to offer some data as evidence.

thuja on April 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM

LOL. Right, because the repressive Communist government in China has been so very eager to publish all those studies examining the adverse effects of China’s official government policies . . . right?

AZCoyote on April 10, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Have they tried internet dating? heh

becki51758 on April 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Actually it’s very popular.

DarkCurrent on April 10, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Everyone knows that President Pantywaist supports the Chinese one-child policy. What I want to know is how much of our bail-out money is paying for those abortions.

DannoJyd on April 10, 2009 at 4:44 PM

You’re thinking of Thailand.

DarkCurrent on April 10, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Once the Chinese 32 million pent-up males show up in Bangkok, Phuket, or Pattaya, even the Katoeys won’t be safe.

Old Navy expression…”any port in a storm.”

coldwarrior on April 10, 2009 at 4:44 PM

hope this isn’t the kind of centralized reproductive planning that Nancy Pelosi and some environmentally insane people have hinted at.

Hey if insane people dont breed to save the planet thats a good thing. Just look at zombietime.com would you want them to breed?

Greed on April 10, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Time to start a mail order bride business in China!!!

EasyEight on April 10, 2009 at 4:50 PM

32 million expendables to fight a war. Every generals dream.

docdave on April 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM

32 million expendables to fight a war. Every generals dream.

docdave on April 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Time to start a mail order bride business in China!!!

EasyEight on April 10, 2009 at 4:50 PM

You can ship them to my address and we’ll do the quality checks, acceptance testing and distribution. ;)

DarkCurrent on April 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM

As a father of a boy and girl, I can’t believe how ignorant this policy is. Girls are much better children!

Ted Torgerson on April 10, 2009 at 4:58 PM

If this is the best you have to say something nasty about the one-child policy is some unsubstantiated bigotry against single men, then the one-child policy is a great success! And I ask anyone who replies to offer some data as evidence.

thuja on April 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Here’s some data.

Any government or entity who seeks to dictate to the people how many children they may or may not have not, deserves to be violently rebelled against and its leaders dragged out of their offices and torn limb from limb in the streets.

That’s how we do things in ‘merica, pardner. Just in case any of the Democrats get any ideas from their idealogical brethren there in China.

Idiot commies live with it passively and this is what they get.

NoDonkey on April 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM

32 million expendables to fight a war. Every generals dream.

docdave on April 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM

If you’re Genghis Khan, the number of troops matter.

If you’re fighting a conventional war where all gloves are off?

Just a bigger pile of ashes at the end of the day.

NoDonkey on April 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM

As a father of a boy and girl, I can’t believe how ignorant this policy is. Girls are much better children!

Ted Torgerson on April 10, 2009 at 4:58 PM

3 years ago I might have said the same. I’ll hazard a guess your daughter is 13 or under. You’ll learn better. We all do.

DarkCurrent on April 10, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Maybe like some African frogs, Chinese males will spontaneously change from male to female?

csdeven on April 10, 2009 at 4:32 PM

don’t they do that in Thailand?

max1 on April 10, 2009 at 5:18 PM

The Chinese are doing what they must. They cannot sustain the population they have now. One child is a good policy, it is only the gender preference that must change. Some Chinese accept that now a female child can benefit them as much as a male child, and more should do so in the future as the younger ‘westernized’ generations take over.

greenLibertarian on April 10, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Somebody is going to make a killing in mail-order brides. I’ll bet there’s a lot of women in Muslim countries that would prefer that to living in a tent the rest of their lives.

Kafir on April 10, 2009 at 5:23 PM

As a father of a boy and girl, I can’t believe how ignorant this policy is. Girls are much better children!

Ted Torgerson on April 10, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Tell us that when she turns 17 and “the nicest guy in the world” shows up at your door…your “girl” ain’t yours anymore, she is his for the night…

right2bright on April 10, 2009 at 5:30 PM

This is BS. 32 million in what? 1.1+ BILLION. Scraping for a story if you ask me.

griv on April 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM

This is BS. 32 million in what? 1.1+ BILLION. Scraping for a story if you ask me.

griv on April 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM

No BS. As the population ages, the one child policy will be felt by the younger generations. They’re not talking about 32 million male senior citizens.

Just finished re-reading Tom Clancy’s “The Bear And The Dragon”, written about 10 years ago, where he mentions a similar prediction. The answer? Invade Siberia, for resources, space, and hot Russian women (well, the last part wasn’t in the novel).

Frozen Tex on April 10, 2009 at 5:54 PM

Talk about a government program that really screwed things up.

SC.Charlie on April 10, 2009 at 5:54 PM

It is my understanding that something similar is happening in India where sex selection of children is being practiced.

SC.Charlie on April 10, 2009 at 5:56 PM

The Chinese are doing what they must. They cannot sustain the population they have now. One child is a good policy, it is only the gender preference that must change. Some Chinese accept that now a female child can benefit them as much as a male child, and more should do so in the future as the younger ‘westernized’ generations take over.

greenLibertarian on April 10, 2009 at 5:23 PM

There is nothing libertarian about this staement and your beliefs, you should rename your handle to more accurately reflect this statement.
How about “greenFacist”?

paulsur on April 10, 2009 at 5:58 PM

So making it difficult for young men to get married causes societal problems.

But allowing young men to get married to other young men would END CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT.

Got it.

orange on April 10, 2009 at 6:01 PM

The other really sad thing about the one child policy is that when disasters such as earthquakes happen, like the one that toppled a school, parents lose their only child. I recall one story of a couple that married late, had only one child to fit the policy. That one child perished in the earthquake; they could no longer have children.
Very, very sad.

Ingenue on April 10, 2009 at 6:05 PM

Boom times for Vietnamese prostitutes.

SKYFOX on April 10, 2009 at 6:09 PM

This is BS. 32 million in what? 1.1+ BILLION. Scraping for a story if you ask me.

griv on April 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Isn’t that ~3%? and no matter what percent it is, 32million is a shatload of malcontented people.

Midas on April 10, 2009 at 6:12 PM

There is a huge underground Catholic movement in China that might save the day. Monks and Priests are celibate and live in intellectually inspiring communities of men. I just read the obituary issue of First Things for Father John Neuhaus and I was struck at how rich and beautiful his life was, and how full of family. Not children and wives, but fellows (both men and women) that shared talk, time, food and wine.

How lovely if something so beautiful could grow out of something so tragic.

bonnie_ on April 10, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Boom times for Vietnamese prostitutes.

SKYFOX on April 10, 2009 at 6:09 PM

Boom Boom times…if memory serves…

coldwarrior on April 10, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Hey,

What about God’s one-child policy? i.e. Jesus?

Viscount_Bolingbroke on April 10, 2009 at 6:22 PM

There’s another way China could get rid of a few million of their citizens pretty fast…start a war.

davenp35 on April 10, 2009 at 6:38 PM

How similar is this to the marriage customs in Muslim countries concerning dowry? If I recall correctly many young men have little or no hope of mariage due to economic circumstances.

mad scientist on April 10, 2009 at 6:46 PM

how about making them go to war? that will get rid of the surplus males.

skatz51 on April 10, 2009 at 6:53 PM

But … the adoption of Chinese girls is a hot business here in America. They are having them somewhere and giving them away.

BrideOfRove on April 10, 2009 at 4:18 PM

The children being adopted from China is a very small number in comparison to the actual number of orphans in China. Would you prefer they be left in an orphanage for life where they receive little to no education and often aren’t even considered true citizens? Many of the chipldren who are adopted have what China considers special needs and they are therefore “undesirable”. These special needs are often correctable here in the U.S. but very expesive for a typical Chinese person to afford. Only about 8,600 children were adopted from China in 2007 worldwide. This isn’t a business, it is a means for children to leave the poverty of orphanages and come into a loving family and for families to have a child to love and adore.

conservativemama on April 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM

China is turning teh gay.

- The Cat

MirCat on April 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM

And the rape rates will be nuclear!

Grafted on April 10, 2009 at 7:40 PM

You heard it here first at HA.

The Chinese are now forming raiding groups to slip into the SF Bay Area to kidnap thousands of…get this…our women.

Since they have so few, and what they have are not the best looking, they are now negotiating with the Obama Adminstration to pay off our debt with….more women of child-bearing age.

If it isn’t pirates its part of porkulus.

Chain them to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, and make sure your woman can shoot.

Sapwolf on April 10, 2009 at 7:46 PM

The problem is actually even worse than it might otherwise seem. In short, women are not evenly distributed throughout China, so vast regions, predominantly rural areas, are without many women at all. By contrast, the concentration of women tends to be in larger cities and simple supply/demand means they are increasingly able to bargain their way up the social ladder by being more selective in picking their mates. Moreover, many men are returning to their villages in the wake of the curruent economic fallout while women have tended to have more options and have thus far been more capable of remaining in urban areas.

The PRC is actually very concerned about this because most Chinese revolutionary movements/uprisings throughout time have had a rural focus. Every month there are hundreds of protests but these numbers have been climbing, most notably in rural areas and seeking to address corruption, plant closings and land/agricultural issues. Big problems ahead.

moxie_neanderthal on April 10, 2009 at 7:46 PM

What’s interesting is that we can put a scientific minimum on the number of women in China lost to “choice” — about 32 million.

And I’m betting that a fair number were post-natal abortions, because the cost of a sex determination test is prohibitive for the working class.

Here is “choice” in all its glory, come home to roost.

In addition, the one child policy doesn’t replace the existing population, so all those poor children will be maintaining about two oldsters apiece. That will continue into the future as long as the one child policy is in place.

unclesmrgol on April 10, 2009 at 7:51 PM

The Chinese are doing what they must. They cannot sustain the population they have now. One child is a good policy, it is only the gender preference that must change. Some Chinese accept that now a female child can benefit them as much as a male child, and more should do so in the future as the younger ‘westernized’ generations take over.

greenLibertarian on April 10, 2009 at 5:23 PM

There is nothing libertarian about this staement and your beliefs, you should rename your handle to more accurately reflect this statement.
How about “greenFacist”?
paulsur on April 10, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Thanks for the response Paulsur. I couldn’t believe what he wrote either.

Young people today just don’t have a clue what a conservative is, or a liberatarian, or a socialist. Shit public schools I guess.

Sapwolf on April 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Their one child policy is a non-sequitor. The reason why there are so many less females is because Chinese culture does not value the female. Just as in the arab world, females carry a dowry. Long before China had this one-child policy, infanticide was a cultural norm for those people, just as it is normal in India. India has no such policy and still they throw the baby girls away into the dirt. If the Chinese had more kids, that would just mean more baby girls murdered. It would be best if they had no children at all, since they do not value human life, not even those of their own flesh and blood.

keep the change on April 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM

A rational approach would be to:

1 – impose extra tax liabilities on people with a male child

2 – have a lottery, wherein 20% of people who have a first female child have the right to have a second child.

That would properly incent Chinese people to have female children.

daryl_herbert on April 10, 2009 at 8:33 PM

Back in the day, thousands of men came to California from China in order to earn cash for relatives back home. Many died here in the U.S. never having married. It’s a sad story really. Anyway, they didn’t do too much damage, they just sort of faded away.

dingbat on April 10, 2009 at 8:56 PM

Actually, a report I read about a year and half ago stated that the ratio is actually closer to 126/100…but be that as it may, the results are still the same. The sociological disruption of a culture that highly values a strong [extended] family structure.

Children and grandchildren are very important for the [Chinese] family. That an elderly parent will be cared for by their children is a given. Period. That enumerated trend will begin to collapse that structure a generation from now and the PRC government is [presently] helpless to stop it…and they know it. Whatever plan they’re dreaming up to negate that should worry you, or more importantly, worry your children’s future.

Jamson64 [1505@4/10] The Chinese have dealing with this for a while now; I’ve read of ‘bride buyers’ working the ethnic Chinese communities of SE Asia over a year ago, with up to ten thousand dollars for a prime candidate. On the dark side, female members of any NK families that make it across the border are easy prey for gangsters as sex slaves or ‘slave brides’ [their illegal status makes going to the authorities a 'non-starter'...]. Does this solve China’s demographic problem? Not a wit. It does however highlight the differences between the wealthy [and connected] and average Chinese; and don’t think this has gone unnoticed by the ‘average’ Chinese.

NoDonkey [1701@4/10] You’re assuming that the US, as ‘World Cop’, would act as a brake on Chinese bad behavior, [with the current crew in command]…your joking, right? And you’re also assuming that China is afraid of it’s non-nuclear neighbors. Again, you’re joking, right? No East Asian Rim nation has military assets equal to the PLA or the PLN. Only India’s nukes let them sleep at night, and even then…they sleep with one eye open.

Does that mean they’re starting a war next month?

Nope, they’re too busy buying up resources [and racking up weapons deals] as fast as their business agents/diplomats can write up the documents. But sooner or later they’re going to hit a ‘wall’ and when that happens, their ‘nuke-less’ neighbors will be looking around for other options.

If America is not in a position to check the PRC when that time comes, they’ll be lining up to cut a deal with the PRC rather than discover what ‘or else’ entails.

That’s something I will bet on.

CPT. Charles on April 10, 2009 at 9:06 PM

I’m surprised that no one here (yet) has mentioned something just SLIGHTLY important here…

China hasn’t had a strict “one child policy” for years now. There are a number of exceptions. I don’t know all of them, but I’ll give you one example: If you are an “only” child, and you marry another “only” child, you are allowed to have two kids. That’ll be happening a lot there pretty soon, I would guess.

And I think you can have a second child if you live in the rural areas.

I’m not saying the “one child” policy was great, but there were some hard choices for China to make. As greenlibertarian said, they weren’t going to be able to move forward as a prosperous country until they could get their population issues under control. Was this the best thing? I don’t know, but I think there’s more “gray” on this issue than many HA posters care to examine.

asc85 on April 10, 2009 at 9:10 PM

The sociological impact of this population control outcome can be seen be a new and rising phenomena in China…retirement homes, elder care homes, [citing just one source for interests of brevity] and more and more young Chinese deciding not to take in their elderly parents as tradition would seem to dictate. m Other once held traditions are falling, and fast. Independent daughters living alone in major cities, making personal and career choices without benefit of the elders offering advice and consent…and women out earning males in a growing scale. Professional women versus manual labor enslaved males.

In the rural areas, young women are disappearing…to the cities, to jobs, to opportunities that mao could never have imagined in his most opium-induced dreams.

China is in the middle of being between two kingdoms, not something that has gone down well in China’s history over the centuries.

A government/Party that is finding itself farther and farther away from its roots, thus legitimacy, among the people and within its own ranks. A military class that is making demands on the Party for more and better, at a cost that is taken from the still growing business and entrepreneur class, which is demanding more of everything,. to include intellectual freedom, and the freedom to travel when and where they choose.

A lot of foam and flotsam on the once calm China sea.

So…add to it a projected growth in the number of end-game males…with few if any chances for a tryst let alone a marriage…who may soon see themselves as victims of the state, mere cogs in the machinery, without a voice, forced by government circumstances into an end-game existance.

When this China boil pops, it is going to be messy, very messy. Getting these young men a little action will be a side note when it all comes apart.

coldwarrior on April 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM

conservativemama on April 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Amen, sister. We too decided we could not let our daughters wait, without a family, until China’s leaders sorted things out. By then, our girls’ fate would’ve been long-decided.

I wonder if we don’t perhaps know each other, conservativemama???

hoosiermama on April 10, 2009 at 9:33 PM

China won’t invade Taiwan. They have their eyes on nearby Philippines, where the average family has about five kids. At least the labor shortage is solved!

jgapinoy on April 10, 2009 at 9:34 PM

So let’s see. a country with 32 million unmarried men at the age of 18-25. A country with nuclear weapons, control over the currency of the only other superpower, a massive industrial base paid for by our own capitalists. hmmm I hope americian women find chineese men attractive because they are coming…give it another 15-20 years and CA will see invasions of armor divisions.

unseen on April 10, 2009 at 10:58 PM

hoosiermama on April 10, 2009 at 9:33 PM

We just may! I am a Bluegrass gal.

conservativemama on April 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM

This one’s been brewing for years (as too similar problems for in parts of India where gender-specific abortions are technically banned).
A whole pile of complicating factors.

I had read of China considering “permanent” conscription as one solution. Only peaceful one I can think of is conversion.

saint on April 10, 2009 at 11:07 PM

So, what, is the writer saying single girls in china are extremely ugly?

boomer on April 10, 2009 at 11:08 PM

So, what, is the writer saying single girls in china are extremely ugly?

boomer on April 10, 2009 at 11:08 PM

No, not at all. The point is being made that because of engineered selection of male children over female children (a result of culture clashing with state-mandated one child per family policies) there are fewer and fewer young adult females in China and more and more young adult males in China, to the tune of about 32 million end-game Chinese young adult males without hope of finding a female young adult Chinese mate.

As for Chinese women…you’d be amazed. Spend a few days in Singapore…totally awesome young to 30-something Chinese females.

coldwarrior on April 10, 2009 at 11:44 PM

Ever see what happens when there are more roosters than hens?

Kini on April 10, 2009 at 11:47 PM

Ted Torgerson on April 10, 2009 at 4:58 PM

right2bright on April 10, 2009 at 5:30 PM

I’m not in either camp as my ex-military son has done well, and my almost 18 yr. old daughter remains preciously perfect. As her father I believe in being there for her all of the time. Maybe that makes a difference.

I hate being redundant, but my birds and bees talk with both was a hard biting explanation that sex is the act of procreation, that it is always the act of procreation, and that only a damnfool would think otherwise. I’ve had both change plenty of diapers to show them what their ‘drive’ was leading them into.

Say what you want. My methods have provided me with acceptable results.

DannoJyd on April 11, 2009 at 12:12 AM

Hmmm…..you have 32 million extra men in a government flush with money. Gee that sure would make for a terrific fighting force….nobody planned that one out did they?

Mo2Do on April 11, 2009 at 2:15 AM

Hmmm…..you have 32 million extra men in a government flush with money. Gee that sure would make for a terrific fighting force….nobody planned that one out did they?

Mo2Do on April 11, 2009 at 2:15 AM

True that, but you know what Hitler said?

“A people doesn’t become extinct due to a lack of men.” Lack of women, however… different story. It’ll backfire on the long run.

Note to self: marry a Chinese girl just to annoy China.

Penguin on April 11, 2009 at 6:17 AM

Young men with lots of pent-up[ frustrations make really good soldiers. It’s not China that has to worry. It’s the rest of the world. China will soon be invading other countries to seize female slaves for mass government brothels.

fleiter on April 10, 2009 at 3:02 PM

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Benjamin9 on April 11, 2009 at 6:18 AM

If females are aborted at birth, can castration be far behind? Of course, the aggressive personality being eliminated at birth wouldn’t serve the national purpose, would it?

volsense on April 11, 2009 at 9:00 AM

I think the only solution would be polyandry. Definitely a win-win for Chinese woman!

fsalw3 on April 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM

OR! They will become a 1/3 gay society, take up cooking, hair styling, and interpretive dance as national past-times. At the site of a gun they’ll throw their hands up in the air and squeal.

In short, they’ll become French.

Jewels on April 11, 2009 at 10:06 AM

The Chinese should issue a thank you note to the American consumer and Wal-Mart in particular for financing that huge Commie seal and all those red flags in the pic.

I’m sure that stuff ain’t cheap!

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM

If the Commiunist government can’t channel the inevitable build-up of energy all those young men will produce, things are going to get ugly over there.

But at the same time, the only likely ‘channel’ will be war…and that could be pretty ugly too.

This is what you get for stupidly limiting people to ONE kid. Even if it was 32 million women instead of 32 million men the picture would still be grim.

Dark-Star on April 11, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Nature will find a way?

V-rod on April 11, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Interesting, as a experiment in Eugenics.
.
Assuming most factors are even across a large population, The most attractive, richest, outgoing males will mate and have children. The rest are cannon fodder.

GunRunner on April 11, 2009 at 11:00 PM

You’re thinking of Thailand.

DarkCurrent on April 10, 2009 at 4:40 PM

LOL! Dang, you beat me to it. What is it with Thailand and ladyboys, anyway?

Daggett on April 12, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Daggett on April 12, 2009 at 12:06 AM

No boy toy like a Katoey eh?

coldwarrior on April 12, 2009 at 12:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2