Archive for the ‘women’ Category

Feminists angry because mother who abandoned baby is judged and criticised
September 23, 2007


16 May 2007

A few choice words from a harmful and sexist angle


This ridiculous article is by Melanie La’Brooy, a fembot fuckwit who writes for The Age, invariably whining about how hard poor wikkle women’s lives are.

In this torrent of blithering, she is whining about some newspaper – gasp – daring to actually condemn a (currently anonymous) mother who abandoned her baby.

Sydney has always had a shock-jock tabloid culture that Melbourne has never wholeheartedly embraced. For example, the Telegraph’s sister paper, The Herald Sun, ran the same photo [of the abandoned infant] but chose the caption “Where’s my Mum?”, which was simultaneously more sensitive and grammatical.

It would have been easy to write off the offensive headline as just another crudity from the same media culture that generated Alan Jones, but then our Prime Minister, sensing an opportunity to play his favourite game of Battler Empathy, came out with the following extraordinary defence of the newspaper. “I feel for the mother, I feel for the baby, I feel for the woman’s family, but fair go to the Tele. After all, that is the natural reaction. You go out in the street and talk to ordinary people — that’s what they would say, ‘How could you abandon a little baby?’ “

It seems that Melanie La-La-Land’Brooy think it’s horribly cruel, shocking and crude to judge and condemn a woman for abandoning a baby.

So why didn’t the headline read “How Could They?”. Because not once have I heard anyone mention the father.

Leaving aside IVF and allegations involving Boris Becker and a turkey baster, most pregnancies begin with a male and a female having sex. Yet nine months later, when a baby is left at a hospital, barely do we hear the word “parents” in the media. Instead it’s the mother who cops it.

Do you want to know why that is? It’s because fathers rarely abandon babies in ditches, hospitals or on people’s doorsteps (and if they did they would – rightly – be condemned as bastards. Women who do the same, however, are inexplicably poor victims.)


The spy who came in from the cold…to make the school-run
September 23, 2007


14 May 2007

MI6 woos ‘Jane Bonds’ with offers of family-friendly employment

James Bond would surely raise an eyebrow. MI6 has decided that, if it wants to recruit more female spies, it must move with the times.


MI6, like its domestic counterpart MI5, is desperate for more women officers so part-time spying, childcare vouchers and “generous maternity pay” are on offer.

And women who are single when they join up are promised they will not have to leave should they marry, and have children.

“Part-time spying”?

Oh, fucking great, now we’re really up shit-creek.

So we’re going to have female spies and agents carrying out surveillance on a suspected terrorist cell, or deep undercover at Finsbury Mosque, except they go home at three, don’t work weekends and take a year off occasionally for maternity leave? Yeah, that’ll work.

And “childcare vouchers”? Hey, Miss Jane Bonds, how about letting hubby stay at home and take care of the children instead of insisting on dumping them on strangers? At taxpayer’s expense.

Why do we need more female spies anyway? It says 38% of applicants are female. It’s not as if that’s a teeny tiny minority. And if the only way to get more female recruits is to just offer them whopping amounts of (paid) time off for maternity leave and the choice of working part-time, then what’s the point? In any case, like soldiers, many female agents would only get knocked up if they sense they are about to be posted somewhere dangerous.

Then again, women would make fairly good undercover agents I suppose; they’re experts at faking attributes and even entire personalities to get what they want.

Oh well, the James Bond movies have long since turned into a pile of politically correct mangina hogwash, the real MI6 might as well go the same way. Life imitating art and all that.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:27 PM


Musical interlude
September 23, 2007


12 May 2007

Ten-years on and this is still one of my favourite songs, and one of my favourite videos. Check out his amusingly callous indifference to the bitch whose car he stomps over two-minutes into the vid.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:47 PM


Oedipus Schmoedipus
September 23, 2007


11 May 2007

One thing we often hear burbling from the incessently flapping gobs of women is that us men want a wife who’ll basically be like our mothers, that us “silly stupid little men” just want a mummy rather than a wife. That old hag, whatsername, Maureen Dowd, specifically said as much during one of the regular anti-male tirades she indulges in to push all the blame for her own spinsterhood onto us men.

This, of course, is a load of bollocks.

If us men wanted to marry a woman who would basically replace our mother, who would essentially be more of a mum than a wife, then surely we would be going after middle-aged women. But we don’t. We go after young women. Perky 16-22-year-old women. Always have, always will.

Perhaps emasculated young men seek a mother-figure in a wife/girlfriend, but proper normal men – certainly those raised by a healthy father and not just a single mother – want a young woman who’ll be a wife/girlfriend.

Admittedly, when seeking a wife, us men will look out for maternal skills and characteristics – such as a caring nature and fondness and patience towards children – but that’s not for our benefit, that’s for our future children’s benefit. After all, us men don’t want an uncaring ball-busting harpy being the mother of our kids…nor, indeed, do we want to put up with such a woman as a wife.


Hags Mags
September 23, 2007


09 May 2007

At my local newsagent the women’s magazines are, inexplicably, laid out on the counter; Women’s Own, Bella, She, Elle, Chat, Heat, Stupid Cunt (okay, I made that last one up, but it would do as the title of them all.)

Whilst queueing up I usually scan the covers and headlines and snicker at the brainless articles of celebrity gossip and ‘True Story’ tales that these tomes of glossy stupidity contain.

It’s amazing how much women seem to love tragedy, going by these magazines. There seem to be plenty of articles advertised on the front along the lines of Raped by my step-dad! and Face to face with my sister’s killer! It’s as if, even when heart-wrenchingly real, tragedy is just another bit of gossip for women to ingest at lunchtime and then vomit forth over other women at the water cooler when they should be working that afternoon. Then again, it says a lot that the women at the centre of these stories seem to be quite capable of selling their stories to some dumb magazine that averages fifty-pictures and fifty-words per-article.

What I notice the most about these magazines is who is on the cover; women.

Women, women, women and more women. That’s all there is on magazines for women.

Men’s magazine covers feature trains, planets, aeroplanes, computer game characters, naked women (in the case of porn mags), naked men (in the case of gay mags), half-naked women (photography mags), rock stars, computers, DVD players, guitars, sailing boats, motorboats, motorbikes, cars, guns, model train-sets…and so on.

Obviously the cover of magazines depicts what is of interest to the publication’s readers.

Scan the covers of magazines for men; they depict a whole vast spectrum of things.

Scan the magazines for women, and they all depict are women. Women, women, women, cunting fucking women!

Whilst men are fascinated by a whole range of stuff, all women are interested in, it seems, is women. If they show a passing interest in anything else (like men) it’s only in how they relate to women.

To quote, once again, from Richard Ford; men look out on the world through a window, whilst women gaze endlessly into a mirror.

Finally, what is the most visible achievement of feminism in academic circles?

That’s right; Women’s Studies

They fucking study themselves. Then they study themselves studying themselves!

And women dare to wonder why they are under-represented in the invention and scientific discovery stakes. How can they invent or discover anything when all their sex indulges in is dolorous naval gazing?

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:39 PM


September 23, 2007


08 May 2007

A mildly amusing incident on Monday.

Whilst taking a short-cut through a park on my way to purchase some beer, I spied a woman sitting on a bench. She was about twenty-five, wearing a tight top and jeans, and was yakking loudly on a mobile phone. She seemed somewhat annoyed at whoever she was talking to, with some dispute as to plans for a night out that evening.

What I immediately noticed was a boy, aged about ten, standing behind her with his hand over his mouth, trying to muffle his giggling. Something about the rear of this woman was causing much mirth. He silently beckoned over a girl, who was a bit younger than him and probably his little sister, who came over and joined him in giggling and pointing at the woman’s rear.

The woman was too busy on the phone to notice the kids, and she continued yapping away. When she ran her free hand through her hair, the children seemed to think she was about to turn around and scurried away, still giggling.

On the return journey about five-minutes later, carrying several cans of lovely beer, I saw the woman was still there sitting on the bench (although the children had gone.) I decided to walk behind the woman to see what the kids were sniggering at.

It turned out to be what I thought they’d been sniggering at; the woman’s jeans were rather low-slung and, sitting there slightly hunched forward, giving an earful to the person on the other end of her phone, a fair portion of her arse was visible, and the top of her thong was riding high; pink, lacy and proud.

The incident rather amused me. The kids had been giggling in a rather derisive manner, which is understandable; here’s a woman – a grown-up – sitting there with her arse hanging out of her jeans and her underwear on display, like it was normal behaviour, like it didn’t in anyway detract from the authority she was trying to display towards whoever she was yelling at on the phone.

Stupid slut.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:56 PM


Woman have fucked the BBC up, says Patrick Moore
September 23, 2007


08 May 2007

The BBC is being ruined by women, says Patrick Moore

Sir Patrick, 84, was asked by the Radio Times if television had got better or worse during a career spanning the medium’s life. The answer was worse – “much worse”.

He said: “The trouble is that the BBC now is run by women and it shows: soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. You wouldn’t have had that in the golden days.”

They have even destroyed sci-fi, Sir Patrick’s personal passion. He said: “I used to watch Doctor Who and Star Trek, but they went PC – making women commanders, that kind of thing. I stopped watching.”

Several other guys at the BBC have made the same comments, Rik Mayall being another. It’s good to see there are some guys who do not bow down to political correctness and will happily have a go at women and feminists.

The BBC’s output is truly shit. Brainless soap-operas and makeover programmes. It’s not worth the licence fee. In fact, because the BBC is non-commercial, and thus don’t have the need to pander to advertisers – who prefer female audiences because women are more materialistic and more suggestible to advertising – they don’t have the excuse of having to aim to attract women to ensure an income.

Their worthless output and sickeningly bias news output is solely down to the feminist/socialist scum in charge of the place.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:56 PM


The Onion article
September 23, 2007


07 May 2007

Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does

According to a study released Monday, women—once empowered primarily via the assertion of reproductive rights or workplace equality with men—are now empowered by virtually everything the typical woman does.


Other acts of empowerment include gossiping about the sexual proclivities of male acquaintances, lunching with other women in small groups, taking calcium-rich antacid tablets, and reading The Nanny Diaries.

The study also cites the act of pumping one’s raised fist in a gesture of female solidarity against the oppressive forces of air pressure.

“Nearly 90 percent of study participants have done this at least once in their lives, often accompanying their action with the exhortation ‘You go, girl!’ or, simply, ‘Whooooooo!'” Klein said.

Although satirical, this article is actually pretty close to the truth.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:25 PM


A quickie
September 23, 2007


04 May 2007

Women worry about the future until they get married.

Men don’t worry about the future until they get married.

(I read that somewhere ages ago – I can’t remember where – and those two sentences perfectly encapsulate the reason more and more of us men are on the marriage strike, and why the marriage strike is clearly annoying a lot of women and causing them to bring out the barrage of shaming language to try and get us to end it. It won’t work bitches. Save your breath. The marriage rate is plummeting and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Co-habiting will go the same way soon as well.)

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:38 PM


Skanky sis
September 23, 2007


04 May 2007

‘If my sister’s kidney fails I won’t donate one of mine’


This is the case of a woman refusing to donate her kidney to her sister – should she need it – on the understandable basis that her sister is a drunken slut.

Here’s the healthy non-kidney-donating woman describing her sister’s life:

At first, [my sister’s] career went well; she was promoted to the company director’s PA by the time she was 19.

She was earning good money, while I was struggling to get by on a student grant; generous to a fault, she bought me expensive presents and always paid for dinner when we met up.

But then it all started to go wrong for her. She started a doomed affair with a married man who took advantage of her youth and naivety.

He treated her very badly and broke her heart, and I think many of the things that went wrong for her later in life can be traced to this man.

Ah right, so it’s all this man’s fault then is it? He “took advantage of her”? It’s always the same; when something goes wrong in a relationship the woman was taken advantage of. As opposed to accepting that she deliberately got involved with a married man who only wanted her for sex.

And as for her “youth and naivety”…she was over 19, she was an adult. Aren’t women meant to mature quicker than guys?

Anyway, back to the biography of this charming woman:

Not long after he ended their relationship, [my sister] suddenly announced her engagement to a young man she’d known only a few weeks.

It was clearly a rebound relationship, but within months, they were married.

We all knew it was going to be a disaster, so no one was very much surprised when they split up less than two years later.

Perhaps she could have put it down to experience and moved on with her life – but then she found out she was pregnant.

Her ex-husband demanded a paternity test, which duly proved the baby wasn’t his, and when she was just three months pregnant, she moved in with a new boyfriend. He was initially very supportive, but when the baby was born, he started to resent him.

So she split up with her hubby, fucked another guy then got pregnant by him, then was soon shacked up with another guy. What a slag.


The spiteful sex
September 21, 2007


02 May 2007

Wife put excrement in man’s curry


A disgruntled wife has admitted feeding her husband a curry containing dog excrement after their relationship broke down.


Depute Fiscal Margaret Dunnipace told the court that on 13 March, after placing the dinner in front of her husband Donald and watching him start to eat it, Martin had burst out laughing.

At first she claimed she had laced the dish with arsenic but then confessed she had added dog excrement instead.

Note how she’s labeled “disgruntled”, which implies she has some sort of reason to be pissed off and vengeful.

She claims she was subject to “mental abuse”, a vague allegation women usually make to justify all sorts of rotten fucking behaviour. She also claimed her husband dared to question her parental skills. Again, there’s no evidence he did, and even if he did, he probably had a good point. If she feeds shit to her husband fuck knows how she treats her child(ren).

Oh, and it seems she thought her husband was having an affair, but it turned out he wasn’t. Never you mind dear, you just act on impulse and do something rotten.

That’s the worst thing about marriage, it seems; your wife will imagine wrongs and their brains will start plotting what women are best at – being spiteful. Whether it’s feeding you dogshit, divorcing you and stealing your assets, aborting your baby, cutting your cock off, shooting you dead or whatever, they’ll feel justified in doing it, and a few claims of being “abused” or whatever will ensure little or no punishment comes your way.

I can just imagine all the bitches in the country e-mailing this story to each other and sniggering about it.

“Yeah, you go grrl, take that you stupid man!”

At least the guy has the house, but don’t expect that to last. He’ll be out of there come the divorce and she’ll be laughing with her fucking mates all the way to the bank.

(Incidentally, the fact that this cunt’s husband didn’t realise that there was dogshit in the curry he was eating until she actually told him sort of implies her cooking skills are not of a particularly high standard. “What do you mean, ‘does my dinner taste of excrement?’ Why yes, it does. Just like always.“)

I was wondering why the guy didn’t immediately smash the bitch’s face in, before realising that he would have ended up in prison, regardless of blatant provocation.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:20 PM


Benefit-scrounging, child-abusing, shameless, no-good fucking skank
September 20, 2007


30 April 2007


Mother who forced toddlers to fight can’t see what the fuss is about

The most infuriating this about this article is not that the (unfortunately surnamed) Zara Care doesn’t know why anyone is bothered that she enjoyed making her toddlers fight and filming them, or that she even wanted to work in Child Care, it’s this bit:

Care and her family live in Plymouth and receive an estimated £40,000 in benefits a year between them.


She and her family all live in council or housing association properties and pay little or no rent. They receive income support and – apart from Care – child tax credit.

I read elsewhere that Zara and her two sisters – all unmarried – have ten kids between them. This is what the UK is like; the more illegitimate kids a single mother slag has, the more money she gets. This cunt is even going off on holiday to Spain soon, she says. I work full-time and I haven’t had a foreign holiday in two-years thanks to the ever-rising taxes – income tax, council tax, etc – I have to pay to help fund these fucking scum. And she’s swanning off to Spain? I hope she gets gored by a stray bull.

Yet this is what feminism is all about; it set out at the start to ensure single mothers are as affluent as two-parent families, with high taxes for hardworking married couples and childless singles being the only way to bring this about. Now, after a few decades, we’re fleeced remorselessly by the government and drowning in single mother whores like this.

It cannot be said often enough; feminism is very bad for a society’s health.

£40,000 a year just for one family. Jeez. No wonder so many people are fleeing this country. They’re sick to death of working just to support scum like this.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:22 PM


The youth of today
September 20, 2007


28 April 2007


posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:56 AM


September 20, 2007


28 April 2007


“Women’s town” to put men in their place

Chinese tourism authorities are seeking investment to build a novel concept attraction — the world’s first “women’s town,” where men get punished for disobedience, an official said Thursday.

The motto of the new town would be “women never make mistakes, and men can never refuse women’s requests,” Chinese media have reported.

When tour groups enter the town, female tourists would play the dominant role when shopping or choosing a place to stay, and a disobedient man would be punished by “kneeling on an uneven board” or washing dishes in restaurant, media reports said.

Why bother with such a gimmick?

It sounds a lot like what Western Society – or what’s left of it – has become, but just on a smaller scale.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:44 AM


Thrill killing
September 20, 2007


25 April 2007

Amidst recent comments, mikeray provided a link to this article:

Girls ‘just felt right’ murdering friend


TWO teenagers who wanted to experience murder told police it “felt right” to strangle a friend and bury her body in a shallow grave beneath her West Australian home.

The 17-year-old girls, who cannot be named due to their age, today faced a sentencing hearing in Perth Children’s Court after pleading guilty to murdering Eliza Jane Davis in the small coal mining town of Collie on June 18, 2006.

I suspect brief custodial sentences followed by a bit of counselling will no doubt be applied, rather than the life sentences requested by the prosecutor. After all, the killers have vaginas, and that, seemingly, excuses any behaviour.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:16 PM


“My body, my choice to have my baby dismembered alive!”
September 20, 2007


21 April 2007


This rather grisly comment was made at an article in The Times I pointed out earlier this week. It’s not pleasant reading, but does show the horror of one of the favourite hobbies of feminists; abortions.

As a trainee doctor I had to watch a late abortion. The girl, we were told, was pregnant through no fault of her own. Possibly she didn’t know that sex was all about making babies. The operation was full of euphemisms. At no point was the victim identified as a baby and only once as a foetus. Reference was made to ‘stopping the heart’ as if the heart didn’t belong to anyone. At no point was it mentioned that the baby was being killed or was dead. In fact the dismemberment was carried out with the heart still beating because it took too long to stop. The ‘contents of the uterus’ were extracted – arms, legs, torso and a head like a cracked egg dripping white brains. The ‘products of conception’ were then checked and the procedure deemed successful. This is not what I signed up for. I want to help heal, not kill. Instead of talking about abortion it would be more honest to say ‘killing unborn babies’ because that is what happens.

And that procedure, of course, is what feminists applaud and celebrate, and they get all pissed off should any of us men dare to condemn it, or even have an opinion on the subject.

Feminists are the ones who should be dismembered alive.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 12:54 PM


Worn out wannabe brides
September 20, 2007


20 April 2007


Before feminism, females would generally marry young, often before turning 20. Thus they gave most of their prime and fertile years (16 – 24) to a husband who – assuming he was a good husband, and most were – would be loyal to her and give to her the best and most productive of his years by providing for her.

Now, of course, most women want to marry later, often past 25 or even 30. There is talk of the ‘eleven-year party gap’ in some women’s articles, whereby women sleep around for a decade after leaving University then marry at 32. Once they’re all used up. That’s the plan anyway, none of the articles along these lines seem to mention post-31 women who went along this route and managed to find a devoted hubby, they just talk to the deluded party-girls in their twenties who insist everything will all go to plan.

I hear plenty of young women at work talk of putting off marriage, one even getting worried when she thought (incorrectly, as it turned out) that her boyfriend was planning on proposing to her.

“No way am I getting married now,” the 22-year-old said, “I won’t marry until I’m at least 26. After all, what if someone better comes along in that time?”

Another young woman insisted – in all seriousness – that “40 is a good age for a woman to marry.”

Not all women use these youthful years to sleep around wantonly, but plenty do. One 24-year-old woman at work is apparantly on her third boyfriend of the year already and it’s only April (she is talking of wanting to get married soon, but that’s probably because she had an illegitimate kid by some thug a couple of years ago, and she no doubt wants a stepfather for the bastard.) The article I posted about a few weeks ago, about the ‘eleven-year party gap’, quoted one woman of 23 who bragged of sleeping with 40 men.

One woman I dated a few years ago (and ditched after just the one date) happily told me over dinner an anecdote of getting yelled at and grounded by her parents when she was 13 ‘because I was always sneakin’ out and getting drunk with these older guys from school who I hung out with and who bought me and me mates booze.’

Yeah, I can figure what ‘hung out with’ means. She and her drunken mates were getting some of the old in-out from these older guys. This woman was 27, so she’d evidently been humping away for fourteen-years. Eew! Swiftly-nexted. Pronto.


Who’s shallow now?
September 20, 2007


19 April 2007

Girls ogle the most

Women are worse than men for ogling, a study has suggested.

Researchers using eyetracking technology expected women to be more interested in faces and men in genitals.

But the truth was almost the reverse – and women also spent longer poring over images of sex.

No doubt feminists will hail this as wonderful, that women are now liberated grrls with healthy sex drives.

Had the study implied the opposite, it would have been case that it would be an opportunity for us men to be denigrated as a bunch of crude sex-maniacs who think with our dicks.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:38 PM


Think of the children!
September 20, 2007


19 April 2007

We are constantly told that women are the ‘fairer’ sex, especially with regards to children, that women are caring and nurturing towards little ‘uns whilst us men are cruel and harsh with them.

Amongst many examples is the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) which, in all its adverts, invariably implies children being beaten by their fathers. This is despite the fact that, whilst men may be responsible for the majority of sexual abuse of children, it is women who are responsible for the majority of physical abuse of children (and boys are more likely to be physically abused.)

Whenever you hear a child screaming and being smacked in public, it’s nearly always the kids mother belting the shit out of him/her (usually it’s a him.)

Plus women are far more likely to kill their babies than men are.

Then there’s abortion. 190,000 abortions are carried out in the UK each year, and it is estimated 1-in-3 women will have had an abortion by the age of 40. Some may be for genuine health reasons, or the rapes resulting in pregnancy, but most commonly it is because the woman just can’t be fucking arsed to have and raise a child. More than half of all women agree with abortion-on-demand. A couple of recent debates online that I’ve seen have involved mostly men disgusted at abortion, many women – usually bragging of having had an abortion, and that it was usually just because “I wasn’t ready to have kids.” – all telling men to basically shut up and fuck off, that we have no right to even have an opinion on abortion (though they never see the hypocrisy of saying men should be forced to take responsibility for their kids and pay Child Support whilst women should never have to take responsibility for their kids and actually not kill them.)


Minor blow to gold-digging cunts
September 20, 2007


14 April 2007

Women to receive less in divorce settlements


The balance of power in divorces tilted away from wives yesterday as a judge warned that ex-husbands could not be expected to provide women with a share of future earnings for life.

Don’t get too excited chaps, this is hardly the swift kick to the cunt of divorce laws we demand.

All it means is that a woman may not be entitled to future earnings of her ex-husband providing she has received enough of a lump-sum divorce settlement.

The case before him concerned Mr and Mrs H who met at St John’s College, Oxford, in 1982 and married three years later. She gave up her job as a teacher to follow him to a posting with a bank in Tokyo, and took charge of caring for their four children, now aged 9 to 19. Mr H formed a new relationship in 2004 and left their £2.7 million marital home, which the wife will keep, after 20 years of marriage.

Mrs H, 46, has been awarded £13 million in cash and assets but told she could have nothing more.

See? She’s entitled to “nothing more” but for, ahem, “sacrificing” a career she no doubt didn’t want in the first place, she’s got a great big mansion and £13,000,000. Her ex-husband doesn’t have to pay her anymore? Well, that’s something I suppose (or nothing, from her point of view) but she’s still made a great big fucking fortune by simply being married to a hard-working rich guy. I dare say it was his future earning potential, and her boredom of having to hold down a job, that resulted in her being attracted to him. To be fair, she has borne and raised her husband’s four kids (at least we assume they’re his) and he did walk out on her, but surely the £2.7million home he gave up is enough for her. Let alone the thirteen-million quid. Yet she wanted more? How fucking greedy. Besides, married women “form new a new relationship” all the time and yet, not only do they not have to hand over any assets and/or continue cooking and cleaning for their ex-husband, they frequently get the house, savings, car, kids, husband’s future income, etc. Surely it is only equality – which, when it doesn’t go their way, women hate with a passion – for a man to ditch his wife and not have to give her anything?


%d bloggers like this: