sábado, 12 de janeiro de 2008

‘Portagees,’ ‘Brazucas,’ and Other ‘Funny Porto Ricans’: Overlapping Citizenships in the U.S. Lusosphere

By: Christopher Larkosh
University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth

On Portuguese as a second language and other "wasteful projects"

It probably came as no surprise to anyone last month when U.S. President George W. Bush rejected the latest health and education budget (House Bill 3043), but what was even more perplexing was the rhetorical strategy he used to voice his disapproval: out of the more than 2,200 possible line items that he could have chosen as the most egregious examples of wasteful government spending, Bush chose to single out only three, with the supposed final kicker among them "a program for Portuguese as a second language" (Wolf n/p). In the current cultural and political environment, in which Portuguese language education has been singled out not only as one example among many, but as the most illustrative case of a presumably wasteful educational endeavor, it almost seems futile to dwell upon the fine points of citizenship while the very choice of language through which many of us imagine our political and cultural agency, both as national and global citizens, is not only implicitly circumscribed but officially dismissed, even if only for the most calculatedly partisan of political reasons. If not in our public institutions, where then will the space be made to imagine and speak of such urgent questions on the dwindling scope of our own citizenship? Or does this also qualify as a waste of time and resources?

Hopefully, this space can serve that purpose today: in keeping with the title of today’s panel ("Citizenship, Literature and Culture") [1], my perspective on present-day understandings of citizenship, both here in the U.S. and in the greater Lusophone world, is grounded not only in a base corpus of Portuguese-American literary works, but also in certain elements of everyday life in southeastern New England that can be readily identified as part of my own and a shared Portuguese-American culture. (Such a definition of culture might include interactions with local, national and international media, whether in English, Portuguese or other languages; work and domestic life; educational and religious institutions; and a continual transit through the mythological and documented sites of origin, exploration, discovery and identity that give a distinctive cultural character to the region, along with other specialized forms of grassroots cultural praxis, such as folklore, artisanship, music and performance, as well as video production).

What interests me most in the understanding of Portuguese-American culture as one inclusive of localized practice, though, are the possibilities of approaching languages, literature and culture in connection to the 'here and now': that is to say, some dimension of the present lived cultural experience of the area or region in which an academic perspective is necessarily situated (Larkosh). It is in this context of the 'here and now' that those present can begin to speak of questions of citizenship and belonging in ways that implicate their own personal positionalities all the more unavoidably, not only insofar as such questions affect the wide range of other national and transnational subjects in the distant corners of that officially Lusophone world as enshrined in nation-states and transnational organizations so often identified by acronyms such as CPLP (Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries), but also those in those unofficial diasporic and often bilingual corners of the global Lusosphere that, though closer to home, are too often overlooked, if not explicitly discounted, by present-day academic and governmental institutions both in the U.S. and abroad.

First off: Interrogating market or military-based models of citizenship

I do want to take the topic of this panel seriously, after all, and by that I mean actually ask myself what citizenship means at this particular place and time. Are the current models of citizenship simply products for a market of preferred and frequent shoppers, like those made overseas by a low-cost labor force, and shipped back by way of a container freighter and interstate highway to the nearest consumer outlet? If so, I am already maxed out on these inadequate privatized models of media/product consumer citizenship, and thus would hope that at least those present are still able to think outside of the box store, both for my own sanity and perhaps even for those who share my immediate surroundings, whether on the highways and suburban shopping centers that have come to dominate the landscape of southern New England or beyond. This is why I remain thankful above all for the lingering presence of those cultural elements from Portuguese-American culture—much like a voice speaking in Portuguese or singing a familiar fado on the car radio—that serve to remind me and others of the lingering cultural alternatives and thus reconnect those atomized subjects in traffic to spaces that challenge dominant cultural paradigms through language, sounds, images or practical examples.

What, then, would a truly wasteful cultural project actually look like, especially in this discussion aimed at constructing a humane model of citizenship? One might start by considering one’s own complicity in the present-day political continuum not only of consumerism but also of war, with its unending narrative of potential markets to be exploited and threats to be neutralized, whether foreign or domestic, tangible or propaganda-generated.

Let me offer three canonical examples from Portuguese-American literature to illustrate this point: first, in the early 20th century, the U.S. author of Portuguese descent John Dos Passos identified this mode of constructing citizenship in his early novel on World War I entitled Three Soldiers. Even the ethnic differences of the soldiers underscore how military service was considered the most sure-fire way for immigrant men to obtain the full benefits of their adopted national identity. Indeed, one need only read a few pages into the work to recognize the overriding importance of ethnic categories for the characters in the construction of their own identities: as the Italian-American recruit Fuselli states, "I used to go with a Portugee girl. My but she was a toughie. But I’ve given all that up now that I’m engaged, though" (11). One might go so far as to ask what is meant by the term "engaged": engaged to someone else, or engaged in warfare? Military conscription is thus represented not only as a form of committed relationship that forces the recruit to shape up, but also as one offering a way out of ethnic identity and the limitations imposed by them, so that one can become a "real American." It is important to note, however, that at the time this novel was published, Dos Passos was considered downright "un-American" by the New York and Chicago mainstream press for portraying the war and U.S. society in such realistic, ethnically determined and starkly manipulative terms.

The challenge of acquiring the full benefits of U.S. citizenship through military 'engagement' is also echoed by the Portuguese exile author José Rodrigues Miguéis in the short story "Cosme," in which an undocumented Portuguese migrant to the United States enlists in the Armed Forces to gain citizenship after being threatened with deportation, only to die in combat overseas during World War II. Most recently, the contemporary Portuguese-American poet Frank X. Gaspar extends this discussion into the conflicts of the latter part of the century, specifically the Vietnam War, by way of his collections of poetry, especially the one entitled Mass for the Grace of a Happy Death. In his poems about the monotony of being stationed on a naval warship in the Gulf of Tonkin (38), or a few days of furlough in Manila for some "R and R" in sexually graphic and often less than heroic terms (34), he resists what he considers to be all-too-common euphemisms like 'military service,' that is to say, not a form of "service" to either his country or to the collectivity of his fellow citizens.

Second model: Citizenship Made to Order

By this point, it may be clear that the question I wish to pose through this discussion of the terms of citizenship is hardly one of how might best become a obedient "model citizen," whether in the U.S. or anywhere else, but rather one of to how to explore understandings of it as a fundamentally critical exercise, in spite of any and all hegemonic interference to the contrary. If it truly is impossible to base a notion of citizenship at least partially upon the concept of critique, then where might one begin?

In the much-touted postmodern context of continually repeated messages in mass media, the answer might well be anywhere. For example, many of you may remember the 1988 film Mystic Pizza, in many ways merely a stock example of the formula Hollywood romance combined with the local ethnic color and small town ambiance of a largely Portuguese-American fishing village on the New England coast. Nonetheless—or perhaps for this very reason—such a film can serve as a useful document of mainstream discourses on ethnic difference and cultural belonging in the U.S. After all, this film was made at the climax of the neo-liberal economic and cultural shift once called Reaganomics: a point made most forcefully by the moment in which the main character, played by Julia Roberts, comes home to find her mother asleep on the couch in front of a television blaring the television show "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." The rest of the film follows the economic cues of the decade to a tee; perhaps for this reason, the means for attaining a greater sense of power and agency for the three young Portuguese-American women at the center of the film’s plot are as deceptively simple as ordering a pizza: perhaps because, much as Margaret Thatcher used to say, "There is no alternative." The choices presented are: 1) simply get into and go to Yale, in this case, to study astronomy: or 2) marry one of your Portuguese-American neighbors, settle down in your hometown and thus reconcile yourself to repeating the by-now codified cultural stereotypes of the New England "townie": in this case, working in a pizza parlor decorated with tourist posters from the Azores, armed only with a special recipe for pizza sauce handed down from the old country; in this case not Naples, but strangely enough, from the Algarve in southern Portugal.

For those uncomfortable with these two choices (even when considering how delicious Portuguese-American pizza can be), there is an additional, third option, and perhaps the trickiest of all: to simply sleep with and eventually marry one’s way into wealth and social prestige, bypassing elite education altogether. This presumed shortcut to one’s "slice of the pie" is spelled out as clearly as possible in the culminating scene, in which the Julia Roberts character, Daisy Araujo, goes to the house on the hill to meet the parents of her new boyfriend, a preppy law school dropout by the name of Charles Gordon Windsor. At dinner, she runs the gauntlet of social mobility: overdressed in black-and-white 80’s fashion to the point of causing vicarious embarrassment, she is waited on at the table by an old friend from town, another Portuguese-American girl named Teresa. An unlucky spill on Teresa’s part while serving the food, however, allows for the family members to voice comments both on the servant’s worth and ethnic identity that would usually be spared a public airing in front of guests, not to mention in the presence of the very ethnic subjects they are directed against, such as: "These Portuguese girls are very hard to train," or, "I had one once who barely spoke English." Then the scene degenerates into an argument between the son Charles and his family on the one hand (Charles: "If you can’t train a golden boy like me, there’s no way you can train a dumb Portagee") and Charles and Daisy on the other (Daisy: "Did you think you could shake up your family by bringing home your poor Portagee girlfriend? I’m poor and I hate it, I admit it.") What interests me most about this scene is not only how an ethnic slur—in this case, "Portagee"—is employed not only to mark the limits of social class, but other terms of that form of first-class citizenship such as wealth or education, as underscored by the adjectives attached to the slur: first "poor Portagee," then, "dumb Portagee."

Both of these compound ethnic slurs could be considered part of a longer list elaborated upon in the Portuguese-American author Charles Reis Felix’s recent memoir entitled Through a Portagee Gate: "For the Portuguese, [the adjective added to the slur] was 'dumb.' The Portuguese accepted the term with equanimity. They really didn’t feel too smart. And I heard the words 'dumb' and 'Portagee' put together so many times that I had periods of doubting my own smartness. Could they be right? Were all Portagees dumb?" (319) In recent years, thankfully, what constitutes Portuguese-American identity has already been transformed by an enhanced recognition of academic achievements by Portuguese-Americans (with perhaps the most notable recent example the 2006 Nobel Prize in Medicine shared by UMass Medical School professor Craig Mello for his discoveries in genetics, specifically RNA interference and gene silencing). But as I have suggested at the beginning of this talk, present accusations of stupidity or a waste of academic resources might best be leveled elsewhere: above all towards those who judge the importance of other languages and cultures on the basis of their own limited understanding or cultivated indifference, and who underestimate the challenge that finding alternatives to present cultural models might pose to their own sense of inherited personal privilege and entitlement.

Finally: Are there, in fact, alternatives?

In the future, an understanding of Portuguese-American culture in southern New England might also be transformed by an increased awareness of the longstanding intercultural dialogue spurred by success in assimilating into mainstream U.S. culture, but also by the ongoing contact with other Lusophone cultures in the region, especially from Brazil and Cape Verde. So before I conclude, let me briefly mention two films that have already spurred this kind of intercultural dialogue and thereby initiated alternatives to the models of citizenship elaborated upon in earlier examples.

The 2003 Brazilian shock film A Fronteira is perhaps the best-known work on the dangers that recent arrivals from Brazil to New England have faced in entering the U.S. by crossing its southern border; but now that literally thousands of these same immigrants are returning to Brazil in the wake of diminished expectations for a clear path to U.S. citizenship and economic opportunity, recent articles in the local and national press, including a prominent piece in the New York Times this month "Brazilians Giving Up Their American Dream," have begun to tabulate the losses not only for those returning, but for the cultural diversity and economic vibrancy of the urban communities that they leave behind.

The second and final example of the potential for crosscultural contact (at least for now) can be found in the 2006 documentary entitled "Some Kind of Funny Porto Rican?," in which director Claire Andrade-Watkins narrates the displacement and subsequent disintegration of her own childhood community, a long-standing Cape Verdean neighborhood in the Fox Point section of Providence, Rhode Island, through the construction of an interstate highway and subsequent gentrification. While the story of uprooted communities due to highway construction is all too familiar to many ethnic communities in the region (Charles Reis Felix also narrates the dissection of his own Portuguese-American neighborhood in the North End of New Bedford in the final chapters of his aforementioned memoir Through a Portagee Gate), what is perhaps most original and provocative about this last film is the title itself; by taking an intentionally misspelled inability to distinguish between ethnic identities such as Cape Verdean and the Puerto Rican, the title raises the question of how the lived experiences of so many groups, may well be seen as an archipelago of misunderstood cultural identities, further complicating the terms of citizenship in the U.S. While no one would deny that Puerto Ricans are subject to shifts in the terms of their citizenship depending on where they find themselves (especially with respect to voting or taxation), it would probably come as no surprise to other displaced communities that such uneven models of citizenship extend beyond a single island to impact a potentially wider range of marginalized ethnically-based cultures.

Another set of questions might also arise from this parallel: To what extent is it possible for newcomers to 'migrate' not only into a adopted national identity and conception of citizenship and belonging, but also into and out of those of ethnic identity such as that of Portuguese-Americans, Cape Verdeans or Brazilians? If so, how? After all, it has become all the more impossible to ignore the role of second- or third-generation 'hybrids,' as well as former 'outsiders,' have come to play as part of the cultural fabric of these often endangered ethnic identities. Whatever the answers to these questions may ultimately be, the task of this increasingly heterogeneous community of Portuguese speakers, both in southern New England and elsewhere, remains the same: the challenge to continually renew the possibility for a recognizably distinct and vibrant culture by continuing to reinterpret its traditional signs and symbols in its own terms, while affirming new manifestations of cultural agency characterized by linguistic, ethnic and racial hybridity, both in the 'here and now' and in the broader global 'Lusosphere,' in order to make a more culturally inclusive conception of both U.S. citizenship and global community possible.

Oak Bluffs-Dartmouth, Massachusetts, Dec. 2007.

--

Editor's Note
[1] - This work was originally presented on Friday, December 28, 2007 at the MLA Conference in Chicago, as part of a panel entitled "Citizenship, Literature, and Culture."

Works cited
Andrade-Watkins, Claire, dir. Some Kind of Funny Porto Rican? Spia Media, 2006.

Bernstein, Nina and Elizabeth Dwoskin. "Brazilians Giving Up Their American Dream." New York Times 4 Dec. 2007. 5 Jan. 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/nyregion/04brazilians.html.

Carminati, Roberto, dir. A Fronteira. 2004.

Dos Passos, John. Three Soldiers. [1921] Intro. Townsend Ludington. New York: Penguin Classics, 1997.

Gaspar, Frank X. Mass for the Grace of a Happy Death. Tallahassee, FL: Anhinga Press, 1995.

Larkosh, Christopher. "Allophone Presences: In the 'Here and Now' of the Humanities." Producing Presences: Branching Out from Gumbrecht’s Work. North Dartmouth, MA: Center for Portuguese Studies and Culture, 2007. 229-241.

Petrie, Donald, dir. Mystic Pizza. Perf. Julia Roberts. 1988.

Reis Félix, Charles. Through a Portagee Gate. North Dartmouth: Center for Portuguese Studies and Culture, 2004.

Rodrigues Miguéis, José. "Cosme." Steerage. Providence: Gavea-Brown, 1983. 53-70.

Wolf, Richard. "Bush signs defense bill but balks at cost of domestic plan." USA Today. 14 Nov. 2007. 5 Jan. 2008. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-11-13-bush-bill_N.htm.

47 comentários:

Maureen Eckert disse...

Hi Chris,
I love your article...and for many reasons...but I thought I would share one of the major reasons, and ask you what you think on the matter.
As I reached the conclusion of your piece, I was struck by the way that your overall presentation on the matter of situated citizenship was a very strong answer to Stanley Fish's recent piece in the NY Times, "Will the Humanities Save Us":
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/will-the-humanities-save-us/

I had a number of "issues" with Fish's claims, including (but not limited to) a false dilemma he presents between a very peculiar instrumentalist view of humanities education and the "in-itself" valuation of humanities education. While I would generally warn against any sort of return to Aristotelian styled classifications regarding the various productions of knowledge, and also warn that, philosophically speaking, the designation of "intrinsic properties" of any sort is highly suspect (being difficult to establish and defend even with respect to the properties of the entities designated in fundamental physics (never mind macro-level social activities), it seemed to me that your position cuts to the heart of what I view as Fish's false dilemma. When Fish asks if the Humanities will save us, isn't it strange not to ask back, "which us of "us"?"

Your work seems to me to indicate that whenever we ask what the Humanities do, it is not simply a matter of "close reading" in way that Fish poses in his second part/reply ( http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/?scp=1&sq=stanley%20fish%20humanities ). This is not to say that we don't do close reading, just that close reading is an insufficient definition of what we do, and, moreover, for the life of me I can't seem to figure out how close reading is separable from context and situation. Do you think that it is accidental that Fish's in-itself defense of the Humanities comes at a time when the powers that be push towards an ahistorical, generic, standardized "ideal" of citizenship?

Adama5torNet disse...

Maureen,

You wrote:

...for the life of me I can't seem to figure out how close reading is separable from context and situation.

I have a reply for this, but not enough time to write it out this morning. I would argue that many problematic misreadings are the product of attempting to graft external "historical," "contextual," (and/or "autobiographical") information onto close readings of texts (and other objects of study as well).

More later...

-Adama5torNet

Adama5torNet disse...

One last clarifying remark: please note that I am not writing (or thinking) here about Chris' text in particular. Rather, I am speaking about "misreadings" of texts in general based upon the grafting of external / contextual information as I've described.

OK, really: more later...

-Adma5torNet

Maureen Eckert disse...

I think I can be much clearer as to my meaning regarding close reading. For instance, look to my post on Plato below. We have a huge history of the study of Plato's works/Plato interpretation now at hand, itself a sub-field of study in Plato Studies. We have receptions (emphasis on the plural) of the texts. Recovery projects, of all kinds, grounded in the texts. I would not call the differences between Cicero, Averroes, Hegel and Popper's readings of the Republic a difference of "mis-readings." Each reading reflects interests, motivations and frameworks specific to the receptions of the Republic at very different points in history in very different cultures. There is no atopical place from which any interpretation can possibly transpire. The idea there there is some utopian atopos like this is a myth. And it is why I take Stanley Fish to task for invoking any "in-itself" valuation of close reading. This position itself is itself a position shot through with relational contextual motivations (known and unknown, apparent and less apparent). An honest days work in engaging in Close Readings of Platonic texts (to keep with this example), is a matter involving the engaging multiple paradigms, past and present, and reflective examination of one's own position, one's justifications for taking and/or privileging a position. There is a sense, too, that "this, too, shall pass." Here I am, at UMD, teaching and researching in certain frameworks. What I might effectively elucidate in the classroom, or argue in a paper, speaks about my position as a academic, person of a particular class, woman, and speaks about my audience and what they bring. At a recent conference, I met a young Plato scholar who just defended his dissertation on the Republic, arguing that this work is a aporetic dialogue--a novel thesis, wonderfully defended with close reading of the text. His thesis, though novel, is not ex nihilo, and the viewpoint meshes with new trends in the field--trends that themselves mesh with overarching trends in the discipline of philosophy, and ultimately trends at large in academia and society. The scholarship is embedded in this complex, and its merit determined within it, not from some external position. I'm not sure if this comment can fully address concern with "mis-reading," if mis-reading denotes something about an interpretation that fails the standards of one's discipline, or fails peer review, because I'm really unsure what else would determine mis-reading with any clarity at all. As I mentioned, it would be incorrect to attempt to adjudicate between Averroes and Hegel writings on the Republic in terms of "mis-readings" as though there is some Plato accessible as a pure Platonic form!

Adama5torNet disse...

I was using the term "misreading" in a Bloomian sense (i.e. - as it is used in The Anxiety of Influence and A Map of Misreading, by Harold Bloom). The term is not a "value-judgement." It does not pressuppose any "pure" or "correct" reading of a text---unlike, from what I understand, Stanley Fish does. According to Bloom, any reading, any interpretation of a text (or another cultural object) is a "misreading"---the catch is that some "misreadings" are more successful than others (for example, more rigorous, more compelling, "stronger"). I think it is safe to say that some critical readings are "more effective" and/or "stronger" than others, for a variety of reasons. This is why we're able to speak, as scholars, of "weak" and "strong" or "convincing" and "unconvincing" arguments. When I mentioned the "problem" of grafting contextual (historical, biographical) information onto a reading of a text, I was not referring to the historical or biographical information of the scholar or critic writing. In other words, I am *not* disagreeing with you when you say that "What [you] might effectively elucidate in the classroom, or argue in a paper, speaks about [your] position as a academic, person of a particular class, woman, and speaks about [your] audience and what they bring." What I take issue with is the tendency of some scholars to base the content of their readings (or "misreadings," as Bloom might say) of texts on historical and/or biographical information surrounding the author(s) of the texts in question. For example: when looking at the novel Onde Andará Dulce Veiga, by Caio Fernando Abreu, a common (and, I believe, misguided) critical approach is to say something like: "Caio Fernando Abreu died of AIDS. So let's look at how this novel is about AIDS." This is a problem of referentiality. How do I know that the "AIDS" in the novel "corresponds" to AIDS in the external world? It's easy to cheat and assume that it does---but much more challenging to wade through the entire novel, looking to see a.) if the word "AIDS" even appears at all and b.) if it does appear, how it is used and in what context(s) within the novel itself. In some instances (as with Fernando Pessoa), the author's (auto)biographical information and background may actually be relevant and may allow for a "stronger" reading than if that information were ignored. (One could also assert that this is the case with Pessoa, since his primary material was, after all, himself.) However, in other instances (such as with Caio Fernando Abreu), overemphasis on historical and/or biograohical information may actually hamper the possibility of a strong critical reading of any of his works. This is a snippet of what I was going to argue. And again, I have to rush off...

[To be continued later, perhaps]

-Adama5tornet

Maureen Eckert disse...

I think there is actually some sort of agreement here, despite the semantic vagueness involved in the term 'mis-reading'. Moreover, your point much more directly reflects the concern of Anna's paper directly below (Hi Anna!!!), in which she delineates the confusion between and conflation of epistemic concerns with ontological concerns. We have moved from Chris' paper and its topic to Anna's and should probably take this up in comments for her.

398eye disse...

Dear Maureen and Valeria,

I was bit surprised, but pleased all the same, that you felt that this contribution of mine could be read as a counterpoint to Fish's recent article in the Times, as ever since I read his recent aired views on the precarious usefulness of the humanities, along with the many compelling
arguments in response to it, the debate he has initiated has been on my mind. For this
reason, I was all the more flattered by your suggestion that such a modestly framed
essay, written to fit into a hurried 20-minute reading during a single
micropanel at a megaconvention, might already serve as a dictinct model of cultural counterpractice, and thereby a form of refutation avant la lettre.

For those who work
closely with me as you do, you are aware that positions such as those in Fish's article--e.g., that humanities neither have a identifiable purpose
nor need one, and this is precisely what is redeeming about it--could not
be further from my conception of what I imagine myself doing on a daily basis. Yes, perhaps
I too have misunderstood Fish's point of view, as have apparently so many
of the academics who have written in and who dedicate so much of their time and energy only to have the suggestion raised that they are in fact engaging in an act of cultural futility (no matter how the point might be resliced and diced ex post facto). That said, I think we agree that how we imagine 'our selves'
and our utility at any given moment, and whatever effect this work might
have upon others, is not to be divested of those everyday practices of
rereading and discussion in a more broadly situated cultural context.

(As an aside, also glad to see that someone is thinking of, and rereading, Caio's Dulce Veiga in
this context of the here and now! Hard to imagine what is outside of that densely referential text...)

C.

djborim disse...

Chris,
Congrats on this awesome gathering of questions and insight into a very complicated but highly appealing dilemma for scholars and citizens alike: how to be and how not to be Luso-Afro-Brazilian in the same region in North America? I wonder how the discussion went at the MLA panel. What I know for sure is that it’s wonderful to have you with us at UMass Dartmouth and to see you (with all your multinational, multilingual and multiethnic knowledge and sensibility) put so much effort and talent into understanding Lusospheric predicaments.
Um abraço,
Dário

公車 disse...

如果你批評他人。你就沒有時間付出愛.........................

黑色星期五 disse...

好喜歡你的部落格唷,剛下班,要去睡了!!!掰~~..................................................

那ㄟ安呢 disse...

thank you for you to make me learn more,thank you∩0∩

寶皓 disse...

很用心的blog,推推哦 ........................................

王鈺雯 disse...

激情成人聊天室情色成人辣妹胸部辣妹視訊露奶辣妹自拍三點全露內衣秀台灣成人貼圖成人電影院三點全裸免費視訊辣妹av圖裸體自拍色情聊天美女視訊g點色情訊息淫女火辣av辣妹圖片免費視訊聊天室情色天空調情上床圖片裸體自拍走光照片走光視訊情色成人18成人區火辣美女成人vcd成人影片下載本土av性愛情慾淫妹美女聊天性愛聊天室女生自慰影片免費看a圖淫婦巨乳辣妹視訊成人女生自慰方法免費情色限制級a片穿幫情色下載情色網站

明宏明宏 disse...

Nice blog85cc,咆哮小老鼠,85街,免費影片,情趣爽翻天,愛戀情人用品,交友找啦咧,線上a片,女同志聊天室,sexy,色情網站,網愛聊天室,情色性愛貼圖,小穴,性愛姿勢,陰脣室,成人圖貼,性愛技巧,a片論壇,色情,85c,sexy網,人妻,脫衣,6k,18禁,手淫,性幻想,77p2p,情色,1007,85c,0401,後宮,色情,淫蕩,正妹,77p2p,ut室

BennieS雅嘉玲筑 disse...

耐斯的部落格值得推蔫! ........................................

SydneyJ21074 disse...

Make hay while the sun shines.......................................................

上心 disse...

thank for share, it is very important . ̄︿ ̄

Anja021netteC_021Restrepo1 disse...

All good things come to an end..............................................

韋于倫成 disse...

成人全裸打炮打手槍打飛機巨乳巨奶女優大奶性交性愛淫蕩淫慾淫亂淫婦淫妹淫叫淫水淫女情慾情色做愛限制級波霸口交18禁貼圖寫真視訊援交露點爆乳潮吹裸體

建霖 disse...

目標是什麼不重要,目標能產生什麼樣的效果才重要..................................................

D415_evonN_Risinger0 disse...

嘿,你的部落格不錯耶~~只是想跟您問聲好!!........................................

又陽 disse...

幸福不是一切,人還有責任。..................................................

峻君v disse...

kk視訊內衣秀 免費情色av影片 情色小魔女自拍 免費情色影片無碼 qq美美色網免費看 ut辣妹哈啦視訊聊天室 34c美女寶貝視訊 ez聊天網 avdvd成人影城 aa台辣妹有約 34c玩美女人百分百貼影片區 一葉情貼圖片區 383 天下貼圖情趣 商品 一對多視訊大學生情人 gogo2sex視訊妹 線上免費視訊聊天 yam天空辣妹影音 視訊交友etude 比基尼辣妹 kk272視訊 A片-sex520 影音聊天室fm358 sex520 net視訊美女 080視訊聊天室how2 85st免費影片觀看 小弟弟成人娛樂網 辣妹視訊聊天室 90691 免費熟女人影片 g8mm 視訊小愛 比基尼美女的奶,玩美女人影音秀 383影音城a 情色視訊,貓貓論壇 啦咧華人視訊交友聊天室 38ga成人 辣妹有約溫泉 微風愛情館論壇aio 我愛78論壇影片 飯島愛免費影片 辣手美眉甜心寶貝直播貼片 免費a片觀看 視訊交友loveliness av影片下載 avhigh免費影片 限制性影片 hi5 tv 免費聊天情人fm358 a383girl影音城 亞洲視訊34c甜心寶貝直播貼片 免費聊天mmshow 南台灣視訊網愛聊天室

許美玉 disse...

失去金錢的人,失去很多;失去朋友的人,失去更多;失去信心的人,失去所有。..................................................................

曉薇 disse...

看看blog放鬆一下,工作累死了....<.................................................................

黃怡 disse...

生存乃是不斷地在內心與靈魂交戰;寫作是坐著審判自己。......................................................................

湘均湘均 disse...

人生是故事的創造與遺忘。............................................................

吳婷婷 disse...

It takes all kinds to make a world.............................................................

陳韋夏陳韋夏益東富益東富 disse...

支持你就對了!..................................................................

JasonBirk佳琪 disse...

你的部落帶給我愉快的心情,感謝~~..................................................................

陳韋夏陳韋夏益東富益東富 disse...

很棒很期待新的內容..................................................................

SarahD_Mon淑盛 disse...

享受你自己的生活,不要與他人相比。............................................................

雅俊芬凱陳許 disse...

如果你批評他人。你就沒有時間付出愛............................................................

彥安 disse...

happy to read~ thank you!..................................................................

陳佑發 disse...

cool blog,期待更新..................................................................

琬安琬安 disse...

知識可以傳授,智慧卻不行。每個人必須成為他自己。. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

謝俊柯凡豐德 disse...

不錯的資訊~我會好好記下來!............................................................

ToryO_Vis建銘 disse...

認識自己,是發現妳的真性格、掌握妳的命運、創照你前程的根源。............................................................

黃子軒 disse...

人生最重要的一件事,就是從生活中認識你自己。............................................................

承王蓁 disse...

文章不求沽名釣譽,率性就是真的..................................................................

秀李李迪秀李李迪 disse...

看了你的日誌 覺得今天好充實 晚安瞜.................................[/url]...............

倪平 disse...

尼采:「一棵樹要長得更高,接受更多的光明,那麼它的根就必須更深入黑暗。」............................................................

韋陳富 disse...

如此動感的blog!!!............................................................

琬群學葉安高 disse...

逛BLOG逛上癮了,一天不來會不習慣了耶!!............................................................

翊翊翊翊張瑜翊翊翊 disse...

一個人的價值,應該看他貢獻了什麼,而不是他取得了什麼............................................................

張佳穎 disse...

肯定與支持你!!!加油囉~..................................................

159fsaf disse...

感謝你的分享 要繼續發表好文章喔..................................................