Tuesday, March 14, 2006
(Weekly Column)Gay men are limp-wristed and may have a Queen Gene, according to a controversial segment on
CBS's 60 Minutes, "The Science of Sexual Orientation." The show suggests that gay men are prissy and prance and wear lavender pants while they lisp and dance. Which can certainly be true, in some cases, but is this just crass stereotyping masquerading as science?
The segment featured two sets of twins. The fist pair - Adam and Jared - was nine years old. Jared was tough as nails and had a collection of G.I. Joes, while Adam painted his nails and dreamt of pantyhose.
Steve and Greg, the second pair of twins, were adults. Steve, who is straight, grew up playing sports, while gay Greg "liked helping out in the kitchen."
The idea of studying identical twins is to show that upbringing has nothing to do with the outcome of sexual orientation. Indeed, one has to be
a dolt with
an agenda to still believe the outdated myth that homosexuality is caused by bad parenting.
"Psychologists used to believe homosexuality was caused by nurture - namely overbearing mothers and distant fathers - but that theory has been disproved," reporter Leslie Stahl authoritatively said. "Today, scientists are looking at genes, environment, brain structure and hormones. There is one area of consensus: that homosexuality involves more than just sexual behavior;
it's physiological."
Identical twins with differing sexual orientations suggest that there are other factors at work than just genes.
"There's also the environment that happens to us while we're in the womb," said Northwestern University researcher Michael Bailey in the segment. "And scientists are realizing that environment is much more important than we ever thought it was."
Michigan State University's Marc Breedlove drove home this point by showing Stahl how he can take a rat that scurries and make him sashay with a shot of hormones or castration.
"I wouldn't call these gay rats," explained Breedlove, who has the perfect name for a vermin sex researcher. "But I would say that these are genetic male rats who are showing much more feminine behavior."
The show also pointed out that for every older brother a man has, his chances of being gay increase by one-third. Additionally, Bailey addressed the lie that gay men are more promiscuous by nature. He said both gay and straight men are "shallow" and tend to focus on looks, but gay men simply have more opportunity.
"They're [gay men] just more successful at it, because the people they're trying to have sex with are also interested in it," Bailey said.
I applaud this dose of truth, because anyone who has spent five minutes around straight men, know that they are just as frisky as their gay counterparts. The only people who deny this are uptight fundamentalists. And they are really no different, except they have hang-ups and feel guilty after the sex.
Whether Bailey has hit the scientific jackpot or is a
crackpot is open for
debate. Many people bristle, for example, when he claims that gay people walk and talk differently. True, one's gaydar does not have to be finely tuned to figure out Richard Simmons or Clay Aiken is gay. Oh, wait, is Clay gay?
Before Bailey makes such
broad assumptions, however, he should put on football pads and collide with former NFL player
Esera Tuaolo. This might rattle him out of his one-dimensional mind-set and lead him to expand his research to include gay and lesbian people who are not borderline transgender.
There are
also critics who rightfully question Bailey's potentially
dark motives. He once told
The New York Times that if it became possible for parents to determine sexual orientation in the womb than, "selecting for heterosexuality seems to be morally acceptable....Selection for heterosexuality may tangibly benefit parents, children and their families and seems to have only a slight potential for any significant harm."
"His research is highly questionable," said Lisa Mottet, a transgender rights attorney with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force."Bailey's work is simply not credible." NGLTF has criticized his research on transgender people and bisexuals calling it shoddy and filled with unscientific assumptions.
Still, the 60 Minutes segment, as a whole, was very helpful to the gay rights movement. It brusquely dismissed the inane pseudo-science of our opponents. But in the process of neutralizing the right, it neutered gay men. While we are cheering the segment, Bailey should know that most of us aren't using pompoms.
VIDEO LINK
51 Comments:
Interesting.
George W. Bush, when essentially asked "Why do people become gay" (in his debate with John F. Kerry in '04) said: "I don't know".
Isn't that pretty much what this 60 minutes piece said as well?
Weird thing...Dr. Kenneth Kendler did research on identical twins where at least one is gay. In his results (released in 2000), he concluded that if you're gay and an identical twin, your identical twin has a less than 1/3 of a chance to be gay. It might have made for a much stronger segment had they interviewed two identical twins rather than non-monozygotic fraternal ones.
posted by , at
3/14/2006 1:03 PM
Twin studies will never answer the nature/nurture question because even identical twins aren't completely identical -- they have different fingerprints.
Besides, I've always believed that if the gay gene were ever found, Exodus would be able to trumpet gene therapy to "cure" gay people.
posted by Jim Burroway, at
3/14/2006 2:01 PM
"I dont know" is the most accurate thing george bush could say about anything and everything!
And kurt you can start signing your name again, we know it's you because you almost always start every post with that annoying 'interesting' or 'fascinating'. Neither of which you are.
Bitchard Queer
posted by , at
3/14/2006 2:04 PM
What I took away from the piece was continuing respect for scientific study as opposed to religious lunatics with a god hates Adam and Steve agenda.
Also in terms of scientific study, the piece lent confirmaiton to ideas of genetic and in-the-womb determination, clearly long before any opportunity to (shudder!) "choose the gay lifestyle."
posted by Bob Schwartz, at
3/14/2006 2:12 PM
That's why I'm unconvinced...as religious people try to tell me, that heterosexuality is driven by piety...and not lust.
At least they say that's the reason THEY get married.
It's not for the sex, it's for getting right with God and Jesus.
posted by Regan, at
3/14/2006 2:17 PM
I agree with you, how do you define a gay guy. they can be very masculine or feminine. you can not tell if a guy is gay or not?? We all look alike!!
posted by , at
3/14/2006 4:01 PM
Who are you people kidding?? I can spot a damn queer anywhere. They stand out like a sparkler on a dark country night. That is why are they called FLAMERS.Get it???
Red -- Alabama
posted by , at
3/14/2006 5:11 PM
" 'Psychologists used to believe homosexuality was caused by nurture - namely overbearing mothers and distant fathers - but that theory has been disproved,' reporter Leslie Stahl authoritatively said."
With all due respect. I'm not sure who disproved this theory - not that I'm happy in using the word 'theory' at all!
I blog on Evolution but one of my other interests is in the evolutionary origins of psychological trauma which originates within the 'old mammalian brain' - and thereby gives an indication of how long it has been part of Man's heritage.
I know 'homosexuals' who are self-aware of the psychological harm they acquired during childhood and I also know homeophobes who are unaware that their hatred stems from mal-adjustment to an acquired psychological history of their own!
posted by Jorolat, at
3/14/2006 5:25 PM
I'm not sure how looking at identical twins disproves nurture. How can you know for a fact that their parents treat them both exactly the same?
posted by Boo, at
3/14/2006 5:42 PM
Besen sez, "The idea of studying identical twins is to show that upbringing has nothing to do with the outcome of sexual orientation. Indeed, one has to be a dolt with an agenda to still believe the outdated myth that homosexuality is caused by bad parenting."
What about good parenting? Why jump to the assumption that if a particular sort of parenting did cause homosexuality, that parenting would be bad parenting? Now who's homophobic?
posted by , at
3/14/2006 6:58 PM
How stupid is the previous poster? Besen is not stating his opinion, but what the right wing says about homosexuality.
Some people have about two brain cells. I'm always amazed by how obtuse some fools are.
Fred
Seattle
posted by , at
3/14/2006 8:17 PM
Gender identity and stereotypically "gay" behaviours occur in the hetero population as well as the gay population. One of my best friends actually is one of the "gayest" acting heteros I know, and he is 110% hetero. One cannot pinpoint gender behaviours or mannerisms and link those to orientation. Orientation is a much more complex physiological phenomenon that goes beyond what we see on the outside. Same with the millions of same sex oriented humans who exhibit ultra masculine (men) or ultra feminine (women) behaviours. Family dynamics do not in any way, affect a complex physiological response as sexual attraction. The over-bearing mother/distant father hypothesis may affect some areas such as self-esteem or motivation, but sexual attraction, I highly doubt that. I find that people who do believe this to be the cause of sexual orientation require some basic education in physiology and sexual response. They also need to get out there and actually talk to gay people instead of being an armchair critic without any first hand accounts. Listening to the likes of Jerry Falwell and James Dobson is not the way to become educated about anything, other than financial matters (giving away hard-earned dollars to greedy, power hungry phonies).
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/14/2006 9:32 PM
John Latter -- I wouln't call it a theory either...
The hypothesis that family dynamics (specifically, bad ones) caused homosexuality was a direct result of psych. professionals applying their anti-homosexual minds during an anti-homosexual era. They didn't question that the people they saw in their clinics were indeed mentally ill / had poor childhoods etc but unrepresentative of gay men and women as a whole.
Bell and Weinberg effectively destroyed the hypothesis some 30 years ago with the publication of Homosexualities.
As the title suggests, they deliberately sought out a range of people and expressions. They found no connection to family dynamics. The study is not useful for wider application (as it examined the bar culture of 1970's San Francisco...), but would have been able to find common family-nurture heritages etc if such things had existed.
Apart from all that -- why do some seem to insist that gender and sexual attraction are one and the same thing? They may instead be viewed as an intersect of two different traits.
Even if one was to find, as example, that gay men are indeed less or more "masculine" than straight men (and a mirror for lesbians) this does not address the fact that both gay and straight men display a full range of gender-typical attributes. That alone questions assumptions about direct linkage between gender non-conformity and sexual attraction per se.
posted by grantdale, at
3/14/2006 10:39 PM
It's a bit odd to mention one study done in the late 1970s as absolute proof that there is no connection between family dynamics and sexual preference. It's reasonably well known that different studies often produce different results. Presumably then one needs to consider the results of more than a single study?
Take a look at the summary of the state of sexual orientation research on Simon LeVay's home page (http://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.html). LeVay mentions several studies that showed that homosexual men did tend to have close mother/distant father type family relationships. LeVay 's comments on this point show that it's an open question whether or not family dynamics are a cause.
Anyone who wants confirmation on this can ask LeVay himself, and if you ask politely I'm sure he'll respond.
posted by , at
3/14/2006 11:52 PM
Anonymous, perhaps is you'd actually read LeVay's page you would know that he has compiled a list. It's a history page.
Read what he really thinks down the end of the page. It is dishonest to present LeVay otherwise.
Bell and Weinberg (and Hammersmith) were merely the first to conduct such a large study on the subject and use pathway analysis. That was both innovative (for the soft sciences) and much repeated since. The weight of literature supports the findings.
The fact the study was available nearly 30 years ago, and has been accepted ever since, simply indicates that those who continue to cling to claims about "family nurture" are slow learners. Or deliberate.
posted by grantdale, at
3/15/2006 12:38 AM
Anonymous stated: LeVay mentions several studies that showed that homosexual men did tend to have close mother/distant father type family relationships
Even if that statement were factual, it is rather erroneous to conclude that it has causation. As many heterosexual people experience some of those same dynamics in families as gay s who experience a balanced parenthood between mother and father. Family relationships do not determine sexual orientation, genetics and hormonal influences do. Sexuality is largely a phyiological response involving hormonal influence on blood flow patterns to the sexual organs. Arousal comes from stimuli and in gay people, it comes from sexual attraction to others of the same gender. It is complex and is not completely understood. Supression of those arousal patterns will not make them go away or "cure" them as groups such as exodus and focus on the family (love won out) mislead the public into believing and exploit the fears of vulnerable people. Especially parents, who these dishonest people usually blame for sexual orientation patterns in their offspring. It is like blaming parents for giving their offspring an undesirable (whatever that is) bodytype or hair colour. More often than not, accounts from actual gay people who really are the only "experts" in this debate, are very similar: awareness of same sex orientation goes back as far as the development of rational thought. This is prior to the influx of negative stereotypes or the negative influence of centuries old/hopelessly outdated and culturally biased religious beliefs. The 60 minutes show was unique in that accounts from actual gay people were cited rather than biased politically driven doctrine of religous hate groups.
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/15/2006 12:59 AM
Anonymous stated: LeVay mentions several studies that showed that homosexual men did tend to have close mother/distant father type family relationships.
Which would make these gay men just like the vast majority of hetero men. The distant-father thing is so typical as to be virtually an archetype.
posted by , at
3/15/2006 2:53 AM
In response to grantdale - I have to suggest it's you who has a reading comprehension problem, not me.
posted by , at
3/15/2006 3:25 AM
Again, Anonymous:LeVay mentions several studies that showed that homosexual men did tend to have close mother/distant father type family relationships.
It is erroneous to draw conclusions in regards to family dynamics having causation in sexual orientation (it is not preference as you stated earlier). Read some factual information about human physiology to understand human sexual stimulus-response patterns. It is ludicrous to suggest that parental relationships could possibly influence this complex physiological phenomenon in people. Please stop blaming parents for the physiology of their offspring. Thankyou.
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/15/2006 8:27 AM
"Which would make these gay men just like the vast majority of hetero men. The distant-father thing is so typical as to be virtually an archetype. "
Weird thing...I've never read a biography of a gay man who had a close relationship with his father.
Whereas on straight men I've seen some very close relationships with their dads, even in some cases I didn't expect it, such as Alice Cooper and his father who was a fundamentalist minister.
posted by , at
3/15/2006 9:15 AM
"Weird thing...I've never read a biography of a gay man who had a close relationship with his father."
What a joke. You obviously don't read very much. On this very web-site, Wayne has discussed many times his close relationship with his father.
Time to wake-the-fuck-up!
posted by , at
3/15/2006 9:40 AM
Weird thing...I've never read a biography of a gay man who had a close relationship with his father.
Sit back, relax, anonymous, the first sentence of my biography: Throughout my life, my father has been a central figure, a man I always admired, a man who always, in many ways, showed his unconditional love for his son.
There you have it...
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/15/2006 9:44 AM
Anonymous, brother, you are either a troll or a total fuckin idiot. I am gay and my Southern Baptist minister, USMC officer, Republican father is and always has been my VERY best friend. He also is my greatest advocate and speaks publicly about his awakening about the true nature and expression of homosexuality.
If the Alabama idiot thinks he can spot a “flamer” a mile away then I challenge him to meet this Mississippi redneck “flamer” any time, any place and we’ll see. I’ve beat the fuck outa plenty of straight, loud mouthed pussy boys right in front of their girlfriends. I took great pleasure in turning to their old ladies afterwards and telling them, “make sure you tell all of his friends and family how he got his ass kicked by a cock suckin faggot. Makes for great dinner conversation”.
Might I suggest that some of these "studies" which present cause and effect might be misreading or at least misinterpreting their test subjects and their relationships. Causation is a VERY tricky animal and is VERY easy to misread and/or misinterpret. They assume that a person turns gay because his father was distant and his mother showed him too much attention. Is it not more likely that the child was gay and was a bit different than most boys and therefore the father, consciously or unconsciously, distanced himself from his child, especially in the case of gay kids who do not gender conform (i.e. not interested in sports or talking about girls or maybe shows feminine traits)? The mother in response, consciously or unconsciously begins to shelter and dote on the child.
I’m sure that if they would have taken the “study” one step further they would have discovered that masculine men (straight OR gay) were more closely bonded to their masculine fathers than feminine men (straight OR gay). Those with a preconceived notion or agenda would automatically assume that the distant father causes femininity rather that considering the more likely scenario that masculine fathers (usually but not always) tend to bond more closely to sons that exhibit traditionally masculine traits. I would be willing to bet that feminine fathers would bond more closely to daughters or feminine sons rather than tomboy daughters or ruff and tumble sons. Of course they didn’t do a study of feminine fathers and their sons.
I think of the child in the 60 minutes story who plays with dolls and paints his fingernails. Do you think the average American father would bond equally to him and his masculine brother? I’m not asking if they should, I asking how many, in the real world would? Unfortunately I think the average American father would bond much more closely with the boy who collected GI Joes and played sports. I don’t think it would necessarily be a conscious decision but I think he would favor the masculine kid because that’s what he knows, that’s what he understands, and yes, that’s what he is most comfortable with. Then a "researcher" comes along and says, a) child is gay; b) father is distant/less involved; c) mother is clingy and doting THEREFORE the ONLY possible conclusion has to be that the child is gay because his father is distant and mother is clingy. Poor cause and effect analysis, poor "science" and poor "psychology".
Sorry for the long post.
posted by Zeke, at
3/16/2006 4:47 PM
Sorry for the bad language ladies and gentlemen. When someone pisses me off the redneck in me comes charging through. No offense intended. I will be happy to edit my post for language if the moderator takes issue.
Thanks.
posted by Zeke, at
3/16/2006 4:54 PM
Well, aren't some people childish. It's astounding that anyone can seriously claim that your relationship with your parents can't possibly influence your sexual preference, because sexuality is physiological! Guess what: because we don't have disembodied minds, everything we do and are is 'physiological.' So, therefore, by that reasoning, your relationship with your parents couldn't influence anything. See the problem?
I am homosexual myself, by the way, for the benefit of those of you who told me to ask a gay person about homosexuality. I have first hand experience of what I am talking about.
Some of you other gay people may disagree with me about this issue, but it's possible that different gay people are gay for different reasons. Alternatively, some of us may have better insight into our own psychologies than others. Gee, I wonder which.
posted by , at
3/16/2006 10:44 PM
Wow, ok people, this is supposed to be a scientific discussion. i read through these and i find people sniping at one another. god people how bout a little emotional maturity? you'll be better people for it i assure you.
Now then, as to the issue at hand:
As far as I am able to discern in my little microcosm (my high school is a sociologists dream. its very diverse in many fascinating ways) i have been able to determine this.
(please don't hate me this is just an observation)
I have observed that stereotypes are true about 59% of the time. now, I myself am an androginous (i think i spelled that right...) open gay student. a vast majority of my friends are gay or bi (one of thems even a drag queen!).
Now for example, some of my male gay friends. they are (and i say this with endearment) gay as a spring rainbow with flying glitter. Ironically, most of my lesbian friends act VERY feminine. (well, they DO watch football, but no flannel or anything lol).
Oh, and another thing is that its impossible for it to be a psychological "problem" (Felps thinks its a problem, but who gives a crap about him anyway) because A. that would mean its reversable through therapy, which it doesnt (despite claims from a minute and highly publicized faction of "ex-gays")and B. that things such as parenting ARE in effect of a childs developing sexual identity. which is NOT true! as early as 3 i remember having some "gay" qualities. (i thought my mothers clip on earrings were the best toys in the universe & wore my mom's big pajama shirt regularly but hey it was comfy) and i didn't even feel any strong attachment to my mother until after she passed away shortly before my 7th birthday (hell of a present eh?)
so yeah, lots of theories, yet no one really knows what causes it. why worry about it?
OH and another thing, those people that are so against research that could lead to a "cure", why are you so against this? we have no idea WHY we are gay. if it IS a problem, then ok! fix it & move on. if it isnt a problem, SAME FREAKIN ADVICE!
Love
-Tommy
posted by , at
3/17/2006 12:11 AM
My earlier comment:The over-bearing mother/distant father hypothesis may affect some areas such as self-esteem or motivation, but sexual attraction, I highly doubt that.
Anonymous: Take the time to read posts before commenting. See above aspects that parenting does impact. Parenting cannot influence a person's physiology. Sexual arousal and experience is part of that physiology.
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/17/2006 8:23 AM
Red in Alabama - you can't "spot (a gay man) anywhere". My husband's cousin is gay and he's a big burly truck driver who acts and talks... like a big burly truck driver. I also have a straight male friend who is sort of feminine... but he's absolutely straight. Pull your stereotypes out of your ass and get a clue.
posted by , at
3/17/2006 10:37 AM
Yes, BC WaterBoy, I know what you think. You're repeating something you already said, but repeating it does not make it true. You don't have an argument.
You're only making assertions.
posted by , at
3/17/2006 3:17 PM
Anonymous: You don't have an argument.
I have a very valid argument that is based on scientific fact. Family influence on sexual orientation is based on assumption only and is biased to suit a religious-politically based agenda.
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/18/2006 1:14 AM
Waterboy, I believe your 'argument' was something about how there are two different components to human beings, one 'physiological' and the other 'psychological'. Since our minds are part of our bodies, this is a quite mistaken idea, and you should give it up.
posted by , at
3/18/2006 1:45 AM
Anonymous stated: Since our minds are part of our bodies, this is a quite mistaken idea, and you should give it up.
No, if you re-read what I said, sexuality is largely a physiological stimulus response mechanism and is not influenced by parental upbringing. Various parts of our personalities are, such as motivation and self-esteem. What I am refuting is that a person is gay because of his or her upbringing. I do not believe that those various theories are correct. If valid studies existed of family structure, one would find no difference in the sexuality of people regardless of the type of relationship one has with his or her parents. The sole purpose of the continued existance of those theories is to advance the religous-political idea that gays can and ought to change. That is completely false.
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/18/2006 8:57 AM
The entire human body is "a physiological stimulus response mechanism." What else do you think it is?
posted by , at
3/18/2006 3:15 PM
So I take that to mean that you buy into the absurd theories of Dr. James Dobson et al that gay people are the result of "bad parenting"? Other than that "anonymous",you really are not making any kind of a point.
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/18/2006 3:20 PM
Feel free to change the subject when you have been out-debated, Waterboy. You are only making a fool of yourself.
posted by , at
3/18/2006 3:27 PM
You call this a debate? You haven't answered a single post intelligently or provided any insight into what you are talking about.
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/18/2006 3:47 PM
No, I'm not calling this a 'debate.' It was you, not me, who used that word. I answered your argument, such as it was, but you didn't notice. Too bad.
Let me make another point to you - if sexual orientation (not 'sexuality', please, because that lumps together so many different things) is purely 'biological' (leaving aside the question of what difference there is supposed to be between the 'psychological' and the 'biological') then why is it that it can sometimes shift?
I ask because my sexuality some time ago shifted from exclusively homosexual to midway between homosexual and heterosexual. As per your theory, what happened? Do you think my hypothalamus suddenly changed shape? Did my genes spontaneously mutate? I have asked this question before, and no one has ever been able to answer it intelligently.
posted by , at
3/18/2006 11:13 PM
Anonymous:
I would suggest that you do some research on your own. There are a lot of great resources out there, one that deals with a myriad of health and science issues is medline plus, google them, and look up gay and lesbian health. They have some straight forward, unbiased information. Also, the American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Association have great resources as well. Stay away from the "family-values" websites because much of their information originates from the discredited homophobe, Paul Cameron and most of it is pure bullshit.
I'm actually a little surprised that you took such offence to my posts. I thought I was being succinct and straightforward, not offensive. I work in the health care field so I do know a bit about life science and didn't think that your personal attacks were warranted. The basis of my point of view is that sexuality is largely a physiological stimulus response and I do not believe: (1) that it is determined by parenting, (2) that is can be permanently changed as per the fraudulent ex-gay/pseudo christian movement, (3) that same sex orientation is shameful/sinful/taboo/unnatural. Yes, some sexual orientation is on a continum, but, that does not mean that your core orientation will or ought to change.
Good Luck with your research.
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/19/2006 9:35 AM
That was just a 'blah blah' type post to cover over the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
It really doesn't make sense to just repeat the same claims over and over and ignore obvious problems with and objections to those claims.
posted by , at
3/19/2006 2:43 PM
Anonymous, if you don't like what I have to say, don't read it.
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/19/2006 4:49 PM
A few questions Waterboy - when you say 'some sexual orientation is on a continuum' what are you saying? Are you acknowledging that change in sexual orientation may occur or are you just using a vague expression to avoid that question? Is a change from homosexual to bisexual 'a change in core orientation' or not? How do you define 'core orientation'? Finally, how the hell would you know about what might or might not occur to my sexual orientation in future?
posted by , at
3/19/2006 11:22 PM
Anonymous, go away. I don't really care about your orientation. I have my opinion, you have yours. Go back to praying the gay away if it works for you.
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/20/2006 8:55 AM
Your pathetic inability to defend your stupid dogmas when challenged is morbidly amusing.
posted by , at
3/20/2006 3:23 PM
Whatever.
posted by BC WaterBoy, at
3/20/2006 6:45 PM
runescape money runescape gold runescape gold runescape money buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling eve isk eve online isk eve isk eve online isk tibia gold Fiesta Silver Fiesta Gold SilkRoad Gold buy SilkRoad Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts rs2 accounts buy rs2 accounts runescape power leveling rs2 power leveling FFXI Gil buy FFXI Gil gaia gold buy gaia gold buy dofus kamas buy dofus kamas dofus kamas
posted by , at
3/13/2008 10:24 PM
wow gold cheap wow gold buy wow gold world of warcraft gold wow world of warcraft wow gold WoW Warrior WoW Hunter WoW Rogue WoW Paladin WoW Shaman WoW Priest WoW Mage WoW Druid WoW Warlock power leveling powerleveling wow power leveling wow powerleveling wow guides wow tips google排名 google左侧排名 google排名服务 百度推广 百度排名 网站推广 商业吧 机床 LED灯 电池 塑料 摄像机 移民 甲醇 染料 福州热线 体育博客 股票博客 游戏博客 魔兽博客 考试博客 汽车博客 房产博客 电脑博客 powerlin518 logo design website design web design 商标设计
posted by , at
3/18/2008 9:56 PM
wow gold cheap wow gold buy wow gold world of warcraft gold wow world of warcraft wow gold WoW Warrior WoW Hunter WoW Rogue WoW Paladin WoW Shaman WoW Priest WoW Mage WoW Druid WoW Warlock power leveling powerleveling wow power leveling wow powerleveling wow guides wow tips google排名 google左侧排名 google排名服务 百度推广 百度排名 网站推广 商业吧 机床 LED灯 电池 塑料 摄像机 移民 甲醇 染料 福州热线 体育博客 股票博客 游戏博客 魔兽博客 考试博客 汽车博客 房产博客 电脑博客 powerlin518 logo design website design web design 商标设计
posted by , at
3/18/2008 9:57 PM
wow gold cheap wow gold buy wow gold world of warcraft gold wow world of warcraft wow gold WoW Warrior WoW Hunter WoW Rogue WoW Paladin WoW Shaman WoW Priest WoW Mage WoW Druid WoW Warlock power leveling powerleveling wow power leveling wow powerleveling wow guides wow tips google排名 google左侧排名 google排名服务 百度推广 百度排名 网站推广 商业吧 机床 LED灯 电池 塑料 摄像机 移民 甲醇 染料 福州热线 体育博客 股票博客 游戏博客 魔兽博客 考试博客 汽车博客 房产博客 电脑博客 powerlin518 logo design website design web design 商标设计
posted by , at
3/19/2008 9:33 AM
Roulette History
Roulette Facts
How to play Roulette
Money Management
Roulette Forum
posted by Roger David, at
3/22/2008 8:29 PM
心中一阵不安升降机，因为我忽然又想起了那道剑光升降平台，可怕的剑光升降台，美丽的剑光登车桥。为什么那一剑是那么的美丽货架，却又那么的可怕呢集装袋？在我倒下之前我说地磅，好美的剑塑料托盘，好恨的剑塑料托盘。我倒下了仓储笼。在我失去知觉之前仓储笼，我听到他说北京货架，这叫艺术超市货架，剑的艺术北京货架。
我并没有死广州货架，原来我的心是在右边仓储货架，而是不是左边货架厂。所以在那穿胸一剑之下我并没有死南京货架。
是一阵暴雨把我冲醒了货架公司。听说雨是上天的眼泪深圳货架，也许这天又有人死在那美丽的剑光之下吧服装货架！我张开嘴巴托盘，任雨水打进我的嘴托盘，直冲我的胃塑料托盘。我的伤口又开始流血塑料托盘，但已经不痛了木托盘。试问：仓储笼一个心已经死了的人仓储笼，肉体上的疼痛又算得了什么呢仓储笼？我知道我的刀再练一百年也无法那么美丽仓储笼，那么恨托盘，而且永远别想杀了他托盘。
我退出江湖了手推车，我没有通知江湖上的朋友们静音手推车，并来一个什么金盆洗手静音手推车，因为我的朋友们差不多都被他杀了置物架。我悄悄的走了置物架，隐进了山林之中堆垛架。俨然一个世外高人的样子堆垛架，每天一壶绿茶登高车，放在身边的几上登高车，然后或盯着一朵白云超市手推车，或盯着一片树叶物流手推车，或双目紧闭物流台车。我的刀在玉盆中泡了七七四十九天角钢货架，已经没有血腥味了角钢货架。然后我把它放在我的屋顶轻型货架，任它风吹雨打轻型货架。
十年就这年过去了中型货架。为何今天天忽然想起那柄剑中型货架，那道剑光重型货架？而且内心为什么如此不安重型货架？不应该是这样的仓库货架，对于一个喝了十年绿茶的人来说服装货架，面对死上海货架，也已不再惧怕精品货架，不再不安苏州货架，但今天又为何如此呢托盘货架？
莫非是他青岛货架，和他的剑库房货架，加上他的剑光沈阳货架。我已不问江湖之事天津货架，想他十年前也应该坐上武林盟主的位子了杭州货架，一个武林中人做了武林盟主山东货架，这一生还有什么要求的呢文件柜？
我不停的喝着绿茶工具柜。绿茶静心工具柜。但此时怎么也静不下来零件柜。茶已尽工作台。平时茶尽之时工作台，正也是日落之时工作桌。
一定快有什么事情发生了工作桌。
剑还是那美丽的剑Google左侧排名，如果再加上一道剑光吹塑机，就会形成剑的艺术色带，武学的艺术电源插座。
我问反光背心：为何还来找我滚针轴承，我已在十年之前就退出江湖了夜光粉。
他说文化石：因为你没死缎带，因为我没有对手风火轮。
我说激光打标机：十年前已不是你的对手平衡机，何况现在十年未动刀大功率led。
他说磁力泵：放眼天下梯子，只有你一个人是我的对手网眼袋，也只你一个人对我的威胁无尘布。
我不再说话手摇手电筒，因为我不知道说什么手板，我知道我十年前就开始找我毛巾布，发现我没有死就开始找我磁钢。我不死促销台，他心不安模具钢材。
他说时尚配饰：拿出你的刀筛网。
我说齿轮泵：我已无刀天使花房，命托辊，亦可有可无色丁。
他盯着我广告衫，握剑的手越来越紧钢坯，我知道那道美丽的剑光可能随时发出过滤网。在那美丽过后疏水阀，我的生命将画上句号胸章。
阳光照在了刀上发热管，反射到他的脸上手机耳机。他发现了那把刀螺杆，我的刀插销，宝刀蝴蝶，没有鞘的刀工具包。
刀已在我手中点钞机，刀还是那把刀配电箱，人却已不是那个人流苏，因为心不是那颗心沙滩巾。
他为了杀我竟找了我十年氯化镁，而为了和我比武竟帮我从屋顶拿下我的刀来双面胶带，并放在我的手中碳纤维。我忽然发现排线，他也变了汽车座垫，他在后悔十年前将所有高手都杀绝珍珠奶茶。
高手的悲哀太阳伞。
我握紧了刀桥架，我看着他的眼tpr，已经不再像十年前那样明亮了钢丝。
他的剑划出柴油发电机组，划出一道美丽的剑光护栏。我想围栏，这十年他大概在不停地使自己的剑光更美围栏。
我的刀也出了隔离网。简单的动作隔离网，一刀刺进了他的胸网片。那道美丽的光忽然停止网片，停在我的衣服上南京货架。
他说北京货架：这也是艺术北京货架，杀人的艺术北京货架，想不到你十年不动刀还懂这个艺术仓储货架。
我说仓储货架：因为我不想再让你痛苦了广州货架。
他说广州货架：谢谢货架厂。
我走了货架公司。我头也不回的走了塑料托盘。没有取回我的刀塑料托盘，因为我觉得它在我身边已经没用塑料托盘，我后悔我十年前为什么不扔了它塑料托盘？我听到了尸体倒下的声音塑料托盘。我流泪了塑料托盘，我真的不想杀他仓储笼，十年前不想仓储笼，十年后也不想仓储笼，因为我下山时答应过师父仓储笼，一切让着他仓储笼。
我叹了一口气仓储笼。远去仓储笼。
posted by SEO, at
3/31/2008 11:23 PM
i coming from Singapore,To a person 團體制服here.
I was an excellent credit咖啡 staff.Many well-known in the credit 徵信社company to work, and excellent credit 徵信performance.
I love this job;I work brought endless fun.I hope that the formal減肥I appreciated the boss .I hope to continue to work in the credit徵信.
I work seriously,Peaceful coexistence with colleagues.The company has no particular request, 徵信社I can only hope that the wisdom I 燈光音響play.
posted by , at
5/20/2008 3:20 AM
<< Home
