HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Ohio Senate Bill Offers M...

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 09:25 AM

Ohio Senate Bill Offers Male Lawmakers A Taste Of Their Own Medicine

Source: Talking Points Memo

On Tuesday, Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) will introduce a bill aimed at cracking down on prescription drugs like Viagra that treat erectile dysfunction. Turner’s legislation would make men jump through certain hoops — such as psychological screenings — before they could obtain the meds. The bill follows FDA recommendations to determine the underlying causes of erectile dysfunction — but that’s certainly not the only reason Turner is putting the measure forward.

“All across the country, including in Ohio, I thought since men are certainly paying great attention to women’s health that we should definitely return the favor,” Turner told TPM. Her bill is one of several pieces of legislation offered over the past several weeks by women lawmakers eager to prove a point about the raging contraception debate.

.................

Turner’s bill mimics language found in Ohio’s so-called Heartbeat Bill, which passed the Ohio state House and is now pending in the Senate. The bill would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, sometimes as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Turner’s bill, she says, offers men a taste of their own medicine — it would require physicians to inform patients in writing of the risks involved in taking erectile dysfunction drugs and requires men to sign a document acknowledging the risks, just like the anti-abortion bill does.

“I care about the health of men as well, and I thought it only fair that we illustrate that and make sure that a man is fully informed of the risks involved in taking these drugs and also the alternatives such as natural remedies or also celibacy,” Turner said.

Read more: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/ohio-senator-introduces-bill-to-regulate-mens-sexual-health-and-prove-a-point.php?ref=fpb

47 replies, 7943 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 47 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ohio Senate Bill Offers Male Lawmakers A Taste Of Their Own Medicine (Original post)
kpete Mar 2012 OP
sinkingfeeling Mar 2012 #1
greymattermom Mar 2012 #2
evilhime Mar 2012 #30
MicaelS Mar 2012 #46
nolabear Mar 2012 #3
longship Mar 2012 #4
kctim Mar 2012 #5
Bradical79 Mar 2012 #7
kctim Mar 2012 #9
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #6
Tansy_Gold Mar 2012 #8
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #11
Tansy_Gold Mar 2012 #13
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #23
SemperEadem Mar 2012 #21
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #24
xxqqqzme Mar 2012 #43
Skelly Mar 2012 #42
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #45
Liberalynn Mar 2012 #10
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #12
Tansy_Gold Mar 2012 #14
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #17
Liberalynn Mar 2012 #15
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #22
Liberalynn Mar 2012 #26
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #29
AnneD Mar 2012 #16
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #18
leftyohiolib Mar 2012 #28
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #31
AnneD Mar 2012 #36
leftyohiolib Mar 2012 #38
Liberalynn Mar 2012 #32
zeemike Mar 2012 #19
ccavagnolo Mar 2012 #20
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #33
allan01 Mar 2012 #25
Marthe48 Mar 2012 #27
Javaman Mar 2012 #34
Matariki Mar 2012 #35
myrna minx Mar 2012 #37
Dont call me Shirley Mar 2012 #39
saras Mar 2012 #40
fhrtjtr Mar 2012 #41
yurbud Mar 2012 #44
sarcasmo Mar 2012 #47

Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 09:29 AM

1. I do believe the long-term side effects of erectile dysfunction drugs are just

as dangerous to health as any birth control/abortion. And there are a lot more of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 09:34 AM

2. how about adding

a transrectal ultrasound to check the prostate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 12:08 PM

30. That was proposed

in another state and of course voted down by the predominantly male legislature . . .I think it was VA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:43 PM

46. I have had a transrectal ultrasound to check the prostate

And it was not a very pleasant experience, I tell you that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 09:36 AM

3. Absolutely. We need to protect those poor men from themselves.

We knnow they're not good at making decisions. They need our help to understand the possible consequences of their actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 09:40 AM

4. Somebody needs to put up a thread...

...to keep track of these "Viagra bills". I can't do it because I have no broadband and have to suffer with EDGE on an iPhone from the nat'l forest in LP MI (i.e., not very good service).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:04 AM

5. I didn't know insurance policies

 

were mandated to carry coverage for Viagra.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kctim (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:13 AM

7. No, but I think a pretty high percentage do anyway.

Don't need a mandate if most everyone is willingly offering the coverage, unlike birth control (which is an absurdly low percentage). Also, I'd say birth control is more important to a woman's health than Viagra is to a man, not to mention pretty different in what providing one accomplishes over the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:26 AM

9. So it is still offered even though it is not mandated?

 

But contraception is different and must be mandated in order for people to get it?

I don't buy it.
Both are available. Neither is going to be banned. Neither should be mandated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:09 AM

6. I get it.

 

I see the motive and amusement. I hope the outcome is, at the very least, a reconsideration of the invasive legislation against women.

But I have to ask the question, "Is is right to make life more difficult for an entire sector of the population in response to legislators making life more difficult for the other."

I know it's barely significant compared with the anti-woman legislation we've seen, but do two wrongs actually make a right in this case?

That said, I do hope it passes on the off-chance that more men will take interest in repealing the other law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:14 AM

8. to answer the question you "had" to ask

Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:32 AM

11. The willingness to inflict difficulties

 

on innocent people simply in retaliation for difficulties suffered by another group of people is quite an ignoble thing. Punishing men simply for being men or women for being women is wrong by any standard.

But, as I said, if introducing men to this small nuisance gets more of them involved in a positive manner, then so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:44 AM

13. it's called justice

those who are being retaliated against are the "innocent" beneficiaries of privileges they did not earn but were granted by reason of their status. the retaliation, as you call it, is merely a withdrawal of that privileged status.

hardly ignoble at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:30 AM

23. Riiiiight. Nifty rationalization there.

 


So if a bill makes getting birth control more difficult for women, that's an 'assault on women's rights'.

If a bill makes getting a medication more difficult for men, that's 'revoking a privilege'.

Nice double standard you got there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:58 AM

21. punishing women

for something which benefits men just as much as, if not more than, women is what is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SemperEadem (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:33 AM

24. Agreed.

 


We should be able to shake off the religious assholes and misogynists eventually. In the meanwhile, it might not be good to give them more recruiting material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:46 AM

43. And practicing medicine w/o

a license is against the law but that hasn't stopped any of these rethug legislators so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:18 AM

42. That is for you to decide

Whether it is wrong or not. A case can be made for either way. However, for some people it IS right. In some cases, two wrongs DO make a right. Where we decide that line is crossed is up to the individual. How far from MY line, YOUR line is, determines my response. In this case (of the OP), personally, while I may not sanction the proposed legislation, I certainly understand where it comes from and totally support the reason it was put forth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skelly (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 10:50 AM

45. Actually, I believe that line can be determined.

 

Unfortunately, that usually happens long after the fact.

In this case, the question is "How much convenience was gained in exchange for the inconvenience suffered?"

If the legislation passes and gets even a handful of men to join the fight against this assault on women, that would be my line to say 'it's worth it'. BUT, only if something materializes can we objectively say 'it's worth it'. If even one woman needn't suffer an unwanted pregnancy because a thousand men had to forgo sex (works both ways then), then we can objectively say it was worth it as not one of those men would trade becoming pregnant against their will for sex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:32 AM

10. As the tried but true saying goes

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Let's see how they like it.

Some times the only way people "get it" is by forcing them to walk a mile in the other person's shoes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalynn (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:40 AM

12. If a man proposed a bill making it more difficult for women to obtain a medication

 

in retaliation for women passing a bill making something more difficult for men, what would you say about that man?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:47 AM

14. i guess you didn't get it at all

it's not a matter of men proposing such legislation, because they already have, and some of it has already gone into effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:53 AM

17. Oh, I get it just fine.

 

Can you not answer the question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:47 AM

15. MEN HAVE DONE IT THROUGH OUT HISTORY TO US

SO ITS TIME FOR PAYBACK AND HONEY ITS A BITCH. HOW DO YOU LIKE IT? Women could propose a hundred laws a day that supposedly take a way rights for men, and it still wouldn't even begin to even the score for all our rights they have trampled on in the past and continue to try and take away from us.

In fairness it is not all men, just some mostly very white, very old, very hypocritical so called religious men, who have never had to face a day of discrimination in their life.

Again unless they are forced to walk a mile in our shoes they will never understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalynn (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:14 AM

22. Do you know the difference between a feminist

 

Who seeks equality and justice, and a sexist man-hater?

A sexist man-hater wants all men punished for the sins of certain men. A sexist man-hater does not want justice, she wants suffering and retribution regardless of the guilt or innocence of the man... just so long as it's a man.

I'm glad you added that you recognize that all men are not responsible. I agree that most of the repression of women comes from the biggest assholes among us. But punishing all men won't necessarily have much of an effect on those few.

As for walking a mile, I've walked many miles through discrimination myself. I blame men for it, but it has been at the hands of many sexist man-haters who called themselves 'feminists'. Because of a very anti-male attitude in the family court system, my son's hair fell out of his head. No one listened to me at all when I tried to explain his mother's mental issues and why it would be a better idea for him to live with me. For four years his hair fell out of his head in patterns after he went to live with her and still no one would listen to me when they couldn't 'find' the cause. It was the stress of living with her and her husband. Years later, after he'd had to endure much suffering, he wound up on my doorstep. I've apologized to him for not being able to get him out, but until he was 13, no one listened to him either. He knows how badly biased against men the court system is now. I want him terrified of not finding the right girl because I never want him to go through what I have.

And that was just one of many struggles I've had with anti-male sentiment. Now my kids, with a second woman, are living in another miserable situation and no one will listen. When they are old enough, they will live with me. Both of my children's mothers turned out to be lying, selfish, nasty creatures. I've not so much as touched a woman in over 3 years because I've been burned so very badly by a handful of pernicious women. Should all women now pay for what those handful did to me? Should I support policies that would inconvenience or even harm women just because of those few?

Of course not. And I would never.

But I can see how being 'burned' might make someone feel that retribution should be visited upon an entire group. I think it would be a very bad thing to create more enmity as the 'Heartbeat' bill most certainly has. But I would never support such a bill.

I have been hit by crazy women who could not be reasoned with, but I did not raise a hand. I have never done anything to oppress any woman. I have never discriminated against any woman for being a woman.

But other men have. Should I be punished for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:44 AM

26. I am truly Sorry for your situation in the courts!

In child custody situations the only deciding factor should be the welfare of the child period, not the sex of either parent and I am not just saying that to make nice after a opposite opinion post. I have always believed that. There are plenty of men, who are capable of being better parents than some women.

However, having viagra insurance coverage taken away is not commensurate with having mostly old white men decide that a fetus has more right to live than the mother when a mother's life is at risk.

Birth control pills are not just prescribed for birth control but also to prevent some serious health issues. So its not just primarily a "sex pill" like Viagra is, so again taking away insurance coverage for Viagra doesn't even begin to even the scales, but it's a good start

Men can be raped but men can't be raped and forced to bear a rapist's child, or bear their own father or brother's child if its incest. Women will be forced to if the PUKE MALE AND PUKE FEMALES get their way on banning all abortions. So again taking away Viagra insurance coverage wouldn't be even half as bad for men as what the non coverage of certain medications and procedures would be for women. But look at how quickly some men start squawking when its threatened, yet try to make us feel like man hating bitches when we complain about what they are trying to take from us.

Innocent men meaning those who believe in women's rights shouldn't have to suffer, but those guilty of denying women's rights should be forced somehow to endure at least some form of the same kinds of discrimination and unfairness, that women have had to face and continue to face because of their women hating asses. Its just too bad their isn't a way to just punnish the guilty seperatly but I can't think of any at the moment.

I don't hate all men. There are a lot of men I respect, love, and admire. I just loathe those one's, that foster discrimination against women, blacks, gays, asians, hispanics, etc. For the record I also hate women who foster discrimination against those same groups just to get votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalynn (Reply #26)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 12:07 PM

29. Thanks.

 


Seems we're pretty much on the same page. Part of my problems were, as I said, because men poisoned the ground before me, so I know what's going on when a judge suggested out loud in court that I don't fully appreciate or make the most of my time with my kids.

The petition before her?

From me, asking for equal driving arrangements (I had been doing nearly 100% of the 60 mile round trip), neutral location (her boyfriend tried to start a fight with me in front of the children), and fixed access (she blocked me from seeing them because she had to drive them ONCE).

The judge assumed that I didn't appreciate my kids for no other reason than I'm male. Said that I should appreciate having the driving time with them too.

I bit my tongue and didn't point out that whether I drop them off at 5 or they're picked up at 5, it's the same amount of time.


I do laugh at gender-jokes, male or female, because the point is usually to make fun of the stereotype, not the gender. But that is the fullest extent of my crime. I just believe that all things should be equal. Not 'identical', obviously, but 'equal'. I know that in some cases that must be pushed for. I just hope the pendulum comes to rest at that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:48 AM

16. It says what we have been saying all along my good doctor.....

Men should not be deciding women's health issues (at least without heavy input form women). Just the picture on all the men on the Senate's 'Women's health committee" was enough to make women take action-thus the spate of men's health bills.

The thing that got women riled up is that women could not even testify at these hearings unless they were there to spout the RW party line. If men bolt for the door when the woman comes up pregnant, then by God, she has a right to say how many she can raise. Whose going to help her....the Government. As Carlin once said, they only care about you when you are a fetus or draft age. Until then, you are on your own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnneD (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:54 AM

18. I completely agree.

 

As I said above, I'd like to see it pass for just that reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 12:00 PM

28. while i agree women are getting the the shaft on this (sorry bout the pun) i think this tit for tat

 

is a little childish (not the people just the action). no one should have to jump thru hoops for birth control. there are 7 billion people here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 12:11 PM

31. LOL... but I like it puntheless.

 

Unfortunately, the people who want to do away with BC are the same people that don't believe it's necessary to manage the planet.


Perhaps it is a bit childish, but I'd still like to think that perhaps some men might wake up if this bill passes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 04:09 PM

36. I take it...

you are waiting for a "Lysistrata" moment.

Since the play was written by Aristophanes in 411 BC-I don't think things have changed much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 05:10 PM

38. i'd like them to wake up,bill or no bill

 

puntheless lol, love it, very clever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 12:13 PM

32. Viagra isn't for birth control

In fact it may add to the population problem, not control it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:56 AM

19. Celibacy for men?

That's unconstitutional isn't it?
And it says there in the bill of rights that we have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...and what could make an old fart more happy that a big boner?
God intended men to bang everything is sight as often as possible....and that little blue pill was sent from god to extend that banging into old age.
Yep it is unconstitutional I tell ya...with religious exceptions of course...priest can be celibate but they still get to molest children, but they are just spreading gods love.
'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:56 AM

20. Im gonna be agreeing with the Doctor

It seems introducing these Bills are almost attempted as a comedic backlash from the females. I understand it 100% but I just don't understand the need to act in a manor of double standards or "if we cant, you cant." the fight should be fought together (i would hope most men stand with you) and that is against the bills which impose restrictions on women's rights not trying to even the playing field and keeping both sexes from gettin' it on.

perhaps the goal is for the males to back off once they see these bills entering into the senate? perhaps the entire situation is just too ridiculous for me to fully realize? this IS NOT what our future will look like but another attempt to stir up some controversy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ccavagnolo (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 01:42 PM

33. Word to the wise:

 

That can get you in a LOT of trouble around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:44 AM

25. re: Ohio Senate Bill Offers Male Lawmakers A Taste Of Their Own Medicine

As i keep saying , every 4 years a non issue called get rid of abortion rears its ugly head.
As i keep saying , make it illeagel for males to have their tubes cut. No one seems to bat an eye when that happens ( males getting their tubes cut ), only a female .(procreate)
As i keep saying , has anyone here wittnessed a back alley abortion?. No. My late mum did and some of my friends who were from that generation when it was against the law, wasnt pretty both for the unborn and the female. Oh by the way. if abortion made illegeal here , the 1% will just hop on a plane and go to a country where they can get one , no questions asked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:57 AM

27. I think Viagra is like elective surgery, which most insurance doesn't cover

Viagra is associated with older men, but unless they have a younger spouse, it isn't mainly to aid fertility. Birth control medication, or as I think we should say, hormonal regulation, eases other conditions as well as prevents unwanted pregnancy. Our younger daughter used birth control briefly to regulate her cycle. After I had a hysterectomy, I used a variety of hormones, including testosterone, to get me through medical menopause.
In regards to birth control, I have had a chance to walk through old cemeteries, where one man may have had 4 or 5 wives. You can often see that a wife died very young, and beside her grave, an infant who died with his/her mother. Pregnancy and childbirth are physical challenges and women and families should be in excellent health to have a successful time. If you get pregnant every year, you don't have time to rebound from the last pregnancy, let alone have the fitness to go on to the next. And the children in the family don't get the nurturing they need.
On top of that, there are 7 billion humans. I think both sexes in all societies ought keep an eye on population growth. Ultimately, the right to choose is about respect, either for women, men, family or planet. The people who want to deny access to birth control do not respect women. Maybe adding a 'man's' medicine to the discussion will help bring our society two steps back to normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 02:16 PM

34. This doesn't go far enough...

this bill should require a catheter to be place up their urethra just to make sure the guy wanting the viagra understands where the sperm travels in their body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 03:10 PM

35. Haha. Like for instance Rush Limbaugh

Can he not get an erection because he hates women, stemming from his relationship with his mother - or, does he hate women because he can't get an erection (stemming from his relationship with his mother).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 04:15 PM

37. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 05:26 PM

39. You go girl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 05:32 PM

40. The purpose of the bill is to motivate sane men who haven't acted yet to act

 

The bill isn't targeted at the extreme right-wingers passing these laws, it's directed at the large body of men who are ignoring it and letting them get away with it and asserting it isn't that important in comparison to other issues. On THOSE issues, I think women have a legitimate beef with MOST American men, not just the right-wing extremists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 08:42 PM

41. Spam deleted by NRaleighLiberal (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:57 AM

44. great idea! Or the guy could get a really big viagra pill hold it between his knees...

and hope it fools his partner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 12:32 PM

47. Kick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread