The Economic Migration of English Teachers in Asia

Recently, there has been a lot of attention given to my idea of English teachers in Asia as economic migrants. Much of this attention is focused on what I had to say about the children of English teachers. This discussion of the children of English teachers was initially a minor point that Mark Liberman at Language Log picked up on due to his differing personal experiences with people raised overseas. I replied to this comments, and the discussion was born.

While I have enjoyed the chance to answer Dr. Liberman’s query, the difficulties of raising children in the lifestyle of an English teacher is really a side issue that resulted from speculation on my categorization of English teachers as economic migrants. If it is the case that English teaching can only be explained as economic migration, certain other issues are bound to arise. But rather than focus on the potential social problems of English teachers in Asia, I want to try and summarize why I categorize us as economic migrants.

The Central Issue

Since sometime in the late 1980’s, an enormous number of Anglo-americans have flooded East Asia to teach English. The English teaching market for Anglo-americans existed in Asia before this time, but it appears there was little supply of teachers. Since that time, a number that I estimate to be close to a million Anglo-americans have taught English in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. This movement of people shows no sign of stopping — or even slowing down. While a large market for native-speaker English teachers exists in other Asian countries, such as China, Thailand, and Vietnam, Anglo-americans English teachers seem concentrated in the affluent regions of north-east Asia.

I have vigourously explored a number of other explanations to explain this observation but have been unable to find one more satisfactory than this. I am of course open to other explanations or even refutations of the validity of my data.

What is a Migration?

Perhaps the strongest point of disagreement I have encountered concerns what I call a ‘migration’. My use of this term is quite technical and varies somewhat from the way in which the term is used colloquially. Colloquial usage often refers to a conventional American sense of usage that distinguishes between ‘sojourners’ and ‘settlers’. A great deal was written about these concepts by sociologists and historians dating back to the 1920’s, and this ultimately led to the concept of American migration as a ‘melting pot’. This usage contrasts sharply with a more contemporary understanding of migration based on more complete data. Highly readable research based on this more contemporary understanding can be found in Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics edited by Virginia Yans-McLaughlin. In this volume, one of the leading sociologists writing in this field, Charles Tilly, discusses different types of migration.
Tilly urges readers to (p. 88),

…stop thinking about migration as a single homogeneous experience and start recognizing its sharply contrasting forms.

He continues with a discussion of 5 different types of migration: colonizing, coerced, circular, chain, and career. English teaching as I am describing it resembles most closely what Tilley calls ‘career migration’ which,

…characterizes individuals and households that move in response to opportunities to change position within or among large structures, such as corporations, states, and professional labor markets.

Although I suspect that in many ways English teaching is coming to resemble ‘circular migration’, which he states,

…consists of the creation of a regular circuit in which migrants retain their claims and contacts with a home base and routinely return to that base after a period of activity elsewhere in the circuit.

A closer reading of the volumes technical literature available on the great migrations that populated the Anglo-american world, as well as South and Central America, point to several other important characteristics.
a) Return migration was extremely common. Depending on the ethnic group, return migration may have been the norm, with some individuals returning twice or even three times before finally going ‘home’ for good.
b) Migrants do not move as individuals. Rather, their movement is typified by groups that form networks of culturally and linguistically similar peoples in communities that live and often work together.
c) These migrations were not driven by poverty and desperation, but were frequently highly literate people for whom opportunity (rather than food) was the biggest drawing factor.
d) While we hear mostly of the immigrant success stories, migration is typified by vice which, depending on ethnicity, may include gambling, drug use, and prostitution and occasionally leaves behind broke, destitute migrants.

What an Explanation of English Teachers Must Explain

I have talked about this elsewhere, but here I will try to summarize why I say that English teachers in Asia are driven by economic forces.

Many individuals have written me to suggest that they personally were driven by some force other than money in their move to East Asia. I do not doubt the authenticity of any individual narrative. Nor do I doubt that the money to be made in Asia is less than in the mother country of most English teachers. However, neither of these points seems a particularly strong rebuttal of anything I have said.

“English teaching’ is a social phenomena that needs an explanation. Where did it come from? Why is there a seemingly endless mass rush out of Anglo-american nations?

An explanation of this mass exodus must explain other characteristics as well. In the past, emigration from the USA moved predominantly to other highly developed, English-speaking nations, such as Canada. While tens of thousands of people moved to such places as Japan, Mexico, and Israel, this migration was motivated by ethnic affiliation. For example, Americans Abroad: A Comparative Study of Emigrants from the United States reports that from 1970 to 1974 over 23,000 Americans emigrated annually to Japan. Almost certainly, all of them were Americans of Japanese ancestry and not white or Americans of African ancestry. The migration of English teachers would appear to be the first large scale movement of Americans to a significantly lesser developed region. Why is this decision being made now?

Anglo-american groups are represented in East Asia as English teachers in proportion to their disadvantage in their domestic labour markets. My anecdotal evidence is that English teachers are overwhelmingly liberal arts graduates. While there are some working as English teachers who have science or professional backgrounds, they represent a tiny minority. Also, I have statistical evidence that citizens of South Africa and Canada are overrepresented by teachers at the lowest level of employment while Americans are overrepresented by teachers in the most competitive jobs. If this is correct, why would it be so?

While the commercial English teaching markets of the better-paying nations are increasingly so full of teachers that businesses and governments have reacted to the oversupply, the poorer-paying markets can’t seem to attract enough. It is widely believed among teachers in Taiwan and South Korea that better paying jobs in Japan are unobtainable. This is increasingly the case in Taiwan as well. In China, Thailand, and Vietnam, on the other hand, jobs are so easily obtainable that there is no need to think of getting one as a problem. In fact, I have heard of Chinese universities knowingly hiring high schools graduates to teach their students.

The Social Problems of English Teachers

It is the social life of English teachers that I have the least factual information to refer to. Unfortunately, it is also the aspect of the discussion that attracts the most information. For example, it was my speculation that the children of some English teachers could go on to suffer from social and linguistic disadvantage that initially attracted attention to my posts.

In fact, my speculation is based on a very small sample of people that I know personally. I will readily admit that I may be way off base on this one. Still, I often wonder what will happen to those that we all know who have taught English for years, but saved absolutely no money. This may represent a fringe element of long-term foreign English teachers — although I am not really sure about this one either — but it is a problem that will occur. While Japan may have the economy and social development to handle this, South Korea and Taiwan do not.

The kind of problems I am speculating about may or may not be common enough for our growing community to be forced to deal with. But there will be problems like this, even if there are only a few, as the population of long-term foreign residents of Taiwan and other Asian nations increases.

April 08, 2004 in English Teachers as Migrants | Permalink
TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfa2953ef00d8342a8c1f53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Economic Migration of English Teachers in Asia:
Comments

Hey Scott you’ve been featured on ELT News: English Teaching in Japan

http://eltnews.com/home.shtml

Posted by: Blinger | April 10, 2004 at 12:09

I really don’t get this whole thread Scott (sorry to be dim). Without real numbers, like just how many people have moved to Taiwan for teaching English, this all just has little value. I have not seen any large change in the numbers of foreigners in central Taiwan from the early to mid 90s. And the hiring at college/university level is much less about competition for a post than the MOE’s requirements! Maybe this thread could be broken into its more specific topics and respondents like myself could give you some input on our own experiences, such as the issue with children. But right now I think you are using a very small sample to draw large conclusions based on some literature that is not quite fit for the reality we have in Asia today.
You are looking for a social theory to explain English demand, but you need not look very far. Government emphasis on education (so common in Asian countries) leads to a push for education in Western countries (at a time when local educational institutions have yet to develop fully). Simply based on size and number of schools, the USA is a good choice, and with English being required for entrance (TOEFL)there rises a demand to “cram” for the exam. I would argue that demand is dropping now, as local institutions offer enough supply to satisfy local demand for higher education. I’ve heard that numbers taking the TOFEL exam have been going down in Taiwan. By the time the whole reason for the English emphasis starts to fade (students today need more training in dealing with business in China) it has all been institutionalized. This fits in a nice way, since Chinese ethnocentrism causes “international” to be seen actually as “Western.” English fits nicely into this cenceptualization. I’m teaching at an International MBA class (at NCKU) where Asian students test into the program (required to take TOEFL) to come to Taiwan to study, but our own local students in Taiwan can enter unviersity with less emphasis on English than in the past thirty years (with some departments scoring English so low as to be no use at all).

Posted by: Clyde A. Warden | April 12, 2004 at 06:14

Clyde, I was hoping you’d add your thoughts sometime.

There is a demand and a supply side to the situation I am describing. An explanation of why there are so many foreign teachers here does not explain why they were willing to come here. You don’t make a distinction between these points in your comment, so I won’t make it in my reply. Nevertheless, you do address two fundamentally different points.

I have often found a reluctance of university-employed foreign teachers to think about the bushiban-employed English teachers academically. I know from my own experience that once I started teaching at MCU, my consciousness of foreign teachers in bushibans diminished considerably, and I began to think them as an ‘educational problems’. Quite frankly, I never meet bushiban teachers anymore.

How many foreign teachers are we talking about? I have estimated a million individuals have taught English in Asia since 1990. I admit that this is a guess, but the real number must be somewhere near that. In 1993, the National Police Agency released figures that 2,000 American passports holders had overstayed their visas in Taiwan. Sure, they may have forgotten their exit date, maybe they were in the hospital, but the NPA stated, and I agree, that the majority were working illegally as English teachers. If there were 2,000 American working illegally in just 1 year, how many foreigners in total were there teaching English? I have another link which I will post later that shows the growth in registered foreign teacher cram schools since that time and the number of foreign teachers working in schools that belong to the Taiwan Association of Cram Schools. Not surprisingly, almost all the foreign teachers registered here are employed in Taipei and Taipei County.

I believe that if you consider bushibans, the picture of education in Taiwan becomes quite different from the picture you describe. My own research indicates that between one-half and two-thirds of university students in Taiwan have been taught English by a foreign teacher. The majority of these were taught as children. The development of modern education in China very quickly brought about an alternative schooling system that stressed foreign languages and was staffed by foreign teachers. This system only disappeared because the government legislated it out of existence. The democratization of Taiwan and the rise of affluence have created a reemergence of this system. TOEFL-prep courses are the poor man’s substitute to this system; no one who can afford it would ever have to attend such courses, since they would have been educated in at least some part in English. It is in fact, TOEFL-prep that will be replaced if the conditions are correct.

Ten years ago, when I taught in Japan, I heard predictions that local teachers were already being trained to replace the foreign teachers working there. That’s true, and they have been; they just haven’t been able to regain the market. In fact, the role of foreign English teachers in Japanese language education has expanded beyond anything that existed when I taught there.

This is not a temporary trend. This will not go away. Having made this point in another posting on Foreign Teachers as Traditional Education, I have to concluse that have typed all I can type for today.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | April 12, 2004 at 14:44

Your point is well taken about the size of the private market and how we don’t see it from the university perspective. Also, the numbers you mention are a good start; I’m very interested to see more. However, my analytical bend is causing me some concern. If over half of Taiwan college students had native speakers teaching them at some time, that would require nearly 200,000 teachers at any one time. More possible is that your sample is biased (as you point out teachers concentrate in Taipei) and my numbers are biased because in reality one teacher, worked like a slave, can come into contact with hundreds, if not thousands, of kids a day.
Still, I’m not really getting your main hypothesis, which sounds like a research topic of yours. Are you centering on the question why people are leaving North America to teach here? I think you need to show that this has increased (you may find some data at the IRS related to numbers of US citizens filing tax from overseas) or is it just a rotation of people who travel overseas (our parents’ generation went to W. Germany, Italy, U.K., etc., now those travelers go to Asia.
In any case, I tend to agree with you that economic conditions is the main reason why. This, however, is not the same as economic maximization. Rather, people staying in Taiwan for long periods, and even short periods, may be driven by motives such as alternative life styles, but if Taiwan did not at least surpass a minimum economic level, these people would not come here (thus other S.E. Asian countries do not have the same influx).

Posted by: Clyde A. Warden | April 12, 2004 at 17:08

Well, setting the aside the problems of settling in the country, which is what the discussion of children moves to, (a separate topic, I agree), I think there are a number of other factors that work with the economic factors that you note. The question is whether economic factors drive the process or not. It seems a bit chicken and egg-ish to me.

When I first went to Europe almost 30 years ago, there was no infrastructure for the people you are discussing wanting to ‘migrate’. When I came to Sendai 15 years ago, there were only 6 public pay phones that you could make international calls from. One of the admitted aims of the EU was to cool down hot labour markets, so that people who were in areas where the labour market was weak could move relatively easily and hassle free to countries that needed labour. This has not been successful for the blue collar jobs because of language barriers, but it is clear that nations tolerate more movement than they did before, which is why transnational terrorism is so feared. Given that the barriers to transnational movement are so much lower, it is only natural that there is more movement. Much of the movement here is in conversation schools, which do not offer a wage that would allow people to stay, and the conditions have continued to get worse, but if you are a college graduate, it’s actually a slight step up, so you have tons of college grads coming here. I suppose you could call this ‘migration’, and you argue that the resistance is that middle class Anglo-Americans don’t like to think of themselves as ‘migrants’. You may have a point, but for me, I have a hard time equating what I have done with the movement of people for what seems like much more serious reasons.

You also have to factor in the value of the currency, which made it possible, during the bubble, to actually make quite a bit of money. This was only possible in Korea, Japan and Taiwan. however, this does not mean that those who came here were doing it for ‘economic’ reasons, which implies some mental calculus, but because these three countries represented a kind of horizontal movement. My impression is that earlier groups of migrants were actually making a move up, and this possibility of upward social movement is a necessary point to defining migration. I think you are asserting that Anglo-Americans are moving to maintain their social status. I don’t know if I agree with that, but in that sense, this is much more like colonialism than migration, if you accept my arguments about social status, though this might be even more insulting.

Some stats that might help you would be the trend in out marriages in the various countries. The stats for Japan were posted in the NBR list just recently. Good luck on this

Posted by: Joe Tomei | April 13, 2004 at 05:45

It is the last part that is particularly significant for me. In hindsight, migrants to America or where ever made a good move, but it was not always clear to them at the time that it was the right move. The USA, Argentina, and Australia were extremely underdeveloped states when Europeans first moved there. And in fact, for those who moved to Argentina, in the long run, things have not turned out all that well.

I don’t mean to compare the situation in Japan for English teachers with that of migrants to Argentina because socially, they were quite different. Argentina was a colony and the legal system was constructed to benefit foreign residents. But this is what makes the case of english teachers so interesting. It is ‘downward’ migration, if you get what I mean. It is migration into a place where the situation is worse, and in Taiwan and South Korea, it is even more obvious that the quality of life will not be as good.

I can’t escape the image I tried to describe earlier. University grads who are not willing or able to acquire business or professional skills are increasingly being forced to peripheral markets where their cultural knowledge is still valuable. I can live a good life by local standards and enjoy the amazing world that I’ve found myself in, but it really, life in Taiwan is downward mobility.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | April 13, 2004 at 14:33

University graduates who are not willing to acquire additional skills in the West are generally on a downward mobility. The folks moving to Asia (as a rule) have little to offer the business world. This is true regardless of their location.

If they stay in the West their decline in living standards can be noticeable, albeit slower. Anyone not increasing their skills, whether they live in the West or not, is facing a downward mobility.

Posted by: Scott | April 13, 2004 at 17:35

That’s true, but at least for foreign English teachers, they can enter a trade based on some inherent human capital they have as ‘native-speakers’ (what ever that means). If they want to obtain jobs that make family life possible, you are correct, most people entering the industry as commercial teachers will need skill development.

You also make a good point about how the decline in standard of living would probably occur for this group even if they stayed in their mother country. I made a similar point once when described a woman I interviewed who has a BA in English literature from a leading Canadian university. Prior to moving to Korea and teaching English, she was working at a ‘head shop’ in Toronto.

Incidentally, she now has a distance MATESOL and works in an institute that does provide long-term stability.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | April 13, 2004 at 17:54

Scott – To clarify, I meant most teachers meaning to enter ANY industry will need more skill development. English teachers (as a rule) have little experience in their field of diploma (with the exception of ‘Teaching’).

Also, to obtain an accurate count of foreign teachers in Taiwan, won’t the Immigration department in Taiwan give you the information?

Posted by: Scott | April 13, 2004 at 21:35

I don’t disagree with yoiur statement about further training. But it does need some clarification.

If you have a BA, virtually no one is going to hire you into a career-track job that pays well. If you have a BSc in engineering, computer science, or math or an MBA, that’s probably not true. In fact, if you have a BA, you will almost certainly have to get an MBA or a law degree even to have access to career-track jobs that pay well.

I have tried to get stats from the foreign affairs police, who would know very well how many visas have been issued. They told me that I would have to go to the MOE for that. A Taiwanese colleague had her research assistant phone the MOE about this. They told her to call the foreign affairs police.

I keep trying to do this, but I don’t have the connections yet.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | April 13, 2004 at 22:00

Scott – Good points.

BA – Yes, it’s tough to get a good-paying job anywhere with only a BA. Even professional teachers I know in the USA are required to continue their education every year. To keep their certifications they must take 2 classes (or so) per year. If said teachers would like to noticeably advance the ladder of their union pay-scale, they need to have an MA.

BSc – Starting a career with just a 4-year degree can get a person off to a nice looking start. But without continuing education (an MSc doesn’t hurt, and a LOT of new skill development is the norm) the pay-scale, and general employability, of a person in the private-sector drops dramatically around the 5th year of employment.

MOE, et al – Best of luck getting the stats. I would be interested in hearing how the demographics appear in Taiwan.

Posted by: Scott | April 13, 2004 at 22:28

Sorry Guys, but you are making the logical error of generalizing from a small sample. Because someone you know who took a degree in English and worked at a head shop is not the basis for any conclusions. A quick look at the education numbers quickly clears up this matter. Simply look at in the US the percentages of majors in each area of study (each college). Sure, the business college is always a big draw, but this does not mean it is the largest college. If we were to say that BAs are downward mobile, then the unemployment rate would be nearly equal, or at least realted to, the percentages of people doing BAs. In fact, there are many engineers, and MBAS who are on the uemployment roles. Liberal Arts draws large numbers of students and this gives you many examples, both good and bad.
What bothers my most about the direction of this thread is that you are using some nice words to say the simple idea that losers come to Taiwan because they have not other opportunities back home (due to economic competition). This generalization is dangerous, mainly because its variables are not defined well. I assert that the economics of it have little causational role, but may be a spurious correlate. People who are attracted to an alternative life style (that is not the MBA or professional law defined life of the U.S.A.) will be open to moving over to Taiwan. These people, due to their life style choice, were not mainstream in the U.S. to start with, and using mainstream measures, like income, leads to the wrong conclusions.
Also, keep in mind the percentages of Americans who even complete a degree, then the very small number finishing higher degrees. Maybe the population of Americans in Taiwan actually reflects these ratios, or maybe reflects the ratios of the people back in the U.S. who lead the alternative life style or values I am speaking of.
Let me be blunt: I don’t see anyone who is not open to a very different life style living in Taiwan for very long no matter what their economic situation is.

Posted by: Clyde A. Warden | April 14, 2004 at 07:46

Census data here:
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/ppl-169/tab05.pdf
You can see, less than 20% of US population even gets a BA. Professional degress are down to around 1% and Ph.D.s even less.
Would we assert that the people without degrees are all poor–far from it. Although averages show college pays off, that is only in the average, the variance is very high.
Given those small numbers, now look here:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf
Keep in mind the VERY small numbers of Ph.D.s, yet in this table we see the huge gap in earnings. But this is a bit of a statistical trick, since the high numbers are based on 1% of the population. If 100% of the population obtained a Ph.D. the supply and demand curve would make a radical shift, and the gap would be gone. In other words, cause and effect are often reversed when people use means.
More to my point is the small gap between some college, associates, and bachelors (keeping in mind the SD is high [not reported here]).

Posted by: Clyde A. Warden | April 14, 2004 at 08:11

Clyde – Good critique, here are some points to consider:

You completely misread anything I wrote which you took to have a tone of ‘losers move to Taiwan’ in my comments. I think (and demonstrated by my own move to Japan) that teaching english can be a great move for folks looking to fulfill their lives.

Back to the data, though. And yes I’m going to let ‘personal experience’ crowd in on this. My sample size is large enough to be valid for my point, which is: a lot of the unhappy/dis-satisfied Westerners in Asia are the very same folks who were very unhappy at home. Folks who couldn’t cut it at home are only slightly better off here. And as you pointed out – they don’t stay very long.

The folks who TRULY come to Asia for more than one reason (money, adventure, generic life-change) are the folks who are most successful from a personal fulfillment perspective.

As for my generalizations for BA/BS/Continuing education conclusions – its based on the salary data I studied in college in the early 90s. I don’t think it’s changed significantly since then.

As for your assumption that downward mobility equals unemployment is wrong. Downward mobility isn’t continuous, and it doesn’t end with ‘no job’. It usually continues for years with a job-that-is-lower-than-you-had-before. Getting a great job after graduation, then working in a slightly-less-desirable (but degree-related) position 10-years later is downward mobility.

Posted by: Scott | April 14, 2004 at 17:25

Scott wrote:
Scott – To clarify, I meant most teachers meaning to enter ANY industry will need more skill development. English teachers (as a rule) have little experience in their field of diploma (with the exception of ‘Teaching’).
and Scott S. added*
f you have a BA, virtually no one is going to hire you into a career-track job that pays well. If you have a BSc in engineering, computer science, or math or an MBA, that’s probably not true. In fact, if you have a BA, you will almost certainly have to get an MBA or a law degree even to have access to career-track jobs that pay well.

I think you are selling teachers (and yourselves?) a bit short. While the actual information that I needed to know to do what I’m doing now is not really significantly greater than what I left school, there are a large number skills that I and I think all teachers who have ended up staying have developed. Many develop these skills, and probably could do very well in business (think sales, or human management) and choose to stick to teaching because the idea of the rat race is not on. I don’t know about your background, so I don’t know how long you’ve been teaching, but if you have put in some time, your ability to know how to deal with students, how to manage time, how to cope with problems that arise in the course of a term have all been honed and refined.

In addition, people often go into teaching not so much from economic motivation but from time considerations. I honestly couldn’t imagine working in a cubicle or even as an up and coming lawyer or other white collar job. I have too many things I want to do in my free time to be tied to an 8 to 5 job. I feel a bit guilty about being selfish about that, but I like to think that I’m doing good (after a fashion.)

Posted by: Joe Tomei | April 14, 2004 at 17:28

Joe – Good point about transferring of skills learned from teaching. You hit the nail on the head for the ‘rat race’ aspect of teaching.

I have thought a lot about how much my teaching experience would/will help me when I go back to a real job. And every time I revisit the issue, I realize that I’m not quite ready to head back to a ‘real job’ (read: in a cubicle).

It’s also struck me that the Commonwealth provision for a “Working Holiday” visa is a great idea. You get out of your present situation for a year, and can experience something/someplace else for a year. And you can pay your bills as you do so. A great idea.

Posted by: Scott | April 14, 2004 at 18:54

I see your point better now and I think I have a grip. I still don’t see this as a clear research topic, due to the difficulty of clear variables. But what you and Joe have said makes sense. I would also point out that I know many professors here who have taken large cuts in pay, from half to a third of what their U.S. pay would be.

The downwardly mobile thing, though, I think is really unclear, and sounds like a sociological construct. As a business prof. I tend to see things a bit differently. Since job/pay structure are pyramid shaped, thus, by deffinition the number in higher/lower positions does not significanlty change, with those seen as benefiting the firm more in a higher post moving up that structure, and for everyone who moves up, one must move down–it is a zero-sum game. Maybe a core point you are touching on is that moving over the Taiwan could remove one from that zero-sum game, since the demand for English here almost guarantees always having opportunity to work in a job that is socially at the highest runk of the Confucius Ladder.

Posted by: Clyde A. Warden | April 15, 2004 at 07:34

I will post more in the days to come, but I’d like to make a quick comment about the pyramid.

It is a good way to illustrate my point. The pyramid is not static and its internal structure has changed dramaticaly over our lifetime. For every Canadian with an MA in sociology who ends up in Taipei teaching university, there is an Indian software engineer who migrates to California.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | April 15, 2004 at 09:09

Clyde – How does the ‘zero-sum’ pyramid account for a growing (or shrinking) company? That is, when the company is laying off a great percentage employees, how does the zero-sum game you propose stay in tact?

Posted by: Scott | April 16, 2004 at 00:24

Thepuzzling conversation had in the symbol like her позы секса картинки thighs were made ne.

Posted by: nablyncasmus | March 30, 2009 at 03:27

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: