Individualism vs. Collectivism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Nick_A
Posts: 4312
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:38 am

One of the most important basic and avoided questions is if a person considers themselves essentially an Individualist or a collectivist. It seems more enjoyable to argue over techniques or good and bad. But the question of Individualism vs. Collectivism as desired method to improve human nature puts us on the spot.

There are many ways to discuss it after we agree as to their basic difference so I'd like to ask you if you agree with the following distinction:

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/is ... lectivism/
The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government expanding ever more rapidly—seizing and spending more and more of our money on “entitlement” programs and corporate bailouts, and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater. Let us begin by defining the terms at hand.

Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.

Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations.”1

Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Which has the facts on its side?
As is obvious, America is moving more and more toward collectivism. All we read of are collectives. Is this desirable? Perhaps we can discuss the essential differences and potentials for both individualism and collectivism when life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness become our desired goal..

Zennozen
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:37 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Zennozen » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:06 am

I think (perhaps somewhat unconventionally) that all these 'isms' are just western political concept words that don't have as much foundation to reality as we have been brought up to think.

Nick_A
Posts: 4312
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:35 am

What is an individual? The author in the link states that: “When we look out at the world and see people, we see separate, distinct individuals. The individuals may be in groups (say, on a soccer team or in a business venture), but the indivisible beings we see are individual people………………”

The author quotes “former slave Frederick Douglass in a letter he wrote to his ex-“master” Thomas Auld after escaping bondage in Maryland and fleeing to New York.”
I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons, equal persons. What you are, I am. You are a man, and so am I. God created both, and made us separate beings. I am not by nature bound to you, or you to me. Nature does not make your existence depend upon me, or mine to depend upon yours. I cannot walk upon your legs, or you upon mine. I cannot breathe for you, or you for me; I must breathe for myself, and you for yourself. We are distinct persons, and are each equally provided with faculties necessary to our individual existence. In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me, and in no way lessened your means for obtaining an honest living. Your faculties remained yours, and mine became useful to their rightful owner.2
Is there another side that supports collectivism and why it has become the rage of the day?
John Dewey, a father of pragmatism and modern “liberalism,” explains the collectivist notion as follows:
Society in its unified and structural character is the fact of the case; the non-social individual is an abstraction arrived at by imagining what man would be if all his human qualities were taken away. Society, as a real whole, is the normal order, and the mass as an aggregate of isolated units is the fiction.3?
Frederick Douglas may have thought of himself as an individual no longer in slavery but according to Dewey his belief was fiction. In reality he was an atom of society itself or what Plato called the Beast.
According to collectivism, the group or society is metaphysically real—and the individual is a mere abstraction, a fiction.4

This, of course, is ridiculous, but there you have it. On the metaphysics of collectivism, you and I (and Mr. Douglass) are fictional, and we become real only insofar as we somehow interrelate with society. As to exactly how we must interrelate with the collective in order to become part of the “real whole,” we’ll hear about that shortly.
But is it really ridiculous? Does humanity lose its individuality when individuals become a reacting part of the Great Beast?

From Simone Weil's Gravity and Grace:
The Great Beast [society, the collective] is the only object of idolatry, the only ersatzof God, the only imitation of something which is infinitely far from me and which is I myself.

It is impossible for me to take myself as an end or, in consequence, my fellow man as an end, since he is my fellow. Nor can I take a material thing, because matter is still less capable of having finality conferred upon it than human beings are.

Only one thing can be taken as an end, for in relation to the human person it possesses a kind of transcendence: this is the collective.
The collective offers the feeling of meaning in the absence of the awareness of our Source. Is it any wonder then that even though we are individual things, we may not have human individuality.

So what then is human individual? IMO a human individual is master of themselves. They can give an order to themselves. A member of the grand collective has no need to do this. The Beast supplies what is necessary to react “properly” in accordance with the aims of the grand collective. A real individual would need both a conscious perspective and sufficient will to actualize it regardless of the growls of the Beast..

So how to juggle all this? Most want to be slaves to the Beast and allow it to supply meaning and purpose. They are collectivists. A minority have experienced that they live in opposition to themselves opposing individuality. They have to acquire a conscious perspective and will.

For the collectivist the purpose of society is to create atoms of the Great Beast serving its purpose. For the individual the purpose of society is to establish the means for creating human individuals. It there any way to reconcile the struggle between human individuality and the desires of the grand collective or society itself some call the Great Beast?

"Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:07 pm

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/is ... lectivism/
The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism.
I doubt that very much.
What is definitely for all to see is that first citizens have more freedoms and possibilities open to them than ever before, not only in developed countries but also, somewhat counter-intuitively, in developing countries in Africa, Asia and South-America. This already proves the thesis published on the Objective Standard website plain wrong.
The second thing is that different people enjoy vastly different degrees of freedom. A small number of individuals in the U.S. can talk to Trump on a first name basis. Trump himself, an individual in all appearance, seems to have even more degrees of freedom than even recent U.S. presidents. Any number of individuals enjoying so much freedom and indeed so many freedoms, bluntly falsify the thesis that collectivism is winning.
Also, a cursory look at history doesn't give the impression that individuals in the past had more freedom that we do. Life was brutish and short over most of the planet over most of the past.
Further, the main divide has always been between a few individuals with a lot of power and many freedoms, and the rest of the population with little individual power and very few freedoms. Again, this falsify the thesis.
Wait, it's not even a thesis. The guy doesn't even bother justifying the reality of the thing. He just assumes it.
And so, the piece really looks like a stupid piece of ideological propaganda by some political interest group, more likely right wing.
Objectivist periodicals
Objectivist periodicals are a variety of academic journals, magazines and newsletters with an editorial perspective explicitly based on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Several early Objectivist periodicals were edited by Rand. She later endorsed two periodicals edited by associates, and a number of others have been founded since her death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivi ... e_Standard
The Objective Standard
The Objective Standard is a journal on culture and politics founded by Craig Biddle and Sidney J. Gunst Jr. in 2006, which uses Objectivism as a "frame of reference in analyzing the cultural and political issues of the day." Biddle acts as the editor. The journal is published quarterly by Biddle's Glen Allen Press, and also maintains a blog called "Principles in Practice," which includes material from the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). Several fellows from the Ayn Rand Institute, such as Yaron Brook, Andrew Bernstein, Tara Smith, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein, have written for the journal
Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism and rejected altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed collectivism and statism as well as anarchism, instead supporting laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on recognizing individual rights, including property rights.
Yep, exactly right wing.
Oh, well. These people remind me of Jehovah's Witness. Never capable or arguing their views.
EB

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:26 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:07 pm
Oh, well. These people remind me of Jehovah's Witness. Never capable or arguing their views.
EB
That is pretty much the point of freedom, you know?

Do you want me to argue for my individual freedom? OK.

Fuck off!

Best argument ever. Q.E.D

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5135
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

I'm takin' Amod at his word, so: pardon my edit.

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:37 am

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:26 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:07 pm
Oh, well. These people remind me of Jehovah's Witness. Never capable or arguing their views.
EB
That is pretty much the point of freedom, you know?

Do you want me to argue for my individual freedom? OK.

F*** off!

Best argument ever.
HA!

Yep: it boils down to that.

Nick_A
Posts: 4312
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:52 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:07 pm
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/is ... lectivism/
The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism.
I doubt that very much.
What is definitely for all to see is that first citizens have more freedoms and possibilities open to them than ever before, not only in developed countries but also, somewhat counter-intuitively, in developing countries in Africa, Asia and South-America. This already proves the thesis published on the Objective Standard website plain wrong.
The second thing is that different people enjoy vastly different degrees of freedom. A small number of individuals in the U.S. can talk to Trump on a first name basis. Trump himself, an individual in all appearance, seems to have even more degrees of freedom than even recent U.S. presidents. Any number of individuals enjoying so much freedom and indeed so many freedoms, bluntly falsify the thesis that collectivism is winning.
Also, a cursory look at history doesn't give the impression that individuals in the past had more freedom that we do. Life was brutish and short over most of the planet over most of the past.
Further, the main divide has always been between a few individuals with a lot of power and many freedoms, and the rest of the population with little individual power and very few freedoms. Again, this falsify the thesis.
Wait, it's not even a thesis. The guy doesn't even bother justifying the reality of the thing. He just assumes it.
And so, the piece really looks like a stupid piece of ideological propaganda by some political interest group, more likely right wing.
Objectivist periodicals
Objectivist periodicals are a variety of academic journals, magazines and newsletters with an editorial perspective explicitly based on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Several early Objectivist periodicals were edited by Rand. She later endorsed two periodicals edited by associates, and a number of others have been founded since her death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivi ... e_Standard
The Objective Standard
The Objective Standard is a journal on culture and politics founded by Craig Biddle and Sidney J. Gunst Jr. in 2006, which uses Objectivism as a "frame of reference in analyzing the cultural and political issues of the day." Biddle acts as the editor. The journal is published quarterly by Biddle's Glen Allen Press, and also maintains a blog called "Principles in Practice," which includes material from the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). Several fellows from the Ayn Rand Institute, such as Yaron Brook, Andrew Bernstein, Tara Smith, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein, have written for the journal
Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism and rejected altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed collectivism and statism as well as anarchism, instead supporting laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on recognizing individual rights, including property rights.
Yep, exactly right wing.
Oh, well. These people remind me of Jehovah's Witness. Never capable or arguing their views.
EB
You miss the forest for the trees. You've avoided the big pocture which was introduced at the beginning of the article
The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government expanding ever more rapidly—seizing and spending more and more of our money on “entitlement” programs and corporate bailouts, and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater. Let us begin by defining the terms at hand.
Choose the ideal that attracts you. Is your ideal to the atom of society whose reason to be is determined by society or is your ideal the conscious individual intended by universal evolution? Arguing about Trump is just a convenient way to avoid the essential question of ideals motivating society..

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Dachshund » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:28 am

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:26 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:07 pm
Oh, well. These people remind me of Jehovah's Witness. Never capable or arguing their views.
EB
That is pretty much the point of freedom, you know?

Do you want me to argue for my individual freedom? OK.

Fuck off!

Best argument ever. Q.E.D
You are officially not allowed to use good, old Anglo-Saxon words suck as F**K on this forum. A recent post of mine was deleted for breaching this rule. For some reason, however, I do not know why, your post (above) has not been expunged. It should have been deleted and that would have destroyed your argument for individual freedom. By the way, it is now illegal to use expletives in some Western countries - you can receive an on-the-spot fine or worse from the police if you are caught ! It's an example of Marxist- socialism on the march, the fate that awaits us all when the (WASP) American nation goes belly up later this century.

Dachshund
Last edited by Dachshund on Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:32 am

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:28 am
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:26 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:07 pm
Oh, well. These people remind me of Jehovah's Witness. Never capable or arguing their views.
EB
That is pretty much the point of freedom, you know?

Do you want me to argue for my individual freedom? OK.

Fuck off!

Best argument ever. Q.E.D
You are officially not allowed to use good, old Anglo-Saxon words suck as F**K on this forum. A recent post of mine was deleted for breaching this rule. For some reason, however, I do not know why, your post (above) has not been expunged. It should have been deleted and that would have destroyed your argument for individual freedom. By the way, it is now illegal to use expletives in some Western countries - you can receive an on-the-spot fine or worse from the police if you are caught !

Dachshund
Probably because the expletive isn't aimed at anybody in particular?

It's used for dramatic effect.

My argument stands. Even if I have no control over the consequences. Add background music.

Rage Against The Machine: Killing In The Name

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Dachshund » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:57 am

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:32 am
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:28 am
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:26 am

That is pretty much the point of freedom, you know?

Do you want me to argue for my individual freedom? OK.

Fuck off!

Best argument ever. Q.E.D
You are officially not allowed to use good, old Anglo-Saxon words suck as F**K on this forum. A recent post of mine was deleted for breaching this rule. For some reason, however, I do not know why, your post (above) has not been expunged. It should have been deleted and that would have destroyed your argument for individual freedom. By the way, it is now illegal to use expletives in some Western countries - you can receive an on-the-spot fine or worse from the police if you are caught !

Dachshund
Probably because the expletive isn't aimed at anybody in particular?

It's used for dramatic effect.
Freedom of speech is an essential, necessarily right for any people who wish to remain free. Ironically, England, the country were the Magna Carta was ratified in 1215, has lost it's right to free speech. If I were to say on-line or in public anywhere in England, something like: "I think that Muslim Sharia law is clearly violent, primitive and barbaric, wholly incompatible with the Rule of British Law, and ought therefore be banned immediately by the government", I would , if apprehended/reported, face a criminal charge of racism (Islamophobic hate speech, etc) and very possibly be handed a 3 months jail sentence by the "Beak." I kid you not. Calling a British black African a "golliwog" or a "jungle bunny", even in jest, would have the same consequences: a criminal conviction carrying a heavy fine, or, not uncommonly. a stint in the "big house."

Dachshund

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:01 am

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:57 am
Freedom of speech is an essential, necessarily right for any people who wish to remain free. Ironically, England, the country were the Magna Carta was ratified in 1215, has lost it's right to free speech. If I were to say on-line or in public anywhere in England, something like: "I think that Muslim Sharia law is clearly violent, primitive and barbaric, wholly incompatible with the Rule of British Law, and ought therefore be banned immediately by the government", I would , if apprehended/reported, face a criminal charge of racism (Islamophobic hate speech, etc) and very possibly face 3 months in jail. I kid you not. Calling a British black African a "golliwog" or "jungle bunny", even in jest, would have the same consequences: a criminal conviction carrying a heavy fine, or, not uncommonly. a stint in the "big house."

Dachshund
Are you a freedom of speech absolutist?

In practice freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. You knew the (bullshit) law when you broke the (bullshit) law.

If you are just being a free speech martyr - kudos.

uwot
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by uwot » Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:53 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:57 am
If I were to say on-line or in public anywhere in England, something like: "I think that Muslim Sharia law is clearly violent, primitive and barbaric, wholly incompatible with the Rule of British Law, and ought therefore be banned immediately by the government", I would , if apprehended/reported, face a criminal charge of racism (Islamophobic hate speech, etc) and very possibly face 3 months in jail.
You clearly haven't heard Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins for example, say precisely that.

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Dachshund » Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:36 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:38 am


As is obvious, America is moving more and more toward collectivism. All we read of are collectives. Is this desirable? Perhaps we can discuss the essential differences and potentials for both individualism and collectivism when life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness become our desired goal..
In terms of political ideology, collectivism or statism has been implemented throughout the 20th and 21st centuries by many countries in the form of Marxist "scientific" socialism take for instance: Leninism and Stalinism in the former Soviet Union; North Korea; North Vietnam during the 1960's and 1970,s, Maoism (a form of Marxist socialism) in the former Peoples Republic of China, Cambodia under the rule of Pol Pot and his radical agrarian Marxism, Venezuela and the failed socialist regimes of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, where a humanitarian crisis has now beset the country, South Africa under the leadership of Chairman Zuma's socialist ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP) Robert Mugabe's socialist Zimbabwe.

South Africa is particularly shocking example of the destructive, lethal nature of Marxist ("Scientific" socialism). As we speak the economy is on the cusp of total collapse and a white genocide is process with some 70,000 white South Africans estimated to have been murdered since Nelson Mandela became President in 1994. (Oh, and by the way, you wont hear about any of this through the Western electronic or print media, because Nelson Mandela was a great Man of Peace who toppled the evil white Apartheid regime and established the shining new peaceful democratic republic of South Africa) Mandela - winner of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize (!) - is a convicted saboteur and terrorist whose Marxist African National Congress (ANC) have been responsible for a string of terrorist atrocities and thousands of murders) of both blacks and whites) over the decades before he was elected. The President of South Africa from 2000-2018 the ANC-SACP's Jacob Zuma received his political and military training in the Soviet Union . During his time in office, some 4,000 white farmers have been murdered over recent years, and their deaths at the hands of ZUMA's ANC-SACP henchmen are far too horrific to describe in words, suffice to say they involved the use prolonged and excruciating torture and gang rape of women before the execution not merely of adults, but also of children and even infants. In one case a four year old white girl was crucified (literally nailed) onto a table by black ANC thugs, than gang raped before being slowly tortured with a gas blow torch and finally being shot in the head. In another case black ANC hoodlums invaded a farm house and killed a 3 year-old boy by throwing him into boiling oil while his parents were forced to watch. The parents, of course, were themselves then tortured and murdered.Socialist dictator, Robert Mugabe was another choice example of a monster (he publicly boasted that he was the "Hitler of his times"), who utterly destroyed Zimbabwe's economy and who used extreme terror and murder as political weapons against his own people to cling to power

With respect to collectivism. At independence, African countries had to decide what type of state to put in place. Between 1950 and 1980 35 African countries adopted socialism at some point. One reason for this was because socialism was viewed as a natural fit with African cultural and social norms than the individualist system of capitalism. Many African societies place great emphasis on reciprocity and community. The African philosophy of "Ubuntu" which stresses the communal/connected nature of people and encourages hospitality or giving is often contrasted with the individualism of the West and thus many African leaders argued that these values were more compatible with socialist than capitalism. At first a type of socialism called "African Socialism" was adopted, but in reality there was little difference between this and Marxist "scientific" socialism and by the 1970's most of the socialist African states had officially changed to "scientific" socialism. When the Soviet Union collapse in 1989, so too did socialism in many African state, without Soviet backing they were soon bankrupt and forced by the IMF to abandon socialism in order to pay off their debts.

So Nick, you can tell your beloved Simone Weil that the "scientific" socialism she had a crush on, turned out to be a positively inhuman and evil political ideology that totally misunderstood human nature.

The concept of collectivism is, to me, effectively synonymous with statism, and the state is like fire or alcohol, it is a very good slave, but fucking terrible master! Which is another way of saying there has NEVER yet been a successful socialist state, and not just that , but when socialist economies inevitably go "BANg" the consequence is the kind of misery and suffering you are seeing right now in Venezuela. A large number of socialist states have also starved, tortured, imprisoned and murdered their own citizens en masse. The basics human rights of life, liberty and property are not respected in socialist (collectivist) states.


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5135
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Dachs

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:04 pm

"You are officially not allowed to use good, old Anglo-Saxon words suck as F**K on this forum. A recent post of mine was deleted for breaching this rule. For some reason, however, I do not know why, your post (above) has not been expunged."

Amod is just a guy...probably hasn't noticed it yet...or: because of the context (as example and not actual insult) it may be allowed to stand.

In your deleted post: were you givin' somebody what for or just givin' an example?

#

"It should have been deleted and that would have destroyed your argument for individual freedom."

Not really, no. Telling a slaver to 'F' off, whether it stands in a moderated forum or not, is in essence an unnecessary declaration. It's nice to tell the slaver to 'F' off but all that's really neccessary is to beat his ass up one side and down the other.


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests