Geopolitics and the Pill

Mistaken prophecies about the impact of oral contraception

America + The Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation, by Elaine Tyler May, Basic Books, 199 pages, $25.95

When the Food and Drug Administration approved oral contraception in 1960, everybody understood that it was a big deal. But according to Elaine Tyler May, author of America + The Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation, an awful lot of people were wrong about why it was a big deal. Contrary to the expectations of the time, the Pill did not 1) defuse the population bomb, 2) end the Cold War, or 3) turn American women into sexually ravenous maneaters.

When it appeared on the market, American women, who during the previous decade had been marrying young and spawning vigorously, went on the Pill in droves; 6.5 million of them were taking a daily dose by 1964. But high-level debate over the contraceptive’s potential impact involved far more masculine concerns. The Pill would prove decisive in the twilight struggle against the Soviets. The Pill would prevent overpopulation. Optimists argued that if men were freed to have more sex there would be fewer wars. Pessimists pondered the dangerous social effects of unleashing female sexuality. All those big thinkers were so busy analyzing the ways the Pill was going to change the world that they missed the real revolution. 

But there were two women who knew from the beginning what the Pill’s real impact would be. In the early 1950s, word of scientific research involving Mexican yams and a bunch of infertile rabbits reached the ears of crusaders Margaret Sanger and Katharine McCormick. Sanger, a political firebrand who had coined the phrase birth control, was the grand dame of the contraception movement. McCormick was the purse (and the brains) of the duo. They made contact with chemist Carl Djerassi, who had discovered that Mexican yams could be a cheap source of synthetic progesterone, a hormone used to inhibit ovulation. Djerassi didn’t have contraception in mind when he undertook his research; his lab was simply looking for inexpensive ways to make a bunch of different biologically relevant compounds. But another Sanger scientist, Gregory Pincus, quickly saw the potential of the new, cheap progestin. 

McCormick, the first woman to get a science degree from MIT, used the fortune of her schizophrenic husband to drop about $2 million—$15 million in today’s money—on the Pill project during the next several years. While Sanger’s interest was linked to her geopolitical concerns (she had a sideline in eugenics), she and McCormick were mainly aiming to liberate married women from the drudgery of bearing and rearing an unpredictable number of children. But the people, mostly men, who worked on the actual development and promotion of the Pill weren’t too interested in how it would affect individual women. They had agendas of their own.

Elaine Tyler May’s previous book was about family life during the Cold War, which gives her a slightly different approach to the topic than the usual feminist interpretation. A professor of history and American studies at the University of Minnesota, May touches on women’s reactions to the Pill, but her best passages describe the male counterpoints to those feminine conversations. In the 1960s, in many ways, the male chatter still mattered more. America + The Pill is slim, and it relies heavily on secondary sources. But it is packed with the words of bewildered men so desperately trying to use the Pill to alleviate geopolitical concerns that they failed to understand the private revolution under their noses.

Change came more slowly than you might think. In 1967 only 45 percent of the nation’s colleges had health services that were prescribing the Pill for female students. At the University of Kansas, the Pill was only on offer for married students over the age of 18. According to May, when Lawrence, Kansas, officials finally approved the Pill for single women, they did so not to support female empowerment but on the grounds that it would put a dent in overpopulation.

The population bomb was the global warming of the 1960s and ’70s. The problem was urgent, no one quite knew how to fix it, and the proposals offered by the most radical reformers, such as forced sterilization, made the general public understandably squeamish. Still, there was a wide consensus that there were too many people on the earth and that we were barreling toward global starvation and resource war. 

And as with carbon dioxide emissions, Americans who felt uneasy about their own production—of babies, in this case—could comfort themselves by looking to an even more egregious situation abroad. World population increased by half a billion people in the 1950s, with more than half of that growth in Asia. Lyndon Johnson raised funding for domestic family planning from $8.6 million to $56.3 million as part of his War on Poverty. But making fewer children at home was deemed less important than making fewer children overseas. U.S. funding for international birth control jumped from $2.1 million in 1965 to $131.7 million in 1969.

Those population fears eventually faded. To the extent that they linger, the Pill is rarely the method of choice for Western-funded birth control initiatives in the developing world. Even in the 1960s, the IUD—which could be put in place and remain effective for years without any attention on the part of the woman or her doctor—was the favored option. This was especially true in Third World countries where population control strategies took a more coercive form; better a one-time operation than a daily private choice.

In public rhetoric, the population bomb was linked closely to the hydrogen bomb. Before Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb, which sold 2 million copies between 1968 and 1974, there was Hugh Moore’s 1954 pamphlet “The Population Bomb.” Moore, who ran the Dixie Cup corporation, thought “voluntary sterilization” could be a weapon in the Cold War. His pamphlet, which was widely distributed by the Hugh Moore Fund for International Peace, declared: “We’re not primarily interested in the sociological or humanitarian aspects of birth control. We are interested in the use…which the Communists make of hungry people.” Overpopulation leads to hunger, Moore argued, and “hunger brings turmoil—and turmoil, as we have learned, creates the atmosphere in which the communists seek to conquer the earth.”

Moore may have been an extremist, but as May notes, even Margaret Sanger, who wasn’t shy about her extreme left-wing views, advocated “national security through birth control.” Not every Cold Warrior cared for contraception; Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) worried that the promotion of birth control in America was a plot to spread immorality. But the skeptics were in the minority.

Since healthy, happy people were thought less likely to go red, some alert citizens favored birth control at home to sow good cheer. As early as 1940, a statement from Planned Parenthood declared: “A nation’s strength does not depend upon armaments and manpower alone; it depends upon the contentment…of its people. To the extent that birth control contributes to the health and morale of our people, it makes them less receptive to subversive propaganda, more ready to defend our national system.” The worry then was about Nazis, not communists, but activists had no trouble updating the rhetoric when the Cold War followed World War II. By 1965 this view had percolated up to the mainstream, with President Johnson declaring in his State of the Union address that year, in a section entitled “The Non-Communist World,” that “I will seek new ways to use our knowledge to help deal with the explosion in world population and the growing scarcity of world resources.”

Even when people did discuss the prospect that liberating women from the paralyzing fear of conception might help them enjoy sex a bit more, the focus remained on the geopolitical implications of ladies’ relaxing into nookie. The same year that Moore was warning against the communizing effect of high birth rates, one of the clinical researchers who developed the Pill, John Rock, declared, “The greatest menace to world peace and decent standards of life today is not atomic energy but sexual energy.” For Rock, uncontrolled breeding was a threat to civilization. The oral contraceptive, he thought, could fix all that, and if it were developed quickly enough “the H-bomb need never fall.”

Rock wasn’t alone in comparing sexuality to an explosion. Moore called the burgeoning population “as disruptive and dangerous as the explosion of the atom, and with as much influence on the prospects for progress or disaster, war or peace.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Warty||

  • Warty||

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Yeah, but how does it help me date wealthy women?

  • ||

    Not that you would get that far, but just don't tell them that you have are herpes.

  • ||

    Dennis: I will be providing a very important service, however, as what I would like to be called...a handsome companion.

    Mac: To dudes?

    Charlie: To guys or...

    Dennis: No, not to dudes. To—no, hang on. Hold on. Hang on. To old fancy rich ladies who want to do classy, exotic, fancy things with me.

    Mac: Great, Dennis, you keep banging dudes.

  • christian louboutin||

    Both Christina Aguilera and Nicole Kidman wore a pair during their weddings.Britney Spears,Leighton Meester,Angelina Jolie and Paris Hilton are all fans while Patti LaBelle even signed an endorsement contract with the company.He has long had an obsession with womens clothing beginning as a twelve year old when he used to sneak into Paris nightclubs and watch the showgirls perform.It was there that heels ruled and his fascination with creating the Women's Shoe began.He later dropped out of school against much resistance from family and friends to pursue his dream.

  • guy in the back row||

    That woman doesn't look wealthy, she's wearing scraps of clothing!

  • The Gobbler||

    Shouldn't you be at home working on your next Harry Potter book?

  • ||

    "did not ....3) turn American women into sexually ravenous maneaters."

    Nuts !

  • ||

    No, I'm pretty sure it did do that.

  • ||

    So...it's me ?

  • My mother took the pill.||

    No comment.

  • Aging Vaudvillian||

    That ain't all she took!
    (rimshot, dances of stage)

  • Old Mexican||

    The population bomb was the global warming of the 1960s and ’70s. The problem was urgent, no one quite knew how to fix it,[...]

    Indeed, apparently intelligent people were just as susceptible back then to believe in the most outldish of hobgobblins, including: "over"population, as they are now, with AGW.

    and the proposals offered by the most radical reformers, such as forced sterilization, made the general public understandably squeamish.

    Not so squeamish when it came to controlling the population of the brown races, considering the superinhuman efforts by the WHO and other international organizations (populated by amoral Statists) hellbent on imposing birth control on others.

    Still, there was a wide consensus that there were too many people on the earth and that we were barreling toward global starvation and resource war.

    One of those question-begging arguments that keep popping up from time to time. Nobody has bothered to say exactly what's the optimal population level, so that the term "overpopulation" has a semblance of rationality.

  • Suki||

    Weird memory flood at the mention of population bomb. Wasn't there an old movie by that title, like a documentary? Saw it in late HS or college in the 1990s. Captain Planet did something on it too.

  • Tim||

    Soylent Green?

  • Old Mexican||

    I don't know, I never watched Cap't Planet. I always thought that was Ted Turner's abomination.

  • Maverick||

    Captain Planet: Good cartoon or greatest cartoon?

  • Old Mexican||

    Are those the only two choices? Because I can propose a third: Sucks eggs!

  • Maverick||

    Cap'n did have a bitchin' mullet. And next time, I'll use italics to indicate sarcasm.

  • Jason||

    Greatest cartoon in the environmentalist propaganda category.

  • The Gobbler||

    There was a Star Trek episode about a planet crammed wall-to-wall with people. I seem to recall (or could be conflating) that they discovered these people by slowing down a really high-pitched communication.

  • ||

  • The Gobbler||

  • CSI||

    "Zero Population Growth" was the name of the movie. But actually if the growth rates of the time had continued the world's population would be at least double what it is now. There was a right to be concerned.

    And actually the world's population is still increasing at a fairly rapid rate, despite low fertility in some countries. I hope it does stabilize mid-century as some reports predict. Given the choice between an aging population or a Malthusian disaster, the former is preferable.

  • kreminitly||

    Your mind is a vast reservoir of cynicism and all your comments are marked by hyperbole and imbalance. In addition, I suspect you are motivated to comment here, more so then anyone in this forum, by a self-indulgent need to display your erudition. Such is often the motivation of people who do things like, for example, speak of the susceptibilities of apparently intelligent people.

    Your views on AGW:
    "the most outldish of hobgobblins"

    It is, no doubt, debatable whether we are currently observing AGW in progress. The evidence is inconclusive. What I don't see, however, is what makes it an outlandish hobgobblin. AGW rises to the level of a scientific theory. It rests on the strength of a well understood physical mechanism, the greenhouse effect, a phenomenon that was discovered in the early part of the nineteenth century. This is not some intellectual fad. It is the subject of serious thinking over a long time span. It is also supported, in part, by the fact that, over geologic time, global teperature change is well correlated to changes in the composition of the atmosphere. The only question left is whether it is in the capacity of human activity to significantly alter the atmosphere. Why not treat it as the significant question that it is, rather than being smug and dismissive?

    On WHO and the like:

    "Not so squeamish when it came to controlling the population of the brown races, considering the superinhuman efforts by the WHO and other international organizations (populated by amoral Statists) hellbent on imposing birth control on others."

    I wonder if you can spare a kind word for the great many compassionate and humane individuals who worked at these organizations on projects to improve human nutrition, eradicate polio, AIDS, marlaria, improve water quality and, yes, to provide a means of birth control to a great many women who would love to have it. And while we're at it, how about a cheer for the altruism represented by the untold billions spent on these efforts. I'm sure there were and are some rotten souls in these organizations who harbor untoward views of brown people. Should these organiztions be characterized on the basis of their presence? Are they the salient actors? Does their influence predominate? Should we just scrap all these outfits?
    How do we help, or do we help at all? What's your answer? I mean your real answer aside from hanging around this cloistered, circle-jerk forum and gratifying yourself.

  • ||

    I suspect you are motivated to comment here, more so then anyone in this forum, by a self-indulgent need to display your erudition. Such is often the motivation of people who do things like, for example, speak of the susceptibilities of apparently intelligent people.

    pot, meet kettle

  • Yonemoto||

    "In addition, I suspect you are motivated to comment here, more so then anyone in this forum, by a self-indulgent need to display your erudition."

    Never seen a more self-indulgent display of erudition.

  • Yonemoto||

    Damn you, Kant.

  • ||

    ---global teperature change is well correlated to changes in the composition of the atmosphere---

    Of course, what you mean is that global temperature changes are well correlated to sunspot activity. You just lost control of your fingers for a minute.

  • mr simple||

    or 3) turn American women into sexually ravenous maneaters.

    Seriously, WTF, I thought we had a deal.

    On a more serious note, way to understate the horror that is Margaret Sanger. Sanger wasn't so much concerned with liberating women as much as controlling the population of the "inferior races".

  • normcash||

    Can you also read my mind. Sorry about that thought.

  • Cap'n NoStar||

    The big revolution came in 1967 when Owsley combined the birth control pill with his LSD making it possible to take a trip without the kids.

  • Jen||

    http://instantrimshot.com/

  • Jeff P.||

    It should also be noted that giving women the vote was supposed to end war.

    How's that going, ladies?

  • anarch ||

    Well, just imagine how it would be going without the women's votes.

  • anarch ||

    uh, /sarcasm, that is.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It should also be noted that giving women the vote was supposed to end war.

    How's that going, ladies?


    Why would women vote against war?

  • ||

    "For the Children"
    (in theory, the females like children more and blowing shit up less - only in theory)

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: CoyoteBlue,

    females like children more and blowing shit up less - only in theory.

    I remember that, back then, the No. 1 Quake 4 champion was a girl, so I don't think that theory holds.

  • Woman||

    Gotta keep my chirren safe from the brown hordes.

  • Other Woman||

    Yeah. And we don't even have to do shit, either! Just let those walking wallets do it while we "forget" to take our pills and get knocked up by other dudes in their absence!

  • zoltan||

    Walking wallets, also known as suckers.

  • anarch ||

    When was the last popular referendum to decide on whether to wage war?

  • ||

    The idea was that women disliked war.

    The truth is we find that oxytocin makes people /more/ warlike because of the ingroup/outgroup mentality. Once the other side has been humanized and connected with, though high oxytocin individuals are less likely to follow through.

    This means that women are more likely to vote to get us into war when times are dangerous, and less likely to want to follow through when the fight gets tough.

  • ||

    Without a war, how would they ever gets us off the damn couch?

  • ||

    Promises of Beer and Sandwiches? Then they just position the mower in between us and the goodies.

  • ||

    It should also be noted that giving women the vote was supposed to end war.

    It just resulted in a greater percentage of wars being fought under a Democratic administration.

  • Cougar Bait||

    "the Pill did not... 3) turn American women into sexually ravenous maneaters."

    Says who?

  • ||

    "3) turn American women into sexually ravenous maneaters."

    I was kinda hopeing... (and assuming that "maneaters" is a eupheism for swallowing the pickle, and not actually cannabilism).

  • Jeff P||

    More like Sexually Indifferent Bonbon Eaters...

  • I love ||

    kosher pickles

  • Steff||

    I guess KMW missed the many, many women who had their sex drives utterly ruined by chemical contraception. I was kind of hoping for an insightful article that might actually discuss such things, but I suppose I should probably wait for someone else to write it.

    It kind of amuses me a bit that people, even WOMEN, go on the pill so that they can have sex without any fear of pregnancy, and yet they end up having their libido destroyed. Sad stuff, for men and women both.

  • Steff||

    Er... obviously, only women go on the pill. But in terms of men who encourage it, or women who choose it, or both.

    ...my brain is fail today.

  • Madbiker||

    I'm not sure it was KMW's point in the article - it seems that the author of the book she is reviewing paid scant attention to the lack of sex drive in women on the pill; or, more correctly, that the men who did early R&D on the pill did not account for the hormonal shift that the pill would induce in women. They were thinking only of the cultural outcomes, not the actual science of biochemical processes that would enable women to have sex without conception, yet remove the desire to do the deed anyhow.

  • Steff||

    I read the article and completely didn't find much of a point at all. Then again, my caffeine saturation levels are a bit low right now. I'm just surprised a woman would write an article about BC without even mentioning the potentially long-term destruction of the sex drive.

  • zoltan||

    Long-term in 10% of the female population which can be treated with hormonal therapy. Sucks, but I'll take it over a child any day.

  • Brian Sorgatz||

    In other words, the pill replaces the sin of lust with the sin of sloth. It reminds me of the "Hail Satan Network" sketch on Mr. Show: "What did the doctor say?" "He said I was lazy."

  • Truthteller||

    Long term in 10% of the female population?

    How could they tell? "Long term", 0% of women have sex drives to begin with.

    Maybe women who take the pill 3000 times lose their sex drives - but they also lose their sex drives if they eat their own wedding cake even once. That's the much bigger menace and we should focus our research there.

  • Cyto||

    Actually, there has been quite a bit of research focused there. Researchers at the Yerkes Primate Center have shown that it is common among primates (and humans in particular) for women in pair-bonds to have a couple of children with alpha-males outside the pair bond.

    They found that this biological drive to avoid literally putting all of their eggs in one basket explained much of the "seven year itch" phenomenon. Basically, women are biologically driven to find a nice, safe provider husband and then slip in a couple of kids with the dangerous biker dude. Hence all of the romance fiction about the fling with the handsome stranger.

    So don't blame your wife when she quits finding you attractive and starts banging the pool boy. It's built in to her genes. Of course so is the nice-guy husband's drive to shoot the pool boy in the head and hang the body from the garden gate as a warning to all future interlopers - but

  • Truthteller||

    Well, since I said that 0% of women maintain their sex drives in the long term, that would pretty much exclude the possibility that I'm singling anyone out for blame. Right?

    All that everyone has to remember is to never get married. Ever. It's a simple rule, really. Just four words. Never get married. Ever. Anyone can remember THAT.

  • Steff||

    Ten percent of all women who take it is still an astronomical number. That's also taking into account the number of women who might not report it, or even realize that's what's causing it.

    There are other methods of birth control. Condoms, for one, which are considerably less dangerous than screwing with someone's biochemistry.

  • zoltan||

    I'm not saying the odds are good or that the side effects are good. But I'll play those odds instead of having a child any day. And condoms = bad sex so that's off the table for those who are lucky enough to have their sex drives unaffected.

  • The Gobbler||

    That's no woaman, that's Katherine Mangu-Ward.

  • Brian Sorgatz||

    I think she's beautiful.

  • The Gobbler||

    Well she thinks you're a pussy.

  • Brian's inner voice||

    Well, you are what you eat....

  • R&D Barbie||

    The science of biochemical processes is hard!

    **pouts**

  • ||

    The differing sex drives of men and women illustrate the yawning gulf between "want" and "need" better than any other example.

  • practice makes perfect||

    The 'differing' sex drives of men who don't get laid, and women who want the right 'it', further illustrate the yawning gulf between "skill" and "need" better than any other example.

  • zoltan||

    I don't get what you're trying to say?

  • ||

    That's what she said!

  • practice makes perfect||

    No honey, that's what he heard

  • zoltan||

    Is he saying that men need sex and women only want sex? The wording of the statement is unclear.

  • Robert||

    Anyone know if the book goes into the effect of the Pill on drug regulation in the USA & elsewhere?

  • ||

    The author failed to address the single biggest unintended consequence: The "oops" factor. The pill supposedly allowed women to control their bodies, but that's about as certain as airbags in cars eliminating traffic fatalities.

    Not only did the pill fail for technical reasons, but women used the pretense of it failing, the "oops factor" to trick men into impregnating them as women's workplace equality reduced the supply of traditional breadwinning men.

    The pill by itself would not have freed women. It took a slew of social programs and entitlements for women to be free of marriage and to pursue their dreams: welfare, child-support, and affirmative action. Without them, little would have changed.

  • zoltan||

    [Citation needed]

    It's going to be a hard sell to tell a group of libertarians that 50% of the human species is unable to compete in the marketplace without government intervention. Tell the Carly Fiorinas and Meg Whitmans of the world that they're "freed" by the government instead of by their own innovation and intelligence and you'll get the verbal bitchslap you deserve.

    *That's not to say there aren't lots of women who don't take advantage of a government welfare system which caters to women (and also contributes to a large number of their sexual assaults).

  • ||

    Kindly never mention Carly Fiorina in any context ever again. The way she run HP into the ground set back the cause of female corporate executives being any kind of real power players by decades. The Compaq buy-out fiasco alone is reason enough for her to be completely ignored by polite society forever. The fact that she was a lynchpin of John McCain's bid for the Presidency put to rest any further question about it.

  • ||

    "ran" not "run". It's Saturday night, so of course I am drunk or rum cocktails. Sorry.

  • Jason||

    As early as 1940, a statement from Planned Parenthood declared: "A nation's strength does not depend upon armaments and manpower alone; it depends upon the contentment…of its people."


    Sounds suspiciously like "Kraft durch Freude".
  • ||

    What an awful article. Mangu-Ward wanders randomly from snark to arch insinuation without saying a God-damned thing. What, pray, are the conclusions here? Anyone? Bueller? As far as I can tell, it's just a collection of stream-of-consciousness ruminations that amount largely to ha ha people who lived in the past were sure dummies about the future which could (in the hands of a more reflective author) point the way to some insight into the limitations of current predictions about our future...

    But no. Insight is totally lacking here. Then there's all the eyebrow raising about what "men" said, and how, ha ha, it was so wrong. I mean, as if what the women said in the 60s about the effect of The Pill was one shred more reliable or sensible. It wasn't. So what is the point of implying that the men were stupid because they were talking about a supposedly "female" issue, when, as it turned out, the women were just as stupid?

    Once again, a more insightful author could have used this as a springboard to cautions about identity politics: gee, maybe being a member of identity group X does not, in fact, give you any superpower with respect to understanding issues that in some aspects affect members of group X quite a lot. Maybe you don't have to be black to speak sensibly about racism, maybe you don't have to be female to have insights into sexism, maybe you can be American and have useful thoughts about euro, or the problem of Turkish guest workers in Germany, or the price of tea in China. That, chipping away as it would at the pernicious myth that truth can only come from "authentic" identity-group voices, would be actually useful.

    But no. Mangu-Ward throws away this opportunity, too.

    And, finally, there is this enormous failure to analyze the question of whether the Pill did influence population. She mutters about fears of the "Population Bomb" and notes that it did not come to pass, and fails completely to ask whether the Pill did, in fact, contribute to that fact. Did it? The fact that population growth slowed down dramatically in the United States just about the time that the Pill went mainstream might be pure coincidence -- or not.

    We'll never know from any research effort Mangu-Ward deploys, however. Even if there was some attempt in this book to address that quite interesting question, it escapes Mangu-Ward's attention.

    This is a totally phone-it-in review. As far as I can see, aside from a tiresome bit of boringly ordinary smug feminine cattiness oh those silly silly boys, thinking they can understand the Mystery That Is Woman this review contains exactly zip and contributes nothing to our understanding of the social effects of oral contraception. Blech.

  • Fluffy||

    The fact that population growth slowed down dramatically in the United States just about the time that the Pill went mainstream might be pure coincidence -- or not.

    Our population has doubled since 1945.

  • JoshINHB||

    +1

  • MJ||

    Margaret Sanger and Hugh Hefner? Horrible, creepy people created and promoted the Pill for awful and just plain weird purposes.

  • ||

    "1) defuse the population bomb, 2) end the Cold War, or 3) turn American women into sexually ravenous maneaters."

    I have to disagree on 1 and 3.

  • ||

    But American women ARE sexually ravenous man eaters...

  • christian louboutin||

    Aishika Chakraborty spends Christian Louboutin Pumps in the enchanting environs of Santiniketan and says its christian louboutin remain undiminished 'Besides the winter fair and spring festival, there is nothing much to see there. Palash and simul trees have just shed their blooms, and the monsoon cloud is nowhere near the christian louboutin sale. Blazing winds will greet you at Jhapater Dhal as the terrain onwards turns parched christian shoes and arid.'

  • ouyang||

    This is a really nice article. I am sure a lot of people will benefit from it. Thanks! http://www.cl-shoescom.com
    http://www.max-tn-chaussure.com

  • nfl jerseys||

    yury

  • WOMENUGGS||

    The Sheepskin Boots Sale chstnut consists of elements that are not water resistant.

    Cheap women Uggs Classic Auction to the capabilities of rich ladies sided affidavit raises the absolute comfort.

  • WOMENUGGS||

    The cheapest Ugg Boots On Sale boots are hot topics these days. But have no fear about it. Your ISP loved the Ugg Classic Boots On Sale boots to central storage. ?

  • WOMENUGGS||

    grasped in Chestnut Ugg Boots Online Store aces to draw power from the winter. Apparently, these Ugg Boots Outlet boots can be achieved with their adversity quiet in winter.

  • Sheepskin Boots Sale||

    added Cheap women Uggs defended effectively advance their anxiety really hot. The Ugg Sheepskin Boots global is used as a synonym for any architecture

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • Jordan Shoes||

    so perfect.

  • Weight Loss Tank||

    I would say that Oral pills work folks, I mean I am not pregnant :)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement