Title IX

Beach Boys Song Too Sexually Offensive for 2016 College Campus

The Midwest farmer's daughters are not alright.

|

Beach Boys

Before they took a turn toward the psychedelic in the mid-1960s, the Beach Boys were about as uncontroversial as you could get in American pop music. But what was acceptable for teenyboppers in the early '60s may be too sexually taboo for today's college campuses. University of Kentucky (UK) journalism professor Buck Ryan claims he was sanctioned for singing the Beach Boys' 1965 single "California Girls" while in his official capacity as a UK representative. The university's Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity found Ryan violated federal Title IX guidelines against sex-based discrimination and harassment by using "language of a sexual nature."

"If my case is any indication, then everyone concerned about discrimination and sexual harassment should be alarmed," wrote Ryan in a letter to the Lexington Herald-Leader. Ryan also pointed out that he has never, in a teaching career spanning more than 30 years, "faced a complaint of sexual misconduct from a student."

Ryan, a tenured associate professor with an impressive resume—including an array of international awards, eight years as director of the UK School of Journalism and Telecommunications (from 1994 to 2002), and the 2003 recipient of UK's Provost's Award for Outstanding Teaching—said he was reported to Title IX officials for conduct that occurred while he was a visiting professor at China's Jilin University. Ryan claims it was singing the Beach Boys song at a closing ceremony that got him reported by fellow UK faculty on the trip.

But the school disputes Ryan's characterization of the complaint against him. "In short, Professor Ryan's account is manipulative of the facts and, unfortunately, not based in reality," says UK spokesman Jay Blanton. "Faculty who accompanied him on the trip in question were deeply concerned about his conduct."

An October 2015 letter from Patty Bender, UK's vice president for equal opportunity, to the dean of the communications school states that "more than a preponderance of the evidence" revealed Ryan to be "in violation of the discrimination and harassment policy prohibiting inappropriate touching and language of a sexual nature." The Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity reccommended that Ryan "not be funded by the University of Kentucky to represent UK in any travel abroad," that a recent award which would require overseas travel be forfeited, and that Ryan be required to attend equality training.

According to the letter, Ryan's transgressions did include causing "concern and embarassment" amongst his colleagues by singing a modified version of "California Girls" at a closing cermony while "inserting the names of Chinese cities" into the lyrics. He is also accused of having an "inappropriate," albeit non-sexual, relationship with a Chinese student.

Evidence of this inappropriate relationship includes the fact that the student was seen wearing one of Ryan's sweatshirts as they were walking together and that he spent time in the student's suite. Ryan allegedly responded that he was helping the student with her English, that there were always other students coming and going from the suite, and that he didn't see anything inappropriate about the relationship. The heavily redacted letter does not say how old the student was, nor whether she was in Ryan's classes, though it does make clear that it was UK faculty who complained about Ryan's relationship with the student, not the young woman herself.

Blanton says the school offered Monday to make all documents related to Ryan's case public if he would permit it, a move Ryan declined.

The University of Kentucky is currently involved in a legal battle with student newspaper the Kentucky Kernel related to Title IX records, specifically those involving former UK professor James Harwood. The trouble started last spring, when student journalists sought redacted copies of "any reprimands and any commendations, Harwood's personnel file, and any documents detailing the University of Kentucky's investigation into allegations" of sexual assault and harassment filed by two female students against Harwood. The school said no, contending that even redacted documents related to the Title IX investigation must be kept guarded so as "to protect the privacy of victim/survivors."

Student critics of the UK administration say this "victim/survivor"-centered policy is actually designed to protect university officials, who have come under fire for entering into settlement agreements with faculty found guilty of Title IX violations rather than firing them. If the predatory conduct of these individuals is severe enough to warrant a severing of ties, they say, then future employers and students should be forewarned. Now, not only is UK failing to sever ties in a way that would proactively warn future prospects, it's also refusing to provide journalists with information that would allow them to report out these cases.

But whether UK officials really think they're doing the right thing, are worried that revealing any details about Title IX investigations could trigger further sanctions for violating Title IX (because that is the topsy-turvy world in which Title IX lies), or are engaging in run-of-the-mill butt-covering (why open up files that could leave room for new liabilities?), the problem is still rooted in federal policy. The tensions between UK students, staff, faculty, and the courts right now surrounding sexual harassment, student privacy, and freedom of speech are directly related to the impossible standards set by the Obama administration Department of Education with regard to Title IX, a simple prohibition on sex-discrimination in education that's somehow morphed into a mandate against singing Beach Boys songs.

NEXT: President Obama Warns Trump About Executive Orders, Unilateral Foreign Policy and War Making

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.

  1. For singing a beach boys song….

    Please tell me how the right are the real fascists and the Christians want to bring us back to the puritan age.

    It’s amazing in a decade the SJW crowd has gone full on Victorian about societal issues and Fascist about control.

    1. Not Victorian. Anti western. These people view every aspect of life, public and private, through an autocratic political lens, and accumulating power matters more than logic much less freedom of thought. The end result of this BS is another Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

  2. in violation of the discrimination and harassment policy prohibiting inappropriate touching and language of a sexual nature.”

    Which is it? Touching or language? One of those is not like the other.

    This morning, I violated California law, which prohibits murder and jaywalking.

    1. You don’t strike me as a man who walks anywhere… so…

      1. I imagine he still has to walk from the car to his destination from time to time. Or perhaps he is borne on a litter by a couple of eunuchs.

      2. Just remember, this is a guy who has armed guards protecting his house. The last time I visited him, I barely slipped through. I was rewarded with TWO cans of beer. TWO CANS.

        1. I hope he at least had the guards killed.

          1. This was my first time in a compound.

            What was fun was that he had his kids take random potshots at the guards, just to keep them alert.

            1. I hope the one who misses by the widest margin has to wear a storm trooper helmet of shame for the rest of the night.

              1. Yarmulke of Guilt.

  3. I’d be all for the banning of Diamond Dave’s mid-80s putrid cover of the song.

      1. I knew one of the eye-candy in it.

        Her dopey claim to fame….

        1. Well……which one ? I have the video committed to memory, so just a few clues will do.

          1. The one with the really nice tits…

            1. I wish they all could be Herbal Essence girls. Especially after Proposition 64.

  4. But what was acceptable for teenyboppers in the early ’60s may be too sexually taboo for today’s college campuses.

    Think about that for a moment. Just think about that. The world of Beaver Cleaver is too raunchy for today’s on-campus youth.

    Ryan also pointed out that he has never, in a teaching career spanning more than 30 years, “faced a complaint of sexual misconduct from a student.”

    The times, Ryan, they are a changin’ back.

    1. “Beaver Cleaver”? Ah-ha, we all know what that means!

      1. “Ward, don’t you think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night?”

        ~June Cleaver

  5. by singing a modified version of “California Girls” at a closing cermony while “inserting the names of Chinese cities” into the lyrics.

    A symptom of severe, possibly terminal, yellow fever.

    1. Yeah, what are the odds this is really about Prof. Ryan making American professors look, well, American infront of the exalted chicom professoriat?

  6. “Language of a sexual nature”. Seems a bit broad. Are professors not to acknowledge that sex even exists or what? That’s going to be a big problem in biology, literature, law, psychology, and really most other departments, isn’t it?

    1. “…a bit broad”.
      Oh no you didn’t.

      1. yeah, I think he did…

      2. Twice as cheep as my ex- wife, a two- bit broad.

    2. And I would argue it is not even his language. He was quoting (or paraphrasing, since he changed names of cities) someone else’s language. Therefore, if an English teacher, while teaching the works of Mark Twain, quoted from “Huck Finn”, that teacher should be reprimanded for racism.

      1. as happens with astounding regularity…we’re very niggardly with the truth…

      2. I just realized that “Huck Finn” is a spoonerism for “Fuck Hihn”.

        1. No. Not even with Warty’s doomcock.

          1. A rusty chainsaw, perhaps?

        2. Oh, let’s please respond to every Hihn post from now on saying nothing more than “Huck Finn”.

          It will drive him crazy and he’ll never figure it out, and those in the know will always have a good laugh.

          Nice work, Zeb, you’ve invented a meme!

          1. Yes! I’m in.

            1. I’m drunk. You’ll have to remind me in future posts.

    3. Seems a bit broad.

      Whoa… whoa… let’s tone down the sexist rhetoric.

  7. The university’s Office of Institutional Equity found Ryan violated federal Title IX guidelines against sex-based discrimination and harassment by using “language of a sexual nature.”

    Did this sentence send a chill down anyone else’s spine?

    1. “How are babies made?”

      “I can’t tell you that. Title IX forbids it.”

      1. “Here, let me show you instead”

        -Venerated college professor tradition

        1. learn it, watch it, DO IT!!!!

          1. You left off teach it!

    2. No, but it gave me a woodie.

    3. No, but it gave me a woodie.

    4. No, but it gave me a woodie.

      1. Three times. You know it’s true.

  8. “Blanton says the school offered Monday to make all documents related to Ryan’s case public if he would permit it, a move Ryan declined.”

    If Ryan is going to go public about his case, he should allow the public to have access to the case documents.

    1. I’d want to know all the details of that offer before critiquing him for not taking it.

      1. Good point, there may have been some jokers in that proposed contract.

        1. Title IX Admin: Yes we can release your file but it will include everything in your employment file.
          Teacher: Like what?
          Title IX Admin: Your direct deposit info, your and your spouses/kids social security numbers, your DOB and home address…
          Teacher: I decline

          Title IX Admin Press Release : The teacher decline to release the file because their was a lot more involved then he claimed to this matter.

          1. The prof could simply release a consent form saying “I allow the university to release everything in my files except social security #, etc.” – and then wait to see what the university says in response.

    2. Yep. You’d think Ryan would welcome transparency into this alleged witch hunt. This makes his claims questionable. There’s apparently a lot more to this case than a Beach Boys song. Even with respect to that song the school alleges that the lyrics were modified. We don’t know how they were modified. There are plenty of good cases for Title IX hystery run amok. This doesn’t seem to be one them. ENB has done better.

      1. Oh, I dunno. This case looks like quite the shitshow, what with UK throwing in singing a harmless song and a non-sexual relationship as at least part of the basis for saying he violated a policy against sexual harrassment.

        1. The inappropriate non-sexual relationship is the weirdest part of this case. Would love to know what that’s about.

          1. Prof. Ryan: So here is what Americans learned about Tiananmen Square… *flagrantly flips open book and wiggles it provocatively*
            Chines Student: *barely audible gasp*No!*covers face*

          2. Perhaps using a vague, but easily enforced statute as punishment for making his fellow professors feel like unenlightened American rubes could explain it?

          3. It’s about teenage Taiwanese undergraduates waiting outside the classroom door to talk to you and you go have a cup of coffee. At least that’s what I’ve heard.

    3. Blanton says the school offered Monday to make all documents related to Ryan’s case public if he would permit it

      I thought they couldn’t release documents about these cases, on account of protecting the anonymity of his accusers.

      1. But the accusers are not the victims. I understand we protect the identities of victims, but of accusers, too? All of the accusers in this case, to the best of my understanding, are third-party.

  9. A bit of context – it’s my understanding that the Chinese government doesn’t want any academic exchange programs infected with “yellow fever.”

    1. Good luck with that, Chinese government.

      1. +1 fourteen-year-old age of consent in mainland China. Unfortunately it’s sixteen in Taiwan.

    1. It took a while, but the “What about fisting?” line finally made me laugh

      1. It’s a fun show. My wife (NYC HS teacher) says the protagonist is how I would be if I were a teacher and she doesn’t know if that is good or bad.

        1. Speaking of Kiwi TV shows… I’ve never seen this one (“outrageous fortune”), but the theme song was a super tune.

          1. Awesome! Never seen that one but I’ll check it out now. Thanks. I do love me some foreign telly.

  10. “Ryan allegedly responded that he was helping the student with her English”

    I thought of a very clever pun, but I don’t think the professor’s lawyers would like it.

  11. Ryan’s transgressions did include causing “concern and embarassment” amongst his colleagues by singing a modified version of “California Girls” at a closing cermony while “inserting the names of Chinese cities” into the lyrics.

    Well, I agree that’s sufficient for the Chinese to *behead* the guy…. but still, fuck Title IX

    1. By the time he got to Fukien Province, they pulled the plug.

  12. Wait until they learn about the origin of the name Rock n Roll music.

  13. He is also accused of having an “inappropriate,” albeit non-sexual, relationship with a Chinese student.

    This masher probably thought of her as his own private geisha. HOW CULTURALLY INSENSITIVE.

    1. I see what you did there.

    2. The Japanese are taking issue with this comment.

    3. China don’t have geishas dummy, that’s Japan

  14. Well, he certainly wouldn’t have been singing about UK girls what with the National Health dentistry and all.

  15. Fun fact: When played backward, “California Girls” instructs the listener to let Charles Manson live in their home.

  16. I wonder which faculty rat gets to take over his travel and other perks?

    1. As ever, cui bono matters.

    2. “Faculty who accompanied him on the trip in question were deeply concerned about his conduct.”

      I love it when they turn on their own and start eating each other.

  17. He is also accused of having an “inappropriate,” albeit non-sexual, relationship with a Chinese student.

    What exactly a non-sexual yet inappropriate relationship might be is mysterious, to me.

    How a non-sexual relationship might violate a “policy prohibiting inappropriate touching and language of a sexual nature” is an even deeper mystery.

    The school said no, contending that even redacted documents related to the Title IX investigation must be kept guarded so as “to protect the privacy of victim/survivors.”

    I’m so old, I can remember when secret trials, anonymous accusations, and Star Chambers were a bad thing, and not proof of wokeness.

    1. And, as far as I can tell, there aren’t any victims in this case.

      1. There certainly was a victim. The Chinese student: was harassed by a sweatshirt.

    2. Maybe that word (albeit) doesn’t mean what these idiot college professors think it means.

  18. Well East coast girls are hip
    Stay awake or you’ll get Shanghaied
    And the Guangzhao girls with the way they talk
    In their Special Zone they take much pride

    The Kunming farmer’s daughters really make you feel alright
    And the Mongolian girls with their yaks
    They like to Steppe out at night

    I wish they all could be Middle Kingdom girls

    1. Uh, you know the Beatles already did this take, right?

      1. I thought they did that with Russians?

        1. (Don’t confuse the two countries, it’s a sensitive subject)

        2. Yes, but once you have derivative work, it gets more trivial every time.

          1. These girls are all right, you bet
            Especially the ones in [redacted by Chinese censors]
            They’re the kind of girls I want
            Like the ones they have in [redacted by Chinese censors]

  19. James Watt: “See! What the fuck did I tell you about them!”

  20. I have a theory that to be honest is a bit Deus Ex Machina. It goes like this, Deep learning will continue to improve, I think to the extent that many systems will be able to pass new more difficult Turing tests.

    One thing these systems will be able to do is infer connections between anonymous online accounts- not only comments, but pictures, and then connect them with people who attended SJW, political rallies, what they chanted, etc. Also actions people have taken at institutions like universities.

    The end result is that we will all have to bear the reputation burden of our past actions. Advocated for some state regulation/law that had poor outcomes- it’s on your reputation score. Called political foes horrible names- reputation score.

    Acted in hypocritical manner- reputation. Etc.

    IMO, this will help add a true cost of political action, whereas now these costs are diffused through time (people forget and it’s hard to pin who did what) and harms are diffused through populations.

    It’s a big issue I have, that people think they have no ethical responsibility for political actions that result in poor outcomes.

    1. Good luck to those who are counting on the “right to be forgotten” to excuse their youthful indulgences.

  21. I remember watching “The Buddy Holly Story” on cable TV as a kid and shaking my head at those ridiculous squares they had back in the 50s — old before their time adults who actually thought listening to rock n’ roll would lead young people to fornication followed by a life of dissipation.

    Who would have thought that history would circle all the way back again, and today’s SJW young people themselves would be the living embodiment of the sort of prudish killjoy played by John Lithgow in “Footloose?”

    And of all things, if it’s groups like The Beach Boys who are now too hot to handle for college-aged audiences, imagine the fainting and pants-shitting that will greet some of the entertainment from the current decade?

    1. History is just cycles between the edge of starvation and decadence. Guess which end we’re on?

      1. is there a stupid end? cause that’s where I think we are…

    2. Heck, John Lithgow’s character in Footloose was far and away a better person than today’s SJWs. It’s been a long time since I’ve watched that movie, but IIRC he eventually came around. That’s because his motivations (including the loss of his son) were sincere if misguided. I think SJWs are just control freaks and they want to control everything including sex.

      1. If God can’t control our sexual behavior, I doubt if simple men (and women) can!…(;-P

        1. +1 NAMBLA.

  22. I was a teenager when that song came out and would have laughed myself to asphyxiation had somebody told me people would be doing this stuff in the XXI Century. But they are.

    Jaysus wept.

    1. or pissed his pants, one or the other or both…

      1. Turns out the Baby Jesus was a myth. There are court and other records from his era, but no MAGICIAN RAISES DEAD LEPER FROM DEAD, THREE CRUCIFIED or anything else of the sort for a good 150 years. Would you believe in Thomas Jefferson if he wrote nothing and no word of his existence surfaced before 1926? The book title is Nailed.

  23. Fascism (as an ideology) has everything that hardcore leftists love: one-party rule, speech suppression, interventionism, large welfare states, and cultural suppression through book burning. This can be placed in the “cultural suppression” category of things.

    1. Fascism is structurally the same as Communism. It’s the people’s motivation that’s different. Fascism is what happens when conservatives find democracy too pesky. Communism is when liberals decide liberalism is too hard.

      As a result, both are parodies of what conservatives/liberals love. Fascism resembles a giant corporate hierarchy with no competition. It’s a power fantasy for your average authoritarian conservative. Communism resembles with would happen if the DMV decides to stage a coup and run the country. Which is what a leftist would love.

      They generally end up the same, in various degrees. We don’t have Stalin/Hitler anymore, but more like Pinochet/Chavez.

    2. True facts. Folks who screech liberal as an epithet love Hitler’s short platform, and those who screech fascist back at them are generally endorsers of the sort of platform Stalin campaigned on. Libertarians were in the 21st Century before it was fashionable, and we reject both Hitler AND Stalin. The whole point about the Nolan chart is to wake people up to how two issues generate four fur-and-agin boxes. But this is still just 2 dimensions, not rocket science or even solid geometry from high school

  24. Sometimes you’re better off dead, there’s a gun in your hand and it’s pointing at your head…

  25. I’m just waiting for some wayward professor to cover Surf City: “Two girls for every boy…”

    1. China doesn’t have that many girls.

      1. +1….child policy

    2. In Utah he might escape a lynch mob…

  26. If I remember correctly, the Brian Wilson was pretty high when recording California Girls. The intro is extraordinary, and randomly came together in the studio by chance. They wouldn’t play it live because it was too hard to replicate, although they’d pretty much stopped touring by then anyway. Pet Sounds gets credit for being their turn, but you could already hear it in songs like Girl Don’t Tell Me.

    1. That song was “Good Vibrations” recorded before synthesizers. Saw them in concert 30 years ago awesome!

  27. so the professor has an asian fetish…if you’re going to fire every professor with that particular predilection, then you’ll destroy higher education in this country overnight.

  28. Dear god, I hope I am a brain-in-a-vat and this is not the real world.

  29. Yeah! He should have been singing something politically acceptable like “One Less Bitch” by N.W.A or “Big Pimpin” by Jay-Z, or “Me So Horny” – or any song by 2 Live Crew.

  30. 50 years ago the number of farmer’s daughters was dwindling! I lived ll my life in the Midwest and dated no farmers’ daughters in fifteen years of dating! Sadly, they were not in the sexual revolution, at that time, in the late sixties. It was, at that time, hard to get laid! The young ladies still were “good girls”! Boy did that change!

    1. Thank the pill. It changed the sign of the second derivative of the population growth curve just in time to obviate the need for nuclear weaponry to do it the hard way. That and LSD made the sixties worth living despite Johnson and Nixon.

  31. I never thought I’d get a chance to travel back in time to the Victorian era!!

  32. How about this scenario: the other faculty, being uptight and not fun, were not popular on the tour. Ryan was fun and popular and helpful and the students loved him. The other faculty got jealous and turned him in.
    Note that he is accused of being friendly with a female student, but not a US student, a Chinese one. That is, not someone who can be hurt by his grades. Many profs fool around when they go over seas. He isn’t even accused of that. If he had refused to help the girl to avoid getting in trouble, then that would be discrimination. Catch-22.

    1. In fact, I took my family with me to northern China 20 yrs ago and WE were wildly popular with the students. They took my wife shopping while I lectured, we went to visit their parents, went to see the sites. It was a blast. They told us they never did this with other visitors. So I’m not imaging my scenario above.

  33. Likely a comment from a PC Fabian Socialist.

  34. Likely a comment from a PC Fabian Socialist.

    1. Now you’re cooking with gas! PC, when it comes down to cases, means Politically Communist. You can check it out at the CPUSA website, where the Dems go to copy their platforms

  35. Because UK-type liberals are lined to the Democratic Party, such is the cause of this, as described by the liberal magazine The Nation:

    “Since Obama’s victory in 2008, Democrats are down seventy seats in the House and fifteen in the Senate, giving an increasingly reactionary Republican Party the power to stymie most if not all of the Democrats’ agenda. But this actually understates the damage. Democrats are now the minority in over two-thirds of the nation’s partisan state legislative chambers, their worst showing in history. In twenty-three of these, Republicans will control the governor’s office, too.”
    http://www.thenation.com/artic…..-democrats

    The liberal Vox.com says essentially the same thing:

    “The presidency is extremely important, of course. But there are also thousands of critically important offices all the way down the ballot. And the vast majority ? 70 percent of state legislatures, more than 60 percent of governors, 55 percent of attorneys general and secretaries of state ? are in Republicans hands. And, of course, Republicans control both chambers of Congress.”

    “Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble.”
    http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/…..ep-trouble

    And this was before 2016!

    1. My first sentence above should read: Because UK-type liberals are LINKED to the Democratic Party….

    2. Buy a dictionary and stop calling butthurt commies and pious national socialists liberals. That’s a US Republican epithet copied from Adolf Hitler in 1932. It was the Liberal Party that wrote a repeal plank and forced the Dems to man up to making beer legal (instead of a 5-year felony and $10000 gold fine)

    3. The Dems are cowed by commie and econazi spoiler votes, hence the energy-strangling Cassandra doomcrying and Kristallnacht gun, tax and prohibition laws. The GO-Pee are hostage to the redneck ku-klux abortion clinic shooters and Christian National Socialists in the Tea and Consta2shun parties. This just means we libertarians have to make the case for how spoiler votes change the laws. Roe v. Wade and the recent laws making it illegal to roll queers or tar and feather them were crass maneuvers to stop women and gays from enforcing their rights by voting libertarian. But our vote stock is up 328% just the same.

  36. I really wonder if it is this bad, or if it’s some dual moral panic on both sides. I go to school in Mass, and never had to deal with this shit personally, or hear it from someone I know. Then again, I go to class and hang out in dorms and then leave for work, so maybe it’s all flying over my head.

    And the professor was totally banging the exchange student, maybe to give her a better grade because she didn’t speak English well. I say that with zero evidence and a pretty firm hunch. They probably came up with a bullshit excuse because he’s tenured and they couldn’t prove it. Which would be even more bullshit.

  37. I Quit my office-job and now I am getting paid 99 USD hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely!

    Check it out what i do:===> http://www.NetNote70.com

  38. 1. “in violation of the discrimination and harassment policy prohibiting inappropriate touching and language of a sexual nature.”
    2. “He is also accused of having an “inappropriate,” albeit non-sexual, relationship with a Chinese student.”

    OK, so he is accused of inappropriate touching during a non-sexual relationship? And the Beach boys California girls, is language of a sexual nature, so he is the bad guy?
    I sure hope no one every plays/sings/quotes Wouldn’t it be nice?!!!

    Random thought: How does the title 9 inquisition ever investigate a claim without themselves using “language of a sexual nature”?

  39. is this sort of along the line of ‘baby, it’s cold outside’ now being considered a rape fantasy?

    http://www.nola.com/entertainm…..write.html

  40. Please stop using ‘IX’, it’s supposed to be Title Nein!

  41. Imagine the screams if those Jesus-believing abortion banners had heard Dave Van Ronk singing Chicken is Nice or Cocaine Blues! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-8eN5lWI_I

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.