O’CONNELL: Creating safe spaces

I recently mentioned to a freshman that, when I came to Yale, I identified as straight. He laughed out loud. It was an entertaining moment — but not because I was joking.

I wasn’t joking. I, like many other Yalies, came to Yale “in the closet” about my queerness, though in my case it only took three weeks at Yale to leave the proverbial closet. For the first time, I found myself in an environment where I felt safe and respected with regard to my sexuality. Two years later, as the current Coordinator of the LGBTQ Co-op, the idea that I ever struggled with my identity seems like a joke to people who meet me.

Many of us are privileged enough to experience Yale as a safe space for our expressions of identity, be it our sexuality, gender or any other identity. What I did not realize as a first-year is this: Some are not so lucky.

Despite our alleged commitment to equal opportunity and open dialogue, we have failed to create an environment in which all individuals and identities are equally valued. And what’s worse is that we don’t talk about our failings — many of us on campus don’t even notice them.

When Yale’s healthcare policy excludes medically necessary gender-related surgeries; when we welcome back ROTC in violation of our own Equal Opportunity Statement; when we invite speakers to campus (Rick Santorum, Anthony Esolen and Harvey Mansfield, among others) who deny the existence of real same-sex love and reinforce heteronormative notions of gender; when our healthcare providers are insufficiently trained in LGBTQ issues to provide us with adequate counsel; when members of our community deny the existence of rape culture — we cannot in good conscience say that we have created a safe space which values equally the well-being of all members of our community.

The Yale Presidential Search committee’s recent “Presidential Search Statement” declares that “at its core, Yale is more than an academic environment; Yale is a living and learning community…”. Today, on National Coming Out Day, we are invited to take a step back and ask ourselves whether we are working as hard as we can to make our communities, Yale and beyond, safe spaces where everyone may live and learn to the fullest of their potential. We are asked, in short, to become better allies to one another.

Allyship is neither unilateral nor confined to the concerns of straight people for their lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer compatriots. Nor is allyship passive, or confined to acceptance of our friends’ identities. Allyship is active participation in the creation of safe spaces. I urge us, the student body, faculty and staff and other members of the Yale community, to come out as allies to one another, and to commit ourselves to advocating for safe spaces, whether as small as our dorm rooms or as large as our campus.

When will we know if we have succeeded? The reality is that there is no end to critical dialogue — safety is not static. Our success lies not in stasis, but in the capacity for and commitment to dynamism.

We cannot continue to promote tolerance and acceptance as the end goals of activism. LGBTQ people should already expect to be treated like worthwhile human beings when we arrive on this campus. To expect an institution to “accept” our identities and penalize only overt acts of violence, harassment and discrimination towards LGBTQ individuals (or any other group) is to expect a bare minimum of decency. Our allyship must go beyond that. As scholars, we do not set an end goal to our education: We value education as a process, and commit ourselves to learning as a lifelong endeavor. The creation of safe space, too, is a process. It must begin, but cannot end, with tolerance.

Hilary O’Connell is junior in Timothy Dwight College. Contact her at hilary.oconnell@yale.edu.


  • yellowasp

    So allowing others to take part in ROTC creates a hostile environment? Just think of all the transgender individuals who’d join up if they could. Not only must you blindly reject ROTC (ignoring the practical reasons that would drain military resources) , but demand that ALL who wish to participate CANNOT do so. If that’s not fascism, I don’t know what is.

    So just by inviting those who disagree with you, we’re creating a hostile environment? How about we make a committee so you can approve or reject the presence of every speaker that would come here? Again, fascist.

    Ahh rape culture…so normally when people make arguments, they try to back them up with evidence. Guess evidence is just a tool of the hetero-patriarchy. If there is a “rape culture” at Yale, then does every state school have a “mega rape culture?”

    “Active participation in the creation of safe spaces”…so submit my own views to those of your cause?

    • wellobviously

      Some of those speakers didn’t just “disagree” with marriage equality or workplace protections for gay employees. Some, like UBYC’s Anthony Esolen, literally preach a doctrine that posits that homosexuals are as immoral as child molesters and necrophiliacs. That’s not a matter of simple “disagreement,” that’s hate speech.

      • ldffly

        Hate is an attitude or emotional response. Are you contending that any speech that does produce such an attitude or response (note that I didn’t use ‘intended to produce’) is to be disallowed?

      • HighStreet2010

        All these things are morally relative. That having sex with children and dead people is wrong is something that is culturally understood to be the case here in America, though not universally in all cultures (well children at least). Would you be offended if someone came in and gave a talk that was pro-pedophilia, and gave the case studies of say Sparta or the Sambia tribe in Africa? Maybe you would. And your understanding of the viewpoints of others, and historical treatment of the issue, would be worse off for it.

        The morality of homosexuality is certainly in question in some circles here in the modern world. Rather than trying to understand those viewpoints, hear what they have to say, and come to a rational conclusion that they are bigots and their views incorrect and inapplicable to the society that we want to have, you instead seek that they not present their views at all.

        I find that to be the antithesis of what we should want in a free, academic setting. If your goal is winning in the political arena, sure, surpress your opponents by any means necessary because they’ll do it to you. But don’t pretend it’s something that it isn’t.

        • wellobviously

          These are real people we’re talking about. Do you actually grasp what that means? This isn’t an academic exercise. You’re advocating that we literally sit around and debate whether or not our gay classmates, roommates, friends, professors, siblings, etc., etc. are morally interchangeable with child molesters? Really? Okay, so when do we get to have that discussion about you? About people of different ethnicities, religions, nationalities?

          This isn’t a political game, it’s about feeling safe on this campus, feeling like the people I live and eat and learn with aren’t going to organize panels that debate my humanity.

          Moreover, do you really think that gay people need to “hear the other side”? Hardly. We’ve been hearing it since the day we were born. There’s nothing we’d “learn” from Anthony Esolen coming to talk about why we’re immoral deviants. We’ve heard that in sufficient dosages from clergy, politicians, parents, bullies, and anonymous commenters. The problem isn’t that we don’t understand those viewpoints–it’s that we understand them all too well, and know their real impact on people’s lives.

          • Dowager

            The question is not WHAT is right and wrong the question is WHO gets to decide what is right and wrong. We are either a nation of laws and morals or we are not. if we ARE then what do we base those laws and morals on? Your opinion? My opinion? The founding fathers decided to use Judeo Christian values. It seems to trump anarchy. I can live with that.

      • RexMottram08

        I had never heard too much of this Esolen fellow until Yale brought him to campus. I say, he seems rather insightful:

        “That too is an offense against tolerance. It is to make one’s neighbor always aware of his tolerance: to weary him with it, to pester him little by little into giving in, because it is so much easier to condone than to tolerate. So it is that the most intolerant among us frequently preach about tolerance—to nag their opponents into submission, and to get their way.”

        Maybe that is why our delicate undergraduates are so anxious to ban him?

  • The Anti-Yale

    ” when we invite speakers to campus (Rick Santorum, Anthony Esolen and Harvey Mansfield, among others) who deny the existence of real same-sex love and reinforce heteronormative notions of gender; . . . when members of our community deny the existence of rape culture — we cannot in good conscience say that we have created a safe space which values equally the well-being of all members of our community’


    The pursuit of truth —which is the mission of the Academy—- trumps safe space. (i.e. unless you are a member religious group which suppresses free speech.)

    • LtwLimulus90

      Way to go, PK!

  • basho

    people should be free to get whatever surgeries they like, but to say that gender reassignment is “medically necessary” is absurd

  • lnk15

    Gender reassignment isn’t “medically necessary” like mental health services and pain medication aren’t “medically necessary.”

    Yellowasp, picking a word like fascist and using it to label an opponent’s argument so you can dismiss it without actually having to engage with or respond to the argument, is lazy. Make an actual argument, don’t rely on people’s knee jerk reactions to your inane simplifications.

    You want evidence of a rape culture? How about a community in which a group of people think it’s ok to chant rape slogans? How about a community in which a significant number of people are raped?

    Theantiyale, do Rick Santorum and Harvey Mansfield actually get us any closer to Truth? If homophobia and sexism are somehow an important part of the truth of the universe, I think I’d prefer we stay ignorant.

    • yellowasp

      So not allowing those you disagree with to speak isn’t fascist? Nor is barring groups you disagree with? Would tyrannical be a better description?

      Chanting slogans, however stupid, is and should be protected speech. Yale is safer than the vast majority of college campuses and the public at large.

      • ycollege14

        says who? do you have any statistical evidence to back up that claim, or just a “hunch”?

        • ycollege14

          The claim that “Yale is safer than the vast majority of college campuses”, to clarify

      • gradyalie

        Is it fascist to limit hate speech or incitements to violence? Because most people on campus would probably prefer not to host a speaker who openly endorses hate speech toward racial minorities or is known to preach violence toward minority groups. Our legal system supports this widely held opinion. Yet here are numerous commenters coming out of the woodwork to condemn the idea of limiting hate speech against the lgbtq community on campus.

        • grumpyalum

          As a gay and Hispanic man, stop speaking for me when you say Santorum represents hate speech. I hate the bastard too, but seriously, unless the man is inciting violence against us, I’m okay with it not being hate speech (whether it should be given a platform is a different story, but…)

          Speech is how we win. That’s how we have won. When we claim the power to suppress, we lose the power to liberate.

    • LtwLimulus90

      Who said he was dismissing them? He was evaluating them as fascist. You seem to be the one who takes calling something fascist as dismissing it

    • LtwLimulus90

      Also, who says that the Yale community thinks that chanting slogans about rape is “OK”? Those people who did it may have, or they may have been joking and not realized the extent to which what they were saying was offensive and awful. I remember the Yale community mostly being insensed about the whole thing. Those people were punished (we can argue the extent to which their punishment was satisfactory), and that’s how the marketplace of ideas works. Free speech is a right. They can say what they want, just like the LGBTQ community can call people who disagree with them bigots and racists and marginalize their opinions and call for them to be silenced.

  • sonofmory

    as a gay person i am pretty insulted by your argument. the rights being taken away from us in certain states pertaining to marriage are similar what you want taken away from those Yalies who would like to participate in ROTC. you do not agree so it should be banned. well many do not agree with same sex marriage but you are not saying that should be banned.

    as for the speakers who come to our campus, an educated dialogue is only created through the sharing of opposing viewpoints. I do not agree wit Rick Santorum but i do not feel less safe in my identity because he is allowed on campus.

    i find your article very hypocritical. you want to feel accepted but do not want to accept others.

    • nomegustas

      in re: ROTC, the author is referring to the fact that trans* folk are not allowed to join. that’s why she references the Equal Opportunity Statement. she’s not saying we should ban ROTC, she’s saying that we need to realize that the end of DADT and the return of ROTC are not all they’re cracked up to be in terms of LGBT inclusivity.

      • LtwLimulus90

        No, she’s saying we should not have reinstated ROTC, because of those reasons you mentioned, and so in effect, no one should be allowed to join.

    • Jess

      Your argument doesn’t make sense, at all. Just because people want to ban gay marriage, and we think that is bad, we shouldn’t ban ANYTHING? The government BANS murder because it’s unacceptable; the problem with anti-marriage equality advocates is not that they want to ban something they deem unacceptable, it’s that they are WRONG about what is acceptable and unacceptable. Think through the implications of things you say, please.

      • sonofmory

        if you want to stretch my argument – feel free. sure go ahead and group murder in there. my point was the author came across as justifying safe spaces as those scenarios she agrees with.

        • Jess

          No, your argument as stated was: “You’re against banning this one thing! If you’re in favor of banning another thing, that’s hypocrisy!”

          Yes, the author thinks that what she thinks is right and what anti-gay advocates think is wrong. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s politics.

      • LtwLimulus90

        Who says they’re wrong about that? You do. Many other people don’t. Let’s be clear: there is a disagreement about what is the truth, what is right. The mission of the University is to figure that out, and humanity is far from that point on this issue. How is the best way for humans, inherently limited individuals, to find the truth? Discussion. Debate. Open Dialogue.

        The LGBTQ community is not God. It is not the truth, it is not all-knowing, it doesn’t have an authority over what is absolutely right. Neither is the opposite side, by any stretch of the imagination. What’s absurd about this whole thing is the left’s selective understanding and adoption of this concept, in the face of vehement insistence that it is the more open-minded, “tolerant” half of the ideological spectrum. The left is supposed to break down oppression across all humanity, for everyone, not just the groups it identifies with.

        • Dowager

          You stated your case better than anyone else on this blog.

          • ldffly

            I’ll second your comment.

  • The Anti-Yale

    “Theantiyale, do Rick Santorum and Harvey Mansfield actually get us any closer to Truth? If homophobia and sexism are somehow an important part of the truth of the universe, I think I’d prefer we stay ignorant”

    The do get us closer to the truth by the CLASH of ideas.

  • eli1

    Typical liberal garbage. Get off you high horse and stop acting like you are so superior and accepting when you literally just villified everything/anyone that doesn’t fall directly in line with your radical liberal ideology. Honestly, this is one of the stupider articles I have read in a while here, and it actually makes Yale look pretty bad. However, I have come to expect nothing less from Yale WGSS majors.

    • wellobviously

      And these are the same conservatives who whine incessantly that Yale’s become a liberal echo chamber devoid of respectful dialogue? Starting off by denouncing the piece as “liberal garbage” then failing to address any of the points the article brings up certainly seems like a productive endeavor.

  • nomegustas

    You should’ve flat-out mentioned that ROTC/military service isn’t trans-inclusive and goes against the University’s Equal Opportunity Statement. I think this is what you’re getting at when you say that that it’s “in violation.” Most people don’t know this.

    Edit- typo

  • eli1992

    The irony, of course, is that most of these comments prove the author’s point that Yale isn’t a safe space, and people are unwilling to admit that anything might be wrong with our status quo.

    • gradyalie


      A number of commenters seem not to understand fully the concept of “safe space”, in the context of the long history of discrimination against lgbtq individuals. Safe space does not mean there is no freedom of speech– it means that hate speech against lgbtq members of our society will be treated like hate speech against other minorities.

      How many of these commenters would dare to argue that Yale should invite speakers who spout hate speech toward, and actively fight against the welfare of, blacks or Latinos in this country?

      • eli1

        I’m sorry but Santorum talking about the benefits of traditional marriage is NOT hate speech, it is a rational view held by the majority of this country. You guys honestly need to stop trying to play the victim at all times. That song and dance is getting pretty old.

        • wellobviously

          If Anthony Esolen saying that gay men are the moral equivalent of pedophiles isn’t hate speech, I don’t know what is.

          • Dowager

            You are correct, you don’t know what hate speech is.

        • Gay2014

          Just because a view is held by the majority of the country does not mean it’s right, acceptable, or even rational. There was a time when the majority of the country supported slavery, and a time in the all-too-recent past when the belief that we needed segregated schools was widely held. A belief that when shared harms a minority group is one that should not be accepted on this campus.

          • LtwLimulus90

            And who is to say that your view is acceptable or tolerable? Moral relativists (though I recognize you may not be one) need to be more consistent.

      • Dowager

        Being black or Latino does not take a person out of the realm of what is considered the “norm”. Being LGBTQ, no matter how often, forcefully, and passionately it can be argued/supported, is OUT of the realm of “norm” in nature and society and nothing will ever change that. Nothing. Procreation is the driving force in survival of a species. This LGBTQ society needs to accept THAT and move on.

        • weeva1

          Actually, being Black or Latino DOES place that person outside of the “norm” in this country because the “norm” is equated to White, heterosexual standards of behavior. So yes, minorities are pathologized much the way (though differently) LGBTQ individuals are.

          But we’re talking about marriage here…and regardless of whether churches allow LGBTQ people to get married in THEIR specific church, the government, legally, should not discriminate against any of its citizens. Oh, and btdubbs, there is homosexuality in nature. A lot of it actually. So you can’t use the nature argument. Maybe we should shun people who are born infertile, cause that doesn’t drive forward the survival of the species. They shouldn’t be given marriage licenses either. Good point, @Dowager.

          And @eli1, recent polls show that 54% of Americans SUPPORT legalizing same-sex marriage…which I think is over 50%, which I thiiink means it’s the majority. Correct me if my math is wrong with that whole 54% > 50% thing.

          • Dowager

            I did not say homosexuality did not not exist in nature, I said it was “out of the norm”, which it is. If you haven’t heard the latest census- white births are now outpaced by “minority” in the US. Your arguments fall flat. i reiterate that homosexuality is out of the norm; most people may accept the persons but the sexual acts leave the majority baffled. Deal with it and stop being angry.

  • weeva1

    nomegustas – Glad you pointed that out. Those who are getting bent out of shape about the mention of ROTC seem to not be aware that despite the repeal of DATD, ROTC still discriminates/bans transgender individuals from participating. Hence, this violates Yale’s EO Statement, and is rightfully included in an article about LGB**T** issues.

    You can argue that inviting speakers who wish to deny citizens their constitutional civil rights just allows the other side of an argument to be heard, though I think it does not create a safe environment/culture on campus for those targeted by the speaker’s views.

    • yellowasp

      And women can’t join the football team. Life’s unfair.

      • nomegustas

        Actually, Title IX says that men and women must have comparable opportunities to play sports, not that teams must be forced to go gender neutral. Title IX says people should be able to experience what it’s like to be on a team regardless of gender. This isn’t the case with ROTC keeping trans* folk out. They can’t be on either team, per se.

    • nomegustas

      Bingo- a lot of LGB and allied folks feel that the repeal of DADT is a good thing, but they fail to realize that it throws the T under the bus. It’s strange that the University, while citing DADT as a reason for keeping ROTC off campus, doesn’t seem to have a problem with the military’s trans-exclusion.

  • sre2012

    It is so much more important for Yale to protect free speech and to foster dialogue between conflicting ideas than it is for Yale to create “safe space” at the expense of this dialogue. Yale is fundamentally about being made to feel challenged, not about being made to feel safe.

    • wellobviously

      There’s a difference between being intellectually challenged and being told by a speaker like Anthony Esolen that homosexuality is as immoral as having sex with corpses and children. Whether or not gay people are inherently immoral should not be the topic of debate–and that’s hardly a fascist statement.

      • BubbaJoe123

        “Whether or not gay people are inherently immoral should not be the topic of debate”

        Why not? Everything is a topic of debate. If you can’t/won’t debate something, that’s a sign that you don’t believe it to be defensible.

        • wellobviously

          Gay people–all people, actually–shouldn’t have to debate their right to exist.

          Refusing to debate whether or not a consensual relationship between two men is the same as having sex with a corpse is more an affirmation that something that fundamentally bigoted doesn’t deserve any sort of public forum or discussion.

          Of course, if you’re not the target of such vitriolic bigotry, it’s really easy to act like it’s simply a matter of stymieing free speech, throw up your hands, and ask, “Why are those gays so sensitive???”

          • LtwLimulus90

            You’re right about that. It really does suck to be on the receiving end of vitriolic bigotry. Most people don’t understand what exactly it feels like to be LGBT or Q and listen to someone say that about you. But people have the right to be mean. People have a right to be bigoted. This is the downside of free speech, and it disproportionally affects different segments of the population at different points. But the problem the LGBTQ community faces is that the issue it takes with this speech is not based on principle, it is too often based in the personal. The community too often only takes issue with cruelty in speech when it is directed against specific groups (especially itself), but not in general. It’s the source of vitriolic hate speech towards the Catholic Church regularly, for instance. Sure, the Church itself is large and rich, but that doesn’t mean it all-of-a-sudden becomes more “ok” to be cruel to those who follow it. Calling Catholics “misogynists” and “bigots”, which happens all the time in my experience, is just as hateful as calling the behavior of member os the LGBTQ community immoral and ethically akin to things most people find reprehensible, and its target is an even larger segment of the population. What’s ironic is that the LGBTQ community vociferously defends its right to defend these characterizations with logic and persuasive arguments, but doesn’t want to allow those who criticize it the same rights.

            I personally think, while both of the behaviors I listed are awful, people should have the right to do them and listen to them if they choose. Freedom of Speech protects us in so many more ways than one can list in a comment on an online article, and the only way to secure it permanently is to secure it for all.

      • LtwLimulus90

        No, there really isn’t a difference. There is only a difference because this community wants to see one.

  • Stephanie_Nichole

    The ROTC program is one of the best ways to change the problems that you see in the military. By putting Yale students in officer positions you have a better chance of changing the system from within. At least a far better chance than you did by boycotting them. Do you think anyone in the military cared or even knew that Yale didn’t have an ROTC program? Keeping ROTC off campus was only hurting those who would like to have participated in the program.

    • grumpyalum

      HAHAHA. Seriously. Someone prove this to me. Everybody claims this. Someone actually prove this.

      • basho

        even if there were something to prove, there’d be no way to prove it

  • ldffly

    I know ‘hate speech’ is used all the time. However, what is it and what is the normative basis for banning it? Positive law is one thing, morals are another. I know such laws exist and on many campuses ‘hate speech’ is disallowed. The moral status of ‘hate speech’ is separate from whatever anti hate speech laws and rules might be on the books. The moral argument must be made in order to justify the writing of the law. I want the moral arguments at work defining it so that a reasonable person can know when he or she is using ‘hate speech;’ so that a reasonable person can know whether they are breaking the law; so that people can be secure that they may speak on controversial matters without risking arbitrary sanction by a person or group who might arrogate authority to themselves.

    One other question for those in favor of ‘hate speech’ restrictions. What sort of research would you countenance in regard to the study of homosexuality? Are you or are you not putting the liberty of research at stake here? Research is in fact a form of speech. Please think carefully and fundamentally about your advocacy.

    • LtwLimulus90


  • grumpyalum

    I oppose hate speech. But it just seems that it is now stretched to ‘policies and attitudes that seem hateful’. If Rick Santorum advocated the mass enslavement and rape of homosexuals, then yes, please, that is hate speech and probably shouldn’t be on campus.

  • bbkkgg

    19th century
    In 1851, Western Union was born.
    http://www.wu1851.com for you!
    == ((( http://www.wu1851.com/ ))) ====

    NFL jerseys,NHL jerseys,MLB Jerseys,NBA Jerseys,NCAA Jerseys,NIke Jerseys
    come on ,follow me.
    19th century
    In 1851, Western Union was born.
    Welcome to: == (((
    http://wu1851.com/ ))) ====
    monster head earphones
    cheapest (TOP) Nike Air Max, Jordan (1-24) shoes $ 31
    UGG $ 50Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $ 31
    T-shirts (Polo, Ed Hardy, Lacoste) $ 22 $ 15Wig
    Handbag (LV, Chanel, Coach, DG, ED Hardy.etc.) $ 30
    Jeans (True Religion, Ed Hardy, coogi) $ 30
    Sunglasses (Dior, Oakey, Coach, Gucci, Armaini) $ 16
    hooded jersey $ 29 $ 16 A new era of belt (ED Hardy / BT) $ 15
    Watch (Rolex) Scarf $ 80 $ 21
    Bikini (Ed Hardy, Polo, Gucci, LV, Christian Audigier, Affliction) $ 15


    == ((( http://www.wu1851.com/ ))) ====
    sale all kinds of world brand shoes, jeans, t-shirts, bikini, beach
    pants, handbags, wallets, sunglasses, belts, hats, watches etc.
    == ((( http://www.wu1851.com/ ))) ====

    == ((( http://www.wu1851.com/ ))) ====

    == ((( http://www.wu1851.com/ ))) ====

    == ((( http://www.wu1851.com/ ))) ====

    == ((( http://www.wu1851.com/ ))) ====

    == ((( http://www.wu1851.com/ ))) ====

    == ((( http://www.wu1851.com/ ))) ====

  • gpjk

    Even if you don’t like what others are saying, even if it is actually despicable (as is much of whatever Santorum is spewing these days), in my view it is always better to listen to what all sides of an issue have to say. There is even a slight chance that you might change your mind about an issue which you thought that you had previously settled for yourself, though you may not want to admit it to anyone, as was my experience in high school with gay marriage. Even if they do not change your mind, it is always good to know where your “opponent” is coming from, if only to better understand where you’re coming from.

  • RexMottram08

    Hate speech, thoughtcrime, ungood think.

    Just another day in Eastasia!

  • The Anti-Yale

    > “Procreation is the driving force in survival of a species. This LGBTQ society needs to accept THAT and move on.”

    Procreation is irrelevant if we have blown up the world.

    Eisenhower warned us to be wary of the “military industrial complex.”

    I suggest we be wary of its psychological underpinnings: the military oedipal complex.

    Every generation of sons seeks to outstrip the generation of fathers.

    Unfortunately that means UNIFORMS, WEAPONS, and WAR.






  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: slot machine gratis

  • Pingback: casino bonus senza deposito

  • Pingback: motortradersinsurance.dynatork.co.uk for motor trade insurance

  • Pingback: kostenlos online poker spielen ohne anmeldung

  • Pingback: titan poker bonus bez depozytu

  • Pingback: volvo s40 używane 

  • Pingback: slot machine da bar gratis senza scaricare

  • Pingback: Laugh Out Loud

  • Pingback: Sensual Massage London

  • Pingback: come fare soldi con internet yahoo

  • Pingback: casino no deposit bonus codes

  • Pingback: video genesis review

  • Pingback: kasyno z bonusem bez depozytu

  • Pingback: elysium austin

  • Pingback: Pure Leverage review

  • Pingback: loto quebec online casino

  • Pingback: decatur il website design

  • Pingback: high voltage capacitor

  • Pingback: garnicia cambogia

  • Pingback: slot gratis

  • Pingback: blackjack karten zählen

  • Pingback: free slots and bingo

  • Pingback: Palladium for sale