Asymmetrical Information

Well...not better for Everyone...I remember reading an article that highly educated women who got married tended to live an average of about 10 years shorter than their single counterparts.

Thus, Bush's marriage promotion initiative, which I confess, I was much more skeptical about before I did the research and saw just how powerful an effect having kids out of wedlock has on the lives of both mothers and children. To cite just one statistic, a Brookings report estimates that if families currently in poverty got married before they had children, it would cut the poverty rate from 13% to 9.5%. Welfare benefits would have to more than triple before they could achieve a similar reduction. I still don't think that the marriage promotion initiative is going to work, but I appreciate the motive more than I did.

In other words, if you assumed that unmarried families could magically be made to look like married families their stats would improve accordingly. On the other hand, you may just end up with a bunch of married families that have higher poverty rates, unemployment rates and so on.

A long time ago I remember watching a right wing think tank 'researcher' on a religious show discussing Hillary's Health Care initiative. He said his group had done research showing things like 'workers were more likely to have health insurance if they were married'. This is probably true but uninteresting. Two people working at McDonalds are probably young. If they just decided to get married, McDonalds wouldn't magically grant them health insurance. They would just pull down the overall average for married people with health insurance slightly.

Since people are waiting until they are older to get married it shouldn't be surprising to find that marriage is accompanied by more financial stability, higher education, lower unemployment and a bunch of other good things. What needs to be addressed is how much of this was caused by the decision to get married.

At most, gov't efforts should be to concentrate on providing economic stability. This means a healthy economy & social safety net. We should not forget the centerpiece of economic thought, that humans are generally rational animals. If marriage made economic sense for a group of people then they will most likely get married & they don't need a gov't paid researcher (or preacher) telling them what to do.

The disparity in mortality rates may arise in part from the hormonal influences resulting from pregnancy, just as mortality rates correlate with early menarche and late menopause. Since the relevant hormones mediate proliferation of breast and ovarian tissue, reproductive history tends to correlate with cancer (i.e., uncontrolled proliferation).

See Link for an example.

Boonton raises a good point, that many of these apparent social benefits from some behavior result from selection bias in the statistics.

For example, completing school and delaying childbirth speak to maturity and impulse control, those having it not surprisingly being more likely to be successful. Those completing school and delaying childbirth are not necessarily successful because they did so, but rather at least in part because they had the personality and character traits to make sound decisions. That is, their life decisions and life success were at least in part consequences of a common cause.

Put another way, forcing those otherwise disinclined to do so to complete school and delay childbirth would probably not improve their prospects much, if at all, any more than playing basketball would make them taller.

Kate,

Ten years? That seems wildly implausible. Do you recall the specific article?

Dear Jane,

One day you will understand that a spiritual dilemma is nagging at you, and you will begin to see what you are discussing in another light. The bane of the over-educated modern person is the belief that logic and literal argument should determine one's course in life.

Humans are spiritual beings, Jane. God created the sacrament of marriage to bring us joy and solace. And, not incidently, to offer us the best environment for the nurturing of our children.

Give it another 15 years, and you'll be able to shelve your embarassment and see the obvious. And, I am not preaching from the perspective of a saint. I'm very much a sinner. It took me a long time to learn, too. I wish that I had been wise enough to understand the obvious when I was a young man.

Kate, the 10 years seems wildly implausible to me also, although I do remember reading that educated women who do not marry have a longer life expectancy than those who do. Like Occam, however, I strongly suspect that, if one adjusted for the effects of bearing children, the effects of being married to a schlub who never remembered to lower the toilet seat, and refused to consult a map when lost, would disappear.

Will, Occam & Bernard,

I didn't link to a site because I have no idea where I read it, nor do I know how reputable the source is.

I posted with tounge firmly planted in cheek.

I wonder if welfare created this problem. What if the government provided no social assistance? It seems marriage would become the main means to support the children.
As an example, DeVon wants to have kids but doesn't want to get married. Isn't this because he subconciously knows they will be materially cared for? I seriously doubt he wants to have children that starve to death.

Or if DeVon knew that failure to provide meaningful support to his children would result in his adopting an orange jumpsuit for a wardrobe, while chained to similarly clad men, in the act of manipulating picks, shovels, and rakes, for purposes of road maintainence, his cavalier attitude towards procreating would be modified somewhat.

I am almost speechless with anger, but this much escapes: all the references in the quoted sections are about *boys* and how awful it is for them not to have fathers. When "Ken" talks about the need for a father to throw a football, yell, and give discipline, he's talking about boys. What about the girls who need their fathers, too? Who maybe wouldn't get pregnant without being married if they'd had a father around? I needed mine; where was he when I wondered about boys, came home from my first date, needed help with school? My *mom* did all that, because my dad wasn't there, didn't want to be there.

Jane - I'm typically a big fan of your writing, but this one is all over the place from a cause & effect perspective. For example:

Isn't it possible (likely?) that whatever makes a man a good father (strong male influence, discipline, etc.) is the same thing that keeps his marriage together? if so, then when people who don't have those qualities get married, the predictive value of marriage would drop, not the resulting outcome for the children.

Also, you bounce back & forth in the post between "having children out of wedlock" and "single parent." What about couples that live together but are not married? What about same sex couples raising children? Do the stats characterize them as married couples or single-parent families? You also refer a few times to the benefits of having two *biological* parents. Are adopted kids at more risk? What if the adopted parents are married?

I think, maybe, you're discussing the symptoms, not the problems, and marvelling at how there are no solutions here...

That's what I meant when I talked about couples that are basically married, but not in name (the social arrangement that now prevails in Sweden).

There is, of course, some question of cause and effect with all of these problems -- not completing high school is also highly correlated with poverty, but evidence from GED data indicates that not finishing high school is also highly correlated with cognitive impairments, impulsive behaviour and lack of self-discipline.

Nonetheless, when you control for things like parents educational attainment, employment history, criminal record, and so forth, which should sort out at least some of the impulsive and/or violent behaviour that we might associate with bad fatherhood, the relationship persists. Fathers living in the home invest more in their kids, and their kids have fewer problems.

Let me point out that there is more than a little folk wisdom backing up this idea: the children of widows were known to be "at risk" early in the nineteenth century, even though there was nothing very different about their mothers or fathers, except that father had met an untimely end through disease or accident. They were known to be at risk even when their fathers had left their mothers well provided for.

You are referencing many studies and a lot of data, I think. The attempt to say one overarching thing about the subject shades a lot of what I would bet are very fine details. For example, I've certainly seen references suggesting that divorce does not have much of an impact on children, by metrics like success in school and later income. I'm sure that there are significant break points in the data that correlate with income, as well.

You're arguing that, all else equal, having married parents works better. Who disagrees with this? The root of most arguments centered in this area seem to be about precisely how common well-married parents are, what variations from such a model make alternative arrangements better for the kids, and whether we can provide the married parent benefits to kids without imposing too high a cost on the parents.

Frankly, I can imagine that there are situations where it is better for the kids for a woman to stay with a husband who beats her occassionally. But I really don't want her to have to stay with the husband for the kids' sake. If government can make a difference in that situation, government should.

When are you going to get back to making crazy Republican posts? You know, "Kerry was a coward for going to Vietnam; if he'd had any guts he would have stayed home and gotten drunk"? I miss those (though I admit the Nader thing was pretty good, esp. with the timing).

I don't know much in detail about their positions but weren't both Clinton and, more recently, Gore, big proponents of the virtues of the nuclear family?

One place at least where most can agree..

Of course, I'm not sure how controversial the idea that stable marriages are good for raising kids and staving off poverty actually is, so maybe it's more of an empty commonality.

Is the Bush admin's "marriage promotion" initiative an effective and novel break with past government policies?

Is there a link to the Jason DeParle article?

This is a good survey. Check out "The Consequences of Growing-up Poor" by Duncan and Brooks-Gunn. It's a collection of essays, some of which deal with the economic and non-economic effects of single parent families, including one by McLanahan that's killer.

ABR: The Gores wrote a shallow book, The Spirit of Family, which did not propound the virtues of the nuclear family. In fact, they leaned over backwards to be more accepting of different family structures. Andrew Hacker scathingly reviewed the book in the New York Review. I recommend that article (the 12/5/02 issue) to anyone interested in this very engrossing topic.

Jane G: besides reading that Hacker piece, I suggest covering each detail and issue in analytic detail when approaching this very complex and crucial topic. No doubt you're already considering doing that. As a big fan of your blog, I look forward to your comments.

Kris Hasson-Jones: The DeParles article, which I read yesterday and, like Jane, found very interesting, has a number of quotes from women lamenting the absence of their fathers, so they are very much included. I think you should actually read the piece before getting angry.

Dear Kris Hasson-Jones,

Comments such as yours spur me on to read books like Daughters & Dads: Building a Lasting Relationship as I am a new father with a 6 month old daughter. I am realizing that a dad is very important to a daughter, especially in the teen years when dads typically pull away. Your post sounds very similar to some of the letters from daughters that are in this book.. Please know that you're not alone, there are people who care, and - regardless of major, painful failings in human ones - you can trust your Father who ultimately is your Creator/Designer, loves you very much, and champions for you every day..

Sincerely,
Jess

Jane,

What does the data suggest about children of single parent families when the family is above the poverty level at child birth? Also, do those families remain above the poverty level? If so, what does the data reflect on the children's chances of success?

Another question: what does the presence of a step-parent do to the likely success of the child? How about when adjusted for poverty level?

My guess is that while there is some causation b/w single parenthood and crime, continued poverty, lack of education in children, it is far more the initial lack of education, initial and ongoing poverty, and prevasiveness of neighborhood crime which results in kids failing to make it out of that bad situation.

I know you addressed this topic vaguely above, but I was hoping for some harder information. If you don't mind providing...don't have the time to search all over the internet for studies.

The data suggest, Scott, that education achievment is colored more by income than by family structure, but that emotional and social adjustment is dictated more by family structure than by income. See the work I cited above.

The old liberal descrption of poor families being just the same as rich ones except for the money isn't true, in other words.

"You're arguing that, all else equal, having married parents works better. Who disagrees with this? The root of most arguments centered in this area seem to be about precisely how common well-married parents are, what variations from such a model make alternative arrangements better for the kids, and whether we can provide the married parent benefits to kids without imposing too high a cost on the parents."

There's also the issue of apples-to-oranges; just 'cos a happy family raises kids well doesn't mean an unhappy family will raise kids better together than apart. I can remember hearing the boyfriend of a single mom behind our house in the housing estate I grew up in regularly beating her up. Police called, but she'd still take him back. Frankly, the further away that fucking shithead was from the kids the better.

Or, to take another example, the paranoid schizophrenic mom who regularly kicked down the door of the house of her ex-husband and children (and I'm talking fist-through-reinforced glass here). In the children of that family, one sister drank herself to death by the age of 40; the other sister won a scholarship to a UN College and the brother went to Cambridge. Frankly, I don't think they would have done better with their mom still with their dad.

You'll note that both of these situations the state could/did ameliorate in the interest of the kids, either in the form of child protective services, the police, a restraining order, or institutionalization. Folks who habituate this blog may have a visceral dislike of social workers, either ideologically or based on the antipathy to the type of people who are drawn to that work, but, having seen the good they can do for a family, I'll say they perform an essential, often life-saving, service.

I'll also endorse the Hacker article in the NYRoB.

"Having only one parent, instead of two, simply makes it harder to deal with the recurrent crises that seem to my, non parenting, eyes, to be the principle feature of parenthood"

Actually, the principle feature of parenthood is delight, at least in my experience. Indeed, if parenthood was so onerous, the species might well have died out long ago.

But I take your larger point, Jane, and to those who offer arguments of the "correlation doesn't mean causation" variety, I would answer that nonetheless it is very difficult to imagine that having two parents would not be better than having one, in a host of ways. For example, there are two people to take turns getting up at night if the child needs attention. Two people to deal with intra-family problems, so that if one parent is having a hard day and is brusk, the other parent can provide solace. There is Parent B for Parent A to turn to as a sounding board when he or she is flummoxed about what to do on some occasion. Two people possibly providing income or fixing things around the house. These are "division of labour" benefits that are pretty obvious.

There is an old theory due (I think) to Jean Berko-Gleason that made reference to the roles of "fathers and other strangers" in language acquisition: children who spend a lot of time with their moms are less careful with their pronunciation and syntax around mom because she, being so used to them, will understand them easily. But dad and others, not having that skill, will spur the child to be more careful - in other words, to grow in their language use. This provides two necessary but competing rewards - encouragement to continue using language (because someone important understands) and encouragement to continue improving (because someone important doesn't understand). The point is not to advocate moms in the home and dads at work, but to suggest that there is some easily-overlooked subtlety in the way that the two-parent structure influences development.

I remember reading an article that highly educated women who got married tended to live an average of about 10 years shorter than their single counterparts.

Did that article account for childbirth? Whelping out a handful of kids and riding herd on them for 25+ years will take a lot out anyone. Highly educated women old enough to be dying these days are going to mainly be spinsters or schoolteachers, neither of whom are likely to have procreated much.

I blame gay people. If they'd just stop wanting to get married, then marriage would be safe. /sarcasm.

As for stepfathers, I imagine it would make a huge difference to know at what point they came into the child's life. My dad adopted me when I was an infant, so as far as I'm concerned, I grew up with two parents. If my mom had married when I was 10 or 15, it would be a lot different. And if there were stepdads coming and going, it would be a nightmare.

Before federal welfare programs, nearly all Americans understood two basic rules of marriage and children:

1) No children until you were married.

2) No marriage until the man had a stable job or business adequate to support a family.

These seem to have also been the rules across northern Europe at the time when northern European countries were leading the industrial revolution.

My concern about Bush's marriage promotion initiative is that it sounds like it will concentrate entirely on rule 1. Mentioning rule 2 would be too politically incorrect for "compassionate conservatives", but omitting it will result in quite a few marriages to men who are a net loss to a family. (I have seen quite a few examples of such men: my stepdaughter's father, her first husband, and everyone she dated before she was thirty. And this isn't in the ghetto - these losers were white rural Michiganders.)

Megan, now you know why many of us who oppose gay marriage do so not because we're intolerant religious bastards (I'm an atheist), but because it shows a profound lack of understanding by its proponents as to what the purpose of marriage truly is.

Indeed, if parenthood was so onerous, the species might well have died out long ago.

Patrick, have you looked at European fertility rates recently? After that take a look East to China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, etc.

James, I'm not sure what to make of your comment. My understanding is that fertility rates in Europe are down from historical highs, but that is unlikely to be due to a sudden increase in the burden of being a parent. It is likely that being a parent was substantially tougher a century or five ago. More likely, in my view, is that a decline in fertility rates reflects a decreased need for larger numbers of children to work on the farm or elsewhere, to keep the family in food, and perhaps also the greater probability of any child reaching adulthood.

My point was really about a longer time scale than a century or two - a species would have some difficulty evolving if parenthood were a noxious burden.

"More likely, in my view, is that a decline in fertility rates reflects a decreased need for larger numbers of children to work on the farm or elsewhere, to keep the family in food, and perhaps also the greater probability of any child reaching adulthood."

It also reflects the decreased need for children to provide for you in your old age, and also the increased. If you're going to be supporting your kids in grad school to the age of 28, then you're not going to have

"I would answer that nonetheless it is very difficult to imagine that having two parents would not be better than having one, in a host of ways."

Yeah, and having a large extended family helps even more. Shall we opine that those without a large extended family should not reproduce?

We're not arguing based on the median case. We're arguing that a bad marriage partner might also be a bad parent, and that the child be better off without them. If one of your parents is abusive, psychotic, or a substance abuser, or in some other way an ungodly fuck-up of a person, you just might be better off the further away you are from them.

I'll also point out that the rate of illegitimacy in the Nordic countries is >50% (58% in Iceland), and their societies have not fallen apart. Perhaps 'cos of their strong welfare state, mayhaps?

It seems to me you are all missing a major point, especially the person who said that rich families are different than poor families, amnd it's not just the money. To wit: Immigrants. These people (including my own great-grandparents, without exception) came to the US to live n a level of poverty unimaginable today, but within a generation were solidly middle-class. This is repeated almost infinitely to this very day. These people are as poor or poorer than the people in the article, but they have families, morals, and ambitions that others lack. PS: As a male from an upper-middle class (at least) family who lost a father early, I can assure you it is devestating not just emotionally, but also to one's future, although I cannot explain the latter.

"Immigrants. These people (including my own great-grandparents, without exception) came to the US to live n a level of poverty unimaginable today, but within a generation were solidly middle-class.
This is repeated almost infinitely to this very day."

This comforting metanarrative is repeated infinitely, more like. I can take subgroups of immigrants (say, West Indians, Bengalis, or Kashmiris in the UK) and show a distinct lack of upward mobility compared to, say, WW2-era Central European Jews. Similarly for Puerto Ricans or Haitians in the US. Whether you want to put the locus of due to their "culture" (which explains everything and nothing simultaneously), or structural racism or a hybrid of the two is your choice.

Patrick, Europe and East Asia's fertility rates are not only down from historical "highs", they're now significantly below replacement level (eg, Europe is currently averaging 1.4 children per woman). As you point out, children were once viewed as more of a resource than a burden, though the rhythm method made "family planning" something of an oxymoron regardless of one's opinion of their value.

Given ready access to birth control pills and safe abortions (~40 million in the US since Roe vs. Wade), children as a financial burden (vs. resource) all the way into their twenties (if not beyond), and social security allowing people to take advantage of someone else's children in one's senior years, it really isn't surprising to see fertility rates head toward the extinction level in most modern societies.

I'll also point out that the rate of illegitimacy in the Nordic countries is >50% (58% in Iceland), and their societies have not fallen apart.

Tom, Sweden is already dying. Norway is headed that way. Iceland hasn't yet, but I'm not sure I'd hold out a homogenous population of 280,000 people as a role-model for our country.

"Yeah, and having a large extended family helps even more. Shall we opine that those without a large extended family should not reproduce?"

Tom, I don't understand that question. Nothing that I wrote suggested in any way that those without large families should not reproduce.

And your example of the psychotic parent is neither here nor there. No-one is advocating that children suffer the company of psychotic parents. But the alternatives are not one parent or a hellish nightmare involving two parents. It is quite possible, and even probable, that two parents could be psychologically healthy. That being so, evidence suggests that children with two present parents are better off than children with only one. My comments suggested some plausible mechanisms that could produce that advantage.

James, European and East Asian fertility rates may be low, as you say, but that still doesn't invalidate my earlier point. My point was essentially about the value of having children - the species survives because benefits accrue to those who have children. Some of those benefits can now be obtained in other ways (e.g., through immigration, or from the government, or through medicine). But if fertility rates continue to drop, there will come a time when benefits accrue from having more children again - and then people will have more children.

Patrick writes:

But if fertility rates continue to drop, there will come a time when benefits accrue from having more children again - and then people will have more children.

Care to offer me a sample scenario?

What a difference eight years makes. Like some other honest liberals who have followed the issue, Jason DeParle has undergone a bit of a conversion on welfare reform since it was being debated back in 1996.

Back then, as a Times reporter, he wrote on the welfare reform bill: "The risk is that it may also end poverty as we know it. By making it even worse....But the weight of the evidence suggests that most either cannot or will not lift themselves from poverty in an economy where, for more than two decades, the bottom has been dropping out for low-skilled workers. In a nation that already has the highest child poverty rates in the industrialized world the poor may indeed get poorer. And more numerous and desperate as well....If he signs the measure as it is, President Clinton will appear to have fulfilled his famous pledge about ending welfare. In truth, he will have abandoned the vision that animated the slogan. Having sought office with the aim of a redefined social contract--health care for every American--he will be seeking re-election with a bill that begrudges poor infants their Pampers."

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0824.asp#2

""Yeah, and having a large extended family helps even more. Shall we opine that those without a large extended family should not reproduce?"

Tom, I don't understand that question. Nothing that I wrote suggested in any way that those without large families should not reproduce."

It follows that if children with single parents are at a disadvantage to those with two parents, then those without large extended families are at a disadvantage to those who have extended families.

So, it follows that whatever saloon-bar policy prescription we get for discouraging single parenthood relative to dual-parenthood should also apply to dual-parenthood nuclear families relative to large extended-family parenthood.

Hey, we have another argument for gay marriage (as many gay male couples co-parent with a lesbian couple): four parents have got to be better than two.

"And your example of the psychotic parent is neither here nor there."

About 5% of the population will suffer a clinical mental illness in their lifetime, with depression the most common. It's more common than you might think: it's just the taboo on talking about the subject makes it less apparent.

"That being so, evidence suggests that children with two present parents are better off than children with only one."

But you have self-selection bias here, as I noted above. The choice isn't between a single parent and two ideal parents, the choice is between being brought up by a single parent or by two parents who either loathe each other or are otherwise incapable of becoming or staying married.

The one change in policy that *is* welcome over the past 25 years is the growth in joint custody of children after the parents have separated. Before, sole custody was awarded to the mother.

"I'll also point out that the rate of illegitimacy in the Nordic countries is >50% (58% in Iceland), and their societies have not fallen apart.

Tom, Sweden is already dying. Norway is headed that way."

Gosh, so a generous welfare state doesn't make more sluts have bastards? You better relay that to Focus on the Family, then. (It also goes against the subtext of many of the posts here).

Why is a dropping birthrate a problem? You have dependency ratio issues, but these can be solved with immigration, and they're preferable to those of overpopulation.

Tom, immigration is far from a good solution to a falling population. Most immigrants no longer assimilate and adopt the culture of their new land in all important points, but instead they keep the same cultural traits that turned their native land into a good place to leave. It's already getting dangerous for Norwegian women to go out without a burqa. If Norway keeps on it's present course, in 50 years it will be Norwegistan. And they'll blame us for the poverty brought on by corrupt government...

I keep coming back to your blog because I find your comments interesting, but I'm perplexed trying to understand the reason that you so readily and consistently take shots at "liberals" - it's obviously your privilege as it's your blog, but to be honest it's gotten pretty predictable and kind of tiresome. In just that part of your approach you remind me a lot of Fox News. Or maybe a reformed smoker.

I think there are a lot of people like me, fiscal conservatives and social progressives that respond to the label of liberal. Maybe we should call ourselves half-liberal. Do you think it's possible that your obvious scorn for "liberals" is just as knee-jerk as some of the positions those "liberals" take?

Concerning the comment that single women live longer than married women. This is in fact true; what's interesting is that the opposite applies to men - married men live longer than single men.

Actuaries have studied this phenomenon and found a fairly simple explanation - it just seems longer.
(Sorry - I couldn't resist)

IMAGINE YOUNG MEN UNABLE TO GET THE GIRL EXCEPT BY MARRYING HER. IMAGINE EMPLOYERS DISCRIMINATING IN FAVOUR OF MEN WITH DEPENDENTS AND MORTGAGES. IMAGINE ONCE A WEEK ALL GET THEMSELVES IN CLEAN SHIRTS AND SHOW UP IN CHURCH OR SYNAGOGUE.

Space Captain: I put in that caveat because I was attacked on Crooked Timber for using those two phrases, as proof that I was an intolerant bible-thumper at heart. I think it's a stupid semantic debate, especially given the fact that I am clearly not religious or a social conservative, and I didn't want the debate to flare up here again. That's all. Some of my best friends are liberals, and I cherish their presence on this site.

Scott -- poverty is a big contributing factor, but according to the folks I interviewed (on both sides of the aisle), children of single parents do worse regardless of income level. They do worst when there is no father ever present in the home; second worst when there is a divorce and the non-custodial parent remains uninvolved; better, but still worse than a two parent family, when there is a divorce and the NCP remains involved; and also better, but still worse than a two-parent family, when the custodial parent has been widowed. (Widowered? Is that a word?)

There is broad bipartisan agreement that marriage is tremendously important; the left and right seem to disagree mostly about means (cultural change vs. trying to make poor men more employable) rather than ends. It's really only the libertarians who will argue, although the argument has some plausibility, that the problem is in the people themselves (the personal characteristics that make them not marry are the same characteristics that make them poor) rather than the institutions.

Tom, while illegitimacy is very high in Scandinavia, that illegitimacy takes place in what one might call a "pseudomarriage" -- the parents don't have a marriage license, but they're cohabiting in long-term, extremely stable arrangements. The benefits of marriage are not the benefits of a pretty looking piece of paper; they're the benefits of having two parents in a stable, long-term relationship. In the United States, parents who do not marry often do not cohabit, and as the article points out, more than half of those who do split up before the child's third birthday. Illegitimacy is not describing the same phenomenon, in other words, which is a big problem in general with trying to make cross-country comparisons.

" It's already getting dangerous for Norwegian women to go out without a burqa."

Congratulations on your excellent parody.

"Before federal welfare programs, nearly all Americans understood two basic rules of marriage and children:"

Please, this attitude was basically rural-only until the 1950s retrenchment, if that. Read up on the sexual history of the 1920s.

Comments are Closed.