Women’s curfews

Kaela Kennedy

The Fight to End Women’s Curfews at The University of Massachusetts Amherst

           When the Massachusetts Agricultural College opened in 1867 it admitted 33 students, all of whom were male. The first full time female student was not admitted until 1894, and the first woman graduated with the class of 1905 (Rand 1903). Almost 100 years after the University of Massachusetts began female students were still treated as second-class citizens. They were subject to strict dormitory regulations which included curfews and sign out sheets, none of which their male counterparts had to endure.

In the fall of 1965 students started a full fledged fight against the school administration. Female students felt that by the time they came to college they were mature enough to be able to plan their own time, and should be able to go wherever they wanted. Through a series of conferences, petitions and student press the students were able to create enough hype around campus to convince the administration to abolish almost all curfews and sign out sheets on campus.

Curfews on Campus: 1964-1965

Prior to the 1980’s each summer before coming back to UMass students would receive a small booklet called The University Handbook. The handbook was written each year by the administration and included rules and general guidelines that the students, especially women, were required to abide by. The handbooks were mostly the same from year to year. In fact a handbook from the 1944-1945 school year looked almost exactly the same as one from 1964-1965 (University Handbook, Archives Box 30).

The following rules and regulations are taken from the 1964-1965 university provided handbook. One section, titled Women’s Dormitory Regulations, begins with a general statement that adequately describes how women at the university were expected to behave at all times in 1964. The handbook states, “Every woman student shall conduct herself at all times, in all places so as to uphold her good name and that of the university” (University Handbook, Archives Box 30).  Some sections of the guidebook were not rules, but guidelines that the university believed every female student should follow. For example, one section outlined what women should wear on all occasions ranging from formal events to rainy days.

Much of the handbook however was dedicated to spelling out specific rules such as women’s curfews. In the 1964-1965 school year freshman and sophomores had different curfews than upperclassmen. Until October 15 freshman were required to be in their dorms by 8 p.m each night. Sophomores, and freshman after October 15 were allowed to stay out until 11 pm Sundays through Thursdays and midnight Fridays and Saturdays. Upperclassmen were allowed to stay out until 12:30am on Fridays and 1am on Saturdays (University Handbook, Archives Box 30). Some special events, such as homecoming, allowed later curfews but there were few exceptions.

In addition to curfews, female students were also required to sign out of their dorms whenever they left, unless they were leaving to attend class. The university specifically knew where each female student was at all times, although women often would break the rules and sign out for one place and go to another. If a woman student wanted to leave campus for the weekend, she had to get special permission from her housemother. If women wanted one of their female friends to visit, they had to have permission from their roommate and permission from their housemother. Men were only allowed in women’s dorms during monthly “calling hours” and even then men were only permitted to be in the lobby of the dorms (University Handbook, Archives Box 30).

The women at UMass were tightly controlled and if they broke the rules there were consequences. Each time a woman was late for her curfew, she was required to stay in the following Friday night and was not allowed to leave her dorm. Failure to sign the sign out sheets also held consequences. When a woman would consistently break the rules, she was sent to the women’s house council, where each infraction was dealt with separately. Ultimately, women could be expelled for breaking curfew too many times.

Men lived almost an entirely different life than women at UMass in 1965. The Men’s Dormitory Regulation section is remarkably different from the women’s regulations. Male students, including freshmen, did not have to abide by any curfews, nor did they have to give notice when they left their dorms. They were free to go wherever they pleased.

Reasons for Female Curfews and Sign Out Sheets

University officials always stood by their reasoning for having women’s curfews.  Curfews were set in place so the university would, “know where students [were] in case of emergency” and to, “help guarantee that all students will be in their dorm at a reasonable hour” (University Handbook, Archives Box 30).  In the fall of 1965, more students had decided to cheat the system. Women were having their friends sign them back into their dorms, when in fact they were not in the building. Students also began sneaking in male students in their rooms, which the University highly disapproved of. The University decided to implement a bed-check to make sure that the female students were in fact in their beds and alone. After a severe backlash from students, Dean of Women Helen Curtis issued a statement in The Daily Collegian to support her decision to run a bed check on the students. In her statement she says:

“One is likely to find restriction for women students in any University because of the nature of our society. Parents tend to worry more about their daughters and          insist upon more attention for women than they do for their sons. The University       is obliged to cater to the wishes of parents, she insisted. It is assumed, she said,                 that once women students return to their dorms at night, men students will             automatically return to their dormitories also. Dean Curtis said that this is one of     the reasons men students do not have curfews” (Lezar, 1965).

The dorm- raid upset students and sparked what would become the fight against women’s curfews at the University of Massachusetts. The administration had shown that acting out was not the way to get curfews abandoned. They were ready and willing to fight back against students who were against the rules.

SWAP Conference- October 1965

             In late October 1965, the University planned an event that would serve as a forum between student committees and delegates from the University administration. The SWAP conference would be held October 22-25 and many topics would be discussed such as the Vietnam War, women’s curfews, and the Greek system at UMass (Index Yearbook, 1966). At the meeting representatives from the Women’s Residence Halls were present. One representative, Mina Blackwell, presented a proposal to let female seniors to live off campus, and for curfew and sign out rules to be made less strict. In her proposal Blackwell “called for more freedom so that women may become more useful citizens at the University and in the world” (“SWAP Conference Review”, 1966).

At the end of Mina Blackwell’s proposal, there was a vote to see which of the administrative delegates supported her plan. This was not to say that if all of the delegates voted positively that the plan would go into effect. The Women’s Residence Hall representatives simply wanted to see who thought that they had a solid plan to move forward with. Many of the delegates responded positively toward their proposal, and by this time the student representatives had received support from many of the women living in their dorms as well (“SWAP Conference Review”, 1966).  To convince the Dean to change the rules however would be a completely different issue.

Voices Against Abolishing Women’s Curfews

In the coming months, there would be a lot of talk about women’s curfews on campus. Although no additional voting on the subject would occur until late April, there was a slow rise in awareness. The Daily Collegian was a very important asset to the movement. Professors, students and administrators all were able to contribute to the discussion of women’s issues in the school’s newspaper. Often someone would write an article or a letter to the editor and a few days later someone else would write in to respond.

At first it seemed as if most of the people supported abandoning women’s curfews, but quickly a very aggressive group of people came forth who believed that women would become out of control if the curfews were abolished. A highly controversial article called Curfews and Womanhood written by Georgios Pan Piperpoulus, a student, was published on November 12, 1965 in The Collegian. Piperpoulus had come across a female student on campus who wanted the curfews to be abandoned. After hearing the woman’s opinion about how “old fashioned” women’s curfews were Piperpoulus wrote that he lost all admiration for her, even when previously he stated that she was highly attractive (Piperopoulos, 1965).

Piperpoulus’s article makes four points against women’s curfews. He believes that the elimination of curfews will not boost women student’s maturity and that since administrators “know more than the students do” curfews for females were just. His next point is that “if students don’t like the policies at the University they should go elsewhere, and I take it, stop all their ‘noisemaking’ here” (Pieropoulos, 1965). He also explains that many women were already breaking the rules and by eliminating the rules, women would act more precariously than they already were. One woman shared with Pieropolous that she often signed out that she was going home for the night, but actually stayed the night in the dorm next store with a male (Pieropoulos, 1965).

Few people who were against eliminating curfews for female students agreed with all the points that Pieropoulos made in his article, but many of them did think that females were not mature enough to handle the responsibility of freedom. In a letter to the editor, two students who signed their letter as “doubtful coeds” shared an event that they believed pointed towards immaturity in female students. In their letter they write:

“On the evening of May 9, 1966 in the South Commons we witnessed the most     unbelievable scene: Two “young ladies” one a newly appointed Scroll, reversed         Emily Post’s table etiquette by proceeding to sling mashed potatoes and other     goodies at a male companion, who (naturally!) was forced to assist the innovators by returning the favor. Was it any wonder that the University hesitated to place          responsibilities and trust in the hands of such people?” (“Will we rise”, 1966).

 

Many conservative students feared that mass amounts of chaos would occur if the administration eliminated curfews, but the faculty as well wondered what the consequences would be.  The Collegian ran an article on March 1, 1966 that included an article that surveyed faculty’s opinion on the curfews. Richard Harper, a professor in the department of physics, believed that the curfews were in place to protect girls, not to hold them back (Harper, 1966). Every movement has people who appose it, and people who were against the removal of women’s were a very vocal group. However, people who were for abolishing women’s curfews were able to gather enough voices to overpower them.

Voices for Abandoning Curfews

Directly after the SWAP conference in November, The Collegian received a number of letters to the editor that related to women’s curfews. The conference had raised awareness in the students, who now knew that the fight to eliminate the curfews had started. Between October 26 and November 15 the paper ran four letters, three from students and one from a faculty member. Each of the letters directly addressed a different problem that the writer found with women’s curfews and sign out sheets.

One student pointed out that many of the females who were being restricted were full adults, meaning that in addition to the ability to vote they could also purchase alcohol. In her letter, which the student signed anonymously with the initials FJN, she writes, “It is not that one would want to come in at 5 every morning or stay with her boyfriend every night if she were not restricted. It is just the principle of the injustice” (1966). The university always stood by the fact that parents wanted curfews for women, but in the case of women who were over 21, the University had no right to restrict those who were no longer legally bound to their parents.

A letter written by a student named Sam Lambert also argues that the reasoning for curfews was not totally fair. Dean Curtis had stated that parents wanted the women to have curfews that they had when they were home. Perhaps it was not the curfews themselves but the punishment of breaking them that was unfair. Compared to many of the colleges surrounding the University, UMass had the strictest policies. “Why are the daughters threatened with a punishment- expulsion,” Lambert writes, “no parent would ‘wish’ on a daughter who stayed out too late?” (1966). At many other schools, girls were allowed to have one or two late arrivals per semester, before any disciplinary action would be taken and girls could not be expelled only punished for coming into their dorms late (“There can be”, 1966).

One of the other changes this movement was trying to accomplish was getting student representatives into the meetings where student rules were created each year. In 1965, the rules and regulations for dorms were created by administration and staff only. Lambert says, “This University conducts itself more strictly than any parent- without exercising the responsibility owed by a parent to a daughter or son- that of letting free discussion and working agreement set convenient rules” (Lambert, 1966). Dean Curtis believes that parents would want to have curfews for their daughters, but if the punishments for the curfews exceed what any parent would want, the University needed to look over their policies to reflect what parents and students wanted.

The biggest argument that people had for curfews was that women were not mature enough to be given complete freedom on campus. One student, Paula Freed, thought that this argument was ridiculous because “the general consensus of opinion among our educators, psychologists, and psychiatrists is that a girl matures at a much faster (approximately two years faster) rate than a boy” (Freed, 1966). If the women who were more mature than the boys, who did not have curfews and sign out sheets, than either these curfews should be eliminated or boys should have the same (or some would argue stricter) rules.

On November 15 a letter was published in The Collegian by lecturer Ann Ferguson. This was the first letter to the editor from a faculty member that The Collegian had published that was in support of removing curfews. Ann Ferguson, who at the time had just graduated with her Ph.D at Brown University, had a powerful opinion about women’s curfews. Later in the 1970’s she would become involved in the creation of the UMass Women’s Studies program. She only recently retired from the University in 2007.

Most faculty members at this time thought that women’s curfews were a necessary evil for women. However Ann Ferguson disagreed, perhaps because she was a recent college graduate herself and may have had to abide by these curfews as well. In her letter to the editor she writes:

“A woman, as well as a man, has to be considered “grown up” sometime; and if     she is considered grown up enough to form her own intellectual opinions I think        she should be considered grown up enough to have the privilege of making her           own decisions about her private life. Furthermore, it is not implausible to maintain             that if you treat people as a responsible adult rather than as children, there may be more of a tendency for them to act like responsible adults” (Ferguson, 1966).

Ferguson makes a point that counteracts many others’ opinions about women’s curfews. Instead of thinking that women could not handle the removal of curfews, she believes that women will embrace having freedom that they should have incurred when they were accepted into college (Ferguson, 1966).

After this initial surge of articles on women’s curfews directly after the SWAP conference, coverage slowed in The Collegian until the second half of the school year. On March 1, 1966, The Collegian ran a special edition focusing on women’s curfews. The special edition focused on what activists were currently trying to accomplish, and more importantly compared UMass’ strict rules to other schools’ policies.

The issue also included some cartoons that showed the injustices of women’s curfews. The following cartoon appeared in the March 1 edition:

Cartoon about women's curfews

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The cartoon displays the scrutiny that women had to go through when returning to their dorms. The three women, who look perfectly put together, are afraid that their housemother will judge them based on their appearance. The man in the picture looks scruffy but is casually walking by because he does not have to abide by any of the rules.

The special edition of The Collegian would be a great resource for the campaigners against women’s curfews. The leaders of the movement would need student support to be able to continue. The more coverage of the issue they could get, the better the chance that a student would support the cause.

Dorm Meetings and Campus Wide Petition   

Quickly after the release of The Collegian’s special edition, student activists from the Student Senate began holding meetings to spread the word about the importance of student activism. One of the first meetings was held on April 2 in the Mary Lyons House lounge. Over 50 students would attend, which was considered a great success for the student leaders (Corea and Gaudet, 1966). Many students who attended this event went on to create the petition that would be circulated in dorms later that month.

After this first initial meeting, which was open to all students, the Student Senate began to put together more dorm meetings that would be specifically aimed at women. On April 12 and 14 representatives from the Women’s Affairs Committee would hold dorm meetings in all of the female dorms on campus. These meetings were so productive, that students planned additional events to gain even more student interest (Corea and Gaudet, 1966).

After these events, the Women’s Affairs Committee felt that they had enough volunteers to begin circulation of their petition for the removal of women’s curfews. The group of volunteers led by a student named Wren Farren consisted of 17 women, one from each dorm on campus. The group tackled the female dorms first, because they felt that women would be most sympathetic towards the issue (Corea and Gaudet, 1966).

Since the female volunteers could not enter any of the male dorms on campus, the group decided that after tackling the female dorms on campus they would post the petition in the Student Union. The Student Union posting of the petition would also allow signatures by graduate students, faculty, and women who had not had the opportunity to sign the petition in their dorms.

The petition was a huge success for the Women’s Affairs Committee. News editor Gordon Davidson reported: “75%-85% of all the girls in the dorms signed the petitions which asked for the abolition of curfews and voluntary sign-out sheets” (1966). After attaining additional signatures from male students, faculty and graduate students, the Women’s Affairs Committee voted to officially recommend to the Student Senate that women’s curfews and sign-out sheets be abolished (Davidson, 1966). After the Women’s Affairs committee recommended that women’s curfews be abolished, the issue quickly moved through the Student Senate. The issue then had to move into faculty and administrator led committees. The move to officially remove the curfews and sign out sheets had officially begun.

A Surprising Victory

The Student Senate’s recommendation would move onto The Administrative Committee on Student Life. This Committee consisted of five administrators; The Dean and Assistant Dean of Men and Women’s Affairs, and the Coordinator of Student Activities. The Committee unanimously voted to pass the recommendation onto the President of the University and the Dean of Students (“Student Life Report”, 1966). The quick response was a surprise to the students because previously Dean of Women Helen Curtis was quite vocal about her opinion that she did not want women’s curfews to be removed.

Dean Curtis’ surprising response however would not be the biggest shock to the students. After voting, The Administrative Committee on Student Life wrote a report to Dean Field and President of the University John Lederle, asking for them to approve the rule changes. On May 3 at a Student Leaders Night Dean Field himself announced that he and the President had accepted all of the changes. The student audience was “stunned” and Dean Field was quoted as saying that “as far as [I] know, no other school has achieved changes like these in this manner” (Foudy, 1966).

The campus was astonished that the Dean and President had, without any changes, accepted all of the students’ recommendations. Most of the coordinators of this campaign had expected them to only allow some of the changes to occur. Curfews were to be abolished except for female freshmen and sign-out sheets were to become voluntary.  The Administrative Committee on Student Life would now have five student representatives, and would get a new name: The Student Life Committee. Students were now going to have representation for future changes to student rules. Their first job would be to assist in implementing the changes the Dean and President approved (Foudy, 1966).

Conclusion

            After months of difficult work the Women’s Affairs Committee, along with many other groups on campus, rejoiced at the changes that they were able to make. In the summer of 1966 The University Handbook would be completely rewritten to implement the changes. The new women’s regulations section would read, “Curfews at the University are for the most part self-imposed by the student. The only exception for the school year 1966-1967 will be a curfew for all freshman women of 12 pm Sunday- Thursday and 1am for Friday and Saturday nights” (University Handbook, Archives Box 30).

In the fall of 1966 when female students returned to school, they were free of most of the restrictions that they had to abide by in the previous year. Although curfews would not be abolished for every student until 1972, the type of organizing that occurred during the 1965-1966 school year against women’s curfews would be passed onto many other campaigns in future years. If they worked together to create a force against an issue, students learned that the administration would listen, and change could occur.

 References

Corea, G.P, & Gaudet, B. (1966, April 7). Petitions, discussions accent drive. The Massachusetts Daily Collegian.

Davidson, G.P. (1966, April 12). “Women’s affairs urges parietals; no curfews”. The           Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Ferguson, A. (1965, November 15). “Curfews and maturity”. The Massachusetts Daily      Collegian.

FJN (1965, October 29). “Ridiculous Regulations”. The Massachusetts Daily Collegian.

Foudy, J. (1966, May 4). “Lederle, field approve rule changes”. The Massachusetts Daily

            Collegian.

 

Freed, P. (1965, October 26). “Responsible to parents?”. The Massachusetts Daily Collegian.

Harper, R. (1966, March 1). “Teacher Opinions on Curfews”.  The Massachusetts Daily     Collegian.

Hall, J. (1966, May 2). “.. And there was light” . The Massachusetts Daily Collegian.

Index yearbook- class of 1966. (1966). (University of Massachusetts), Retrieved from             http://www.eyearbook.com/yearbooks/University_of_Massachusetts_Amherst_In            dex_Yearbook/1966/Page_63.html

Lambert, S. (1965, October 27). “To the dean”. The Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Lezar, J. (1965, October 15). Dean Curtis comments on dorm bed-checks. The       Massachusetts Daily Collegian.

Piperopoulos, G.P. (1965, November 12). Curfews and womanhood. The Massachusetts    Daily Collegian.

Rand, F.P. (1933). Yesterdays at massachusetts state college. Amherst, MA: The

Associate Alumni.

“Swap conference review”. (1965, October 27). The Massachusetts Daily Collegian ,

[University Handbook]. [Student Affiars]. ([Box 30/00/2]) Special Collections and            University Archives, University Libraries, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“Will we rise to the occasion?”. (1966, May 20). The Massachusetts Daily Collegian.

 

 

 

164 thoughts on “Women’s curfews

  1. I write a leave a response when I especially enjoy a article on a site or if I
    have something to valuable to contribute to the discussion. Usually it is caused
    by the passion displayed in the post I looked at. And after this post Womens curfews | radicalumass’s blog.
    I was moved enough to post a thought 🙂 I do have a couple of questions for you if you don’t mind.
    Is it simply me or do a few of these remarks come across like they are
    coming from brain dead people? 😛 And, if you are writing
    at additional sites, I’d like to follow you. Would you make
    a list the complete urls of your social pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page
    or linkedin profile?

  2. は一度や二度ではない。川崎、横浜の工場勤務時代、市会議員選挙戦の経験を持つ広瀬や篠原も、さすがに辟易《へきえき》し、口にこそ出さなかったが、こんなはずではなかったといった思いでげんなりした顔を見せている。山のようなデマ投

  3. Greetings I am so glad I found your webpage, I really found you by accident,
    while I was searching on Askjeeve for something else, Regardless I am here now and
    would just like to say thanks for a incredible post and a all
    round enjoyable blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t
    have time to browse it all at the minute but I have saved
    it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I
    have time I will be back to read a great deal more,
    Please do keep up the fantastic work.

  4. And who would have thought that SNL alum and resident doofus
    Will Forte could be so subtle and sweet. Excellent end air converters implement additional durable procedure and trim to last several years longer than low-priced converters.
    You can definitely think about a couple of factors that can be inflated
    with the use of the appropriate sized air compressor.

  5. Wonderful goods from you, man. I’ve be mindful your stuff previous to and you’re simply too wonderful.

    I actually like what you have acquired right here,
    really like what you are stating and the way in which
    through which you say it. You are making it enjoyable
    and you continue to take care of to keep it sensible.
    I cant wait to learn far more from you. That is actually a
    wonderful website.

  6. Taper Roller Bearings: Taper Roller bearings are drafted in such a way that it can carry large amount of thrust and radial loads.
    Many customers may possibly discover the shorter utility longevity of NSK bearings.
    With the bottlebrush or a sponge, plus the bucket of soapy water clean under both the
    saddle, bottom bracket, brakes and forks if you need to use the scrubbing brush to remove any stubborn dirt
    and then with a soapy sponge clean off all the degreaser and dirt that
    has been loosened.

  7. Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you actually
    realize what you are speaking about! Bookmarked. Please
    also seek advice from my website =). We can have a link change
    contract among us

  8. 色んなむだ毛の処理をしてきた経験から、それぞれの特徴のまとめを紹介します。

    まずワックス状のテープは合わない人もたくさんいます。生えているムダ毛が太い人ですと猛烈に痛いだけで毛が途中で切れてしまう、処理後の肌が痛くなる、と大してメリットがありません。そもそも毛が少ないという方には一気に広い範囲がきれいになる、お風呂場でやる必要がないので片付けも楽、というメリットがあると思います。

    カミソリでの処理は見た目的にはきれいに剃れるのは優秀ですが、肌ダメージを与えているポイントは変わりないです。
    最近の新商品だと刃の周辺に滑りをよくする石けんが付いていて、肌ダメージを少なくするような工夫がされている商品も出ています。しかしこうしたタイプは刃の処理後のケアが大変というマイナス面もあります。多分大半の人が風呂場、もしくは洗面所で保管をしていると思いますが、石けんの部分にこびりついてしまったムダ毛が取れにくく、雑菌の繁殖で不潔になりがちです。

    毛抜きは、抜くたびに痛みがあり、手間と時間かかってしまいます。
    変な姿勢で処理するので筋がつってしまうこともあります。しかし一度根元から抜けば次に毛が生えてくるまで時間がかかるので、鼻下や眉毛などの顔の狭いエリアのお手入れに向くと思います。しかしながら毛穴に非常に大きいダメージを与えるので、毛抜きを使い続けると肌がボツボツになるのは避けられません。

    こうして様々な処理方法をやってきた結果、今ではキレイモで全身脱毛をやっています。料金が今までの中でいちばんかかってしまうのがデメリットではありますが、専門のエステティシャンの施術なので何よりも仕上がりが今まで試してきた処理方法とは比べ物にならないぐらいきれいですね。ヒアルロン酸を配合した専用のジェルを使用したアフターケアも完璧なので、肌もスベスベになります。サロンに行ってベッドに寝転んでいるだけで全身脱毛してくれるので、これほどお気楽なことはありません。やはり無駄毛処理は脱毛サロンにお任せするのが一番です。

    横浜脱毛するならいくつも良い評判の脱毛サロンがあるので、横浜に住んでいる女性は脱毛すべきです。私は住まいが地方なので、そういった点でも都会暮らしが羨ましいです。

  9. VIO|全身|永久脱毛の代表的な技術としては光脱毛、電気脱毛、ニードル脱毛等に絞られます|があげられます|が一般的です。直視してはいけない|目で見てはいけない|目に刺激が強い光線を肌|毛根|むだ毛に当てて毛根を機能不全にし、発毛を防ぐといったメカニズム|仕組みになっています。全身脱毛大阪では、VIO脱毛|全身脱毛|脇脱毛の予約日前にやめた方がいいのは|禁止されるのは|やってはダメなのが毛抜きを使った|自分で毛を抜く|セルフの毛抜き脱毛です。エステ|脱毛サロン|脱毛専門エステではレーザー|光|フォトに皮膚をさらして処理|脱毛|施術をおこないます。しかし、毛抜きを用いて|使って|使用して両ワキ|自分の|身体の毛を抜いてあると順調に|きちんと|しっかりと照射できず、VIO脱毛|全身脱毛|脇脱毛が不成功に終わるケースがよくあるのです。

  10. Attractive portion of content. I just stumbled upon your website and in accession capital
    to claim that I acquire actually loved account
    your weblog posts. Any way I will be subscribing
    for your feeds or even I fulfillment you get right of entry to persistently quickly.

  11. ワキの自己処理はセルフでやるよりもエステサロンでプロフェッショナルに依頼したほうがミスなく仕上がります。

  12. こんにちは。自分は明日で23歳と3カ月になります。そして子に季節になりました。ですからすぐにでもむだ毛は脱毛をやっておきたいですよね。最近は、全国に脱毛クリニックがたくさんあります。やりたい部位は、人によって違いが、特に脱毛したいのはふくらはぎです。私は、人気店のメンズTBCに通っています。そのおかげで、だんだんとムダ毛が少なくなってきました。やはり家で処理するのとは、効果が凄いです。これからもメンズTBCに脱毛しにいってムダ毛を減らしたいです。でも、医療クリニックに通ったとしても気になるのが脱毛にかかるお金です。それについては、先生に聞けばいいでしょう。他にも気になるのが、どれくらい通わないといけないのかです。うちはできれば、9カ月くらいで完全に終わってくれるといいですけどね。まあ、メンズTBCに行きたい人はカウンセリングしてみましょう。

  13. Because you are serious about your domain flipping business,
    you should treat it as such because you are looking for long term growth
    and not just quick short term money. How many
    people you talk to that when asked what they want, their immediate answer is to Travel.
    Now that you understand what you really need to run a successful home business, you
    can see that anyone that can do these things really can have your own business and be a success with it.

  14. Finding the time and actual effort to create a superb article like this is great thing. I’ll learn many new stuff right here! Good luck for the next post buddy.

    I will bookmark your site and check again here often. I’m quite sure 🙂

    Thanks

  15. は一度や二度ではない。川崎、横浜の工場勤務時代、市会議員選挙戦の経験を持つ広瀬や篠原も、さすがに辟易《へきえき》し、口にこそ出さなかったが、こんなはずではなかったといった思いでげんなりした顔を見せている。山のようなデマ投

  16. I sed to be recommended thnis website via my cousin. I am no longer sure whether or not this putt up is written via him as
    no one else recognise such precijse approximately myy trouble.

    You’re wonderful! Thanks!

  17. Awesome site you have here buut I was curious if you
    knew of any communigy forums that cover the same topics discussed inn this article?
    I’d really love to be a pazrt of group where I can get responses from other experienced
    people that sharee the same interest. If you havee any suggestions, please let me know.
    Thanks!

  18. This design is steller! Yoou definitely know hhow too keep a reader entertained.

    Between your wiit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Excellent job.
    I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it.
    Too cool!

  19. Soebody necessarily lend a hand to make seriously posts I would state.

    Thaat is the very first time I frequented your website page
    andd upp to now? I amazed with thhe analysis you made to make this actual put up amazing.
    Fantatic task!

  20. Your style is unique in comparison to other people I’ve read stuff from.
    Thanks for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I’ll just bookmark this web site.

  21. My partner and I stumbled over here from a different website and thought I may as
    well check things out. I like what I see so now i am following you.
    Look forward to exploring your web page
    for a second time.

  22. Greetings I am so glad I found your webpage, I really found you by accident,
    while I was searching on Askjeeve for something else, Regardless I am here now and
    would just like to say thanks for a incredible post and a all
    round enjoyable blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t
    have time to browse it all at the minute but I have saved
    it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I
    have time I will be back to read a great deal more,
    Please do keep up the fantastic work.

  23. On November 15 a letter was published in The Collegian by lecturer Ann Ferguson. This was the first letter to the editor from a faculty member that The Collegian had published that was in support of removing curfews.

  24. I can see that you are putting a loads of endeavors into your blog. Continue posting the great work.Some extremely supportive data in there. Bookmarked. Decent to see your site. Much appreciated

  25. also argues that the reasoning for curfews was not totally fair. Dean Curtis had stated that parents wanted the women to have curfews that they had when they were home. Perhaps it was not the curfews themselves but the punishment of breaking them that was unfair. Compared to many of the colleges surrounding the University, UMass had the strictest policies. “Why are the daughters threatened with a punishment- expulsion,” Lambert writes, “no parent would ‘wish’ on a daughter who stayed out too late?” (1966). At many other schools, girls were allowed to have one or two late arrivals per semester, before any disc

  26. خرید شارژ همراه اول ، خرید شارژ ایرانسل و خرید شارژ رایتل ، خرید بسته اینترنت همراه اول ، خرید بسته اینترنت ایرانسل و خرید بسته اینترنت رایتل ، پرداخت قبض تلفن ثابت ، پرداخت قبض موبایل و پرداخت خلافی خودرو با فیگیرو

  27. خرید شارژ مستقیم همراه اول ، خرید شارژ مستقیم ایرانسل و خرید شارژ مستقیم رایتل ، بسته های اینترنت همراه اول ، بسته های اینترنت ایرانسل و بسته های اینترنت رایتل ، پرداخت قبض و خرید گیفت کارت و خرید آنتی ویروس با فیگیرو

    • قالیشویی در تهران برای شستشوی انواع فرش ابریشم مصنوعی ،موکت،روتختی ،پتو و……

      رفوگری فرش ،رفع سوختگی وپارگی،ریشه،شیرازه،چرم ،رنگ برداری،قلم کاری،لکه گیری،پرداخت دار کشی

      (((بدون پارگی ،بدون پوسیدگی و بدون شکستگی)))
      کلیه خدمات با ضمانت نامه کتبی 100% تضمینی

      زمان جابجایی قالی رادر محل جدیدتحویل بگیرید

      خشکشویی انواع مبلمان و مبل شویی در منزل ،موکت ،فرش دستبافت ماشینی و خوشخواب همراه با دستگاه و شامپوی
      خارجی در محل با کیفیت عالی با ضمانت

      عضو اتحادیه قالیشویان تهران استعلام راحت از
      طریق سامانه ۱۱۸و یاسایت اتحادیه قالیشویان
      تحویل فوری ۴۸ساعته لول +اتو+کاور=تحویل
      …….. {مجهز به کارتخوان سیار ‌‌}……..

      (( قالی های خودرا به قالیشویان آدینه بسپارید))
      ///قالی رو عوض نکن قالیشویی رو عوض کن\\\\

      تلفن قالیشویی و مبل شویی09129381214

  28. Ken is the Director of Information Resources at Colby-Sawyer College.

    707 THOUGHTS ON “ABOUT KEN”
    Comment navigation← Older CommentsNewer Comments →
    ruthamcaugiare on April 12, 2017 at 4:45 am said:
    Do not just because someone looks strong, does not mean that everything is okay. Even the strongest people need a friend to lean on the shoulders that cry. Get married to the person you love to talk to that person, because as you get older you will find chatting a big deal.

  29. , occurrence, or just something really pretty and send it to us. While we may not be able to print all of them, we’ll try to publish as many of your pictures as possible.

    Creative Pieces—Are you a poet? Writer? Artist? Woodcarver? Singer/Song writer? Cartoonist? We’d love for you to share those gifts with the seminary.

    Prayer Requests—Prayer is the glue that holds us together, to ourselves, and to the heart of our loving God. If you have a prayer request, or know of something that needs prayer, and would like to invite the Seminary community to pray with you, please pass that along to us. We do ask that if the prayer request is personal and on the behalf of someone else that you obtain their permission, if possible.

    Theological Reflection—Heard a good sermon? H

  30. Myślę, że wiele z powyższych wypowiedzi są trafne. Z częścią się nie zgadzam, ale wynika to raczej z moich osobistych przekonań, aniżeli samej treści wypowiedzi.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *