To view this content, you must be a member of Ben's Patreon at $10 or more
Already a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to access this content.



24 thoughts on “T2”

  1. Thank you for writing this down so concretely. This is reality.

    “…typical language classes contain kids that generally split into three groups within each class with (a) 5 to 7 kids actually processing, (b) about 15 faking it (I’m guessing at these numbers but they represent the 33,000 classes that I taught in my career), and (c) another 5 to 7 being in the classroom only physically.”

    It is probably true for most classrooms in most subjects. In my own building I observe a lot of “faking and being there physically” when I roam around if I get the chance. Not that it is “ok” in those classrooms, but I believe our stakes are higher, due to the fact that our classes are (intended to be) purely experiential…in L2 not “about L2.” So while the un present kids in math class can get the notes from their buddy / study and practice at home, etc. Our kids cannot really “get” the live interaction outside the classroom. Yes, they can read and maybe hear the story on a video, etc. but that still does not replace the presence and live human quality of interacting. I am probably off topic, as “interacting” is not required for acquisition. But interacting is required for human connection, isn’t it?

  2. …interacting is required for human connection, isn’t it?….

    …our stakes are higher, due to the fact that our classes are (intended to be) purely experiential….

    I totally agree that the big difference is in how we can’t teach our kids anything in terms of actual acquisition unless the connection is there. Other teachers can get away with being robotic but we can’t because as SK says “robots don’t converse”. Language is so much more connected to being human than other classes. Language is pure and fine and beautiful. We teach art, the art of conversation. We are not car mechanic language teachers. We drive the actual car. We have so much more potential for fulfilling careers than our math colleagues down the hallway. Jen I now see that word – connection – as more important than compelling. I don’t mean connecting like we like the kids and they like us. But connecting in the web of fun language sharing in class, for joy.



  3. Here is something else. Krashen said, recently, in talking about T1:

    …note that the goal is not successful monitoring using a consciously learned rule, it is acquisition….

    My comment on that is, “Boy, does that blow it for what a lot of CI teachers in schools who are trying to teach skills!”

    …only acquired competence can result in smooth, fluent production….

    Hmm. A focus on production. Blaine is into that as well. Hmm. Blaine and Krashen talking about speech production. The times they are a’changing.

    (credit: Tina on the second point above)

    1. Ben wrote quoting Krashen:

      …only acquired competence can result in smooth, fluent production….

      Hmm. A focus on production. Blaine is into that as well. Hmm. Blaine and Krashen talking about speech production. The times they are a’changing.

      Since the comment is out of context, I’m not certain I would say that Krashen’s focus is on production. As a stand-alone quote, it seems to me that Krashen is still focusing on acquisition. Here’s my thinking:

      The purpose of acquiring a language is to communicate in it. For some of us and in some contexts, that may be a one-way communication as we read in a new language and have no opportunity (or perhaps desire) to hear, speak, or write the language. And it doesn’t have to be just a “dead” language. For most people, though, communication in a language includes producing language to express our own thoughts, desires, wants, needs, etc. That is often considered the standard for determining acquisition. To me, Krashen is simply saying that you won’t get there via anything other than acquired competence; “learned competence” won’t do it.

      That’s my take on it, anyway. My impression of Blaine is that he, as a former practitioner in a public school setting, has always had an emphasis on production, at least as an indicator of acquisition.

      1. Context:
        This is the full text of the article Krashen published in June 2016.

        Targeting 1 (T1):
        1. The goal is full acquisition of a rule in a short time, so complete that the rule can be retrieved easily and used in production. Because we are talking about acquisition, this cannot be done by direct instruction, and requires comprehensible input.
        2. But if the goal is full acquisition, so complete that you can retrieve the rule after a short amount of time, there is pressure to provide concentrated comprehensible and interesting repititions until the item is fully acquired.
        3. The source of the rules to be targeted is external, from a syllabus made by others. Our job is to find a story or interesting activity that will include lots of comprehensibe/interesting repetitions of these items. (This is why we get questions such as “do you know a story which I can use for teaching the conditional?”). Thus, Targeting 1 is a way of “contextualizing grammar,” defined here as beginning with a target grammar rule and finding a context that will help make it comprehensible.
        Note that the goal is not successful monitoring using a consciously learned rule, it is acquisition. Only acquired competence can result in smooth, fluent production.

        Targeting 2 (T2):
        1. The goal is comprehension of a story or other CI activity.
        2. This will not require as many comprehensible/interesting reps as in Targeting 1: The goal is comprehension of the story or activity, not full acquisition of the rule in a short time.
        3. The source of the rules to be targeted is internal, from the story.
        4. This kind of targeting may result in full acquisition when used in one or just a few sessions, but it generally results in partial acquisition. Full acquisition comes when the item is used again, in another story or activity.
        5. The goal is understanding the story.
        6. Hypothesis: Grammatical rules targeted in this way are much more likely to be at the students’ i+1 than items used for Targeting 1.
        7. Hypothesis: At the end of the term (e.g. one academic year), Targeting 2 will result in the full acquisition of many of the rules imposed on us in Targeting 1. This hypothesis needs to be tested by research.

        My previous arguments (Krashen, 2013) against targeting are arguments against Targeting 1, not Targeting 2.

        Note that Targeting 1, taken to extreme, can lead to a return to the audio-lingual method: If there is major pressure to “master” a given rule so that it can be used in production, and when this cannot be accomplished in the amount of time/comprehensible reps provided, teachers may be tempted to force production, resulting in pseudo-acquisition: either highly monitored or memorized language, not genuinely acquired language.

        Of course I fully understand that many teachers have no choice but to do Targeting 1.


      2. I take this as Krashen saying that smooth, fluent production is a byproduct of acquisition. He is arguing in the June paper that T1 and T2 both lead to acquisition. He is making the distinction between that (acquired competence EVENTUALLY leading to smooth, fluent production) and Monitored production of consciously-learned rules.

        In this version of T1 vs T2, T1 is clearly TPRS like I used to use it. I used to “provide concentrated comprehensible and interesting repetitions until the item is fully acquired” by working to provide “lots of comprehensible/interesting repetitions of these items” by “beginning with a target grammar rule and finding a context that will help make it comprehensible.”

        1. Tina, I disagree with your perception of what Dr. Krashen is saying. As I read him, he is saying that T1 and T2 both lead to proficiency, just as skill building can lead to proficiency, but proficiency is not acquisition.

          In a reply to Claire Walter on 16 January in the iFLT/NTPRS/CI Teachers group on Facebook, Krashen wrote the following:

          Re: targeted skills. Your description sounds like “targeting 1” (please see my paper, Three Options, http://skrashen.blogspot.com/…/three-options-non-targeted-i…). Targeting 1 is the same as skill-building, not the way we acquire language.

          1. So Robert could you comment and expand on the relationship between the words proficiency and acquisition in our community? How does SK feel about proficiency based instruction? He seems to be bending over backwards with his original hypotheses to make them “fit” into schools and their demands. This is what I refer to above when I mention how SK in a way that is confusing to me talks about targeting rules. I just can’t seem to wrap my head around that. Tina and I spend way too much time talking about all this, because we are both on a very important voyage, a promising voyage into NT so that we can expand our skills and have two ways and not just one way to instruct, targeting and non-targeting.

            Thus I do very much appreciate your point about proficiency not being acquisition because it kind of solves the dilemma that Tina and I have been trying but failing to solve.

            And then another question would be about how much SK’s work can really transfer into schools. This is a very awkwardly written request for clarification of SK as applied to the school environment. Anyone in the community please answer. Nathaniel? It’s just weird. My base thought under all of the rumination is that SK and schools cannot mix. And it is possible that that is where Tina is going with all this: to ask what indeed is our goal as language teachers, proficiency or acquisition? The schools care, but I don’t because I don’t think language acquisition can ever be measured and is just ongoing process with no defined “levels”, just a beautiful stress-free ongoing divine process. Neither would I measure the growth of a flower. Is proficiency our goal or is acquisition our goal? Is ACTFL that powerful that they get to define what the real outcomes of an entire profession should be? Color me confused.

          2. I do not have a problem with ACTFL. I do not have a problem with telling kids where their proficiency is. I do have a problem with tying that to grades. That is why my assessments are 3% of the final grade. Just to give them a checkup at the end of term.

            I think that acquisition leads to proficiency. I could be oversimplifying it but I think that spontaneous writing, speech, or unprepped listening or reading comprehension are measures of the internal acquisition that has happened it its mysterious way over time, like snowflakes piling up one by one over the hours till they form a thick blanket.

            I see it differently, Ben. I do think that SK can fit into schools. I think that Story Listening and the Invisibles are the key right now. I feel like they are delivery methods for true comprehensible input, as they take the wide range of language possible in NT input and make it comprehensible through a little “light targeting” (I shared that term with SK and he said he liked it to describe what you do in T2 to make NT comprehensible.)

            I think the other key at getting SK to fit into schools is using ACTFL to talk with admin about students’ proficiency. I took the OPI level one training last June and I began to truly appreciate the way the proficiency guidelines could protect us from grammarians. I have personally fought that fight with my admin, and because they are the national standards, they have a lot of heft in those conversations. They also have the potential to protect completely from the grammar-based syllabus as they contain no reference to grammar or even lexical sets like “the house” or “school”.

            So I see that acquisition is the goal and these measures of proficiency are a way to “see” the acquisition. Not a linguist. But that is my view.

          3. I wrote a lengthy answer yesterday, but when I hit “reply”, I received a “fatal error” message and lost everything. Let’s try again.

            Obviously I can’t speak for the entire community about the relationship between proficiency and acquisition, but I can explain my understanding.

            Proficiency is the “how well” marker of performance.

            Webster defines it as “the state of being well advanced in an art, occupation, or branch of knowledge.” Oxford online defines it as “a high degree of skill; expertise”. BusinessDictionary.com has this definition: “Mastery of a specific behavior or skill demonstrated by consistently superior performance, measured against established or popular standards.” (I think this is one of the better definitions, btw.)

            Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proficiency.html

            In the “Glossary of Education Reform”, proficiency has an entire article without ever being defined (other than in terms of itself). See here – http://edglossary.org/proficiency/. Nonetheless, the article makes this significant statement:

            To understand how proficiency works in educational contexts, it is important to recognize that all proficiency determinations are based on some form of standards or measurement system, and that proficiency levels change in direct relation to the scales, standards, tests, and calculation methods being used to evaluate and determine proficiency.

            Thus we can see that proficiency is a marker of how well a person is able to perform. Acquisition is something else entirely.

            Proficiency can be an indicator of acquisition, but it can also be an indicator of learning. Krashen has long said that there are two paths to proficiency: learning and acquisition. Learning will get you only so far, but it will get you to a certain point. Acquisition is necessary for fluent, spontaneous use of the language. Perhaps a couple of examples will help.

            A singer or actor can be a proficient producer of a foreign language without ever having acquired (or necessarily even studied) the language. By memorizing a text phonetically, the performer can give a very convincing demonstration of proficiency. I believe that this is what happens most of the time in schools with traditional, grammar-driven programs: Students demonstrate proficiency (i.e. perform at a high level) in certain skills within structured, predictable, highly controlled settings.

            So, can a person perform above his or her acquisition level? I believe so and offer the following anecdotal evidence. In 2014 I went to Poland on my summer “field trip”. I memorized several words and phrases in Polish before arriving in Poland (and constantly refreshed my memory while there). Armed with this vocabulary, my experience with and knowledge of languages, and the ability to apply comparative linguistics, I was able to “perform” at a high enough level to purchase train tickets, read signs, order food, ask directions (and understand the reply), get a room at a hotel, understand most of church service etc. A casual observer would probably have said that I could get along pretty well in Polish. However, I had to control the situation carefully: once a conversation deviated from a planned and predictable script, I was lost; nothing was spontaneous. I performed above my level of acquisition because my acquisition level for Polish is zero. Thus, my level of proficiency was unrelated to my level of acquisition.

            On the other hand, my department chair reported last meeting on her experience with administering the placement test for Spanish heritage speakers. They first administer a multiple-choice test. Then they are supposed to give a follow-up writing assessment to students who have a certain score or higher. However, my department chair gives the writing test to all test takers. This year, the student with the lowest score on the first part of the test produced a very good writing sample. When my department chair talked to him about this discrepancy, he told her that he had been rushed and preoccupied on the day of the initial test and that he does not do well on multiple-choice tests. Obviously, his performance on that test did not accurately reflect his level of acquisition for a number of affective reasons.

            So, I would say that proficiency (as a marker of level of performance) can be an indicator of acquisition, but not necessarily and certainly not with a consistently high degree of correlation. To a degree this is the same situation as Chomsky’s differentiation of performance and competence. I can be a highly competent (even native) speaker of a language, but under certain circumstances (e.g. fatigue, pain, distraction, stress, illness, injury, etc.) my performance may be very low.

            As long as teachers have students prepare presentations and give rehearsed performances, the assessment will not measure acquisition. As Tina noted in her reply, in order to get at acquisition, assessments must be spontaneous and unprepped, though there is no guarantee even then; a student may be an extremely good and fast Monitor overuser and present creditable results on an assessment without a correspondingly high level of acquisition.

            I believe that there will be a certain tension in the application of Krashen’s work in schools unless and until the educational system is renovated and recreated, not just “reformed”. All of the things that make it work are simply too much at odds with “business as usual”. That doesn’t mean, however, that we should give up and abandon students to grammar teachers. Particularly in the current climate, we need to continue to do all we can for our students.

            Just some of my thoughts on the matter.

          4. Nicely delineated. Especially the discussion of the ways in which acquisition/competence coincide, or rather, fail to coincide with proficiency/performance.

            I would note that there is a distinction floating around, especially in ACTFL circles, between proficiency and performance. Performance is what one can do as a result of preparing for an assessment. Proficiency is what one can do without preparation. The image given is this: by populating the sea with enough islands of Performance, one creates a continent of Proficiency. The sea represents true beginner, pre- novice-low.

            This seems to represent reaching a high level of learning-based proficiency. Although this gets messy because there is bound to be some CI which is leads to acquisition-based proficiency.

            When I started to write this I thought that it was a different way to express a parallel thought. I ended up as seeing it as a refinement of what you state. Do you see it otherwise?

          5. Robert, I got my “perception” from SK’s actual writing so I would like to refer to it again here.

            “Targeting 1 (T1):
            1. The goal is full acquisition of a rule in a short time, so complete that the rule can be retrieved easily and used in production. Because we are talking about acquisition, this cannot be done by direct instruction, and requires comprehensible input.
            2. But if the goal is full acquisition, so complete that you can retrieve the rule after a short amount of time, there is pressure to provide concentrated comprehensible and interesting repititions until the item is fully acquired.”

            Of course my perception is all kind of turned around because there have been several confusing elements of this discussion over the years. Maybe someone can help me understand better. I have been literally up nights mulling over these points. Then SK and I had an exchange on FB yesterday that further confused me. He said T1/skills-based instruction is the real enemy. I asked him is T1 meant the kind of instruction I did for years: “T1 when we have a list of words that we build the story around? I did that for eight years. I would pick three phrases (from a list or backwards-planned from a novel) and then use them to build a story, trying to say them 50 times each in a class period with kids using baseball clickers to count the reps. Is this T1?” He responded “Yes, according to my definition of T1. Usually done from a list.” So I got more confused because what I described was what I think is pretty much Classic TPRS like I was taught in workshops.

            (Personal note: For anyone who thinks that I might be taking delight in exposing what I see as some critical and foundational shortcomings of TPRS, I would say that it has been a sometimes-painful process of separation from a method I had always loved with great intensity and practiced with great fidelity and happiness, and thus this feeling of not fitting in any more has brought me no joy. I just wish that we could all nudge our instruction more into line with what is easier for teachers and more efficient for CI. But change is slow and not always easy emotionally.)

          6. Hi Tina,

            There was a misunderstanding on my part. I thought you and Ben were saying that Krashen was advocating T1 whereas my perception is that he is critiquing it.

            Some observations from having been around for a while:

            Krashen maintains that TPRS (in its broadest sense, which includes “Classic T1 TPRS”) is the best method currently available.

            (That doesn’t mean that there isn’t something better, it just hasn’t been developed or made known yet.)

            TPRS has developed over the years, and the community has also developed so that we have other strategies and procedures available. Thus, many people now talk about TCI rather than TPRS primarily, even though TPRS is still a significant element.

            In the development of TPRS, two further steps/forms have emerged: T2 and NT. They have done so in reaction to Krashen’s and VanPatten’s work and writings. This has allowed a differentiated critique of the method and a distinction between what we all learned and used for years and the new developments.

            Now that the critique is more refined, we are seeing that T1 is really still a kind of grammar syllabus. However, it remains far superior to “traditional grammar-driven teaching” because it takes place in the target language, so students receive far more comprehensible input than they otherwise would. This is a good thing.

            T2 is a significant step toward removing the grammar syllabus, and true NT does so entirely. From Krashen’s point of view, this makes them superior to T1 and makes NT superior to T2.

            These developments have caused stress in the TCI community for a variety of reasons. (But that is material for a completely different discussion.) Unfortunately that stress has caused hurt, alienation, and offense in the community.

            The statement is still true that the worst day with TPRS (even the “Classic T1 TPRS”) is better than the best day with grammar instruction. However, Blaine’s stricture still needs to be applied: if there is something better out there, use it. At the same time, we need to be careful not to create unnecessary divisions and walls. I will write some thoughts about that in another post. I will also answer Ben’s question about proficiency and acquisition – I wrote a response yesterday, but when I tried to post it, I received a “fatal error” notification and lost the whole thing.

    2. Ben wrote quoting Krashen:

      …note that the goal is not successful monitoring using a consciously learned rule, it is acquisition….

      My comment on that is, “Boy, does that blow it for what a lot of CI teachers in schools who are trying to teach skills!”

      I have recently had a couple of incidents that make me sigh.

      1. At a “high school segment meeting” (the union representatives from the high schools in the district), we were discussing the district’s world languages benchmarks. These benchmarks were written in the early 2000’s, are tied to a specific textbook that is no longer published, test discrete-item grammar, and do not align with the California State Standards that were adopted in 2009. As a result, they do not test what teachers ought to be teaching and what at least some teachers in the district are actually teaching. Nor do they align with any sort of “pacing guide” other than a strict page-by-page reading and working through the textbook.

      My position, and that of a number of other teachers, is that the benchmarks are not simply irrelevant but that administering them is harmful to students. They do not test what students are supposed to be taught; there is no state mandate for administering them; they take away from instructional time; etc. A couple of years ago, a start was made on replacing the benchmarks, and an online set of benchmarks was developed based on the ACTFL “can-do” statements. It is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction, and it can be readily edited and revised because it is online.

      One of the other representatives in the meeting, a Spanish teacher, said that she is perfectly satisfied with teaching through the book and administering the “old benchmarks” but is not comfortable with the “new benchmarks” and certainly has neither the ability nor the inclination to create her own curriculum not based on [slavishly] following a textbook. [“slavishly” is my addition; the rest of the sentence represents her actual statement.]

      2. At the last “collaboration” meeting of the World Language department at my school, we touched on the benchmarks, pacing, etc. At least my department agreed that the benchmarks were less than useless. However, when the conversation turned to the D/F rate, “vertical alignment”, and sending students to the “next level” of Spanish, it was all about the “skills that students need to have before they can go on.” So, the mindset is still one of skill building rather than acquisition, but they all use the term acquisition.


      1. I hear your sigh, Robert. We were told to turn in a list of grammar points to be covered on the Mid Year Exam. These have to line up with the list from the respective lessons of Avancemos.

        Now, knowing a list of grammar points may be considered a skill, but it is not a communication skill. It is more like Sudoko or finding the differences in the two drawings. So I distinguish three practices: 1)communication (expression, comprehension and negotiation of meaning), 2) communication skill-building (practice ordering a taco) and 3) non-communication skill-building (grammar manipulations).

        My textbook is a reminder of how far we have to go. It’s very name is begging me not to use it the way it is set up. Avancemos. Let’s advance. Don’t do the stuff within. Let’s advance. Yes, Robert… ::sigh::

        1. …we were told to turn in a list of grammar points to be covered on the Mid Year Exam….

          It’s like a bunch of surgeons being told to use a surgical technique from the last century. The surgeons would probably not do it. They would do the right thing. But there are so many skill builders in our buildings that they think they are doing the right thing, but they aren’t, and we are made to look like the goofy ones. I don’t know how we do it. I just don’t.

          1. I cannot take it and would not be much use in those meetings. Surgeons would not stand for it; lives are on the line. Well, lives are on the line with us too. Futures for our kids. Also, stress kills. Trying to learn a language through conscious means and not being able to succeed at that unnatural activity causes stress. Kids die from stress, many times by their own hand. It is hard to fight back but I say we should RESIST, in any way we can. I am in a fighting mood these days. We need to get real clear on the exact power these colleagues and supervisors have over us. And we need to resist up to that point. We need to keep our jobs, sure, but I think many of us could do much more resisting, much more pushing back, to carve out just our own freedom in our own classrooms.

            Take back the classroom. It is a small kingdom but it is our space. It is the only place we can control, and some of us cannot fully control it, but we must not let the fear of conflict make us compromise more than we have to. We need to think of our students’ emotional health, and fight for that, and fight for modern methods for modern people. We are much more powerful than we think.

            We do not have to convince others. They can do their thang.

            We do not have to change the world. We can change ourselves.

            We do not have to worry about looking good. Who cares? Unless our students’ poor performance on their stupid end-of-term assessments of stupid grammar points makes us literally lose our jobs, then why care? Train the kids not to care. Show them other ways they are making progress. Unless you literally get fired for your kids’ not passing the assessment, you have to ask yourself, “Is this about my ego?” Who cares if you look good to the other surgeons who are still using leeches and going fro patient to patient without washing their hands? We may not ever be known as the World’s Greatest Teacher to the adults but we will be famous to our students as the One Who Let Their Hair Down. Jasmine said in seventh period this year, to no one in particular, but I heard, “This is the only class I really relax in!” It meant more to me than Lincoln High School ever caring what my kids can do compared to theirs after measuring them with their medieval assessments. Let’s all be famous as the Ones Who Put Kids First.

            Here is a favorite poem of mine.

            By Naomi Shihab Nye

            The river is famous to the fish.

            The loud voice is famous to silence,
            which knew it would inherit the earth
            before anybody said so.

            The cat sleeping on the fence is famous to the birds
            watching him from the birdhouse.

            The tear is famous, briefly, to the cheek.

            The idea you carry close to your bosom
            is famous to your bosom.

            The boot is famous to the earth,
            more famous than the dress shoe,
            which is famous only to floors.

            The bent photograph is famous to the one who carries it
            and not at all famous to the one who is pictured.

            I want to be famous to shuffling men
            who smile while crossing streets,
            sticky children in grocery lines,
            famous as the one who smiled back.

            I want to be famous in the way a pulley is famous,
            or a buttonhole, not because it did anything spectacular,
            but because it never forgot what it could do.

          2. I like your spunk, Tina.

            For myself I need to gauge the reaction so as not to create further setbacks. I also need to stay in this business (mentally and passionately) to see the change come.

            As you say, putting kids first is the path forward, but it comes about in different ways for different situations and different personalities. Being the only person in my department on an improvement plan I have to watch my step.

      2. “the mindset is still one of skill building rather than acquisition, but they all use the term acquisition”

        So frustrating. My high school colleagues care nothing for acquisition and even say that they do not have time in the SIX YEARS kids spend in the MS-HS program to achieve any acquisition, so we should teach ABOUT the language. It must be perversely MORE frustrating to work with people who SAY they want acquisition yet subvert that by focusing on skills-building.

        Krashen has said many times that skills-building is the true enemy.

  4. If we teach skill building, we can’t teach the language. The former does not lead to the latter. It leads to stilted, uncomfortable sounding production in even the best and most motivated students. This is such a disservice to them and their own language goals because really brilliant kids end up with stilted and unattractive production whereas had they just been allowed to enjoy plenty of flowing and natural CI in their high school careers they would end up with more attractive and natural production. It is like malpractice that way. Who wants that karma?

  5. Nathaniel, I am so sorry you have the stress of an improvement plan. I was not put on an improvement plan but lost my job last year. It is so stressful. Do they not realize how hard it is to interact with your students day after day with that sword hanging over your head. I wish more people would allow us the space to teach language. We want to teach how to communicate as real girls and boys. They keep wanting to put the strings back on us. They could be the admin, legalistic fellow teachers, or driven students wanting grades instead of the language.

    I have no advice for how to keep the job. Many others here do. Just be sure the job is worth what it takes to keep it.

Leave a Comment

  • Search

Get The Latest Updates

Subscribe to Our Mailing List

No spam, notifications only about new products, updates.

Related Posts

Stendra Super Force generico all’ingrosso

Stendra Super Force generico all’ingrosso Valutazione 4.6 sulla base di 352 voti. Nome del prodotto: Stendra Super Force Categoria: Disfunzione Erettile Nome commerciale: Extra Super

The Problem with CI

To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to

CI and the Research (cont.)

To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to



Subscribe to be a patron and get additional posts by Ben, along with live-streams, and monthly patron meetings!

Also each month, you will get a special coupon code to save 20% on any product once a month.

  • 20% coupon to anything in the store once a month
  • Access to monthly meetings with Ben
  • Access to exclusive Patreon posts by Ben
  • Access to livestreams by Ben