pointlessnihilist

[pointlessnihilist]

I am so disillusioned by academia that when I take a class and a professor actually uses the word “woman” instead of “person who identified as a woman” or “AFAB” or “capable of reproducing” or whatever I get excited

[pointlessnihilist]

Even from the same sources (NHS and CDC) men’s cancers are referred to as such while women’s cancers are not. But tell me again about how it’s about inclusivity…

[pointlessnihilist]

"Is Religion Inevitable?" - Richard Dawkins Reveals All

Is white privilege the modern day Original Sin? How is mass denial about the truth of gender, any different from Catholic transubstantiation? Is woke culture today's dogmatic religious mob? Join me and @drpeterboghossian as we explore these questions and more in another episode of The Poetry Of Reality.

--

Peter Boghossian: I wrote, you know, "A Manual for Creating Atheists," and I was trying to make the world more sane and more rational. And I was trying to help people become more thoughtful and reflect on their beliefs, have reliable epistemologies upon which they could rely. And one of the things that I noticed since maybe 2013, maybe 2012, was that as religiosity decreased, deranged woke beliefs increased. And I guess my first question to you is -- uh, I don't know who came up with this, I might have come up with this, I don't know who came up with this -- but the Substitution Hypothesis.

Richard Dawkins: Yes.

Boghossian: So, do you think, and I honestly do not know the answer to this question, do you think that as one religion fades another -- like default is the belief state for humans, they just have to believe something -- and as one, as the old religion fades, a new one has to come in?

Dawkins: Yeah. Gullibility expands to fill the vacuum.

Boghossian: Exactly. Precisely.

Dawkins: I suppose that's right. I hadn't really thought of it before, but it sounds plausible to me. I think G.K. Chesterton, who was a very religious man said, "when people stop believing in God they they believe in anything." And he was a very witty, clever man, although he was a devout Roman Catholic. There's something in it I think, and there's no doubt about it that we seem to have exchanged one form of superstitious religiosity for another, and the analogy goes pretty deep. I think John McWhorter pointed out that there's a strong relationship between original sin in the Christian religion...

Boghossian: No, that was me pointing that out. 2014, with my article with James Lindsay. "Privilege is the original sin," but yeah, go ahead.

Dawkins: Good for you. So, original sin being we're all born in sin, we all inherit the sin of Adam. And we white people inherit the sin of slavery and colonialism and because we're white we have to feel guilty for what are, not necessarily our ancestors but people of the same color as us, in past centuries did. So that's that's one analogy. And then, well, transubstantiation which in the Catholic religion you know, the wine literally turns to blood, where "literally" doesn't quite mean literally, it means what Aristotle called the "accidentals" stay wine but the true "substance" of the wine becomes blood. So when somebody stands up and says "I am a woman," although they've got a male body, that's transubstantiation. In the accidentals they still have a penis and they still have Y chromosome, but in the true substance, they have become female. So trans -- that's where the word transubstantiation comes from, the transubstance, and there's a very strong analogy to transubstantiation in transsexualism.

Boghossian: Tell me more, how so?

Dawkins: Well, the wine becomes blood where the priest simply declares it as it is. And a male person becomes female when he declares himself to be female. And in the Aristotelian terms, the substance has changed, the substance of wine has changed to blood, the substance of maleness of changed to femaleness, but the accidentals, the incidentals are what are regarded by Catholics as trivial and by trans people as trivial. So they really believe that they have become the other sex.

Boghossian: It's remarkable how obvious it is that those are delusions. I mean it's crystal clear to anybody not caught in the orbit of the ideology that that is a delusion.

Dawkins: Yes. They get around it by this word "gender," which is separate from sex. And there are some who I think even think their sex has changed.

Boghossian: Correct.

Dawkins: And others who think that, they admit that their sex hasn't changed but their agenda has.

Boghossian: So, I guess I have two questions. One is, it seems to me that there are degrees of delusion that one can have. So, if we accept that, like there are certain things that are -- if I told you those books are really aliens from another planet and they've come down, okay that's another level of delusion. And so, I often think -- this is the thing that that's been causing me to think about this. I'm utterly incredulous at the sheer madness that people believe now. In a way that I was not incredulous, you know in 2010 or 2000 or so. So, let's take a look at, somebody walked on water. This guy named Jesus, he walked on water, you know, this is intervention in the space time continuum by a supernatural being and it caused this individual to walk on water. Okay, that's clearly a delusion if somebody believes in it, if someone accepts that is true. And then you have the belief that men can get pregnant. That to me seems like a significantly more profound delusion. Or am I wrong?

Dawkins: Yes. But doesn't it come from the postmodern belief that feelings are more important than facts?

Boghossian: Yeah, standpoint epistemology. And it comes, I guess they could just say that it's the redefinition of the word. But they actually like, they literally believe men can get pregnant. And the thing that I've been thinking about is, kind of goes back to Plato, is it better to let people believe benign delusions? I mean, in an ideal world, people wouldn't believe, people would proportion their confidence in the belief to the evidence they have for the belief. But humanity is sloppy and messy and the thing that I've been thinking about recently is, if it's true that there are degrees of delusion and if it's true -- and I don't know if it's true -- that there's a substitution hypothesis, then should rational people step out of the way or -- not encourage people to believe things that are false, because I would never do that and I think that's grossly unethical -- but there are certain delusions that are better for people to believe in en masse than others.

Dawkins: Yeah, so if you've got to believe in a delusion, if there's something, some law that says there's a certain quotient of deludedness that everybody's got to have, and certainly some are more harmless than others.

Boghossian: Correct.

Dawkins: I mean, I sort of feel there's a little bit about Islam and Christianity that -- Islam is such an evil at the moment, or Islamism is such an evil at the moment, that in Africa especially, maybe Christianity is a better alternative and it may be that it's no good trying to preach atheism in Africa, and Christianity might be a better a better alternative.

[..]

Dawkins: I think Stephen Pinker in his latest book has evidence that when we make our political judgment -- we, I mean humanity -- it tends to be not based on evidence, but tends to be based upon tribal loyalty, And that's a very depressing conclusion. And, by the way, one of the things that's been depressing me about my being sort of anti-woke and anti-the militant trans lobby, is that people think I must be right wing. And I've never been right wing. I voted left all my life and, I mean, I detest Donald Trump, for example, but there are people out there on Twitter especially who think that because I detest Donald Trump, therefore I must be an apologist for trans-wokeism or vice versa.

Boghossian: Yeah, so let's talk about that. I think that that is an intentional tactic of people. I think that that is what woke people use, people who have fallen -- have had their cognitions hijacked to this ideology, and I think it's very easy to write you off entirely if they say, "oh Richard Dawkins, he's just a right-wing extremist," you know, "Pinker he's a right-wing extremist," although he's the second largest donor to the Democrats and Hillary Clinton and Harvard, or who whoever it is. I've never voted for Republican candidate my whole life. I'm constantly getting that I'm on the right, but I think it's a tactic both because they don't have to do the intellectual work to rebut the arguments, so they can just a priori say that's not true. And it's a tactic because the left-wing media won't have me on, for example, so left-wing media won't, it has a kind of allergy to any self-criticism. So, then I'll go on the on the right-wing media, and the people on the left will say, "well look Boghossian's a right-winger." Well, no I'm only going on the right because -- I'm more than happy and nobody's ever invited me. I've actually invited myself and they won't have me. So, I think it's a kind of strategy to not do the intellectual work to rebut the position. Because it's hard to rebut the position.

#Richard Dawkins #Peter Boghossian #delusion #religion #wokeness #woke #wokeism #cult of woke #wokeness as religion #original sin #white privilege #gender transition #gender ideology #atheism

[pointlessnihilist]

“What makes transgender ideology more demanding than religion is that they [transgender activists] expect not only that we accept their faith but that we adopt it. Catholics aren’t going around demanding that we call priests ‘Father’ and accusing us of ‘violence’ if we do not do this. British Muslims aren’t demanding that I walk around in a burka around them. Whereas transgender activists are demanding that we change the way we address them, which means we’ve got to adopt their ideology. Because before anyone says a word out loud - they have to think it.”

—

Magdalen Berns 

(via bitter-cup)

[pointlessnihilist]

If trans women would just acknowledge that they're men who alter themselves to look like women, in order to ease dysphoria, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I'm all for men wearing skirts. I'm all for men enjoying whatever stereotypically feminine things they enjoy. I'll even support medical transition, provided you're over eighteen, understand the health risks, and have faced persistent dysphoria.

The problem is that they've redefined "woman" to be a feeling. I can no longer use "woman" to discuss the tangible reality of having a female body. Presenting as women isn't enough for them, they have to be women.

Not only does this erode my ability to discuss sex-specific issues, but it leads to self-identification policies that allow men into female-only spaces. Female-only spaces that were created because of the physical threat men pose to women.

I was accused of "driving a shiv between cis and trans women," when I tried to discuss how cis women, face different issues from trans women. I didn't even say that trans women aren't women, but acknowledging a difference at all was enough to elicit hostility. (Their follow-up sentence was, "Someone should drive a shiv through you.")

My issue with the trans movement isn't dysphoric individuals trying to feel comfortable, but the denial of how biology impacts our lives.

[pointlessnihilist]

By: Bruce Lesnick

Published: Sep 20, 2022

Picture an ouroboros eating its own tail, an own goal at a critical point in a soccer match, or a serious self-inflicted wound. These are all apt descriptions of the Left when it comes to gender ideology.

At present, gender ideology—a denial of material reality akin to creationism—is enthusiastically embraced by the left, from bourgeois liberals and putative progressives to self-described socialists and revolutionaries. Gender ideology posits that biology has nothing to do with what sex you are, and that the undefinable and entirely subjective notion of “gender identity” is more tangible and fundamental way to categorize people both socially and legally. Gender activists go even further in asserting that the two sexes—male and female—are not real biological categories, but are instead arbitrary “social constructs” that were created solely to oppress women and racial minorities. These beliefs are maintained despite the fact that over 99.98 percent of humans are immediately categorizable as unambiguously male or female at birth.

Gender ideologues are notorious for word games and language manipulation. When it suits them, the word “gender” is used as a synonym for “sex.” At other times, and depending on the context, gender is taken to refer to roles and behaviors stereotypically associated with being male or female. And, when all else fails, gender is interpreted as an ethereal inner essence, like a soul, that cannot be directly observed or studied, but must be taken at face value as real and only knowable from a first-person perspective. Together, these inconsistent, overlapping definitions are used by gender ideologists to resist being pinned down, to evade addressing logical contradictions, and to dismiss material reality.

What makes the gender subterfuge so effective is that gender is simultaneously cast as separate from and synonymous with sex. When seen as separate, it’s argued that a person’s gender expression—stereotypical behaviors and preferences associated with being male or female—can only be arrived at by a conscious individual sometime after birth. But as “gender” is also used as a surrogate for “sex,” an inability to pin down a person’s chosen gender expression immediately upon emerging from the womb is used to argue that biological sex itself cannot be determined at birth (let alone in utero!). Instead, gender ideologues insist that doctors simply “assign” a gender and/or sex to infants, where there is again endless equivocation between sexual anatomy and social roles.

All of this would amount to little more than bizarre naval gazing was it not for the fact that gender ideology, when allowed to influence policy, has significant negative impacts on women, gays, lesbians, children, free speech, freedom of religion, and democratic rights.

When the Dam Breaks

Most Americans take it as given that biological sex determines whether a person is male or female. This is logical since most animals and some plants are sexually binary and dimorphic (having exactly two, distinct sexes). Biologists and naturalists use gametes and their supporting anatomical structures to determine the sex of individuals in all species that have discrete sexes, which includes all of the more than 5,400 known mammalian species. In all such species, a biological male and female are required to make a baby. Most people understand this.

Many folks in flyover country have no idea that gender ideologues literally deny the biological basis of sex and promote the notion that being a woman or man is based on how one feels. To average Americans, (and to any scientist when referring to non-human mammals) someone with male reproductive anatomy is always a male, regardless of how he feels, how he dresses, or how he happens to “identify.” Similarly for females.

Most Americans also do not realize that when gender ideologues insist that “Trans Women are Women,” they’re talking about anatomical, biological males; they’re asserting that a man is literally a woman if he chooses to identify as such. If pollsters asked them whether “males” should be allowed to compete in “women and girls” sports, instead of masking reality with language by asking them whether “trans women and girls” should be able to compete in “women and girls” sports, many more would likely respond “no” to the former than the latter, even though the questions are effectively the same.

As more and more people come to understand the artifice inherent in gender ideology, they’re going to be angry. They’re going to feel gaslighted, manipulated, and abused. What many assumed was merely a movement for tolerance and acceptance will be revealed to be an irrational, faith-based belief. A belief, moreover, that tolerates no apostates; that insists all must embrace its thinking, repeat its catechisms, reject biology and common sense, and stifle their own cognitive dissonance. The penalty for failure to join the faith is shunning, censorship and cancellation.

The Democratic Party, The Green Party, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, La Leche League, the National Organization for Women, the British Labour Party, Unitarian Universalists, the mainstream media, Democracy Now, practically every university, many local school districts, and nearly every socialist group have joined the gender religion. When the dam breaks and people realize the fraud being perpetrated by gender ideology, it is toward these organizations that popular anger will be directed.

What’s the Harm?

The harms resultant from gender ideology are many. It should go without saying that transgender people, like all others, deserve full civil and human rights. But full rights does not mean super rights. Rarely have the special accommodations demanded by one group been so deleterious for others.

Women have been historically disadvantaged and oppressed based on their sex. But gender ideology seeks to reinterpret “sex discrimination” in law and government policy to mean discrimination based on self-perceived (or rather proclaimed) “gender identity.” This means that any man who simply identifies as a woman would have full access to women’s private spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, hospital wards, prisons), sports teams, affirmative action slots, awards, associations and more. This reverses many of the gains women have fought for and won over the centuries. We have already witnessed men gaining access to women’s sports teams; assaulting women in prison; raping women in “gendered” bathrooms; receiving awards and recognition set aside for women.

Gender ideologists have also pushed for changes to language that demean and marginalize women. The very definition of the word “woman” (Woman: Adult human female) is now considered transphobic. The term “breast feeding” is to be replaced with “chest feeding” to allow for the possibility that men might join in this exclusively female function. “Mothers” must be referred to as “birthing parents”. Those needing to be screened for cervical cancer are not to be called women but “cervix havers.”

Gays and lesbians are harassed by transgender activists for their sexual orientation. Having a partner preference based on sex rather than “gender identity” is considered transphobic. The very notion of homosexuality is denounced by gender ideologues who insist that one’s self-perceived “gender identity” should count more than their anatomy. Lesbians are harassed on dating sites for refusing to hook up with men who demand to be seen as women.

Children who experience discomfort with their bodies, who bristle at gender stereotypes, or who may be experiencing other conditions such as autism or depression, are being fast-tracked onto the transgender pharmaceutical treadmill. For most children who experience gender dysphoria, the condition resolves naturally after going through puberty. Most of those children go on to identify as gay or lesbian. But now many of these children experiencing dysphoria are steered toward puberty blockers—drugs once used for chemical castration of sex offenders. And the overwhelming majority of those who take puberty blockers proceed on to sterilizing cross-sex hormones and then face a lifetime of medicalization and dangerous complications.

Elementary, middle, and high school curricula marinate children in gender ideology. The denial of biology currently being taught is a throwback to the teaching of creationism and “Intelligent Design” exemplified by the infamous Scopes “Monkey” Trial of 1925.

Democratic rights are thrown out the window. Of course, everyone has a right to their own personal beliefs, but no one should have the right to impose those beliefs on others. Yet gender ideologists insist that a person’s belief as to whether they are male or female must be accepted and validated by others unconditionally, regardless of obvious biological reality. Everyone is expected to reinforce someone’s chosen pronouns, whether they match the person’s sex or not. All are expected to honor someone’s right to enter male or female spaces as they choose, based solely on the person’s self-identification. Those challenging any aspect of this philosophy may be censored, fired, canceled, or even charged with a crime.

People are free to disbelieve Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, astrology, and any number of other belief systems. No one claims that this “denies the existence” of Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or astrologists. But gender ideologists insist that failure to adhere to their ideology is to deny their very existence. This overreach is manipulative and undemocratic.

A Self-Inflicted Wound

None of this is progressive, let alone revolutionary. None of this challenges the powers that be. On the contrary, gender ideology is anti-material, anti-science, and reactionary to the core. “Progressives” who yesterday chided others for not “following the science” on climate change have today thrown science out the window when it comes to gender ideology. Former proponents of science and material reality have, with this issue, abandoned all reason. What’s more, they have abandoned any pretense of supporting free speech and civil liberties, supporting instead censorship of those who dare to say the emperor has no clothes.

If the left doesn’t get itself sorted out on this issue—and quickly—the right will opportunistically step in to pose as the guardians of reason and civil liberties. This has already begun. Absent left-aligned forces willing to stand up for women, gays, lesbians and children on this issue, traditionally conservative law firms, politicians, and media personalities have begun to fill the void.

As always, there is a heavy price to be paid when the left finds itself on the wrong side of a major issue—lining up, as it were, on the wrong side of the barricades. That price is paid not only by those organizations and individuals who fail as leaders, but by the many average people who suffer directly and indirectly from that misleadership.

The alarm clock is ringing. It’s time to wake up!

[pointlessnihilist]

the TRAs are culty as hell bc they block any university/academic research on the medical problems with neo-vagina surgeries & the consequences. TRAs say that these transition surgeries aren't painful at all but if that's true then why are they blocking research that says otherwise?? a lot of unis are placed under pressure to publish positive research. there's also this article i found: theguardian(.)com/education/2017/sep/25/bath-spa-university-transgender-gender-reassignment-reversal-

i remember this,, so stupid. they don’t want any info on detransition because they want to keep their movement strong and without opposition

[pointlessnihilist]

My formative feminist text was "Marked Women, Unmarked Men" by Deborah Tannen. I read it when I was 14 for my English class and suddenly I had a framework to describe what I'd always known to be true: Gender is a defensive invention. I'd like to recommend it as reading to anyone curious about female-centered feminism... Frustratingly, the New York Times hosts the article and requires a subscription. If any gyns have a copy on hand or are willing to copy it below, I would be so appreciative.

#feminism #Sexism #language #women's rights

[pointlessnihilist]

anecdotal evidence > actual studies and statistics

[pointlessnihilist]

To this day, I have yet to find more compelling peaking material than Rachel Dolezal. I can’t believe radfems haven’t made a habit of bringing her up in every single anti-trans argument, regardless of topic. But every time she’s brought up, TRAs obscure the argument by splitting hairs about race and culture and ancestry and gender and biology and spectrums, until all their allies simply go silent in confusion and fear, not feeling convinced but too scared to ask for clarity. All arguments they come up with in response choose to focus on why race and gender are different, or why Dolezal is just lying for the attention, but that distinction is completely unnecessary and misses the point as to why people rejected Dolezal in the first place. Black people didn’t reject Dolezal because they thought gender or sex was inherently more fluid than race or ethnicity, or because they thought Dolezal was lying about what she believed herself to be. They rejected her solely because of the harm and insult it would cause black people for a member of the oppressor class to be permitted to disguise themselves as a member of the oppressed. It would obscure your ability to talk about racism where it happens, it would take away opportunities for actual black people, and it would reduce black people to a racist caricature that anyone can vibe with, rather than human beings with a vast range of opinions, interests, and features.

They don’t continue to reject Dolezal because of some purely biological, scientific reason; they reject her because of the potential for harm it would create, reasons which are deeply emotional. Because that’s really the deciding factor on why we tell people they’re not allowed to do something: because it will bring harm to others or themselves. So don’t ask them: “How are race and gender different?” That only gives TRAs the opportunity to get everyone lost in the weeds. Instead, keep an unwavering focus on this single question: “Who would it harm if we recognized Dolezal as black, and how would that harm manifest?” There is literally no answer that TRAs can give to that question that doesn’t also apply to recognizing men as women. Either Dolezal is just as valid as trans people are, or they’re both invalid. Either way, TRAs have to take the L on something, or else just keep spitting death threats and burying their heads in the sand, insisting that white people are an oppressor class but men aren’t. But the point of focusing on Dolezal isn’t to peak the zealots, it’s to peak the normies listening in who’ve probably never been confronted with such a massive cognitive dissonance before. The point is to make the fence-sitters start feeling uncomfortable about not being able to defend their own beliefs, which will compel the braver ones to start asking even more questions that TRAs damningly can’t answer. Eventually, trans allies will get tired of getting rage and accusations of bigotry instead of actual answers, and maybe then they’ll finally realize they’re better off leaving and seeking out their own answers.

everything you've written is spot on, but i've seen this debate happen several times and inevitably the answer is just, "you're racist for even making this comparison." or, when terry crews (a Black man) made this comparison, "you're transphobic for even making this comparison." most liberals are so scared of being labeled as either that they will simply back down rather than demand a reason why it's supposedly racist/transphobic, and that's what transactivists are really counting on. that's kind of their entire game plan. they need to make it so everyone is so terrified of being labeled transphobic that they don't dare ask any questions let alone criticize the ideology.

[pointlessnihilist]

I will never understand how liberal women will go “we are not incubators for fetuses” then they proceed to call every pregnant woman a fetus carrier to be gender neutral

That’s gender delirium folks!

[pointlessnihilist]

Una de lifehacks

[pointlessnihilist]

I saw this post come up recently on my Instagram feed talking about abortion rights, which said: 

 "Women is used here as plain language to make this post accessible. Women include any person with a vulva and vagina, uterus and ovaries or internal and external reproductive organs typically assigned female at birth" 

 Stop, stop doing this please! 

 'Women’ is not accessible language for those with uteruses that aren’t women. This is the kind of language that can get many killed due to using this as an excuse to exclude those who aren’t women, whether that be due to not having an F on ID or purely just not aligning physically with what cis people associate with those who are capable of pregnancy. 

 Plus, we shouldn’t have to misgender ourselves just because others (cis women) get upset that topics like this don’t only include them. 

 Abortion is a human right. It’s a right for anyone who can become pregnant. If you have got the room to try and justify your use of ‘women’ as “accessible language”, then you have the room to use more inclusive language.

[pointlessnihilist]

[pointlessnihilist]

so I've noticed that you and the tutorials you recommend for darning use an embroidery hoop. which frankly I've never heard of. I've only ever seen darning done with one of those wooden "eggs" and I'm curious as to why an embroidery hoop over the more traditional method? or is the egg only for socks?

Interesting question! Let's take a look at darning and darning tools.

Darning eggs or embroidery hoops?

What is darning:

Darning is a sewing technique used to repair holes or worn areas in fabric, using a needle and thread.

Woven fabric consists threads crisscrossing each other. These threads are called a warp and a weft: the warp threads are the vertical base of the fabric, while the weft threads are the threads that are drawn through these warp threads during the weaving process.

When we're darning woven fabrics, we first create new warp threads across our hole, then weave new weft threads through them.

(There's also Swiss darning which is a technique used on knits, but let's leave that for another day.)

(Image source) [ID: a diagram of woven fabric, showing the vertical warp threads and horizontal weft threads.]

(Image source) [ID: Vintage instructions on how to darn a hole.]

Darning tools:

Darning is a whole lot easier when the fabric you're trying to repair is pulled taut, similar to how weaving is usually done on a loom. This helps to keep the tension on your fabric even, avoiding loose or uneven stitching.

Both darning mushrooms/eggs and embroidery hoops can be used to pull your fabric taut.

For example, if you're fixing something that's difficult to handle (e.g. small cylinders like socks or gloves), you can employ a darning egg to pull the fabric taut while darning so you don't need to put your hand inside of your garment. Situations like these won't work with a hoop because those cylindrical items are too small for most hoops.

(Image source) [ID: seven different darning egg sizes and types: chicken, small goose, large goose, classic handle, curved handle, mushroom, and mini.]

(Image source) [ID: a red sock with a hole in it in progress of being darned with blue thread over a wooden darning egg.]

If you're fixing up bigger holes, or holes in fabric of which you can easily reach the back, an embroidery hoop might be more convenient depending on your personal habits.

(Image source) [ID: a piece of denim fabric in progress of being darned with the use of an embroidery hoop and yellow, orange, and red thread.]

You could also use something else to pull your fabric over, like a jam jar, a light bulb, or a tennis ball. I personally don't own a darning egg, so I tend to use glass bottles when darning items that can't be put into an embroidery hoop.

(Image source) [ID: a gray knit sleeve in progress of being darned with blue and green thread. The sleeve is pulled over an empty jam jar.]

Conclusion:

You can use both a darning egg/mushroom and an embroidery hoop to darn your clothes. Which one to choose depends on your personal preferences and the type and size of garment you're trying to mend.

EDIT: someone commented not to use light bulbs as they may shatter and hurt you, which is a good point. The ones I've got around aren't made from glass, but I didn't consider that might not be the case for all types of bulbs.

[pointlessnihilist]

in this terrifying world you continuously have the power to offer someone else a little relief . why would you withhold that. do you remember what a little relief feels like? it feels like a lot

#Tumblr #sometimes it be like that

[pointlessnihilist]

#Ejaculators #Dick havers #Penis weilders #Standing pee-ers