All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 22, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:40
October 22, 2010, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know who this is, you know what this is, and you know what we do with this.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday!
Great to have you here, Open Line Friday.
When we go to the phones, the program is all yours, as you've heard today.
Telephone number 800.
What?
800-282-2882, the email address LRushbow at EIBnet.com.
I don't know.
I'll think about it.
I'll tell you, Snerdley, so when you make some football predictions, it's week seven.
You haven't done any environmental wacko pics.
You would not believe the hate mail, snerdly, that I got just from talking about the timeout controversy with Jeff Fisher and Jack Del Rio on Monday night.
I mean, it's almost laughable now.
It's almost predictable.
I'll tell you what I am going to be looking for Sunday.
You know, the NFL has overreacted as any PC bunch of people have with these three hits, three or four hits that happened on Sunday.
What I'm going to be looking for on Sunday, who gets fined, who gets thrown out of the game, who gets suspended from the game because of illegal hits.
These things happen in split seconds.
These refs, I want to see this.
I want to see how this is going to come down.
I mean, everybody from the league on, and in fact, the players are the only ones not on board.
The people who play the game are saying, what?
You're turning us into a bunch of wusses.
Of course, the know-it-all media is saying, well, you don't know what's good for you.
We media, we're socially conscious.
We're worried about your brains.
The players are saying, what brains?
If we had any brains, we wouldn't be playing.
Now, the league has put out a video, an instructional video for every team.
Every team has had to play this video to illustrate what is a legal hit and what's an illegal hit, what's going to be a fined hit, findable hit, what's going to be a hit to get thrown out of the game, get you fined, and this sort of stuff.
And the Minnesota Vikings have reacted to it like pretty much any other group of employees made to watch a video put together by management.
They've got a little chalkboard here, their whiteboard with ink on it, and they've got stick figures.
One stick figure flying into another stick figure, and another stick figure flying into another stick figure.
The first stick figure, an arrow drawn to it, QB or receiver that makes over $10 million, illegal.
Punter or anybody else, we don't give a damn about, legal.
So what the Vikings are saying, look, if you take the head off a quarterback legally or illegally, we're going to kick you out of the game.
If you decapitate a punter, we don't care.
A rookie, no big deal.
But a quarterback or somebody making over 10 million, that's how the Vikings are looking at this.
And then underneath all that, it says, remember, we at the league office are totally concerned about integrity.
Seriously, no, really.
We totally are.
Folks, the PC crowd's gotten hold of the NFL now.
There are going to be, you watch, there are going to be endless flags because it's all going to come down to the refs.
The refs, all eyes are going to be on the reps.
Now, lives are at stake.
That's how they've ramped this up.
Lives are at stake on every NFL gridiron.
And on whose shoulders will it fall now to save lives?
The refs.
Now, the NFL before this week used to market videos of their greatest hits.
The ESPN used to have a video of Jacked Up.
He got the biggest, most crunching, deadly hits of the week.
Even this week, while the NFL was fining James Harrison of the Steelers for $75,000 for two hits, they were selling pictures of those hits on their website for anywhere between $19.95 and $250 until somebody pointed out, hey, wait a minute, you know, you're finding this guy and you're selling the picture.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
Saying to take down the pictures.
No longer are they for sale.
So this is going to be, that's what I'm going to be watching.
The hell with who wins.
I'm going to be watching to see how many players.
Oh, yeah, you're going to do this.
How many players are going to adjust the way they play versus how many refs are going to start calling penalties on stuff that otherwise wouldn't be called.
Now, I have a dilemma here, folks.
I mentioned this at the top of the program, and it's a genuine programming dilemma.
At 2 o'clock in the morning, as I was wrapping up show prep for today, I decided, who knows why you do things?
I mean, I never go to the New York Times website.
I don't.
The only time I ever see something is when somebody sends me a link and email, or there's something on Drudge, where somebody else has seen something and linked it and said, you ought to look at this.
Last night, early this morning, I don't know what possessed me.
I was totally sober.
I was minding my own business.
I wasn't bothering with Catherine's laying there on the couch watching television.
And I got this David Brooks piece, and I read it.
I started reading it, and I think, I'm drunk.
I have not had a drop of an adult beverage.
I'm drunk reading this.
And then I composed my reaction to it and sent it around to some friends who are dying to have it posted.
But we can't.
That would be the end of me if it got posted.
So I'm thinking of reading this to you.
The problem is, it's, I can't think of a word to describe it.
It's, well, bizarre doesn't even come close.
Senseless doesn't get close.
I can't identify a reason why it was written.
I can't figure out what inspired Brooks to write it.
Well, I know other than he had to write something.
I don't know who he expected to read it and comprehend it.
I don't even know how he expected the editors at the New York Times to actually publish it.
All of these are, I know, incredible statements.
Well, yeah, it could be that he was under deadline, but even that, I'm telling you, there is nothing that broaches sanity that explains this piece.
There is literally no reason for it.
The who, why, when, where, what, there isn't any of that in it.
The relevance to anything that it's not.
The title of it is The Flock Comedies.
I feel like I ought to read it to you.
But then if I do, I'm risking the single greatest risk I've ever taken in this program.
I've never done anything on purpose that might cause you to change stations.
This would approach it.
The only thing that would save me is if I have, you know, I don't allow people to read on this program.
It takes real talent to read and be compelling.
Amateurs can't do it.
They sound monotone.
That's why I don't allow people to read anything.
If you're going to read something, you have to be able to do it with passion.
This would be one of the most supreme tests that I have ever subjected myself to.
What?
What's it?
Well, it is a challenge.
It would be a challenge to read this.
It would be a challenge to read this, make it interesting, to the point that nobody would...
James Earl Jones could not pull off what I'm going to try here.
James Earl Jones, Charlton Heston could not read this and hold your interest.
James Earl Jones wouldn't stand a prayer of holding your interest reading this.
No, I reject the notion he's trying to get fired by the New York Times so that Fox is picking him up for $2 million.
I'm still not certain I want to do this, but I guess I'm kind of committed now.
I got to take a brief time out.
It's Open Line Friday.
We probably have taken more phone calls today than we have on Open Line Friday in many, many moons.
Many, many years.
Well, now that's an interesting question.
Will the National Football League give players financial bonuses for courageous restraint, just like the rules of engagement in Afghanistan?
We're going to give guys medals for not pulling the trigger.
Maybe the NFL could somehow find a way to award players for courageous restraint, not making the tackle.
Anyway, a brief timeout here, ladies and gentlemen.
Open Line Friday continues.
El Rushball and the EIB Network.
Sit tight.
Folks, am I on the cutting edge or am I on a cutting edge?
Reverse Operation Chaos announced today.
And here is Bill Clinton in the Huffington Post.
This is a brief little blurb here.
Bill Clinton is baffled.
The former president's friends say he is in disbelief that in the closing weeks of the midterm campaigns, Democrats have failed to articulate a coherent message on the economy and worse, have allowed themselves to become human piñatas.
My friends, am I on the cutting edge or what?
Operation Reverse Chaos.
This is about saving the Democrat Party.
This is Clinton essentially saying, I can't believe we got this guy in the White House and nobody wants to run on his support or on his record.
Nobody wants to run around talking about how great this guy's been.
Clinton is agreeing with me.
Clinton has just joined forces with me.
Reverse Operation Chaos.
He's running around.
He's saying it in the Huffington Post.
He can't believe that there's not one Democrat willing to brag about all they've accomplished.
Of course, it's being rhetorical with that.
Okay, here goes.
David Brooks, New York Times today, the Flock Comedies.
For most of television history, sitcoms have been about families.
From the Dick Van Dyke show to All in the Family to The Cosby Show, TV shows have generally featured husbands and wives, parents and kids.
But over the past several years, things have shifted.
Today's shows are often about groups of unrelated friends who have the time to lounge around apartments, coffee shops, and workplaces exchanging witticisms about each other and the passing scene.
As Neil Gabler wrote in the Los Angeles Times this week, over the last 20 years, beginning with Seinfeld and moving on through Friends, Sex in a City, and more recently, Desperate Housewives, Glee, The Big Bang Theory, How I Met Your Mother, Cougar Town, and at least a half dozen other shows, including this season's newbies, Raising Hope and Better With You, television has become a kind of friendship machine dispensing groups of people in constant and intimate contact with one another.
These flock comedies serve an obvious dramatic function.
In an age of quick cuts and interlacing frenetic plots, think 30 rock, it helps to have a multitude of characters on hand zooming in and out of scenes.
But the change also reflects something deeper about the patterns of friendship in society.
With people delaying marriage and childbearing into their 30s, young people now spend long periods of their lives.
Does anybody remember what this started out being about?
With people delaying marriage and childbearing into their 30s, young people now spend long periods of their lives outside of traditional families, living among diverse friendship tribes.
These friendship networks are emotionally complicated and deeply satisfying, ripe ground for a comedy of manners.
Does anybody have any idea what that paragraph is even about?
Then, when these people do get married, friendship becomes the great challenge.
Middle-aged Americans are now likely to live in two-earner families.
But despite career pressures, they have not cut back on the amount of time they spend with their kids.
Instead, they have sacrificed friendship time.
So, these flock comedies serve another purpose for the middle-aged.
They appeal to people who want to watch fictional characters enjoying the long, uninterrupted bonding experiences they no longer have time or energy for.
You feel me on this.
The shows also serve one final purpose.
They help people negotiate the transition between dyadic friendships and networked friendships.
You see, throughout history, the most famous friendships were one-on-one.
As Ruth says to Naomi in the biblical narrative, Whither thou goest, I will go, and where thou lodgest, I will lodge.
Thy people will be my people, and thy God, my God.
As Ruth said to Naomi.
Most essayistic celebrations of friendship have also been about the deep and total commitment that can exist between one person and another person.
Most essayistic celebrations, the root word there is essay.
Most essayistic celebrations of friendship.
Dawn, when was the last time you celebrated friendship?
Was the last time you had a friendship celebration, essayistic or otherwise?
Do you even know what the hell an essayistic celebration of anything is, much less friendship?
Well, that's because you're not David Brooks, because you're not an elitist.
No, I don't think she has more dyadic friendships.
No, no, no.
Dialectic friendships may be dyadic.
Don't confuse it here because we're talking about the essayistic.
Now, they're distracting me here.
Most essayistic celebrations of friendship have also been about the deep and total commitment that can exist between one person and another.
In his book, The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis paints a one.
This is the New York Times.
It's the conservative columnist in the New York Times today.
In his book, The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis paints a wonderful picture of such an ideal.
It seems no wonder if our ancestors regarded friendship with a cap and left as something that raised us almost above humanity.
Somebody tell me how I can rise above humanity.
Where is humanity?
So that I can look above or down on it.
How do I rise above humanity?
It seems no wonder if our ancestors regarded friendship as something that raised us almost above humanity.
This love, free from instinct, free from all duties, but those which love has freely assumed, almost wholly free from jealousy and free without qualification from the need to be needed, is eminently spiritual.
It is the sort of love one can imagine between angels.
How did that get past the editors of the New York Times?
Angels live in heaven, and that means God, none of this computing, but today's friendships, those represented in the flock comedies, and perhaps in real life, are less likely to be one-on-one.
Instead, individual relationships tend to be deeply embedded in a complex web of group relationships.
This creates a different set of social problems.
Now, thanks to social network technologies, people have to figure out how concentrated they want their friendship networks to be.
Those with low-density networks can have a vast array of friends, but if the network gets too distended, you are left with nothing but a dispersed multitude of shallow connections.
And who wants that?
People with a concentrated network have a narrower circle of friends, but if it's too dense, you have erected an insular and stultifying social fortress.
Now, thanks to the segmentation of society, people have to figure out how rigorously they should segregate their different friendship circles.
Their work friends from their play friends, their artsy friends from their jock friends, their college friends from their religious or ethnic friends.
Thanks to greater equality between the sexes, people are more likely to socialize with co-ed flocks.
They have to figure out how to handle sexual tension within the group, whether the eroticization of friendship ruins the essential bond, whether sex between two people with a friendship mob threatens to destroy the entire chemistry of the mob.
Are you still sober?
All right, just a few paragraphs remaining here in the flock comedies.
Today's conservative column from David Brooks of the New York Times.
We now jip this.
We rejoin it in progress.
Thanks to greater equality between the sexes, people are more likely to socialize within co-ed flux.
They have to figure out how to handle sexual tension within the group, whether the eroticization of friendship ruins the essential bond, whether sex between two people within a friendship mob threatens to destroy the entire chemistry of the mob.
Finally, there is the question of whether group friendships are more or less satisfying than one-on-one bosom-buddy relationships.
In an age of Facebook and Twitter networks and geolocation apps, are people trading flexibility and convenience for true commitment?
Or are they not?
In other words, group friendship is burbling to the surface of television life because the promise and perplexities of modern friendship networks are burbling to the top of national life.
What's striking is not that television is treating changing friendship norms so thoroughly, but that other cultural institutions are treating it so sparingly.
David Brooks in the New York Times.
I read that last night.
I said, I have to be drunk.
Now, what you have there, folk, that is mental masturbation without a climax.
That is somebody trying to prove to his editors that he is not a tea party hick.
And now we go back to September 6th.
September 16th, this very year.
David Brooks on the Charlie Rose Show.
Charlie Rose asked David Brooks, how long are you going to do this?
I used to think five years and I'm out.
It seems easy, and maybe it is easy, but it's hard.
To come over the column every three days, three and a half days.
I hope people appreciate how hard what Maureen does is to be that witty and that clever and that perceptive.
Three days.
It's easy to write columns I do, but what she does is really hard.
First sentences are famously important.
I actually try to read, you know, who's great at first sentences was Orwell.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, you go.
I sometimes go back to get the rhythm of his first sentences.
But I don't know how long I'll do it.
I'll die at age 50.
Well, he's on to something here.
How hard it is and not knowing how many columns he has in him, I think he's reached it.
He's just proven how hard it is.
Can you imagine if this guy had to do three hours of radio five days a week?
Well, I don't think you'd have time to contemplate the essayistic or the dyadic.
At any rate, I had to share it with you folks.
You have to forgive me, but I had to share it with you.
The first sentence of this piece.
There's a point of the first sentence of this piece.
I already threw it away.
No, I didn't.
He talked about the first sentence.
What is the first sentence?
For most of television history, sitcoms have been about family.
Oh, that's a hook.
That is a job.
He had me from the opening line.
I love the rhythm of this one.
This one, folks.
No wonder I stuck with this.
For most of television history, sitcoms have been about families.
Damn, that's good.
Maureen Dowd couldn't write that.
Nobody could.
Okay, back to the phones.
Casey in Watsika, Illinois.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Hi.
This is my first time calling.
I haven't really even been that long of a listener because, like I told your screener, I used to be an absolute flaming liberal, as my father-in-law called me.
Wow.
Yes.
Well, welcome home.
How did it happen?
Well, back in December, I was.
You were reading a David Brooks column of it.
I'm sorry, what?
Never mind.
Never mind.
What happened in December?
I was working for a Chamber of Commerce in Kankakee, Illinois that has about a 15% unemployment rate.
And I was literally seeing time and time again how these bills and laws that are passed hurt small business and hinder private sector business.
And I realized that it's the private sector business that America thrives on.
And so it just kind of brought home to me, wow, healthcare for everybody here.
I don't know.
It just brought home to me that conservative, being a conservative is where I need to be.
So my question is, my husband and I are going to have a bus got married in July, and he has been a lifelong listener of you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thanks very much.
Yes, he absolutely loves Rush Limbaugh.
So I should maybe give him a little bit of credit for turning me on to you.
But we are having an election party on November 2nd, but we have some friends that are liberals.
And my question is, how do I talk to them logically and tell them, you know, how liberals are ruining America?
Because they don't listen.
They don't listen to me.
And I need some points.
I need some talking points to tell them how liberals are ruining America.
What a day this has been.
All right, you're a former liberal, and you're having an election party, and you're actually having liberals over to watch the election returns.
And the invitations, I'm trying to find the quote where you, you went on, you went for a while about change.
How do you like that change?
How's that hope and change working out?
How can you get done?
Right.
How's that?
How's that hope and change working out for you now?
Correct.
That's my invitation.
That's on the top line of my invitation.
And you actually had some liberals accept the invitation.
Well, I think more so for my presence, you know.
Yeah, because they're your friends.
Yes, yeah.
They want to be around you.
Correct.
Yeah.
And they know that you've converted.
They do, and they think I'm now brainwashed.
Who brainwashed?
Your husband?
They think that my husband and my father-in-law brainwashed me.
All right.
Well, let's look at your premise.
You want to know how to talk to them when they come over?
Correct.
I want to try, because I saw it firsthand how private sector is basically being so put down by all the laws that are going to be.
Let me ask you a question.
Seriously now, let me ask you a question, Casey.
Okay.
Your conversion was brought about by actually seeing something, living it, seeing it.
You discovered that everything you thought you believed wasn't true.
Right.
Now, wait, wait, wait, wait.
When people tried, before this happened to you, before this conversion happened to you, when people tried to tell you, like your husband or your father-in-law, that you were wrong, what was your reaction to them?
I didn't take, I didn't, I didn't, I don't know if I didn't listen or I just thought that my way of thinking was better.
Yeah, but you thought they were wrong, and you wanted them to leave you alone.
Right.
And you thought they were trying to brainwash you.
Okay, so now you have to put yourself in the friends of your guests.
Right.
Because they're going to think the same thing of you.
Right.
So what you need to do is structure something at this party that happens rather than you sit there trying to tell them, come up with something that happens that convinces them.
Election returns will be a great thing for you to bounce off of because the liberals, the Democrats are going to get trounced and they are in party.
And what you have to say is, why is this happening?
The Republicans could not stop any of this from happening.
The Republicans did not have any votes in the House.
They didn't have any votes in the Senate.
The Republicans have nothing to do with why the American people are so mad.
Why are the American people mad?
Make them answer the question.
Don't give them the answer and make them agree with it.
You make them answer the question.
Okay.
And you use the election returns as your starting off point for this.
That sounds good.
Oh, you can have fun with this.
I'm hoping to.
I want to have fun.
I don't want anybody to leave too.
What are you serving?
What are you serving at this party?
Well, cocktails and cocktail party.
You're going to have adult beverages.
Yes.
You can turn it into a drinking.
Do these people like to drink?
Yes.
But, you know, I was a bartender for five years.
And you say you don't talk politics at the bar, but I want to talk politics.
No, no, no.
Of course you talk politics at the bar.
You're the bartender.
It's your bar.
You can talk about it.
Here's what you do.
You have a drinking game.
These people like to drink.
Yes.
Okay.
They only get a cocktail when a Democrat wins an election.
Oh, that would be fantastic.
They'll be sober.
Exactly.
They'll have a miserable time.
But you say, I'm helping you.
You're not going to drive home drunk.
Perfect.
You start thinking of this on your.
These are just, you know, baseline of ideas, but you can take this and expand it to come up with any number of games that you could play with these people.
But you have to remember how it was with you when people, your husband or father-in-law, try to tell you, you know, you got your resistance up and you're hell-bent on them not converting you or convincing you.
It was a matter of pride.
It's going to be the same thing with these people.
They're going to have to see it.
They're going to have to be shown.
And don't let them insult you.
It's just laugh at them.
If they tell you that you've been brainwashed, they tell you you've lost your mind.
They tell you you've gone over to the dark side.
Smile.
Never stop smiling at them.
Let them see how happy you are, even in the midst of the misery that they have all brought us.
I will try.
I will do that.
I'm sure you will.
Have a great time out there.
Well, thank you.
Okay, Casey, we'll be back.
Open Line Friday continues after this.
It's the fastest three hours in media, Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Shelly in Pittsburgh.
It's great to have you with us.
Hi.
How are you?
Very good.
Thank you.
Great.
I just wanted to put my two cents in about who I think are the most dangerous type of candidates running today, you know, in this election in a couple of weeks, are these blue dog Democrats.
I think they're sort of flying under their radar.
And I think that, you know, they're really counting on their spin on their voting records to keep them safely in office.
We all know about the crazy, you know, communist type candidates that are out there running.
And, you know, they're upfront about it.
But these blue dog guys are the ones who are trying to almost put something over on us as voters and make us think that they're something that they're really, really not.
And it's all sort of recent changes in their policy.
Now, let me ask you a question.
Yes.
Serious question here.
Sure.
Why, of all the Democrats in the country today, none of whom are popular.
I mean, the Democrats universally, outside of the liberal citadels, New York, San Francisco, places like that, everybody's blaming the Democrats for one.
Why are the blue dogs somehow insulated from being held accountable by their voters?
Because I think that they are not being honest with who they really are.
You know, I live in a district where we're trying to get rid of a blue dog Democrat.
And when you really delve into his voting record, you can see who is this guy?
I'm sorry?
Who is this guy?
His name is Jason Altmire.
That's, I thought you were talking about Jason Altmeyer.
Yes, that's Altman.
That is one of these guys playing games back into health care.
He was trying to make everybody think he was going to vote against.
Oh, drama queen.
It went on forever.
Yeah, the drama queen, that friendship flock and all that, right?
Yes, yes.
And so he finally announced, you know, a couple days before the actual vote that he was going to vote.
No, but all along, you know, the SBA list, for this is a great example, had polling of District 4 in Pennsylvania that specifically said we absolutely, our district did not want this health care bill.
And he kept saying, oh, I'm waiting to hear from my constituents.
We were going to his offices.
We were bombarding his staff with phone calls and letters and all this other stuff.
And that polling data had been like that for days and days before.
Well, you're right about something.
Your instincts are right.
There's no such thing as a blue dog Democrat.
If you scratch the belly of a blue dog and you get red.
No, he is not a blue dog conservative Democrat.
Of course not.
They try to say they're any of these guys, the blue dogs have tried to define themselves as blue dog conservative Democrats on the basis that they're fiscally responsible, right?
Well, he tries to do some social stuff, too.
He tries to call himself pro-life, yet he voted for the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007.
So he actually tried to do both.
Look, I understand your concern.
Everybody's concerned that their Democrat is going to pull out a surprise here.
But I don't know that social issues are that much front and center on the table this election.
Well, I guess I was just trying to give an example.
There's a ton of, you know, in our district, for example, with Altmeyer, there's a ton of things that he's fiscally not conservative about.
He voted for the stimulus bill.
He spent tens of thousands of dollars in these franking pieces, ironically, to tell us how conservative, how he's, you know, safeguarding our tax dollars.
You make a great point.
It's a point that we've been making on this program since before the health care debate really intensified.
That is, there's no such thing as a blue dog.
If they've got a D behind their name, they're a Democrat.
Yeah.
And they're a liberal.
All over the country.
I urge them to look at, if you live in a blue dog district, look at your representative or your senator and find out, if they say they're a conservative Democrat, look at their records.
See what they're voting for.
Did they vote for Pelosi for Speaker of the House?
Exactly.
See, that's what you have to remember.
If it weren't for the blue dogs, we wouldn't have had Pelosi as the speaker.
Exactly.
Exactly.
I don't know.
You know, we are not stupid, Rush.
The voters across this country are not stupid people.
Okay, so why do you think your voters are going to fall under the spell of Mr. Altmeier?
Oh, I'm not.
I am definitely not under Altmeyer's spell.
I just think that the blue dog Democrats should know, they need to understand we aren't stupid.
We will not fall under their spell.
That's why we're working to get the real conservatives in office to get rid of these guys.
You know, if a district, you know, if the district elects somebody knowing that this person tends to be, you know, more in these socialist policies, that's one thing.
But if these candidates are trying to sort of trick people into thinking that they're something that they're not, I think these candidates should know that people aren't asleep anymore.
We are not stupid people.
Exactly.
Mothers and fathers and grandparents and aunts and uncles and people of all across the world.
Social economic status.
And we're thinking of it.
Step parents, stepuncles, grandparents, all that stuff.
Absolutely.
Look, let me tell you something, Shelly.
I'm really proud of you.
This week, the most cogent, the strongest, the most forceful, fearless, courageous callers we've had are women, these conservative women.
They are going.
You, Shelly, people like you.
I think you are largely the determining factor in this election coming up.
I really do.
I'm glad you're out there, and I'm glad you called.
And we will be right back.
Don't go away.
Another exciting excursion, another exciting week of broadcast excellence in the camp.
Don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, Operation Reverse Chaos announced today.
Check it out, rushlimbaud.com.
Don't have time to repeat it now.
David Brooks, a man in search of an enema, engaging in mental masturbation without a climax, certainly without pleasure.
▲
Export Selection