Yotaka Futatabi - Ch. 2 - Ass

[RedArowana]

The guy arguing that population collapse is good for the economy and that scientific and technological research isn't important and beneficial for humanity's wellbeing is claiming that other people don't understand anything about economics lol that's a good one.

That is not the core reason why Japan's population is falling. The likes of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, UK, Spain , Italy, Greece, France, Canada, Mexico, USA and the rest of the Americas which all have have a range of either more relaxed working lifestyles than Japan or more generous child-rearing assistance from the state or both all also have well below replacement fertility and so are also undergoing population collapse. Infact with a very few exceptions every country has falling, below-replacement fertility apart from very poor sh*thole countries. So Japan's population would still be collapsing even if they had adopted a more relaxed working lifestyle or more child-rearing benefits like in many other European countries or countries in the Americas

No, that's a very strong reason for Japan's failing, since they're collapsing way worse. They are much lower in fertility rates in comparison to the other countries that you mentioned, except Spain. That includes the bottom countries such as Hong Kong and South Korea, which have very high costs of living. The other countries you mentioned are below replacement rate but still higher than countries with very high costs of living and low wages, and are actually having similar fertility rates as some developing countries like Serbia, Brazil, Kuwait and Argentina. Even developing countries like the Philippines still are under 2.0 despite the economic gap. Those can be argued as having a stable population as of the 2020s since it's only been recently that the majority of them lowered their fertility rate below 2.0.
Japan meanwhile has a massive drop in its fertility rate in comparison, which cannot be explained by just being a developed country alone.

Tl;Dr: The countries you mentioned as well as a handful of developing middle class countries are both having similar fertility rates, Japan meanwhile has a much lower fertility rate, alluding that there's some societal problems more significant telling people not to raise children.

 

[Trew865]

Must be rough, she's used to eating to equal the amount of weight she burns off, but now she isnt active anymore, her habits havent changed.

 

[danbellucci]

No, that's a very strong reason for Japan's failing, since they're collapsing way worse. They are much lower in fertility rates in comparison to the other countries that you mentioned, except Spain. That includes the bottom countries such as Hong Kong and South Korea, which have very high costs of living. The other countries you mentioned are below replacement rate but still higher than countries with very high costs of living and low wages, and are actually having similar fertility rates as some developing countries like Serbia, Brazil, Kuwait and Argentina. Even developing countries like the Philippines still are under 2.0 despite the economic gap. Those can be argued as having a stable population as of the 2020s since it's only been recently that the majority of them lowered their fertility rate below 2.0.
Japan meanwhile has a massive drop in its fertility rate in comparison, which cannot be explained by just being a developed country alone.

Tl;Dr: The countries you mentioned as well as a handful of developing middle class countries are both having similar fertility rates, Japan meanwhile has a much lower fertility rate, alluding that there's some societal problems more significant telling people not to raise children.

Nothing that you're saying refutes the fact that even if they had the culture or work life balance or state childrearing assistance of every other country in Europe or the Americas, they'd still have well below replacement fertility like all those other countries and so would still be undergoing population collapse and going extinct, so their work culture is objectively not the most important reason for their population collapse. The most important reason is something that effects nearly all non-sh*thole countries worldwide, of which there are several plausible candidates.

 

[RedArowana]

Nothing that you're saying refutes the fact that even if they had the culture or work life balance or state childrearing assistance of every other country in Europe or the Americas, they'd still have well below replacement fertility like all those other countries and so would still be undergoing population collapse and going extinct, so their work culture is objectively not the most important reason for their population collapse. The most important reason is something that effects nearly all non-sh*thole countries worldwide, of which there are several plausible candidates.

On the contrary, you're jumping the gun too early and saying this will lead to population collapse. Current trends have noted that this is more in-line to stability of populations with a little less than below replacement fertility. The lower fertility and mortality shows a stationary population pyramid that is connected to, and I quote, a "high level of education, easy access to and incentive to use birth control, good health care, and few negative environmental factors.". A very constricted population pyramid that you refer to is on the extreme end which Japan encompasses, and that one has other problems on its own.
Ironically, some Japanese economists are even welcoming this change, because it indicates that Japan can switch from focusing on it's GDP and instead emphasize societal wellbeing. I dunno, but I'd rather trust them than you.

 

[reunsigned]

Page 21 was amazing.

 

[danbellucci]

On the contrary, you're jumping the gun too early and saying this will lead to population collapse. Current trends have noted that this is more in-line to stability of populations with a little less than below replacement fertility. The lower fertility and mortality shows a stationary population pyramid that is connected to, and I quote, a "high level of education, easy access to and incentive to use birth control, good health care, and few negative environmental factors.". A very constricted population pyramid that you refer to is on the extreme end which Japan encompasses, and that one has other problems on its own.
Ironically, some Japanese economists are even welcoming this change, because it indicates that Japan can switch from focusing on it's GDP and instead emphasize societal wellbeing. I dunno, but I'd rather trust them than you.

"Current trends have noted that this is more in-line to stability of populations with a little less than below replacement fertility."
This doesn't make sense and sounds like something an early version of chatgpt would say. If your total fertility rate is 1.5, which is typical for developed countries, then for every 4 grandparents you'll have 2.25 grand children, so every 2 generations your population will shrink about 45%.
Which also means that you won't have a "stationary population pyramid" but rather an ageing one that turns upside-down because for every 4 grandparents there are only 2.25 grand children.
If your populations's fertility rate is lower than replacement level then you can't have a stable population because your fertility isn't high enough to replace yourselves so your population will collapse either somewhat faster or somewhat slower
Saying that you'd rather trust Japanese economists claiming that population collapse is a good thing for societal wellbeing is just abandoning common sense in order to trust people who might well have a professional incentive to lie and pretend that Japan will be a great place to invest in in the future and that the government's policies are doing a great job. How will there be better societal wellbeing when every worker now has to support 3 or 4 old people as opposed to only supporting 1 or 2 old people? Obviously efficiency will go down, the ability to provide services will go down , ability to maintain infrastructure will go down, there will be less surplus so overall quality of living will go down. This should be obvious to predict but if you don't trust your own ability to reason through what will happen if your population rapidly shrinks and ages , then take it from Lee Kuan Yew, who built singapore from a 3rd world nation to a 1st world nation within 50 years. He only has an incentive to make Singapore sound like its in a better situation than it is in, yet he explains how bad the situation is because it's the only way to raise awareness to what will be needed to deal with it.

"I have some bad news for you, not because I disagree with you that we must have a sense of cohesiveness and we must assimilate the new migrants that were made into Singapore citizens and the permanent residents who hope to become Singapore residents. My worry, looking at the demographics, is that we are fast aging as a population. The birth rate today fertility rate is 1.01 in other words for every couple you have 1.01 baby so instead of population pyramid like that you will have a diamond shaped pyramid inverted. Having said that The Institute of Policy Studies have the grim statistics of 60,000 migrants a year to keep our economy young or our people young and economically active. We can't digest that. 20,000 maybe, 25,000 at a stretch, but certainly not 60,000 so in other words *we are going to become , because it's politically indigestible otherwise to take in these numbers, a shrinking and aging population like Japan *"

"It's happening throughout the developed world once you have women educated with equal job opportunities they do not see their future just bearers of children. I don't see it going back to 2.1 which is a replacement rate. The only way it can happen is if you diseducate or uneducate the women and that doesn't make sense. The economy will suffer. So the answer is immigration. But you have read the IPS study they estimate that replacement rate would mean an input of 60 000 immigrants a year which is more than singaporeans would like to digest or find digestible. So maybe we can start with 20 000 or 25000. And then as we age and there are not enough young people to look after the old then maybe the population will be receptive to taking more immigrants because there just won't be enough people to look after the old and to work the economy at the same time. I mean people now in their 20s and 30s think it's going to be like that for them for a long time but suddenly they find that they are in their late 50s and 60s and they need more medicare, more home nursing and where are the nurses, the paramedics and the doctors ?"
So you don't need to trust me or Japanese economists with dubious ulterior motives, you could also trust your own reasoning and the greatest nation-builder of the 20th century, if not all time.

 

[RedArowana]

"Current trends have noted that this is more in-line to stability of populations with a little less than below replacement fertility."
This doesn't make sense and sounds like something an early version of chatgpt would say. If your total fertility rate is 1.5, which is typical for developed countries, then for every 4 grandparents you'll have 2.25 grand children, so every 2 generations your population will shrink about 45%.

That's because you did not take into account when that population decrease occured. Let's take for example the Philippines and USA. They only slowed down during the 2010s and before that they were over 2.0. That's why you can see that even with lower fertility rate the population demographic of the Philippines is still majorly young, while US has a bell-shaped demographic in comparison to Japan's inverse pyramid.

Which also means that you won't have a "stationary population pyramid" but rather an ageing one that turns upside-down because for every 4 grandparents there are only 2.25 grand children.
If your populations's fertility rate is lower than replacement level then you can't have a stable population because your fertility isn't high enough to replace yourselves so your population will collapse either somewhat faster or somewhat slower

That aging population will have to show itself first because that is ONLY possible if the current trend continues, and the current trend has only existed for thelast ten years. so you're gonna need to show proof that that trajectory will continue till 2050s because the statistics both present models for fertility rates above 2.0 and below 2.0 due to the fact that immigration, emigration and social factors also play a role.

Saying that you'd rather trust Japanese economists claiming that population collapse is a good thing for societal wellbeing is just abandoning common sense in order to trust people who might well have a professional incentive to lie and pretend that Japan will be a great place to invest in in the future and that the government's policies are doing a great job. How will there be better societal wellbeing when every worker now has to support 3 or 4 old people as opposed to only supporting 1 or 2 old people? Obviously efficiency will go down, the ability to provide services will go down , ability to maintain infrastructure will go down, there will be less surplus so overall quality of living will go down. This should be obvious to predict but if you don't trust your own ability to reason through what will happen if your population rapidly shrinks and ages , then take it from Lee Kuan Yew, who built singapore from a 3rd world nation to a 1st world nation within 50 years. He only has an incentive to make Singapore sound like its in a better situation than it is in, yet he explains how bad the situation is because it's the only way to raise awareness to what will be needed to deal with it.

Aaaaaand here we go you're totally ignoring the fact that I have stated Japan has its own problems to deal with instead. That is a potential route that they can go into because the majority of the reason they do not want children in the first place. Japan is one of the least happy developed countries according to the World Happiness Report, and is only slightly higher than South Korea. That efficiency and services that you speak of is built on the back of the current working class. That's the reason why Japan has a societal problem in the first place, which is the main problem as to why they have an inverse pyramid population right now in comparison to other developed countries. If you don't trust your own ability to reason through why that happened, then you should also take noted how other developed countries work, with South Korea and Hong Kong being famous for Semi-basement homes and Cage homes.

Unfortunately I do not wish to Link stuff because it causes my comments to be hidden by the mods, but you can check the World Population Review site for the fertility rates and happiness indexes.

"I have some bad news for you, not because I disagree with you that we must have a sense of cohesiveness and we must assimilate the new migrants that were made into Singapore citizens and the permanent residents who hope to become Singapore residents. My worry, looking at the demographics, is that we are fast aging as a population. The birth rate today fertility rate is 1.01 in other words for every couple you have 1.01 baby so instead of population pyramid like that you will have a diamond shaped pyramid inverted. Having said that The Institute of Policy Studies have the grim statistics of 60,000 migrants a year to keep our economy young or our people young and economically active. We can't digest that. 20,000 maybe, 25,000 at a stretch, but certainly not 60,000 so in other words *we are going to become , because it's politically indigestible otherwise to take in these numbers, a shrinking and aging population like Japan *"

As you can see with that quote, there is focus on high efficiency, but not the welfare. Look up "The Secret of the Scandanavian Economic Miracle" on Youtube that showcases their welfare system and high societal trust which leads to them having a currently stable population.

"It's happening throughout the developed world once you have women educated with equal job opportunities they do not see their future just bearers of children. I don't see it going back to 2.1 which is a replacement rate. The only way it can happen is if you diseducate or uneducate the women and that doesn't make sense. The economy will suffer. So the answer is immigration. But you have read the IPS study they estimate that replacement rate would mean an input of 60 000 immigrants a year which is more than singaporeans would like to digest or find digestible. So maybe we can start with 20 000 or 25000. And then as we age and there are not enough young people to look after the old then maybe the population will be receptive to taking more immigrants because there just won't be enough people to look after the old and to work the economy at the same time. I mean people now in their 20s and 30s think it's going to be like that for them for a long time but suddenly they find that they are in their late 50s and 60s and they need more medicare, more home nursing and where are the nurses, the paramedics and the doctors ?"
So you don't need to trust me or Japanese economists with dubious ulterior motives, you could also trust your own reasoning and the greatest nation-builder of the 20th century, if not all time.

Despite what you're quoting, Lee Kuwan Yew is still a politician with ulterior motives, so you should doubt his words just as much as mine or Japanese economists. Even the comment section of the links you posted criticizes him for wanting more children but not taking action to help rearing children.
Kursgesagt has a more in depth research on this topic and have even showed their own sources, which includes data and journals on demographics on capital and human assessments, IHME population projections and statistical handbooks of Japan and EU countries. And some of their proposals on fixing that population decline are:
"Free and abundant access to healthcare, financial benefits for parents, more and cheaper housing, parenthood has to stop being a career obstacle."
Those things are solved more efficiently by European and Scandanavian countries far better than Japan or Singapore. They want women in the workforce to increase efficiency, but do not give them enough benefits to rear a child well. Even Paternity leaves are rarer, which is needed to support a proper family. They lack the compromise in exchange for efficiency and progress.

So yes, I don't need to trust you or "the greatest nation-builder of the 20th century", because his own goals are not for the wellbeing of individuals, but his country as a whole. There are much better countries whose policies are doing far better strides of solving their own population decline.

 

[danbellucci]

Earlier you said that

you're jumping the gun too early and saying this will lead to population collapse. Current trends have noted that this is more in-line to stability of populations with a little less than below replacement fertility.

So earlier you claimed that having a total fertility rate of 1.5, as is typical in Europe and the Americas, wouldn't lead to population collapse but rather a stable population.
After I proved that this is wrong and that a total fertility rate of 1.5 would lead to a population reduction of 45% every 2 generations, now you're implicitly conceding the that I'm right and you were wrong so instead you're trying to change the argument:

That's because you did not take into account when that population decrease occured. Let's take for example the Philippines and USA. They only slowed down during the 2010s and before that they were over 2.0

That aging population will have to show itself first because that is ONLY possible if the current trend continues,

Yeah, obviously if the fertility rate has only plummeted below replacement levels recently then the population won't have had enough time to age and shrink yet.
But that means you're admitting that these sub-replacement level fertility rates will lead to population collapse and are not on trend to population stability like you claimed earlier. So you're admitting that your earlier claim

you're jumping the gun too early and saying this will lead to population collapse. Current trends have noted that this is more in-line to stability of populations

is wrong and you're also admitting that I'm right and that people will need to have more kids to replace themselves and avoid demographic collapse.

you're gonna need to show proof that that trajectory will continue till 2050s

No, I don't because my claim is not that Japan will go extinct. My claim is that if Japanese people people do not increase their fertility rate and have more babies then they will go extinct, which you've already conceded is true.

Aaaaaand here we go you're totally ignoring the fact[...]

This is all irrelevant blather that does nothing to refute the obvious fact that despite the wholly unsupported alleged claims of some supposed Japanese economists, Japan and the Japanese people will be much worse off if their population collapses and becomes much older so the working population shrinks and each worker has to support many more old people than currently. Nothing you've written refutes the paragraph of my previous post you quoted .

As you can see with that quote, there is focus on high efficiency, but not the welfare. Look up "The Secret of the Scandanavian Economic Miracle" on Youtube that showcases their welfare system and high societal trust which leads to them having a currently stable population.

First of all this is wrong, scandinavian peoples don't have stable populations, they have fertility rates below 2 (and their country wide fertility rates actually over-estimate this because fertility rates for certain immigrant groups in scandinavia are higher than for indigenous scandinavians , so the overall country fertility rate is higher than the indigenous populations of those countries which are declining faster), which means they need to increase their fertility rate back above 2 or their population will collapse. This is the opposite of a stable population. A stable population is one that you can leave with it's current fertility rate and it will remain the same size.
But even if your claim that scandinavians have stable populations were correct, that would would do nothing to refute the point I was making which showed Lee Kuan Yew explaining why the claim that population collapse would be good for Japan and Japanese people is completely wrong.

Lee Kuwan Yew is still a politician with ulterior motives, so you should doubt his words just as much as mine or Japanese economists.

Lee Kuan Yew is the founder of singapore who dedicated his whole adult life to causing Singapore to prosper and making life better for Singaporeans , so no, any reasonable person has far more reason to trust him to speak and act in the interests of singaporeans than one has to trust unnamed, alleged economists to speak and act in the interests of Japanese people. There is no plausible motive for Lee Kuan Yew to lie and say that singapore is in trouble because of its low birth rates if that is not true, especially given that he made these statements after he had retired so was not seeking re-election or to take back political power.
On the other hand one could easily imagine why a supposed Japanese economist would lie and say that Jan's population collapsing is actually good for the Japanese people, they could easily be be paid or offer a career reward by Japanese politicians to pretend the situation is not bad so as not to scare away foreign investment.
Lee Kuan Yew would have the same pressure to pretend the future prospect of the birth rate situation is not bad as well so as not to scare foreign investment into singapore, so the fact that LKY is speaking out despite the bias to pretend that things are better than they actually are to attract foreign investment makes it more significant and shows that he considers the long term problem is so bad that it is worth publicly speaking out against and preparing for .

Even the comment section of the links you posted criticizes him for wanting more children but not taking action to help rearing children.

Sure, and they may well be right, but that doesn't change the fact that he is correct when he explains why it is bad for countries when their populations don't have enough kids to replace themselves so their population gets older and has fewer workers and each worker has to support more old people , so whether or not LKY did not make the right decisions to help Singaporean people have more children doesn't hcange the fact that these alleged unnamed japanese economists are flat out wrong if they say that Japan's population collapsing will be a good thing for Japan and the Japanese people.
Similarly the rest of your post also doesn't refute this point.

 

[CulR]

2nd chapter title: "Ass". What a spectacular choice!

 

[CulR]

Dude immediately spotting the pubic hair on her outfit.

Is that what that was? I was so confused.

It means she's tried to put on the outfit recently, or at some point in during her girl-failure years.

 

[RedArowana]

Earlier you said that

So earlier you claimed that having a total fertility rate of 1.5, as is typical in Europe and the Americas, wouldn't lead to population collapse but rather a stable population.
After I proved that this is wrong and that a total fertility rate of 1.5 would lead to a population reduction of 45% every 2 generations, now you're implicitly conceding the that I'm right and you were wrong so instead you're trying to change the argument:

You're the one who forgot my argument, as I have stated in an earlier comment "Those can be argued as having a stable population as of the 2020s since it's only been recently that the majority of them lowered their fertility rate below 2.0."
You're implicitly stating that you're not reading well so instead you're trying to cherrypick.

Yeah, obviously if the fertility rate has only plummeted below replacement levels recently then the population won't have had enough time to age and shrink yet.
But that means you're admitting that these sub-replacement level fertility rates will lead to population collapse and are not on trend to population stability like you claimed earlier. So you're admitting that your earlier claim

is wrong and you're also admitting that I'm right and that people will need to have more kids to replace themselves and avoid demographic collapse.

So you're admitting you have not been reading what I said nor checking out sources, because I have stated that despite low fertility rates, never did I state it leads to population collapse and are far more stable, indicated by their bell curve. So you're admitting you're just reading that one sentence without contextualizing because you don't have a counterargument to a stable population.

No, I don't because my claim is not that Japan will go extinct. My claim is that if Japanese people people do not increase their fertility rate and have more babies then they will go extinct, which you've already conceded is true.

Red herring on what I "conceded", since I didn't say they'd go extinct either. My claim is that Japanese have unaddressed problems which leads to their low fertility rate, which you've been avoiding to be true.

This is all irrelevant blather that does nothing to refute the obvious fact that despite the wholly unsupported alleged claims of some supposed Japanese economists, Japan and the Japanese people will be much worse off if their population collapses and becomes much older so the working population shrinks and each worker has to support many more old people than currently. Nothing you've written refutes the paragraph of my previous post you quoted .

Your statement is all irrelevant blather, considering I've stated not only world statistics but trends on the population as well. Even adding the fact that your argument does not address the current state of their society which is not seen in more successful countries populations. Nothing you've written refutes the paragraphs of my post, especially since you've actively avoided them.

First of all this is wrong, scandinavian peoples don't have stable populations, they have fertility rates below 2 (and their country wide fertility rates actually over-estimate this because fertility rates for certain immigrant groups in scandinavia are higher than for indigenous scandinavians , so the overall country fertility rate is higher than the indigenous populations of those countries which are declining faster), which means they need to increase their fertility rate back above 2 or their population will collapse. This is the opposite of a stable population. A stable population is one that you can leave with it's current fertility rate and it will remain the same size.
But even if your claim that scandinavians have stable populations were correct, that would would do nothing to refute the point I was making which showed Lee Kuan Yew explaining why the claim that population collapse would be good for Japan and Japanese people is completely wrong.

Interestingly since you noted immigrants, since most of the immigration and emigration are groups that are also from European areas with low fertility rates, so you're just stating that by immigration, there's an abnormal increase in fertility rate which actually stabilizes their population. And that's the wrong definition of fertility rate, "A stable population is defined as a population that maintains a constant age structure and experiences unchanging fertility and mortality rates over an extended period." and that has actually been shown, in comparison to Asian countries sudden population boom and rapid fertility regression. You have seen what that did with China's 2 child policy, you have seen that in Singapore's stop-at-2. Those policies were not implemented in Scandanavia.
Especially since the data points that stable populations are indeed correct, it does a lot to refute the point you were making because Lee Kuan Yew only addresses the problems of population collapse while not seeing that Singapore already has a heavy middle aged population that he does not give incentives to start a family with.
You're pretty much taking the Japan-Population-Collapse comment very wrong here, since that is a means to and end to help with the fertility issue, which Scandanavia and some parts of Europe actually put into effect.

Lee Kuan Yew is the founder of singapore who dedicated his whole adult life to causing Singapore to prosper and making life better for Singaporeans , so no, any reasonable person has far more reason to trust him to speak and act in the interests of singaporeans than one has to trust unnamed, alleged economists to speak and act in the interests of Japanese people. There is no plausible motive for Lee Kuan Yew to lie and say that singapore is in trouble because of its low birth rates if that is not true, especially given that he made these statements after he had retired so was not seeking re-election or to take back political power.
On the other hand one could easily imagine why a supposed Japanese economist would lie and say that Jan's population collapsing is actually good for the Japanese people, they could easily be be paid or offer a career reward by Japanese politicians to pretend the situation is not bad so as not to scare away foreign investment.
Lee Kuan Yew would have the same pressure to pretend the future prospect of the birth rate situation is not bad as well so as not to scare foreign investment into singapore, so the fact that LKY is speaking out despite the bias to pretend that things are better than they actually are to attract foreign investment makes it more significant and shows that he considers the long term problem is so bad that it is worth publicly speaking out against and preparing for .

Sure, and they may well be right, but that doesn't change the fact that he is correct when he explains why it is bad for countries when their populations don't have enough kids to replace themselves so their population gets older and has fewer workers and each worker has to support more old people , so whether or not LKY did not make the right decisions to help Singaporean people have more children doesn't hcange the fact that these alleged unnamed japanese economists are flat out wrong if they say that Japan's population collapsing will be a good thing for Japan and the Japanese people.
Similarly the rest of your post also doesn't refute this point.

In the interest of having a prosperous and industrious country, I will believe what he says to be correct. Singapore is prosperous and the lives of singaporeans are indeed better, but it is top 5 in costs of living as of 2025, with Hong Kong in top 6. The incentives for raising a family will have to address this problem, not just with maternity leave but with the required education and wellbeing of the child as well.

The video you gave highlights Stop-at-two "has nothing to do with population decline", feels very conflicting since he actually gave policies in the 1960s that give lower education priorities for 3rd and 4th children as well as fewer economic rebates. Not to mention urging couples to undergo sterilization after their second child. Drastically trying to cut the population instead of letting it steadily decrease gave him the problem he is addressing now. He has no reason to lie but he ignores the fact that part of this was his own drastic action.
On the other hand one would have to question how European journal archives, as well as international statistical data, would lie considering that numbers and censuses are universal and are not being controlled by the Japanese government. If you're hung up on those Japanese economists, then why don't you also address their happiness indexes as well as the japanese demographical handbook?

So you're conceding that they may be right, and that despite him addressing this problem he has not taken steps to actually help this aspect? In comparison to his policies of economic benefit by establishing trade connections AND actually limiting population growth, he didn't actively establish plans to promote easier family growth.
Similarly the rest of your arguments ignore this point.

 

[SummonerRufus]

Fail women truly are in high demand.

 

[Dmoll]

Fail women truly are in high demand.

You got more supply bro?