malachite is a poisonous mineral. please do not fuck the malachite stalactite
@lizaleigh do you know any rock people that can confirm/deny because I am very curious and really don’t feel like getting into a conversation with my geophysicist brother that MAY somehow get back to the fact I saw a malachite that looked like a weird dildo.
…sadly, I am not on good enough terms with any of our partner geologists to just attach this to an email with the subject line: “EXPLAIN.”
Although I think @mollisaurus is a mineral person. Thoughts?
oh geeze, i’m kinda rusty on minerals but malachite is just copper carbonate and is really common in both antique and modern jewelry so i think like if you were really gun-ho about it you could go ahead and put it wherever you want?
It’s really only a problem if you’re polishing or cutting it. The particles would be bad to breathe. It’s rather porous too, so I would worry about bacteria growing. Well, being literal anyway… Better to leave the poor thing alone. ._.
I mean it kinda depends on where you stick it because malachite does not like acidic environments very much and the malachite will degrade and also might dye your bits blue-green as the copper dissolves out.
So use a condom when fucking rocks is the takeaway here.
Oh my god guys it’s poisonous
It is super poisonous
There is a reason we do not use it in make up any more
Not even with a condom, do not fuck the rock
Try this one instead.
malachite literally explodes in water does it not?
I… no… I think you’re thinking of pure sodium?
Malachite is however water soluble, which really just means it will poison you quicker
This is both hilarious and cool as fuck because you’re getting all this information on minerals and rocks. You’re also watching people argue over wether or not you can fuck this rock
I go on hiatus for a week and come back to find tumblr molesting my post, but hey, at least we all learned something so yay tumblr, you just keep on being you.
I’m still not sure if I can fuck this rock.
I’m looking into it.
UPDATE:
Today in “I’m so sorry, coworkers, it’s for Tumblr,” I brought this post to the attention the science reporters at BuzzFeed. Dan Vergano did a some research and weighed in on the question “Can you use malachite as a dildo or is it toxic?”
The answer is “It’s probably fine, just wash it first and maybe use a bunch of lube.”
Oh man this got so much better than the last time I saw this post
This is my favourite. Science side of tumblr: asking the REAL questions
*biologist crashes through the underbrush*
Ok so here’s the thing though
Malachite is not poisonous to YOU. BUT fucking this stalactite will probably wreck your vaginal flora and leave you with a gruesome infection within a couple days.
Want details? SO GLAD YOU ASKED, ‘CAUSE HERE THEY ARE.
• Malachite is not copper oxide. It’s Cu2CO3(OH)2. Like most carbonates it’s water soluble– that’s how it became a stalactite in the first place! And technically any given chunk of “malachite” isn’t just malachite– it’s a mix of various copper carbonates & oxides. This will become important later.
• When malachite dissolves it makes a bunch of copper (Cu++) ions. Cu++ is GREAT at killing bacteria and fungi– so good at it that sprays with Cu++ get used a lot as a spray in agriculture to stop plant disease. It takes such a large dose to harm larger organisms that copper sprays are used a lot in organic agriculture (like Bordeaux mixture).
So bottom line, yes malachite is technically nontoxic to humans. But it kills bacteria when it dissolves and releases Cu++.
• Malachite dissolves somewhat slowly in water– but vaginal secretions aren’t just any water. A healthy human vagina has a pH of 3.8-4.5 and a salinity of about 0.9%. It’s also warmer than your average underground cave at 37°C (or 98.5°F in American meat units). As luck would have it, acidity, salinity, and warmth all make malachite dissolve faster.
• In other words, the human vagina dissolves malachite.
• I have no deeper explanation for why human females can dissolve rocks with our genitals. It simply is.
• Gonna to take a quick moment to point out that sex toys that dissolve when you use them are maybe not the best investment.
• Anyway the key question now is “how fast does the human vagina dissolve malachite?” Are we talking geological timescale, a Nazis-in-Indiana-Jones situation, or something in between? If the reaction kinetics of dissolution are very slow, then there’s nothing to worry about. An encounter with a stalactite would have to last years for enough Cu++ to leach out to cause problems. If it’s quick then we’re in trouble.
• Unfortunately it looks like nobody really knows. One of the best sources on how malachite dissolves & precipitates in water– an EPA document on how to avoid too much Cu++ in municipal drinking water systems– helpfully says “The kinetic constraints on the formation of these solids in water systems are largely unexplored” (p. 42) because end equilibrium points are all you need to run a city water system safely. In other words, the experiments that would tell us how fast malachite dissolves in various types of water just don’t exist because nobody’s ever needed to know before. So we’d better assume it’s going to happen reasonably quickly, #for safety.
• So in best scientific fashion, we’re just going to bullshit our way ahead using what facts we DO have on hand: endpoint equlibria.
That orange box is how many moles of dissolved Cu++ Scaife got from sticking malachite in some water that had 0.171 moles NaCl/L (body salinity is about 0.154 moles NaCl/L so this is slightly more salty than people) at 30°C. He’s got no acidity in there, and again the salinity and temperature are slightly off from the vaginal standard. But this is probably the closest we’re going to get to data on how malachite behaves in vaginas anytime soon, folks. From this we can take away that if you leave malachite alone in a vagina you’ll get AT LEAST 9.12 x 10^-4 moles/L, or 5.8 ppm, of Cu++ at equilibrium.
• Recall from above that most “malachite” isn’t actually pure malachite, it’s a mix of various copper carbonates & oxides. The EPA document elaborates: “[T]raditional ‘eyeball’ identification of malachite by its blue-green color is extremely
unreliable, because almost all cupric hydroxysulfates, hydroxycarbonates, hydroxychlorides,
and even fresh cupric hydroxide can be some shade of blue-green. … Thus, the uncertainty in the computed copper
concentration in equilibrium with malachite is at least about a factor of 2 … until further experimental data focusing on this problem is generated.”
In other words, “do your math and then double how much Cu++ you think is going to be in the water, just in case.” So that gives us 11.6ppm Cu++, at equilibrium, with malachite in a (til now!) healthy vagina.
• Next step: do we have any idea what happens to bacteria in acid conditions with copper? OH MY GOD WE TOTALLY DO. Gyawali et al 2011 checked this out in the context of “so what if we rinsed tomatoes with a solution of lactic acid and copper, because that would be a safe & organic way to get rid of E. coli?” So now this post has officially ruined stalactites, vaginas, and tomatoes.
^This would happen. These are the counts of 4 E. coli strains exposed to various levels of lactic acid & Cu++ for 8 hours. This table only shows the end counts but it represents the death of 99.7% of bacteria*.
• Losing 99.7% of your vaginal flora is seriously bad news. You’re looking at really good odds of a yeast infection, bacterial vaginosis, and/or other infection issues. And that’s if you’re lucky enough to not be in the 4% of the population or so that’s sensitive to skin contact with copper.
• The good news? Biochemically speaking, you’re probably ok to put it in your butt. It’s not as acidic or salty in there, plus there’s a huuuuuge stockpile of gut microbes right upstream that can quickly repopulate the colon after spelunking is complete. However this stalactite is not flared at the base so it is the wrong shape for putting in your butt. Do not put this stalactite in your butt.
• This all looks like fun and games, but I think it’s really interesting that the internet’s mistake in concluding that this stalactite is fuckable is very similar to the mistake made by the Flint water management system. Hear me out.
• Central to the Flint lead poisoning crisis is that authorities only looked at & tested Flint’s water in its central treatment plant before it went out through the pipes. Not after it went through the pipes. They did not consider what would happen biochemically as it went through the pipes and metals started dissolving.
• Similarly, in concluding that the stalactite is fuckable, the internet only considered the stalactite itself. Not the biochemical processes that would happen to it as it, welp, went through the pipes.
• Media frequently reports that the Flint River’s water is “corrosive,” leading many to believe the river is full of industrial waste. This ain’t the case. You’d need industry to fill a river with industrial waste, and industry left decades ago. That’s why Flint’s so poor. So what IS in the water? Road salt. Plain old stupid road salt. The old Detroit-based source didn’t have salt because it came from Lake Huron which has a large, mostly rural watershed. Meanwhile the Flint River runs through a lot of towns, making it slightly salty as everything melts down in spring. And as we recall from the stalactite experience, a little salt is all it takes to get metals to dissolve.
• Information on this engineering problem was not coming through clearly from the engineering or chemistry sides. It took a biologist, pediatrician Mona Hanna-Attisha, to document the real-time results and provide the data to kick-start a high-level investigation.
• Morals of the story: when dealing with a biological system pls consider asking a biologist, your vagina and/or city could depend on this
• Pls use a condom when fucking any water-soluble material
• Still don’t put the stalactite in your butt -3/10 do not recommend
…but nobody needs their introduction to fandom to be “here’s a 25,000 word fic showing you in an ABO sex pollen orgy.” And they really, really don’t need to see the accompanying artwork.
Between the various ComicCons and talk shows, if they’re potentially interested in fandom, they’ll discover it – someone who knows them personally will mention, oh hey, did you know this exists? And if their response is “yeah, I know that stuff exists; I don’t care for it,” don’t pester them about it. Those who think it’s great, will say so. Let THEM come to US, not the other way around.
I feel like this used just be a known unknown rule in Fandom but in recent years people have lost all sense of fucking boundaries. It’s very weird and unsettling
I’m about 90% sure the economy is never gonna “improve”
this is capitalism in it’s final form
this is it honey
except, you know, those companies that do a charitable thing for every thing they sell
that’s kinda new and interesting. benevolent capitalism
lmao
Pay attention, class: This is what it looks like when one is unwilling to consider new information.
It’s not new information, though. It’s misinformation.
First, it’s not that new.
Did you know that there was a time in U.S. history—which is by definition recent history—when a corporation was generally intended to have some sort of public interest that they served? I mean, that’s the whole point of allowing corporations to form. Corporations are recognized by the commonwealth or state, and this recognition is not a right but a privilege, in exchange for which the state (representing the people) is allowed to ask, “So what does this do for everyone else?”
The way the economy is now is a direct result of a shift away from this thinking and to one where a corporation is an entity unto itself whose first, last, and only concern is an ever-increasing stream of profits. What you’re calling “benevolent capitalism” isn’t benevolent at all. It’s a pure profit/loss calculation designed to distract from—not even paper over or stick a band-aid on—the problems capitalism creates. And the fact that you’re here championing it as “benevolent capitalism” is a sign of how ell it’s working.
Let’s take Toms, as one example. The shoe that’s a cause. Buy a pair of trendy shoes, and a pair of trendy shoes will be given away to someone somewhere in the world who can’t afford them.
That’s not genuine benevolence. That’s selling you, the consumer, on the idea that you can be benevolent by buying shoes, that the act of purchasing these shoes is an act of charity. The reality is that their model is an inefficient means of addressing the problems on the ground that shoelessness represents, and severely disrupts the local economies of the locations selected for benevolence.
(Imagine what it does to the local shoemakers, for instance.)
The supposed act of charity is just a value add to convince you to spend your money on these shoes instead of some other shoes. It’s no different than putting a prize in a box of cereal.
Heck, you want to see how malevolent this is?
Go ask a multinational corporation that makes shoes or other garments to double the wages of their workers. They’ll tell you they can’t afford it, that it’s not possible, that consumers won’t stand for it, that you’ll drive them out of business and then no one will have wages.
But the fact that a company can give away one item for every item sold shows you what a lie this is. A one-for-one giving model represents double the cost of labor and materials for each unit that is sold for revenue. Doubling wages would only double the labor.
So why are companies willing to give their products away (and throw them away, destroy unused industry with bleach and razors to render them unsalvageable, et cetera) but they’re not willing to pay their workers more?
Because capitalism is the opposite of benevolence.
“Charity” is by definition exemplary, above and beyond, extraordinary, extra. “Charity” is not something that people are entitled to. You give people a shirt or shoes or some food and call it charity, and you’re setting up an expectation that you can and will control the stream of largesse in the future, and anything and everything you give should be considered a boon from on high.
On the other hand, once you start paying your workers a higher wage, you’re creating an expectation. You’re admitting that their labor is more valuable to you than you were previously willing to admit, and it’s hard to walk that back.
Plus, when people have enough money for their basic needs, they’re smarter and stronger and warier and more comfortable with pushing back instead of being steamrolled over. They have time and money to pursue education. They can save money up and maybe move away. They can escape from the system that depends on a steady flow of forced or near-forced labor.
So companies will do charitable “buy one, give one” and marketing “buy one, get one” even though these things by definition double the overhead per unit, but they won’t do anything that makes a lasting difference in the standard of living for the people.
Capitalism has redefined the world so that the baseline of ethics is “How much money can we make?” and every little good deed over and above that is saintly.
But there’s nothing benevolent about throwing a scrap of bread to someone who’s starving in a ditch because you ran them out of their home in the first place.
This is one of the best anti-capitalist posts on the entire site.
Let me clarify further: Most (sane) fans agree that Daenerys
isn’t an outright racist, but tends to think that she acts like a colonialist.
(Mostly because she is white.) However,
there is a difference between multiculturalism and colonialism.Colonialism
tends to follow a pattern: genocide – slavery – exploitation of natural
resources – oppression of marginalized. While individual countries have differing
experiences, every colonised country have experienced at least one or more of
the above.
Let’s have a look at these:
1. Genocide: The
most famous example is what happened to Native Americans. Huge number of them
were killed, or they were forced to flee to fringe lands to save themselves.
The occupying/colonialist force settled on the fertile and prime areas and
started their country/rule while the natives were displaced and denied access
to facilities/privileges of the new rule.
Daenerys hasn’t performed genocide. Killing slave masters
who crucified children doesn’t count as genocide. It wasn’t based on
racial/ethnic lines, but rather on the actions of the accused. Even slave
masters can continue to live in Mereen as long as they do not abide by slavery.
They are treated like every other citizen. This is not colonialist.
2. Slavery: The most
famous example is what happened to many tribes in Africa. There are also
indentured servants from South East Asia that were made to work on
plantations/factories.
Daenerys is against slavery. This is so self-evident that it
feels ridiculous to even point it out. Hope that at least the sensible parts of
the fandom gets that she is no master/slave owner.
3. Exploitation of
Native Resources: Contrary to popular belief, colonisation was not done
because Europeans wanted to export democracy/their good life. Colonisation was
not done because Europeans were explorers and just found new land and ruled
there. Colonisation was done with the express intent to EXPLOIT the resources of
the Orient or the Dark Continent. They came to these nations looking
for gold/diamonds/spices/cotton/other natural resources. They slowly took
control of these nations and used up their natural resources by using local
labour. Then the finished goods were exported. The history of cotton and cotton
industries in India and how it instigated colonialism by the British and East
India Company is an example. Otherwise, take history of spices. Or the history
of diamond trade and its ties to colonisation in Africa. Don’t even get me started on the Bengal Famine and resource management.
Daenerys’s intentions aren’t to exploit any of the natural
resources of Astapor/Yunkai/Mereen. She doesn’t rule Mereen to export certain
goods to Westeros – and that was never the intention. Furthermore, any
resources of Essos aren’t exploited to benefit a colonialist class of people.
4. Oppression of Marginalized: The
colonies and its people were considered savages/uncultured and were always
second-class citizens. There was segregation. The colonized (natives) had to learn the language of the
oppressor. The colonized (natives) had to mould themselves to the culture of the
oppressor (by religious conversions, by changing food habits, by changing
attire, by changing language, by changing mannerisms). Furthermore, the
colonialist class always sided with the existing nobility to further oppress
the underdogs of the society. (British Raj sided with the Orthodox Brahmins
and Upper Caste in India – till the social workers, activists forced them to change
their stance on orthodox practices.)
Daenerys doesn’t consider any of the Essosi as
savages/uncultured. In fact, she considers even Dothraki “her people and not savages”, unlike most of the fandom who has no
problem considering the Dothraki as savages. Daenerys learns the language of
her people (and not vice versa). Daenerys wears the attires of her people (not
vice versa). Daenerys eats the food of her people (and not vice versa). Daenerys assimilates into the culture of the people she is ruling. Daenerys
sides with the marginalized/underdogs of the society instead of the nobility –
thus behaving in a manner that is entirely opposite to colonialists.
Okay, so Daenerys doesn’t behave like a
colonialist in any way whatsoever. Still the fandom would presume that she is a coloniser,
because hey they are woke af, and would rather plaster labels instead of trying
to understand the history of oppression or nuances.
What’s the big deal? What is wrong in calling her a colonialist?
The reason why I am furious when someone calls Dany a colonialist is not because somebody insulted or wrongly accused my favourite
character – but because it unwittingly presents a whitewashed pretty picture of
colonialism. By calling Dany a colonialist, the atrocities of colonialism is somehow
twisted and reduced to this:
A good white person ruling over another country.
They generally try to rule fairly, but they
have some internal prejudices. They even try
to give the people freedom. However, they make mistakes and have done something ~ problematic™ ~.
In actuality, colonialism is this:
An exploitative enterprise that was funded and started with
an express intent of abusing another race/region. An enterprise which took
control over vast continents for the benefit of solely the coloniser, while exploiting the natural resources of another region/race. A system which allowed
and abetted slavery and indentured servitude; and took benefit in actively
oppressing entire nations. A system which actively denied democracy and freedom
to entire races.
Colonialism was not a “whoopsie” by white people.
It was NOT
“I went to another country, tried to rule and do good, but accidentally fucked
it up”.
It was a matter of deliberate policy decisions. It was thoughtful
systematic oppression.
Hence, when you are calling Dany a colonialist you are essentially implying that colonisation was (mostly) done with good intentions, but accidentally caused issues for natives. When nothing could be further from the truth.
So, please stop trivialising colonialism by calling Daenerys
a colonialist.
Young girls really are pressured now more than ever to be seen as beautiful and sexy and perfect like IG models and whatever the fuck…..like that’s why you see “me at 14 vs 14 year old girls today” posts……….we didn’t have this constant stream of content like they do…..content telling us to be perfect and to have perfect clothes and sharp eyeliner wings that look photoshopped and shit like that….I mean it’s always been there but not like this…and while I think girls should be able to dress however they want and do whatever they want…..you have to take into consideration the fact that this all stems from a toxic culture where women have to be perfect and beautiful…now at younger and younger ages….and it’s really gross…and the media continues to sexualize and like…make young girls seem older and more appealing than they actually are idk the whole thing makes me so uncomfortable and it’s only going to get worse
And the wildest thing is, people will still try and justify it with the “there’s always been girls that dress older than they are!” argument. Which is true. But it was never the norm. Pre social media, most young girls were allowed be young girls. Here’s Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez and Lindsay Lohan at 14/15 in 2001-2007. They were arguably the biggest young stars of the time but this is how they presented
They aren’t being styled to look leagues older than they are. They’re allowed to just be their own age and look their own age. Now, here’s Millie Bobbie Brown at 13 in 2018, Veronika Bonell at 15/16 in 2017, Skai Jackson at 13 in 2015, and Caitlin Carmichael at 13 in 2017.
There is a deep problem in our society that this is what people are styling children to look like. They don’t look like children, they look like young adults. They could wear these exact same looks in 10 years and they wouldn’t be questioned because they’re dressed and made up to present as adults. This is what is presented as normal for young girls, this is the image they’re told is the “right” one, the one they should aspire to.
There’s nothing wrong with girls – or boys – wanting to be pretty. But there is a problem with young girls being constantly told that pretty for them means looking over 21 at 13.
There’s nothing wrong with girls – or boys – wanting to be pretty. But there is a problem with young girls being constantly told that pretty for them means looking over 21 at 13.
So there’s a known thing in the study of human psychology/sociology/what-have-you where men are known to, on average, rely entirely on their female romantic partner for emotional support. Bonding with other men is done at a more superficial level involving fun group activities and conversations about general subjects but rarely involves actually leaning on other men or being really honest about emotional problems. Men use alcohol to be able to lower their inhibitions enough to expose themselves emotionally to other men, but if you can’t get emotional support unless you’re drunk, you have a problem.
So men need to have a woman in their lives to have anyone they can share their emotional needs and vulnerabilities with. However, since women are not socialized to fear sharing these things, women’s friendships with other women are heavily based on emotional support. If you can’t lean on her when you’re weak, she’s not your friend. To women, what friendship is is someone who listens to all your problems and keeps you company.
So this disconnect men are suffering from is that they think that only a person who is having sex with you will share their emotions and expect support. That’s what a romantic partner does. But women think that’s what a friend does. So women do it for their romantic partners and their friends and expect a male friend to do it for them the same as a female friend would. This fools the male friend into thinking there must be something romantic there when there is not.
This here is an example of patriarchy hurting everyone. Women have a much healthier approach to emotional support – they don’t die when widowed at nearly the rate that widowers die and they don’t suffer emotionally from divorce nearly as much even though they suffer much more financially, and this is because women don’t put all their emotional needs on one person. Women have a support network of other women. But men are trained to never share their emotions except with their wife or girlfriend, because that isn’t manly. So when she dies or leaves them, they have no one to turn to to help with the grief, causing higher rates of death, depression, alcoholism and general awfulness upon losing a romantic partner.
So men suffer terribly from being trained in this way. But women suffer in that they can’t reach out to male friends for basic friendship. I am not sure any man can comprehend how heartbreaking it is to realize that a guy you thought was your friend was really just trying to get into your pants. Friendship is real. It’s emotional, it’s important to us. We lean on our friends. Knowing that your friend was secretly seething with resentment when you were opening up to him and sharing your problems because he felt like he shouldn’t have to do that kind of emotional work for anyone not having sex with him, and he felt used by you for that reason, is horrible. And the fact that men can’t share emotional needs with other men means that lots of men who can’t get a girlfriend end up turning into horrible misogynistic people who think the world owes them the love of a woman, like it’s a commodity… because no one will die without sex. Masturbation exists. But people will die or suffer deep emotional trauma from having no one they can lean on emotionally. And men who are suffering deep emotional trauma, and have been trained to channel their personal trauma into rage because they can’t share it, become mass shooters, or rapists, or simply horrible misogynists.
The only way to fix this is to teach boys it’s okay to love your friends. It’s okay to share your needs and your problems with your friends. It’s okay to lean on your friends, to hug your friends, to be weak with your friends. Only if this is okay for boys to do with their male friends can this problem be resolved… so men, this one’s on you. Women can’t fix this for you; you don’t listen to us about matters of what it means to be a man. Fix your own shit and teach your brothers and sons and friends that this is okay, or everyone suffers.
The next time a guy says, “What? You don’t want to be my friend?” I’ll text him this and then ask if he really wants to be friends or just have another potential girlfriend.
y’all I am living for these analyses where the new way to fight the patriarchy is to teach men to love each other and themselves
Im a communication student and can confirm the above is absolutely 100% accurate and it’s called agentic vs communal friendship theorized by Steven McCornack
So by this disgusting, male-apologist rubric, my fiancée’s horrific abuse at the hands of her ex-husband was her fault for…not giving him a listening ear and making him bottle up his pwecious feewings? And she had it easier because she could unload on friends…from whom he isolated her?
Bullshit. Even in countries where men are encouraged to open up in ways considered “feminine” here, there is horrifying misogyny. Women are murdered there, too, and I have no doubt that there would also be school shootings if these countries gave as few fucks about gun control as America does. Miss me with this misogynist nonsense.
Apparently, being angry and adding my commentary makes me a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. What the fuck???
Death By Catchphrase 