>what no chad cock does to a mf
i watched the movie for this, not that bad, cant quite call it kino but it was a femcel movie all right
just a friendly reminder that femcels dont exist especially in 2025 with the interwebs
>>216022431The word incel is used liberally but...
Well, anyone got the video of the suicide?
One of the few true femcels... she even went out in a quintessentially female fashion, seeking as much attention as possible.
>>216022578what in the incel are you incelling on about, incel?>he said incelly
>named Chubbuck>is skinnyYou can’t explain it
The first incels were actually Christine Chubbuck and Olga Hepnarova.
the scene where the doctor tells her shes lost her ability to have a baby and is now effectively even more undesirable to a man longterm is what real femcel content look like. a woman may be able to get boned by a man but that news completely kills this woman's chance of ever being a wife to a man worth anything, the movie Predestination sorta touches on this to a lesser different degree, would rec
for any femcels lurking, this album is top tier 90s alternative woman core
>>216022838i’m a dude and i love pj harvey.
>>216022838She's arthoe core not femcel core, anon.
>>216022431>'74she missed out on jaws kino
>>216022431When I last checked Wikipedia five-ish years ago, I took the availble information to mean that it was the brother who had a copy of the footage and that it was secured with a law firm. The current state instead has it that it was the television station boss who held onto the theoretical copy, and after he died, his widow gave it to a law firm (which of course secured it). In either case, the thing theoretically exists. And therefore, in principle, it can be tracked down, stolen, reproduced, and disseminated to the public via the internet, at which point the genie can never be put back in the bottle, and the bell can never be un-rung. But why bother? The idea, the mystery of all this is the point. A suicide by gun, the actual footage itself, the live television aspect, is at the same time interesting and banal. The idea that a widely known live television broadcast has been lost seems odd, but lots of web 1.0 stuff from less than 20 years ago seems neither to exist anymore, nor to have been archived, unless someone took a screenshot.Questions. Why retain a copy of the footage at all? Or if you don't actually have a copy, why put it about that one exists, thus prompting ghoulish ideas like mine? This leads me to think that the copy did in fact exist for a period of several years afterwards, even if it doesn't currently exist at this time. I think a decent reason for retaining a copy would be so law enforcement can check it out some years later if there's ever any question about details. Maybe big TV guy got legal advice to retain the evidence.
>>216022999Checked and keked.
