Showers/tubs should have a access panel on the other side of the wall the faucet is on so you can get at the plumbing. Mine didn't (also 1960's house) so I cut an access hole and got one of those spring loaded wall hole covers that are designed to allow wall access without cutting every time.

Well my sisters and I don't have that kind of equipment, so no.

.... Am... Am I understanding correctly that your mother told you and you brother , regularly, to eat dick shaped vegetables so you could grow a long shlong?

I try not to blame individuals for the failure of systems, especially ones as exploitative and damaging as capitalism. Why blame the people who can only afford the cheapest toilet paper when you could blame the corporation that made the cheapest toilet paper clog toilets? The people with the least money have the most negative repercussions. How are they supposed to know it clogs toilets without having to learn the hard way? Why wouldn't you assume that toilet paper would all be equally safe to flush no matter how cheap it is?

Oooh! I like that! Xenan. Nice ring to it! My response in "normal" company is she/her but my friends and I always joke about me being a garden cryptid.

I know it's not all men, every woman knows it's not all men. But I think the best analogy I ever heard for describing the way women need to treat men as a whole is the same way people should treat guns. In gun safety class they teach you to treat every gun like it is loaded until you are certain it's not, and even then it is always better to act with caution. I heard stories of my great uncle who was cleaning his rifle and he "knew for a fact without a doubt that it was unloaded" and he blew a hole through his foot and the floor. I'd rather not blow a hole in my foot because someone said a gun was unloaded and I just trusted them without double-checking. I'd rather not interact with a man I don't know so I can avoid getting harassed or hurt. The best advice for men, according to my guy friends that I have that I trust to treat women with respect and back them up in situations where they are uncomfortable, is: call other men on their shit. If a man is harassing a woman when she's said no, if a man is following a woman, if they are "just talking" but she looks super uncomfortable and he is encroaching on her personal space, interfere. Walk up, ask if she is okay, ask if you can get an authority for her. If the guy then becomes irritated with you for getting in the way, don't back down. Get between him and the woman and tell her she can get somewhere safe. If it's in a parking garage tell her she can get to her car and drive away, If it's at a bar tell her she can go to the bartenders or the bouncer and ask for help. If it's a guy friend of yours and you see them behaving that way, call them out and tell them to stop. It's uncomfortable, it could lose you a friendship, but if no one calls men on their behavior, if MEN don't call other men on their behavior, the men who don't think women are people and deserve respect will never stop behaving that way. Because if only women are telling them what they're doing is wrong, they will never listen. Because they don't consider women people. And when I say they don't consider women people I don't mean they think they're animals, they just actually don't believe women have autonomy, have minds of their own and the ability to say no and mean it and have that decision for themselves be respected. "No means yes" is a way for men to convince themselves that women aren't capable of making decisions for themselves and that you need to take control of them FOR them because they are incapable of making their own decisions. If you would like women to stop being afraid of men then men need to tell each other that the behavior that causes women to be afraid of them is unacceptable.

Just to be clear, this is not meant to be an admonition to you. You asked why we don't high five, I gave you an answer. My answer didn't seem to click for you as a valid thing that made sense so I'm trying to explain the reasoning behind it more thoroughly so you can actually understand where women are coming from. You might not be a bad person, but if we're not sure we're not going to interact with you because how can we possibly know?

I know it doesn't feel good to be treated like a loaded weapon when you are just trying to be a happy person. But before you respond in denial of my perspective, because it hurts you to have people be afraid of you when you didn't do anything wrong, think of how it would feel to have a gun pointed in your face and for you to have no idea if it's loaded or not. Can you blame women for shutting down or for shutting you down when confronted with that possiblity?

What the other commenter said, about it being more likely for women to respond in kind if you've been doing it with all the other people and it's a social setting, is true, but instead of being persistent if someone chooses not to high five you, instead smile and switch to a thumbs up and then just move on. The less of a problem you make of it when a woman decides not to interact with you the safer you will be to the women around you and the less likely you will be to be treated like a weapon.

I hope this helps you understand my perspective a little better, I hope this gives you some understanding the next time you feel shut down for seemingly no reason, and, most especially, I hope this helps you see the behavior of other men from the viewpoint of women and that you decide to help keep women safe when they feel uncomfortable.

Thanks for taking the time to ask, and thanks for taking the time to read my responses.

In my case it's because often even the slightest bit of humor or attention or willingness to play along with the bit gets me way more unwanted attention than I bargained for. If I respond like a person wanting to have a little fun with another person and it gets me treated like a thing they can now win and possess, the genuine human interaction has been tainted by the implication that it wasn't genuine, there was always a motive and, because I played along, I'm now not a person to be interacted with, I'm a thing to be owned. I'd rather just not do the thing if that's one of the possible outcomes. And yeah, that's why I tend to not go out anymore.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild The new game, legend of Zelda tears of the Kingdom, is good but it doesn't give me the same happy fuzzies that breath of the wild does. Stardew valley is another happy simple game. If you're looking for the challenge tingles, dark souls is always fun. XD

My gut reaction would be to see if it would be a viable option to begin a tool Library separate from state power.
To that end here's the Library socialist website, they have some good links to resources and literature to help. https://librarysocialism.org/

Oh! Me too! It ended up in my face before I could remember to take pictures. XD it was so sweet!

Ah, see, I think a world in anarchy would be ideal. Not in the hyperbolic common use sense where anarchy means the purge and chaos and zero government that most media portray it to be, but the actual definition of anarchy, a world without hierarchy. A world where no person, group, or government has the right to use violence or the threat thereof to coerce anyone into doing anything against their will.

There are so very many ways these ideals could be debated and edge cases brought up. So many people, with much more detailed and complete knowledge than I, have written many books on the subject. I don't have the answers to it all. Mostly I don't think people require a State, which is to say a sovereign government that has the authority to enforce a system of rules over the people living inside it's jurisdiction, to live in peaceful coexistence.

Police are definitely necessary if the goal is to uphold the laws of the state. I just don't think we need a state and, by extension, I don't think we need the police that enforce it's laws.

I'm aware I'm an idealist, I just can't bring myself to aim for a worse world because what I want seems too hard to get. A perfect world can't exist but I'll be damned if I don't try anyway.

Anywho, I'll relinquish the soap box now, thanks for listening and being open to hearing my point of view.

Reforming a police force still implies the existence of a militarized group of people whose job is to uphold the power of the state at the expense of the people. Law enforcement's job is to enforce laws, right? Laws are the will of the state, and enforcement is making people obey those laws with the threat or act of violence. That is what a police force is.

That's why people, why I, don't think reforming police is the answer, because by definition police are the violent arm of the state.

Abolishing the state's monopoly on "lawful" violence is, in my view, the only way to reduce institutional abuse of power against marginalized groups. Having people whose job it is to de-escalate heated situations, deal with unsafe conditions, and direct people away from harm is a necessary job, but that doesn't require violence. That doesn't require "Police".

I do think there are people who join the police with the intent of doing good, helping people, and keeping people from harm. I just think that should be a separate and distinct job from enforcing the law.

PS I love your username. X)