Work Matters

The Evolutionary Value of Swearing

Written by

supermoxie

in

I was just interviewed for a podcast by HBR's Sarah Green about my post on the Strategic Use of Swearing, which was inspired by HBR editor Dan McGinn's great post on Should Leaders Ever Swear?  To prepare for this little interview, I read an article by Timothy Jay published in 2009 (volume 4, number 2, p. 153-161)) in Perspectives on Psychological Science that is called "The Utility and Ubiquity of Taboo Words."  This article reviews all sorts of research and theory on "swear words" (which is uses interchangeably with "taboo words), but there were a few sentences that I found especially striking for understanding the functions of swear words:

From an evolutionary standpoint, swearing is a unique human behavior that was developed for a purpose.  Taboo words persist because they can intensify emotional communication to a degree that nontaboo words cannot (Jay & Janschewitz, 2007; Potts, 2007).  Fuck you! immediately conveys a level of contempt unparalleled by nontaboo words; there is no way to convey Fuck You! with polite speech.  p. 155.

Do you love this as much as I do?  Or does something bug you about this? I found it most compelling. But it still may not find enough justification for leaders to swear. 

Two other gems from this article:

1. I was also interested, but not shocked, to discover that, in the U.S., one-third to one half of all swear words are either "fuck" or "shit."

2. Can you explain why American people with Tourette's syndrome often shout 'fuck" and ""motherfucker" but not "poop?" 

P.S. I meant to do a serious post on competition and cheating, but I got distracted. You will see it later in the week.

Comments

48 responses to “The Evolutionary Value of Swearing”

  1. Thomas Avatar
    Thomas

    This sort of bugs me, Bob, now that you ask. Let me preface this comment by saying that I advise the non-native English speakers I work with to cut down on their swearing in English. They just don’t make it sing. (Swearing in Danish is a completely different game … long story.)
    But your post reminds me of the bowdlerization of your title that you sometimes “complain” (not sure that’s the right word) about. The No Jerk Rule just doesn’t quite capture the spirit of your project, perhaps. But suppose someone suggested a still more “accurate” title: The No Cunt Rule. (To my horror, my browser’s spellchecker has actually underlined the offending word!) In many places/cultures these three options denote roughly the same thing, but one is not a swear word, one is a mild swear word, and one is what we might properly call “taboo”.
    Perhaps I should dare you even to publish this comment? (Go ahead an correct it to C*** if you must.) Those who would argue that this comment is a stunt, of course need to ask whether the same isn’t true of The No Asshole Rule.
    Anyway, the problem … what bugs me about the question of whether leaders “should swear” … is that it’s always going to end with a “well, yes, when it’s appropriate” (Diane on Cheers famously declared she could be spontaenous when, erh, she thought it was appropriate).
    Should leaders (or scholars for that matter) ever say something truly offensive? No, of course, not. Unless, unless, unless … that’s the effect that is needed. I can’t see this issue leading anywhere but to a policy of moderation “with exceptions”. “Strategic” use of swearing is unlikely to really be swearing at all.
    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  2. Thomas Avatar
    Thomas

    This sort of bugs me, Bob, now that you ask. Let me preface this comment by saying that I advise the non-native English speakers I work with to cut down on their swearing in English. They just don’t make it sing. (Swearing in Danish is a completely different game … long story.)
    But your post reminds me of the bowdlerization of your title that you sometimes “complain” (not sure that’s the right word) about. The No Jerk Rule just doesn’t quite capture the spirit of your project, perhaps. But suppose someone suggested a still more “accurate” title: The No Cunt Rule. (To my horror, my browser’s spellchecker has actually underlined the offending word!) In many places/cultures these three options denote roughly the same thing, but one is not a swear word, one is a mild swear word, and one is what we might properly call “taboo”.
    Perhaps I should dare you even to publish this comment? (Go ahead an correct it to C*** if you must.) Those who would argue that this comment is a stunt, of course need to ask whether the same isn’t true of The No Asshole Rule.
    Anyway, the problem … what bugs me about the question of whether leaders “should swear” … is that it’s always going to end with a “well, yes, when it’s appropriate” (Diane on Cheers famously declared she could be spontaenous when, erh, she thought it was appropriate).
    Should leaders (or scholars for that matter) ever say something truly offensive? No, of course, not. Unless, unless, unless … that’s the effect that is needed. I can’t see this issue leading anywhere but to a policy of moderation “with exceptions”. “Strategic” use of swearing is unlikely to really be swearing at all.
    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  3. Thomas Avatar
    Thomas

    This sort of bugs me, Bob, now that you ask. Let me preface this comment by saying that I advise the non-native English speakers I work with to cut down on their swearing in English. They just don’t make it sing. (Swearing in Danish is a completely different game … long story.)
    But your post reminds me of the bowdlerization of your title that you sometimes “complain” (not sure that’s the right word) about. The No Jerk Rule just doesn’t quite capture the spirit of your project, perhaps. But suppose someone suggested a still more “accurate” title: The No Cunt Rule. (To my horror, my browser’s spellchecker has actually underlined the offending word!) In many places/cultures these three options denote roughly the same thing, but one is not a swear word, one is a mild swear word, and one is what we might properly call “taboo”.
    Perhaps I should dare you even to publish this comment? (Go ahead an correct it to C*** if you must.) Those who would argue that this comment is a stunt, of course need to ask whether the same isn’t true of The No Asshole Rule.
    Anyway, the problem … what bugs me about the question of whether leaders “should swear” … is that it’s always going to end with a “well, yes, when it’s appropriate” (Diane on Cheers famously declared she could be spontaenous when, erh, she thought it was appropriate).
    Should leaders (or scholars for that matter) ever say something truly offensive? No, of course, not. Unless, unless, unless … that’s the effect that is needed. I can’t see this issue leading anywhere but to a policy of moderation “with exceptions”. “Strategic” use of swearing is unlikely to really be swearing at all.
    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  4. Thomas Avatar
    Thomas

    This sort of bugs me, Bob, now that you ask. Let me preface this comment by saying that I advise the non-native English speakers I work with to cut down on their swearing in English. They just don’t make it sing. (Swearing in Danish is a completely different game … long story.)
    But your post reminds me of the bowdlerization of your title that you sometimes “complain” (not sure that’s the right word) about. The No Jerk Rule just doesn’t quite capture the spirit of your project, perhaps. But suppose someone suggested a still more “accurate” title: The No Cunt Rule. (To my horror, my browser’s spellchecker has actually underlined the offending word!) In many places/cultures these three options denote roughly the same thing, but one is not a swear word, one is a mild swear word, and one is what we might properly call “taboo”.
    Perhaps I should dare you even to publish this comment? (Go ahead an correct it to C*** if you must.) Those who would argue that this comment is a stunt, of course need to ask whether the same isn’t true of The No Asshole Rule.
    Anyway, the problem … what bugs me about the question of whether leaders “should swear” … is that it’s always going to end with a “well, yes, when it’s appropriate” (Diane on Cheers famously declared she could be spontaenous when, erh, she thought it was appropriate).
    Should leaders (or scholars for that matter) ever say something truly offensive? No, of course, not. Unless, unless, unless … that’s the effect that is needed. I can’t see this issue leading anywhere but to a policy of moderation “with exceptions”. “Strategic” use of swearing is unlikely to really be swearing at all.
    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  5. Thomas Avatar
    Thomas

    This sort of bugs me, Bob, now that you ask. Let me preface this comment by saying that I advise the non-native English speakers I work with to cut down on their swearing in English. They just don’t make it sing. (Swearing in Danish is a completely different game … long story.)
    But your post reminds me of the bowdlerization of your title that you sometimes “complain” (not sure that’s the right word) about. The No Jerk Rule just doesn’t quite capture the spirit of your project, perhaps. But suppose someone suggested a still more “accurate” title: The No Cunt Rule. (To my horror, my browser’s spellchecker has actually underlined the offending word!) In many places/cultures these three options denote roughly the same thing, but one is not a swear word, one is a mild swear word, and one is what we might properly call “taboo”.
    Perhaps I should dare you even to publish this comment? (Go ahead an correct it to C*** if you must.) Those who would argue that this comment is a stunt, of course need to ask whether the same isn’t true of The No Asshole Rule.
    Anyway, the problem … what bugs me about the question of whether leaders “should swear” … is that it’s always going to end with a “well, yes, when it’s appropriate” (Diane on Cheers famously declared she could be spontaenous when, erh, she thought it was appropriate).
    Should leaders (or scholars for that matter) ever say something truly offensive? No, of course, not. Unless, unless, unless … that’s the effect that is needed. I can’t see this issue leading anywhere but to a policy of moderation “with exceptions”. “Strategic” use of swearing is unlikely to really be swearing at all.
    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  6. Thomas Avatar
    Thomas

    This sort of bugs me, Bob, now that you ask. Let me preface this comment by saying that I advise the non-native English speakers I work with to cut down on their swearing in English. They just don’t make it sing. (Swearing in Danish is a completely different game … long story.)
    But your post reminds me of the bowdlerization of your title that you sometimes “complain” (not sure that’s the right word) about. The No Jerk Rule just doesn’t quite capture the spirit of your project, perhaps. But suppose someone suggested a still more “accurate” title: The No Cunt Rule. (To my horror, my browser’s spellchecker has actually underlined the offending word!) In many places/cultures these three options denote roughly the same thing, but one is not a swear word, one is a mild swear word, and one is what we might properly call “taboo”.
    Perhaps I should dare you even to publish this comment? (Go ahead an correct it to C*** if you must.) Those who would argue that this comment is a stunt, of course need to ask whether the same isn’t true of The No Asshole Rule.
    Anyway, the problem … what bugs me about the question of whether leaders “should swear” … is that it’s always going to end with a “well, yes, when it’s appropriate” (Diane on Cheers famously declared she could be spontaenous when, erh, she thought it was appropriate).
    Should leaders (or scholars for that matter) ever say something truly offensive? No, of course, not. Unless, unless, unless … that’s the effect that is needed. I can’t see this issue leading anywhere but to a policy of moderation “with exceptions”. “Strategic” use of swearing is unlikely to really be swearing at all.
    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  7. Thomas Avatar
    Thomas

    This sort of bugs me, Bob, now that you ask. Let me preface this comment by saying that I advise the non-native English speakers I work with to cut down on their swearing in English. They just don’t make it sing. (Swearing in Danish is a completely different game … long story.)
    But your post reminds me of the bowdlerization of your title that you sometimes “complain” (not sure that’s the right word) about. The No Jerk Rule just doesn’t quite capture the spirit of your project, perhaps. But suppose someone suggested a still more “accurate” title: The No Cunt Rule. (To my horror, my browser’s spellchecker has actually underlined the offending word!) In many places/cultures these three options denote roughly the same thing, but one is not a swear word, one is a mild swear word, and one is what we might properly call “taboo”.
    Perhaps I should dare you even to publish this comment? (Go ahead an correct it to C*** if you must.) Those who would argue that this comment is a stunt, of course need to ask whether the same isn’t true of The No Asshole Rule.
    Anyway, the problem … what bugs me about the question of whether leaders “should swear” … is that it’s always going to end with a “well, yes, when it’s appropriate” (Diane on Cheers famously declared she could be spontaenous when, erh, she thought it was appropriate).
    Should leaders (or scholars for that matter) ever say something truly offensive? No, of course, not. Unless, unless, unless … that’s the effect that is needed. I can’t see this issue leading anywhere but to a policy of moderation “with exceptions”. “Strategic” use of swearing is unlikely to really be swearing at all.
    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  8. Thomas Avatar
    Thomas

    This sort of bugs me, Bob, now that you ask. Let me preface this comment by saying that I advise the non-native English speakers I work with to cut down on their swearing in English. They just don’t make it sing. (Swearing in Danish is a completely different game … long story.)
    But your post reminds me of the bowdlerization of your title that you sometimes “complain” (not sure that’s the right word) about. The No Jerk Rule just doesn’t quite capture the spirit of your project, perhaps. But suppose someone suggested a still more “accurate” title: The No Cunt Rule. (To my horror, my browser’s spellchecker has actually underlined the offending word!) In many places/cultures these three options denote roughly the same thing, but one is not a swear word, one is a mild swear word, and one is what we might properly call “taboo”.
    Perhaps I should dare you even to publish this comment? (Go ahead an correct it to C*** if you must.) Those who would argue that this comment is a stunt, of course need to ask whether the same isn’t true of The No Asshole Rule.
    Anyway, the problem … what bugs me about the question of whether leaders “should swear” … is that it’s always going to end with a “well, yes, when it’s appropriate” (Diane on Cheers famously declared she could be spontaenous when, erh, she thought it was appropriate).
    Should leaders (or scholars for that matter) ever say something truly offensive? No, of course, not. Unless, unless, unless … that’s the effect that is needed. I can’t see this issue leading anywhere but to a policy of moderation “with exceptions”. “Strategic” use of swearing is unlikely to really be swearing at all.
    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  9. online backup Avatar
    online backup

    Swearing is bad for the children too.

    Reply
  10. online backup Avatar
    online backup

    Swearing is bad for the children too.

    Reply
  11. online backup Avatar
    online backup

    Swearing is bad for the children too.

    Reply
  12. online backup Avatar
    online backup

    Swearing is bad for the children too.

    Reply
  13. online backup Avatar
    online backup

    Swearing is bad for the children too.

    Reply
  14. online backup Avatar
    online backup

    Swearing is bad for the children too.

    Reply
  15. online backup Avatar
    online backup

    Swearing is bad for the children too.

    Reply
  16. online backup Avatar
    online backup

    Swearing is bad for the children too.

    Reply
  17. Susan Singer Avatar
    Susan Singer

    “I long ago quit praying and took to swearing. If I pray, I will have to wait until I am dead to get anything; but when I swear, I get things HERE.”
    Mary Harris “Mother” Jones

    Reply
  18. Susan Singer Avatar
    Susan Singer

    “I long ago quit praying and took to swearing. If I pray, I will have to wait until I am dead to get anything; but when I swear, I get things HERE.”
    Mary Harris “Mother” Jones

    Reply
  19. Susan Singer Avatar
    Susan Singer

    “I long ago quit praying and took to swearing. If I pray, I will have to wait until I am dead to get anything; but when I swear, I get things HERE.”
    Mary Harris “Mother” Jones

    Reply
  20. Susan Singer Avatar
    Susan Singer

    “I long ago quit praying and took to swearing. If I pray, I will have to wait until I am dead to get anything; but when I swear, I get things HERE.”
    Mary Harris “Mother” Jones

    Reply
  21. Susan Singer Avatar
    Susan Singer

    “I long ago quit praying and took to swearing. If I pray, I will have to wait until I am dead to get anything; but when I swear, I get things HERE.”
    Mary Harris “Mother” Jones

    Reply
  22. Susan Singer Avatar
    Susan Singer

    “I long ago quit praying and took to swearing. If I pray, I will have to wait until I am dead to get anything; but when I swear, I get things HERE.”
    Mary Harris “Mother” Jones

    Reply
  23. Susan Singer Avatar
    Susan Singer

    “I long ago quit praying and took to swearing. If I pray, I will have to wait until I am dead to get anything; but when I swear, I get things HERE.”
    Mary Harris “Mother” Jones

    Reply
  24. Susan Singer Avatar
    Susan Singer

    “I long ago quit praying and took to swearing. If I pray, I will have to wait until I am dead to get anything; but when I swear, I get things HERE.”
    Mary Harris “Mother” Jones

    Reply
  25. Liam-og Griffin Avatar
    Liam-og Griffin

    The ‘f’ word is unrivaled in power in the English language. It’s got aggression built in and demands to be heard. Choosing to avoid the use of powerful words like this is like choosing to use a screwdriver to drive a screw, when you’ve got a 24v drill driver in the back of the van. Distinguished craftsmen would advocate the eloquence of using your hands to create beautiful works of art in the same way a writer would only use ‘acceptable’ language to colourfully express the full spectrum of emotions.
    I’ve got no problem if you want to be old school and proud of the craftsmanship of your handy work, but you’re out of your fucking mind if you don’t use the best tool for the job!

    Reply
  26. Liam-og Griffin Avatar
    Liam-og Griffin

    The ‘f’ word is unrivaled in power in the English language. It’s got aggression built in and demands to be heard. Choosing to avoid the use of powerful words like this is like choosing to use a screwdriver to drive a screw, when you’ve got a 24v drill driver in the back of the van. Distinguished craftsmen would advocate the eloquence of using your hands to create beautiful works of art in the same way a writer would only use ‘acceptable’ language to colourfully express the full spectrum of emotions.
    I’ve got no problem if you want to be old school and proud of the craftsmanship of your handy work, but you’re out of your fucking mind if you don’t use the best tool for the job!

    Reply
  27. Liam-og Griffin Avatar
    Liam-og Griffin

    The ‘f’ word is unrivaled in power in the English language. It’s got aggression built in and demands to be heard. Choosing to avoid the use of powerful words like this is like choosing to use a screwdriver to drive a screw, when you’ve got a 24v drill driver in the back of the van. Distinguished craftsmen would advocate the eloquence of using your hands to create beautiful works of art in the same way a writer would only use ‘acceptable’ language to colourfully express the full spectrum of emotions.
    I’ve got no problem if you want to be old school and proud of the craftsmanship of your handy work, but you’re out of your fucking mind if you don’t use the best tool for the job!

    Reply
  28. Liam-og Griffin Avatar
    Liam-og Griffin

    The ‘f’ word is unrivaled in power in the English language. It’s got aggression built in and demands to be heard. Choosing to avoid the use of powerful words like this is like choosing to use a screwdriver to drive a screw, when you’ve got a 24v drill driver in the back of the van. Distinguished craftsmen would advocate the eloquence of using your hands to create beautiful works of art in the same way a writer would only use ‘acceptable’ language to colourfully express the full spectrum of emotions.
    I’ve got no problem if you want to be old school and proud of the craftsmanship of your handy work, but you’re out of your fucking mind if you don’t use the best tool for the job!

    Reply
  29. Liam-og Griffin Avatar
    Liam-og Griffin

    The ‘f’ word is unrivaled in power in the English language. It’s got aggression built in and demands to be heard. Choosing to avoid the use of powerful words like this is like choosing to use a screwdriver to drive a screw, when you’ve got a 24v drill driver in the back of the van. Distinguished craftsmen would advocate the eloquence of using your hands to create beautiful works of art in the same way a writer would only use ‘acceptable’ language to colourfully express the full spectrum of emotions.
    I’ve got no problem if you want to be old school and proud of the craftsmanship of your handy work, but you’re out of your fucking mind if you don’t use the best tool for the job!

    Reply
  30. Liam-og Griffin Avatar
    Liam-og Griffin

    The ‘f’ word is unrivaled in power in the English language. It’s got aggression built in and demands to be heard. Choosing to avoid the use of powerful words like this is like choosing to use a screwdriver to drive a screw, when you’ve got a 24v drill driver in the back of the van. Distinguished craftsmen would advocate the eloquence of using your hands to create beautiful works of art in the same way a writer would only use ‘acceptable’ language to colourfully express the full spectrum of emotions.
    I’ve got no problem if you want to be old school and proud of the craftsmanship of your handy work, but you’re out of your fucking mind if you don’t use the best tool for the job!

    Reply
  31. Liam-og Griffin Avatar
    Liam-og Griffin

    The ‘f’ word is unrivaled in power in the English language. It’s got aggression built in and demands to be heard. Choosing to avoid the use of powerful words like this is like choosing to use a screwdriver to drive a screw, when you’ve got a 24v drill driver in the back of the van. Distinguished craftsmen would advocate the eloquence of using your hands to create beautiful works of art in the same way a writer would only use ‘acceptable’ language to colourfully express the full spectrum of emotions.
    I’ve got no problem if you want to be old school and proud of the craftsmanship of your handy work, but you’re out of your fucking mind if you don’t use the best tool for the job!

    Reply
  32. Liam-og Griffin Avatar
    Liam-og Griffin

    The ‘f’ word is unrivaled in power in the English language. It’s got aggression built in and demands to be heard. Choosing to avoid the use of powerful words like this is like choosing to use a screwdriver to drive a screw, when you’ve got a 24v drill driver in the back of the van. Distinguished craftsmen would advocate the eloquence of using your hands to create beautiful works of art in the same way a writer would only use ‘acceptable’ language to colourfully express the full spectrum of emotions.
    I’ve got no problem if you want to be old school and proud of the craftsmanship of your handy work, but you’re out of your fucking mind if you don’t use the best tool for the job!

    Reply
  33. Daniel Christadoss Avatar
    Daniel Christadoss

    I bet Jawaharlal Nehru & Indira Gandhi swore and Mahatma Gandhi did not swear. Funny thing is in India some bosses would swear in English but would not swear in their own mother tongue. In English swearing seems okay, but sounds really crude done in our own mother tongue. Probably a colonial hangup.

    Reply
  34. Daniel Christadoss Avatar
    Daniel Christadoss

    I bet Jawaharlal Nehru & Indira Gandhi swore and Mahatma Gandhi did not swear. Funny thing is in India some bosses would swear in English but would not swear in their own mother tongue. In English swearing seems okay, but sounds really crude done in our own mother tongue. Probably a colonial hangup.

    Reply
  35. Daniel Christadoss Avatar
    Daniel Christadoss

    I bet Jawaharlal Nehru & Indira Gandhi swore and Mahatma Gandhi did not swear. Funny thing is in India some bosses would swear in English but would not swear in their own mother tongue. In English swearing seems okay, but sounds really crude done in our own mother tongue. Probably a colonial hangup.

    Reply
  36. Daniel Christadoss Avatar
    Daniel Christadoss

    I bet Jawaharlal Nehru & Indira Gandhi swore and Mahatma Gandhi did not swear. Funny thing is in India some bosses would swear in English but would not swear in their own mother tongue. In English swearing seems okay, but sounds really crude done in our own mother tongue. Probably a colonial hangup.

    Reply
  37. Daniel Christadoss Avatar
    Daniel Christadoss

    I bet Jawaharlal Nehru & Indira Gandhi swore and Mahatma Gandhi did not swear. Funny thing is in India some bosses would swear in English but would not swear in their own mother tongue. In English swearing seems okay, but sounds really crude done in our own mother tongue. Probably a colonial hangup.

    Reply
  38. Daniel Christadoss Avatar
    Daniel Christadoss

    I bet Jawaharlal Nehru & Indira Gandhi swore and Mahatma Gandhi did not swear. Funny thing is in India some bosses would swear in English but would not swear in their own mother tongue. In English swearing seems okay, but sounds really crude done in our own mother tongue. Probably a colonial hangup.

    Reply
  39. Daniel Christadoss Avatar
    Daniel Christadoss

    I bet Jawaharlal Nehru & Indira Gandhi swore and Mahatma Gandhi did not swear. Funny thing is in India some bosses would swear in English but would not swear in their own mother tongue. In English swearing seems okay, but sounds really crude done in our own mother tongue. Probably a colonial hangup.

    Reply
  40. Daniel Christadoss Avatar
    Daniel Christadoss

    I bet Jawaharlal Nehru & Indira Gandhi swore and Mahatma Gandhi did not swear. Funny thing is in India some bosses would swear in English but would not swear in their own mother tongue. In English swearing seems okay, but sounds really crude done in our own mother tongue. Probably a colonial hangup.

    Reply
  41. chinese tea supplier Avatar
    chinese tea supplier

    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  42. chinese tea supplier Avatar
    chinese tea supplier

    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  43. chinese tea supplier Avatar
    chinese tea supplier

    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  44. chinese tea supplier Avatar
    chinese tea supplier

    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  45. chinese tea supplier Avatar
    chinese tea supplier

    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  46. chinese tea supplier Avatar
    chinese tea supplier

    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  47. chinese tea supplier Avatar
    chinese tea supplier

    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply
  48. chinese tea supplier Avatar
    chinese tea supplier

    You shouldn’t swear is a logical truth. “Not being supposed to say it” is what “swearing” is. Leaders shouldn’t do it. That’s why it’s so fucking effective when they do.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts