TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

[weekend content] "Operation: Marriage Material" -- It's interesting to see some of the common points made here in a non-manosphere article

make_reddit_great

November 6, 2021
95 upvotes
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
https://archive.md/uEvNE
Archived from /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen is a community dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man" after dating jerks and riding the cock carousel in the prime of their youth.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title [weekend content] "Operation: Marriage Material" -- It's interesting to see some of the common points made here in a non-manosphere article
Author

make_reddit_great

Upvotes 95
Comments 118
Date November 6, 2021 1:57 PM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen/comments/qo0sgg/weekend_content_operation_marriage_material_its/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen/weekend-content-operation-marriage-material-its.1085607
https://theredarchive.com/post/1085607
Red Pill terms in post
manosphere
Top posts by make_reddit_great

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Ruined a Whole Generation of Women

630 upvotes
August 29, 2020
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

Late 30s career-oriented womyn sues dating agency after they are unable to procure six foot tall man who meets her list of criteria

549 upvotes
August 30, 2021
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

When the single party girls get older, the supply of men starts to dry up and the sexual polarity reverses...

535 upvotes
February 24, 2019
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

It's the weekend, which means it's time to point out that another dating consultant has quit the industry on account of unrealistic expectations from women

531 upvotes
October 22, 2021
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

Good one for the weekend: "Musician reveals he went on a 'Tinder date from hell' with race faker Jessica Krug who spewed her hatred for white people and attacked him for being 'passive' in the 'war' on gentrification"

414 upvotes
September 11, 2020
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

"Christian men aren't asking us on dates so we're forced to date non-Christians! Where are all the REAL Christian men?"

350 upvotes
September 15, 2021
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

Straight from the horse's mouth: "a High Value Man does not force monogamy on a woman...these men LOVE competition and understand that a woman can entertain multiple suitors until commitment is established."

294 upvotes
April 19, 2021
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

Why is it that all the hawt guyz on this hookup app only want to hook up with me? I can't figure it out!

290 upvotes
November 23, 2021
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

Comments

[–]butt_uglee 67 points68 points69 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

One major bone of contention—-

You can’t “rehabilitate” a h03

From the streets she came to the streets she shall return…

[–]OverkillengineCasts Pearls to the Swine 30 points31 points32 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yup. Just like you cannot "unaddict" an addict. Always a threat of relapse. Better odds and less damage/baggage sticking to women that had the discipline to not indulge in Chaddiction to begin with.

[–]mustangfrankSlick Willy peddlin' a broken hamster wheel 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you cannot "una-dick" an ad-dick.

[–]upsidedownbackwardsI like a nithe rathberry thpritzther 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup. I'll always be one drink away from a relapse. Same with my parents. Same with my uncle. Same with a few of my friends.

The hoes are even worse because they don't WANT to give up their addiction, they need to if they want to land them a stable guy to pave their way. They're not able to get the quality they want anymore or they wouldn't be stopping. They'll always be wishing they could get another fix even if it would fuck up their life. Ex addicts fear the idea of getting another fix because it will fuck up/end their life.

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It sounds like she needed to throw that in because she actually was one herself - if you read between the lines

And also if you take that off the table then her aim is already foiled

She is like the prager U people - trying to get more people to marry and have kids when without making the changes required for that to happen.

(Because those changes are not going to win female votes and that is a shade over 50% of the electorate. Lots of women do vote conservative but potentially wouldn’t if the the vision of this author was fully realised)

It all women who made “mistakes” in college are forever irredeemable then her vision becomes increasingly harder to fulfil. And if said women believe those slips mean they are “done” then the risk is they will slide further into the opposite of what this article is asking for

So whilst I don’t agree with her premise here I can certainly understand it

[–]SnakeEyeskid 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Its so obvious. One of those "your past doesn't matter just change". Problem is, while people can change, their past still will affect their future.

Rode the CC? Ruined their soft pair bounding (humans don't have real pair bounding like swans or emperor penguins) and most likely a D²-addict, as in, Dick*dopamine-addiction.

And that doesn't account for the psychological aspect. If your used to certain highs, they become quite mundane and it certainly makes "relapsing" seem less important.

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The is soft and “hard” pair bonding ?

[–]SnakeEyeskid 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, species that truly pair bounds only ever picks one partner, like swans.

[–]Tap-ApartJr. Hamster Analyst 57 points58 points59 points 4 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

I'm really of the opinion that we need to embolden women to stick to their height standards.

I'm being dead serious.

If numbers on a driver's license is what you need to get off, don't settle.

Short guys don't want to be with someone that isn't attracted to them. Would you want to be married to a gay man?

Please don't lower your height standards, you're doing guys everywhere a huge favor.

You can't negotiate attraction.

Best of luck ladies.

[–]umockdev 37 points38 points39 points 4 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Let them have their ridiculous height standards. Attraction is not negotiable. If they need a 6 ft. guy at the very least to have initial attraction, then so be it. Let them come to the realization that they'll either end up alone or in a harem then. Not my fucking problem.

[–]Tap-ApartJr. Hamster Analyst 28 points29 points30 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

There's going to come a reckoning for these women.

Their sons will find their old dating profiles which includes the height requirements.

Imagine being a short guy and realizing that your own mother would consider you un-dateable.

I know this scenario sounds far-fetched but considering where facial recognition is now this isn't improbable.

[–]umockdev 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

We're still kind of in the earlier days of social media and availability-at-all-times/instant gratification. I am very curious how society will look like in 20 years, given that there is actually one left.

Imagine finding out your mother had an OnlyFans. When I was in school I got bullied with the old 'your mother sucks cock for money', but now there is actual proof for that. Oh boy.

[–]Tap-ApartJr. Hamster Analyst 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's going to be weird, that's for sure.

It may just be normalized.

But one thing I know for sure is that it will somehow be men's fault lol

"If there wasn't so many men paying money to see me suck cock then I wouldn't do it. Men are pigs. I needed money!"

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The bullies will be punished, likely overly harshly, but kids are cruel so they won’t be able to stop it I shouldn’t think

[–]jmpiresJr. Hamster Analyst 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Any school big enough (say, 4-5 classes per grade) will just divide students between OF-mum only and non-OF-mum only

[–]I-am-the-lulAll Ass No Stick 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe it is another reason why Facebook (or whatever it calls itself now) recently removed the facial recognition feature from its site (or at least the public's access to it).

[–]jmpiresJr. Hamster Analyst 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No need for facial recognition. There are plenty of ways to trace back that stuff, and once online, it is forever

[–]yoman076 20 points21 points22 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

harem

no wonder why the media and women are trying to normalize open relationships

[–]Tap-ApartJr. Hamster Analyst 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I think that's where this is heading.

And I don't think women are going to be necessarily happy with that situation.

I imagine a side-girl being very insecure knowing she is part of a rotation that is easily replaced.

I'm mostly indifferent to what happens except concerning direct consequences like taxes or whatever.

[–]yoman076 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

she is part of a rotation

History repeats itself i guess lol. Thats how kings and nobles lived

[–]NoonTimeHoopsMVP 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But harem girls actually received benefits and comfort. That was the reward for sharing an alpha.

Modern day harems generally don't receive anything but sex with Chad. That doesn't pay the bills. Either they will keep trying to trick Billy Bucks or the state (taxpayer) will directly pay them.

[–]yoman076 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

too bad

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can already see this with all the tiktok videos

There are women who are realising they are side girls and they are NOT happy. And it isn’t even fully open yet. Imagine how much worse the reaction would be if the guys are even more brazen and just say “you are my side chick - nothing will ever happen between us” directly.

Some women fall into that “share an alpha” mindset. But in most cases it is because they believe they have the magic Pusey to eventually win him exclusively. When they realise that is not true they will be pissed

*

I also have someone on my Instagram who I know does (or did) onlyfans and is on a sugar baby site. There is a comment thread elsewhere on the Internet revealing she raw dogs the guys she meets off of sugar sites. And yet she posted an Instagram story the other day that was a meme complaining about all the guys from dating apps being married or having girlfriends

So she is still picking the “too good to be true” guys where there is risk of her being a side chick despite being a PAID side chick. Unless she is actually complaining specifically about the guys from Seeking not being single. Which would be even more mad

[–]jmpiresJr. Hamster Analyst 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is harem upkeep tax deductible?

[–]Jihocech_Honza 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

harem

It is perfected today. The sultan had to feed and protect his women, modern chicks have to look after themselves.

[–]umockdev 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Chad really does live in a sexual utopia

[–]Extension-Soil-620 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Beeing 6.3 (or whatever 194cm is in US height) i can confirm. Lots of woman try to get me to date them, even if im in a relationship. If i tell them im Taken, they dont even care.

The most common thing i hear , when i tell them im happiely taken is : " no problem i have a boyfriend aswell, he does not need to know"

If you check their socials, you will mostly see some beta guys, which are basicly drawfs compared to me. Seeing how willing girls are to cheat is crazy to me. (Just based on height)

[–]GaiinahatJr. Hamster Analyst 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh that sucks it makes me a target for these sluts because I'm 6' tall 😐

[–]umockdev 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know it's hard, but suppose you were to completely ignore them. I am not going to tell you what to do and what not to do, but the one thing women can never really understand is why a guy would reject them for similar reasons (or lack thereof) like they do.

[–]PirateDocBrown 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Sad thing is, they'll go find Tall Chad at the club, get his DNA, then try to con Shorty McBeta into wifeing them up. Of course, once the ring is on, the sex dries up immediately, and the divorce raping begins.

[–]Tap-ApartJr. Hamster Analyst 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Genetics is a fickle thing.

Even my siblings show a lot of variance from 5'7" to 6'2"

Plenty of tall chads have 5'9" sons.

[–]saberwarthogshow us where the Patriarchy touched you on this non-binary doll 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, many people (women in particular) seems to not really understand that in genetics, even if you preselect a taller guy, if half of the material came from someone way shorter, you can expect at best maybe an average of the two...
Or maybe not.

I'm not very tall, but I'm still taller than my parents, many times genetics are not the only parameter : diet, the choice of certain sports, less stress, a good sleep pattern in childhood & teen years...
Truly, a stable home could help a lot when you think about it.

[–]mustangfrankSlick Willy peddlin' a broken hamster wheel 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I am 5'8", wife 5'7". Son 1 is 6'1/2" (22), Son 2 (18) is 5'9" , 198 pounds and not fat), Son 3, 5'9" age 14.

Genetics is a crap shoot.

[–]Tap-ApartJr. Hamster Analyst 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your wife is tall for a woman.

The average woman is 5'4" so at 5'7" your wife is 3 inches taller.

Now, if the average male is 5'9" then a 3 inch bump gets him to the coveted 6 foot mark.

Genetics is a crapshoot but it's likely her genes that got those boys over the incel line.

[–]BeholdTheHairWAATGM Endorsed 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yup. I'm the youngest of five boys and, at 5'8", the only one in my immediate family under 6' (fuck you too, genetics). My dad is the oldest of six boys, their heights ranging from 6'2"-ish all the way down to 5'6". Their dad, meanwhile, was right about my height in his prime.

[–]Tap-ApartJr. Hamster Analyst 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's honestly because above-average height wasn't a huge advantage in cavemen and it's not really an advantage now.

Bigger frame means more food, lower center of gravity means better balance, and now with guns a bigger person is a bigger target. Evolution is dynamic, there's no "best" only what works within a given context.

That's literally the reason why we have variance, it has very little selective pressure.

If I tweak one amino acid on your DNA, you will be bed ridden and in pain for the majority of your life.

Being 5'5" or 6'5" means you are healthy and neither of those extremes make you more or less fit.

So this fascination with height can persist, I think it's dumb to police it but I don't think being taller makes anyone better.

I think women are extremely sensitive to cultural norms.

Tallness has been recently fetishized.

Men tend to observe attractive traits universally based on reproduction ability so they are less influenced by cultural perceptions of beauty.

[–]SpacemanLost 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

and it works both ways.

My son, currently under the age of 18, is 6' 5". I'm 5' 10", and I got a DNA test done on him when I divorced his ho of a mother. (100% mine).

[–]I-am-the-lulAll Ass No Stick 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The mother does provide half the DNA after all. Also remember that on average throughout history, less than half the men got to pass on his genes while almost all women who made it to adulthood did get to pass on her genes.

[+][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup especially if they marry shorty Mc short lady

[–]I-am-the-lulAll Ass No Stick 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If a woman isn't truly sexually attracted to you, you are not going to have a good marriage.

[–]Tap-ApartJr. Hamster Analyst 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep.

That's why I immediately disregard a woman that demands a tall man.

I'm short.

Someday I could be a great bailout. But what I need is intimacy.

I need it, I'm human, I need that physical connection.

The idea that I could be contractually obligated to support someone who can't give me that intimacy is...

I don't know the words.

Nauseating.

[–]soytuamigo 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm really of the opinion that we need to embolden women to stick to their height standards.

We don't need to, they will never willingly change those standards. And honestly I think that's fine my problem is with the double standard when it comes to men and our preferences.

[–]slipkid223 32 points33 points34 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's too late. You don't need to read past the 3rd line

"Fifty years of feminism has had its way with two generations of American women, with predictable results."

[+]SmallHandsMallMindSrights for sandwiches! 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They speak like its some problem; no its not a problem. This is the culmination of their plan working as intended

[–]Overlordofwhatever 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed, its not some random problem, they chose this deliberately. They wanted this, they were willing to destroy anything to get it, no matter the cost

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 33 points34 points35 points 4 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

I am not sure what form of google she is using but if I try googling about fertility rates and geriatric pregnancy I am met with a long list of articles insisting that the fertility cliff is a “myth”

[–]Chgralac73 30 points31 points32 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

googling

found the problem. its not as if they are known for censorship and manipulating results.

add in "freeze my eggs" is cope that doesnt survive thawing procedure and they are pretty much thrown out money

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 26 points27 points28 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You say that but I tested this on DuckDuckGo and it is the same

I was shocked when I spoke to a girl who was 31 who had such ludicrous standards (and appeared to somewhat know it) that she was already talking about freezing her eggs and having a child on her own at 40

The selfishness of some people. And she wasn’t exactly in a position with her work where her career was guaranteed to be soaring by 40 anyway

I told her she better freeze it sooner rather than later and pointed out some of the stats about success rates. She was deflated by the revelation

[–]Overlordofwhatever 22 points23 points24 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

oh its not the search results, its just we as a society spend a ton of money on this type of research just to satisfy women instead of pouring money in diseases or other important stuff

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wonder whether if you dug into it you’d find that there are only one or two proper studies that support the position women would like to believe and that they are all heavily promoted…

It is potentially similar to the studies showing that the more attractive a prospective partner is the less likely the other partner is to ask for protection to be used. There is one study on this and it finds this to be true for both men and women. But if you search for this the overwhelming majority of results are either links to the article about men not using protection with attractive women or screaming hate filled opinion pieces on exactly the same.

You have to really dig to find any reference to women displaying the exact same behaviour. And there are certainly no preachy opinion piece articles in mainstream publications about this choice of women. Because that would be forcing them to take some degree of accountability for the spread of STDs and the rise in either single motherhood or the need for abortions. For example this point was never raised during the recent debate over the Texas abortion law

[–]DesertLover17Wahmyns 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you probably have to read the studies to see how they were conducted. It also matters who sponsored them. And also, you could look directly in science journals. Some older studies may be more helpful than newer ones in this case. But we don't need to do all that, we know fertility decreases with age. Google may just be giving you more relevant articles, like they've been visited more or are more popular. And then you see 100 results with the same freaking article. Also, fertility may still be there but the quality of the eggs matter also, like maybe children born of younger mothers may have better health and genetics

[–]Chgralac73 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

i heard freezing embryos is much better, but then again she would need a alpha sperm

even one kartrashian unfroze her eggs and it was all for nothing, but she still got some good at 36 and did ivf immediately

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I assume by “need” you don’t mean literally. Just that she will feel like she needs it to be that ?

Yes I think the embryos route is better. Or is that what you mean - that they need to be fertilised embryos? If so that explains why it is less common - the women doing this don’t have anyone and are too picky to pick someone. That is how they are in the position in the first place.

Unless I have misunderstood the process which is entirely possible

[–]ltde5150 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

IVF still has a pretty low success rate overall. Particularly at the maternal ages that most women start seriously contemplating it.

[–]mustangfrankSlick Willy peddlin' a broken hamster wheel 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

She was deflated by the revelation

Facts are the tool of the Patriarcy.

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In this case I tried to pick my words to reflect that I don’t recall her forcefully arguing back / rejecting the info

Was just demoralised at the reveal of how poor her backup plan was

[–]mustangfrankSlick Willy peddlin' a broken hamster wheel 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The Facts About Female Fertility.

Women's fertility peaks in the early- to mid-20s. (EDIT: Some in the comments are saying fertility peak is late teens to early 20s. That might be true. The point stands: The younger she is, the more fertile she is.)

Women's fertility starts declining in the early 30s.

Any pregnancy in a woman at or after age 35 is a "high risk" pregnancy. (EDIT: This is an obstetrical, medical classification, not a manosphere invention. "High risk pregnancy due to maternal age" is something physicians and obstetrical experts determined and concluded in evidence based medical practice. It is a medical and scientific term. It is NOT something a bunch of men on the internet devised.)

The risks of autism and Down syndrome rise exponentially after a woman reaches age 35 - especially if she has never borne a child before.

The risks of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy rise exponentially if she's ever had chlamydia or gonorrhea. Left untreated, these STD can cause PID in women which will scar up her fallopian tubes, increasing the risks of infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and miscarriage.

The older a woman is, the risks of miscarriage rise exponentially.

Artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization procedures will cost at least $30,000 PER PROCEDURE. For women under 35, the failure rate is 60% (but you still have to pay even when it doesn't work). For women over 42, the failure rate is 96%. That's a success rate of only 4%.

For a woman age 40 and up who has never carried a child to term, trying to get pregnant is a fool's errand. She has almost NO CHANCE AT ALL even of conceiving, much less carrying even a defective child to live birth. By the time a woman reaches age 43, her chances of getting pregnant are 1 to 2 percent. This includes women who have had previous successful pregnancies.

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I now remember the specific thing I said to the girl now - I told her about how the NHS only provided IVF attempts to women where there was evidence they had been trying to get pregnant for two years (can’t remember if there was an minimum age as well)

That basically meant that it was limited to long term couples / married couples because I’d assume the nhs fertilisation specialist would take dim view of a woman explaining her “trying” as raw dogging different guys every weekend for two years

This was where the girl said “that isn’t fair”. So she felt entitled to have a procedure with a very high failure rate that if successful would create a single parent household provided for free using taxpayer money. That is entitlement level off the charts

It also just shocked me that it seemed like she thought she could just wander in at 40 and get ivf really easily. And it seems lots of women think like this

[–]mustangfrankSlick Willy peddlin' a broken hamster wheel 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I worked at Shell for 14 years. I was on a plane and met a women, 40, who worked for Shell. She was single and doing the IVF. WTF? What was she doing at 25?

[–]ZZT-OOPsIdiditagain 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This biological fact is why we didn't use to force young people to wait until 18 to do anything, except perhaps joining the army. It was understood that if too many people spent too long planting wild oats instead of sowing seeds, eventually the next generation simply wouldn't be there.

You can be a responsible father and worker (or mother and homemaker) at ages that would surprise a modern Westerner if society requires it of you.

[–]SnooChipmunks3163Wahmyns 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Google 1st trimester screening for trisomy. The numbers from the doctors won’t lie and they are actually scary. After women hit 30 the percentage to have a child with down syndrome dramatically increase

[–]ZZT-OOPsIdiditagain 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah we were all too aware of the post-30 dangers of childbearing but the Obama/Biden recessions shelved our family plans for years. And then we finally spent 8 months nervous AF until the last test came back clear.

Also will be our only bio child for the same reason. I don't gamble what I can't lose.

[–]car23975 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is this why I get so many ads about taking my sperm at the local clinic? Ha keep dreaming. My health and good looks are coming to the grave with me.

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I expect that is just the porn 😛

[–]I-am-the-lulAll Ass No Stick 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Using Bing: fertility rates and geriatric pregnancy

1st result: Having a Baby After Age 35: How Aging Affects Fertility and Pregnancy.

An example from the site:

How common is Down syndrome?

Down syndrome (trisomy 21) is the most common chromosome problem that occurs with later childbearing. The risk of having a pregnancy affected by Down syndrome is

1 in 1,480 at age 20

1 in 940 at age 30

1 in 353 at age 35

1 in 85 at age 40

1 in 35 at age 45

So if 10k 20 year old women have a baby each, about 7 of them will have Down Syndrome.

If on the other hand, 10k 45 year old women have a baby each, about 286 of them will have Down Syndrome.

[+]oldcamembert 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Down Syndrome (and a couple of others) is extremely reliably screened for these days with prenatal genetic testing.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most men can work, save, live a happy modest life and follow their hobbies and passions. We are far, far cheaper than women to run. It won’t be long until we start seeing articles about how too much wealth is held by single men and it is damaging that it isn’t being spent on consumer goods. Most women can’t afford the lifestyle feminism promised them.

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

A conservative think tank though. So not exactly mainstream…

[–]make_reddit_great[S] 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Yep. But it's a big improvement from where mainstream conservatism has recently been: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/will-wilcox-and-the-men-of-national-review-respect-you-in-the-morning/

[–]polishknightusaSr. Winged Hussar 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I've become a conservative apostate. I'm not a leftist, or even a classical liberal, but rather regard the core ideals of conservatism as flawed and responsible for the current mess.

For starters: conservatism "conserves" NOTHING. It's at best an obstruction or speed bump to leftist progressivism because at its core is the notion of doing nothing and being "free" from taxation and government interference. The only thing that gets them riled up are tax cuts which benefits the wealthy and successful because they don't want to share their wealth with the "losers" even as they call for those losers to marry, fight in their forever wars, and vote for their causes.

Heck, they even believe that their own economy/society is an unsustainable Ponzi scheme as they call for mass immigration because they don't think the economy will work if they pay local citizens a higher wage to do work of any kind, whether menial or middle class. Only high paid CEO's need not be imported. They view workers as disposable and replaceable (as they are since people do leave jobs or die off) but even as a society, they think they can just import replacement workers from a different culture and they'll "assimilate" into their dream of people pursuing consumerism and success, "the american dream", without any other significant connection to the multi-generational native born. A "dream" that has resulted in a culture that appears egalitarian since men are judged by what they can do, but also dehumanizing because men are valued solely by what they can do.

Donald Trump was the last Republican president. Bush and Trump both got into office initially via the electoral college and with a mere 400K votes in Texas that flips it blue, that's all she wrote.

[–]OwenWentFullMGTOWskilled at detecting daddy traps 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I've become a conservative apostate. I'm not a leftist, or even a classical liberal, but rather regard the core ideals of conservatism as flawed and responsible for the current mess.

I think their ideals are ok. Not great. But workable.

The issues that I see are (1) grassroots conservatism never understood (and were never willing to do) what it takes for the GOP to remain electorally viable and (2) that's just as well since most elected Republicans intentionally threw the fight on the cultural issues their voters cared about.

[–]polishknightusaSr. Winged Hussar 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not just about "care" but survivability. Without an electorate, there is no "movement" in a democratic society. That's another problem with conservatism: It plays the "this is a REPUBLIC not a Democracy!" game which is a complex form of No True Scotsman Fallacy (one got highly offended whenever I brought that up). They preach about how important the people are when they think people are against "The Swamp" but when people object to their ideals they say "Well, this is a Republic, not a democracy." It's like Lucy and the football. They are idealists even as they preach that "free market" (darwinism) is the ultimate reality hence they find excuses to never do anything for their electorate while pandering to the wealthy who can afford to buy/rent-seek what they want.

[–]OwenWentFullMGTOWskilled at detecting daddy traps 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wish I could tell you how much contempt I have for most conservatives. Words fail me. They had a mostly winning formula for success (which they wasted) and they could've stayed in power in perpetuity (if they'd been willing to take hardline stances on one or two things).

But noooooooooo

[–]polishknightusaSr. Winged Hussar 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What this sub-reddit is about is men coming together and taking notes. Our society has had men living isolated lives for too long where we either sink or swim while we're told to be a good "team" member who sacrifices for the team, but don't expect the team to do anything for us because we should "man up".

The ideals of the 18th century enlightenment which rightly scared the royals was of a nation of men standing up for themselves collectively. While that resulted in tragedy in France and Russia and elsewhere, the overall principle of the majority deciding the affairs of a nation rather than an elite that persisted. The problem with representative democracy is that the majority always had to go through the elites who just did things their way anyway.

I think the next great thing will be true direct democracy: Let a nation's people create and vote on their laws themselves, no more buffers or corporate campaign contribution money, and create digital avatars with our positions and opinions, which we can tweak, to represent us in a digital parliament. No more politicians.

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

A lot of what you say is how the left views the right - speed bump, only care about the rich, despise the poor losers and trying to prop up a system that they indirectly admit doesn’t work when you see the wage discussions

So it is interesting seeing it from a non leftist

I wouldn’t be so confident that there will be no more Republican Presidents. Biden is really struggling and if current trends continue the republicans will dominate the midterms so comprehensively that the Democrats will have no achievements to campaign on in 2024. I accept three years is a long time and a Texas flip ends the Republican Presidential chances. But not sure we are there yet

[–]polishknightusaSr. Winged Hussar 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

There's a saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day. I think the right has fallen in love with the ideal of becoming wealthy, or perhaps their kids will luck out and make an Amazon/Microsoft in their garage, so they don't mind themselves being dehumanized because they're "losers" but perhaps their kids won't. As George Carlin put it: It's called "The American Dream" for a reason: Because it's imaginary.

The last two republican presidents only got into the white house because of the electoral college and states that were formerly bright red are now swing states. Even without any action from the left to grant amnesty, birthright citizenship and legal immigration puts at least a half million identity group voters into the electoral pool.

In Virginia, Youngkin (whom I voted for) got into office with a 2 percent margin because his opposition candidate was weak and made a lot of mistakes but 2 decades ago, it would have been double digits.

Republicans are getting weaker year after year just being good speedbumps.

If the left passes a mass amnesty, it's definitely toast. No way to catch up from that. "Hey, join the right and get treated like the loser working white males we abandoned. We need you to protect our oligarch wealth!"

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I’m not sure the Dems have the votes to pass any kind of mass amnesty ?

[–]BeholdTheHairWAATGM Endorsed 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Sure they do. They'll just run 'em off the printer like they did last year.

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I mean votes in the chambers - house / senate etc.

Anyone paying attention can see that they can't pass anything right now due to a combo of the filibuster and two very very centrist / conservative members of their own caucus

[+]Holographicmind 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sinema is a open communist. Really getting tired of the right simping for her thinking she's a centrist. She's voted for everything you're against.

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm against? I don't even live in the US

But if I was I'd be in favor of improved infrastructure. Which she voted against (or as good as)

But there is simply no way she is an open communist. You can't get elected to statewide office in the US as an open communist. It just can't be done. Especially not in a purple state

[–]BeholdTheHairWAATGM Endorsed 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I can't speak to the other guy, but Sinema is anything but centrist/conservative. She's as dyed-in-the-wool lefty as they come. Why she's dragging her feet on this I don't know, though I suspect she's simply playing the role The Swamp has assigned her to reel in the more ridiculous demands of "the Squad."

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

What you say about Sinema is what i understood about her back when she first got elected. But her stance is really perplexing. She seems to be guaranteeing that she gets primaried (with a good chance of that being successful) which doesn't make sense to me

[–]BeholdTheHair1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I haven't looked into the matter too closely myself, I've just seen propaganda "news" reports about her being a "maverick" and immediately rolled my eyes so hard I pulled a muscle.

I generally don't keep a particularly close watch on most news beyond what I hear directly from friends and neighbors, as precious little of it has any appreciable impact on my day-to-day affairs and I learned long ago the futility of allowing myself to stress about things over which I have absolutely no control.

Not to mention it's all essentially Soviet-style propaganda meant to make people feel isolated and hopeless. I had a belly full of nihilism and despair in my 20s, before I started to wise up to how things work. I have neither the time nor the patience for that shit anymore.

[–]houseoftolstoyUnchivalrous Christian 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good stuff by Dalrock. Indeed, he is right to point out how those "Put a ring on it" types are scarce or even opposed to condemning frivilous and normalized divorces. If your goal of trying to get more marriages overall only focuses on shaming men into getting married while ignoring the issue of women who refuse to make themselves suitable for marriage, you are making things worse, not better. Men require proper motivation in order for them to desire marriage, and shaming and blaming men for not wanting to wife up any women in spite of her past does not count as proper motivatiom. Rather, proper motivation comes in the form of women making sure that they are marriageable. And being marriageable is a conscious choice, and many women are refusing to make the choice of being wife material.

[–]houseoftolstoyUnchivalrous Christian 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

While not mainstream, I appreciate that it is saying that women need to take proper actions if they want to be married/marriageable. Too often these topics are avoided because "We can't offend women! That's the worst thing anyone can do!" Yes, women should marry when they are young, have reasonable standards, not get fat, not be promiscuous, actually act like they want marriage by showing that with their actions (related to marrying when young and not being promiscuous). With the last one, whenever a woman uses terms like "I'll settle down after I have had my fun," that sends a very clear message that they really do not desire their husbands. Otherwise, they would not even have the "fun" before marriage.

Will such articles get more traction? Who knows? But I can say this is the exact message women need to hear and understand. Especially understand, as receiving the message does no good if it is merely dismissed.

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Indeed - you see so many women who claim that their dream is to be married and have a family but have seemingly taken no proactive steps towards making that actually happen / improving their odds

And I am not even talking about approaching (but that would help exponentially). I mean making themselves approachable and either putting themselves in positions to be asked out and actually saying yes when that happens AND giving people a reasonable chance

One of the worst parts about Disney Princess syndrome is it teaches women that the man of their dreams (and no, not just a suitable man, but the man of their dreams) is just going to drop into their lives and fall for them even if they don’t do anything

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The video that started my red pill journey was one that was a response to two Karen-like wives sitting in a car talking about how the thought of sex with their husbands after they had their kids basically repulsed them

Something to the tune of “do you see what just came out of me? Do you think I want anything in me”.

A real eye opener

[–]Sea_Chocolate9166 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The state of society when writing a truthful article with actual good advice has to be done under an alias. I don't want to live in this world any longer. Such a degrading and dying society.

[–]mustangfrankSlick Willy peddlin' a broken hamster wheel 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This article, while fluff, hits many topics on the head. But women will never read this article because it does not blame men for all of their problems.

Woman: I want to find a man, but all of them are scum.

Me: to women like this anyone under 6'2" are scum. Thus, why she is single.

Me: Steve Harvey had an interview with 10 black women 28 to 39. All these women were in shape and attractive. The very first woman 28, speaks. She says when I was 22, the man had to be 6'5", then later 6'3", then 6'1", then she held her hand at eye level. Do you think that if she had started out at eye level and worked her way up, she would not be single? BTW 1 in 200 men are 6'5".

[–]No_Exercise_8670 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If such articles become mainstream, humanity will be on the right track.

[+]SmallHandsMallMindSrights for sandwiches! 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow, if these ideas are going mainstream women must really be feeling the heat. Nobody g.a.f. as long as it was just men suffering in silence

​

Also, the whole thing reads like a trad cuck fantasy, with very little in depth understanding (maybe thats intended for its targetted audience?)

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is exactly the intended audience and is absolutely not mainstream

Had this been in a major news publication or on foxs news I’d say differently. But it isn’t and likely isn’t close to be

[–]LondonDude123 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Im sure the comments will tell me if it was written by a man or a woman: Is the author being called a misogynist or a pick me?

[+]otterlyclueless7 points 4 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Looksmaxx is something I have only ever heard from MLMs and other beauty schemes.

[–]lurkerhasarisenA Strategist Among Tacticians 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The incel subs used the term all the time.

[–]felafelsmoke 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

“Even Grace Kelly herself, ne plus ultra of the American feminine ideal, ended up with a jowly schlub!” She married the literal prince of Monaco

[+]CosmicSpiralJr. Hamster Analyst 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It wasn't a good trade for her. If anything, she married down relative to her Hollywood status.

Rainier was in deep financial straits due to Monaco losing its near-monopoly on casino gambling after WWII. He was aiming to marry a Hollywood actress for the publicity it would bring to Monaco as well as money from the dowry. In Kelly's case, her father was a multi-millionaire in the construction industry wounded over being excluded from the Pennsylvania upper class (which was further inflamed by the debacle surrounding his rejection from the Henry Royal Regatta); this led to him acquiescing to the prince's offer. Grace also slept around a ton in her heyday and ended up lying about it since Rainier insisted his future bride had to be a virgin.

[–]Disciple_Of_Cheesus 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yaaaawwwwn... 'Tis nothing more than the standard tradthot boilerplate. Sorry sweetie, but it's far too little, and far too late.

[–]Flashy_Glove6208 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Marry/ have a committed LTR by 25 - capitalise the SMV peak Don't be promiscus - virtue builds value and pair bonding Be wife material - cooperative

This is a good piece of advice.

Women like this are in high demand. This is what HVM look for.

The transformation into a wife material after a hoe phase is BS. It never works, exceptions only prove the rule and no man wants to bet on an unlikely, lucky exception.

[–]ZZT-OOPsIdiditagain 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You could only ever hope for this to work in a society that strongly supported it, anyhow.

[–]Outside-Primary3302 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I simp would fall for the bs

[–]plz_say_sike 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Article sounds like it was written by a tradthot. Reformed hoes are still hoes and belong to the streets

[–]Loud-Bottle-7879 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Step one had me rolling. They might have a mental breakdown after reading that then mentally reliving the past 10 years in about 3 seconds.

And that’s for sure a manosphere article. Lots of satire.

[–]GaiinahatJr. Hamster Analyst 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Article by Peachy Keenan 😆

[–]AldabruzzoNo busted Pillsbury biscuit cans 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We told you so.

[–]Enough-Staff-2976 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't stomach politicians sending men to their deaths for foreign Democracy. At the same time, I'm equally outraged at Trads sending men to marriage under these current laws.

[–]ransay3277 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Reads like a man wrote this.

[–]InevitableOwl1Swipes with a dictionary in hand 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They probably did and put a woman’s name on it. If so, as you point out, that isn’t an overly effective tactic

[–]Wide-Illustrator2906 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't like the idea of trying to reform promiscuous women. This will ultimately lead to more "born again virgins", Betabuxx relationships and dead bedrooms. Let these women go with Chad but under no circumstance date or marry these women. Only casual hookups.

[–]ZZT-OOPsIdiditagain 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Agreed. My faith preaches reform and salvation for all. BUT...the bitter truth is that once a woman voluntarily blows her virginity and spends years acting like a thot, the chances of her becoming a proper wife again are basically on par with completely reforming a drug addict.

No women who actually was repentant would use such a ridiculous cover phrase as "born again virgin" seriously, either. In part because even sincere repentance explicitly doesn't restore things you already squandered, any more than it will erase a legal record.

[–]Wide-Illustrator2906 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely, just because a woman has been cleansed from sexual sin by God doesn't mean she herself still doesn't have gulit and trauma from her sexual actions. That's if she truly has repented to God as well, which I believe a very tiny percentage of so called "born again virgins" do. Most "born again " Christian women use coming to Christ as a way to escape the guilt of pre-marital sexand secure a faithful Christian husband. I hate how the church pushes these women on Christian men as of they are owed a relationship or marriage just because they have accepted Christ.

Also, those sexual acts will as always be in her memory. She wil still remember every dick, every blowjob, every swallow, every facial, and every balls deep thrust, every anal stuffing she's every had. She most likely has gotten all the kinky sex out of her system so her future husband can forget about anything but missionary once a month. The extensive amount of sexual knowledge she has apart from her husband automatically disqualifies her from being a loyal and committed wife and having a healthy sex life with her husband. This is one of the reasons why so many "born again virgin " women have dead bedrooms. The other reason is that most of these women aren't even sexually attracted to their husbands. They see them as their beta provider and nothing more. I can't imagine a worse kind of hell as a man.

[–]rb5775 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The authors name is 'Peachy'? First, I'd be kicking my parents asses.

[–]OwenWentFullMGTOWskilled at detecting daddy traps 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Peachy Keenan didn't seem like an obvious penname to you? Mmm, interesting.

[–]rb5775 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

For a self described journalist I would say that the choice of 'Peachy' speaks of an amazing lack of imagination and ability.

[–]OwenWentFullMGTOWskilled at detecting daddy traps 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

There are instances of journalists using pennames or using a collective name like a publication's entire staff when publishing something that's a bit too edgy.

Considering the doxing, harassment and canceling awaiting any unpopular opinion, I don't begrudge anyone for using a pseudonym.

[–]rb5775 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Considering that it is the media that usually leads the harrassment charge I find that to be about what one could expect of journalistic integrity today. One wouldn't want to be held accountable would one?

There is no personal responsibility any longer.

[–]NoonTimeHoopsMVP 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ben Franklin did the same thing.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter