“Go Ahead, F**k The Nanny,” Says "Sex At Dawn" Author Chris Ryan

wazzup987 · 2015-09-23T09:48:48+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5htMni6iDw TLDW monogamy has always been DOA. Also the human male in terms of competition take place at the level of sperm not...

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Hypergamy is the result of modern (ie post agricultural society) but pre industrial society economics generally found in the first world

Female hypergamy is found through societies and cultures all through the world. It is, literally, everywhere.

And where I've seen analysis that attempts to find correlates between it's level and societal structure the only one that appears to be significant is "The difference in income between men and women" with higher differentials driving more Hypergamy.

This result would seem to indicate your quote above is wrong.

If anything Hypergamy is reduced by modern first world societies, and in pre-industrial societies it tends to be even higher. More is at stake.

Hypergamy isn't a social construct of the west. It appears to be a human universal for females.

There is absolutely nohing wrong with this.... God/Genes (delete as appropriate) made us the way we are, and thats just how it is.

[–]buttlollipop 2 points2 points2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hypergamy isn't about money it's about status. In our societies money is a second order effect of that but when we say "women are hypergamous" we are not saying they're chasing the money. We're saying she is chasing guys with higher status than her. That she is "dating up".

So a guy earning $80k a year as a manager at the local Kwik-E-Mart is way behind the man earning $60k a year as a lawyer or doctor.

Your genes don't know what money is, but they know what status is. That's been around long before money ever was.

It's that status that is the Alpha (sexual attractiveness) trait. The money that usually comes with in our society ? That's Beta (Provisioning/Relationship attractiveness).

Hypergamy is much more about landing the dude all the other chicks want to land than it is about money directly.

I think the noted effect only really occurs because (in our societies) money/status correlates. Those societies where the men earn a lot more than women ? Thy are also the societies where status of the man is much more important to the women ... Whether the benefits of that status come via money or another mechanism.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What women ultimately are chasing is good genetic material. Men are doing the exact same thing. In prehistoric society that used to mean being young enough, strong enough, healthy, and beautiful for women and being young enough, strong enough, healthy and beautiful for men. In most contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, women actually provide most of the food, they don't need men to provide for them. Status also isn't really a thing since most of these societies are egalitarian, don't have strict social hierarchy and also don't accummulate material wealth and land/private property - the main markers of 'status" in agricultural and industrialized societies. So in these societies men and women simply loor for partners they're attracted to and partners who seem healthy enough to provide good genetic material for the offspring. Simple enough.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

And where I've seen analysis that attempts to find correlates between it's level and societal structure the only one that appears to be significant is "The difference in income between men and women" with higher differentials driving more Hypergamy.

because the economic realities from society to society for the early part of our history when culture was forming were roughly the same.

its like saying i gave jim 1000 dollars and bob 1000 dollars to invest in the stock market. bob and jim invest in different stocks. at the age of retirement, jim has 10000 dollars and bob has 7500 dollars from that initial 1000. the starting conditions where the same but the results were different. the problem with the cross cultural analysis of evo psyche is it doesn't look for economic factors in addition to biological and cultural ones. the starting factors in china are going to very similar ecnomically speaking to the economic factors in europe to the economic factors Africa and soth america and north america. understand the factors are fungible meaning whether its a tiger in Africa or puma south america or a bob cat in north america or bear in europe that is 1 factor, whether it monsoons in afica winter in europe or tyhoons in asia that is another factor.

that is where evo psyche falls apart. that is cultural construction where falls apart as well. they ignore the economics f the situation.

If anything Hypergamy is reduced by modern first world societies, and in pre-industrial societies it tends to be even higher. More is at stake.

that is what i said, and what i have always for the most part. hunter gather there was no hypergamy. when we became agrarian and mens higher degree of physical prowess became more important as the work demanded more strength hypergamy started to develop as women were being left behind economically. post industrial revolution is when hypegamy started to fall apart as women were now better equipped to compete on more equal terms with men thanks to technology and innovation.

also when i said modern i meant post hunter gather. most evo psyche looks back about 50000 years. when we started settling is considered modern in that context. so basically post hunter gather (10 k years ago) to the second industrial revolution, is modern and any thing past the second industrial revolution is contemporary in this context in this time scale.

Hypergamy isn't a social construct of the west. It appears to be a human universal for females.

its and economic construct.

There is absolutely nohing wrong with this.... God/Genes (delete as appropriate) made us the way we are, and thats just how it is.

naturalistic fallacy. also go read some epicurean philosophy and decarte. embrace the nihilism

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tom_The_HumanPurple Pill Man7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't have any understanding of how foraging societies work. Hunting is a fairly ineffective method of food provision. People certainly weren't hunting every day, and they preferred hunting smaller game since it was less risky and more likely to go well. Hunting something a mammoth was a very time and energy-intensive task. It certainly wasn't a daily event. Not that mammoths were even present everywhere.

Yes, women probably liked men who were strong. Just like men probably liked women who had a hourglass figure. (Yeah, I know, what a shocker, people tend to be attracted to people who show signs of health and fertility, how can that be?) But that doesn't have to have anything to do with "status", simply with these men being attractive.

And, while we're at it, why are you assuming it was only men who hunted? There's actually evidence that hunting was more of a gender-neutral task, at least some types of hunting. It wasn't always the stereotypical "a bunch of men running around with spears chasing a mammoth". There was a net hunting or a type of hunting where you drive a herd of animals off the cliff, for example. Easier, less dangerous, something the whole tribe would participate in, including women. There was also trap huntning, fairly effective safer and less time consuming. Even today there are enough foraging societies where women hunt together with men.

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well perhaps we can suggest some even lighter reading

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/all_figured_out074991.html

Both human mating strategies (monogamy and polygamy) are built around the same fundamental issue. A male needs to know children are his before provisioning them.

Children not provisioned by a male, even in the most extreme communal sharing societies, die at a rate double that of those provisioned by a male.

That's a massive selection pressure on females to pick males that will provision. Equivalent to 2 kids for those who don't have "seek a provider genes" (meaning they don't spread) and 4 kids for those who do (meaning those genes spread like wildfire, dominating the pop. In a few dozen generations.

Me and cuittler went over this at length, with cuittler presenting your view. There are two threads and we switch between them.

Try here first.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3j6bz4/deconstructing_a_few_manosphere_myths_man_the/cumy359

Then here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3j6bz4/deconstructing_a_few_manosphere_myths_man_the/cun27na

I'm damned if I'm.going to write all that out again.

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Urrrgh I am running late but here

Evolutionary anthropologists are interested in understanding the origin of paternal investment in humans. Paternal investment is relatively rare in both mammals and primates, occurring in about 10% of species (Kleiman & Malcolm, 1981). For some time, it was thought that male investment increased infant and child survival, which is the case among !Kung and Ache hunter- gatherers (father absence triples the probability of child death among the Ache), but father investment does not increase child survival among the Hadza and several other populations. Sear and Mace (2008) conducted a study of 22 populations from a variety of subsistence systems and found that father absence did not impact child survival in the vast majority of cultures. Grandmothers and others had a greater impact than fathers in several cultures. If fathers do not increase child survival, why did paternal care evolve? Paternity certainty probably played some role in the evolution of male parental care, but research with nonhuman primates with male parental investment, such as cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus), marmosets (Cal- lithrix kuhlii), siamangs (Symphalangus syndactylus), and owl monkeys (Aotus trivirgatus), indicate male transportation of infants increased female foraging efficiency, weight gain, and rapid return to estrus cycling, while males who transported offspring often lost substantial weight (Gettler, in press; Lappan, 2008; Sanchez, Pelaez, Gil-Burmann and Kaumanns, 1999; Tardif, 1994). In most cases, males carry more frequently if they are his offspring. Comparable energetic studies in hunter-gatherers are limited, but fathers regularly trans- port infants and young children among the Aka (Hewlett, 1991), who travel 5 to 15 kilometers per day, and several other hunter-gatherer groups (Marlowe, 2000). Grandmothers and older siblings are often not capable of carrying infants and young children for long distances.

http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/PDF/Fatherhood_Page_Proofs.pdf

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/all_figured_out074991.html

except that we descend from chimps and bonobos not great apes which do engage in infanticide.

Please read your links

Simple as that -- open and shut. This is notwithstanding that another study, published the very same day (July 29) in Science ("The Evolution of Social Monogamy in Mammals"), advances a totally different theory: monogamy as a "mating strategy."

The evolution of social monogamy does not appear to have been associated with a high risk of male infanticide, and paternal care is a consequence rather than a cause of social monogamy. Social monogamy has evolved in nonhuman mammals where breeding females are intolerant of each other and female density is low, suggesting that it represents a mating strategy that has developed where males are unable to defend access to multiple females.

One of the two authors of the other study, Tim Clutton-Brock, doubts that humans are naturally monogamous at all:

It is debatable whether humans should be classified as monogamous. Because all the African apes are polygamous and group living, it is likely that the common ancestor of hominids was also polygamous.

That much, anyway, rings true. Our colleague Wesley J. Smith, commenting on the article in PNAS, observes smartly at National Review Online:

Monogamy did not “evolve.” It exists because of human exceptionalism.

Here’s what I mean: Geese don’t “choose” to mate for life and felines don’t “cat around” because they are immoral. They have no choice in the matter. Their mating methods are instinctual.

In contrast, human societies have differed widely over views on sex and commitment to monogamy, with more ancient societies and some current cultures permitting polyamory. That’s because human cultural norms are not biologically determined, as in animal behavior.

Rather, humans have free will. We create, socialize, and enforce moral and ethical codes. In this sense, we are not slaves to impersonal evolutionary forces in our romantic lives. Indeed, the breathtaking refashioning of Western sexual morality just during my lifetime is a vivid example.

Extended lactation and altriciality -- the need of helpless human young to be cared for by a parent or parents for years -- are a function of nature. Monogamy is a choice, as anyone who follows the news or simply keeps his eyes open a bit will tell you. "Let’s get real," urges Wesley. Yes, let's.

Yes and /u/cuittler is right

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People formed notionally monogamous marriages well before the advent of agriculture, and still do today in HG societies.

Marriage in hunter-gatherer societies is very different than in modern industrialized societies. It's so different that it shouldn't even be called "marriage" but there's no better word to call it. There are various two-people sexual/romantic unions that have certain requirements, yes. But they can be something as simple as considering yourself married to a woman if you put your hammock next to hers, and you can break off the union just as easily as simply moving your hammock away from hers, no strings attached literally. Is this "marriage"? If it is, then it's nothing like our "marriage" anyway.

so long as male provisioning was required.

In most foraging societies today, women actually provide most of the food, in some of them as much as 80%. There has been some research done of several of these societies like Aka where it shows the death of a grandma has much more effect on the survival of children than the death of their father. This whole "men are the providers, women are dependent on men" thing is a pop-culture trope. For some reason people assume human societies millions, thousands years ago all worked exactly the same regarding gender roles as 1950s white suburban American families.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

that is where evo psyche falls apart. that is cultural construction. falls apart as well. they ignore the economics f the situation.

But it doesn't ignore economic or differing starting conditions.

A lot of the mental programs it talks about aren't "Do this" programs they are "If A do this ELSIF B do that ELSIF C do the other" programs.

Things like societal and economic conditions are what defines those ABCs.

So there are no genes for "sleep with the guy who makes the best arrows" but there are genes for "sleep with the guy with high status" which will turn into attraction to the best arrow maker in one society, as for the CEO in another, and for the doctor in yet another.

The genes evolved to work, to be successful, no matter what society they found themselves in. Those genes spread better.

They do so by using complex instruction sets like the one I outlined not simple "If A then X" instructions.

its and economic construct.

No it isn't. It a genetic construct that works it's way out in societies in different manners.

In a society where access to adequate food is a major issue (economics) it's going to work out as an attraction to men best placed to ensure an adequate food supply.

In a society where access to adequate food is NOT a major issue, but access to money is(economics) it's going to work out as an attraction to men best placed to ensure an adequate future money supply.

In a society where access to adequate food is NOT a major issue and neither is money (economics) it's going to work out as an attraction to men best placed to ensure adequate social advantages for children.

The drives the same. It takes the society/economics as an input and runs it through the program. But the program is the same. It's a human universal amongst females.

naturalistic fallacy. also go read some epicurean philosophy and decarte. embrace the nihilism

Ok. Well then you need to go read your Descartes. I was not committing the naturalistic fallacy (which can be summarized as saying "what naturally is, is what ought to be).

I'm not saying this is how it ought to be. Just that this is how it is, and humans have to deal with what is... Not some future theroetical ought.

So it's natural that humans can't fly. I'm not saying this ought to be, just that it is. So jumping off the Empire State flapping your arms ain't going to help you. Nothing about that is the naturalistic fallacy. That'd only be the case if I went on to say and because not flying is natural, you shouldn't go get in airplane either.

That's the fallacy. Not saying "if you jump of the ESB you're going to have a very bad few dozen seconds in your immediate future".

Finally, I gotta tell you.... You missed the boat in your dualism by about 100 years. Science has been all over that one for a while and like a lot of "pre modern research" philosophies it's basically over and done. A lot like Rousseau as well.

There I not two types of stuff.... Body stuff and mind stuff.... Science has shown pretty conclusively that there is only one.

It hasn't worked out yet how all te one stuff works, but it has worked out that it IS all one stuff. Starting with Phineas(?) Gage and moving from there with brain injury studies.

Dualism is holed under the waterline, and by this point is so underwater only the tips of the masts are still poking out.

If you dualism is a live and working method of understanding humans you're a long way off the pace.

Stop reading the guys writing before the scientific evidence was in. They didn't know they were going to get blown out the water like poor old Descartes and Rousseau.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

But it doesn't ignore economic or differing starting conditions. A lot of the mental programs it talks about aren't "Do this" programs they are "If A do this ELSIF B do that ELSIF C do the other" programs. Things like societal and economic conditions are what defines those ABCs.

those 'programs' are vastly more plastic than RP gives credit to. and there aren't genetically hard coded either

"sleep with the guy with high status"

nope look H&G societies. there was no hyergamy

In a society where access to adequate food is a major issue (economics) it's going to work out as an attraction to men best placed to ensure an adequate food supply. In a society where access to adequate food is NOT a major issue, but access to money is(economics) it's going to work out as an attraction to men best placed to ensure an adequate future money supply. In a society where access to adequate food is NOT a major issue and neither is money (economics) it's going to work out as an attraction to men best placed to ensure adequate social advantages for children. The drives the same. It takes the society/economics as an input and runs it through the program. But the program is the same. It's a human universal amongst females.

No its not, against look at H&G societies. there was no hypergamy. why? because the women had roughly equal or greater economic out put,

"what naturally is, is what ought to be yes you did commit the naturalistic fallacy

Stop reading the guys writing before the scientific evidence was in. They didn't know they were going to get blown out the water like poor old Descartes and Rousseau.

decartes and epicuris are still still better than kant, Aristotle and plato

beside decarte and epicuris offer better life guides than kant aristotle and plato

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

those 'programs' are vastly more plastic than RP gives credit to. and there aren't genetically hard coded either

Depends what you mean by genetically hard coded.

They are at the base level. But a lot of that coding is "How this process will develop given different inputs".

Just as this web page is coded to give different responses to different inputs. You can't point to it's differential output and say "See, no hard coding here. It's all highly plastic". No, no it isn't.

You can no more "train" yourself to find unsymmetrical features more attractive than symmetrical features than this web page can code itself to take this comment and post it on Tumblr.

nope look H&G societies. there was no hypergamy

Yes, yes there is hypergamy in HG societies. The cross society studies that have found it everywhere included HG societies. They found it there too.

There it expresses itself as "The headman is more attractive than the worst hunter" and as "The best arrow maker is more attractive than the guy who can't rub two rocks together competently" ... rather than the "The CEO is more attractive" and "The doctor is more attractive than the garbage collector"... But it's STILL THERE.

No its not, against look at H&G societies. there was no hypergamy. why? because the women had roughly equal or greater economic out put,

No. No they don't.

A females calorific generation (the amount of calories she can collect) is about 100% of her intake, but only 5% of her childrens intake IF she is either over 3m pregnant or is nursing an infant.

In that period, the survival of the newborn and any other children she has already had are entirely reliant on the male provisioning of those children. IF she doesn't have any they die. At about double the rate of children with a male around.

Whatsmore, in HG societies women are "over 3 months pregnant or nursing an infant" for about 75% of their reproductive life.

Female Hypergamy is a reaction to this stark reality. If she don't get a good guy ? Her kids will die. That stark reality has led to genes spreading that ensure this doesn't happen, the genetic preference for Hypergamy in females is one of those things. It no no longer matters if that's true anymore. The genes haven't caught up yet. Maybe in 2,500 years they will. But right now they are still programming women to be more attracted to high status than low status men.

It's why it's found....EVERYWHERE.... In every society that's ever been studied for it.

decartes and epicuris are still still better than kant, Aristotle and platodecartes and epicuris are still still better than kant, Aristotle and plato

And that's like saying David Koresh is better than Charles Manson.

I don't care. They're wrong.

You need to start listening to the guys who are right... Because they had the good fortune to develop there ideas NOT in an "information vacuum" but after "Science had provided the basic understanding of how the brain works".

Those guys might not be as sharp a mind.... But they have the great benefit of applying their minds to a correct understanding... Not a brilliant mind applied to an understanding that turned out to be wrong.

I don't CARE how wonderful Descartes theories of a "static continents" are. Once we discovered plate tectonics, and proved it correct, then they are useless no matter how clever a man he was. All those wonerful theories about why they are static are useless if we prove that they move.

You are reeling off a bunch of guys who HAD TO GUESS and some guessed right and some wrong.

I'm saying, move away from the guessers... they ain't helping any... Go start reading the guys who didn't have to build their ideas on guesses because they had 100 years of neurological research, MRI scans and animal studies in front of them that NONE of the above had access to.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They are at the base level. But a lot of that coding is "How this process will develop given different inputs".

no its not the human brain is incredibly plastic

Just as this web page is coded to give different responses to different inputs. You can't point to it's differential output and say "See, no hard coding here. It's all highly plastic". No, no it isn't.

Seriously look up nueroplasticity.

You can no more "train" yourself to find unsymmetrical features more attractive than symmetrical features than this web page can code itself to take this comment and post it on Tumblr.

yes physical attractiveness is one of the few thing that actual is hard code but its far from be all end all. i assure you personality, counts for a lot.

Yes, yes there is hypergamy in HG societies. The cross society studies that have found it everywhere included HG societies. They found it there too.

No no it wasn't that is not what anthropology finds. Also you have yet to address my economic counter argument.

There it expresses itself as "The headman is more attractive than the worst hunter" and as "The best arrow maker is more attractive than the guy who can't rub two rocks together competently" ... rather than the "The CEO is more attractive" and "The doctor is more attractive than the garbage collector"... But it's STILL THERE.

this is and was due to unequal economic ground in terms of mean economic out put.

A females calorific generation (the amount of calories she can collect) is about 100% of her intake, but only 5% of her childrens intake IF she is either over 3m pregnant or is nursing an infant.

not what anthropology says

In that period, the survival of the newborn and any other children she has already had are entirely reliant on the male provisioning of those children. IF she doesn't have any they die. At about double the rate of children with a male around.

still no

Female Hypergamy is a reaction to this stark reality. If she don't get a good guy ? Her kids will die. That stark reality has led to genes spreading that ensure this doesn't happen, the genetic preference for Hypergamy in females is one of those things. It no no longer matters if that's true anymore. The genes haven't caught up yet. Maybe in 2,500 years they will. But right now they are still programming women to be more attracted to high status than low status men.

Good thing its a factor of ECONOMICS

It's why it's found....EVERYWHERE.... In every society that's ever been studied for it.

SAME ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ACROSS THE WORLD BETWEEN AGRARIAN SOCIETIES UNTIL THE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT STARTED MAKING IT SO WOMEN COULD HAVE SIMILAR ECONOMIC OUT PUT AS MEN. HYPERGAMY IS THE RESULT OF DIFFERING ECONOMIC OUT PUTS AND THE INVENTION OF LAND OWNERSHIP.

they ain't helping any... Go start reading the guys who didn't have to build their ideas on guesses because they had 100 years of neurological research, MRI scans and animal studies in front of them that NONE of the above had access to.

I have, you are drastically misrepresenting what you call the facts and ignoring facts that you dont agree with. such as nueroplasticity, or how the traits you speak of or at MOST only in any serious way present in teenagers with more hormones than brains cells. boy i am sure glad that i don't date teenagers then they might have more chemicals in there brain than sense.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If anything Hypergamy is reduced by modern first world societies, and in pre-industrial societies it tends to be even higher. More is at stake.

Interesting point that I agree with. I think the industrial revolution changed the game to quite a degree, as well as other movements which led to governments implementing social programs for the poor and aged, better working conditions, more egalitarianism - moderate reforms to appease the restless masses prone to revolt.

Marxists advocated a classless society, which theoretically should have ended female hypergamy, since every male and female would already be at the same level no matter what.

In most Western democracies, we've had more of a mixed system with safety nets and social welfare programs so that, at the very least, female hypergamy would not be needed for survival.

But then some might question whether our society itself will survive; some believe that we've become too soft and weak, while others might say that we've dumbed down. It just seems that stupid people breed more prolifically than smart people - and the result is that everything gets dumbed down while the quality of life gradually diminishes. You'd think that female hypergamy would have a more rational compass and end up producing better, brighter, and stronger children with each generation. But is that really happening?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BornToBeIncelYou MADE me this way.1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	“Go Ahead, F**k The Nanny,” Says "Sex At Dawn" Author Chris Ryan
Author	wazzup987
Upvotes	2
Comments	38
Date	September 23, 2015 9:48 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3m1qfd/go_ahead_fk_the_nanny_says_sex_at_dawn_author/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/go-ahead-fk-the-nanny-says-sex-at-dawn-author.279422 https://theredarchive.com/post/279422

Comments