TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • 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/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /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/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • 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 Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Mom Dresses Six-Year-Old Son As Girl, Threatens Dad With Losing His Son For Disagreeing

Randy_Dream_Weaver

November 26, 2018
388 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/26/mom-dresses-six-year-old-son-girl-threatens-dad-losing-son-disagreeing/
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Mom Dresses Six-Year-Old Son As Girl, Threatens Dad With Losing His Son For Disagreeing
Author

Randy_Dream_Weaver

Upvotes 388
Comments 67
Date November 26, 2018 4:17 PM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/a0kpxn/mom_dresses_sixyearold_son_as_girl_threatens_dad/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mom-dresses-six-year-old-son-as-girl-threatens-dad.889405
https://theredarchive.com/post/889405
Top posts by Randy_Dream_Weaver

Gender parity and why you should short sale P&G stock

14 upvotes
January 15, 2019
/r/MGTOW

Comments

[–]lostapwbm 42 points43 points44 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Meanwhile, Dad isn’t seeing signs of gender dysphoria. In the father’s home, James appears to be a normal boy and doesn’t identify as a girl. He has a choice of boy’s or girl’s clothes there, and he chooses to dress as a boy. The fact that James changes gender identity depending on which parent is present makes the diagnosis of gender dysphoria both dubious and harmful.

Let's see

  • Dad thinks James is a boy.
  • James thinks James is a boy.
  • Mom thinks James is actually Luna.

I'm no expert, but I think I know who is playing out of tune in this ensemble.

When James is away from his mother, he consistently rejects the idea that he is “Luna girl” or that he wants to be a girl. Because the court prohibits dad from dressing James as a boy or from teaching him that he is a boy by sharing religious or science-based teachings on sexuality, dad presents James with male and female clothing options and James always chooses, even insists on, his boy clothes. Dad told me, “James violently refuses to wear girl’s clothes at my home.” This is not a sign of gender dysphoria.

If you wonder why men should avoid the Family Courts like they would a leper colony, here's your shining reason:

The family courts can go 'fuck your beliefs, fuck logic, fuck science. The woman wins, you fucking lose. The end.'

[–]ShellBeTheDeathOfMe 64 points65 points66 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's the mother who has mental issues is this case. She's fucking up her kids mind and life.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not to mention these “therapists” that moms pay to have say “your child has gender dysphoria.” A completely fake diagnosis by a fake professional. And I doubt the courts will even consider this

[–]killcat 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No necessarily pay, they are often "true believers".

[–]N0SenseGaming 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I smell corruption.

[–][deleted] 99 points100 points101 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Mothers being given this ultimate care taker award is feminism's biggest win. It allows women to use the law against men when they are married or have kids in very creative ways. It has turned men into being slaves and money generators for women. Feminism has also cleverly blamed men for making more money. I actually wonder how many feminists don't have to work because they have a rich husband.

[–]Lethn 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well calculate based on how many of them showed up to the women's march on a weekday or any of these other feminist marches and you have your answer. Mothers who actually care about their kids don't show up to these sorts of events because they're too busy though that being said some of them took their children to these events.

There's a reason that these sorts of women get what they want and it's because of voting blocs. Politicians are terrified of pissing them off because they do vote in large numbers.

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Mothers who actually care about their kids don't show up to these sorts of events because they're too busy

Uh, no. People show up to all kinds of protests, men and women both, so you can't go gendering this quite so easily. Not to mention that some women aren't mothers. Now I suspect more women do protest than men, but to attribute that to shirking social duty would, I think, prove indefensible to careful scrutiny.

There's a reason that these sorts of women get what they want and it's because of voting blocs.

And this is also false, feminism has been getting what it wants long before women got the vote.

[–]Lethn 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's maths, this isn't me gendering anything, unemployed people and rich house wives have more time on their hands than those who aren't those people.

[–]genkernels 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, those people have less of a cost to show up. But you find plenty of people, including mothers and fathers and non-parents (especially non-parents), do show up to protests (and not just feminist ones) despite not belonging to either category.

So you are gendering it by calling out mothers in particular, and attributing their presence to shirking social duty. Even if wealthy mothers were a significant proportion of feminist protests, that doesn't mean that they are shirking their duties. This is unlike the parent comment, which is wondering what percentage of the feminist protest population belongs to the category (suggesting that it might be higher than for other types of protests, but without assuming any truly significant proportion).

[–]mikesteane 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What they want and what they demand are two different things. They are getting a lot of special treatment which makes them unhappy.

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, what feminism wants and what women want are two quite different things.

[–]BigLebowskiBot -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is this a... what day is this?

[–]Lethn 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's the truth lol there was actually a woman who complained online about how she got fired by her female manager because she actually listened to other women who were attending the march that she should walk out of her job on the day.

People who have jobs or lives don't have the time to protest unless it's something they feel very strongly about, this is just a fact. This is why when protests and political events happen on weekends they get way more people generally because that's when most normal people have their time off.

I don't understand why I'm having to explain this, it's simple maths, people who have fixed salaries can't take the day off to protest. For example why do you think Antifa are able to show up any time and place in order to protest somebody? They're largely made up of unemployed university students with too much time on their hands.

[–]xNOM -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually wonder how many feminists don't have to work because they have a rich husband.

The government is their husband. Best of both worlds. You get the man's money, without having to fuck the man. This is why married women vote Republican and single women vote Democrat. Just two different ways of being a financial parasite.

[–]alclarkey 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's fucking psychotic and abusive. This woman needs to be in jail.

[–]TheShShCreature 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What. The. Fuck

[–]Familiarwobble17 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What is wrong with people

[–]bkrugby78 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is so disturbing to read. That poor poor child.

[–]Jayakaj 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This is how serial killers are made

[–]galtthedestroyer 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

For reference:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shadow-boxing/201611/boys-dressed-girls-who-became-serial-killers

[–]N0SenseGaming 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Isn't Psychology Today the site that said women are superior to men and men should be taxed for being men?

[+]inherent_balance1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

and men should be taxed for being men?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

Man up, baby; time to pay your taxes!

[–]WikiTextBot 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Selective Service System

The Selective Service System is an independent agency of the United States government that maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription (i.e. the draft). Virtually all male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays and must notify Selective Service within ten days of any changes to any of the information they provided on their registration cards, like a change of address. In practice, the selective service system has minimal practical effect today since the U.S. military operates on a volunteer basis.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

[–]Deadeye_Spider 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

IT RUBS THE LOTION ON ITS SKIN

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The Federalist does have a partisan bias here, but going by the contents of the report I have to say I share concern for James.

It seems to me like James, when given choices, prefers to socially present as male. His mother, on the other hand, seems to be trying to force a feminine gender identity upon him.

This is grotesque.

Maybe the report leaves some details out, but going by what's in it, there is really nothing I can say about this other than "the mother is an abusive shrew." As trans people who were not raised in accepting homes know very well, having an alien gender identity forced upon you is hardly a pleasant experience.

From the report, its obvious that James doesn't meet the threshold for gender dysphoria. Its more likely that James is being used as a pawn in a messy divorce by a ruthless mother. If James is not gender dysphoric, transition is not medically acceptable.

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

What needs to happen here is for a completely independent assessment be done.

Kid goes away for a week, no contact with either parent and is observed. Give him the options to do boy/girl let him do what he does, and at the end of it ask him how he enjoyed it.

No leading questions, just did you enjoy having fun?

Let him lead this, it's his life. If Mom continues to insist, then deal with her and the therapist.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some people just shouldn't be parents. This mother is one of them.

[+]Talindras1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I am curious about the "necessity" of mom trying to get dad to pay for transition-related expenses. Does this child *require* transition in order to survive? In order to be a productive member of society? I see this as similar to the child wanting a tattoo, and mom trying to get dad to pay for it. It's a cosmetic body augmentation.

[–]PuddleOfMush 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not necessary at all. In fact, in addition to being mentally damaging, it would also be physically damaging. The thing these trans pushers don't want you to know is this: When a child is allowed to "transition", they are ruining any chance of a "full" transition. A male child who wants to become a "girl" but never experiences puberty can never have the surgery because there is not enough material to work with, if you catch my drift.

[–]galtthedestroyer 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For all who downvoted, it's actually true.

https://youtu.be/07Dc4tXl2Lc

[–]Melohdy 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sounds like the child just wants a mom and dad and is willing to do anything to make them love him.

[–]N0SenseGaming 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He is trying to make his mother happy by agreeing to be "Luna" when with her, all that while explicitly showing everyone else that he is "James". If he had a "normal" family, he could be a great person just because of trying to make everyone happy, i think kids like him should be protected from bad parents so they can become great people.

Disclaimer: i said "i think kids like him should be protected from bad parents", but i think every child should have the right to have good parents.

[–]Deadeye_Spider 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

as a closeted trans person, that's one more potential name I gotta cross off the goddamn list when I break out of the goddamn bedroom-sized closet.

[–]PlayDeadPanda 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is so disheartening to hear. I’ve never had a problem with how any fully grown individual orients themselves, but the constant and overt advertisement of sex and sexuality as a pillar of socialization has been creating these situations for too long.

[–]TruthDontChange 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It will be interesting to see what court ultimately determines.

[–]Hadashi_blacksky 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To be fair, this happened to a couple of presidents too.

[–]SaveJaidenRogers 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You mean all the first ladies?

[–]Deadeye_Spider 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"SHE TOOK THE FUCKING KIDS": The Sequel

[–]CP473 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://savejames.com/

  • He is undergoing “social transitioning” therapy to prepare him for chemical castration at age 8

[–]gthockeydude 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Someone tweet this to Ben Shaprio

[–]goodmod[M] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You have been shadowbanned by reddit admins (not by mensrights moderators). See /r/ShadowBan for information about shadowbans.

I have approved this comment so I can reply to you.

It seems reddit has a bot that looks for certain types of user behaviour that indicate spamming or brigading. Sometimes innocent users get shadowbanned along with the bad guys. Usually they can fix this if they contact the admins.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If true this is outrageous, but The Federalist would have a more credible story if it were told by a psychiatrist specialising in trans patients, instead of by a campaigner with such a strong personal position. Similarly, quoting a Christian minister does not strengthen their case. It would not be hard to find a psychiatrist to make the assessment this kid is not trans if the story is true as presented.

"which may include hormonal sterilization starting at age eight".
"If we do not save James from a misdiagnosis, his next step is chemical castration at age eight"

Those lines blow the credibility of the author. Apart from that the story looked plausible though it was mildly concerning that his ex is a pediatrician, and her professional training would normally make her sceptical of a therapist who acted as unprofessionally as described.

He is referring to the use of a publerty hormone blocker. This can not be started until puberty, at Tanner stage 2 or 3. (Before puberty there is no puberty hormone to block).
Puberty for boys is around 12. It can be a little earlier. For girls puberty is a year earlier, but precocious puberty is much more common, a few girls start at nine or even eight. So that is where the "eight" comes from - he's taken the extreme end of the normal range, and he's unjustifiably used the range for the wrong sex. He has claimed it is "the next step", although there is no reason to think this boy would not hit puberty at the normal age of 12 or 11.

"Chemical castration" and "hormonal sterilisation" is weird language to use for a hormone blocker. Blockers have been used since the 1980s to stop otherwise ordinary kids starting puberty too early, they are not new drugs and they have been found to be reversible, at least in that younger age group.

If the child later starts a hormonal transition without puberty in their birth sex they will become infertile, so some go off the blocker first for long enough to develop and store sperm.

[–]Barthaneous -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

If my son actually agreed with his mother on wanting to be a girl, and I mean I already tried talking him out of it. I would say "fine you both go your own way.I am out"

If a woman can kill her unborn baby without the persmission of the father, than a father as the mans right should have every right to choose not to support his children or ex wife or girlfriend if they are not going to follow the rules of the home.

No homosexuality is totally ok. Not promoting the perverted nature is also ok..

[–]Orange__Julius 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Contents of this article aside, I will never understand the mind of someone who is willing to abandon their child because of their gender identity or sexuality.

[–]AndesiteSkies 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When the person also has some dictator fetish ("rules of the home") and thinks talking their child out of it is a legitimate response to potential gender dysphoria, it's not so difficult to understand how this guy can think it's OK to walk out on his children for ludicrously spurious reasons.

On the flip side, perhaps its best that this man is never involved in the raising of any children.

[–]Barthaneous 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

A good parent wouldn't be having that problem to begin with. So there is that. All cultures around the world who are strict in raising their kids and teaching them life lessons and the way of the world dont have this problem. Its crappy parents who try and do everything in a way that they seem is more peaceful but in the end is extremely harmful.

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

A good parent doesn't abandon their child.

[–]Barthaneous 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

A good parent raises a good kid. A bad parent raises a bad kid, and if a bad kid is born from good parents it is a rotten seed. It happens. But non the less. No matter what that kid thinks. The job of the kid is to obey the parent. If the parent wants the kid to go to school to be a doctor and send them to a specific school they have to go, unless they are 18 and then choose to go where ever the hell they want. If the kid is gay and its not tolerated there then he or she has to keep that quite until they move out. If they dont want to move out then they still have to obey the rules of the parents house. Some homes dont allow their daughters or sons to even date until they leave the home, even then i would not get in between the parents and the rules they set up for their family..

If the kid does not play by the rules, they can leave. And good residence.

[–]nybo -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you saying that gender dysphoria only exists in the west? I'm pretty sure people are too afraid to come out other places and suppresses feelings because they don't want to think of it as real.

[–]Rolten 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If a woman can kill her unborn baby without the persmission of the father, than a father as the mans right should have every right to choose not to support his children or ex wife or girlfriend if they are not going to follow the rules of the home.

These are very, very different matters you're comparing here though mate. You could argue for either separately, but stating them as equivalent just looks crazy.

[–]Barthaneous 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No not at all. One is a woman is allowed to kill her living child just because she doesn't want it. The other is allowing a man not to support his living Kid. Both are bad ofcourse but in reality if you can murder a living baby out right like abortion is , then it doesn't make sense why men hate forced by government to take care of a kid that doesn't want them or they don't want it and most likely the government will take care of anyway. Hence welfare and single mom syndrome

[–]PuddleOfMush 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

My wallet, my choice.

[–]AndesiteSkies 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You're fucked in the head if that's your conception of parenthood.

[–]PuddleOfMush 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Having a child is a choice.... unless you're a man.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Most men understand the situation and deal with it appropriately. If you don't want a child, get a vasectomy or be careful where you squirt that stuff.
If you store sperm to keep your options open it does not cost all that much. It is nothing compared to child support.

If you do create a child, face your responsibility to look after it.

[–]Mackowatosc 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I might want a kid, but not with this certain woman or not right now. Its still a NO from me and she cant force me.

[–]AndesiteSkies 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That has no relation to what you said before. Choice or not, once you've had the child it's your responsibility to nurture it in the best practical way. Not to impose your shitty views on it and then abandon it upon failure because its "your wallet".

It makes you sound like the bellends who abandon dogs on the side of the road because the animal doesn't do tricks like they originally wished for.

[–]nybo 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's obviously very nuanced, but it's unfair to expect a father that's willing to participate, but prohibited to by the mother to bear financial burden.

[–]AndesiteSkies 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

a father that's willing to participate, but prohibited to by the mother to bear financial burden.

I'm sorry, if you're referring to the case in the article, then I agree the mother seems to be in the wrong there. But that's not what this Barthaneous person is speaking of. And he's the one I take issue with here.

​

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes it is unfair on both the father and child, but that does not excuse the father from financially supporting his child. It is not his child's fault that the mother impedes contact.

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If he does not xonsent, hes not a parent. You have no right to force anyone to so your bidding, not even of you happen to have a cunt.

[–]AndesiteSkies 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Consent to what? Having a child? There's no indication on his part that he is a biological father by dint of coercion. Are you agreeing with him, that he should be permitted to walk out on his child on a whim, because the child and his partner does not "follow the rules of the home".

Whatever fucked up horseshit "rules of the home" means.

[–]Mackowatosc 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Im saying that he has the same right to leave as she has. No matter what.

[–]AndesiteSkies 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No parent in my country has the right to leave their child "no matter what". Child Abandonment is a criminal offence in my country (and, I presume, the vast majority of western nations).

The offence can be mitigated if the offending parent was of unsound mind (by which I don't mean being a generic nutter, like this guy) or suffering from emotional distress. "The child did not follow the rules of the home" is not a legitimate mitigating factor.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Either parent can leave, so long as one is left to care for the child.
But both are financially liable for support including medical care.

If we believe the author the mother is behaving unreasonably, but the author's credibility is undermined by his claim "the next step is chemical castration/sterilisation at age eight". The age is in fact 11 or more likely 12 at the earliest, and sterilisation is not a serious risk.

[–]Barthaneous 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also your home your rules.

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