~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
trombodachi
[–][deleted] 319 points320 points321 points 14 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link
Respect for respecting the husband. I know too many dudes that would have jumped right on that without even thinking twice. I can't express how god damn happy this makes me.
[–]ENTP 110 points111 points112 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
I once saw a bumper sticker that read
My girlfriend's husband is in Iraq fighting for YOUR freedom
Or something like that. Shit pisses me off.
[–]billywms 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
http://www.outofregs.com/index.php?page=archives&id=426
[–]Peter_Principle_ 35 points36 points37 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Maybe they're poly.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]_FUCKYOUPAYME_ 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
i could tell immediately, props on having proof
[–]SchrodingersRapist 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Seems like someone who should find their car keyed often ಠ_ಠ
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Or maybe he/she does.
This is one of those "we can't read the driver's mind."
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So which is it.
A political statement
OR
I want my car to get keyed
Because it is a ballsy move to put that on the back of your car. And now thinking about it, people have been known to place Bumper Stickers on a Vehicle without the Driver Knowing.
[–]notacrackheadofficer -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
google revenge bumper stickers, and have a set of keys clawed out of both fists at all times. Should be: SchrodingersRakist
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Haha, fighting for who's freedom exactly?
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've put that on buddy's cars before when I was in the Army it's been around for like 5+ years at least.
[+]zaferk -32 points-31 points-30 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But im sure that would go away if men had equal custody rights!!1!!1
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As a guy who's been in both positions (not the Military but out of town work related), I don't know how to think about this stuff anymore.
[–]SpliffySam 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sometimes I wonder if OP's post is representative of the way-of-life the troops are defending - it seems a depressing irony.
[–]primaloath -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
If this is "for the whole world to see", it's a shame her name is censored. She could use new facebook friends to help her understand the negative consequences of being a slut.
[–]camelFace 49 points50 points51 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's her husband's problem to deal with, not the Furious Order of Internet Black Knights and their Lord Neckbeard.
[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lord Neckbeard's justice is harsh, but fair. When he hands down a death sentence, he swings the sword himself.
[–]Thatonechiku 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Name isn't censored on the version on Facebook that's been floating around. Also pretty sure this was proven to be fake
[–]kissacupcake -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Slut-shaming isn't conducive to furthering the rights of anyone.
[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
This isn't an example of slut-shaming. This is about adultery, and adulterous men and women absolutely deserve to be shamed. Men and women should be allowed to sleep with whoever they want as long as it's consensual without being stigmatized, as long as they aren't violating their responsibilities and trust to their partner. If she wants to sleep with other men, fine, but she needs to divorce her husband first.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Or make an agreement with her husband that they can have sex with other people.
[–]kissacupcake -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
adulterous men and women absolutely deserve to be shamed
Absolutely! However, using "slut" to describe her is offensive because it perpetuates the idea that casual sex is inherently immoral.
[–]ENTP 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Cheating =/= casual sex
[+]kissacupcake -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Yes. However "slut" traditionally describes someone who has casual sex, and it's easier to eliminate the word than it is to reclaim it and redefine it.
Call her a "cheater" by all means.
Calling her a slut is like calling someone a fag because they broke a promise, because
[–]ENTP 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I never called her a slut, but nice to see you getting more upset about the word "slut" than the vicious violation of trust that this asshole heaped on her husband.
Real empathetic of you to derail the discussion with your "what about the wimminz" bullshit.
[–]kissacupcake 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
derail the discussion with your "what about the wimminz" bullshit
Slut-shaming is not just a women's issue, you know.
[–]ENTP 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's definitely a real issue, for both men and women, but it is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and derailment is NOT okay.
[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Actually, the greater social emphasis put on women's fidelity in marriage, and the expectation of chastity in single women/virginity in brides is a lingering norm from before DNA testing and the Pill. It was intimately tied to two concerns: certainty of paternity (a HUGE issue, all through history), and the extreme disadvantage a woman was placing herself and her child under by having sex outside of marriage.
Neither of these concerns were concerns when it came to male sexual behavior. Up until not long ago, the products of a single woman's sexuality were her own, and her sole responsibility, and the children of a marriage were assumed to be the responsibility of the husband of that marriage. Which meant that a man having sex before marriage wasn't destroying his own life, and a man having sex outside of marriage wasn't stealing anything from the marriage.
A woman behaving in a sexually irresponsible way harmed her husband (he was forced to pay to raise kids who weren't his), or if she was single, her children (they were forced to survive by her limited means).
Given that we've had about 200,000 years of this attitude before the pill and DNA testing made it moot (and that the law still hasn't caught up to the technology), slut-shaming is a hard behavior to change.
But to claim it's solely to do with casual sex is a fallacy. It's more to do with careless pregnancy that harms others (including the woman).
[–]Irrel_M 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm sure the families of soldiers who've committed suicide over this sort of thing would disagree.
[–]kissacupcake 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I am not condoning this woman's decision to go behind her husband's back. She is a terrible person for treating her spouse that way. It is not helpful, however, to demonize her for wanting sex from OP. She should be demonized for cheating on her husband, not for desiring multiple sexual partners.
[+]designerdy -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
"slut-shaming" is only a term made up to make girls feel better about themselves for being disgusting pigs. You aren't going to get far throwing that around here.
[–]kissacupcake 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Do you think that men should be able to sleep with whoever they want to, without criticism, provided that it's consensual? I do.
If so, shouldn't anyone be able to do so?
If not, why? Clearly, this woman is lying to her husband and cheating on him. That's a terrible thing to do. But that's the ONLY part of what she is doing that is wrong - lying to her husband. If she was single, this would be fine. If her husband was fine with her hooking up with other guys while he's gone, it would be fine. And if you disagree, why? As long as everyone involved knows exactly what is happening and is happy about it, no one is being hurt.
You really think that people who have casual sex are universally "disgusting pigs"?
[–]impossiblyirrelevant 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is more in regards to the rest of your comments on this thread than this one, but I think you have a different definition of the word slut than most people. In my opinion, a woman who has sex with multiple people casually is not a slut, but someone who will just fuck anyone and does it without considering the negative effects it could have on others (such as her husband) is a slut and a whore and deserves a hell of a lot worse than shaming.
[–]MattThePossum 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
ask 4chan?
[–]Dwayne_J_Murderden 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well it's fake, but the name the hoaxer used for their fake slut was Taelor Vega.
[+]Xanthan81 -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I know too many dudes that would have jumped right on that without even thinking twice.
Do you? Do you really? Or are you just making a broad generalization?
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
No, there are plenty of guys that would have accepted the offer.
Source: I was in the military for 6 years and have seen many a deployed Soldier's wife cheating on him with a non-deployed Soldier.
Broad generalizations are sometimes accurate.
I was also in the military and can vouch for the accuracy of the above statement.
[–]SchrodingersRapist 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Doesn't even have to be limited to the military types. I know plenty of people who have or would be on either side of this cheating. Knowing them doesn't mean they're friends, everyone knows or works with people they don't like.
[–]Xanthan81 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Damn, that sucks. I guess when you're close to the matter, it's easier to see.
[–]Xanthan81 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
FYI, the post's a fake.
Agreed. Just wanted you to know :)
[–]Jahonay -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
I would jump on the offer, but mostly because I don't think monogamy is a good thing to begin with. I think a person should have the freedom to fuck whoever they want, and trying to pressure someone into only fucking you is jealous and controlling.
I realize this view is uncommon, but I don't think that influences the validity of the argument.
[–]planejane 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
I disagree. Whether you believe in monogamy or not, I think honesty should be key in any relationship. Obviously in a situation such as this (even if it's fake), it's pretty apparent there's some deception going on. I don't think it's acceptable to say that because you don't believe in monogamy, it's perfectly okay to be a homewrecker.
**more to add, for clarification, I suppose: Being willing to help someone else commit adultery (even if you are single) shows a stark lack of respect. The "Husband Away" would most likely be quite against his wife's philandering, and this means nothing? I guess I would still hold some reverence for their relationship status, even if she is a cheating whore. I just really don't understand why someone would intentionally get tangled in an already obviously messy relationship.
[–]Jahonay 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lying is horrid, but so is pressuring people into only having sex with you because you're selfish. If someone signed a contract saying that they'd play video games with one person, I probably wouldn't respect that contract either as it's harmless to play video games with another person. Like it's harmless to have sex with another person if you use protection.
Everyone should have standards for what contracts they respect. Personally I respect the contract of monogamy even less than I respect an end user licence agreement.
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
That's perfectly ok, but then don't make a commitment to monogamy by entering into a traditional marriage.
[–]Jahonay 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I'm not saying that it's a great idea to cheat. Just saying that it's contract that I don't respect. If someone cheats then I don't feel bad because it's a bad social contract to place on a person.
Social contracts shouldn't be used to support jealousy and selfishness.
[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Again, though, this is a contract entered into willingly. If you don't respect it, that's perfectly fine, but don't lie to someone else that you do, and then sneak around behind their back. People who excuse cheating like this give poly a bad name.
[–]Jahonay 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Well I sign end user licence agreements and break them all the time. Plenty of people I know personally, good people....will do harmless drugs even though their work doesn't permit it. Not all contracts should be followed because they're bad. That's my whole point.
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I shouldn't have even argued your "contract" angle. You don't actually sign any sexual fidelity contracts when you get married. You do, however, make a social, ethical, and moral commitment to another person on the most intimate level possible. As I said, if that commitment involves allowing other sexual or romantic relationships, that's fine. It's not about legality-- divorce doesn't recognize fault anymore in any state, AFAIK-- it's about lying to someone who is supposed to be your life partner, and violating their trust.
[–]Jahonay 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Social commitment and social contracts and often used to describe the same idea and principle. The fact of the matter is that you should not be held to contracts or commitments which are based on selfishness and jealousy. There's a time and a place where you should realize that some contracts or commitments are intrusive and that they shouldn't be followed.
Regardless of whose trust you're violating, they shouldn't put trust in you in the form of jealousy and selfishness and intrusiveness. The same way corporations shouldn't in the form of contracts.
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Then why make such a commitment in the first place?
[–][deleted] 62 points63 points64 points 14 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link
This is what I had to deal with. Extended tour in Iraq, I was 11b Infantry, and came home to a cheating wife. True story if you are in the Army NEVER GET FUCKING MARRIED.
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If you needed a family, they would have issued you one.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That has to be one of the most "military" things I've ever read. I mean that in a good way. My best friend is in Spec-Ops, and we always count the days until he gets back to the States so we can tear it up like always.
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I lived on various army posts for 15 years. This was the case almost every single time there was a deployment. My neighbor had several guys over whole her husband was gone (how do we know? Multiplex with shared walls)
Luckily my mom never did that to my dad
[–]anachronic 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
...that you know of.
[–]JustPlainRude 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
if you are in the Army NEVER GET FUCKING MARRIED.
This. I don't understand why guys get married so quickly, then deploy, leaving behind wife and child(ren), potentially never to return. Seems like you'd want to save the family thing until after you're out of harm's way.
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Because from what I understand, the government will support your family if you don't come back. Also, I believe that pay is higher for a married guy with a kid than a single guy.
It's pretty much a way of saying - "Hey even if I don't come back, you'll still be provided for with my pension" or whatever.
[–]JustPlainRude 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Most families would probably prefer a dad over a check from the government.
[–]torrobinson 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
That's so depressing to hear. I mean, you SHOULD be able to get married. If there's such a high rate of cheating wives at home, what does that say about the average woman in the US? That they are very highly prone to cheating if you're gone for a little bit and don't hold their hand and watch them?
I've wondered before if the the only safe way to go is to find someone else who's been hurt by cheating, because only they'll know the kind of pain it causes and most, most, most likely wouldn't do it themselves.
Cheaters are the scum of the earth.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That is a very mixed bag of nuts. Some of them come out all the stronger for it and turn into generally awesome human beings, but some of them say "fuck it. Everybody's like this" and normalize it in their embittered lives.
Very very mixed bag. Proceed with caution.
I know one woman like this. She's rabidly sexist, bitter, and angry because of a guy that cheated on her in high school. She's in her 30's... no joke.
[–]torrobinson -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I never thought about it that way. I guess I'd hope that I could catch that behavior early. I was cheated on once, and in a relationship that only lasted half a year. It gave me a shitload of trust issues. Now I hear of wives of 5+ years slutting around and it enrages me beyond comprehension.
I'd hope that you'd be able to judge based on their feelings about them being cheated on, if it was "no big deal" or actually had an effect on them. Unfortunately it is a mixed bag.
"Never get married" gives me such a loss of hope for humanity and other people in general because it's an accurate way to avoid the problem. Two people who feel that way should hook up though, because they're not alone.
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Why can't people just get over "cheating" and move on with their lives?
I never understood why people make such a HUGE DEAL about another guy putting his penis into your wife. Unless he gives her a disease or gets her pregnant, so fucking what? Just think - if you had never known, it would have had zero impact on your life.
Think about all the guys (and women) who go through life being cheated on -- but never find out -- and stay together?
[–]torrobinson 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Because you don't want to be with someone who lies to you and goes behind your back? If its not an "open relationship", then that's what cheating is and that person is not worth your time.
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'd guess I'd just rather not have a multi-year relationship totally flushed down the toilet just because she got a little drunk and horny and had a moment of weakness.
People are flawed... nobody's perfect. People occasionally fuck up. I'm not going to hold her to an impossible standard of perfection and then blow a gasket when -- surprise, surprise -- she turns out to have occasional imperfections.
Maybe I'm cynical... Maybe I'm just exceptionally UN-jealous... I don't know... it just seems like you're setting yourself up for failure if you expect the other person to be perfect all the time and NEVER EVER have a SINGLE moment of weakness.
[–]torrobinson 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
A moment of weakness is getting angry, saying something stupid, along those lines. Pulling down your pants and fucking someone requires more than just a "spoke before I thought" mistake. I don't think expecting people don't consciously fuck someone is being a perfectionist, it's expecting that the other person is reasonable. If I were married two years and the other person cheated, then it's over just like that.
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Trust me, I understand where you're coming from and IMHO that's one of the key reasons why the divorce rate is so high, because people now just cut and run the minute the other person has a moment of weakness.
I guess I was just born a little differently and don't really care that much.
Honestly, to me, the most disrespectful thing would be rubbing my face in it.
If she had the good sense to just be discrete about it, use protection, and not have it impact our lives (like don't start blowing off date night to go bang guys) then I'm honestly fine with it. It's her body, not my property...
[–]torrobinson 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I will honestly never be able to understand that, but maybe some cheaters have the same viewpoint and dont think what they're doing us wrong. It's crazy to think about, but maybe that's something that has to be talked about as a relationship begins
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Definitely. I've had "the talk" with my past few girlfriends early on... I'm very clear that I'm OK with it as long as it's a one night thing and they're discrete and use protection... I don't want her dating someone else, but if it's just sex and it's once or twice, that's fine.
I know I'm seriously in the minority, but oh well... it works for me ;)
[–]HouselsLife 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link
...or not in the army, too. Men gain NOTHING from a marriage except alimony payments in addition to child support.
[–]Aikidi 36 points37 points38 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
I mean...unless you don't get divorced, and continue to have a loving, supportive relationship for your wife.
[–]Octagonecologyst 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
And marriage is the key to that?
[–]robywar 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Tax breaks?
No, but it is key to a other stuff, like tax breaks (mentioned below), being able to jointly own property, being able to make medical decisions for your spouse if necessary, inheritance, gift taxation, legally being able to pick your kid up at school, etc... are all greatly simplified by marriage.
Also - some people like the idea of being married, being legally bonded to another person.
I'm sorry that so many guys in this forum obviously had marriages blow up in their faces, but it can & does work out for plenty of people.
[–]FalseGenesis 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I can't love and support my girlfriend?
Yes you can... and plenty of people do... but what if you have kids, or want to buy a house together, or if one of you has medical issues and needs to use the other's healthcare, etc...?
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Good luck with that. Most guys will really need it.
[–]DoccRobb 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Whoa, you almost have my name.
[–]HouselsLife 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
agree. unfortunately, that's not the statistically likely outcome in America :/
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
50% of all marriages end in divorce. That means . . . 50% do not.
Now it might at first seem like 50% of married couples will make it and 50% won't, but that's not what this statistic represents. It represents marriages, not couples. In other words, some people will get married and divorced multiple times.
So the first group, the marriages that do not end in divorce, is still the larger of the two groups.
You have inspired hope in reddit.
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That doesn't necessarily mean that the 50% that do not are happy.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I know plenty of unmarried couples that are unhappy and dysfunctional.
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's irrelevant to the discussion on whether or not to get married.
[–]anachronic -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well why don't they expend some effort to become happier?
It takes 2 to tango, man... if you give your wife the cold shoulder and constantly gripe to your buddies what a bitch she is and never go out of your way to do nice stuff for her, then don't be surprised when she treats you like an asshole and cheats on you.
[–]HouselsLife 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
That's a valid take on it; I just googled divorce rates real quick, the first link was divorcerate.org, and what they had to say argues against you;
"The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.
According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America: The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41% The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60% The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%"
So of the multiply married population, it looks like they're likely to add 3 divorces, and 0 successful marriages to the ledger.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Wait that sounds like exactly what I was saying. What do you mean by "argues against you"?
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41% The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60% The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%"
In other words 6/10 first marriages really do go the distance.
The remaining 4/10 account for multiple remarries / divorces which skews the statistics a bit.
You have better than even odds of making it.
There are other factors involved too. People get married for really stupid reasons sometimes. Shotgun marriages, people who get married just so they can have sex (yes that happens), Vegas marriages.
Don't worry so much about it.
[–]thatdarkknight 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So the first group, the marriages that do not end in divorce, is still the larger of the two groups
I think this was what confused him. Made me reread it to.
Put it this way.
3 couples get married and stay married
1 couple gets married and divorces. They get remarried to other people and they divorce again.
6 marriages.
3 divorces.
The divorcees account for 4 people.
The married for life count for 6 people.
The odds are in your favor my friend.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well there's annulments and widowing to count as well, although I'm unsure what percentage of marriages end up like that.
[–]HouselsLife -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Here's how I was looking at it (after the 6 beers I drank in one hour before posting..ha)
50% go the distance, 50% don't, so that's +1 and +1 for each side of our argument. Of the ones that remarry a second time, 67% divorce, and 33% stay married (+2/3s of a divorce for me, +1/3rd of a successful marriage for you). Of that 2/3rds that divorced twice, for the 3rd try, 74% divorce a final time, while only 25% work.
So there's 4 marriages in that example, and the vast majority ended in divorce. if we started with 100 couples, It'd be like this:
Round 1 (100 newlyweds) 50m/50d (50 d total)
Round 2 (50 divorcees) 16.6m/33d (83d total)
Round 3 (33 multiple divorcees) 8.58m/24.42d (107 divorces total!) There's more divorces than people/couples than when we started with! I think we're arguing two different points; you're saying you're likely to find ONE marriage that works, even if it takes a few, because each successful marriage (even if less likely) permanently takes people out of the unmarried pool and puts them in the married pile. I'm arguing that each instance of marriage is separately unlikely to succeed, especially because subsequent marriages are even more likely to fail. Your take on it is quite a bit more comforting, I'll gladly admit!
BTW, I only know of 2 divorces in my entire extended family, and my parents have been together over 30 years. I'm just stating how things are in America, not how I think they necessarily should be.
50% of first marriages. Then you have 2nd and 3rd marriages with higher rates.
Overall, there are many marriages that do end with divorce.
So make sure you pick a better spouse or don't get married.
First, nobody's forcing guys to marry cheating whores. They could just as easily have stayed single.
Second, divorce statistics are well known in the USA... any guy that doesn't take steps to protect himself and his assets when getting married is an idiot.
[–]HouselsLife 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's REALLY hard to protect your assets if you're the bread winner. I ran into an expensive divorce attorney at a bar (friend of a friend), and she said that prenups are only as good as the lawyer who wrote them, and they can all be torn apart in court. She said a good once costs like $30,000... YOUCH.
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
This is so ridiculously sexist, it's not even funny.
I'm sorry that so many guys in this subreddit obviously married the wrong woman and went through a tough divorce, but saying that men never gain ANYTHING from marriage is just delusional.
My parents have been married over 30 years and still care deeply for each other and love each other. They've been each other's dependable rock through thick and thin and their lives would've each been worse off had they not met each other.
Implying that my father gained NOTHING from marriage or from my mother is highly sexist and insulting.
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'm a woman, on my second marriage, it's going well so far. You're missing the point. Most of these guys are not hating on women. They are hating on a sexist system that allows women, but not men, to get married with no financial, civil, or legal risks.
If a woman marries a man, then changes her mind at some point down the road, she can (not necessarily will, but she legally can, and many do) take him for 50% of the marital assets (regardless of what she actually contributed to them) and half of his pay in alimony indefinitely. If they have children, she can receive and keep full custody, and milk him for more money as child support, without letting him have any contact with the kids.
Do all women do this? Just about every man here would agree not. But any woman can, and many are legally and socially encouraged to do so by the system. That is why many of these men are protesting marriage in its current form.
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
We're talking apples and oranges.
I completely agree that divorce is totally screwed up in this country... but the OP was ranting about marriage, which I took offense to.
Men don't get screwed by marriage, they get screwed by divorce... those are different things.
Again, I agree up to a point (and have argued similarly in the past). But the risks of divorce are so great, and the divorce rate high enough (it's not actually 50% but that's beside the point, it's high enough), and you have literally no way of knowing when you start out how it's going to turn out. No one gets married expecting to get divorced. And so it is a big risk just to get married in the first place, and a lot of guys are seriously questioning the risk versus reward.
I agree... then why do all these guys still get married?
I'm in my 30's and have never been married and don't plan on doing it anytime soon (if at all) for the reasons you stipulate.
A lot of guys aren't aware of the risks. A lot of guys don't think it will happen to them. And sometimes you just do crazy things for love.
And, of course, a lot of guys don't get married. Part of the reason the divorce rate has actually been declining since the 80s is the fact that the marriage rate has also been decreasing. It's getting to be a thing, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW).
[–]Popular-Uprising- 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've been married for 13 years now and I've gained a lot. I'm sorry that your experience is different.
[–]kissacupcake -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't think anyone really gains much from marriage.
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Pretty much. Society has given women the protections of marriage outside of marriage, and removed men's benefits from marriage. As such, society has killed marriage.
[–]overcontrol 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They do if they marry up.
[–]Grand_Theft_Audio -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
you're bitter and have a touch of Down's. dismissing marriage out of hand like that is either a) staggeringly stupid or b) a knee-jerk reaction to a failed relationship. if it's door #2, i can empathize. if it's #1, i'm surprised you haven't injured yourself with your keyboard.
[–]Patrick5555 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That feel bro
[–]Dolanduckaroo 155 points156 points157 points 14 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link
And then they get divorced and she gets all the assets..... One week later she's back in a new relationship.
[–]sharkraper 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link
If the husband gets this screenshot to court she will have a hard time getting anything .
[–]Dolanduckaroo 165 points166 points167 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
I wish this was true.
[–]betaprime 75 points76 points77 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
Correct. Many states do not recognize fault in divorce, and if they do, do not factor that into alimony, marital property division etc.
But it can't hurt.
[–]Peter_Principle_ 48 points49 points50 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
And it certainly doesn't make any difference in child support payments.
[–]DiggerW 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I'd like your point a lot more if you said "custody."
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Custody and reallocation of property between the two parties are two different subjects.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
He never said they weren't.
If he's saying I should have said "custody" instead of "child support" then he kinda is, since the subject here is post divorce allocation of funds and property and how that isn't affected by infidelity.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
He didn't say you SHOULD have said, he said he would agree with your point more if it was about custody.
[–]kissacupcake 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
It shouldn't. It's not the kid's fault that mom was a bad wife.
[–]Peter_Principle_ 37 points38 points39 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
As if child support payments were about supporting the children.
[–]Yodamanjaro 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
My mom certainly never used her child support money on me. In fact, I don't remember her being around very often even to spend time with me.
[–]Sheather 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My dad's were pretty much exclusively spent on us. Although he only got a pittance from my mum.
[–]kissacupcake 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
They're supposed to be. It sucks that it doesn't always work that way.
[–]Peter_Principle_ 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
That is certainly the (empty) language that state governments use when doing the politician rah rah blah blah about it, but if you want to know reality don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.
For example, notice how all of the enforcement regarding the whole CS issue is directed at making fathers pay, and a value approximating none is directed at making sure it's spent on the children? That's because state governments don't really give a shit about children. They care about getting their percentage of those billions of CS dead presidents.
[–]kissacupcake 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It's pretty hard to make sure that it's spent on the children.
That said, I certainly know the injustices of the child support system. I've worked in family law for a while, and my heart has been broken time and time again watching fathers fail to get visitation rights after breaking their backs to make child support payments. It's absolutely disgusting.
[–]xebo 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, it's not like the government can track what you spend your money on or anything. I mean, if they could do that, then they'd definitely make sure child support payments were going to the children.
Right guys? Right? It's not like they're sitting on their hands for no reason or anything.
It is if this gets notarized before anything in court happens.
[–]SchrodingersRapist 24 points25 points26 points 14 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
Sorry, not even remotely true ಠ_ಠ
Most states have moved to no fault divorces(I don't actually know of one that doesn't). She could cheat on him with the whole neighborhood at once and broadcast it live to the world, hand him a video tape of it when he got back to make sure he knew, and it isn't grounds for anything in court.
[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Most states have moved to no fault divorces(I don't actually know of one that doesn't).
NY was the last state which maintained at-fault divorce, and it went away a decade or less ago. Currently, all 50 states are no-fault.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Which falls within "a decade or less ago"
[–]jeffersonbible 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Right, but specific dates are always better than vague ones.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well I'm sure sharkraper will see the error of his post and edit his post accordingly. Let's just wait
[–]-RobotDeathSquad- 26 points27 points28 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sorry but look up no fault divorce law.
[–]john2kxx 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There's no way to fake a screenshot, either, so he'd totally be safe.
[–]adamsfan42 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
WRONG where did you hear this garbage. not only will she get half of his shit but since he is working and she probably isn't or in school she will get a good chunk of his income for years to come through alimony.
[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh yeah, because that's clearly what is definitely going to happen, because women get all the assets from every divorce.
[–]Frisbeehead 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
why the fuck has this fake facebook image made it to the front page THREE times in the past 24 hours?
[–]LUSTYHAPPYCRACK 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree
[–]sharkraper 61 points62 points63 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
My dad gave me the best advice before i left for basic training......Don't .Fucking.Get.Married
[–][deleted] 42 points43 points44 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Actually, the talk I give to young Marines that want to get married to leave the barracks goes as follows:
"Go out in town, find a pretty girl that you can't fucking stand, and give her half of your shit. You actually win in this situation because there's no heartache or legal fees involved. Can't handle it? That's how your marriage is probably going to end on the next deployment."
[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Some serious, harsh and sadly, much needed advice.
Thanks for being that Marine!
[–]probably_high 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Just like all men aren't the same, all women aren't the same. You seem to paint us with an awfully large brush.
[–]Whisper 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The problem isn't that you're all like that.
The problem is that, if you are, the law is on your side.
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
People, generally speaking, suck. If you marry a girl and then leave her for months or years at a time, she is going to get lonely. Because she is a person and therefore probably sucks, she will probably cheat on you, fall for the other guy, and go for a divorce.
Exactly.
Guys do the same shit, too. If anyone thinks that all the soldiers over in Iraq remain perfectly chaste during their deployment, they're delusional.
[–]probably_high -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
A man would do the same thing if it was reversed. Why are you only focusing on one half of the issue?
[–]Codeshark 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Let's just be honest about which gender bears the brunt of military deployment. It is the same reason domestic abuse info focuses only on female victims.
[–]probably_high 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Well if you think it's wrong to focus on female victims in one situation, don't you think it's equally wrong to focus on just male victims who are cheated on while in the army?
[–]Codeshark 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Of course. I was just answering your question. The majority case gets the focus.
[–]significantshrinkage 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Domestic abuse doesn't have such a gendered bias. Being cheated on while deployed is something that happens to mostly men. If the army would have a more equal number of men and women serving, then you can hear us complain about women getting dumped too. Until then, stfu.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Go back. Read the conversation. Find out what we're actually talking about. Then get back to me, and see if you can find out where you went wrong.
When a 19 year old attempts to get married with the intent of a few extra dollars, he's clearly deluded. It will not end well. That's not painting women in a bad light, it's accepting that making an important decisions for shitty reasons makes you an idiot.
I'm married and on active-duty...
[–]subliminal_messaging 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
When I was in boot, it was ridiculous the amount of break up letters that were received by my platoon.
[–]Aikidi 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Most new soldiers are pretty young (by default) and neither they nor their spouses are probably prepared for the difficulty of maintaining a marriage with tons of time apart. Sad, but not surprising.
[–]bantam83 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Not surprising at all. The military is fundamentally anti-family, in addition to being anti-human, anti-independent thought, etc.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I will say that the majority of the breakups during a deployment fall within the 18-25 year old range. A lot of the 35+ year old NCOs had extremely healthy relationships and amazing wives (many were on their 2nd or 3rd though from previous marriages they had when they were in the 18-25 range... and many had very large child support payments).
It really is just a maturity, commitment, and long-distance relationship issue that destroys a lot of young marriages.
[–]Codeshark 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If they could get away with cloning troopers and raising them to fight, they probably would.
[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You don't know much about the military obviously...
[–]Jayewalk 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Dear John,
[–]koncept61 -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You know he means business when the fucking is before the get lol
[–]Trekkie1701 59 points60 points61 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
"you wouldn't"
JUST DID!
[–]the-knife 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Name is censored, but the picture isn't. If somebody who knows her sees this, she's busted.
[–]James_STI 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Profile is fake
Blog that also argues it is fake
Yeah, it was a little too perfect.
[–]antagognostic 56 points57 points58 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Wasn't this proved fake?
[–]lampkyter 35 points36 points37 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
This is incredibly fake.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]rawbamatic 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There are several threads of this exact image on Reddit today. One of them names the girl in the photo as a Brazilian model, or something like that.
[–]lampkyter 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
If a woman wanted to hook up with that guy so bad why would she even say she was married.
[–]subliminal_messaging 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
[–]howsweettobeanidiot 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
some men prefer attached women because that gives them a quicker exit. not to say that proves this isn't fake.
[–]HouselsLife 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I've had plenty of married/committed girls approach me. When they tell you that right off the bat, it means it's strictly NSA, every guy's dream. DUH.
[–]typhonblue 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
every guy's dream.
Is this sarcasm?
The "DUH." prompts me to say "yes."
[–]HouselsLife -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
To find a girl that'd fuck him with NSA? And that there's a sucker to take care of the kid if she does get knocked up? Sounds like it to me.
[–]AbsoluteBlack 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Posts in a subreddit about negating male stereotypes
With a male stereotype
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Stereotypes exist for a reason.
Bigots think that there are no exceptions.
Idiots think that everyone is an exception.
[–]AbsoluteBlack 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm well aware that every stereotype is based, to varying degrees, in reality. The bigoted part is 'every guy's dream'.
[–]Lohengren 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is the fakest shit I've ever seen
[–]katchison02 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
"Risking his life for not only you but your country"
I hate when people say this.
[–]DaddyFatSac8766 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're absolutely right, he isn't risking shit for his country. If he died, his country would stay the exact same. What he is doing is possibly risking his life for those over seas, all the civilians caught in the crossfire of feuding nations, governments or armies.
[–]rolfsnuffles 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
this has nothing to do with men's rights.
[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
This subreddit is increasingly becoming less about Mens Rights and more about showing examples of women being bitches. It drowns out the constructive and gives ammo to people who seek to undermine those of us who actually care about the issues. Women can be bitches, thank you Captain Obvious. Plenty of guys cheat on their wives too.
I guess I'm in the minority? I'm a father of 3 wonderful daughters. I intend to raise them well. I care about things like inequality in custody cases, the decline of male teachers, attacking the idea that if a man alone with kids = pedophilia. I'm not interested in bashing women. And if you actually care about real issues, you shouldn't be interested in it either. It's noise. It solves nothing. It actually makes it harder to constructively solve these issues. Please stop it. Go create another subreddit and have a circlejerk somewhere else about women being bitches.
tl;dr you are the cancer that is killing /r/mensrights/
[–]kissacupcake 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thank you. I totally agree.
[+][deleted] -15 points-14 points-13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You should spend less time on 4chan. People might take your arguments more seriously without all the dumb "you are the cancer" nonsense.
[–]natty_dread 72 points73 points74 points 14 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link
How are soldiers "risking their life [...] for everybody in this country"?
I've seriously always wondered that. Is that just something you guys have heard so many times on Fox news, that it has to be true, or is there an actual thought to that?
How would the average American's life be any different, if all U.S. troops would be drawn back tomorrow? This would, of course, cause undeniable problems in the occupied countries, but in what miraculous danger would the American people be?
[–]RyanLikesyoface 32 points33 points34 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
It's just what people think they are doing, what THEY think they are doing. What they're really doing is being pawns in the US governments game.
[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Except almost all soldiers I know when they come home think it was a bunch of bs. Tons of them go in with the "WE'RE FIGHTING FOR YOUR FREEDOM" attitude, and I don't doubt that they WOULD if there was a cause, but the majority come back jaded knowing that they did nothing that was advertised to them.
[–]Veteran4Peace 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's...pretty much it. Yeah.
Meanwhile, as they're killing people in Iraq, our government is TAKING AWAY our freedoms here at home, in the name of the people that we're killing in Iraq.
Pawns is right...
[+]HouselsLife -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I wouldn't even go that far... most go into the military because they weren't college material, had no other options, and thought it'd be cool to kill people.
[–]thegreatmisanthrope 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is just the bullshit justification people use to hate on soldiers rather than to really understand most of them.
zayg's post is spot on.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I remember when people actually put effort into troll posts.
[–]HouselsLife -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That wasn't a troll post. You've apparently had little interaction with ex-pats.
[–]zexon 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That probably depends on the branch of service and the MOC of the people you were talking to. I didn't join the military because I "thought it'd be cool to kill people." In fact, that's the last thing I'd ever want to do. So I joined the Air Force, went into communications. Still ended up in a combat oriented unit, but thankfully never had to see real combat.
Plus, I had plenty of other options. Air Force was just the best at the time, and honestly the experience it left me with is invaluable.
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not really. The people without other options generally don't end up in the combat arms.
[–]HouselsLife 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Totally agree. Can't believe you're not in the negative for stating the obvious though.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yep, there's quite an active bunch on here that hate anything bad being said about the US Government's foreign policy or military actions, despite the majority of it being true.
I wouldn't worry too much about it though, the most vocal/active people almost always turn out to be the one's on the wrong side of the argument.
Oh, I definitely agree! They sure know how to bring the downvotes though. Takes a lot of kittens to make up for one "you didn't defend my country; you murdered people you didn't even know because you're a worthless pawn in a game where the stakes are billions of dollars in govt. contracts."
Go put your tin foil hat on.
How would the average American's life be any different, if all U.S. troops would be drawn back tomorrow?
Depends on the impact we've had on the local communities. If we changed their culture, either through the introduction of "anti-islam western trash" or through heavy military occupation, then we could be looking at an uptick in terrorist plots aimed squarely at our shores. This is because what motivates terrorists is perceived cultural erosion from the west. If we roll in, occupy their homelands with a lot of guns, and leave McDonalds and KFCs all over the place, then that's a fuck ton of recruitment/O'Reilly rally propaganda for the terrorists to use.
Alternatively if we had little impact and kept the on-foot guns to a minimum, then not much would change. A small uptick because the O'Reilly tactics would have a little traction (they invaded our homelands!) but outside of that, there isn't much propaganda. Little less, actually, because the occupation would have led to at least some exposure and familiarization. So it's harder to demonize the western man now that he isn't a oogie-boogie man anymore.
I give two scenarios because I'm state-side with no first-hand contacts, and I don't trust the news for shit. It could be swinging either way.
They aren't.
Most people just spout slogans unthinkingly. Those soldiers are over there, fighting for corporate profits they will never get to see.
Also, they're fighting to lend credence to our government TAKING AWAY our rights here at home.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Well for one they have already given up their "rights" that civilian's enjoy. They have become property of the state "that does risk their lives" through training and deployment.
So though you bring up a point, is disingenuous to the sacrifice "of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that is already made by JUST joining.
I think you have a good question, but it lacks empathy and heart.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
People who join gangs often give up the same and become the property of that gang, who will usually go on to risk their life for that gang.
Are they fighting for your freedom too? Because they're fighting to protect a small groups interest over what amounts to money, as is, unfortunately, those deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan.
I say unfortunately because it truly is unfortunate that there are men (and women) out there, willing to serve to protect in the event that they need to, who are then shovelled out to fight terrified native people in other countries who've to hide in caves and if they try to get out of it, face prison.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes men often give up life and limb for a cause. AND much of the USA's gang culture was started by Vietnam Vets (e.g., Biker Gangs).
So, what's your point?
You want to divert this in a political discussion? If so, ---> /r/politics
[–]natty_dread 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
That may be because I am not really inclined to feel empathy with people who see their purpose in this world in killing other human beings.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Wow, you must hate all your ancestors who got you here today.
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
How so?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Seriously?
[–]natty_dread 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Enlighten me
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Where do you live?
What is your ethnic heritage?
[–]natty_dread 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I am from Austria.
And I, obviously, am not proud of the last war my people ventured.
That is one of the reasons why I am not a patriot and I despise nationalism.
So, do you propose, that in my shoes, you would be proud of "my ancestors"?
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Oh, So you do hate them. Crappy cross to bear.
I do think you have a lot to be proud of, though. War is hell, but conflict is necessary for the growth the individual as well as a society. That doesn't mean War should be the immediate answer, but it does mean war is a necessary evil at times.
[–]adamsfan42 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
, of course, cause undeniable problems in the occupied countries,
yes of course because self determination is undeniably a huge problem. and without us breaking into their homes raping and murdering people at random who else would be bringing the great stability we provide
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
What a load of BS. Once the U.S. troops waltzed into those countries anihalating their entire infrastructure, throwing over their government and bombing the shit out of their cities, there will be problems if they draw back immediatly.
I am strongly against all wars the U.S. wages in the last decades, but denying that simply drawing away all troops will not cause issues is simply delusional.
[–]adamsfan42 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
delusional? i have know idea what you are even basing your assumption on. did Vietnam or any other country we've occupied need the US to rebuild? The ONLY thing that happens as a result of the US sticking around is the funneling of resources away from the country in question and into western investments. a school here or there that get shown on CNN a hundred times is not improvement is the delusion/illusion.
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The Vietnam war is a fundamentally different situation. In Vietnam, the Vietnamese government fought against the intruding troops, in Afghanistan the government if working with the U.S. against rebel forces.
The Afghan government has no control over the country.
And I really do not like being shoved into the position to defend U.S. war politics, since I am in no way ok with them. It's just that your argument make no sense whatsoever.
[–]adamsfan42 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
your entire argument is based on the premis that the US is doing good in Afghanistan. stop trying to defend your argument and genuinely look at what you are saying and if it is true. what good is the US really doing? now measure that against how much damage and instability it creates daily.
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Could you point out the passage that implies that I think the U.S. is doing good in Afghanistan?
In fact, if you read my other comments on this threat, you will find that I think quite the opposite.
[–]adamsfan42 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
you seem to assume a lot. like for one that i have taken the time to review your previous comments. I am responding directly to what you say to me without any context. from my point of view its implied that if your saying things would fall apart without us there that we are obviously doing good. so then please explain how afghanistan would cease to exist without our presence.
[–]natty_dread -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
no. i have no time to do your education. this is what schools are for
[–]adamsfan42 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"i... have... no... time... to... do... your...education." from natty dread. words to live by.
[–]boobers3 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
The impact on today's American would be none, the impact on American's 10 years from now would be profound. Did you think 9/11 just happened? 9/11 was an event 15 years in the making. The perceived slight and lack of support from the United States to the mujaheddin after the Soviet conflict in Afghanistan was one of the first catalysts to the attacks of 9/11.
Just because you do not perceive an effect today does not mean one will not exist in the future. Take the 1991 Gulf war, had the United States military destroyed the Iraqi Republican Guard the Iraqi's may have been able to overthrow Saddam's regime after the end of the war, instead the Bush Administration allowed the IRG to retrograde back to Iraq which allowed them to be deployed against their own people in eastern Iraq during the uprising against Saddam after the cease fire.
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
So, what you are saying that America would be threatened to be subject to terrorist attacks?
So, you think terrorist organizations seize their plans if you invade random countries? (well not random, those who have oil of course...)
Plus, there was one attack more than a decade ago. Don't you think this war against terrorism has killed more people than terrorism could have ever done?
This terrorist threat certain republican politicians want you to believe you are in is just a justification to go nuts. If a people feels threatened from the outside, they are more likely to agree to radical ideas on the inside.
[–]boobers3 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link
So, you think terrorist organizations seize their plans if you invade random countries?
Of course they don't stop planning, that doesn't mean you sit back and make it easy for them.
Plus, there was one attack more than a decade ago.
No it wasn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Little_Rock_recruiting_office_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253
And those are just the American attacks, that's not counting the Madrid bombing, the London transport bombing, or any of the other numerous attacks around the world.
Secondly, just because it happened a decade ago doesn't mean you just forget about it.
Don't you think this war against terrorism has killed more people than terrorism could have ever done?
Why don't you ask the families of the civilians killed by al-Qaeda?
This terrorist threat certain republican politicians want you to believe you are in is just a justification to go nuts.
So I guess the links I just posted were a figment of my imagination. It's not like the Taliban admitted to the world that they knew Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were in Afghanistan, or the fact that there is footage of al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Or the numerous videos of al-Qaeda threatening attacks, as well as taking responsibility for attacks such as 9/11 and the 1993 WTC bombing. Please continue to tell me those are all made up, I as an experienced Intelligence Analyst am quite eager to read your response.
Are you going to link to the "documentary" claiming that al-Qaeda didn't exist prior to 9/11? I really hope you do.
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
How exactly do you think the leaders of those terrorist organizations are impaired in their planning by those wars?
Plus, there was one attack more than a decade ago. No it wasn't.
Oh come on, some of those events were 30 years ago.
If that is all you can come up with as an argument, this is really weak.
Human beings will feel grieve and thus need of vengeance and retaliation if a loved one is killed.
A state, however, must not be lead by primal emotions like revenge. A state must act rationally.
Please continue to tell me those are all made up, I as an experienced Intelligence Analyst am quite eager to read your response.
Appeal to authority fallacy unless you can prove it.
[–]boobers3 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
It's hard to plan an attack when you are dead.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800114.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden
That is just 3 of the well know al-Qaeda leaders. In Iraq alone 3 different heads of AQI were killed prior to 2010. That is not counting the 50,000-60,000 al-Qaeda operatives killed in Iraq between 2002-2010. Nor the tens of thousands killed in Afghanistan int he same time period.
1993 was 30 years ago?
What I just showed you was a history of continued attacks by al-Qaeda against the United States alone. Should the United States ignore a threat simple because they can reasonably assume that only at most a few thousand people will die at any given time?
I am not amazed that when presented with factual data, and evidence contrary to your bias that you would ignore it.
A state acts on the behalf of its people, it is there to secure and protect it's citizens. Al-Qaeda is a clear and overt threat to the United States, it's citizens both domestically and abroad, and has a well stated goal to establish a world wide caliphate.
My title is not one of authority you ignoramus, it is one of experience. I am telling you before you go deeper in this conversation that you are out gunned, you do not posses the knowledge to intelligently discuss this with me. I am giving you a clear warning that if you continue to discuss this with me, that I will make you feel like an idiot, you will not admit it, but you will indeed feel like an idiot. I know you are already frustrated with the conversation because you did not foresee it going so badly (evident in your denial of the links I provided).
1) I've read the line "Nr. two player of al-qaeda killed" so many times in the last year. It's not getting any more credible by saying it over and over again...
2) If your government wanted to prevent U.S. citizens from being killed, they would stop rushing into pointless wars.
3) You obviously do not understand the term authority, you might wanna consult a dictionary
4) You are most likely to be a overweight teenager who got the impression he is a badass by kicking other fourteen year old's butts on world of warcraft.
You are by far far not as eloquent as you picture yourself to be.
Your arguments are a reproduction of the propaganda spread by the mainstream media, hence your aguments are predictable and shallow.
[–]boobers3 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I've read the line "Nr. two player of al-qaeda killed" so many times in the last year. It's not getting any more credible by saying it over and over again...
So the fact that different leaders are killed in an orginization makes them less credible? Are you of the misguided belief that al-Qaeda is a single entity that spans the entire Arab and Persian region? Or are you retarded enough to believe that when one leader is killed that they are never replaced? That isn't even attacking the idiotic claim that it isn't credible when evidence is freely disseminated through the public media.
How is it pointless when it quite literally achieved the goal it sought in the first place? You do not even know what the goal of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan was do you?
What authority does an Intelligence Analyst have?
The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: "he had absolute authority over his subordinates". The right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another. 4) You are most likely to be a overweight teenager who got the impression he is a badass by kicking other fourteen year old's butts on world of warcraft.
The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: "he had absolute authority over his subordinates". The right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another.
Read through my previous comments. Although I did play WoW, I am not a teenager. Either way if I were a teenager you should be able to easily dismantle everything I've said, but you haven't you've categorically ignored everything I've posted, why aren't you acknowledging the fact that you were wrong?
In case you don't know what you were wrong about, or feign ignorance:
Your arguments are a reproduction of the propaganda spread by the mainstream media
Then prove me wrong. I've provided you with links and verifiable information, where is yours?
hence your aguments are predictable and shallow.
And you still aren't capable of defeating them. You haven't provided anything of substance.
The fact that afghanistan and iraq are failures is a universally accepted fact
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2046572/Afghanistan-war-marks-10-years-decade-failure.html
That you seem to make yourself believe those wars are a succes is evidence of your delusion.
You used the fact (?) that you are an Intelligence Analyst as an tool to make your arguments seem true beyond doubt. That is appeal to make believe authority.
As this is a matter of opinion, none can "prove the other wrong". That you think either side of this discussion has the universal truth showes how little you understand of debating.
[–]boobers3 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
Haha the dailymail is the fox news of the UK.
The war in Iraq was a success, unfortunately idiots like yourself who are out of touch with world events are still stuck thinking Iraq is still in the same state it was in 2006. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been virtually destroyed through the help of the awakening movement which started in the al-Anbar province most notably in ar-Ramadi. The awakening movement took a direct opposition to al-Qaeda and eventually gave rise to the Sons of Iraq which is currently responsible for much of Iraq's security. Today Iraq is getting ready to hold its first elections since the 1950s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awakening_movements_in_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_parliamentary_election,_2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
As of June 2010, 80% of the group's 42 leaders, including recruiters and fincanciers, have been killed or captured with only eight remaining at large
But of course you think that's a failure since the dailymail told you so.
Afghanistan is self explanatory. The Taliban refused to hand Bin Laden over in 2001, in return Afghanistan was invaded, the Taliban were ousted and are currently hiding in Pakistan, and al-Qaeda has been so thoroughly crippled that even the Taliban no longer want to associate themselves with them.
I provided links, can you provide something other than a tabloid sensationalist article?
You used the fact (?) that you are an Intelligence Analyst as an tool to make your arguments seem true beyond doubt.
No I used the fact that I was an Intelligence Analyst to warn you that your argument is going to be destroyed and you do not have the sufficient knowledge to carry on an intelligence discussion with me, which you've just proved.
That is appeal to make believe authority.
What orders did I give you?
As this is a matter of opinion, none can "prove the other wrong".
Incorrect, just as the allies won the 2nd world war, and it is a fact, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are not up for opinion, they both have definite factual outcomes. You are trying to hide behind opinion because you lack substance to back your claims, and do not want to admit your ignorance.
That you think either side of this discussion has the universal truth showes how little you understand of debating.
Leave the debate for the class room, bring facts. Either you know what you are talking about, or you don't, how you argue your point is irrelevant to the facts.
edit: Going to sleep now, you have about 8 hours to come up with a well thought out counter with links or some sort of evidence. Seeing as how your dailymail link contributed nothing (there was nothing in that editorial that could be used as evidence) I'm going to give you another chance. Please do better.
[–]bucketh3ad -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
The average American man's life would be different because he could possibly be drafted into a war without the volunteer service of that man in the military. I respect the sacrifice of all the men willing to risk their lives so that I'm not forced to.
The average American woman's life... well it's harder to keep a man on the side when your husband isn't deployed overseas. Certainly still possible though. I'd say pretty much no impact on women at all.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Not quite. Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be accepted by the public if a draft were involved. It's only because they're out of sight and out of mind that they've been able to o on for a decade.
I would imagine that if a draft were called to support Bush's lunatic ideas by force, it would be a case of the straw that broke the camels back and we'd finally see a revolt against the establishment by the ordinary man in the US.
It's one thing to take advantage of a bunch of people who've signed up "for action", it's another to force ordinary,non-involved people to be involved in the killing and maiming of people on the back of a bunch of lies.
Afghanistan would have happened with a draft.
But, like you said, it wouldn't have lasted a decade.
[–]bucketh3ad -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'd like to believe that's true, but in the absence of any evidence your assertions are not enough to convince me.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I don't know what proof you want me to provide for a hypothetical, but maybe the fact that this didn't pass will be a start.
[–]bucketh3ad -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The fact that it was even attempted shows that it might stand a chance of passing without a large, volunteer force. That evidence cuts both ways.
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You do know that there are women in the military?
Or is that not the case in your little world where terrorism is an actual threat and men are suppressed by women?
[–]bucketh3ad 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What the fuck is "average"? What the fuck is rhetoric? Who the fuck are you? What the fuck is an "internet"?
[–]douglasmacarthur -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If all U.S. troops were drawn back tomorrow? That's debatable. If the military ceased to exist? There would definitely be carnage for the entire Western world.
Those who enlist have no choice about which engagements they're willing to participate in, and our freedom and security depends on the existence of the military for those engagements which may be necessary (and the expectation, in minds of potential threats, that it will be there).
So, regardless of whether you agree any particular engagement is necessary, those participating in it are sacrificing to protect your freedom and security.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
we're risking our lives so the terrorists don't blow up any more world trade centers.
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Plus, there was one terrorist attack more than a decade ago. Don't you think this war against terrorism has killed more people than terrorism could have ever done?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
if there's a bunch of dudes who want to kill you in the next county, and there's a bunch of dudes who want to kill you right outside your house, I don't think you're too worried about the dudes in the next county.
that one terrorist attack really mattered, don't try to shrug it off like it was nothing, that shit was fucking huge.
I'm not a republican
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Who is trying to kill anybody?
As I said, that happened more than a decade ago. Making a major part of national politics, not to speak of massive amounts of money dependent on that single event is just plain stupid.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
you can say that all you want, but don't blame the soldiers for it, blame the strategy. We haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11 but we've had PLENTY in Afghanistan, because that's where we brought the fight.
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Do soldiers not have the individual responsibility to reflect whether or not it is justified to murder another human being?
Are they not self depended human beings who know the consequences of their actions?
If so, they are to blame, as well as the people who make the strategies.
No soldiers - no strategy.
oh my god the "babykiller" argument...
WE DONT SHOOT PEOPLE UNLESS THEY POSE AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.
So:
If they point a gun at you or someone else you shoot them
If they're planting an IED you shoot them
If they're planting flowers you DONT SHOOT THEM
why the hell do people still fall victim to the stupidest mentality of a drug-addled decade?
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I really do not see the point you are trying to make.
P.s: caps lock won't make random words lined up more of an argument.
[–]john2kxx -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They can do that whether or not we're in Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/wherever.
[–]MalcolmPecs 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
file this one under "shit that did not happen"
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link
[–]thefran 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That is correct. The society already disapproves of women doing this - anyone would call her a cheater. Plus. women who don't break up with men whilst in long term relationships are perceived as noble.
[–]typhonblue 23 points24 points25 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
It's about a man putting another man's well being ahead of no strings attached sex.
NSA is supposed to be man's ultimate goal, the nadir of his human purpose, his defining moment of ecstasy that makes the rest of his existence pale to insignificance... In fact if a man dies the second NSA ends, he dies complete and triumphant.
And this man passed up the opportunity to be made whole as a man through NSA--to transcend his pathetic male existence through accessing the holies of holies--and he gave it up to protect another man from harm.
[–]Veteran4Peace 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Holy shit, it isn't that damn good.
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
wat
[–]bobandgeorge 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Oh screw it
[–]Embogenous -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
*She
[–]Gumbo72 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
NSA?
No-strings-attached.
Posts like these make all the bitter, sexist guys on here feel better about being bitter and sexist, because the screenshot "proves" that women are cheating whores and should be hated.
This place can be one giant confirmation bias circlejerk sometimes.
[–]Dolanduckaroo 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
It does when the husband gets financially assraped in the divorce courts due to his wife's adultery.
[–]Aikidi 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Anything from any sort of resulting divorce is being assumed by the commenters. This actual post has nothing to do with it.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]Dolanduckaroo -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Correct, but assuming the husband finds out, and he has a little dignity, there will likely be a divorce in the near future. Also the fact that he is currently deployed overseas could also mean potential harm to himself or possibly his unit depending how hard the news hits him.
Bad news bears all around.
[+]Dolanduckaroo -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I understand, but compared to r/feminism and r/SRS we are a lot more tolerant. We can at least acknowledge that both men and women have gender issues worth fighting for. On r/SRS the logo is "misandry don't real". You attempt to even talk about men rights you are quickly insulted/shamed and told to check your privilege.
[+]HouselsLife -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It doesn't matter what sex you are; everybody wants their spouse to be monogamous, while they are not. Both sexes are selfish shits, the only difference is that women generally have the favor of the courts as well.
[–]ozone_00 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Ah yes if he has a little dignity, because if he were to stay with her, he's just her bitch. Way to enforce gender stereotypes there, homie.
[–]Dolanduckaroo 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Has nothing to do with stereotypes homie. If a man cheats on his wife, his wife is justified in leaving without an attack on her character. Same thing if a woman cheats on her husband. Cheating on someone you swore a death due us part vow shows that you don't respect that person. Male or Female.
[–]ozone_00 -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
No, it's because of the husband's own insecurities. There are plenty of people that fuck someone other than their own spouse who don't get divorced.
[–]Dolanduckaroo 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
So you're saying a husband is insecure if he wants to leave his wife for cheating on him?
[–]ozone_00 -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Indeed I am. The concept of cheating is based entirely on jealousy.
[–]Dolanduckaroo 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Alright maybe you're right, he might be a little insecure if he walked in on his wife fucking another guy. Might rustle his jimmies a little so to speak. So in this scenario what do you think the married man should do? Go cheat himself? Nah that mean he has something to prove, and he's insecure. Forgive her and stay married? What happens if she cheats again? I understand where you're coming from, but it seems rather silly to expect a spouse (man or woman) to stay in a bad marriage for the rest of their life. I'm sure that has worked before, but come on, if your spouse is cheating, it's usually a symptom of a much bigger problem.
[–]ozone_00 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
So in this scenario what do you think the married man should do?
Whip it out.
it's usually a symptom of a much bigger problem
Like having a job that keeps you away from home for year at a time. As I see it if you're a soldier or truck driver or something, and married, you're asking for trouble or living in a fantasy world if you think otherwise.
Troll.
[–]ozone_00 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
White knight.
[–]fiveisafemme 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I like the point you're making, but would just like to be a little nitpicky and point out that it's ALSO about trust. If someone's spouse has sex with someone else when the relationship is built on monogamy it's an entirely different situation than if a person's non monogamous spouse has sex with someone else. The issue with "cheating" is more about betrayal of trust than jealousy I'd say.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Men's legals rights specifically, nothing.
Cultural gender roles where men are "disposable" and where a wife disrespect their husband enough to willingly speak openly this way -- Everything.
[–]TheBananaKing 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It wouldn't prove the opposite were the genders reversed, so that argument doesn't stand.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
?
[–]TheBananaKing 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
A husband cheating on his wife wouldn't demonstrate the disposable nature of women in our society, so neither does a woman cheating on her husband demonstrate the disposable nature of men.
Now, glorifying military service, on the other hand...
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I get you point regarding infidelity.
But what is your agenda with, "glorifying military service?"
You seem to taking the context of service through your political eyes of today and not by the Gender Roles of all men four countless centuries. Where MILLIONS of men have died for their family and society.
So are you saying the issue of Men sacrificing their bodies for our society -- a cultural norm -- only counts when you political agree with WHY they are doing it?
[–]TheBananaKing 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No, I'm saying that the cultural norm is always shit.
We should not be cannon fodder, and all the high-faluting 'noble sacrifice' bullshit only serves to justify our being so.
Glad we got that settled!
[–]Schlessel 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
four countless centuries?
for*
[–]thefran 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
where a wife disrespect their husband enough to willingly speak openly this way
Not openly. it's a private conversation. And she is scared of him posting a screenshot.
[–]Aikidi 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is not a Mens Rights issue.
[–]Rasheeke 25 points26 points27 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
People unfaithful to their relationship is afront to Men's Rights?
[–]Auldreekie 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not really. But the court system functions on the fallacy that men are to blame and are defacto instigators of adultery; alimony.
[–]primaloath 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It damn well is an affront to moral men.
[–]Rasheeke 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Really? What about when, in a lesbian relationship, one person cheats on another?
My point is, infidelity happens in all kinds of relationships; this is not a Men's Right's issue.
[–]woofoo -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What if an elephant is romantically involved with a zebra?
[–]Rasheeke 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's called interspecies erotica, and I am not opposed to it.
[–]RyanLikesyoface 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The fuck is this doing in Mensrights? Don't you think we have bigger issues to talk about? Some stupid chick is cheating on her husband, well fuck. That's obviously hurting men everywhere, not like men also cheat or anything.
[–]airodynamic1000 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'd rather know
[–]TheBananaKing 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How is this a men's rights issue?
People cheat, male or female.
smells like bullshit
[–]darkscream 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You know, I actually don't have a problem with this. This isn't really a mens rights issue. its actually a very private matter, we have no idea the arrangements between this woman and her husband, and basically its a fuck you to women which is sort of lame. i agree with the dude, but dudes have always had the right to say no to risky sex.
[–]Ulime 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is what i expect from every guy in here.
What if she just wanted to hang out?
[–]kenba2099 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Is it just me, or is the girl a photo of pornstar Eva Angelina? That's what leads me to believe this may be fake.
[–]Potater757 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And that marks the... seventh time of seen this today. Normal I don't care about reposts, but sheesh.
Bitch he did
[–]stringerbell 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Just to point out... The American soldiers in the middle east right now are NOT there to protect your freedom or any other such bullshit - they are there to get oil onto the world market.
[–]Dolanduckaroo 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Protip: most wars have never been about "freedom" or any of those other buzzwords. Resources has always been the name of the game.
[–]Aikidi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's true, but other stupid wars ('Nam) featured soldiers that were conscripted into service. Those men had no choice. That's why it's different from Desert Storm and Desert Storm 2: Electric Boogaloo.
[–]Cheimon 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Indeed. Julius Caesar was interested in taking Britain because of its extremely profitable mining industry, not just because (in the words of Gladiator) "Rome is the light".
[–]FappingAsYouReadThis 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
That's absurd. This article dispels a few underlying points on which that conspiracy theory is built upon.
Reddit loves to think they see through the propaganda the media dishes out, but in cases like this, many Redditors can't tell fact from fiction and go on believing lies of their own - like the "war for oil" conspiracy theory.
[–]ulpisen 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
in some countries it's mandatory to go to war, in the USA it's a choice, and if you choose to join the army, get sent away to kill people, then that's your choice.
I'm not saying weather or not this or any other war is good or bad, but you certainly are responsible for your own actions, no one is holding a gun to your head
[–]TheBananaKing 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
They chose to sign up, so yes they fucking well did.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
As the daughter of a soldier who died in the Global War on Terror (yep. That's what it says on his gravestone. Not the "War on Keeping Oil"), all I have to say is: fuck you.
Happy fathers' day! I get pissed because America doesn't appreciate soldiers, and get downvoted for it! Thanks, guys!
[–]FartyNapkins 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
CRY MOAR
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
How is this a mens rights issue?
Yes, that girl is a slut but I fail to see how that relates to anything. I don't think that there is any disagreement from any group that this girl (while fake...) is doing something wrong.
Can we not turn this subreddit into r/atheism please?
[–]kissacupcake 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I totally agree with the gist of your post, but slut-shaming isn't going to further mens rights either!
Yes, that girl is selfish. That girl is a bad spouse. She is inconsiderate. She is not a slut.
I am sorry, how is she not a slut?
Listen, I constantly get called by women "man-whore" or "womanizer"...I know slut shamming occurs towards men too and I know it first hand.
You'll never see me cheating on my gf (if I had one).
What is the definition of a slut then? This woman is dictionary definition of a slut...guess what if it was a guy? I would say the male version of the word slut.
[–]kissacupcake 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
She is not a slut because "slut" is an outdated term used to shame people, mostly women, for their sexual choices. She should be shamed for adultery (her husband is almost definitely not okay with her sleeping around while he's gone).
I understand that men are slut-shamed too. That is also a huge problem. It is the SAME problem. I never once said that slut-shaming is only a problem for women.
What is the definition of a slut then?
Slut is an outdated term. It used to be used derogatorily to describe people who had casual sex. Now that casual sex is becoming more accepted (as it should be, for everyone of any gender), it's used as a vague way to insult someone's sexual habits.
I think "adultress" or "liar" would have been a better way to describe her. I'm not defending her, I'm attacking the use of a harmful and outdated term.
So you're not attacking "slut-shaming" as a concept, but just the use of the word "slut?" That seems... like missing the point.
words evolve.
[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
What I haven't seen mentioned here is that most man, or at least a good many of them, would have jumped on the chance and not felt the least bit bothered by it.
Both our biology and culture conditions men to see other men as nothing but competition for the attention of women. Bringing this fact to the forefront of our cultural consciousness is, in my opinion, one of the most important and at the same time nebulous goals of the MRM.
We can do much about nature but shifting the cultural status quo is within our means. Liberté, égalité, fraternité—we need a bit more brotherhood up in here.
[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Both our biology and culture conditions men to see other men as nothing but competition for the attention of women.
It's not biology. One thing that makes us human is the unusually cooperative and peaceful relationship between human men.
[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
It's not biology.
Um what? Sexual competition between males is extremely common among species that reproduce sexually, ours included.
[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Sexual competition between males is extremely common among species that reproduce sexually, ours included.
Our species is a pair-bonding not tournament species. Which means both males and females compete equally for mates.
[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
We fall somewhere between chimps and gorillas in terms of behavior. For much of our history and possibly pre-history, the two strategies vied for dominance in the memetic landscape; the fact that a disproportionate number of all the men that have ever lived failed to reproduce while most most women makes for good evidence for this fact.
[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
the fact that a disproportionate number of all the men that have ever lived failed to reproduce while most most women makes for good evidence for this fact.
If the idea that we are descended from twice as many females as males is true, it does not follow that twice as many females as males reproduced throughout the generations.
The human race also suffered a genetic bottleneck in it's prehistory. At some point there were less then a thousand of us; it's entirely possible that that thousand was comprised of twice as many women.
Further there is no 'somewhere between chimps and gorillas' in terms of behaviour.
Gorillas are polygynous and like most polygynous species the males are twice as big as the females. Chimps are promiscuous breeders and like most promiscuous breeders have enormous balls.
Human males resemble neither. They are 20% bigger then human females (which is sort of like chimps) and they have smaller balls (sort of like gorillas). That doesn't mean they 'fall in between the two in terms of behaviour', it means they're in an entirely different category entirely.
Add in the fact that human males have a pair-bonding hormonal profile, undergo hormonal changes during pregnancy, and, you know, have desperately helpless offspring (three things completely unlike chimps or gorillas)... humans are pair-bonders.
And competition in a pair bonding species is equal between male and females.
[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That is exactly what it means. It is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn based on that data and I don't see how you could argue otherwise. Even taking into account the bottleneck theory it doesn't do much to support your interpretation.
Recent studies lend credence to a long-term bottle-neck effect as opposed to the old sudden cataclysm which means that this sex disparity that you mention would have had to have existed for thousands of years.
Even more damning, it would not make much of a difference if it had not. Have you asked yourself the question of why more women would have survived such a catastrophic event? It is not really the sort of situation where male deaths are likely to be substantially higher, like say warfare.
In a gorilla troop, the silverback will watch over the females and while young and old adults males hang around the periphery or lead solitary lives. These males would be much more vulnerable to such events and much less likely to be able to pass on his genes in the aftermath.
They are 20% bigger then human females (which is sort of like chimps) and they have smaller balls (sort of like gorillas).
Actually our genitals are more in line with chimps than gorillas in terms of the ratio of genital vs. body mass—maybe somewhere in between.
have desperately helpless offspring (three things completely unlike chimps or gorillas)
What?! Baby gorillas take almost a year to be able to walk and are nursed for a couple more afterwards.
As to the relevance of hormones in this context, I'm going to have to ask for some sources.
[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Cite.
Have you asked yourself the question of why more women would have survived such a catastrophic event?
Sex selective disease.
Human genitals do not resemble chimp genitals. First of all human testicles are, proportionately, four times smaller. The mechanism of human erection is also different: human's have vascular erections, chimps have ones based on muscle contraction(and a corresponding baculum), chimps also have spines on their peni which facilitates quick mating, human males don't, which facilitates the affectionate mating associated with bonding.
Incidentally, here's an image of an erect chimp.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110309-humans-men-penises-spines-dna-genome-science/
Baby gorillas can cling to their mothers immediately after birth. Human children can't. Further human children take over a decade to develop the ability to keep up with adults for any length of time.
If you want to understand the relevance of hormones in this context, it's simple.
A pair bonding hormonal profile indicates that a species pair bonds. Just like two feet indicates a species is bipedal.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Lv7o88oh1oIC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=Men+undergo+hormonal+changes+during+pregnancy&source=bl&ots=BxYb2PI6XJ&sig=5lOwoG_9MQKmkH5qUkQ4drjRUss&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UojeT66oNsW22gX9xNzgAQ&ved=0CF8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Men%20undergo%20hormonal%20changes%20during%20pregnancy&f=false
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39518225/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TyykX5hQf8t
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/37/14153.abstract
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n10/full/nn1327.html
[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/2.full
Why? You're going to have to explain to me why disease would kill off twice as many men after a volcanic eruption. But of course this is all hypothetical, based on a scenario which did not, in fact, occur. You are, instead, going to have to explain to me how men managed to die twice more often than women before they got a chance of reproduction for thousands of years and how it does not in fact amount to a form of sexual competition in itself e.g. hunting/warfare.
Human genitals do not resemble chimp genitals. First of all human testicles are, proportionately, four times smaller. The mechanism of human erection is also different: human's have vascular erections, chimps have ones based on muscle contraction(and a corresponding baculum), chimps also have spines on their peni which facilitates quick mating, human males don't, which facilitates the affectionate mating associated with bonding. Incidentally, here's an image of an erect chimp. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110309-humans-men-penises-spines-dna-genome-science/
[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110309-humans-men-penises-spines-dna-genome-science/
All this tells me is that humans have been moving away from the promiscuous behavior of our ancestors, it doesn't determine how far we've actually gone in that direction.
Human testicles make up 0.08% of our body weight, the the number for chimpanzees is 0.3% and 0.03 for gorillas. This puts us very much in the middle in terms of how much sperm competition i.e female promiscuity there is.
http://v-scheiner.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/438/1/gpr93228.pdf http://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Goetz-Shackelford-MR-SD-chap9.pdf
Humans are irregular in this sense because our offspring have to be birthed before they might have in any other species due to the size of our brains. Our heads would not fit through the birth canal so we need more time to develop outside the womb.
This is probably a factor—or the main one—for why we have developed along the lines we have but it doesn't really tell us much about where we actually are right now.
A pair bonding hormonal profile indicates that a species pair bonds.
And?
Nature to some degree can be suppressed. Religion and law have done this for hundreds of years. Feminism has also done this as well to some degree.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This isn't a men's rights issue.
[–]kyle2143 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This was on the front page yesterday, you could link the original post.
[–]MeLlamoViking 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Still find it funny that without any questioning you're jumping on it. Who is this woman? Is this conversation even real?
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I have had more than one military wife hit on me. Looking back I didn't say anything because I figured they wouldn't believe me despite being their friend and would have just accused me of hitting on her and send a grievance up the command.
Feels bad, man, but then again I didn't have proof like this person.
[–]FucklesTheCat 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is fucking awesome!
[–]THE_LOBATOMIZER 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I remember seeing that thread on 4chan
[–]bobandgeorge 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
God damnit, Jody!
As a military member: You're alright. :3
I have a bumper sticker on my computer that says "My Girlfriends Husband Defends Your Freedom!"
Good on you sir
[–]boobers3 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPs
She said hang out not anal sex
Knee jerk reaction was to assume this was true, but apparently it's a fake.
[–]NiggerJew944 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We have found St. Broseph who kept the faith and upheld the bro code. Truly, he is his brother's keeper.
[–]MistaTom 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's now getting passed around facebook. Her name is Taelor Vega
[–]dogwarrior17 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Here is her legit facebook account http://www.facebook.com/itistoolate777
I've unwittingly been the other guy before. I felt so badly that i hooked him up with a fantastic divorce lawyer, and she got nothing. Now we are friends and I have introduced him to way better friends/women.
FYI, it's a fake.
[–]sgturtle 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Already reposted many times, and debunked to be fake. Calm your horses gentlemen.
[–]Auldreekie -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So did he post it for the husband? Not that I like vindictive behaviour but she isn't exactly a good wife.
[–]Octagonecologyst -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Seriously, what is it with you Americans and all that "We're fighting for FREEDOM!" nonsense that you guys are constantly going on about? You can't all be that sheepish?
[–]BarelyNerdy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wow that is just shameful.
[–]Flamewall26 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thank you OP. Just thank you.
[–]newtothelyte 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I respect this guy for standing up for what he believes in, but I must admit I would have jumped all over that in a heartbeat.
Her Facebook.
College girl in 2012 with just over 300 "friends" and 3 interests/likes, seems unlikely to be legit.
Most girls like that have close to 1000 these days.
[–]zouhair -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
WTF is this people, a facebook crappy screenshot!! really? really? WTF! Are you as stupid and moronic as some feminists?
[–]Darkfire346 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"I would. And I did." Commence epic YYYEEEEEAAAAAHHHH!!
[–]Goniochromism -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Mad props to you bro; cheatin' gets a beatin'!
[–]Bodygasm -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes!!! Now she HAS to fuck you. GG indeed good sir.
[–]fightingspork -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fake, no spelling errors.
[+]Tommassive -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
fag
[+]Tommassive -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
calm down fag
while he is undoubtedly a fag, you are also a fag.
Woman still needs to have fun.
Women are just as big of sluts as men, just for about 2% of the male population as opposed to men, who are sluts for 98% of the female population.
[–]TheFlyingChris -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Watching act of valor right now.
And good for you. You're the kind of hero this world deserves.
Johnny Heward, props. Taelor Vega, slut.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]Red_means_go 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't think there's any assuming there. If it even IS real, she makes it pretty clear what her intentions are.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Scumbag /r/Feminism :
twists clearly obvious implications to their own agenda.
assume that even though she made a point that her husband was away in the first message, there is no way she wants anything remotely sexual
Because if this wasn't the other way around people wouldn't assume he was trying to cheat? There is a huge double standard there which is clear.
Every rational person can tell by using that language that you are making it seem as if you are implying something sexual. The only other way would be lacking intelligence. I would never say anything to a girl along those lines if I wasn't trying to be a scumbag, and no girl would be expecting me to just want to "hang out", especially if I started it by saying my significant other was away.
Of course though, guys only want to have sex with all women right?
Also, her last reply is pretty telling. Perhaps if she wasn't trying to cheat she would have perhaps...denied it?
[–]Dolanduckaroo 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Hey because you're so handsome lets go out bowling sometime. I've been looking for a friend for a while but all the guys I meet aren't handsome enough.
[–]ComeAtMeBrother -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
You're trolling or playing devil's advocate or something here, correct? If not, I'd say that there's a pretty damn good chance you're at least mildly autistic.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Well, you're at least socially retarded.
You really can't see the implications in her posts? Are you fucking serious?
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Suuure, that's what it is.
Because women pick up extremely good-looking platonic strangers via Facebook all the time...
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
They're friends yet he doesn't know her husband is in the Army? Really?
Just admit that your original take on this (likely fake) exchange was clearly wrong.
Just admit that you were wrong, Jesus fucking Christ.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–][deleted] 319 points320 points321 points (63 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 110 points111 points112 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]billywms 22 points23 points24 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 35 points36 points37 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]_FUCKYOUPAYME_ 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchrodingersRapist 2 points3 points4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]notacrackheadofficer -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]zaferk -32 points-31 points-30 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpliffySam 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]primaloath -4 points-3 points-2 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]camelFace 49 points50 points51 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Thatonechiku 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake -2 points-1 points0 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake -3 points-2 points-1 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 11 points12 points13 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]kissacupcake -8 points-7 points-6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Irrel_M 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]designerdy -6 points-5 points-4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]impossiblyirrelevant 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MattThePossum 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dwayne_J_Murderden 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Xanthan81 -6 points-5 points-4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchrodingersRapist 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Xanthan81 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Xanthan81 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Xanthan81 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jahonay -5 points-4 points-3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]planejane 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Jahonay 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jahonay 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jahonay 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jahonay 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 62 points63 points64 points (56 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JustPlainRude 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]JustPlainRude 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]torrobinson 5 points6 points7 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]torrobinson -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]torrobinson 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]torrobinson 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]torrobinson 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HouselsLife 9 points10 points11 points (35 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 36 points37 points38 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]Octagonecologyst 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]robywar 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FalseGenesis 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DoccRobb 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HouselsLife 3 points4 points5 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HouselsLife 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]thatdarkknight 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HouselsLife -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]HouselsLife 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Popular-Uprising- 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]overcontrol 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Grand_Theft_Audio -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Patrick5555 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dolanduckaroo 155 points156 points157 points (34 children) | Copy Link
[–]sharkraper 22 points23 points24 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dolanduckaroo 165 points166 points167 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]betaprime 75 points76 points77 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 48 points49 points50 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]DiggerW 6 points7 points8 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake 8 points9 points10 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 37 points38 points39 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Yodamanjaro 14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Sheather 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake 3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]xebo 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchrodingersRapist 24 points25 points26 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jeffersonbible 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]-RobotDeathSquad- 26 points27 points28 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]john2kxx 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]adamsfan42 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Frisbeehead 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]LUSTYHAPPYCRACK 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sharkraper 61 points62 points63 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 42 points43 points44 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]probably_high 3 points4 points5 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Whisper 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]probably_high -4 points-3 points-2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Codeshark 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]probably_high 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Codeshark 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]significantshrinkage 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]subliminal_messaging 19 points20 points21 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 18 points19 points20 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]bantam83 8 points9 points10 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Codeshark 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jayewalk 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]koncept61 -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Trekkie1701 59 points60 points61 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]the-knife 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]James_STI 19 points20 points21 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]antagognostic 56 points57 points58 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]lampkyter 35 points36 points37 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (13 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]rawbamatic 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lampkyter 15 points16 points17 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]subliminal_messaging 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]howsweettobeanidiot 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HouselsLife 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 8 points9 points10 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HouselsLife -3 points-2 points-1 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]AbsoluteBlack 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]AbsoluteBlack 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lohengren 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]katchison02 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DaddyFatSac8766 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rolfsnuffles 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -15 points-14 points-13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 72 points73 points74 points (75 children) | Copy Link
[–]RyanLikesyoface 32 points33 points34 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Veteran4Peace 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]HouselsLife -8 points-7 points-6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]thegreatmisanthrope 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]HouselsLife -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]zexon 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HouselsLife 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]HouselsLife 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 1 point2 points3 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]adamsfan42 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]adamsfan42 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]adamsfan42 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]adamsfan42 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]adamsfan42 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]boobers3 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]boobers3 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]boobers3 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]boobers3 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]boobers3 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]bucketh3ad -1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bucketh3ad -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bucketh3ad -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bucketh3ad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]douglasmacarthur -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]natty_dread 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]john2kxx -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MalcolmPecs 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (36 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]thefran 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 23 points24 points25 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Veteran4Peace 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]bobandgeorge 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Embogenous -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Gumbo72 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dolanduckaroo 5 points6 points7 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+]Dolanduckaroo -6 points-5 points-4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+]Dolanduckaroo -9 points-8 points-7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]HouselsLife -8 points-7 points-6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ozone_00 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Dolanduckaroo 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ozone_00 -5 points-4 points-3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dolanduckaroo 3 points4 points5 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]ozone_00 -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dolanduckaroo 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ozone_00 -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ozone_00 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fiveisafemme 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheBananaKing 7 points8 points9 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheBananaKing 6 points7 points8 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheBananaKing 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Schlessel 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thefran 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rasheeke 25 points26 points27 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Auldreekie 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]primaloath 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rasheeke 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]woofoo -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Rasheeke 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RyanLikesyoface 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]airodynamic1000 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheBananaKing 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]darkscream 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ulime 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kenba2099 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Potater757 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]stringerbell 12 points13 points14 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dolanduckaroo 12 points13 points14 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cheimon 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FappingAsYouReadThis 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]ulpisen 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TheBananaKing 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]FartyNapkins 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]kissacupcake 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dolanduckaroo 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kyle2143 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MeLlamoViking 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FucklesTheCat 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]THE_LOBATOMIZER 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bobandgeorge 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DaddyFatSac8766 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]boobers3 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NiggerJew944 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MistaTom 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dogwarrior17 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Xanthan81 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sgturtle 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Auldreekie -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Octagonecologyst -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BarelyNerdy 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Flamewall26 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]newtothelyte 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Auldreekie -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zouhair -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Darkfire346 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Goniochromism -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bodygasm -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fightingspork -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Tommassive -9 points-8 points-7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+]Tommassive -8 points-7 points-6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheFlyingChris -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (15 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Red_means_go 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Dolanduckaroo 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ComeAtMeBrother -1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]ComeAtMeBrother 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link