~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
3happy5u
[–]mcavvacm 217 points218 points219 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Doesn't this fall into the creepy stalker area?
[–]Cannon0006 266 points267 points268 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Only when men do it
[–]jb_trp 99 points100 points101 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
DILFS of Disneyland has 294K followers. The comments are pure gold.
MILFS of Disneyland is much less popular.
What's crazy about the two accounts is that many of the men don't know they're being photographed and posted with their children. The pics are often taken from far away. The MILFS page, however, all have women who willingly sent in their pics.
Women = objectify themselves to increase instagram followers
Men = Random creeper photographs them and posts for women to objectify
What a world we live in...
[+]trippinthrowaway85 -23 points-22 points-21 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What's more, women aren't built to put themselves in a higher power, and this is no place for marriage.
[–]blkarcher77 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Literally a throwaway. nice
[–]NoDeadPugs 93 points94 points95 points 10 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link
They're both fucked up, but the difference is that a lot of people consider it appropriate to harass men or make them uncomfortable like in this HuffPo link. Anyone remember the Jon Hamm scandal? (One reason I haven't touched Tumblr in over a year)
This feminist has your back
[+][deleted] -157 points-156 points-155 points 10 years ago* (63 children) | Copy Link
excellent point! especially because everyone knows there are 0 sites on the internet dedicated to analyzing or fantasizing over women's body parts.
r/drunkgirls r/changingrooms r/photoplunder r/girlsinyogapants r/downblouse r/doppelbangher r/legalteens
damn yall mad. where's a rebuttal though
editing this comment as mods have banned me: i should've been more thorough and explained my point better-
i feel that a) no one takes huffpo seriously- it's absolute garbage, and b) most people commented on the article when it was posted calling it out as total hypocritical bullshit.
just because one shitty "news outlet" posted a trashy article doesn't mean that people agreed with it or think it's acceptable to objectify men.
[–]sillymod 96 points97 points98 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Stop being obtuse.
No one is making the point that women are not objectified, and you know it.
[–]MasterGoshinki 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The problem imo is the double standard. Huffington post would never approve an article that advertises women getting pictures taken of them without consent.
[–]uwatfordm8 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Idk all of those subs you listed, but there's a difference between stealthily snapping photos of people in public who didn't consent.. And women in yoga pants posing for photos provocatively.
[–]SafariDesperate 49 points50 points51 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
/r/LadyBoners
[+][deleted] -83 points-82 points-81 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
is this a joke sub? i really can't tell. if it's not, i'm wondering how you guys expect others to take you seriously when no one here is responding respectfully with logic or reason or any kind of valid point.
[–]rogue780 31 points32 points33 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What exactly is your point?
[–]SafariDesperate 29 points30 points31 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're making a fool of yourself, just be quiet.
[–]oneDRTYrusn 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I would like you to know that I respectfully disagree with you on everything you've said in this post. Objectification is not a male-exclusive practice, regardless of how hard you try to assert that point. You can scrape the bottom of the barrel for misogynist subreddits, but you cannot refute a basic sexual instinct: We like to look at people who are really really ridiculously good looking, male and female alike.
[–]DickDickVanDik 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Lol you mad.
[+][deleted] -33 points-32 points-31 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
lol bro lbr, who gets mad over strangers talking some shit on the internet
was looking for honest insight into the MR perspective but just got a lot of brigading and childish PMs so i assume i gave this sub's userbase more credit than i should have. but i ain't mad atcha
[–]DickDickVanDik25 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
People just gave you their perspective. You asked if men were objectified, and we provided an example. Since the collective perspective here is something you don't agree with, you label it as "childish" which in fact, is childish of you. Don't be condescending to people because they disagree with you. It is petty.
[–]Sour_Badger1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm not sure you know what brigading means.
[–]mjociv 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm wondering why you expect to be taken seriously for arguing against a point no one was making.
Where in NoDeadPugs' comment is it stated or even implied that women's bodies aren't "analyzed or fantasized over" on the internet?
[–]reddude7 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Here's your rebuttal: You are missing the point. The point being made is that one source posts an article objectifying men and then posts another article condemning the objectification of women. It is at is core sexist against men. No one is trying to say that women are not objectified. These sites exist for both genders; that is not the subject of this post.
[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You got banned for this? I mean, it's snarky, but it's hardly bannable, imo. I though we prided ourselves in not being a ban-happy sub.
[+][deleted] 10 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] -31 points-30 points-29 points 10 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link
oh, absolutely not. the comment i responded to seemed to be indicating that people think it's more appropriate to harass or objectify men than it is to harass women. i was politely disagreeing. lmfao holy shit you guys are so butthurt over this
[–]ShinakoX2 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
It's really disappointing how people here just want to silence you, but here's where I think you went wrong:
people think it's more appropriate to harass or objectify men than it is to harass women. i was politely disagreeing.
You posted links to several sites that harass and objectify women. I assume that your intent by posting those sites was to show that society objectifies women more than men. Thus, since society objectifies women more, people must think it's more appropriate to objectify women than to objectify men. While it is true that women are objectified more, there is also a large cultural sentiment that such objectification is wrong. The same can't be said for men.
The original argument is that, culturally and journalistic-ly, harassing and objectifying women is something that sparks public outrage, but harassing and objectifying men is ignored or perpetuated: i.e. the original picture in this post.
As far as I can tell, you went off the topic from the original idea.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
appreciate the response. the thing that i find really gross about the photo is not just the objectification (on both sides), but the intense creepiness of the top one. it's not just, "look at these hot guys," but it's "look at you, you hot guys. we're going to find you, we're going to follow you, we're going to photograph you." that's creepy and invasive as fuck.
[–]ShinakoX210 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
that's creepy and invasive as fuck.
Yes, that's the exact point that we were trying to make. A news outlet would never post the same thing about women - they would be publicly destroyed. From the top level comment: "the difference is that a lot of people consider it appropriate to harass men or make them uncomfortable"
Also, take a look at my previous comment again. I've edited it to be more clear.
[–]SafariDesperate -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Lots of downvotes doesn't mean anyone is angry at you, just a shit load of people disagree. At the end of the day you said nothing valid and just got immature while claiming that's what others were doing. I see you post to twox so maybe you feel like you've crossed the picket line or something here but people would agree with you if you made good arguments. There's a lot of porn aimed at sexualising women and there's the same for males.
Embracing female sexuality should be part of the feminist movement, not trying to repress it like the 1920s. Also sexualising something is not harassment. You're just an uptight prude.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
right.. where did i advocate for repressing sexuality?
you said nothing valid and just got immature while claiming that's what others were doing
lol welp
[–]SafariDesperate2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Why did you complain about porn related subreddits when honestly it seems balanced between the sexes unless you dislike the idea of them? Yeah that's immature "lmfao holy shit you guys are so butthurt over this" ok
[+]dragondan -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
Yeah the circle jerk here is pretty gross. These people are as bad as the feminists
[–]MasterGoshinki 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link
Yet, here you are posting. Go say this shit on r/feminism and see how quickly you get banned
Oh and for the record we actually have real issues here. Not every one gets it right all the time, but because we don't silence dissent, people can learn from their mistakes and improve themselves
[–]dragondan3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I agree that free speech should be encouraged in general. I like this sub often, but sometimes I think users get carried away. I was merely expressing that I disagreed. It is a shame that people downvote for disagreeing rather than encouraging a healthy discussion. This cannot be disputed.
Edit: Perhaps my comparison to feminists was unsavory, seeing as there is bad blood between the two groups, however I stand by my statement.
[–]MasterGoshinki2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well, it's straight up wrong. Here there is plenty of disagreement amongst ourselves. If someone posts something just anti woman and not having to do with mensrights, they will be called on it, period. If you do the same shit in feminism, or express any doubt whatsoever, you will be banned completely. So. You. Are. Wrong
[–]dragondan2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I said there's disagreement, in fact I was one of those, which is why my post is hidden from all the dv. What exactly am I wrong about?
I like this sub often, but sometimes I think users get carried away.
True, happens absolutely everywhere on reddit, but true....
It is a shame that people downvote for disagreeing rather than encouraging a healthy discussion. This cannot be disputed.
This also happens everywhere and is not peculiar to this sub at all. Also, there are plenty of people that do respond as well so there is healthy discussion...
Edit: Perhaps my comparison to feminists was unsavory
Yes it was
seeing as there is bad blood between the two groups
This is only part of the reason. The other reason is that it is completely erroneous. We have discussions, they do not. They actually censor people
however I stand by my statement.
Then you are wrong. For the reasons I already gave in my response above. Please refer to that
Edit: I accidently replied to the wrong message above. Pls ignore
So, I'm wrong for standing by my opinion. Cool.
[–]MasterGoshinki1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yes opinions can be wrong.
Edit: everything is subjective, naturally, but in the larger scheme; you said two things were similar when they are not, I explained how they were different and you have no other answer than what you gave
[–]dragondan1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So maybe clarify, what exactly was wrong?
I already told you this. Please read the both of my responses. In a nut shell; one censors and doesn't allow opinion (r/feminism), while the other does not censor and has discussion (r/mensrights). So your whole comparison is wrong.
This really sounds like a comparison of the mods, not the hivemind, which was what I was commenting on.
While I am sure there are some that exist; I do not know and have not heard of any mra support censorship, but I have consistently heard cries for censorship from feminists and sjws.
[–]sillymod2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I agree with everything you said here. Banning people doesn't make them learn, and we do not ban people for having a different opinion. Banning people just isolates people, forcing them to find others of like-mind to rehash their opinions. This is the major problem with feminism - instead of being inclusive and allowing dissent, it is exclusionary. Thus people who might have otherwise been supportive end up finding places like /r/MensRights. They are shooting themselves in their own foot.
[–][deleted]-3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
because we don't silence dissent,
my comments have been hidden by downvotes and mods removed at least one of them from this thread.
[–]MasterGoshinki7 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I don't see any comments hidden by downvotes...and that certainly is not what subscribers are trying to do. They just heavily disagree with your point. As for the mod erasing your comment, I checked to see if what you said was true and I only found comments deleted by the automoderator for violating a rule having nothing to do with censorship. So you were likely just lying on this account
Now go to r/feminism and say that you don't think the wage gap exists, you will be banned on the spot. There is an entire subreddit dedicated to the all of those bans.
So, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and gave you a serious answer, though I highly suspect that you full of shit, but who knows, I can be wrong
[–]sillymod3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
They are full of shit. Nothing has been removed from what I can see. People just like to stir things up.
[+]Michael_ShoeMaker -25 points-24 points-23 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
/r/mensrights is a place for men who act like they have vaginas.
[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Is there anything wrong with people not acting like the gender they were assigned at birth?
[–]II-Blank-II 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And yet you posted here...
[–]MasterGoshinki 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ah yes, it seems you meant to click on r/neckbeard.
No need to tip your fedora to me, I am here to help
[–]jostler57 39 points40 points41 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'd call it more of a hard candy shell.
[+]thc216 -12 points-11 points-10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Dammit! Beat me to it!!! Have an up vote!
[–]cuteman 149 points150 points151 points 10 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link
Cross post that to KiA
[–]ICantReadThis 69 points70 points71 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Preferably, with a bit less JPEG.
[–]Akesgeroth 28 points29 points30 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Obligatory
[–]ICantReadThis 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I did my best.
[–]turbulance4 25 points26 points27 points 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link
I feel stupid asking ( ... And at this point I'm too afraid to ask)
What is KiA
[–]cuteman 94 points95 points96 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
Kotakuinaction
It's actually a fairly sophisticated discussion a lot of the time. A lot less reactionary than mensrights because it's usually less emotional topics.
Basically, it's about hypocrisy in media and how many of the echo chambers with bias are basically tabloids.
KiA also seems to have surpassed MensRights as the number one target of SJW.
[–]Keiichi81 45 points46 points47 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
KiA is austensibly about hypocrisy/corruption in gaming media, or at least things tangentially related to gaming in some way. I would say this belongs more in /r/TumblrInAction, which deals more with just general SJW hypocrisy.
[–]gztichy 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Gaming journalism's the focus, but not the only thing that gets covered. The top post right now is about Github, and there was a post yesterday about Sam "Bring Back Bullying" Biddle posting Donald Trump's personal phone number.
TiA's more "lol tumblr sjws are retarded". It gets old.
[–]Nick-Cage 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It never gets old.
[–]blamb2115 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No it does not.
It does get my blood all angried up sometimes, but it never gets old.
[–]turbulance4 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Thanks for the description
[–]cuteman 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It doesn't do it justice I'm sure, but if you're interested in a more sophisticated discussion of corruption and hypocrisy, it's an interesting place.
[–]wicknest 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
that surprises me. i only just now heard about KiA, and i would think that most SJW looking to cause trouble are going to target a subreddit with a title, like /r/MensRights, that is more obvious to what its content consists of.
[–]cuteman 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Mensrights is more reactionary and narrow in scope of topics.
KiA points out a lot more hypocrisy and corruption.
Although I wish it weren't so, MensRights stumbles under its own weight sometimes because of the reaction from people personally traumatized by events or circumstances. KiA is lot more organized, systematic and sophisticated. You'll see a lot more analysis, history and evidence based sources.
[–]tbonanno 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Is it always about Kotaku? Or just everything related?
[–]Macismyname 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
It's turned into the hub for Gamergate itself so it's a lot more than just Kotaku.
[–]FastFourierTerraform 31 points32 points33 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You said the forbidden word...
Enjoy your shadowban, shitlord
[–]PM_ME_UR_PLANTS7 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No, I'm Gamergate!
[–]LaughingVergil5 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm secretly the hacker 4Chan.
[–]yaminub1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No, guys, I wasn't doing the Spartacus thing
Pretty much everything. Check it out. I was pleasantly surprised.
[–]Adrelinen 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's general. The name was just in reference to TumblrInAction, which was the sub that came before it.
Anything to do with hypocrisy, unethical coverups or the like in journalism is welcomed.
[–]FastFourierTerraform 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
You're going to love it... KiA is the result of the feminists and SJW's trying to take over progressively more communities. You wouldn't believe how many people over there thought we were insane when we were pissed off at Anita Sarkeesian's bullshit, and then flipped a 180 once gamers in general were the target.
[+]slocum42 10 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
I barely heard of her before i saw her colbert interview. It took me all of 2 minutes to hate her guts
[–]FastFourierTerraform 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It's not even because she's critiquing video games- it's that she can't even keep a consistent story about what's sexist... if you portray plain women, it's dehumanizing because you're denying their sexuality. If you portray sexy women, it's objectification. If the woman isn't the huge hero, it's sexist and exclusionary. If the woman is the hero, it's apparently just for men to stare at her tits.
You literally can't win, and all of this is supposedly because "men are bad". That's why I don't like her.
Oh, and she defrauded her kickstarter supporters to the tune of $150k
[–]slocum425 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yea bayonetta is sexist because the woman is sexy. Even though the game was designed by a woman. And said woman is whooping ass. Just.... argggh!
[–]ThatOneGuy1294 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don't forget her methods for making her Tropes vs Women series. At least for the videos focusing more on a specific character, she would basically first look for characters that would make a "great" video for her target audience, and pretty much focus entirely on the negative tropes for that particular character (often oversexualization). Or she would just rip video from somewhere else instead of playing the game herself (Hitman comes to mind), then provide her commentary on the video despite not having played the game (as an example, she said that Hitman would reward the players for killing the prostitutes in one level, despite your score actually going down for doing so).
What would have been imo a better way of doing the videos would be to pick a character/game, then analyze what is good and what could be better.
[–]veyron3003 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well she is Jewish.
[–]windkirby 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
KotakuinAction?
[–]ItsKimeTime -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I think they meant to say TiA.
[–]FastFourierTerraform 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
https://xkcd.com/1053/
Congratulations, you're one of today's lucky chosen ones. KiA is what happened when the feminists tried to pull their anti-MRM tactics against gamers. It's pretty beautiful. KiA went after Gawker (Jezabel's parent company, and the same people who publicly declared that bullying nerds was awesome, and who flipped a shit over the fappening all while embroiled in a lawsuit for releasing an illegally obtained Hulk Hogan sex tape) and actually managed to damage them to the point where they had to undergo a "reorganization" recently. KiA is like a /r/mr that gets shit done.
[–][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" np. domain. Reddit links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it"
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[–]ItsLSD1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Your np link does nothing bot
[–]apullin 87 points88 points89 points 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link
This comparison might not hold up under scrutiny. Right in the abstract of the lower article, it says "while there's absolutely nothing wrong with beauty and sex appeal ...". The upper article has it's own problems, insofar and crossing boundaries of personal space and consent and harassment. Indeed, Sarkeesian would be infuriated with top article.
One is sexualizing an object by giving it human attributes. They are female, and the argument is (likely) that it supports the gender role that femininity is equivalent to sex appeal. That could be countered, however, since it take two to do the proverbial tango, or, as Elanor Roosevelt said, "No on can make you feel inferior without your consent." That is: to be upset about seeing the green lady M&M as female-default-sexualization, you would need to host exactly the value system that such an argument would decry. It's ill-posed, basically.
These two things are not flawed in the same way, other than that both would go under the "gender issues" heading.
Also, for the love of god, if you made this image, please remake it with less compression.
[–]ColdFire86 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Found the person who managed to justify it by throwing enough hyphenated words and outdated quotes at it.
[–]dabezian 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
It's amazing how riled up this subreddit gets about one instance of men being valued solely based on sexual attractiveness. Imagine how annoying it'd get if the majority of media representation for men was like this!
That being said, these are kinda creepshots. But then again, there isn't a popular banned subreddit dedicated to creepshots of men.
[–]_Harkn_ 30 points31 points32 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
I don't think it's so much that men are being represented solely for their sexuality that people here have a problem with. Objectify men all you want. I really really do not care, because sex sells and as a rational adult I understand that. It's the double standard that annoys me. You don't get to do things like that and then do a complete 180 and go "Ugh, fucking misogynistic pigs objectifying women".
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I concur.
[+]dabezian -19 points-18 points-17 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
How is it a double standard?
One side is being objectified and the article is linking to an Instagram account.
The other side wants to have sexual desire to be divorced from their value as a person.
It's the same thing as posting "check out all these white guys eating watermelon" and "check out all these black guys eating watermelon." One is okay in social context, the other isn't because it perpetuates a negative, harmful stereotype that is rooted in a history of systemic oppression. If there were no racist stereotype, both would be fine, but there is one so you have to play it how it is.
Constant sexualization of women is unacceptable in their minds because the current zeitgeist in the media basically states that women are only valuable for being attractive. Women have been seen historically only as child rearers and pretty wives to show off. If the media started to put as much focus on their other traits other than physical attractiveness, then I guarantee you they wouldn't care about being sexualized anymore. Just like you don't care about this article that sexualizes men, because there are 99 others that focus on their achievements and ideas rather than a genetic lottery.
[–]rKremlin 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Women are happy to be sexualized provided the men are high status. That's the catch. They want to be sexualized when it fits their adjenda but otherwise your a pig. It doesn't work that way.
[+]dabezian -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Have you met any women in your life? You're in essence saying every woman in the world is a gold digger. Do you realize how stupid you sound?
Sorry, I forgot about the troves of women who love catcalling when it's from the guy in the Porsche instead of the construction worker, you're right.
[–]laihipp7 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think you are taking the point far too narrow. I've never met a human being who would turn down attention from someone, to whom they feel attracted. So yes, if the woman you describe was into rich men and some attractive to her rich guy in a Porsche rolled up and cat called her, that would more likely be a confidence boost then an insult.
The issue many of us have with the extreme SJW types is they like to pretend they are somehow 'better' then this and refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy even when it's staring them in the face.
[–]dabezian-8 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Or maybe you have a shitty view of things and assume everyone is a shallow pieces of shit?
Money has absolutely nothing to do with attraction for 99% of people. If you're the exception, my condolences, because there are a lot of cute girls that are probably too poor to be pretty in your eyes.
[–]laihipp6 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
that straw man lol
but whatever I can see further discourse would be a waste of time
[–]rKremlin2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Who said money, its status. To many people money represents status. Others it might be fame. If you think most women arent attracted by high status men, well you dont know women as well as you think you do.
You honestly think if a woman was getting scoped out by a very powerful, famous man that she would be horrified? Lol. Yeah all women are nuns and old maids. How do you think we all got here? Grow up, you are in such massive denial about the nature of women and even the human race itself.
[–]dabezian0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yeah, if he's attractive. Donald Trump wouldn't arouse any girl. It's like you're just desperately clawing at a reason other than "I'm an ugly piece of shit" to use for why women don't find you attractive
[–]rKremlin1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That must be why hes literally been connected romantically to several models. So you just made my point dumbass and are too stupid to realize it. Im sure you are drowning in pussy, which is why you are such a cunt on the Internet. Why dont you give all us some of your dating tips. Im sure they are a goldmine.
You sound salty. Did I hit a nerve with the ugly comment?
Cant support your idiotic claim, got it.
[–]QofCardiacMuscles -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
There's a difference between feeling sexy and being objectified. Feeling sexy is awesome. Being objectified makes some people feel like they have nothing of real value to contribute. There's a difference between "you're such a great mom/you're so smart/you're so creative, and that's sexy" and "that ass, those tits, so sexy." Men are definitely objectified too, the the picture here isn't an example of that.
The invasion of privacy is a different issue. I think it's hella weird and creepy to take pics of people you don't know that aren't aware of it.
Being viewed in a primarily sexual context is what Im talking about. Id call that being objectified. And Id say 95% of women love it, provided you are powerful, and famous enough. Or just really hot. They might object but they love it secretly.
I dont agree with the supreme court about photographing people in public. It would be hard to enforce, but I dont think being in public should mean you have no right not to be photographed. I absolutely think that is wrong. Always have.
[–]_Harkn_ 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Nobody in the media is stating that outright though. If that's your takeaway message from seeing makeup ads everywhere or seeing headlines of how great Caitlyn Jenner looks then that's on you. It's a pretty big mental leap to go from being the target of marketing strategies to being only valued for your sexuality. The only reason there's so much focus on attractiveness for women anyway is because there's a market for it, which they themselves perpetuate.
[+]dabezian -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The fact you assume I'm a woman shows how clueless you are
[–]_Harkn_4 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Good one. Where do I assume that exactly? I didn't imply gender, I said if you want to jump to the conclusion that marketing has something to do with the target's value then that's on you, and it is. I guess a more proper pronoun would've been "them", but you seemed to share their point of view so I used "you".
[–]3happy5u[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Maybe because there aren't instances of articles referring to "sexy women" who will be subjected to be found and photographed, whether or not they like it, and "aren't safe anywhere"? At least not on HuffPo.
The only people getting riled up seem to be the commenters from the front page, lmao.
[–]dabezian -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Because this subreddit is full of childish fuckboys? Tell me more about how these two tweets affected your life. How do you really feel?
[–]3happy5u[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Damn, you're mad.
[–]apullin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well, I did say there are problems, not that is was unacceptable.
Perhaps I should have qualified it a little more, due to my personal opinion that the issue of the top article can be looked at critically, but (although I haven't read specifically that one), it's a fine sentiment. Celebratory, inclusive (male erasure is a big issue!), positive, flattering, but not invasive in an excessive or damaging or demeaning way.
Really, for most people, I believe the issue is the lopsided wielding of superficial deconstruction and critical rhetoric.
[–]je_kay24 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It doesn't hold up simply because Huffington post has numerous different articles.
Unless this was written by the same author.
[–]WorkyMcWorkmeister 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Gender Issues" aka stupid liberals making click bait for their vapid politically illiterate constituents
[–]GoldenFalcon 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is harassment, but /r/fatpeoplehate would like me to believe it isn't.
[–]Spoonwood 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Indeed, Sarkeesian would be infuriated with top article.
I don't know about Sarkessian, but the Feminism 101 blog categorically denies the existence of sexism against men as possible.
"If you go by the feminist definition, sexism is predicated on having institutional power over a group, and since women do not have that power, they cannot be sexists, reverse or otherwise." https://archive.is/GJNLn
Since sexual harassment is a form of discrimination, that ends up entailing that sexual harassment of men by women is simply not possible (given that feminists have consistent beliefs).
So, no, it's not at all clear that Sarkeesian or feminists of her sort would feel infuriated by the top article, because that could imply sexual harassment of men by women as possible.
[–]CallEmLikeISeeEm22 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A woman can do anything these days. There is no more institutional power men hold over women anymore. Historically yes, but its very possible we will have a female president in the next 10 years and women hold many positions of power. The world is changing and so the idea that only men can be sexist is going to have to as well.
[–]defedude 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women have always objectified men just as much as men objectify women, just for different things. Romance novels are basically porn for women.
[–]Ransom_Stoddard6 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Humans are sexual creatures. This is normal. It is only sexist by the insane, idiotic, and retarded feminist double standard of sexism.
That said, I agree that it should be here under a sexist tagline to show the feminists how insane, idiotic, and retarded they are... to show their hypocrisy and double standards.
[–]borisvonboris 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Huffington Post is a fucking garbage dump.
[–]denach644 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Is that the male feminst who's wife is sleeping with Paulo, looking after the kid?
[–]Korinthe 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Babywearing Dad here.
More Dad's should do this sort of thing, it is an amazing way to bond with your children from an early age. My daughter is 6 months and I have been slinging her whilst out shopping etc since she was days old.
Also; not a beta, not a feminist. Just secure in who am I like the vast majority of babywearing Dad's. You have to be - some of the looks I get some closed minded people can be hilarious.
It does however make me cringe when I see that type of device, its been proven that it causes hip dysplasia because of the way the "seat" supports the child under the bum with legs down, when the legs should be positioned in an "M" fashion in order to not put strain on the hips. Using a wrap is safe for the child.
[–]denach644 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I realize that dads should pull their weight too, and absolutely agree with you. Was merely making a joke in this case, not looking down on dads for being proper dads.
[+]SuperPwnerGuy -13 points-12 points-11 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
He looks more like a moderately underpaid beta with a semi-professional wife that's strung out on caffeine, nicotine and pain killers, to which he commonly mistakes her violent withdrawals as just her "bitchy" side. The poor fool. He doesn't even see it coming.
[–]Captaincastle 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Damn man
[–]Captain_Yid 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wow! Do you do hand-readings too!?
[–]wutangclanthug9mm 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ignore the trolls in this thread
[–]negativ3zer02 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
sexism in a candy shell
[–]Wallace_Grover 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Anyone have some similar instas to follow like that?
[–][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]loganparker420 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm sorry for sexualizing dilfs..
[–]ubrayj02 -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This seems really trivial.
[–]ArrantPariah 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Does DILF stand for "Daughter I'd like to..." or "Daddy I'd like to...?" Creepy either way.
[–]specterofthepast -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don't you mean "sexism in a candy shell?"
[+]Webonics -19 points-18 points-17 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Hahaha what a bunch of sissies.
WHO CARES.
This subreddit is like the view for men, except the view is a woman's show, and there's not a man version. Just a bunch of sissies whining about stupid shit.
[–]Captain_Yid 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I like this subreddit, but I sympathize with your post.
At the risk of speaking for the sub, I think the general complaint is that it's socially-acceptable for women to ogle "DILF's" but it's not for men who want to ogle MILF's. i.e. The double standard is the issue.
[+]ScotWithOne_t -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I think we can all agree that if life were a logic problem, then yes, it is a double standard. But in reality, this particular double standard does not really matter for various reasons.
[–]NotARealAtty 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
So by logic it's a double standard, but it doesn't matter because reasons? Maybe you should put a bit more emphasis on logic
[–]ScotWithOne_t -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
There are various reasons why complaining about this is nitpicky and petty. I don't feel like getting into it. My point was that if you want to be pedantic and point out the logical double standards in life, go ahead, but many of them (including this one) are not worth giving a shit about, much less getting worked up over.
Boo hoo!! Women are calling me hot!! #firstworldproblems
[–]NotARealAtty 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
various reasons I don't feel like getting into it
various reasons
I don't feel like getting into it
Another strong, logical argument.
Either way you've completely missed the point. The issue isn't the objectification of men. The point is that it's hypocritical to condemn objectification of women, while simultaneously condoning that of men.
[–]DickDickVanDik 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Or the fact that they're taking pictures of them, uploading the photos to a website, and not asking for consent. That's pretty stalkerish.
[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nobody has a problem with women sexually objectifying men. That's a straw man argument. The problem is with the double standard. And, I know, you said it's no big deal. But you're not considering the serious repercussions, one of which is the sentencing disparity.
[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Damn. I was actually looking forward to hearing your logical argument supporting your opinion, but you didn't deliver.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
For me it's more about double standards.
[–]NotARealAtty -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The men's version is called "the news"
[+]dragondan -24 points-23 points-22 points 10 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link
It seems like they are complimenting the men
[–]CyberToyger 54 points55 points56 points 10 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
They are, but the problem is that they complain when people take pictures of women and 'objectify' them.
"Sexy daddies beware. You will be found. You will be photographed. You might be filtered. You are not safe from the gaze of one stealthy, genius photographer"
Do you imagine the tone of the article would be as positive and well-received if you simply switched genders?
"Sexy mommies beware. You will be found. You will be photographed. You might be filtered. You are not safe from the gaze of one stealthy, genius photographer"
In an equal world, that's how it'd be written. But that's not how it would actually go down in our world. In our world, it would read something like this:
"Mothers beware. You will be found. You will be photographed. And your identity will most likely be revealed. You are not safe from the gaze of one, out of many, creepy camera-wielding perverts."
[+]dragondan -56 points-55 points-54 points 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
It seems like they're attracted to these men for being good fathers, which is obviously an attractive quality, despite some perceiving their look as whipped or nerdy or something. They're promoting this and I see it as a positive. I don't really take the m&m thing seriously
[–]vivalapants 44 points45 points46 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
DILFS. Dad I'd like to fuck? Ok. I'm sure its just because they're "good" fathers.
[+]dragondan -59 points-58 points-57 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
It isn't sexual at all, you don't think they're being playful?
[–]vivalapants 28 points29 points30 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
lol what isn't sexual about saying you want to fuck someone based on outward appearances? I can never tell if I'm getting trolled on this site because there is some asinine shit posted.
[–]dragondan-41 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So you think the title is literal. Mystery solved.
[–]Demonicpoodle24 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm pretty sure you're the only one in the thread who has stated or thinks that it's not sexual.
Because you're not correct. If they were just being playful it would just be "cute dads", "hot dads", etc. They specifically chose DILFs because they mean DILFs.
[–]Dynamiklol18 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This has to be a troll, no one is this stupid.
[–]aaybma8 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Create a "MILFs of disneyland" Instagram and see what happens.
You sure as shit aren't going to get loads of woman saying that its refreshing that men are attracted to women for being good mothers.
[+]Endless_Summer 10 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
Oh good, I can playfully tell the women I work with I want to fuck them and I won't have to worry about anyone taking me seriously and calling HR. It's just playful!
[–]BlckMrkt2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's because they are good mothers!
[–]koji81231 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I want to see this. Make sure you record the encounter.
[–]BlckMrkt 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What part of "wanting to fuck" someone "isn't sexual"?
You seriously lost me here.
[–]CyberToyger 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
As I said, it IS a positive. I 100% support the celebration of good looks and drooling over people, no matter which gender. The problem is, Feminists and HuffPo do not. They do not celebrate and support drooling over females, mainly, when it's done by males. It is an incredibly common sentiment in both "online Feminist activism" and 'actual' institutional Feminism; I.E. colleges and Feminist organizations also share these double-standard views with their Tumblr and Twitter counterparts.
The M&M article is absolutely stupid, yes, but the sad thing is that the sentiment behind it is very real and constantly yelled at the top of Feminists lungs.
[+]dragondan -26 points-25 points-24 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
If it was a middle aged mother playing catch with her daughter, I could see a playful title referring to them as MILFs, because its obviously not sexual. Rather, it means you are a good mate for who you are, not a hot piece of ass. Almost implying they are D/MILFs because they are the kind of people others want to have children with.
[–]Captaincastle 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Are you being serious right now?
[–]dragondan0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yes, and honestly, I'm pretty disappointed at the group think of a subreddit who wants to make a difference. Regardless of whether this is demeaning to the men, it seems people here can't understand the important differences between men and women. Yes, men can be objectified. Yes, men can be stalked. Yes, men get the short end of the stick in many aspects of life. However, so do women. The vast majority of people getting creepy photos taken of them, which only highlight superficial qualities are women. Now this article claims these men are "DILFs" for a PERSONality trait and yet they are being OBJECTified?
[–]Captaincastle3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So strip away all political whatever. I don't care about that, in the purview of my response. Quit being a tosser about your disappointment in the sub.
What fucking universe are you from where gilf/milf/dilf isn't sexual? They're terms coined by the porn industry. They're about as sexually charged as you can get. With no subtext, that you're jumping to (and fervently defending) "no guys, they're dilfs because they're totally sweethearts" is either ultra transparent trolling, or a staggering naivette.
[–]dragondan-2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I agree that the term DILF is implicitly sexual. I also think the term tosser is implicitly sexual (albeit less so). However it is obvious from your context you are calling me obnoxious/ridiculous/or a jackass in some way. Weird.
[–]Captaincastle5 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Run along silly, I don't have time for your false equivalency.
[–]dragondan-1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Ironically you had time to respond. My point is that even "sexually charged" words should be taken with context.
[–]Kalesvol 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Do you even know what the fuck MILF means?
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Dad I'd like to fuck? Are you retarded?
[–]foxyramirez 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You're technically right, women are genetically programmed to find good fathers attractive. Likewise, men find symmetrical and large breasts genetically appealing because it's a sign that she has healthy mammary glands and healthy generic stock. The issue here lies in what is culturally correct. The hypocrisy is in that women can freely objectify men without fear of reprisal but a man simply can not.
[–]dragondan -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And the same is true for nurturing mothers and guys with big muscles to provide and protect. I see a difference between the two.
[+]Litig8 -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Serious question, why does this bother you?
[–]tallwheel 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Serious answer: Clearly displayed sexual double standard which is common in our society.
[–]Litig8 -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
And why does that bother you? There are hundreds of double standards that we live with every day. Why does this one bother you?
[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Because this one seems so blatant to me. There are people who not only think it's okay, but practically celebrate the double standard.
Give me an example of another double standard we live with every day, so that I can ponder whether or not it bothers me as much and try to figure out why.
[–]Sour_Badger 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
crickets
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]mcavvacm 217 points218 points219 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cannon0006 266 points267 points268 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]jb_trp 99 points100 points101 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]trippinthrowaway85 -23 points-22 points-21 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]blkarcher77 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NoDeadPugs 93 points94 points95 points (64 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -157 points-156 points-155 points
(63 children) | Copy Link
[–]sillymod 96 points97 points98 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MasterGoshinki 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]uwatfordm8 24 points25 points26 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SafariDesperate 49 points50 points51 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -83 points-82 points-81 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]rogue780 31 points32 points33 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SafariDesperate 29 points30 points31 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]oneDRTYrusn 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DickDickVanDik 8 points9 points10 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -33 points-32 points-31 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]DickDickVanDik25 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Sour_Badger1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mjociv 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]reddude7 15 points16 points17 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (37 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] -31 points-30 points-29 points (36 children) | Copy Link
[–]ShinakoX2 16 points17 points18 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ShinakoX210 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SafariDesperate -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SafariDesperate2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+]dragondan -16 points-15 points-14 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]MasterGoshinki 3 points4 points5 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]dragondan3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MasterGoshinki2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dragondan2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MasterGoshinki2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dragondan2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MasterGoshinki1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dragondan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MasterGoshinki1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dragondan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MasterGoshinki1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sillymod2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MasterGoshinki7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sillymod3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+]Michael_ShoeMaker -25 points-24 points-23 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]II-Blank-II 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MasterGoshinki 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jostler57 39 points40 points41 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]thc216 -12 points-11 points-10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cuteman 149 points150 points151 points (34 children) | Copy Link
[–]ICantReadThis 69 points70 points71 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Akesgeroth 28 points29 points30 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ICantReadThis 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]turbulance4 25 points26 points27 points (30 children) | Copy Link
[–]cuteman 94 points95 points96 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]Keiichi81 45 points46 points47 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]gztichy 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Nick-Cage 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]blamb2115 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]turbulance4 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]cuteman 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]wicknest 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]cuteman 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tbonanno 6 points7 points8 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Macismyname 19 points20 points21 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]FastFourierTerraform 31 points32 points33 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_UR_PLANTS7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LaughingVergil5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]yaminub1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]cuteman 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Adrelinen 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FastFourierTerraform 13 points14 points15 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]slocum42 [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
I barely heard of her before i saw her colbert interview. It took me all of 2 minutes to hate her guts
[–]FastFourierTerraform 15 points16 points17 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]slocum425 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ThatOneGuy1294 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]veyron3003 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]windkirby 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ItsKimeTime -10 points-9 points-8 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]FastFourierTerraform 16 points17 points18 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ItsLSD1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]apullin 87 points88 points89 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–]ColdFire86 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dabezian 0 points1 point2 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]_Harkn_ 30 points31 points32 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]dabezian -19 points-18 points-17 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]rKremlin 9 points10 points11 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+]dabezian -10 points-9 points-8 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]laihipp7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dabezian-8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]laihipp6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rKremlin2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rKremlin2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dabezian0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rKremlin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dabezian0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rKremlin2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]QofCardiacMuscles -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]rKremlin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]_Harkn_ 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]dabezian -8 points-7 points-6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]_Harkn_4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]3happy5u[S] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]dabezian -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]3happy5u[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]apullin 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]je_kay24 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WorkyMcWorkmeister 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoldenFalcon 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Spoonwood 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CallEmLikeISeeEm22 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]defedude 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ransom_Stoddard6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]borisvonboris 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]denach644 22 points23 points24 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Korinthe 20 points21 points22 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]denach644 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]SuperPwnerGuy -13 points-12 points-11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Captaincastle 18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Captain_Yid 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]wutangclanthug9mm 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]negativ3zer02 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Wallace_Grover 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]loganparker420 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ubrayj02 -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ArrantPariah 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]specterofthepast -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Webonics -19 points-18 points-17 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Captain_Yid 9 points10 points11 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]ScotWithOne_t -7 points-6 points-5 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]NotARealAtty 5 points6 points7 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ScotWithOne_t -5 points-4 points-3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]NotARealAtty 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DickDickVanDik 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NotARealAtty -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]dragondan -24 points-23 points-22 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]CyberToyger 54 points55 points56 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[+]dragondan -56 points-55 points-54 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]vivalapants 44 points45 points46 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+]dragondan -59 points-58 points-57 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]vivalapants 28 points29 points30 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]dragondan-41 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonicpoodle24 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Dynamiklol18 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]aaybma8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+]Endless_Summer [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
Oh good, I can playfully tell the women I work with I want to fuck them and I won't have to worry about anyone taking me seriously and calling HR. It's just playful!
[–]BlckMrkt2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]koji81231 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]BlckMrkt 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CyberToyger 10 points11 points12 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+]dragondan -26 points-25 points-24 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Captaincastle 9 points10 points11 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]dragondan0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Captaincastle3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dragondan-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Captaincastle5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dragondan-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Kalesvol 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]foxyramirez 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]dragondan -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Litig8 -8 points-7 points-6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Litig8 -4 points-3 points-2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Sour_Badger 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link