Male abusers who are not physically intimidating, are more likely to get a strong reaction from the public.

PassengerCultural421 · 2026-03-26T14:01:01+00:00

https://youtu.be/C1Ml-3USp78?si=Ocx9bsWirnIMLFCE Just like in the video 12:55. It's super common for people to call male abusers cowards, pussies, for...

[–]BrainMarshalIf you have to work for it, she's not into you. [Man] 9 points10 points11 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAMarried ♀️ w/High Standards 💍 16 points17 points18 points 4 months ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Cook_3098Red Pill Man 6 points7 points8 points 4 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatBitchAMarried ♀️ w/High Standards 💍 3 points4 points5 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anewleaf1234Purple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 4 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brief_Mongoose_7291 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]anewleaf1234Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brief_Mongoose_7291 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anewleaf1234Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mean_Ad_2982MY ANACONDA DON'T [score hidden] 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill... man. (semi-blue) 9 points10 points11 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (30 children) | Copy Link

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]NiaMiaBiaPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]RandHommanPurple Pill Man 6 points7 points8 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jip_Jaap_StamPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibibitch2002Blue Pill Woman 6 points7 points8 points 4 months ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jip_Jaap_StamPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibibitch2002Blue Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jip_Jaap_StamPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibibitch2002Blue Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Then what are they looking for? Because that’s a very irrelevant response to someone critiquing specific behaviors of men. Protectiveness existing in some men does not negate the existence of violence in others. That’s why “not all men” is not an appropriate response. It’s enough of them to be a societal problem, and the emphasis on the ones who aren’t doing the bad things should not be the priority thing in a conversation about solutions, or hell even a conversation complaining about the problem. The priority should be on the ones doing it, because it is happening and people are allowed to talk about it.

Not to mention that protective vs violent instincts cannot be ascertained about someone based on appearance or even past behavior. We don’t know men’s true motives as women but we are blamed heavily after harm for not being cautious enough, so there is a push for women to assume that men are violent rather than assume that they are safe. The actual likelihood of them being protective or violent is actually not relevant, because it’s better to err on the side of caution anyways when you will be blamed for the result.

So if male protectiveness has no actual relevant place in the conversation, it is brought up for two reasons. One is an ego defense for when someone like yourself is criticized. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. That doesn’t mean other people who look just like you don’t fit that shoe perfectly. Another is by flipping the dynamic of the criticism. We don’t harm you, we offer something good, and you should be thankful for it. It’s to say “you cannot bring this up if I have ever afforded you something good”. It’s like when parents say to their kids who have valid complaints about the way they’re being treated “well I feed you, put clothes on your back, and put a roof over your head”. It’s a way to shut down conversation rather than deepening it. It’s saying for them to be grateful for what they have, even when they are being harmed. The reality is people shouldn’t have to address all positive things about a group, person, or situation to air a grievance when they are being victimized.

[–]Jip_Jaap_StamPurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 4 months ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibibitch2002Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (8 children) | Copy Link

And it’s very telling that when women are complaining about rapists and abusers, instead of listening to their experiences, you are picking apart their phrasing because you feel offended by something that is not a factually incorrect statement. “All men are dangerous” is factually incorrect and easily disproven. If you took issue with just that, I’d have to agree with you. But “men are dangerous” is not an absolutist statement. It doesn’t exist in opposition to men being protectors or even harmless, It is a statement that danger does exist in the same scenario, because it does. It is a negative attribute being given to men as a whole and you feel offended by that, but it does not claim that all must be like that for the risk to be higher. It is equating men with a certain level of general danger without stating that it is like that in every case, and therefore is a generalization. Generalizations can be harmful, but they are a useful psychological deduction tool when based in reality, and it is within healthy human nature to generalize to make sense of the world at large. And whether you like it or not, there is a statistical basis in which that negative attribute is being given. Men are committing much more violent crimes than women are, and that is something that can be observed across cultures. It would appear that when making threat assessments, men are the more dangerous option comparatively. These empirical findings don’t have to be stated as “men on average are more dangerous than women” to be correct, because there is also sufficient empirical evidence to say that as a group, men are more dangerous. Attributing danger to them at higher levels than baseline is an evidence informed thought process.

Now, where you might be uncomfortable is having that more nuanced relationship to generalizations. That’s common, but I also think it comes from a lack of maturity and self-esteem. Given that we’re in a space where gender differences are being discussed and deduced, I question your ability to distinguish criticism of men as a group and patterns that can be observed, and criticism of you, and that is crucial to having productive conversations and self reflection here. Unlike you, I can encounter generalizations of women and move past the uncomfortable feelings it brings up and find the root of what the person is telling me about their experience, because ultimately I want to have conversations about how to improve gendered suffering on both ends. You cannot achieve that goal if you cannot recognize that people have observed patterns about people like you and still deserve to discuss them even where it doesn’t apply to you or your group uniformly. They don’t have to phrase it perfectly either for it to be a valid criticism, and I’d argue that disregarding people’s experiences based on a bullshit standard of “it’s not technically absolutist but it sounds it” is just an excuse to not engage critically with their experience or argument.

I see posts all the time on this sub about things like “women are hypergamous”, “women don’t pay for dates”, “women don’t take criticism well”, etc. I don’t honestly think these apply to me. My type is very outside of the Giga-chad mold, I do pay for dates more often than I don’t, and I like to really take my time and sit with criticism. Unpacking criticism is like puzzle solving to me, I really enjoy understanding how others view me. If I had your “need” to argue adamantly that I am not like these women that they have met, am I really listening to what they are saying? Because chances are, they are not making an absolutist statement, they just want to discuss what they’ve experienced or a pattern they’ve noticed in my gender. Whether or not I’m like them is actually not relevant, because there are many women like them and I can do my part in acknowledging that even if I can’t fix it. Defensiveness over what does not apply to me is really unnecessary. You may think that because you retort “not all men” you’re making a case for viewing people as individuals and not a group. But what you might actually be doing is failing to empathize with the experience of others as an individual person because you’re too busy defending the group that you belong to.

I’m really interested to know why you identify as purple pill if you are comfortable sharing, because there’s a piece of what I’m saying that might apply to you specifically if it’s for what I think is the most common reason to identify that way. Take the core ideas of the different pills. You’ve got Redpill that says women are hypergamous by nature, and that is more or less an immutable part of their attraction, thus the redpill dating strategy was born to find success in working with that fact. Blue pill is essentially the opposite, that women are not hypergamous by nature. It does not deny that hypergamous dating strategies exist, it just states that that is not an immutable fact of female desire. That you can have success in not using the redpill dating strategy because it does not always apply. I see purple pill more often used to describe a worldview that falls somewhere between red and blue, that identifies merits in the redpill dating strategy without the certainty that it applies everywhere.

You sound like someone who is very staunchly against generalizations of entire groups of people. So it interests me why you might identify is purple pill instead of blue pill, even though blue pill is essentially just “not all women are hypergamous” or the least generalizing position. Could it possibly be that even though you acknowledge that hypergamy might not be present in every scenario, that you’ve encountered it enough to emotionally identify with a world view that says it is? That you’ve had enough experiences with women to deduce personally “it is enough of them to the point where I can’t discount redpill ideology as completely useless”? Because if that is the case, then you can understand the core of what I’m saying about generalizing. That it doesn’t have to be every case in order to have encountered it enough it your life, or even heard of it enough second hand, to make different risk assessments and strategy decisions.

[–]Jip_Jaap_Stam1 point 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First of all, I would not be pedantic with a woman who said she'd been attacked by a man. I'm pedantic with women who use "men are rapists" as a mic-drop moment, an argument winner. I understand why women might be fearful of men. I have a wife and daughter, and I worry about their safety. And if I speak to a woman who's giving her genuine opinion and not simply using violence against women as a trump card, I respond more kindly.

Re your second paragraph, I offer the same answer. I'll listen sympathetically if someone is being authentic, but most of the time, when "but men are rapists" is thrown into the mix, in my experience it's just being used as a gotcha.

No issues with your third paragraph; it makes sense and is well argued.

I'm not blue pill because I do believe that women in general hyper-fixate on a small percentage of men. However, I'm not red pill because I think this small percentage of men differs from woman to woman. You don't all want tall, dark, handsome billionaire vampires. Also, in most ways I'm extremely left-wing, closer to communist than the centre. I believe women should have the same rights as men. On the other hand, I don't agree that men and women should be viewed in the same way when it comes to sexual experience. In some ways, I'm liberal, in others traditional. So purple seems accurate.

I wouldn't say I've encountered hypergamy as such. My wife and I have been together for 23 years; I don't worry about her "monkey-branching" to a better man. But, IMO, she did settle for me when we got together. The men she was drawn to before me were very different, and she was more viscerally infatuated with them. In fact, she admits one of the reasons we worked out is that she never felt comfortable spending time with men she found extremely attractive. That wasn't an issue with me, apparently. Therefore, when I discovered PPD, about 6 years ago, some of the red pill rhetoric struck a chord. As I learnt more about it, I realised there were parts I disagreed strongly with (plate spinning, negging, the belief that men should always lead, "it's just your turn" etc) but points that rang true based on my life and the lives of men I know (dual mating of the sort I mentioned above, women losing attraction when men get emotional).

[–]Bibibitch20021 point 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well it’s good that you would not be pedantic with women who have been attacked, and I understand that arguments saying “men are rapists” are used to completely shut down counterpoints at times. That being said, you used the not all men argument with me, and I was simply saying that we often do have to act like it is all men for safety purposes, so that language does not literally mean all men but also shouldn’t have to be changed just because it hurts feelings. When calling out a pattern of societal behavior, discussing a personal experience or similar, other people’s feelings do not have to be centered for that statement to be true. For this reason, I see most not all men arguments as a way to pivot or distract from talking about the actual topic at hand. That is how you used it. When my original comment discussed how male protectiveness is often used as a gotcha, you started trying to pivot to “well do you understand it as all men or no?” And just like that my original point goes out the window never to be discussed. So yeah I do agree that mic drop slogans like that do get used in the worst ways in these online debates, you just fail to see how that “men are rapists” mic drop and “not all men” mic drop are the exact same debate stopping mechanism. You want to call the behavior out? Stop perpetuating the problem yourself. In a perfect online debate sphere, we could stop all of these pointless games of having to prove to one another that a problem even exists and to what extent before we can actually discuss it. Because if a problem has to be perfectly defined before we can even argue in good faith, we’re never going to get to the point of solution.

And yeah, listen when it’s authentic, but also don’t disregard what might be authentic as fabricated for talking points or weaponized just because you don’t like it. Your earlier comment that says “women who talk like this hate men, so I’ve given up talking to them” shows me that if you can make a case for someone being hateful rather than hurt or even having poor rhetorical skills, you’ll just do that instead of engaging. I know it’s tough to give everyone the benefit of the doubt when arguing, but I’m over here doing it. I reply to the content, logic, and structure of the argument rather than assuming a bad faith position and arguing against that.

I find your idea of purple pill to just be blue pill with extra steps. That may be because purple pill isn’t in and of itself a thing. Blue pill isn’t even a fully defined thing, it just disagrees with hypergamy as a fact of the female condition. Your idea that women hyper-fixate on a small percentage of men but that percentage differs from person to person is an anti-hypergamous standpoint. Hypergamy would be top societal positioning is idealized because it is a game of gaining leverage through the partner, and that true desire comes in when a man is upheld in society. That would mean it is the same top percentage for all women to be hypergamy. What you’ve described is just having a type or a niche. Most people do have an ideal partner that they look for, and men being satisfied outside of their ideal does not change the fact that they also have them. So in short, it is absolutely valid to say that women have a smaller pool of men they would actually entertain romantically or sexually, but the contents of that pool are what make it hypergamy. You contest the contents of that pool being the top 20% societally, so you are in the blue pill category.

Though I do hear some hesitancy to identify that way given that you have beliefs on both the liberal and conservative sides. This idea that redpill is conservative and blue pill is liberal is newer and harder to track. Ultimately neither dating strategy directly conflicts with a political belief. I’ve met liberal blackpill and redpillers, and conservative blue pillers. Blue pill is more associated with feminism, but I’ve met many an anti-feminist that were also blue pill.

Thank you for answering my question about your worldview, I’m genuinely curious where people fall on manosphere issues and larger political ones. From what you’ve laid out here I would most likely infer that you are fiscally liberal or left leaning (communism), and in rights based conversations also lean towards true liberalist ideals of everyone having the same rights. And maybe you live your life more traditionally but don’t think the law should bar others from not doing so. Understandable mix of stances. To disclose mine, I am a socialist. I am very socially liberal, and live my life in a very non-traditional way, or away from traditional womanhood. I’m in academics and have no plans to tailor my career to a man’s plans, I don’t want children, I might not ever enter a marriage and even if I do I will financially protect myself as if I am not married. I party, I drink, I’m considered a Stacy by most definitions. You get the gist.

When I hear your main traditionalist values are towards women being viewed differently than men because of sexual experience, that does give me some pause. I think with you the issue of identifying blue pill might even be the “giving women the benefit of the doubt” element of it, even though you more or less believe in the principles. Of course I’d have to know a bit more about what you mean by men and women should not be viewed the same on this topic, but I have never heard a coherent logical or moral argument for it to be frank with you. The common one I see spouted here is that because men have to work harder in the sexual market, that getting laid is moral and shows positive qualities. But when women do it and they don’t have to work for it, getting laid is immoral and proves negative qualities. That logically doesn’t make sense. In what other area does the amount of work put in change the morality of the result? Not the worth, the morality. Because it is absolutely fair to say that sex is worth less for women because it is easy to get, but that does not make the receiver of that sex suddenly immoral. You cannot make a coherent argument for the morality of sexual gratification being worse for one gender or the other without changing the definitions of what is moral, essentially producing a double standard. And the discrepancies in the sexual market playing field don’t help the case for that. Different starting positions does not make it morally wrong for both parties to reach a goal, being that they don’t harm others on the way there.

[–]Bibibitch20021 point 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Good to know that you haven’t encountered much hypergamy, and congrats on the long marriage. I can’t imagine being with someone that long because 23 years is how long I’ve been on this earth. So where it comes to marriage dynamics or even longterm relationship dynamics I cannot speak to it the way you probably could. I hear some of the frustration with women, and apparently your wife, having dual mating strategy. That’s one of the things that I’ve seen in my own life. Not just in women around me, but within myself. I definitely go after different men as a 23 year old than I did at 17-18, but I wouldn’t say I lack physical attraction for any of them and they have been similar physical types. My type is quite narrow and I like men a bit more on the nerdy and feminine side. I typically like softer looking men who are skinny, that hasn’t changed. Where my type has changed is that it just got even more narrow. I didn’t used to have so many markers for compatibility and dated in a go with the flow way, now compatibility is the first thing I look for. If i don’t see it, I don’t look any further. And these are about life plans, ideas about traditionalism, similar views on sex and sexual appetites, financial literacy, etc. Nothing crazy and I don’t expect men to have resources that I don’t. But now, I would say I rate fitting the “look” as less important overall than the other stuff. I can still find men with a look I enjoy easily and can secure them, but I will no longer find them suitable if we are not compatible. I’m not putting myself through that again.

I see a lot of the redpill ideas about women’s dating “strategies” and I don’t think they’re actually strategies at all. Sometimes I think it’s just women growing and changing over time. One of my biggest gripes with redpill is that women aren’t allowed to ever change. Apparently your type must always remain what it originally was, standards can only lower, never get higher, or you’re a bitch. Sexual behavior must be the exact same with every man you ever date, because you owe them the same sex for the same “price”, nevermind that it should be yours to share at your own discretion. It’s a worldview that doesn’t afford women the same self-actualization that men get to have. I may not be very old, but I’ve been in the sexual market for about 6 years and I’ve learned a lot about myself in that time and changed my behaviors to get what’s best for my happiness and well being. I think that’s a positive quality. I can apply new knowledge to my life and have better outcomes.

And really for all the hating female sexuality that the manosphere does, what with the endless body count discussions, It’s very telling that the worldview also says growth from past behavior must be punished as well. Because apparently once you’ve messed up in their eyes the righteous thing to do is….keep messing up to be consistent? It’s essentially saying “you don’t deserve to learn from this, and now this is all you will be”. So the ideal woman is one who just never had any experiences, never had a chance to learn about herself or grow from those experiences. Could it be because a lack of worldly knowledge is the actual desirable trait men are seeking here and not moral purity?

Mostly they end up finding women who never valued those experiences in the first place…..and people wonder why they end up in sexually unsatisfying relationships. That’s what kills me about traditional men whose ultimate goal is to find a woman who expresses desire physically all of the time. You’re not going to get that if you discard women who’ve shown high sexual interest prior to meeting you from your dating pool.

[–]Jip_Jaap_Stam1 point 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're right. I was too ready to shoot you down, which is probably because I'm getting jaded from this place. It's no excuse; I do occasionally let myself down by getting drawn into silly spats. I'm probably due a break from the sub, to be honest. For about 6 years, I've been subscribing and unsubscribing every few months.

I understand what you mean re hypergamy vs type. However, I think it goes a little beyond "type"; it's more compulsory than a preference. The idea that it's the top 20% of men in society is probably nonsense, because there are plenty of feckless, jobless ne'er-do-wells with girlfriends and wives. Even criminals get women, and not just the "exciting" ones either.

Like you, I'm a socialist. In some ways I'm extremely left wing and wish there was more representation of us politically. I have a fairly traditional family set-up (wife, 2 young adult children, but my wife out-earns me pro-rata. I work more hours so bring home slightly more money, but her job has far more responsibility and status than mine. And due in part to medical concerns of hers, I do considerably more household chores. So we're egalitarian.

My views on sex are probably causes by 2 factors. First of all, I'm most likely autistic. I'm still to be diagnosed (assessment takes a long time where I live), but autism is rife in my family, and I have a lot of traits. Secondly, without going into too much detail, I was exposed to a lot of stuff I shouldn't have been as a teenager by my mother. She was promiscuous and adulterous when I was growing up. The two factors combined mean I came to conclusions that are now fixed far more rigidly than they might be for a neurotypical person. I can recognise that certain beliefs are detrimental but still be unable to change them.

[–]Bibibitch20021 point 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hey it happens, and good on you for recognizing it. I’ve made arguments on this sub that I’m not proud of out of wanting to defend my experience as well. For what it’s worth I don’t see this as a silly spat, and I get drawn into conversations like this a lot. That’s where the work gets done and I enjoy it for the most part. I also enjoy debate in general a lot, so don’t feel like you’re wasting my time or energy.

And I 100% get needing to take a break from the sub. I have done it, will again at some point if I need to. I’ve been here about a year and it has been rough at times. I think there are a few things that help me be here, and one of them is having a consistent way of understanding these pill issues. I’m not saying to commit to a worldview you don’t believe just to have something to stand on, but I am saying that being in the middle has got to be exhausting. I can see truths in the redpill doctrine, but I don’t like what they do with it or how shallowly they characterize the behavior of others. And at the end of the day I am blue pill on hypergamy alone, so I have a lot to “defend” rather than just taking in information from all sides. What I’m most interested in on this sub are the conversations about gender that sit beneath the surface of the dating stuff. That’s where I think redpill is really fucking up. It gets called a dating strategy all day, but to enact it you baseline have to believe some really shit things about women as a whole group. That they’re inherently more selfish, opportunistic, lack self control, cannot hold stable morality, etc. For a group that’s anti feminist because of manhating, that’s pretty ironic.

What you’ve shared about your life growing up and now is very important to understanding why you might be pulled here despite having a successful relationship. Having a mom expose you to things like her own sexuality or adultry is mentally scarring, no denying that. It absolutely makes sense to engage with a worldview that validates that pain and condemns people like your mom. But the condemnation belongs to the immoral behaviors of cheating and not protecting children. Somewhere in these kinds of groups that celebrate critiquing women, their sexuality often gets branded as immoral right along with that other stuff. And there are many reasons for perpetuating this idea that sexual women are bad. It gives men who lack sexual experience a way to express their resentments and frustrations, trying to ensure no one else can have what they can’t seem to get. It makes women fearful of exploring their own world and options, which makes a lot of men feel less insecure in comparison with other experiences. Just know that in these conversations, people may be standing on their soapboxes saying the word “morality”, but what they really want someone highly controllable, or an “in” to a sexual market they feel excluded from.

I feel for you and men like you whose painful experiences with women are being co-opted and sold to other men as evidence for this kind of thinking. The real evil here is that you weren’t protected, and that someone broke a sacred relationship promise. Not that sexual expression from women leads to things like this, because it does not. Bad morals do, and promiscuity can and does frequently exist alongside a strong moral compass, because sexuality expressed healthily and consensually doesn’t produce any harm. The redpill doctrine tries to convince you when a woman is the one expressing it, that it somehow does produce harm on principle. That’s illogical at best and dehumanizing at worst.

To be far too personal, I am promiscuous by most people’s definition. High body count, one night stands, party hookups. And when people try to criticize me on the basis of immorality, it just falls really flat. I work a community oriented day job, I volunteer frequently, I’ve never cheated on any partner, not even emotionally. I’m an empathetic listener and a strong communicator. I live my life in a very principled way, and the key principle of that is to not enact harm. And promiscuity lives right alongside that just fine, because who is being harmed in that scenario? No one is. I’m a single woman living life and having fun with people who want to have fun with me in a way where everyone’s safe and no one is being lied to. There is so much societal brainwashing being done to convince people that that is wrong. It might not be what you prefer or you might find it odd, but again I’ve never heard a consistent argument for why it is morally incorrect behavior.

I understand the autistic rigidity in thinking patterns. What I encourage you to do if it’s healthy for you is to stay on this sub and just have regular questions that contradict your fixed viewpoint, especially where female sexuality is concerned. Notice what people are actually critiquing. Is it genuine moral rot like cheating? Or is it sexual expression of any kind from a woman? Are people trying to change the moral meaning of sex based on what gender is participating in it? These things can change worldviews overtime. It might be harder in your case, but working at it can actually be very central to healing. Once you unpack all of that propaganda, you won’t see that trigger everywhere anymore, because female sexuality is everywhere. Cheating and child abuse are much less frequent. Separating the two from the same trigger response will help.

Also, very happy to hear that you have an egalitarian marriage because that’s not something I see often. I’m from America and live in the south. It’s just more common in my community to see marriages follow a traditional structure. If I were to get married, I’d want an egalitarian one, but I honestly struggle to find men who want the same.

[–]Jip_Jaap_Stam1 point 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Agreed on the red pill strategies. Some of them require to be a bad person, essentially. Obviously, a lot of men aren't bad people, so they need to pretend to be bad just to follow the RP advice. Even if you take morals out of the equation, some of the recommended behaviour is cartoonish. I can't imagine it appealing to any woman. If there are women who enjoy being negged or plate-spun, they're clearly damaged in some way, which isn't a good recipe for LTRs or even casual relationships.

And yes, re reactions to promiscuity and adultery, it is a complex subject. I don't even really blame my mum, because she was a victim of child sexual abuse herself. While I've never discussed it with her, I get the feeling she has changed a lot in certain ways over the last few years, though she does still have issues.

I respect your own take on promiscuity. It's not something that appeals to me personally, though it did when I was younger and more sexually driven. And it's not something I'd want for my daughter, but that's more out of a protective instinct rather than a controlling one. She's recently been diagnosed with autism, and autistic girls are often overly-susceptible to manipulation and abuse. So I don't want her to be in dangerous situations. It sounds like you're sufficiently sensible and mature to handle it, though.

One thing I see a lot of on here with regards to promiscuity is something I recognise in myself. It's not something I readily admit, because doing so is often weaponised against men, but IMO it drives a lot of the rhetoric against liberated female sexuality: insecurity. Although retroactive jealousy sounds ridiculous if you're not affected, it's a powerful emotion and one that's becoming more prevalent amongst less desirable men as they fall behind societally. I have a theory that the increase in violence against women – especially the proliferation of sexually-motivated serial killers in the 60s and 70s – was an unfortunate side-effect of the sexual revolution. After centuries of controlling women, average men were suddenly rendered sexually powerless. Luckily, most such thwarted men are not violent psychopaths; their misogyny is limited to toothless animosity.

It's a shame that some places, especially in supposedly-developed nations like the US, are still so far behind when it comes to gender equality. I was raised in most ways to be egalitarian. I'm not sure if the concept of the "new man" (more involved in parenthood, sharing chores, respect for a woman's career goals) that was popular when I was coming of age was a British thing or something we imported from the more liberal parts of the US. But it was fairly prevalent here around 30 years ago and, rather bizarrely, was strengthened by the popularity of the iconic L'Enfant poster. That's what women lusted after, so that's what men were meant to be.

[–]Bibibitch20021 point 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m glad to see we’ve found lots of common ground. I think where we are still differing probably comes down more so to being different genders and having different experiences in that regard, as well as being from different generations. You being a father to a daughter is definitely going to impact the way you see the women’s movement because you not only exist alongside women, you raised one and feel protective towards her. It’s a scary world for women regardless, but redpill has definitely made it more so in my opinion. Out of the time that I’ve been alive, I’ve never felt more marginalized than I have since redpill gained popularity online and in my community. Very misogynistic behaviors and expressions are being openly celebrated around me and it’s quite jarring to see.

You remind me a lot of my father with the way you speak about your daughter. My parents had two daughters, I’m the youngest. I’m very close and open with my parents which I think isn’t that common in America. Me and my sister are definitely daddy’s girls and have a very strong relationship with him. And despite all of that my dad still has some hang ups about the way that I live my life. There’s this idea culturally that if a woman is promiscuous she must have low self-esteem, be chasing male validation, and that it means her father “failed” to show her that she has worth. I don’t buy into any of that and it hasn’t been my experience. My dad had taken in that cultural narrative and for a while looked at me like “where did I go wrong with her?” He’s never once criticized me in a mean way, just expressed concern. And I tell him that I think it’s actually the opposite. I think he’s done something very right since I was young in telling me that I am smart, capable, driven, worth more than I know, etc. It just so happens that along with that foundation of confidence, I am a person who values adventure, exploration, variety and fun. I do what I do because I want to do it and no one’s gonna tell me that I can’t get what I want. I’m like that in all aspects of life and I’m confident enough to not care about the criticism I get for it. Overtime he’s come around to sharing that view, but even now that he accepts and respects the way I live my life, he worries all the time. Especially because I solo travel a lot. He’s happy for me and proud of me but he’s a nervous wreck. I do my best to reassure him that I’m ok, and he always has my location.

As far as maturity in handling my lifestyle and choices, that was definitely hard won and that’s something I think people forget can happen. I was definitely naive as an 18 year old and doing all of the same things I do now. I learned many lessons the hard way and I do see why some people want to keep their daughters from learning those lessons altogether. But I think what can break you also has the capacity to make you stronger and wiser if you learn and discard what isn’t relevant, and it takes work to separate the lesson from the noise. My dad hears about some of the dangers I’ve faced and is like “why the hell are you still out there living it up? Is it even worth it?” And I tell him that it is, I just improve where I can and continue doing what makes me happy. Sometimes that means finding a new bar, arming yourself with a new safety device, partying with more reliable people. The answer is to adjust and adapt, not to avoid.

I agree a lot with what you’re saying about insecurity and retroactive jealousy being big factors in anti-female sexual liberation and violence against women. Where I would go deeper though is to say that the manosphere is actually a new wave of that very same anti women’s lib movement, but masquerades as male self-improvement and human psychology. Essentially, it’s not just the sexual liberation part that they have an issue with, it’s liberation at all. I believe that redpill ideology is not just misogynistic, its goal is anti-feminism in the political and legal sense. Think about it, what exactly made the sexual marketplace so uneven since the golden ages of the 50’s-70’s (American)? It’s that since that time, women have incrementally gained equal legal protections that have built the way for a life independent of men. Because of feminism, women no longer have to have a man as a life plan. Women are now free to pursue genuine desire and romantic interests rather than committing to a man out of fear for their livelihood slipping away. This is why you might see women nowadays have different standards for looks than they used to. Because a man is not “needed”, women are now free to choose a man based on what adds value to their lives rather than a man being their ticket to a certain life. And this made the playing field uneven instead of level even though both parties are afforded the same rights because men on average have a stronger need to mate than women do. Feminism took away a lot of the reasons why women would mate out of necessity. The reality is that when men and women are given equal opportunity to mate and the same structural conditions, women choose to mate less. That’s what’s leaving so many men single and sexless, the fact that women aren’t freely choosing them out of desire. And funnily enough, that’s what women used to grapple with when they needed to be selected to live, and they made themselves more desirable. That’s why the beauty industry and the homemaking world were quite so big for women, they were trying to maintain being the most “attractive” option for choosing.

So now you have a population of men that are dealing with insecurity but because romantic and sexual success is not a guarantee, and many do not feel they have the qualities or resources necessary for success in a competitive market. And then you have the manosphere that comes along to give validation to those insecurities, while also radicalizing them against the conditions that caused it. But those conditions are things like women having free choices and access to power. So the rhetoric becomes things like “women who do x (exercise their independence) are immoral”. How long until there’s a legal push for these behaviors to be outlawed when a large population is already believing they are morally wrong?

[–]Bibibitch20021 point 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And that insecurity is also definitely a driver of violence against women. One of the main ones in my opinion. But that’s also a feminist talking point, so I do agree that said by someone in the wrong spaces will absolutely be shut down or weaponized. Feminists have been saying for decades now that even in sexual violence, true desire is not what pushes someone towards offending, It’s often resentment and wanting to feel power over that person. It’s not born out of boundary-less people who can’t control their own libido, but people who’ve decided they want to take something by force because they feel it won’t be freely given, or to preemptively punish the gatekeepers of something they haven’t even asked for yet. I’ll say from personal experience, when I go to places like raves and I’m wearing skimpy outfits, I’m not worried about the guys who come up to me to flirt and compliment. I’m worried about the guy sulking in the corner looking at me like he hates me. Because he’s not even giving me a chance to accept or reject him. He’s decided that I already have rejected him just by existing and might take it out on me.

As far as retroactive jealousy, I would say that is a very different psychological phenomenon than just plain insecurity. It’s not that I hear that phrase and thinks it sounds ridiculous, I know it’s very real and does happen. But it is not an emotion and needs to be understood as a non-healthy psychological phenomenon and one that needs to be addressed for mental health. Insecurity is not feeling secure in something. You might have something and feel that it’s yours but can be lost, stolen, taken away, or will be judged as worth less. Retroactive jealousy is entitlement mixed in with insecurity. Insecurity recognizes that you have something that you deem precious enough to protect from loss and worry over it, but that it can be lost and you have anxiety about it. Retroactive jealousy is almost a cognitive dissonance between two conflicting understandings. “This is mine and I am entitled to it (inherent possession) along with “this has been someone else’s and maybe in a better way (insecurity)” If jealousy is defensive protectiveness over what you have in the present, how can you have felt jealousy over what was not yours at a time in the past? The answer is because you feel like it was always yours in some way, shape, or form, regardless of the impossibility of that. That is entitlement in the truest sense. It doesn’t matter that something existed before I knew it, it was still mine just because. So what happens is resentfulness results from that entitlement, because you feel wronged or betrayed that someone had what was yours already. It functions the same in relationships as an infidelity injury, because if you think someone was always yours, past romantic and sexual expression not with you feels like cheating.

Anywhere you have entitlement, violence follows, because people get the most triggered when they feel what is rightfully theirs is being withheld from them or given to someone else. So I would say it’s not just exposure and reaction to women’s sexual liberation that has caused some of this violence, but that it brings their entitled feelings to the surface. They are seeing women give sex they think is rightfully theirs to others.

It is such a shame that the US has become what it is today. We’ve always been behind the UK in terms of gender equality but right now it seems like we are drastically undoing all of the work that was done. Side note, I was wondering this whole time if you were British, because for some reason all of the men I get into long conversations with on this sub are British, and every time I am reminded that we live in vastly different gender landscapes. Men’s rights activism in the UK has a lot more of a basis than it does over here. Women are a lot more discriminated against and legally disadvantaged in the US. I looked up the L’Enfant poster because I had no idea what you were referring to, and I’m surprised something like that was so impactful. I think the “new man” probably originated as a British concept, and never made it over here quite in the same way. I grew up during a very liberal time in the US and didn’t see any kind of positive iconography of what men “should be”, and I think that could be part of why the change failed to stick. Around 2015 I would say was the time third wave feminism hit the US with the #metoo movement and such. There was a lot of critique about traditional and toxic masculinity, but there wasn’t anything for boys to aspire to, it was more a label to beat them with. I was a tween at the time, and with the years following there was more of an emphasis in America on women gaining more power and influence and shaming men for using theirs wrong than anything. I was one of the girls that benefited from the push towards “girlboss” ideals, with stem programs specifically for women to start breaking into male dominated fields in higher numbers were in their prime. Around 2020 the political scene got worse over here on both sides, and in 2022 there was a noticeable repeal of women’s federal protections and a resurgence of traditionalism in all ways. Obviously, I was very shaped by the female affirming landscape I was a teenager in and benefitted from it, but I wish there had been less toxicity towards men and more instructing. You can’t tell people to abandon their ideas about what makes a man a man without giving them concrete things to replace them with. You also can’t berate people and expect them to listen to you. I agree with the teachings of feminism but not always the mechanism.

Overall I wish the gendered progress had stuck, but sadly it’s been a pretty stark return to what has always been. One thing that’s been very hard to witness is watching my old female classmates not achieve the kinds of careers we were primed for and very much wanted at the time. I was in accelerated programs that were majority female and we were instilled with practical skills and confidence. But with the culture of certain fields not changing and the protections in the work force for women not improving, I saw many female peers pursue stem degrees and then leave those fields. They now are mostly stay at home wives and mothers at 23 and 24. Knowing that these were the kids with the most promising professional futures in my community makes the result really bleak.

[–]Jip_Jaap_Stam1 point 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's funny how you (not you specifically) can assume you'll have entirely different thought processes than someone else because of certain differences. That's why I try to talk to people as long as their views aren't abhorrent. Over the last year or so I've spent a lot of time arguing with fellow Brits but from the other side of the political spectrum - the right wing. Usually it's been about immigration. Unfortunately, most of the time, they start with the dehumanising language, and things go badly. But sometimes, you can sort of talk them around. Every time I see someone referring to immigration as "importing" crime, or importing terrorism or whatever, I say "you can't import people, only goods", and on one occasion someone actually apologised and admitted they shouldn't talk that way. It's always worth trying to find some common ground; I guess that's the point I'm trying to make.

I can appreciate that at the moment it must be a scary time for women, especially in the USA. There's not a great deal I can do, apart from protecting my own family, but I try to do little things like crossing the road away from women if I'm walking in the same direction at night. I've tried standing up for women in public and almost got stabbed for my trouble on one occasion.

While I understand what you mean about young women and what doesn't kill them can make them stronger, with my own daughter I think I'll always struggle. I'm not sure if I'd be the same if she weren't autistic; I probably would, but to a lesser degree. I also have a son, and he's autistic too. Far more profoundly than my daughter, though, and with a severe learning disability. When I look back at the trouble I got into at his age, sometimes I'm relieved he's entirely dependent on us. I used to drink a lot and fight fairly frequently, and I ended up getting seriously hurt on a number of occasions. These days, young lads stab each other more often, so at least I'll never have that to worry about. It's a shitty world out there.

To expand a bit on the whole men not being entitled to a woman thing now, I think this was used by authorities (capitalist overlords and before that feudalistic masters) to keep poor men loyal. It's not much fun working some baron's land, digging coal for a millionaire or being sent to die in a trench for your government. But the unwritten contract stated that as long as you're subordinate to us, you'll have a woman who's subordinate to you. Nowadays, men are still subordinate to elites, but there's no guaranteed reward. Of course, women are also subordinate, but they're less directly controlled and have more freedom, so maybe it feels better. I assume it must, because most women are choosing that when they're free to do so.

With the retroactive jealousy, it's obviously something I wish I didn't have. It's more common amongst neurodivergent people (I say people rather than men, because some are women - they just tend to focus on the romantic experiences their partners have had rather than the sexual ones). I think a strong contributing factor is the way my marriage is, as it's always been fairly clear that I'm more besotted with her than vice versa. So there's always the worry that I'm not providing something others did or could provide.

And yes, I'm British, and it does always surprise me how different gender relations are in the States. When women on this sub complain about how much more they do at home, it reminds me of the way my grandparents were. My dad was probably a little ahead of his time in some ways - I think he sympathised with how horribly his mum was treated - but he was hardly a feminist. The whole "men should lead" thing baffles me too. Traditionalist Americans infantalise women so badly, and I can only assume religion plays a strong role.

[–]PassengerCultural421Purple Pill Man[S,🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ObsessivethotPink Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bibibitch2002Blue Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iceklimber -1 points0 points1 point 4 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

To which we then say…..who are we being protected from then?

The answer is 'predatory demographic—often younger, marginalized men or those unfit for military service.'

State Capacity: In wartime Ukraine or rural Russia, the reallocation of male police officers to the front lines has resulted in slower response times for domestic calls. In some districts, police presence dropped by 30% between 2022 and 2024.

Deterrence Collapse: The "neighborhood effect" suggests that visible, stable male presence acts as a deterrent to opportunistic street violence. When this is removed, women traveling alone or managing households become targets for the remaining "predatory" demographic

2. The "Risqué Behavior" & Survival Sex Paradox

When the primary "provider" is absent, women are often forced into high-risk economic survival strategies.

Informal Economies: To avoid homelessness, women in conflict zones or economically depressed regions frequently enter the informal labor market (unregulated cleaning, street vending, or "survival sex").

.

You may feel in a gotcha! Moment because the Culprits in places with high domestic violence rates are Men. But that does not change the fact that Men are also Protectors. And statistically more Men means more Protection.

[–]Bibibitch2002Blue Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But again, that demographic is still men. And men outside of said demographic can and do also harm women. So my point still stands…..we are being protected from other men by the men who do protect. Men being protective is not a negation of men being a threat.

And out and about, we are not sure who the men we need to be cautious around are. And women who are harmed are often blamed for not being cautious enough, so then that fear and consideration needs to be applied to anyone who could potentially be a threat in that way, which is all men.

So yeah, the statement “men are protectors” in a conversation about male violence against women isn’t helpful or relevant. We’re not arguing about statistical likelihood, and the ability to protect does not negate the ability to harm. We’re asserting that all men must be given the highest level of threat assigned to them because we cannot be sure who will do the hurting.

[–]Iceklimber -1 points0 points1 point 4 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bibibitch2002Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PassengerCultural421Purple Pill Man[S,🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 4 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TinyFlamingo2147Bi Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iceklimber 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just want it noted that you’re admitting that men are not “pROteCTorS” (and they never were)

Statistical Trends (2022–2026)

Data from the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office and UN Women indicates a sharp upward trajectory in both reports and criminal proceedings:

Surge in Reporting: Between 2022 and 2024, reports of gender-based violence (GBV) surged by 36%.

Criminal Offenses: In 2024 alone, Ukraine recorded an 80% increase in registered criminal offenses related to domestic violence compared to 2023, totaling over 8,000 filed cases.

The absence of men in a society—whether due to war, mass migration, or high mortality—creates a complex sociological vacuum. Data from 2022–2026 suggests that while the "absence" of specific individual abusers might temporarily lower violence in some households, the structural absence of men generally correlates with an increase in systemic and domestic violence against women.

This occurs through three primary mechanisms: 1. The Erosion of the "Protective Perimeter"

The absence of male figures in traditional "guardian" roles (police, neighborhood watch, or stable family members) often leads to a breakdown in local security.

Deterrence Collapse: The "neighborhood effect" suggests that visible, stable male presence acts as a deterrent to opportunistic street violence. When this is removed, women traveling alone or managing households become targets for the remaining "predatory" demographic—often younger, marginalized men or those unfit for military service.

2. The "Risqué Behavior" & Survival Sex Paradox

When the primary "provider" is absent, women are often forced into high-risk economic survival strategies.

Informal Economies: To avoid homelessness, women in conflict zones or economically depressed regions frequently enter the informal labor market (unregulated cleaning, street vending, or "survival sex").

.

See also Matriarchial Societies like Mosuo Women or any Male Flight places versus Developed world.

[–]Gabsboy1231 point 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ContractHot9026 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Content_Concert_2555Blue Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Siukslinis_accWoman 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Independent-Mail-227Man 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]anewleaf1234Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PassengerCultural421Purple Pill Man[S,🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 4 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MarioWilson122Red Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PassengerCultural421Purple Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_Lurk3 points 4 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gold_Sheepherder6569No Pill man -1 points0 points1 point 4 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditorsAreCorny 3 points4 points5 points 4 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Gold_Sheepherder6569No Pill man 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anewleaf1234Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikiencolorPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHYA man with a fetish for dominating patriarchal men 🥵 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]PassengerCultural421Purple Pill Man[S,🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHYA man with a fetish for dominating patriarchal men 🥵 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PassengerCultural421Purple Pill Man[S,🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalIf you have to work for it, she's not into you. [Man] 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikiencolorPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalIf you have to work for it, she's not into you. [Man] 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHYA man with a fetish for dominating patriarchal men 🥵 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalIf you have to work for it, she's not into you. [Man] 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHYA man with a fetish for dominating patriarchal men 🥵 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalIf you have to work for it, she's not into you. [Man] 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHYA man with a fetish for dominating patriarchal men 🥵 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalIf you have to work for it, she's not into you. [Man] 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikiencolorPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHYA man with a fetish for dominating patriarchal men 🥵 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Charlie Kirk was assassinated for his political views

That's actually the whole point, though you've managed to lose it in your crybabying.

Charlie Kirk wasn't assassinated by the government, he was killed by a criminal who is in jail because we are punishing the criminal for killing him. Charlie Kirk is actually getting the full measure of the government's protection in the way normal people actually get it - through the punishment of the criminal after the fact of the crime being committed. In other words, we have jails because the government doesn't have a good way pre-enforcing the law - it can only do things retroactively.

I agree it's gross Tate is out on bail, but so was Harvey Weinstein at one point. Tate's jail cell is coming and Tate is young enough to live out his whole sentence so he's not getting out of any. Everyone knows it. But I agree that it is hard to be patient.

If anything, you bringing up Charlie Kirk only highlights that the government isn't as aggressive about protecting Tate's victims as it was Kirk (I'm blending governments here, but it's sort of a side point). But Tate's victims will get justice. Slow justice, at the hands of the Romanian state, but then Tate is going to have to sit in a Romanian jail. And then a UK jail.

[–]mikiencolorPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGloriousEv0lutionNo Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalIf you have to work for it, she's not into you. [Man] 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gold_Sheepherder6569No Pill man 3 points4 points5 points 4 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheGloriousEv0lutionNo Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Male abusers who are not physically intimidating, are more likely to get a strong reaction from the public.
Author	PassengerCultural421
Upvotes	34
Comments	78
Date	March 26, 2026 2:01 PM UTC (4 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1s48ae6/male_abusers_who_are_not_physically_intimidating/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/male-abusers-who-are-not-physically-intimidating.1576439 https://theredarchive.com/post/1576439

Comments