~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
mayonesa
[–]FortunateBum 38 points39 points40 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
As a guy who helped women like this out once upon a time, trust me, no good deed goes unpunished. It's better to pretend like they never called.
[–]misanthropeguy 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
2 years ago I (33)was working at a pizza place and one of the girls there (18/19) was basically the town slut, (she was a nice girl, but wow was she ever narcissistic - but in a more passive way, she wasn't too obnoxious about it, but the only topic that ever interested her, was her, and when she drank, and she loved to drink, she became super-slut)
Anyway, I picked her up twice from random guys houses when she called me drunk and full of regret. The first time she tried to blow me in the car on the way home, and I told her no. (I have a wife and I don't need that kind of drama) and the second time she was crying about how she wants to be a good girl but it's so hard blah blah... so I gave her a very stern lecture.
I told her that if she is going to be a slut, that she needs to do it with eyes open otherwise she would spend the rest of her life regretting it. I told her that if she is going to be a slut that no one is going to respect her, ever. And I told her that was the last time I would do that for her.
She called me a 3rd time and I told her no. After that I swear she was head over heals in love with me, but I don't have time for silly drunken sluts. Though to be honest, she was really hot.
[–]closetothesilence 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You treated her like a stern father figure who didn't completely buy into her bullshit and then told her no. Of course she fell in love with you. In my experience it's always the ones I have no interest in, that I treat like one of the guys, that end up falling for me, time and time again.
[–]Abroh 23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No good deed goes unpunished.
[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link
I'm a man who did help a slut out (a really big favor) and was made fun of for it and I approve this message.
[–]misanthropeguy -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link
You have to do it because you genuinely want to help, not because you want to get laid. Then they will love you. (but this is good advice for all situations where you help someone)
I helped out a slutty girl before (the story is posted above somewhere here) and she really fell for me hard. But in the past when I was younger and hornier I helped out a few sluts but out of desperation and the stupid idea that they would fuck me and guess what? They laughed at me, and told everyone that I was a pussy. Fucking bitches.
[+]alias-of-a-girl -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link
I don't get what her being a 'slut' has to do with any of this! She was a bitch and THAT'S a valid reason to tell her to fuck off, but who the fuck cares who she sleeps with?
[–]RedPillScare 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
You say that like there are millions of sluts with hearts of gold out there, who truly appreciate the efforts of men who help them.
These may exist, but their numbers are so small, its best to not entertain the possibility.
[+]alias-of-a-girl -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Bullshit. Whether someone sleeps around has literally nothing to do with how nice of a person they are.
You know that women who sleep around can actually be really great people, but generally calling them sluts isn't the best way to get on their good side. So the reason you haven't met many who "aren't bitches" might be because you start off by calling them names.
[–]misanthropeguy 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Bullshit. Whether someone sleeps around has literally nothing to do with how nice of a person they are. You know that women who sleep around can actually be really great people, but generally calling them sluts isn't the best way to get on their good side. So the reason you haven't met many who "aren't bitches" might be because you start off by calling them names.
Whether a girl sleeps around is obviously important to a guy who is interested in having a relationship with her. You obviously don't like it but promiscuous women are not considered good people to have monogamous relationships with. It's just reality.
[–]alias-of-a-girl -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Whether a girl sleeps around is obviously important to a guy who is interested in having a relationship with her.
If you want in a monogamous relationship with her, then you have to trust her not to continue sleeping around once that relationship starts. And if you don't trust her to do that, why the fuck do you want a relationship with her in the first place?
This is such a huge double standard. Why can guys get away with sleeping around but a girl who does it is a slut? You can not want to date a girl who sleeps around all you want, your preferences are your preferences. But her behaviour does not make her a bad person and it sure as fuck doesn't mean she has to sit around and take your stone-age judgments of her.
You obviously don't like it but promiscuous women are not considered good people to have monogamous relationships with. It's just reality.
By who? You say that like it's a standard opinion. It's not. Your ideal woman is not necessarily the ideal of everyone, and it sure as hell doesn't inform the way women behave. News flash: none of us give a fuck about you or what you want. You need to prove yourself worthy of caring about before anyone will start to care. That's the truth of every relationship ever, whether it be friendships, romantic relationships or whatever else.
[–]misanthropeguy 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
If you want in a monogamous relationship with her, then you have to trust her not to continue sleeping around once that relationship starts. And if you don't trust her to do that, why the fuck do you want a relationship with her in the first place? This is such a huge double standard. Why can guys get away with sleeping around but a girl who does it is a slut? You can not want to date a girl who sleeps around all you want, your preferences are your preferences. But her behaviour does not make her a bad person and it sure as fuck doesn't mean she has to sit around and take your stone-age judgments of her.
I'm sorry that I upset you. I should have said 'in general' to each of my statements about women. I agree it's a double standard, everyone knows that, I'm not suggesting that this hypocrisy regarding men vs women's behaviour is necessarily a good thing, I'm just stating that it is reality. I totally agree that if a man has a problem with a woman being promiscuous that it is basically an issue of trust, and in a perfect world it would never be an issue. But we don't live in a perfect world and people are hypocritical.
You obviously don't like it but promiscuous women are not considered good people to have monogamous relationships with. It's just reality. By who? You say that like it's a standard opinion. It's not. Your ideal woman is not necessarily the ideal of everyone, and it sure as hell doesn't inform the way women behave. News flash: none of us give a fuck about you or what you want. You need to prove yourself worthy of caring about before anyone will start to care. That's the truth of every relationship ever, whether it be friendships, romantic relationships or whatever else.
By who? Let's be honest, most traditional cultures are very hard on women, hell a large part of the world women have no rights at all and are seen as the property of men. (Before you jump down my throat, I do not support this at all. But it is reality.) it is only the most progressive and open societies that work to accept women's sexuality and towards acceptance and less judgement towards them.
But those places are rare and as it turns out, that kind of sexual equality - where men and women are treated the same - doesn't work. People end up naturally going against it, and this entire sub-reddit is about countering that progressive change because it ends up being more destructive than what it is trying to replace. The point of the whole red pill theory here is that a lot of the traditional gender roles actually work better for people because women and men are different. And denying that fact is destructive.
[–]alias-of-a-girl -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
But those places are rare and as it turns out, that kind of sexual equality - where men and women are treated the same - doesn't work.
Who says? I've never actually seen a place where men and women are actually and truly treated as equals. And the places that come the closest are the ones that seem to me to be the best places to live.
Gender roles suck. Men and women are different because people are different. You can't talk to half the world's population as if we're all the same, because we're NOT. I'm a female programmer, and if I'd been born a generation ago, I would never have been allowed into the university programs I've attended (and I mean STEM stuff, not programming specifically, since that's a new thing) because of your precious gender roles.
Why is it such a foreign idea to such a large group of people that I might actually want to be treated as a person instead of as an object for you to own? The problem I have with the attitude of this subreddit is that you're countering a change because you claim to know what will happen if you don't... but you have no fucking idea, because no one has done it before. You're all afraid of change because it's different, because it means you're no longer in control of me and the rest of the women in your society, not because you think you can see the future.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
About the double standard: A slutty past is as attractive on a woman as a pile of friendzones is on a man.
[–]RedPillScare 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
So the reason you haven't met many who "aren't bitches" might be because you start off by calling them names.
That's hilarious. Tell me more about my life.
I suspect that you have a high partner count, and consider yourself a nice person, and you're personalizing the generalizations about sluts.
[–]alias-of-a-girl 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I suspect that you have a high partner count
Oh good. You accuse me of making assumptions about you, and then you start making assumptions about me!
As it happens, I have only ever had one partner (my husband). So no, I'm not offended because I relate to these so-called sluts. I'm offended because you're all sitting on your high horses making nasty judgments about people based on stupid shit. "Sluts" run the gambit from wonderfully amazing people to incredibly scummy and impossible to be around, so if your experience has been that they're all bitches, you might want to stop and consider that the problem is you and not them.
[–]RedPillScare 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
LOL. You're offended by proxy. You don't have enough to keep yourself busy, so you get on the internet to defend strangers from accusations which may be completely valid.
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
People who sleep around, despite knowing it's not healthy for them and negatively affects the world's perception of them, lack discipline and impulse control. Kind of like drunks and drug users. You don't want to date a drunk or a druggie. You also don't want to date a slut.
It's not the sex, specifically. It's the history of horribly unhealthy behavior regarding love, sex, and relationships. It's the poor impulse control and the self-gratifying indulgent streak that make the woman a bad friend and a bad relationship prospect.
[+]alias-of-a-girl -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Oh, having lots of sex is horribly unhealthy, is it? Shit, I'd never want a relationship with you. What, do you allow your SO sex once a month?
It's NOT unhealthy at all if you take the appropriate precautions. Wear a condom or limit yourself to people you know are clean. There, health problems solved. It's not an addiction, either, because it's easily possible to stop should one be presented with a reason to do so, and it doesn't negatively impact the rest of their lives.
And just because something negatively affects the world's perceptions of a person doesn't make it wrong. A rebelling slave was looked upon pretty negatively, once upon a time.
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Having monogomous sex as part of a marriage is extremely healthy -- in fact, essential for the health of the marriage. Having monogomous sex as part of a serious, committed relationship with a future isn't too bad either.
Having random recreational sex with lots and lots of people is extremely unhealthy for your psyche. Even forgetting the STD and pregnancy risks for a moment. It's damaging behavior.
It also demonstrates a complete lack of discipline and impulse control, narcissistic and self-gratifying tendencies, and a very poor attitude toward love, sex, and relationships that speaks very negatively about an individual's ability to have healthy and successful future relationships. Sure, there are exceptions, but overall, society thinks negatively about this behavior because it's negative behavior. Not because all of society is wrong and stupid, while sluts are actually admirable heroes worthy of receiving medals for having the bravery to go out there and fuck people outside of the context of a relationship with a future.
Nobody wants to date or marry somebody undisciplined and self-important who has poor impulse control and an unhealthy attitude and history regarding love, sex, and relationships. Nobody normal, anyway. There are plenty of loser guys out there who can't do any better and end up marrying sluts. So it's not hopeless for our slutty heroes. It's just not the future they've always imagined for themselves.
[+]alias-of-a-girl -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions here.
Having random recreational sex with lots and lots of people is extremely unhealthy for your psyche. Even forgetting the STD and pregnancy risks for a moment. It's damaging behavior. It also demonstrates a complete lack of discipline and impulse control, narcissistic and self-gratifying tendencies, and a very poor attitude toward love, sex, and relationships that speaks very negatively about an individual's ability to have healthy and successful future relationships.
It also demonstrates a complete lack of discipline and impulse control, narcissistic and self-gratifying tendencies, and a very poor attitude toward love, sex, and relationships that speaks very negatively about an individual's ability to have healthy and successful future relationships.
You have no proof of ANY of that. In fact, my experience speaks to the exact OPPOSITE of this.
Nobody wants to date or marry somebody undisciplined and self-important who has poor impulse control and an unhealthy attitude and history regarding love, sex, and relationships.
And while that's true, I don't think promiscuity indicates any of that, and your belief that it does is completely unfounded.
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Let me walk you through this: “I’m a girl at a bar or club, and I just met this cute guy. I’m single. I don’t really want a relationship with this guy – I don’t like him that much. But he’s really hot and sex with him would feel awesome!”
“I understand that even if we use contraceptives, there is still a small chance of pregnancy and a small chance of transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases. I don’t care. I want this because it feels good, both physically and emotionally.”
“I understand that society thinks very negatively about people who have sex recreationally, outside of the context of a serious relationship or marriage. I don’t care. I want this because it feels good, both physically and emotionally.”
“I understand that future boyfriends may not think as highly of me if I have a large number of previous sexual partners, especially if a number of those partners were just random sex with no intention of any kind of relationship. I don’t care. I want this because it feels good, both physical and emotionally.”
“I understand that this sexual encounter will not turn into a future relationship, it will not generate relationship prospects for me, it will not generate professional prospects for me, it will not improve my physical or psychological fitness, it will not make me money – frankly, I will derive no benefit from this sexual encounter except that it will feel good.”
“I even understand that I am a little bit lonely and lack self-confidence, and having sex with men like this helps me to feel better about myself, but at the same time, it prevents me from working on the underlying issues and truly improving my life. I don’t care. This will feel good.”
“I have therefore come to the well-reasoned decision that I am going to do what feels good, despite the lack of any benefit and the existence of potential consequences, many of them significant.”
That is the very definition of undisciplined, impulsive, indulgent narcissism.
[+]alias-of-a-girl -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
I want this because it feels good, both physical and emotionally.
OH FUCKING NO! A woman wants to do something she might actually enjoy! IT'S THE END OF THE FUCKING WORLD!
Oh wait. That's what everyone always does.
I'll be honest, if someone went through all the pros and cons of a given decision like that every time they made a decision, the world would be a better place. What you've shown here is the exact OPPOSITE of undisciplined and impulsive.
I am going to do what feels good, despite the lack of any benefit
Feeling good is a pretty damned significant benefit, given that it's the reason most people do anything.
And this is one HELL of an assumption. Why assume that women who sleep around have underlying issues? Maybe they just enjoy it.
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
OH FUCKING NO! A woman wants to do something she might actually enjoy!
Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it a good decision.
Feeling good is a pretty damned significant benefit
It would feel good to punch my boss, drive over cyclists who insist on riding their goddamn bicycles downtown, drink a bottle or three of good scotch every day, drop my pants and masturbate whenever the urge strikes me, eat junk food and gain 200 pounds, piss out my tenth story window, drag a cute co-worker of mine by the hair into the stairwell and fuck her brains out (which might take awhile since I just masturbated a few clauses ago), rob a few convenience stores because having money feels good while working doesn't, and maybe end the day with a few hours of video games while my wife cares for our daughter because taking care of my kid is hard work while video games make me feel good.
Feeling good is nice, but alongside any consequence of any significance, feeling good isn't much of a benefit. I would feel very, very good if I quit my job right now, and I have enough savings that I wouldn't feel the pain of that for a little while. So if I'm not thinking long-term, that seems like a great decision. Likewise, a woman who's not thinking long-term might think it's a great decision to fuck 100 strangers because it feels good.
Why assume that women who sleep around have underlying issues? Maybe they just enjoy it.
People have sex to connect with another human being. If it was just about the orgasm, everybody would masturbate to avoid dealing with human bullshit and the risk of pregnancy/disease. Diving into recreational sex with another human to feel that connection, fully knowing it's not lasting or real, is a sign of deeper issues. But even if you ignore that one clause you cherry-picked to answer, there are numerous other very significant consequences to being a slut.
[–]alias-of-a-girl-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What, you don't think actual intercourse feels better than masturbation? Have you never actually had sex? Of course it does! It's WAY more enjoyable than masturbation! Plus it's fun to have it with someone you get along with, even if you aren't necessarily interested in a long-term exclusive relationship.
Just because you aren't personally interested in casual sex doesn't make it evil and unhealthy. THAT's a way more unhealthy attitude to have than any attitude concerning casual sex.
And when I said we all do things because we enjoy it, I didn't mean immediate enjoyment. I might not necessarily like killing myself at the gym, but it feels damn good afterwards and that's worth it to me. Whether it's for enjoyment now or later, enjoyment is basically always the reason people do something. Give to charity? It makes me happy to know that people who need something are being provided for. I'm not going to rob a store because I know it would be an unpleasant experience for the clerk and I don't enjoy causing other people pain, and I also don't find the risk of jail or fine, which would be extremely unenjoyable, to be worthwhile.
Enjoyment isn't necessarily a short-term thing. If someone decides that they're not interested in working towards some long-term gain tonight and want instead to having some immediate enjoyment by having sex, more power to them. That you can't wrap your head around the idea of being able to use sex as an enjoyable activity (like, say, watching a movie or something else that doesn't necessarily give a long-term benefit) it baffling. Why treat it like something other than what it is, an activity to be enjoyed? Just because you don't want to engage in it with someone you're not in a relationship with doesn't mean that people who do are wrong or bad. Different strokes and all that. No need to be so judgmental.
[–]Archwinger3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
We're not talking about right and wrong here. We're talking about good decisions versus bad decisions.
A woman can have sex with whoever she wants, whenever she wants, as long as her partner is willing and at least the age of majority. It's not illegal, it's her right, she's not hurting anybody, and there's nothing "wrong" being done.
This does not mean that doing so is a good decision.
Sex carries the risk of STDs. Women have the risk of getting pregnant. Those aren't my rules -- take that one up with God.
Society doesn't care for sluts. Women shame them. Men fuck them but don't commit. In most cases, they have a fun youth but a far more difficult future. Again, not my rules. That's just how it is.
People go crazy trying to justify doing whatever feels good (really good! Like even better than masturbation good!) -- like the very fact that something feels good and isn't illegal are the only two criteria that make something a great decision. If you have to explain and rationalize a shitty decision, because everybody pisses all over it the moment they hear it, it probably wasn't the best decision.
[–]alias-of-a-girl0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
See, to me, a good decision is the decision made by a person who has weighed the pros and cons of something and then made a sound decision based on that. So what if a woman puts greater emphasis on her pleasure than she does on what other people think of her? And so long as she's safe about her sex, maybe she's decided that the pleasure is worth the minimal risk of pregnancy/STDs - that's not unreasonable. If people decided not to do anything that involved risk, we'd never get out of bed in the morning.
If other people require that she explain and rationalize a decision that she's made, they're shitty people. If they can't expect her to behave like an adult and weigh the pros and cons of doing something, then maybe she shouldn't be spending time with people who treat her like a child. It's not her that's the problem in this case. I'm not saying that friends shouldn't question it when friends make a bad decision, but immediately attacking a decision for being bad when they don't know the specifics is just a demeaning and stupid as blindly agreeing with everything a person does.
[–]isthatyourdaughter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You really do seem to want to obfuscate the point. Let me reduce this argument to its kernel. There is a pattern of behaviors that many unsuspecting men continue to act out, to their own detriment. A man who acts out these behaviors is refered to as "Cap'n Save-A-Ho, Lord of the Friendzone." We are telling men not to be Cap'n Save-A-Ho.
And I'm saying maybe it's time you changed it up to Captain-Save-A-Bitch, because the problem here is that she was being a bitch. Her sexual activities have literally nothing to do with whether or not she was worth going out on a limb for.
And maybe you'd find more women would stop being bitches to you if you stopped calling us sluts.
[–]Archwinger4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The kind of woman who prioritizes doing what feels good, here and now, and what she wants, here and now, over any long-term consequences, and society be damned -- because anything negative society thinks about her is wrong and stupid and the whole rest of the world is wrong, not her, because she has the RIGHT to do what she wants with her life!!!! AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO DOESN'T AGREE SUCKS!!! YOLO!!!!!-- that's what we in the rest of the world call a bitch.
Right, because doing anything for immediate pleasure ever is somehow abandoning long-term happiness...
And I never said here and now. Doing something that feels good may mean that it feels good in the future (getting a degree, or going to the gym might qualify there), but we still only ever do those things because they are worth the pain now for the pleasure in the future.
Those are two divergent paragraphs.
Let's agree that having recreational sex outside of the context of a relationship or marriage, purely for fun and physical enjoyment, has nothing to do with feeling good long-term in the future (like going to college or going to the gym). Recreational sex is a here-and-now, immediate gratification thing.
Let's agree that, right or wrong, society frowns upon girls who have large amounts of recreational sex outside of the context of a relationship or marriage, as do future boyfriends and spouses. Sure not everyone, but a lot of people -- enough that it's fair to state that an extended period of recreational sex is going to limit your options in the future (unless you hide it, but if you're going to have to lie about your choices in the future, why do them, right?)
Prioritizing fleeting physical pleasure, because you wanna -- because you have the RIGHT! -- because anybody who thinks you're wrong to do so is stupid and society is all fucked up and you should be able to do whatever you want -- that is NOT a healthy attitude. That's the same attitude of a drunk, of a drug user, and of a guy who plays video games all day in his mom's basement instead of getting a job. All of these people have problems -- they're making bad choices with bad consequences. Sluts aren't any different.
Prioritizing fleeting physical pleasure, because you wanna -- because you have the RIGHT! -- because anybody who thinks you're wrong to do so is stupid and society is all fucked up and you should be able to do whatever you want -- that is NOT a healthy attitude.
See, that's where I would disagree. Deciding to do something that is causing no objective harm to yourself regardless of what other people think is very healthy. It is, in fact, how we gained the right to do a lot of things. It's how black people gained the right to sit at the front of the bus, as an example. Those aren't bad choices. And I don't have to pretend to give even the tiniest number of fucks about anyone who wants to look down on me for making those decisions.
Because here's the thing: if every man in the world decided that 'sluts' aren't worth marrying, then fuck it, I'll stay single. I wouldn't want to date anyone who's that hypocritical.
[–]the_pw_is_in_this_ID 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No: Women must be saints who only have sex when coerced into it by strong attractive men with great big bulgy biceps and long flowing lustrous hair. Any women contrary to this mold must by definition have damaged personal lives.
Hue hue hue hue...
[–]misanthropeguy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
'Slut' is a word to describe a girl who has sex with a lot of men, it's not my fault the word has an extremely negative connotation.
And how could I not care about who a girl I may be interested in has sex with? It's a pretty vital question no?
[+]alias-of-a-girl -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
No, it's really not. Because if you want in a monogamous relationship with her, then you have to trust her not to continue sleeping around once that relationship starts. And if you don't trust her to do that, why the fuck do you want a relationship with her in the first place?
[–]J4yt 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You're right about that, hence given all other things being equal I'd date a girl who has slept around less. Her notch count isn't the end-all be-all factor, but it's indicative of other things, like trusting her not to sleep around for instance.
[+]alias-of-a-girl -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
If you don't trust her not to sleep around, there are bigger issues at play there than her sexual habits before she met you...
[–]J4yt 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, probably from the way she acts and a myriad of other things in addition to loosely sleeping around because I have senses and intellect. Realistically, I would have already written off the girl way before considering her for an LTR.
Also your ad hominem is pretty shallow, but I can see that there's no reasoning with you.
[–]alias-of-a-girl -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That wasn't intended to be an ad hominem. I was just pointing out that, if there are trust issues so deep that you can't trust a potential girl not to sleep around, the issue probably isn't that she's promiscuous. She might be untrustworthy for a myriad of other reasons, or maybe you have trust issues. I'm not saying it's one or the other, all I mean to say is that her sexual habits before meeting/dating you are pretty far down the list of problems that such a potential relationship would have.
[–]J4yt 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Trust is something to be earned, not a thing to be given freely to anyone. If you call that a trust issue, I call that not being pragmatic enough.
[–]JohnnK 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why would they need help from us, males and females are all equals.
[–]Sirinon 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think most men have made the mistake of being captain save-a-Ho atleast once in their life.
My policy now is if a woman needs help/saving she can find it somewhere else, they have women's shelters for that kind of thing.
[–]Endorsed ContributorInvalidity 26 points27 points28 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Men shouldn't be helping females at all apparently. They can help themselves. Lol
All jokes aside though, you'd rather be labeled as an asshole and remembered for it than be put in a provider role and forgotten.
[–]real-boethius 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Men shouldn't be helping females at all apparently.
Let me guess - you didn't read the whole article did you?
"Steve, who would never give Haylee a ride two blocks to get a can of Pepsi ...., has gone out and helped Christina and her fiancée shovel out their car in the middle of a blizzard at midnight, when he had to work a hard construction job the next day at five. And he was glad to do it as I would have been. As many men would be, because decent guys look after decent people; regardless of whether they’re men or women.""
[–]hashtagpound2point2 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I think he was just making a jab at the equality movement.
[–]Endorsed ContributorInvalidity 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Let his anger take the better of him.
Imagine what it would be like to go to a random female for help. I couldn't imagine doing that. As a guy if you have a problem you deal with it yourself you loser.
[–]Realworld 36 points37 points38 points 12 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link
I don't distinguish between 'nice' & 'bad' girls; their sex life is their business. Male or female, if someone needs a favor, I'll do it. Once.
If they're appreciative and show it, I'll consider them a friend. If they don't, I discard them. Simple and straightforward.
[–]Evolved_Red11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I'm glad someone else pointed this out.
Pretty surprising for ROK to be honest, but I thought it was worthwhile for the author to point out the differences of being a doormat and being an actual nice guy - to the people that deserve it.
A lot of this gets lost in the testosterone of the manosphere.
[–]dirksqjaw -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Ok so if eventually looking to score with the person you are helping out, sure you could be door matted and forgotten, but if that isn't your ultimate agenda, and you are just being a decent human being... I don't know, I am new here, so not going to pretend I am 100% up on this stuff.
It just seems to me the most important and key part of the red pill is a high evaluation and connectedness with self. It feels like there are a few camps within the TRP community, one is beta and slut shaming and focused on getting their dick wet, and the other is about being the man you want to be, and how to navigate a world that seemingly is out to destroy that archetype, while invariably responding positively when it cant, and then variations of the two.
So I the way I relate to the story personally is, I too wouldn't have gone and given them a ride. Haylee's involvement to me would have been immaterial as it was apparent haylee's white knight friend could have sorted the issue out without me having it get involved and I couldn't be assed to deal with a bunch of drunk people. If it were a close friend in need, male or female, sure absolutely. So the source of my action comes from within. It is about not allowing anyone else's wants and needs to trump mine. And when it is a close friend, than it aligns with my wants and needs (as I am not a sociopath and am connected to certain fellow human beings), so I would help.
Someone mentioned in another thread the concept of the benevolent alpha. I quite like that. A good friend, and positive contributor to the community, but at the end of the day, has iron resolve in staying true to self. Thoughts on if I am missing something fundamental?
[–]jamesbilly2020 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree with you about the division between TRP.
[–]mayonesa[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Nietzschean here. Altruism doesn't exist. Desire for social order does.
[–]dirksqjaw -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Agreed, and also a Nietzsche fan since college days. Is there something I said that seemed contrary to that or were you solidifying my final point? I believe the latter, but aware the former could be in reference to my initial statement, which does seem a little discordant from my final in retrospect.
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Solidifying the final point.
[–]mayonesa[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link
I don't distinguish between 'nice' & 'bad' girls; their sex life is their business.
Very Reddit of you to say that. However, all of our behaviors reveal who we are. Would you distinguish between pedophiles and non-pedophiles?
Of course you would. Thus, it's just a question of degree.
[–]Realworld 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
That's an illogical reductio ad absurdum argument.
'Bad' girls make competent adult males happy. Pedophiles harm their immature victims. I shouldn't need to point out the difference between consenting adults and otherwise.
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
'Bad' girls make competent adult males happy.
At what additional social costs?
I shouldn't need to point out the difference between consenting adults and otherwise.
This is a linguistic fallacy designed to avoid measuring social consequences.
[–]Realworld 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
OK, I'll bite; what's the additional social costs/consequences?
[–]mayonesa[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
what's the additional social costs/consequences?
Social norming of dysfunctional behavior, damage to the family unit, lack of expectation of any kind of positive relation between the sexes, and of course lowered standards to a level approximating Bonobo.
[–]Realworld 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
They're not Masters degrees, but I do have BAs in Sociology and Psychology (as well as Metallurgy and Computer Science BS degrees).
Dysfunctional behavior, as applied to individuals, isn't a normally used term. 'Dysfunctional' applies to family unit or group relationships, not individuals. Couples can have co-dependencies. Individuals may have addictions or an untreated mentally illness.
It is possible to have a dysfunctional society, one that neglects or directly abuses individuals and groups within that society. A dysfunctional family occurs if individual or co-dependent parents continually and regularly abuse or neglect children or other dependent family members.
If individuals are not abusing themselves or directly harming others, they're not dysfunctional.
Independent competent adults get to choose who they associate with, thus defining their own social group. If you don't like someone's response to you, don't associate with them.
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Dysfunctional behavior, as applied to individuals, isn't a normally used term. '
Nonsense. Perhaps in those fields, but it's normal English.
Those are your assumptions, not your argument.
[–]Realworld 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
I'm at a loss here. You apparently believe there is a single commonly accepted meaning to 'dysfunctional behavior' other than the ones I already described. (You also apparently haven't been exposed to many people outside your narrow social group.)
If you do a Wikipedia search on 'dysfunctional behavior' it redirects to abnormal behavior. Do one of those fit? Take a look at the 11 different meanings of 'abnormal behavior' and tell me which one your group means by 'dysfunctional behavior'.
[–]autowikibot 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Abnormality (behavior):
Abnormality (or dysfunctional behavior), in the vivid sense of something deviating from the normal or differing from the typical (such as an aberration), is a subjectively defined behavioral characteristic, assigned to those with rare or dysfunctional conditions. Defining who is normal or abnormal is a contentious issue in abnormal psychology.
Interesting: Dysfunctional family | Abnormal psychology | Normality (behavior) | Transcranial direct-current stimulation
Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
You also apparently haven't been exposed to many people outside your narrow social group.
No one of sound mind speaks like this.
[–]Realworld1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That's an argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.
Seriously, if you're arguing that men and women shouldn't have sex outside of marriage you're in a small and shrinking minority. Sex outside of marriage (a.k.a. premarital sex or fornication) is legal in all 50 states and in every western country. Less than 20% of American males report their wife as the one and only sex partner they've had. Premarital sex isn't even condemned in the bible.
Our country is much more diverse than you may realize. The opinions of your social group (friends, family, and acquaintances) are not shared by most Americans.
[–]rapist6662 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
if you're arguing that men and women shouldn't have sex outside of marriage you're in a small and shrinking minority.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
You are correct. I hesitated to use it but did so out of frustration at mayonesa avoiding the actual original topic of discussion. I apologize and will stick to valid arguments.
[–]Stormflux2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I disagree. If sex outside of marriage is the normal behavior, then we have to take that into account when deciding policy. Social norms are relevant and let us know what is realistic.
Basically, /u/rapist666 hit you with the fallacy fallacy and you surrendered too soon. He's also a religious nutter by the way (ad hominem! ad hominem!), and judging by his recent comment in foodforthought, a young earth creationist as well.
Thanks, but rapist666's criticism was valid on this point. The original topic was whether experiencing more than one sex partner was harmful to an individual and dependents, or directly harmful to others. My stating that sex outside of marriage is the norm wasn't an honest argument on this topic.
Smoking cigarettes is harmful despite once being the normal behavior (norm ≠ harmless).
I'm honestly not sure what the context of your exchange was. My comment was in response to rapist666's comment here in which he claims (apparently) that college professors are suffering from increased stress as a result of "devotion to ideological positions that create cognitive dissonance when contrasted with reality. It's reasonable to believe they are acting with good intentions and have no plans to indoctrinate students with trendy ideas, but rather to teach timeless truths."
To hear a person make this kind of argument and then accuse others of fallacious reasoning, well it was just too much.
[–]Realworld2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I got a laugh out of your rapist666 comment link above. He's a flake all right. I'm happy rapist666 hit me with one of his occasional lucid points. I appreciate valid corrections wherever the source.
[–]mayonesa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That's an argumentum ad hominem
Wrong. Ad hom is this form:
You're stupid and therefore you're wrong.
[–]Realworld-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I have an 145 IQ.
If you're not comfortable defending your 'sluts are bad' position you can simply stop.
That was the example text of an ad hominem attack, not the actual message.
I'll wait.
[–]Realworld 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is philosophy more than sociology or psychology, so take it as you may:
It's best to first apply your personal standards to yourself and your own life. Then use your standards to choose your relationships and social groups. Create yourself as you think you should be. Then build a physical and relationship environment around you that works well.
There's billions of people trying to doing the same with their lives. You don't want them interfering in your life choices. Let others have their own.
[–]mayonesa[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You have restated the dominant paradigm of our age:
It's best to first apply your personal standards to yourself and your own life. Then use your standards to choose your relationships and social groups. Create yourself as you think you should be. Then build a physical and relationship environment around you that works well. There's billions of people trying to doing the same with their lives. You don't want them interfering in your life choices. Let others have their own.
In other words, let everyone do whatever they want to; reality is optional.
That has failed. Otherwise you wouldn't be here.
[–]FrogMasta27 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Non sequitur. Your central question contains the universal set of all humans and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
Your central question contains the universal set of all humans
Please elaborate.
[–]alias-of-a-girl -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
The difference between a pedophile and non-pedophile is a matter of being able to control yourself to the point where you don't commit a crime and can stop yourself from irreversibly harming a child. That's not the same thing as having a lot of sex with consenting adults. At all.
[–]mayonesa[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
That's not the same thing as having a lot of sex with consenting adults.
Not really. Both are pathological behaviors with negative social consequences.
[–]alias-of-a-girl 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Having sex with a consenting adult is not a pathological behaviour, it's human nature. And it only has negative social consequences when the people around you are prudish and afraid of natural human functions. And that's not even beginning to cover the fact that generally, sex between consenting adults leaves both parties happy and satisfied, where are pedophilia scars one party for the rest of their fucking life. Not even remotely similar.
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Having sex with a consenting adult is not a pathological behaviour, it's human nature.
There's different types of sex, and different degrees. It's human nature to eat, but obesity is still a failure.
[–]alias-of-a-girl 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Only because obesity is unhealthy and makes the person who is obese miserable. Having a lot of sex is frankly great and very healthy, assuming you take some standard precautions (like wearing a condom). Really, not so different from making sure the food you're eating comes from a trusted source (that is to say, is not going to poison you).
And why differentiate between types of sex? So long as there's consent with everyone involved, who cares what someone does with someone else?
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Having a lot of sex is frankly great and very healthy
No, it's a pathological behavior that reveals your insecurities.
[–]alias-of-a-girl 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Yeah? Show me the psychological studies that reveal any kind of pathology in having sex. Because there are DOZENS of pathologies that come of having too little sex or being afraid of sex (or afraid of being judged for having it).
You can pretend it's pathological all you want. You can say the sky is green all you want, too. Doesn't make it true.
Show me the studies "proving" that pathological sex produces healthy personalities.
[–]alias-of-a-girl2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Your description of pathological sex makes that impossible - pathology implies a lack of health. What I'm saying is that having a lot of sex isn't necessarily a pathological behaviour. If you're going to argue with me, at least read the arguments before you respond.
[–]mayonesa0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What I'm saying is that having a lot of sex isn't necessarily a pathological behaviour.
Yes, I've known what you were saying the whole time. It's a typical Reddit tactic to pretend the other person doesn't understand you.
Eating a whole lot of food is a pathological behavior. So is having a whole lot of sex, or hoarding. It's the same type of mental dysfunction: trying to use excess of something to substitute for significant experience.
If you're going to argue with me, at least read the arguments before you respond.
More Reddit-ism.
[–]PictureTraveller 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm with you on that one if a girl is a party animal and sleeps with a lot of guys that won't affect my point of view about her as a person. I love going out and get hammered from time to time, I don't see how that makes me a bad person. my actions and my personality when I'm drunk does though, no one should hide behind alcohol as an excuse. if she's a great girl and a good person she can party and suck dicks all day long she'll still be my friend. these are urges not personality traits. more often than not party animal slutty girls are train wreck and value leeching people though, that just comes with the lifestyle.
I agree. Just because she sleeps around it doesn't make her a particularly bad person. But having said that i've found that party girls that sleep around under the nice shallow personality are very entitled and bitchy.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The reality is they rarely do. Particularly once they sleep with you. Ive helped lose acquaintances out with favours out of the goodness of my heart, they have someone lead to sex and all of a sudden i'm satan's spawn because I didn't fulfil whatever criteria after the sex.
If you have sex with them and don't give them what they want following that sex then all the kindness in the world is erased.
[–]alias-of-a-girl -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Thank you. Why does it matter that she slept with Steve? Answer: it doesn't.
Just saying, if guys are gonna keep complaining that women don't put out, maybe ya'll should stop calling us sluts afterwards...
[–]1mykart 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The only men who would get more sex in a world where the stigma doesn't exist are the same men who have no problem with getting sex anyway.
[–]TattedGuyser 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I for one have never complained women don't put out. That's the best part of a slut, they DO put out. Unfortunately once you do, I'm no longer invested in attracting you any more. I know full well that a girl who sleeps with me on the first date isn't doing it because I'm somebody oh so special. She's doing it because she's a slut and it's in her nature. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it either, be sexually free. Just don't bitch and complain when I tell you that your not LTR material.
[+]alias-of-a-girl -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm no longer invested in attracting you any more... Just don't bitch and complain when I tell you that your not LTR material.
Good. Then I've dodged a potential bullet in that situation, because if your biggest indicator of whether someone is LTR material is whether they put out on the first date, you're obviously not interested in any kind of meaningful relationship. All you care about is the chase, which is fine, but I'm not interested in being the target of your chase. I want an actual relationship.
[–]RejectionEquality9 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Feminists loathe prostitution because prostitutes sell sex for what it's worth: not that much. In Amaterdam a quickie with a solid 9 works out about $75. I'd love to see a glimpse of a society where the men stopped genuflecting to the attention whores. Women would probably start to spontaneously combust.
[–]Zergrushin -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Combust? What?
They'd adapt to their setting. You're being silly and giving those who criticize TRP ammo when you type stupid shit like that.
[–]RejectionEquality2 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
I didn't type it. Those are not my words. I'm just quoting them here.
Click it and wait several seconds for the comments section to load. It was said by John, directed at FuriousFerret in the top comment thread.
[–]alias-of-a-girl -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You posted them here as a response to the article, so whether they're originally your words or not, you presented them as at least representing your beliefs. You're using semantics to try to get out of defending your own post.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The problem is if you don't there are always plenty of guys waiting in line to help them.
Ive found interaction with these women goes like this
1) I did something stupid, but its someone elses fault, I am so hard done by because I make poor decisions, but these decisions are in fact someone else's fault and i'm the victim.
2) I want special treatment merely for the fact i'm a woman. Yet i've I also expect to be equal until it comes to paying for things.
3) I will demand your time and attention whilst not giving you the slightest of what you want and if I do give you whatever that is i'll shame you for it.
[+]hamstercide -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Haylee and he had gotten drunk a few weeks ago at a house party. She had blown him in the washroom. The next night she came over to his house and they banged. Then she started showing up randomly, wanting to watch TV or go do something – never on her own dime, of course. In short, she acted like they were dating, when Steve made it clear they were doing nothing of the sort, being rude to her, sending her home after each bang.
Sorry but aside from "never on her own dime" (how do you pay to watch TV at someone else's house) what was so bad about this? A girl that's not a prude and also wants to date you? You want her to give you some bullshit rule like "I don't fuck until the 3rd date"?
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A girl that's not a prude and also wants to date you?
So you missed the whole point and apparently just because a girl wants to have sex with you she's a LTR candidate ? You got a long way to go.
[–]s0nicfreak 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Electricity costs money, cable or Netflix or etc. costs money. And usually when someone comes over to watch tv they grab a drink and/or snack too.
Generally the way to pay someone back for this, is they occasionally come to your house and do the same. If that isn't happening, it's all take and no give.
I'm pretty sure what is wanted is for a woman to not be surprised and bitchy when she is treated as the kind of person she acts like?
[+]hamstercide -11 points-10 points-9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
How much of a jew can you possibly be? She's already fulfilling her end of the bargain by hauling her ass to his house and sucking his cock. Gas costs money, and time and joules burnt sucking cock also equate to money. You don't like that shit, fine, watch football by yourself all you want.
[–]jmotrain10 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Sex is reciprocal if I'm not mistaken. Taking shit because you feel entitled when you aren't even in a relationship with someone isn't reciprocal.
Imagine a guy doing the same thing, women would think he is a leech or loser. When women do the same thing, it is just par for the course.
The problem you have is you don't see this as a slippery slope; She will feel entitled to more shit down the road (like drinks at a bar for example).
[–]s0nicfreak 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The bargain, as he understood it, was that they have sex. She is trying to add other things in that he never agreed to.
[+]Beatle7 -13 points-12 points-11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is the best (and funniest) thing I've ever read on redpill. Just because we've learned no women should be put up on a pedestal, doesn't mean all women should be put down in a manhole.
[–]SwordfshII 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
True, but women should prove themselves BEFORE they get special consideration
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]FortunateBum 38 points39 points40 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]misanthropeguy 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]closetothesilence 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Abroh 23 points24 points25 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points (37 children) | Copy Link
[–]misanthropeguy -2 points-1 points0 points (36 children) | Copy Link
[+]alias-of-a-girl -8 points-7 points-6 points (35 children) | Copy Link
[–]RedPillScare 5 points6 points7 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+]alias-of-a-girl -7 points-6 points-5 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]misanthropeguy 5 points6 points7 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl -3 points-2 points-1 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]misanthropeguy 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RedPillScare 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]RedPillScare 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 8 points9 points10 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[+]alias-of-a-girl -8 points-7 points-6 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 7 points8 points9 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+]alias-of-a-girl -7 points-6 points-5 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 5 points6 points7 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+]alias-of-a-girl -7 points-6 points-5 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 5 points6 points7 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Archwinger3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]isthatyourdaughter1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Archwinger4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Archwinger4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]the_pw_is_in_this_ID 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]misanthropeguy 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]alias-of-a-girl -6 points-5 points-4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]J4yt 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]alias-of-a-girl -6 points-5 points-4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]J4yt 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]J4yt 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JohnnK 18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sirinon 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorInvalidity 26 points27 points28 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]real-boethius 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]hashtagpound2point2 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorInvalidity 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Realworld 36 points37 points38 points (48 children) | Copy Link
[–]Evolved_Red11 points12 points13 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]dirksqjaw -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]jamesbilly2020 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]dirksqjaw -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] 3 points4 points5 points (34 children) | Copy Link
[–]Realworld 3 points4 points5 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]Realworld 0 points1 point2 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] 1 point2 points3 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]Realworld 0 points1 point2 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]Realworld 1 point2 points3 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]autowikibot 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Realworld1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rapist6662 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Realworld1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Stormflux2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Realworld1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Stormflux2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Realworld2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Realworld-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Realworld1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Realworld 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FrogMasta27 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl -1 points0 points1 point (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] -2 points-1 points0 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa[S] -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mayonesa0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]PictureTraveller 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl -5 points-4 points-3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]1mykart 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TattedGuyser 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]alias-of-a-girl -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RejectionEquality9 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zergrushin -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]RejectionEquality2 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]alias-of-a-girl -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]hamstercide -10 points-9 points-8 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]s0nicfreak 6 points7 points8 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]hamstercide -11 points-10 points-9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]jmotrain10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]s0nicfreak 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Beatle7 -13 points-12 points-11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SwordfshII 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link