~ archived since 2018 ~

This is how ChatGPT can help you getting laid (Works for anyone)

Terrible_Assist_1345

May 4, 2026

302 upvotes

/r/seduction

One of the pillars of game is innergame. Innergame is the biggest thing that can stop you from getting laid.

Are you a nice guy? Innergame problem.
Are you afraid of rejection? Innergame problem.

The only way you can fix your innergame is by look within yourself. It can be tought to be honest to yourself. This is where ChatGPT can play a big role.

I want you to open ChatGPT and copy this prompt: "Ask me exactly 10 deep, confronting questions, one at a time, waiting for my answer each time.
Focus on self-image, fears (rejection, failure/success), perfectionism, control, validation, avoidance, emotional wounds, core beliefs, and recurring patterns.
If my answers are superficial, challenge me with follow-up questions to go deeper.

After question 10:
Analyze my answers and identify

my 3 biggest inner blocks
the beliefs behind them
avoided emotions
recurring behavioral patterns.

"

If you're answered all the questions and you really feel like you've identified the root of the problem ask Chat for a reframe.

Treat this reframe as the truth and start living like this reframe is the reality.

If you do it the right way it'll help you to fix your problems and it'll definetly make you more attractive.

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	This is how ChatGPT can help you getting laid (Works for anyone)
Author	Terrible_Assist_1345
Upvotes	302
Comments	118
Date	May 4, 2026 10:06 AM UTC (2 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/seduction
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1t3dcdi/this_is_how_chatgpt_can_help_you_getting_laid/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/seduction/this-is-how-chatgpt-can-help-you-getting-laid.1579562 https://theredarchive.com/post/1579562

Comments

[–]Matter_Still 132 points133 points134 points 3 months ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aristox 15 points16 points17 points 3 months ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 25 points26 points27 points 3 months ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

The thing about all this "seduction" coaching is that the average guy did just fine for thousands of years without having to be asked and answer "10 deep, confronting questions". No one spoke of "inner blocks", "avoided emotions", or “recurring behavioral problems”. (We all had the same issue: we got tongue-tied and rattled in the presence of attractive girls). But, despite a laundry list of liabilities and deficits, it all worked out somehow.

I was at the epicenter of a group of totally unremarkable guys, and yet every one of us who wished to, met a girl, often one quite cute, married, and by any reasonable standard, had a good life.

How did we get to the place where accomplishing such a natural thing necessitated probing one's mind, dissecting it, searching for defects, and exaggerating those that are found?

No generation of men ever did such a thing in a quest to get laid, and few even thought of doing it. It was easy, and it worked, as I said, almost infallibly: you saw a girl who was attractive to you, and she was either into you or she wasn't. If it was the latter, you moved on. It was the quintessence of simplicity. We didn't wonder what made us attractive to this one or that, any more than we questioned why we found Katie more attractive than Debbie.

There were girls who weren’t into us, and girls that we couldn’t care less about. It all equalled out in the end.

Nor did we obsess about "openers", "calibrating", "holding a masculine frame", "creating false time constraints", or any of the many unnecessary ruminations that fill the heads of too many guys today.

I suppose we were just way ahead of Phil Knight. Our credo was easy to remember: "Just do it.", and if you didn’t, try again next Friday night.

[–]Top-Bootylover 3 points4 points5 points 2 months ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Top-Bootylover 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (9 children) | Copy Link

They’ve changed. In many ways it has become easier than it has been in the past one hundred years.

For the greater part of American history potential “romantic” interests were limited to those who lived within less than a mile of you. If you lived in any of the small towns that are the backbone of the country, this meant a schoolmate, someone you met in church or who was in your social class. If you lived in Denver, the chances you could date a girl in Boston were just about non-existent.

Because of technological advances and access to modern air transportation the possibilities have expanded a thousand-fold. “Geographic Isolation” was a genuine limiting factor. Today, a kid living in North Platte, Nebraska can conceivably meet and marry a girl living in Sydney or Mumbai, a girl he would never have known even existed.

Do you really think you face strong headwinds today? Dating is markedly easier than it was during the “Great Wars”, the years of the Great Depression, and even until 1960, when laws existed prohibiting interracial marriage. The Depression caused many to invest all their energies in raw survival. There was no discretionary income to cruise bars to get laid. If you said you had made a hundred approaches it was to get a job, not to get laid.

If you were a woman in 1914, World War 1 gutted the pool of eligible men. If you were a healthy male, you were worried about mustard gas, not how many matches you got.

Toss in the laws that allowed the prosecution of interracial and gay couples and still try to make a case out of how hard dating is today. If you were gay, or a white guy who wanted to ask a black girl out, you risked prison. Patrick Mahomes would have done time, maybe even been cellmates with Michael Jordon.

Yeah. It’s brutal out there.

Then there’s the obvious. If you are dating today, you do so at a time when even a shy 16-year-old has at his fingerprints the advantages of dating apps, social media, texting, video calls, and AI matching that, in theory, give him access to more potential matches in an hour than his grandfather had in a lifetime, and you still think the deck is stacked against you.

Add it all up and here is the short list of how things have changed for the better:

If you’re dating today you have INSTANT access to incomprehensibly larger social networks, potentially millions of men or women workdwide.

If you are disenchanted with your options in NYC, fuck it. Move to Thailand or Tablisi (as many do) to test the waters. More affordable, safer, and faster transportation makes that feasible.

And, not least unimportantly, despite the bitching and gnashing of teeth, people dating today have far more economic options and independence. How do I know this? There are those who keep score. (Seven percent of Americans 18-24 earn $100k. On dating apps, it’s about 20%.)

So, hang crepe if you want for reasons only you know. I’m guessing somewhere along the way, it didn’t work out for you with a woman—or several women.

Dig deep enough and I’d bet you don’t have a particularly flattering opinion of women, or those guys who do.

[–]Top-Bootylover 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Top-Bootylover 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]7tweets 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]7tweets 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]7tweets 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I agree the basic mechanics of attraction haven’t changed much. People are still people.

But the environment absolutely has, no matter how much you deny it. Social media and dating apps created a level of visibility, comparison, and perceived optionality that didn’t exist at this scale before.

A woman today can receive attention from hundreds or thousands of men through apps and social media without ever leaving her house. That inevitably changes social dynamics, expectations, filtering behavior, and how validation is experienced.

That doesn’t mean relationships are impossible or that men should become bitter, but only that pretending the dating landscape is identical to 20 or 30 years ago seems unrealistic.

Fear of rejection is definitely part of the problem for many men. But so is the fact that modern technology amplified competition and attention asymmetry in ways previous generations never experienced.

[–]Matter_Still 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Using the word 'but' as you have, was a not-very nuanced way of Using negating everything that came before it.

“I agree people are still people, the human brain hasn’t changed, 50% of people are not using apps, and as many as 95% of women STILL wish men would be more proactive in approaching them, while only 50% of men have approached a woman in the past year BUT the environment has changed.”

You also make the preposterous claim that “A woman today can receive attention from hundreds or thousands of men through apps and social media without ever leaving her house.”

And men can’t.

Here are a few changes in the “environment” that have made connecting easier.

For thousands of years, connection was limited by proximity. If you lived in Greeley, Colorado, you were almost always limited to dating people from… Greeley, Colorado. The chance that you would connect with someone from Colorado Springs was near zero. Today a man in Greeley, can, in fact, check out possibilities in San Francisco, Sydney, and Saigon. In one hour he can check out more possible partner opportunities than his grandfather or great grandfather had in a lifetime.

It has only been 33 years since the internet was made available to the public. How conveniently you dismiss what a boon that has been to men and women and see it only as something that has “amplified competition” rather than opening the way for men and women to have access to countless millions of potential partners they would have never known existed.

To prove this point, I just used a totally random prompt:

“I’m relocating to Boston and wish to meet a woman of color, age 25 -30, who is a Seventh Day Adventist.”

And what do you think happened?

Google provided me this—among others:

ChristianCafe.com is one of the premier online services for singles who are looking for Adventist connections. We've been helping bachelor and bachelorettes locally, around the country, and throughout the world. “

What were my options in 1992?

(There was also “Seventh Day Adventists Single And Searching”.

So, enough. You live at a time when the possibilities have exponentially multiplied.

If I was so inclined I could go online, do a search for singles in Tokyo, and tomorrow night at this time—two nights at the most—be having dinner with a woman who, on paper, is age appropriate, has obtained the educational and professional level I prefer, shares my religious beliefs, AND is one I find physically attractive.

And you think you are bucking stiff head winds? That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

[–]7tweets 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fuggetboutit 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ovid’s classic, “Ars Amatoria” is about the most comprehensive in the literature of antiquity and he never came close to suggested the kind of probative mental introspection the OP has.

If anything, Ovid concerned himself with what is now called “escalation”.

Even Part Il (Of Sexual Union) of the Kama Sutra, the most exhaustive work on intercourse ever written, addresses the act and not mental states that may interfere with it.

I suppose somewhere there is a historic figure like the Vicomte de Valmont. If there is, his secrets died with him.

But again, a deep, systematic, dive into the recesses of one’s mind to find out why they don’t get laid as often as they would want to? This is a modern (21st century) development, which I’d bet is rarely engaged in and for good reason.

[–]Competitive_Wave_997 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]U_DonB -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

No, I’m not. As I said, it was comprehensively intuitive. If a girl didn’t reciprocate there was nothing “learned”. We simply chalked it up to its most fundamental truth. She wasn’t into us.

It was wonderfully primal. We knew, there would be times when you didn’t make the team, get the job, or the girl.

If you struck out in the bottom of the ninth or shanked a punt you felt like shit until it passed. You didn’t look for probable cause like an Investigator for the NTSB.

Keep in mind, the guy who served this idea of Chat-assisted deep introspection has a track record of intellectualizing basic stuff. It’s his M.O.

I bet if you have one really close friend who could read you like a book and you asked, “Why do you think Deb broke up with me?” you’d get a more useful answer than asking AI about your “self-image, fears, and emotional wounds.”

[–]osures -2 points-1 points0 points 2 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 4 points5 points6 points 2 months ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think so, not in any meaningful way, except for those who have been sucked into “game” with its unnecessary rules and theories, or for those who cast their nets in online dating.

Nonetheless, the neuroscience of attraction has not changed in eons. The fundamentals remain intact: the “engine” of sexual attraction—the brain’s reward circuits and its complex biochemistry are the same as they were 10,000 years ago.

Admittedly, on the individual level, for a person who defaults to pornography, shame, anxiety, or in the case of “seduction”, hyper-intends to get laid often and at will, it may seem something has made “pairing” more difficult but that is only at the individual level.

It may also be true that more people, many more, connect through dating apps, but that fact has not rewired the “erotic brain”. Still, 82% of individuals between 18-65 who are in a relationship or married claim to have met in person—four times as many who connected online or through social media.

It gets even more interesting: only about 1:15 (<7%) met in a bar or club and yet this is the preferred hunting ground of PUAs and dating coaches.

1:20 (5%) met while engaging in a hobby

1:16 (6%) met at the gym, another preferred, seemingly “target-rich” environment.

The conclusion is fairly obvious: if you find dating hard, it’s likely because you invest your energy in places where the odds are stacked against you.

We understood this intuitively: girls could be met anywhere—the beach, church, a library, at a wedding (or funeral), in school, at work, on a blind date, or through a family or friends.

Forget about social media, clubs, bars, and online dating and see what happens.

It should get a lot easier.

[–]osures 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]32_hazards 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] -73 points-72 points-71 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 5 points6 points7 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elegant-Wolf-12 146 points147 points148 points 3 months ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]lilbasils 53 points54 points55 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TeeKayTank 10 points11 points12 points 3 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elegant-Wolf-12 10 points11 points12 points 3 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Let's take a logical approach, taking for granted that every frame can be represented as a set of axioms and common notions and the propositions derived from them. Then every frame suffers two obvious problems. First, its axioms are not self-evident because there is no self-evident axiom. That's the crisis that started with Non-Euclidean geometry and has been resolved by a general acceptance that logical-mathematical structures are not absolute structures but instead more like different ecosystems of meanings. Second, every formal, axiomatic system suffers from both Godel's and Tarski's theorems showing that it fails to be able to demonstrate essential components of itself -- in particular, it can't define truth within itself, and it can't demonstrate that it is consistent.

Or let's take a phenomenological approach, taking for granted that frames are essentially semantic structures of meaning that tell us what things are and their value. Then just look at something. Literally, you can pick anything, though it's best if it not be a digital artifact. Really look at it. Now describe that thing, completely, as you experience it. You could write for the rest of your life, and not have begun to describe the cup on your desk. Experiential reality radically surpasses any available frame of meaning and description.

All that said, the fact that no frame is true doesn't mean that frames aren't real. They do real work orienting us. They are useful and extremely valuable, if you can adopt them playfully. But if you start believing this one or that one is real, you end up a rigid fundamentalist who seeks to destroy what is real in order to bring about something that is not, because reality refuses to conform to your partial framework.

[–]tempralanomaly 5 points6 points7 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]spiciestturtle 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 3 points4 points5 points 3 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elegant-Wolf-12 17 points18 points19 points 3 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Droolissimo 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DistinctSmelling 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Void_Being 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Elegant-Wolf-12 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]McENEN 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Elegant-Wolf-12 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]fuggetboutit 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mmmfritz -2 points-1 points0 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pipnotiq 43 points44 points45 points 3 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 8 points9 points10 points 3 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]U_DonB 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NaiveAd6090 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5lutty5 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Uri_BaBa 9 points10 points11 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]naughtylover9 4 points5 points6 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhaleTrain 30 points31 points32 points 3 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Matter_Still 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn’t say it wasn’t English. I’m just voicing an opinion similar to Bill Maher’s about having to stuff one’s brain with another idiom of the month, that will be abused and cast aside next month.

For him it was “Overton Window”.

So far in 2026, for many, “Rizz” has replaced “charisma”. (Is the two additional syllables all that difficult to say?)

Then, there has been “only in Ohio”.

“Did you see the vid of the United 767 clip that semi?”

“Only in Ohio, man.”

WTF? I discovered it suggests something weird but I had to look it up.

Then there’s this current, already beat-to-hell word: “looksmaxxing”.

Add to the list “delulu”, “aura points”, “404 coded”, “Unc”, “canon event”, “the hill I will die on” (as if stating a preference for mustard over ketchup is the ideological equivalent of assaulting Monte Casino.)

A few others, “ate and left no crumbs”, “BDE”, “Bed Rot”, and “headcannon”.

And maybe the most bizarre of all: “catch feels”, suggesting falling for someone is like being infected with the flu.

Now, to “chopped”, “deada”, “dripped out”, and “highkey”, we can add 2026’s, “Go touch some grass”.

You think it’s a coincidence 50% of Americans read below a sixth-grade level?

English is under assault.

[–]5lutty5 17 points18 points19 points 3 months ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]devonthed00d 5 points6 points7 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5lutty5 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 15 points16 points17 points 3 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]5lutty5 -1 points0 points1 point 3 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 7 points8 points9 points 3 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]5lutty5 -4 points-3 points-2 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 8 points9 points10 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stick_it_in_your_bum 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quiet_Rock_5696 6 points7 points8 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingofLingerie 8 points9 points10 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]squidguy_mc 7 points8 points9 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NaiveAd6090 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NaiveAd6090 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]complexisbackagain 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NatashOverWorld 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 3 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]NatashOverWorld 9 points10 points11 points 3 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AromaticPlant8504 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NatashOverWorld 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AromaticPlant8504 -1 points0 points1 point 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] -8 points-7 points-6 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NatashOverWorld 8 points9 points10 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]on4aa 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Straight_Equal_1541 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Illustrious-Result33 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]CuckiMan_45 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alternative-Mud4739 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]7tweets 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Msyunmi 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alexthegreatest2 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pleasetrydmt -1 points0 points1 point 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]skeletor69420 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArmitageShanks69 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Key-Proud 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Independent-Bad218 -1 points0 points1 point 3 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 2 points3 points4 points 3 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Independent-Bad218 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 3 points4 points5 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beneficial-Newt-9106 -1 points0 points1 point 3 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beneficial-Newt-9106 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terrible_Assist_1345[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Beneficial-Newt-9106 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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