[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/R9K/ Robot - 9000

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


 No.5139[View All]

Here's the killshot, single mothers predict how bad crime is in an area NOT POVERTY!
>The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not. Source: D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, “Social Structure and Criminal Victimization,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988.”
This alone should repudiate feminism in the minds of anyone, left or right. And the high single motherhood rate is the direct result of feminists' sexual revolution that encourages women to be promiscuous which inevitably leads to bastards.
Anyone that's traveled outside of the US can attest to this finding. While no poor area of a city or town is safe. They are not these Falluja style war zones that say Baltimore is.
Eliminating single mothers goes a long long way to eliminating poverty for workers. And it's in the best interest of children, which feminists and women pretend to care about.
These studies were aggregated on https://www.fixfamilycourts.com/single-mother-home-statistics. Here are a few other highlights
>“After controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.” Progressive Policy Institute, 1990, quoted by David Blankenhorn, “Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem,” New York, Harper Perennial, 1996, p.31
>Effects of Fatherlessness – Teenage Statistics
>63% of all youth suicides,
>70% of all teen pregnancies,
>71% of all adolescent chemical/substance abusers,
>80% of all prison inmates, and
>90% of all homeless and runaway children, came from single mother homes.
>Bob Ray Sanders, “Hey Y’all, Let’s Fill The Hall (Of Fame), Ft. Worth Star Telegram, Oct.28,2007
>Mona Charen, “More Good News Than Bad?”, Washington Times, Mar.16, 2001 (citing Bill Bennett, “The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: American society at the end of the 20th Century., New York, Broadway Books, 1994)
How does the left, which claims to care about workers, answer for this. This complete lack of accountability for women throughout every sect of anti capitalist ideology.
Every single critic of women's sexual liberation is pilloried as a bitter loser or incel.
All while this same behavior has had a devastating effect on children and communities. Something that would have been blatantly obvious to anyone not brainwashed but none the less we've had scientific proof of for centuries. these studies go back to the 1930's
And yet in every supposed left wing circle if the idea that maybe we should pressure women not to have children out of wedlock because of the obvious downsides, you'll have leftist quote Engels and other feminist toadies on how regressive women not being able to sleep with whoever they wanted would be just like a handmaids tale. And how this is really the fault of the patriarchy somehow.
Since when in your cucked anticapitalists' did women's whoring around become more sacrosanct then children's welfare?
And before someone strawman's me as some CHUD that wants women to go back to the kitchen, I'll say that there's a dozen fucking forms of female birth control now. There's NOTHING to keep women from planning every single one of their pregnancies. Using a pill does not require you to give up your career.
If the left wants any sort of legitimacy they'd openly admonish women that willingly become single mothers. It is not some terrible circumstance that befalls them, it's something completely in their control.
And before someone brings up the recent abortion bans, abortion in the country is no where near abolished, you can still get one and the left should be all in on facilitating it.
The problem is there's not even social pressure to stop these tragic outcomes.
The left needs to answer to this now.
58 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.10244

>>

 No.11230

Y'all say you're materialist but stay silent on the endemic abuse wrought by single mothers. And no, it's not a function of poverty, there's countries even poorer that don't see these levels of single mothers.
>>

 No.11231

>>11230
The main problem with single moms is the smothering
>>

 No.11537

Tankies still refuse to remark on this systemic abuse of children, this assembly line of stunted children that become easily exploited adults. Tankies talk tough but won't even stand up to foids. You're all failures that kneel before cunt but expect us to believe you can bring revolution.
>>

 No.13676

Communists are such cucks. They'll come out of the wood word to admonish sub 8 male for complaining about women and dating. But will say absolutely nothing to single mothers that are abusing and neglecting children. You're all limp wristed cucks that jerk each other of to revolutionary LARPs.
>>

 No.13678

>>9956
true
>>

 No.13679

>>

 No.13681

>>13679
Speak then.
>>

 No.13687

>>13679
He just did.  Make your case for your own thesis.
>>

 No.13688

>>13679
elaborate pls
>>

 No.13690

File: 1792857011878.png ( 72.53 KB , 500x365 , Molymeme.png )

>>13688
You first.  It's your thesis.
>>

 No.13696

>>13690
I guess you can't read so here it is again. Tsnkies and the left are limp wristed faggots too cucked to stand up to single moms and feminists and their systemic abuse and neglect of children as the OP proves.
And then you "revolutionaries" think you could stand up to the booj state when you can't even stand up to Western foids.
>>

 No.13697

>>13690
The only thing I posted it was "true" in regards to nihilistic tendencies. Merely an observation. I've seen people grow out of it but it but not without difficulty on their part.
>>

 No.13699

>>13697
Again how true is this? Because nihilism seems to be a thing amongst people regardless of their parentage.

Also what's so bad about nihilism?

Idealism seems to be a much more pressing problem.


>>13696
And again, where do you get your thesis? Especially against tankies? What's with the hate against tankies?

Also, single mothers aren't all covert sociopaths. Single motherhood is due mainly to dads being incompetent, either behaviorally, financially, functionally, etc.

Single father households are also prone to neglect and abuse but people seem to wave it off.
>>

 No.13700

>>13687
>>13688
These are all strawmen based on some passive-aggressive misogyny.

Single moms aren't all shallow bitches whom were caught red handed with their lack of morale.

A lot of it is due to dads being abusive or dismissive.
>>

 No.13702

>>13700
Both parents are usually the problem, yes. No argument there. With unplanned pregnancies where the father is awol children were often raised by grandparents or given up for adoption, especially before the new deal. Then single motherhood was encouraged by the entertainment industry after the passage of no fault divorce. Kids tend to fare better when there's no divorce since the kids often blame themselves to some degree.
>>

 No.13703

>>13699
>And again, where do you get your thesis?
From the 50 year study posted in the OP. It found NO correlation between crime and poverty. It did find a HIGH correlation between single mothers and crime. And there's plenty of other studies that show the poorer outcomes of children from single mother homes in almost every avenue.
>Especially against tankies? What's with the hate against tankies?
Because tankies are the loudest ones always talking about standing up the booj (you know the ones with the fucking military) and how everyone needs to follow them to revolution. Nibba, how is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you can't even talk to women.
>Also, single mothers aren't all covert sociopaths.
IDGAF what the cause it, it's empirically true that they neglect and abuse their children. So what nibba, we're supposed to let children suffer because it's not their mom's fault she's abusive?
>Single motherhood is due mainly to dads being incompetent
No nibba, most fathers are there for their children. Also men pay the majority of child support AND children in single father households have better outcomes. This problems is specifically a foid issue.
And who exactly is consenting to fucking and having this children with these "incompetent dads" hmmm?
There's a dozen forms of birth control for women now and abortion. There's no excuse, absolutely none, for this endemic levels of child abuse to happen at the hands of single moms.
>Single father households are also prone to neglect and abuse but people seem to wave it off.
No, wrong
>>

 No.13704

>>13699
>Single father households are also prone to neglect and abuse but people seem to wave it off.

3. Economic Stability and Reduced Emotional Stress
Single fathers often experience greater economic stability, and financial security plays a critical role in emotional regulation and parenting capacity. U.S. Census data show that single fathers earn, on average, approximately 40 percent more than single mothers, even when education level is controlled (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).

Psychological research consistently links financial stress to elevated cortisol levels, emotional reactivity, and reduced patience in caregivers (Sapolsky, 2004). The American Psychological Association identifies chronic financial stress as one of the strongest predictors of parental burnout and dysregulated parenting behaviors (American Psychological Association, 2020).

With fewer financial stressors, single fathers are more likely to parent from a position of emotional calm and consistency-two foundational elements of emotional mastery.

Kek
>>

 No.13706

>>13703
>Because tankies are the loudest ones always talking about standing up the booj (you know the ones with the fucking military) and how everyone needs to follow them to revolution. Nibba, how is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you can't even talk to women.

That sounds like leftists in general. There's a lot of hatred against tankies specifically in the leftist community, and I wanna know why.

>>13704
Maybe because of the societal expectations of fathers being the primary breadwinner?

>IDGAF what the cause it, it's empirically true that they neglect and abuse their children.


Some, not all.


>So what nibba, we're supposed to let children suffer because it's not their mom's fault she's abusive?


What we can do is take the kids away from the moms and put them in a extremely vetted foster care system or make a boarding school program that focuses primarily on technical skill training

And maybe just maybe, gatekeep parenthood with mandatory competency licensing.

>No nibba, most fathers are there for their children. Also men pay the majority of child support AND children in single father households have better outcomes.


Those are not as common as you think. In dysfunctional households, fathers are often negligent if not abusive.
I'm amused at how people whom are vitriolic towards single moms turn a blind eye to abusive/neglectful dads.

>This problems is specifically a foid issue.


Not exclusively.

>And who exactly is consenting to fucking and having this children with these "incompetent dads" hmmm?

>There's a dozen forms of birth control for women now and abortion. There's no excuse, >absolutely none, for this endemic levels of child abuse to happen at the hands of single moms.

And it's not exclusively single moms. Your idea of a single mom is some washed-up has been prom queen with no empathetic drive. And that's not always true.
>>

 No.13707

>>13706
>What we can do is take the kids away from the moms and put them in a extremely vetted foster care system or make a boarding school program that focuses primarily on technical skill training
And you lost me.  The foster system is graft, and old Brits remember that boarding school program all too well.
>>

 No.13710

>>13707
In familiar with British boarding schools being intentionally cruel. The kind of boarding schools I'm talking about are mainly technical skill training. There won't be any of that brutalization in the boarding schools I'm wanting.
>>

 No.13711

>>13707
I'm also well aware of foster parent industry being grafty.
But what else do you want? Make them remain to suffer?
>>

 No.13716

>>13711
As far as the left is concerned I want them to speak up against this and the single mothers perpetuating it.
If you can't stand up for children, the most sympathetic group ever, you can't stand up for anyone.
>>

 No.13722

>>13710
Brits are not the only ones either.  Speaking of which…
>>13708
Yeah, real rez-born native women–especially those from older generations–are usually some HARD bitches.  They have that thousand-yard PTSD stare and display that total lack of fear that only people who have to fight have.  If you ain't family, you ain't nothing to them.  Not exactly the most emotionally supportive people.  Shit, they wouldn't even know what emotional support looks like.
>>13711
I want emancipation.  No guardian at all is better than a foster home or a boarding school.
>>13716
Oh look, another liberal who things that the voice of the subaltern must be heard.
>>

 No.13729

>>13722
>Oh look, another liberal who things that the voice of the subaltern must be heard.
Haha you are such a cuck that you won't even speak out against a woman even of she's abusing children.
>>

 No.13731

>>13729
>be dumb bitch with no praxis beyond posting angry memes
>get called on it
>cuck cuck cuck cuck
Get gud, faggot.
>>

 No.13732

>>13722
>Oh look, another liberal who things that the voice of the subaltern must be heard.
Okay then what's the point of being on the left if you can't have a platform unless you have the political power to enact it?
And how is advocating for children liberal? The only thing liberal is your disgusting deflection for foids. You don't want any accountability for women because then women wouldn't keep having traumatized children that you can exploit as adults. Only lib around here is you.
>>

 No.13733

>>13731
Cope feminist bottom cuckold. I do have praxis, but praxis starts with identifying the fucking problem.
Often I'm able to help people just by validating the abuse they're experiencing by their single moms because legions of reddit cucks like you relentlessly gaslight them.
>>

 No.13734

>>13731
>Get gud,
This is how evil male feminists are. They'll literally tell abused children and their advocates to "get gud" before even once considering to hold female child abusers accountable. It's why you have millions of women defending child murderers like Lindsey Clansey.
>>

 No.13740

>>13716
>If you can't stand up for children, the most sympathetic group ever, you can't stand up for anyone.


The truth is, nobody wants to stand up for children. Adults only see children as pets. "Think of the children" is only used to further adult convenience, not childrens welfare.
>>

 No.13748

>>13734
Conswrvatives do the same when it comes to abusive fathers.
>>

 No.13758

File: 1793013526481.jpg ( 63.98 KB , 580x480 , helen-lovejoy.jpg )

>>13732
>>13733
>>13734
>why you no cry about children on the internet more?
lel
>>

 No.13760

>>13758
Yet if this were about monuments in leftist history, you wouldn't be acting like this.
>>

 No.13761

>>13758
>I have no argument but I must scream.
>>

 No.13767

>>13722
Emancipation is probably better. But the problem is, society doesn't want children as individuals. Irony is, I think it's better for kids to be introduced to work by their pubertal stage so that they can support themselves.

People think making kids being dependent on adults after their toddling stage is good. It really isn't. Our society willfully neglects life skill training for the young.
>>

 No.13770

File: 1793031240718.jpg ( 817.93 KB , 1776x1995 , FremontLenin.jpg )

>>13760
>if this were about monuments in leftist history
All orphaned Lenin statues should be fostered in Germany until they reach the age of majority for statuary and can be admitted into a revolutionary society.
>>13761
>argue against my non-argument!
kek
>>13767
Indeed, but it would be quite the trick to avoid falling into the old trap of having work gangs of children that are led about by unscrupulous adult overseers.  Also, given how little actual skilled labor is present in the workforce anymore, there would be the problem of children who make a fraction of what an adult makes becoming the only employees that employers will hire.  Child emancipation is a great idea but for the problem that wage labor is not emancipatory.  There would need to be some manner of institution to which children must belong that is powerful enough to guarantee workplace safety and living wages–say an all-encompasing union.
>>

 No.13773

>>13770
>Indeed, but it would be quite the trick to avoid falling into the old trap of having work gangs of children that are led about by unscrupulous adult overseers.

That's only a problem due to children not being given any sociolegal individuality.


>Also, given how little actual skilled labor is present in the workforce anymore, there would be the problem of children who make a fraction of what an adult makes becoming the only employees that employers will hire.


That's due to customer service jobs making up the bulk of post-Cold War labor market. People began to look down on trades as beneath them.  

>Child emancipation is a great idea but for the problem that wage labor is not emancipatory.  There would need to be some manner of institution to which children must belong that is powerful enough to guarantee workplace safety and living wages-say an all-encompasing union.


Children are currently more in danger from public schooling. Bullying, drug abuse, grooming, school shootings, etc.
Yet, I never hear anyone showing hesitation when it comes to that.

Also ironically, the average workplace is far more safe than it was fifteen decades ago.
You say wage labor isn't freeing?

Neither is compulsory schooling.

Also why do you want children to be institutionalized for their safety? If anything, children are institutionalized enough and that's the problem.
Institutionalization makes children vulnerable.

We need emancipation.
>>

 No.13783

>>13770
> Also, given how little actual skilled labor is present in the workforce anymore, there would be the problem of children who make a fraction of what an adult makes becoming the only employees that employers will hire.

That's the fault of adults for looking down on skilled labor training.
It's irritating and sad that the the average fast food worker is early-mid twenties at minimum.
Teen workers in fast food are now seen as outliers/novelties.

It's become common to spend your youth in unskilled low-prospect work. So much so, that people even wanna sociolegally extend adolescence to the mid-thirties.
>>

 No.13785

>>13770
>>argue against my non-argument!
My argument is that the left are cowardly cucks for not speaking out against the empirical evidence that show single moms are systematically abusing children across generations.
All you've don't is retort with "nanny nanny poo poo" to that.
>>

 No.13790

File: 1793048004432.jpg ( 198.02 KB , 739x1024 , IndustrialChildhood.jpg )

>>13773
>People began to look down on trades as beneath them.
Popular opinion doesn't enter into it.  People don't do trades, because they require apprenticeships.  Usually trade apprenticeships are just doing all the shit work that the master does not want to do for years, which winds up meaning that most apprentices drop out as their patience wears thin at being taken advantage of.  Also, masters like to delay the actual training for as long as possible not only to keep getting undesirable work done for them for cheap but also to avoid putting too many potential competitors into the market.
>You say wage labor isn't freeing?
It 100% is not, definitively so.  Even school is better than a shit job.
>Also why do you want children to be institutionalized for their safety?
Because absent that child workers get slaved to market forces.  Man, you need to read up on historical child labor.  In fact, Capital Vol. 1 has a chapter on it if I remember right.
>>13783
>It's irritating and sad that the the average fast food worker is early-mid twenties at minimum.
That average is deceiving.  If you actually visit a fast food joint, you see teenagers alright but also a bunch of thirty and forty-somethings.  Fast food is not only a first–and completely useless–job for teenagers; it is also the last stop for old proles who have either been to prison or who are trapped in suburban shitholes with no prospects.
>>13785
>My argument is that the left are cowardly cucks for not speaking out against the empirical evidence that show single moms are systematically abusing children across generations.
That's not an argument you dumb fuck; it's not even a coherant thesis.
>All you've don't is retort with "nanny nanny poo poo" to that.
That's all it warrants.
>>

 No.13791

>>13790
>That's not an argument you dumb fuck; it's not even a coherant thesis.
Yes it is. You are all feminist liberal cuckolds. That's why you won't demand accountability for child abusers if they have a pussy. How can you say you are materialists when even the most elementary exploitation and abuse escapes your notice.
You are all just liberal LARPs going through a rebellious phase.
You'll all marry some ball buster that will stop sleeping with you after a few years and you'll happily vote Democrat and reformist capitalism like the good little cucks you are.
The left cannot claim to be materialist if they refuse to address the issue of single mothers and their rank abuse of children.
>>

 No.13792

File: 1793048954538.jpg ( 60.02 KB , 294x361 , AH_HAHAHA_FAGGOT.jpg )

>>13791
>Yes it is.
Nuh-uh.  Nanna-nanna boo-boo.
>>

 No.13793

>>13792
I'd rather be a faggot than someone who defends child abusers because I hope it'll get me some pussy.
>>

 No.13800

>>13793
Don't sell yourself short, /pol/tard.  I'm sure you can be both.  How many Epsteine Islanders have you voted for?  That counts!
>>

 No.13802

>>13800
Pure projection beta cuck. I want women that abuse children to be held accountable. If Epstein had tits you'd be defending him too.
>>

 No.13807

>>13790
> It 100% is not, definitively so.  Even school is better than a shit job.

If you think school is better than a shit job, I have a bridge to sell you. Schooling is only good for teaching technical skills. By itself, schooling is no less enslavement than work.
In fact, I would argue that school has less freedom than work.

Schools don't allow kids to go off campus for lunch breaks.
They don't allow dating.
They don't allow covered canteens.
They do random drug testing.
Bullying goes unpunished.

The only reason why people think school is better than work is because of pop culture promoting school as a juvenile social club.

> Because absent that child workers get slaved to market forces.  Man, you need to read up on historical child labor.  In fact, Capital Vol. 1 has a chapter on it if I remember right.


If anything, abusive child labor is because of institutionalization of children, not the abscence of it.

> That average is deceiving.  If you actually visit a fast food joint, you see teenagers alright but also a bunch of thirty and forty-somethings.  Fast food is not only a first-and completely useless-job for teenagers; it is also the last stop for old proles who have either been to prison or who are trapped in suburban shitholes with no prospects.


The amount of teens working fast food work has been declining since the 2000s.
Especially since schools are promoting more extracurricular  activities.


> Popular opinion doesn't enter into it.  People don't do trades, because they require apprenticeships.  Usually trade apprenticeships are just doing all the shit work that the master does not want to do for years, which winds up meaning that most apprentices drop out as their patience wears thin at being taken advantage of.  Also, masters like to delay the actual training for as long as possible not only to keep getting undesirable work done for them for cheap but also to avoid putting too many potential competitors into the market.


Fair point. However, trades are still essential and are now being neglected. Most people are being sent off to college without much personal thought.
Colleges also seem to wanna drag on students prime years by forcing them to take liberal arts classes to complete a degree.

Also, college has become more a nanny state pen. College students are being infantilised, having their emails being surveillances by faculty and staff for "safety".

And then there's the academic levels of classes being middle-school level due to more people entering college without adequate credentials.

College is being promoted as some yellow brick road for absolute prosperity
And yet, more people are ending up in loan debt with no employment prospects in sight.
>>

 No.13813

>>13800
>Only the right wing criticizes women.
Sadly this child abuser apologist isn't wrong. This is the reputation the left has, it's it's a big reason why men on the left have this reputation for being Betas.
>Ib4 Hazan
Can you name some beside that that is at all masculine, but also not an unhinged crank?
>>

 No.13824

>>13813
Right wingers don't really criticize women. They just condemn patronize them.
If anything, right wingers are just as big simps for women as the left.
>>

 No.13831

>>13802
>I want women that abuse children to be held accountable.
No, you want to whine on the internet, because that's all you know how to do.
>>13807
>In fact, I would argue that school has less freedom than work.
By all means, do so, because absent a compelling argument that sounds like a crock of shit.
>Schools don't allow kids to go off campus for lunch breaks.
>They don't allow dating.
>They don't allow covered canteens.
>They do random drug testing.
>Bullying goes unpunished.
LOL, WTF kind of basic military training school did you attend?
>The only reason why people think school is better than work is because of pop culture promoting school as a juvenile social club.
Nah, it's because people who have been to school and been to a job largely prefer the former or at least hate it less.
>The amount of teens working fast food work has been declining since the 2000s.
You may be right.  It has been a while since I have gone to a fast food joint.  Fast food sucks.
>Colleges also seem to wanna drag on students prime years by forcing them to take liberal arts classes to complete a degree.
Well, yeah, they are businesses.
>Also, college has become more a nanny state pen.
Okay, it hasn't been that long since I have last attended university.  I call bullshit.  College is just a place where you sit in a room with other students for four hours per day and listen to some part-time instructor with a Masters Degree tell you in a round about way what material will be on the next test.  At higher levels, it's just going to a room most days to get research assignments from a doctor before doing most of your work elsewhere.
>College students are being infantilised, having their emails being surveillances by faculty and staff for "safety".
Why would you use a university email account for anything other than school shit?
>And then there's the academic levels of classes being middle-school level due to more people entering college without adequate credentials.
Now THAT is fucking true.  Holy shitballs, highschool kids in this century don't know fuck all from an academic perspective, so the first two years at university are embarrassingly remedial.  The higher degrees are better, but they are crazy expensive.
>College is being promoted as some yellow brick road for absolute prosperity
>And yet, more people are ending up in loan debt with no employment prospects in sight.
Yeah, it is honestly pretty pointless now.  A person can get just as well-paying a job by spending those three-or-so years at a job with promotion opportunities as they can by pouring money into the pit of debt that is an undergraduate degree.  Unless someone else is paying for you to go to university, don't go.  It's bad business.
>>

 No.13833

>>13831
> By all means, do so, because absent a compelling argument that sounds like a crock of shit.

How is what I'm saying wrong?

> Now THAT is fucking true.  Holy shitballs, highschool kids in this century don't know fuck all from an academic perspective, so the first two years at university are embarrassingly remedial.


Actually it's the opposite. High school kids these days are imposed with more subject material compared to those from last century. If anything, kids nowadays are inundated with more tests and assignments than previous generations. You'd find that high school kids from previous generations were less academically endowed.
Or rather, high school was only for the best and brightest back then.


>The higher degrees are better, but they are crazy expensive.


In theory.

> Nah, it's because people who have been to school and been to a job largely prefer the former or at least hate it less.


And why do they hate it less? Ask the average adult what they remember about school. All they can tell me is the dumb shenanigans they did.
People think school is better because of pop culture distorting their sentiments about it.
There's more freedom in working than in school.

> Yeah, it is honestly pretty pointless now.  A person can get just as well-paying a job by spending those three-or-so years at a job with promotion opportunities as they can by pouring money into the pit of debt that is an undergraduate degree.  Unless someone else is paying for you to go to university, don't go.  It's bad business.


And the irony is? Most people don't need to go to university anyway. It's being promoted to milk money off of young people as the new form of credit card debt.


> Well, yeah, they are businesses.


That's a problem. Forcing college kids to learn about Shakespeare or Van Gogh just so they can get a degree in engineering is not proper education.

Unique IPs: 19

[Return][Go to top][Catalog]|[Home] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
Return Catalog Top Bottom Home