@deeplydisturbed

Mods would allow females to openly post "questions" and concerns, upvote their comments, and even sticky them for weeks or months for what reason, who fucking knows.

Dude, sometimes that shit's a great learning opportunity, and the responses aren't necessarily intended to help the woman (because she won't listen anyway), but rather educate male readers.

WAATGM had an archive.is link of one such post, which sheriff (RIP) and many others (including whatever username @Aldabruzzo was using at the time) replied to an attention-seeking 40-something woman who asked something like "is it too late for me to find a good man? I have ridden the cock carousel, but I'd like to settle down now. And yes, these are my tits".

This archive.is link was on the sidebar back when I first discovered WAATGM and was lurking before creating my reddit account. I tried to find it, but it seems either @Kevin32 or @moorekom removed it to make room for other, better links.

It is also where I saw you flaired as a dinner roll because of some Thanksgiving thing sheriff was doing.

The point I'm trying to make here, is that using women's own words is often a great way to educate men. That's why most WAATGM posts are from a woman's perspective, with us roasting her in the comments.

So what's your objection?

Additionally, in the modmail as well as other private mod discussions, I was frequently the lone voice speaking in favor of banning women on site the way MRP does. Where were you? Why didn't you speak up?

@Typo-MAGAshiv

I see where you're coming from, and the fact that she has IG may be a yellow flag (I've never had it, but I don't want to be one of those old geezers who thinks any social media activity is a disqualifier). But it seems to me that we're hanging this particular narrative on a pretty thin reed. I'll admit that the church girl may be influencing my thoughts.

I say that because we went to the same church for a long time, and she was the real deal. She was exactly the kind of woman I would have made a full-court press for when I was single.

I also understand that we're issuing warnings about what can (and often does) happen to guys who fall for chameleons, and I agree that nobody owes anyone a chance. Buuuuuut...

One of the things that separates us from incel and inspin fora is that we don't engage in criticism of a member of the opposite sex no matter what. We have always required the women to "tell on themselves" (for lack of a better term). That's the entire point of Rule 5. If a woman makes a dating profile wherein she's dressed modestly and isn't a raging bitch or an obvious cc-rider, and we peg her as a chameleon who's going to go feral once the alimony is locked in, we should base that on something more than the fact that she has a social media account and expresses a bit of frustration about meeting men who don't follow hundreds of e-sluts. That's honestly a pretty basic request in those circles.

Granted, her age puts her in the "secondary" market for women who want to be TradWives, and that's a legitimate yellow flag, but it's hardly definitive. If we create unfalsifiable assumptions that amount to, "If she breathes she's a THOT," we deserve to be compared to bitter incels.

That's why I suggested some sort of consensus on how much evidence of thottery is enough. I'm not suggesting a courtroom standard for a criminal conviction, but before we showcase a woman as an example of someone to be avoided we should be able to articulate why we say that... and if we're not going to require that a woman "tell on herself" we should be able to clearly and convincingly articulate why we think she falls into that category.

Oh well, the worm-can is open... might as well loop everyone in:

@loneliness-inc, @deeplydisturbed, @melkorhimself, @impressive-cricket-8, @goodmansaysfuckyou, @houseoftolstoy, @aldabruzzo, @Land_of_the_losers, @ogrilla99, @sleepyweaselisawake, @woodsmoke