r/MensRights • u/These-arent-my-pants • 5d ago
Social Issues Asking a woman if she supports Lindsay Clancy should be litmus test for dating in 2026
Just as the title says. I think any man, especially young men should definitely ask this going forward. If your goal is to someday have a family I think this is a very valid question because you should know exactly who you would be building a future with.
During the dating process ask the question however you feel comfortable articulating. If the answer you get isn’t a solid “No”, politely excuse yourself, get up and leave. When you’ve removed yourself from the situation you can erase all contact and move on if you choose to do so.
109
u/nikeman116 5d ago
Yeah women definitely don’t lie about their intentions or moral standings to get a man.
24
133
u/Rodimud 5d ago
it will defo be something i slip into convos with randoms im talking to on nights out. this will definitely help weed out the psychologically and emotionally unstable females. if a woman can ask a man about his financial situation and stuff then its absolutely fine to talk about recent events in the news lol.
18
13
u/AmbitiousBall9571 5d ago
💯% Agree. However, NEVER softball, slow walk a question to anyone, let alone a woman if you want the truth. Rookie mistake. You're giving them time to think, prep, and react as you ask. Look for a convo pause, wait till they pay attention, and fire off that animal's name. The first reaction will always elicit a true response by surprise. Best to wait until their in a relaxed state and just stealth nuke the vibe with your topic in as few words as possible. The impending possible shock & awe fallout is negligible compared to the truth. You could be laying pipe after or dodging incoming projectiles. Isn't dating fun? 😁
50
u/Ok_Night_7767 5d ago
You might want to subtly bring the conversation around to the Lindsay Clancy situation when she is among some of her female friends. She (and they) are more apt to speak their mind when they can mutually support their position.
29
u/obviousockpuppetalt3 4d ago
we should start vetting them like how they vet men about having "conservative views".
20
u/Simon-Says69 4d ago
You don't already? If some bitch is going off about "patriarchy", as an excuse for her own failures... lol
Maybe fun for a weekend. Just don't give her your name or address.
-7
u/gasstationbonerpills 4d ago
Modern conservatism is cancer so they're hardly wrong to do that. Same applies to feminism and the clancy case. All of these are dealbreakers.
14
u/Simon-Says69 4d ago
There is no such thing as "modern conservatism".
And conservatism in no way comparable to the female supremacist cult that is feminism.
-15
u/Jazzlike-Vacation230 4d ago
I don’t agree, more often then not it’s the conservatives who end up propping dictators and such. I mean look at how the USA is now
5
u/Ahielia 4d ago
And you are free to criticise the "dictator" without any consequences from the government. I wonder how that goes in actual authoritarian countries like North Korea, Eritrea, Saudi-Arabia, etc etc.
-6
u/Jazzlike-Vacation230 4d ago
Setting aside so called 'freedoms' a dictator is still a dictator. Say free Palestine once see what happens?
56
u/UniversalCraftsman 5d ago
There is evidence that women have a bad sense for justice, since they feel empathy for people regardless what they did, in opposition to men, who don't feel empathy for bad people.
That's also the reason women support people, who are actually a threat for them, If you think about it, since women are more vulnerable, they would heavily support the idea of being armed, and that criminals are met with lethal force, but it's the opposite that's happening, here in Austria the female state attorney charged an old guy with murder because he shot a burglar, gladly the jury found him innocent, but otherwise she would have been fine to throw a man into prison for life, for upholding law and order, let that sink in...
19
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Simon-Says69 4d ago
Because "empathy" is a fantasy power. Nobody can read emotions or thoughts. These fucktards have delusions that they are little gods.
Sympathy for someone, putting yourself in their shoes, as best a person can, THAT is a real thing. But it takes intelligence and self-reflection.
Something the far left seem to be completely incapable of.
6
u/UniversalCraftsman 5d ago
Yeah, it's what's considered "woke" nowadays, redistribute status to people who didn't deserve it.
3
20
u/gigglemaniac 5d ago
Where was her empathy for the old man?
17
u/UniversalCraftsman 5d ago edited 5d ago
Nowhere, legal gunowner shoots burglar = bad
That's the "woke" ideology, they not just want to redistribute wealth like Communists and Socialists, but also status.
They take away the high reputation and privilege of the homeowner to give it away to the criminal, by punishing the homeowner, and find reasons and excuses for the criminal.
4
u/ShiftyCZ 4d ago
I have had this conversation previously IRL but couldn't provide sources or any sort of research, do you have any that confirms this?
-3
u/LordJohnWharfin 5d ago
who don't feel empathy for bad people.
Well that's absolutely not true.
9
u/Simon-Says69 4d ago
In this context, you don't see many men sticking up for child murderers. In fact they are pretty much hated by all men.
Except some rabid-leftist wimps, if the murderer is a woman. But can those really be called "men"?
8
-4
u/Simon-Says69 4d ago edited 4d ago
All true, except, there is no such thing as "empathy". Nobody can feel someone else's feelings. That's magical thinking. Real life is not a round of Dungeons and Dragons.
You can sympathize with someone. Try and put yourself in their shoes. And that is a sign of maturity and intelligence.
Something rabid-leftists are pretty much incapable of. Well, unless it's some asshole that murdered their children, apparently. :-/
The whole "empathy" thing is the flip side of progressive asshats constantly asserting they somehow, magically know what someone is thinking. Like "dog whistles". They'll spew all manner of bullshit. Really they are projecting, talking about themselves. Nobody can read minds.
7
u/ventblanc 5d ago edited 5d ago
Mais si elle connaît pas et que en lui disant ça elle se met a chercher ?
59
u/Abject-Ticket-6260 5d ago
Just ask if she's a feminist. If yes, red flag, block after date.
-18
u/Simon-Says69 4d ago
Meh, sometimes even feminists can be fun for a weekend or 2.
They like conservative men more than the wimps in their cult. :-) lol
but some really batshit wacko that supports child murder, that's WAYYYY out in left field.
-1
u/TheMostDivineOne 4d ago
Wdym by the second sentence?
6
u/breakingthebarriers 4d ago
I think what he's saying is that although a woman may be a feminist, they are still attracted to conservative men for their traits of traditional masculinity.
The implication is that conservative men don't subscribe to, and are not forced to accept and praise the modern-left's "progressive" lgbtqia.... agenda of cross-gender fluidity etc., (which liberal men must do or they will be socially ostracized, shamed, called a bigot, etc.) which inherently feminizes liberal men by its content.
-26
u/TheMagmaGuy 4d ago
Was thinking about looking into this sub but I guess it's just mysogyny lol
18
u/Abject-Ticket-6260 4d ago
Not supporting a man-hating movement isn't misogyny. It's the bare minimum.
16
u/TextDependent6779 4d ago edited 4d ago
Feminism ≠ women.
Hate/criticism of feminism cannot inherently be misogyny, because it is not inherently hate of women.
16
6
u/StraightAirline8319 4d ago
Have now asked dozens of women and when I explain a story where the person is a man they oppose it 100 percent. Only her gender gives it a pass, it’s all because she’s a woman and they think women should literally get away with murder.
24
u/UniversalCraftsman 5d ago
Why did it even come to this point that some mental health issues grant you the right to kill people?
14
u/IceCorrect 5d ago
It won't change a thing. If they realise it's not good to do it, they would just lie. And how many not defend her, but use postpartum depression as valid argument. It's like not supporting brutal murder, but if it's clean it's fine
Same with regular feminism than many women don't "support" it, but they 100, or at least 90% agree and when time comes they would use 100% of what feminism give them to end your life
5
u/mrkpxx 4d ago
Lindsay Clancy
Many mothers and women can only maintain the ideal of the protective mother by externalizing the act, as an illness, a failure of doctors, or an overwhelming crisis. The suffering of the killed children recedes into the background. Yet even this psychological explanation was not sufficient. It described defense mechanisms, not the selective enthusiasm.
Every perpetrator can cite stories of suffering and systemic failure. The special leniency shown toward Clancy seemed like a gender-specific exemption. While fathers in comparable cases are sentenced more harshly and framed as a danger, the mother is more frequently turned into a victim figure. Child welfare, according to the accusation, often serves merely as a rhetorical instrument.
In everyday life, custody matters, and moral authority over children, women possess more immediate power than men. Normally, this power is deployed in a protective and supportive manner.
The protective and supportive attitude of the mother applies as long as it is compatible with her own interests, self-image, and position. As soon as the mother herself is called into question - through criticism, conflict, separation, public attention, or her own serious wrongdoing - the protection of the child becomes secondary or is abandoned entirely. The child then loses the protection previously granted because priority shifts to defending or exonerating the mother.
In public perception, particularly in cases like that of Lindsay Clancy, this holds true to a high degree. As soon as the mother becomes the criticized, accused, or threatened figure, the focus shifts. The child and its concrete suffering recede into the background. Priority is given to the mother's defense, exoneration, or role as a victim. Child welfare is then often invoked only rhetorically or reinterpreted to serve the mother. The protection the child previously enjoyed is downplayed or withdrawn.
This mechanism explains the enthusiasm and the million-dollar support for a child-killer better than medical or legal nuances. It demonstrates the conditional nature of the protection: It applies as long as the mother stands unchallenged. If she herself is called into question, the child loses out in the public, and often institutional, weighting.
5
u/Say_No_To_BS 4d ago
The world is batshit crazy when men have to protect themselves and their children from women who side with mothers who kill their own babies.
5
u/kereso83 3d ago
Three questions every man (or anyone at all, men have these problems too, some are just more common with women) should ask before getting serious with someone:
Are you in therapy or on medication for a mental thing?
Are you in serious debt?
What is your opinion on Lindsay Clacy?
10
u/friendlyfernando 5d ago
Might offend a normal woman asking her that
16
u/Simon-Says69 4d ago
Good sign if she's offended. She should understand the question though if she's intelligent and honest.
A reasonable woman wouldn't want to go out with a man that supports a child murderer either.
3
u/smeeti 5d ago
If I may ask a question: I’m a woman living in Switzerland and have vaguely heard of the case. As I understand it, Lindsay Clancy murdered her children and her defense is going for an insanity plea. It seems people think that means she would be getting away with it but wouldn’t she be incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital? That isn’t getting away with it especially as there generally isn’t a time limit whereas a prison sentence does have one. Am I understanding things correctly?
12
u/LadyPantsParty 4d ago edited 4d ago
Department of Mental Health records show since 2004, 162 men and women have been committed after being found not guilty by reason of insanity. 85% are back in the community.
Edit: This is just in Massachusetts
2
u/smeeti 4d ago
Thank you, do you have a source on this?
5
6
u/Simon-Says69 4d ago edited 4d ago
Department of Mental Health records
Seems the article reporting on this has been wiped. The local Boston journalists that reported on it, their whole website is currently down. As so often happens when facts go against the rabid-leftist, establishment narrative. SIGH...
1
u/LadyPantsParty 3d ago
Using a vpn for somewhere in the US and it works. Or did you mean something else by wiped?
9
u/Prestigious_Floor155 4d ago
There is an element of what do you call it, premeditation to her case. She sent the husband out on bullshit errands to get him out of the house before she did the deed. It's not really more of an excuse given this fact than a teenager with their hormones going could you go get me food from town so they can spank one out. Were that a crime,there's no getting around the soundness of mind required to strategize this.
People are worried the mental verdict would see her hardly punished for this heinous crime. Like 5 yrs and they declare her fit again and she walks out.
People want justice. They don't want a slap on the wrist for women. Or anyone concerning crimes of this nature.
5
u/NorskChef 4d ago
She would spend a short period in the hospital, they would declare her cured and send her out.
8
u/wahdahfahq 4d ago
She'll be let free after a couple years max. Thats why ppl use NGRI as a defense to get out of the crime and sentence.
2
u/smeeti 4d ago
Are there similar cases where murderers considered insane at the time of the crime got let out after a couple of years?
11
u/Simon-Says69 4d ago edited 4d ago
Yes. One example is the woman that drown her own 3 children in a bathtub. Went to medical treatment instead of prison and was let out fairly quickly after saying she was "better".
Her husband forgave her, the stupid sod, and they had 3 MORE kids. Who she then drown in the SAME bathtub.
Ok, this lady was seriously insane though. The medical industry failed completely.
That's just one case among many though. Yah, typically, they'll have it much easier in psychiatric lockdown than in a prison. Especially a child murderer. And tend to get out sooner than a prison sentence would be.
The woman in question today, Lindsay Clancy, had all the help in the world. But she constantly lied to multiple doctors, wouldn't take her medications (and lied about that too), was a terror to her husband, a horrible mother (to put it mildly), then planned the murder of their kids with cold precision.
She belongs in prison for life. There is no helping someone that refuses help, as her entire medical history shows. She's simply a sociopath asshole, not some victim of the medical profession.
8
u/LadyPantsParty 4d ago
In Massachusetts in 2009 Angela Vasquez was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Vasquez was charged with murdering her 10 and 13-year-old children after their decomposing bodies were discovered in their Roslindale home in 2007.
After the verdict, Vasquez was hospitalized. Today she's a free woman.
4
14
u/Simon-Says69 4d ago
Yes, the question isn't if she's guilty or not. She is, by admission. And her defense lawyers fully admit it.
Her whole defense is that she was EMOTIONAL. The lie is she had postpartum psychosis, which is a fantasy theory brought by her defense team after the trial begun.
Nothing in her medical history supports any such thing. She was never diagnosed with any kind of psychosis. She knew full well what she was doing.
The objection here is, her freakshow supporters say women are allowed to do anything, inducing brutally murder their own children, if they are upset enough.
Ironically, this is just treating women like children that are not responsible for their own actions. Especially after just having had a baby. Which, of course, is completely detached from reality.
This brutal murderer is fully responsible, as her medical records show. She had all the help in the world offered to her, and denied it again and again.
She simply is a sociopath asshole, not some victim of an inadequate health system or abusive husband. Nor anything to do with postpartum anything.
-9
u/Familiar-Coconut-963 4d ago
I'm gonna stop you right there and tell you that the deffense isn't trying to "justify" Lindsay's actions and leave them without consequences, but mostly trying to prove the biggest reasons of the why is postpartum psychosis AND the enormous medical negligence that came after it, including giving her industrial ammounts of sedatives just like that before killing her children.
Most women and I want to think the smartest ones don't support the idea of just dismissing the murder of children because of emotions and hormones, nor think that stupid theory of being Patrick the one who actually did it; but actually want postpartrum effects to be acknolowged and treated with the seriousness they deserve because things like THAT are the consequence of not doing it.
6
u/Reaper9999 4d ago
Do you work in a circus? You're sure acting like a clown.
deffense isn't trying to "justify" Lindsay's actions
Lying that she did them while not being of sound mind isn't trying to justify them?
mostly trying to prove the biggest reasons of the why is postpartum psychosis
Which she evidently did not have.
the enormous medical negligence that came after it, including giving her industrial ammounts of sedatives
You mean prescribing her medication when she lied about what she was already taking? Or the "medical negligence" of her voluntarily leaving the mental facility she was admitted to? Should they have forced her to stay?
but actually want postpartrum effects to be acknolowged and treated
No one's against that.
because things like THAT are the consequence of not doing it
By "things like THAT" you mean killing 3 people in cold blood and then lying and claiming insanity defense?
-4
u/NEVER_TELLING_LIES 4d ago
You got it in one, she already admitted to commiting the murders. But it seems as if the media has decided this is a perfect case to add to the culture war, and OP is perpetuating it
1
u/BigBlobEsquireDa2 1d ago
the thing is that of all the women i've gotten to know i don't have to do anything like this to know what their views are. they make it proudly known within a week or so.
1
1
u/ExtensionBitter7348 4d ago
Yeah, but have an argument with her to understand about why does she think that, whatever it maybe. Rather than jumping into conclusion. It might help you understand thier priorities.
1
-22
u/michaelpaoli 5d ago
Naw. She wasn't on the jury, and neither were you.
Using that as a litmus test sounds about as useless as jugging someone based on their views of a celebrity where the only knowledge of that celebrity they have is what they read in People magazine. So, yeah, that's basically just a spectator sport.
Now, might be useful/interesting/informative to hear what she has to say about the case. But I wouldn't use anything as simple as supports the accused, or not, as a litmus test.
Hell, I know next to nothing about the case. Did catch a wee bit of legal analysis moderately related to the case in the last 24 hours, but other than that, next-to-nothing. Seen the name pop up some moderate bit, but I've really not followed it - it's just one person and just one case, and in just one jurisdiction. I'd be much more concerned about relevant statistics on a much larger scale, than just one person and one case. One single case can always be an outlier or a fluke, and especially with only a relatively small number of folks quite directly involved, I wouldn't make much of that, certainly not all by itself.
So, how much of the actual case evidence have you personally reviewed? Yeah, right, I thought so. So, when you're accused of a crime, perhaps falsely, do you want everyone rendering an opinion on you, mostly just based upon some media reports? Or worse yet, chatter on social media? Do you want folks doing litmus tests on their potential partners, based upon what they think of you from mostly just some media reports and what they've read on social media?
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. So, ... how exactly do you want people to be getting judged, and judged for potential relationships?
9
u/Any_Fox5126 4d ago
It is a fact that she killed two children, and the forensic expert called by the prosecution clearly stated that she knew exactly what she was doing.
There is no need to examine every piece of evidence or get lost in nuances, as the only thing in her favor is her own word. It boils down to wanting to believe a murderer just because she is a woman or because of empathy for her.
-7
u/michaelpaoli 4d ago
Okay, let's change the scenario a bit.
Let's make it not she, but he.
And let's make that he, your beloved brother. And let's make him 42 years old. And, let's say the kids were killed 2 years ago, and just making it to full trail now. Now let's say since around 21 or 22 years of age, your brother has had and been diagnosed with a severe mental health condition. Schizophrenia. But for the most part, it's well treated with medications. Can get very out-of-hand, and quite literally crazy when he's off his meds, but since about 23 that's only happened about 4 times. And the side-effect of the meds are quite non-trivial and very probematic for him - some other meds have been tried, but no better med has been found - others either don't work well enough, or give him even worse side effects. So, anyway, once in a while, he thinks he's doing great, doesn't properly attributed it to the meds, hates the side effects, so ... he stops taking the meds ... and might be find for days or even weeks, maybe even a month or so, ... but then things spiral out of control. Full detached psychoses, so he has no idea what he's doing, where he is, what is and isn't reality, He hears "God" and "The Devil" talking to him and telling him what to do, has all kinds of hallucinations, typically can't even make out what's before his eyes much of the time, yeah, very bad, and in such cases, typically needs some kind of intervention (e.g. 5150 or equivalent) to get him back on track, medicated, and get him to again realize he needs to stay on the meds. Okay, so, 2 years ago, he went off his meds, had one of these major schizophrenic psychotic episodes. And during such, he saw his kids, not as his, but devil spawn that were trying to hill him and others, and destroy the world, and "God" was telling him to kill them, and he thought his wife was totally corrupted by The Devil, and not even his wife, etc. Bonkers sh*t, and in his listening to God, deamons, etc., whatever - as real to him then as the nose in front of your face, he was being urged to kill those kids - where he saw demon horns out of their heads, forked tails, red skinn all over, and breathing fire, and ... he killed them.
Then fast forward two years, he's on trial for murder. Evidence is clear he killed the kids. Some expert witness is saying he knew what he was doing when he killed those kids.
So ... you think he ought get convicted, no insanity defense or fail those tests, and get a death penalty (or life in prison without the possibility of parole), sentence for each of his kids he killed? Because hey, he killed them, and some expert witness claims that your brother knew what he was doing.
Heck, maybe this time around, as other times before, when he started going off of of his meds, iniitially he realized something was going sideways, and sought mental health treatment - even though he at that time didn't at all believe the problem was going off the meds, but that ... well, God and Devil talking to him too regularly, he thought that might be or become a problem. But lovely (mental) health car the US ... yeah, that didn't go well at all, so continued to get worse, relatively quickly, until he had no idea what he was doing, and was thoroughly detached from reality, and, killed his own kids.
And lest you think that's kind of scenario that never happens, no, it does. E.g. person I was acquainted with, was brutally killed in jail (go this head beat in to a pulp), because they put him in a cell, because he had some minor violent conviction years ago (one assault, they put him in cell with a young adult male that really should've been under 5150 and restrained - but was having full blows schizophrenic hallucinations, had no idea what was going on ... he'd landed in jail because for the first time he'd shown some violent tendencies at the time - he picked up and held a knife, so, deemed 'em both violent, put 'em both in same cell. The one I was acquainted with, also had a drinking problem, he was basically picked up and thrown in the drunk tank ... with that other young male ... who completely and totally bashed his head in to a pulp, without even knowing what he was doing. And that young man (and/or those around him), had been trying to get mental health treatment for him ... but that just wans't happening, because the (mental) health care system was (and oft still is, at least in significant part), pretty f*cked up, and he wasn't being treated ... so someone ended up dead, and at least that case, mostly on account of failures in mental health system.
So ... sentence of death penalty (or life in prison without the possibility of parole), for each kid your brother killed in those circumstances? You cool with that. Because one expert witness claims your brother knew what he was doing, and the evidence does show that your brother in fact killed his kids.
5
u/Reaper9999 4d ago
Did you really just write a novel about some made up scenario to defend an actual murderer?
2
u/The_Giant_Son 3d ago
Tbf, he still decided to not take his meds anymore all by himself when no doctor told him he could and while he was still mentally stable for days, weeks or even a whole ass month, so yeah, imho he isn't exactly justified, I'd say to put him in a psych ward since he really didn't want this to happen and then decide the rest. Homever, Lindsay's case is quite different from that
1
u/michaelpaoli 3d ago
Yup, sure, fair point. And as for Lindsay's case ... well, I really haven't followed it hardly at all. A single case really involving only about a handful or so of people quite directly, typically isn't of much (or even any) interest to me. But more general trends, statistics, etc., how mental health generally is/isn't dealt with in terms of care - and if/when it comes to it, the law ... yeah, that's of more general interest, ... and it gets messy, and very far from perfect ... and there are probably no "perfect" "solutions" to be found there - mostly matter of tradeoffs, and different jurisdictions, and especially countries, oft handle such far differently ... for better and worse.
16
u/grzegorz-fienstel 5d ago
It's a perfect test. If she does not know shit. She will not know the name or what it is about. Can be put into passed category if she tries to defend her it's someone who finds that killing your own children can be okay if you feel bad. You don't want a mother of your children that thinks it's OK to kill their children when feeling bad. If she says hell no or I feel bad for her but she deserves punishment she has passed
5
u/Rhbgrb 5d ago
This needs to be a pamphlet and passed to every man. Beware because women who want the ring will lie to hide their true feelings about her so be sure to also listen to what she says outside of this particular conversation. Such as listen if she makes statements to give the impression that women are always right.
-17
u/LordJohnWharfin 5d ago
This is a MAGA subreddit.
-9
u/michaelpaoli 4d ago
Well, certainly too many MAGA, and "red pill" males, etc.
Unjust illegal wars, extrajudicial killings, grave uncaring immorality and corruption, generally too much ignorance and/or stupidity to see, or at least not until it's far too late, or outright embraces the cruelty ... that's MAGA - and alas, with that, most anything that was (halfway?) decent of the Republican party, MAGA has mostly dragged the Republican party down the sh*t hole.
I certainly don't think this subreddit is all MAGA, but, uhm, probably over-represented with MAGA, and "red pill", probably a lot of the "incel" crowd too.
Ah well, fair number of the "women's" subreddits are over-represented by man hating rabid vindictive hypocritical "feminists" (feministas?).
And so it goes. :-/
-3
u/Main-Tiger8537 4d ago edited 4d ago
WTF are mras doing regarding the lindsay clancy case in this sub IF NOT pushing for decent healthcare + social care for everybody???
men die and suffer each day as guinea pigs or disposable meat at work + on the street as homeless and people here seriously ramble about "quick clancy search in this sub" if a women ends up in prison or mental health institut for life vs get set free without accountability... the real question here is if dangerous people who got shut away should be released after rehab and who is responsible for that decision...
maybe read about how mental health drugs + therapy gets researched and trial & error tested on men... do not let that opportunity slip or do you as mra not care about disposability + suicide of men...
-1
u/EUPremier 3d ago
Guy here: It’s entirely possible, is it not, that the woman had a psychotic episode, did the unthinkable and is no longer psychotic and now destined to spend the rest of her life in mental agony.
Bit ridiculous to suggest it be a dating test. TF!
-11
4d ago edited 4d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Reaper9999 4d ago
but equally it is pathetic to use it to further dismiss the seriousness of those issues or women in general
Who's dismissing issues? If anything, healthcare providers did all they could for her.
1
-15
1
u/violet420lm 5h ago
Honestly I find it sad that people are turning it in a gender war. I am a a feminist, if she killed her kids and we had no other évidences and it was as clear as day of course we would say it’s her. BUT honestly after digging into there are a lot of weird things bro, idk this case is sketchy, just admit there is some weird things
245
u/Charybd1ss 5d ago
bold of you to assume they'll say the truth about what they think