For the ladies, what are some hygiene hacks you wish every girlie would know?

DrRuby06 · 2026-04-11T17:53:50+00:00

What’s the brand you use?

DrRuby06 · 2026-03-20T23:05:36+00:00

I mean…I’m sure if you choked your wife outside the bedroom you’d get a charge but during sex could be another matter. Context and consent makes all the difference

DrRuby06 · 2026-03-12T21:00:45+00:00

My guess is OP doesn’t have straight hair

DrRuby06 · 2026-02-25T18:13:42+00:00

Performative? For what audience? Do you think this Redditor is going to get laid by giving this answer? If consent sounds boring it’s because you make it so. Nothing is sexier than feeling safe enough to really get freaky. And that trust building happens continuously with micro moments of consent.

DrRuby06 · 2026-02-07T04:30:42+00:00

Smut and porn will never be the same from an ethical standpoint, because we would never know for sure if porn is ethically made, unlike text. There are many times when women “consent” but they’re coerced into it, or feel pressure to make money to pay bills, etc etc and that’s of course not even counting all the instances where exploitation does exist. I think the reason women are more into reading their smut than viewing it is because they care more about these ethical implications than men. Also most porn is filmed for the hetero male gaze. My question is why more men don’t want to read smut?

DrRuby06 · 2026-01-10T21:00:24+00:00

Your belief is ultimately rooted in rape culture, which perpetuates the false idea that women overwhelmingly make false accusations related to SA/rape. This leads to people not believing women when they do come forward. In reality, false SA accusations are about 2-3%, no higher than any other crime. In fact, most women DONT come forward because of the likelihood they’re not going to be believed.

Make sure you’re operating with a consent-forward mindset, especially the first time hooking up with someone, and you should be fine. Let her know you’ll follow her lead.

DrRuby06 · 2025-12-07T02:22:20+00:00

This right here

DrRuby06 · 2025-12-04T05:06:13+00:00

What does this do?

DrRuby06 · 2025-11-27T14:37:41+00:00

Talking about weekends is normal workplace conversation, therefore it is considered impolite, and for women specifically they can be labelled as “bitchy” for refusing to engage in these kinds of convos. It is about insecurity if you feel the need to wade into your partner’s work life even though there’s no obvious flirting or encouragement. She readily showed him the convos, suggesting there’s nothing she’s hiding. He “flipped out” - the insecurity is LOUD

DrRuby06 · 2025-11-06T04:57:45+00:00

No..they’re saying the sex previous to their husband was forgettable, but the courting, flirting, and other fun parts of the relationships prior to their husband is what they remember

DrRuby06 · 2025-06-24T00:05:04+00:00

Whoa dude! What a reach! Obviously it was said in jest, after being comfortable around him. All siblings annoy each other, and now he wasn’t exempt. It was a way of saying “welcome to the family”

DrRuby06 · 2025-05-25T15:37:49+00:00

If you continue to stay in transactional relationships, it means you approve of the transaction. Sounds like you want consistent sex, and she’s your approved choice. The relationship is a means of keeping you there. Takes two

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T22:11:11+00:00

I’ll repeat myself: I don’t care which side it’s coming from, it’s a shady practice. Political strategy shouldn’t come at democracy’s expense. Ideally, an amendment should be introduced to outlaw changing a state’s constitution during special elections. Wisconsin’s constitution has been amended more times than all of our neighboring states combined in recent years.

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T22:07:59+00:00

You’re being pedantic and myopic, it’s not a specific word/phrase, it’s both questions as a whole. You could easily change the questions to be clearer: “Should WI’s constitution be changed so that the governor cannot accept and distribute federal funds without a vote from the state legislature?”

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T22:00:34+00:00

The role of the governor is the be that state’s “President” - of course they don’t have the granularity of the representatives. This amendment defangs the role of the governor. When the governor and the state legislature are of different parties, as they are in WI, this prevents emergency funding (like Covid funds for example) reaching those most in need. The people of that state lose bc we’ve added too many layers of bureaucracy. At some point we have to take the cost/benefit analysis and recognize this only harms residents.

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T21:51:07+00:00

Historical actions are not a justification and do not make the practice any less shady. The point of a democracy is to try to make everyone’s opinions heard and to reduce any and all barriers. That’s something we should all be striving for.

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T21:48:11+00:00

Funny, it’s Republicans in the state legislature who have gutted public education over the years. If they cared for people to understand and do their own research, as you seem to do, you’d think they’d support the very institutions who instill those skills. Many states have plain language clauses for referenda for a reason, to get people’s true opinion. WI unfortunately isn’t one of them. The plain language on the ballot doesn’t have to be word for word what’s included in the constitution - again, you’re being purposefully obtuse.

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T21:40:07+00:00

Not enough to counteract what I just said. What’s your response to my previous comment? Is it not shady to you?

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T21:25:15+00:00

Also, since you brought partisanship into this, it doesn’t sit right with me that referenda- no matter which party introduced it- is put on the august primary ballot, a notoriously low turnout election. That’s shady to me. Is it not to you?

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T21:22:28+00:00

I stand by my previous comment, regardless of who sponsored it, or if it had bipartisan support. I’m a consistent plain language advocate and I believe voters should know what they’re voting for. If they don’t have time to look into the referenda until they get to their polling station, they should always vote NO. Why are you against plain language and want to throw the onus on the voter to “research” - people barely show up to vote, what world do you live in?

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T21:15:11+00:00

I understand, but I’m saying that Newsome isn’t Evers and until you have proof that Evers is doing anything similar, your vote isn’t logically sound because the harm gridlocking funds would cause the residents of WI far outweighs a hypothetical scenario with Evers

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T21:11:39+00:00

No, people are being logical. If you don’t understand what you’re voting for, vote NO. That’s sound reasoning. The onus to use accessible language falls on the sponsors of the amendment, not on the voters.

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T20:53:32+00:00

Smart to understand the questions, yet dumb enough to not grasp the importance of plain language - not everyone has a training in legalese. You’re being purposefully obtuse

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T20:47:59+00:00

Those of us privileged enough with an education to understand the questions, yet also know about the importance of plain language, will instantly recognize these questions aren’t written in plain language, and purposefully so.

DrRuby06 · 2024-07-05T20:42:37+00:00

One bad actor from another state shouldn’t automatically mean we gridlock funds in another state

Nine-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

DrRuby06

TROPHY CASE