TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

2Fab4You Archive

View 2 posts and 106 comments by 2Fab4You on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

yes.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 10:36 PM
1

Yes, they do. What in my original comment made you think I was claiming anything else? This is not about what women do at home in their spare time, we were talking about a magazine run by a whole group of people for purposes of education and possibly making profit.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 10:33 PM
1

It's not about what you're attracted to. Quite the opposite. The point is that a vagina is more than something for you to be attracted to. It's about what you deem "normal". And more than anything, it's about how women feel about their bodies. The cover was not mainly aimed at men, it's aimed at women who feel insecure about how they look.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 10:31 PM
-8

I'd say this is very different from e-mailing a dick-pic or a vag-pic. The sender is anonymous - it's not "look at my dick/vag!", it's "look at a dick/vag!" The recipient is not a specific person. I don't know how the magazine was distributed but you can be quite certain it was not targeted at a single individual like a dick pic would have been. (And this is the most important difference) The purpose was different. The purpose of sending a dick-pic is sexual. The purpose of this magazine cover i…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 01:23 PM
-21

The point of the cover is not for you to find them attractive. The point is to show people what a real pussy looks like, instead of the twisted image we have been given through porn and other media. These images have nothing to do with attraction or even with sex, for that matter. In this case, the point is to show that they are just like any other body part. You would hardly claim it to be objectification if it were pictures of 18 hands, would you? One of the points of this cover is to show men…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 01:18 PM
-17

This commment is the exact reason why that cover was needed. Those pussies are considered ugly by a vast portion of the population, even though they are absolutely normal pussies. I expected better than that from /r/mensrights though
/r/MensRights22/08/13 01:14 PM
14

The title of this post is a bit misleading; Nowhere in the article is the word "patriarchy" used.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 01:12 PM
4

The fact that they aimed the tips at men and women was bad, they should have used gender neutral words. But the purpose of the lists was actually pretty great. Obviously they don't mean that every man is a rapist - if you're already following the tips in the list then good for you, you may move on. It is meant for those who have trouble doing these things. Helping people avoid rape is never a bad thing.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 01:19 PM
1

Any law that treats people differently is discriminating. One could argue the discrimination is worse for men (That's my opinion any way) but it's still discrimination against women as well.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 11:16 AM
2

The draft is discrimination against everyone.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 09:48 PM
2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50zDjPaC9ps
/r/MensRights28/04/13 12:14 PM
3

aaw. :(
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:50 PM
4

The video was removed, here is another link.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:05 PM
9

This is a scene from the latest episode of Glee. After this scene Ryder, the victim, talks to a girl in the club who says she knows what he's been through and tells her own story of child molestation. A prime time show with a huge young audience just acknowledged this problem and hopefully they made some kids realise how wrong it is.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 08:15 AM
1

Yeah, it could, and that's the great problem with drawing absolute lines like that. We can't know that she was intimidated by his power, but the law exists because there is a risk that she was.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 07:25 PM
0

I have never heard of any country having obligation to report, if that's the case then that's really bad. Here the law , as I understand it, relies heavily on the fact that if no one is being harmed, no one will report. In the case of protective parents both the involved teenagers would testify in favor of each other and hopefully there would not be a conviction - I have never heard of a case where the "victim" testified in favor of the prosecuted and they were still found guilty. Would you say …
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:50 PM
0

Posting an irrelevant article and then claiming it's ok because there are no relevant articles in existence? No.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 02:55 PM
0

fuck you Very unnecessary. I have no idea where you live (although after this comment I assume USA). Where I'm from it's not naive to think you can change something. I'm very sorry for you if it's like that where you live. But if you think change is impossible, why are you even here? I'll say it again. Yes, the gender biased enforcement of this law is a men's rights issue. The article in the OP is not a gender biased enforcement of this law. The enforcement of drug laws is a black rights issue. …
/r/MensRights20/04/13 02:54 PM
-2

At which point is the line drawn where a relationship becomes too imbalanced? That's the problem with all age restrictions. But we must have some line, how else would we be able to outlaw pedophilia? Where I live, the limit is 15. I think that's a good one. If you're unhappy with the limit where you live, you're welcome to try and change it, but surely you're not suggesting we remove it completely? (Maybe we should make the half-your-age-plus-seven-rule a law?) But it's ridiculous to take a situ…
/r/MensRights20/04/13 02:36 PM
-2

And if you think that the law in question is unjust, abusive and trashes human rights then you are welcome to work to change that law. That is not a men's rights issue though because the law is gender neutral. If you have a problem with the law being enforced in a non gender neutral way, that is a men's rights issue. But that has nothing to do with the OP, where a person who broke said law was punished according to that law.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 02:25 PM
0

Irrelevant.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 02:22 PM
1

Yes, you're absolutely right. I couldn't agree more. But the fault is not in situations such as the one in the OP, but in the contrary situation. The article in the OP is an example of how it should be.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 02:22 PM
-2

But the things that often come with an age difference means power. Money, independence, knowledge (or claimed/assumed knowledge). Also, many kids are taught to respect and obey those older than themselves, if only by a couple of years. I'm aware this is only anecdotal evidence but it still counts for something: Practically all my friends had an older boyfriend at some point when we were 13-15 years old. We all thought it was really cool at the time but a few years later they realised they had be…
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:49 PM
-8

Whether or not you agree with the law, he did break it.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:44 PM
3

Yes, you're right. And that sucks. It's a problem in courts and in people's minds, because no one feels sorry for a guy who gets to sleep with a cougar as opposed to a girl who is exploited by a creepy old man. That is really really bad and needs to be changed. However, this is attacking the issue from the wrong angle. This is an example of the law being practiced the way it was intended, in the right way. The solution to the gender bias problem is not to stop prosecuting men in this situation, …
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:41 PM
0

Sure, there are instances where the application of this law is sexist in favor of women. This article is not one of those instances.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:36 PM
4

It's not.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:34 PM
1

Absolutely! However, in this case, the sex in question was illegal, and not for gendered reasons. If the article had been about a woman who did the same thing and did not get punished for it, then it would be relevant because that would be wrong.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:09 PM
-3

The issue of statutory rape and the gender imbalance in court is a men's rights issue. This article is not, it's simply a person who broke the law and got punished for it.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:06 PM
-4

He is older and in a position of power over her (just like an older woman would be towards a boy). It's like if a teacher sleeps with a student or a boss with an employee - they may both want it but it's wrong because one is in power over the other and could decide to use that power at any time. It could also be that the person not in power does not actually want to have sex but feels pressured because of that power imbalance, in which case there would be a victim. There are underage laws for a …
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:04 PM
8

Depends on what the age of consent was in that country/state. It might very well be 15 or 16, and she might have been 14 or 13 at the time (as the article doesn't specify whether 15 is her current age or not).
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:01 PM
3

Even so, the problem is not that men are charged for breaking the law. The problem is that women aren't.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 11:58 AM
3

Depends on what country/state it happened in. I assume the age of consent in this instance was 16 (or 15, in case she was 14 at the time, which isn't specified).
/r/MensRights20/04/13 11:55 AM
-12

How is this a men's rights issue? The law of statutory rape is equal to men and women.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 11:26 AM
3

Downvoted until I saw that it was satirical. Now I'm afraid others will miss that too and think you actually mean what you've written.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 05:44 PM
1

I don't get this - yesterday (or was it the day before that?) r/mensrights was complaining about how women don't do any dangerous jobs. Now that a woman wants more women doing dangerous jobs, you're ridiculing her effort - because there aren't many women in dangerous jobs? Am I missing something?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 07:18 PM
1

Seems like a baseless assertion and/or paranoia. Can you give me another reason? The phenomena does exist and no one knows why. No employer would do it consciously, so the only explanation that remains is that it is unconscious. Women are more of a risk for employee turnover, due to pregnancy This is not a valid argument for giving anyone less pay. Just because someone has the ability to become pregnant does not mean they will, yet this is something that every employer considers before hiring a …
/r/MensRights10/04/13 10:59 AM
-5

No, the point is that even if she does do the job as well or even better than a man would, the subconsciousness in the employer tells him or her that a man would have done it better and therefore they pay her less than they would have done a man. There is no other reason for this phenomena than this unconscious idea in the employer's mind. Women getting less paid for the same work is not as common as media often would like us to believe, but it does happen. It does also happen the other way arou…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 09:57 PM
-8

When women are paid less for the same work it's because a man is considered to be able to do a better job. So they wouldn't want to hire a bunch of women because they think they'd do a bad job and also probably take days off to take care of children all the time.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 07:39 PM
-6

Actually, a lot of women are. Most of the wage gap can be explained by the simple fact that women choose lower paid jobs, but not all of it. It is still true that many women are paid less than the men in the same position.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 07:35 PM
5

I'm a 19 year old woman and I'm not disgusted by a 17 year old and a 30 year old having a relationship. That's not ridiculous, that's an opinion. (FYI in my country age of consent is 15) I am, however, disgusted by double standards if that was what you were talking about.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 08:55 PM
4

Unless we're talking about movie stars. Robert Downey Jr, Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt are all hot enough to get away with statutory rape.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 08:53 PM
2

The problem is, in many ways, that even though practically no one consciously have these opinions any more, most people still act according to them, unconsciously. For example, in my family, I used to think my mom did a little bit more housework than my dad. Sometimes he would have a good week and be so nice and do all the dishes and stuff, and we would all be impressed. Then one day I thought about it and realised that even on those weeks my mom did much, much more than dad. Similar to how, in …
/r/MensRights18/03/13 08:50 PM
12

That's really, really bad. However, slightly unrelated note: Why do you think the man was showed with his face while the woman was only a headless body?
/r/MensRights16/03/13 08:07 PM
0

Well... Yes?
/r/MensRights16/03/13 02:09 AM
1

The partner does not owe anyone smiles, that's absolutely correct. The partner did absolutely nothing wrong in sighing and expressing his frustration. He probably should have guessed that something was wrong when she told him "fine, let's do it" immediately after saying no. But even that's not a crime, it is quite possible he thought she actually changed her mind and wanted to. What the partner did was not a crime, he probably did nothing wrong. What OP experienced though, was still as bad as a …
/r/MensRights11/03/13 10:25 PM
1

If you ask ten times and get nine no's and one "fine", then that's rape. Asking for sex can be rape, the word "yes" is not some magical word that makes everything okay. If he knew she did not want to have sex and did it anyway, that's rape. Now, we cannot know if he knew but the fact remains she did not want to. So, either he knew, in which case it was rape, or he didn't, in which case her definition is bullshit? I don't see how you can make that vast a difference because of a detail that no one…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 10:17 PM
1

Really? Don't tell me we have to go over the whole "depression is a sickness not a choice"-thing again.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 10:05 PM
1

I'm gonna go ahead and quote myself in case you're not reading the entire thread: Having sex against your will means you didn't want it beforehand but you felt you had to, for some reason or other. This reason can be an actual threat, an implied threat or an imagined threat - to the victim, these are all the same. So the victim of an actual threat would feel the exact same way as the victim of an implied or even imagined threat. If the experience is the same in two different scenarios, why shoul…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:55 PM
1

Nagging someone into sex is not okay. If you get ten "no"s and then a "fine", that's rape because you know the person does not want to have sex. It is quite possible the bf was aware she did not in fact want to have sex. Just because she said "yes" that is not some magic word that makes anything okay. For consensual sex you need to be assertive to what your partner really wants. He was not at fault for sighing, but he may have been at fault for accepting her "yes".
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:50 PM
1

(Now you're using a few words a bit too big for me so I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you.) Regretting sex after it happened is not the same as never wanting it in the first place. Mens rea is crucial in the legal definition of rape. This is why OP's boyfriend should not be prosecuted for this - he probably did nothing wrong. We don't know if the coercion was conscious or not, but probably not. None the less, OP goes through the exact same experience as they would if the bf was conscious of …
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:49 PM
1

Now there is a huge difference here between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying. Regretting sex means wanting it beforehand and during, but not afterwards. That sucks but it's not rape. Having sex against your will means you didn't want it beforehand but you felt you had to, for some reason or other. This reason can be an actual threat, an implied threat or an imagined threat - to the victim, these are all the same. So an "actual rape victim" would feel the exact same way as the victim…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:37 PM
1

If you ignore the word "rape", which in this context is nothing but a word (since she is not doing anything about it based on that categorization), this is not an invalid reason to end a relationship. His sex drive is higher than hers, she feels guilty about not meeting his needs, they had an unpleasant sexual experience, she wants to end it. That's not bullshit. Now whether or not you think she was raped, that's another question altogether and simply depends on how you define the word. Like I s…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:20 PM
3

It is not trivial or meaningless. Having sex against your will is a terrible, traumatizing thing, whether or not the person you're with knows what's going on or not. The post is not about whether or not OP's bf is a criminal and should be prosecuted, it's about OP and OP only - whether she is entitled to her feelings and if she should leave the relationship.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:07 PM
1

But feelings are relevant when ending a relationship, which is what OP is contemplating.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:04 PM
0

What if he knew how she would interpret the sigh and knowingly used it to make her do something she didn't want to do. It is not an unthinkable situation. She is not stupid for suggesting this.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 06:30 PM
-8

This is not stupid. It would be stupid if she was talking about reporting him (which she doesn't even mention in the text), because he obviously didn't do anything illegal. However, the word "rape" can have many different meanings. One of them is "having sex against your will", which this woman did. She did feel forced, just as if he had told her "have sex with me or I'll leave". It doesn't matter if the threat was imagined, not to her. The experience was the same - she felt forced. This does no…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 06:25 PM
-5

Psychological pressure can mean a lot of things. A sigh can be a very discreet way of manipulation - even if the person doing the sighing is unaware of the effect it has.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 06:20 PM
1

Tell me more about how the Swedish navy has faced combat in recent decades I gave you a link to a list of combats we're facing right now. How is that not relevant?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:50 PM
1

I know, and that's the big problem with these kinds of quick polls. You can never know what the person replying thought when all you see is percent of "yes" and "no".
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:48 PM
1

Thank you! You're allowed to think that they way I think doesn't make sense. Just so long as you realise that more people may think the way I did, and that's why not necessarily 60% of women want special treatment and inequality, just because they answered "no" to the question in the poll.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 08:16 PM
0

Sure! We don't have a huge force but we are constantly present in several conflicted areas of the world.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 08:10 PM
1

I meant in the instances when firefighters might have to choose between saving a woman and a man caught in a burning building. They are trained to prioritize based on who needs the most help and who's beyond saving. They manage without being distracted and just saving the women first. Fire fighters on duty tend to wear more gear that masks their gender There isn't really that much gender showing in the field either. Can you tell who's who in this picture for instance? Or can you be positive afte…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 08:07 PM
1

"If someone asks me if 1+ 1 = 4, and I change the question to "is 2x7 = 14", then I'd obviously answer yes" It's more like changing 1 + 1 = 4 to 1 + x = 4. I only changed one word: "Women" became "anyone". If "anyone" should not be drafted, then "women" should not be drafted. It's only logical. And you picked option b No. I picked option c. I'm starting to think you're nothing but a troll judging by how much you're putting words in my mouth without even wanting to understand me. If you want to b…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 07:51 PM
1

I don't think it is. The hypothetical animal rights activist thinks that animals and humans are equal and should be treated equally. Animals are in some ways treated worse than humans. Should we start treating humans as bad as we treat animals? No. I think men and women are equal and should be treated equally. Men are in some ways treated worse than women. Should we start treating women as bad as we treat men? No.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 07:47 PM
1

This is sort of like asking a vegetarian and animal rights activist "Should we start eating people just like we eat animals?", because they want equal treatment for animals and people.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 09:00 AM
1

No it is not. Because however you might interpret the question and my answer, that doesn't matter. What matters is what I think. This is not a vote and it doesn't impact anything - it just shows you what people think. This is what I think. You can't tell me what I think, you can't tell me that I value women over men, because I don't. You can think that I'm wrong in interpreting the question in this way, but that doesn't change the fact that this is how I interpreted it. I interpreted the questio…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 08:59 AM
1

Or maybe because they can see the question objectively, because they are not the ones being discriminated against. Of course, I can not speak for the women in the study, I can only speak for myself. But please, believe me when I tell you of my opinion, and take my example as a suggestion that maybe some women are actually decent people, and that some of them might have been a part of the study. Whether you agree that drafting is bad or not, you can hardly claim it's infringing on your rights as …
/r/MensRights22/02/13 09:25 PM
1

No, the problem is that I have very strong principles. If you were to ask me "Do you think marijuana should be legalized, like alcohol is?" I would say no. Even though I believe marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol I think they should both be illegal. In my mind they are absolutely equal - equally bad. I will never answer "yes" to the question if anyone should be drafted, because my principles tell me it's wrong to force people to risk their lives for something they might not stand for.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 09:05 PM
0

The latter is also widely practiced in many countries, for example my own. In Sweden it has not led to any deaths or compromised national security.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:58 PM
1

You can not tell me what I mean, you can only tell me how you interpret what I'm saying. I think we can both agree that the question is badly phrased since it allows these dual interpretations. However, whether you think my interpretation is stupid or not, you must agree that it is possible that some, even a lot, of the women who answered the poll interpreted it the same way I did. You need to give them the benefit of a doubt.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:57 PM
1

Agreed! I would still say no to the question in the poll though because if I got to choose we would remove the draft right now.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:54 PM
1

War isn't your usual workplace. People break down under stress. Tendency to try and protect women rather than the group's interest of a whole could interfere with male's performances during battle. It'd be nice if we could just fire guys with that problem until we found guys immune to it, but there's generally not that luxury. Firemen manage to do their job fine even when there is a damsel in distress there. They are able to save both men and women, because they have been trained to do so. You n…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:53 PM
0

Because it [...] has no benefit. It has many benefits. Allowing women on the front line would mean more people resources. There would be a few men who would be allowed to stay at home because a woman could take their place. Most importantly though; Equal opportunities for all. Stopping women from doing certain tasks, just because they are women, is discriminatory and perpetuates the idea that women are inherently inferior in certain aspects (As an MRA this should bother you since it implies that…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:49 PM
0

I would love some sources on that. Why is it a bad idea? What problems arise? The argument I'm most often told is that women would distract the men, which is bullshit. If a person is so distracted by knowing there is a person of the opposite sex close by that they cannot do their job properly, then they need medication and should not be allowed near weapons. There is no valid reason related to men being attracted by women or vice versa since don't ask don't tell was repealed. There is no valid r…
/r/MensRights19/02/13 07:36 PM
1

So you think we should temporarily force women and men to fight, just until we can make sure no one has to fight against their will? I fight for men's rights. I fight for men's right to choose whether or not they want to fight. Therefore I would have voted "no" on the poll. That does not mean I want more rights than men - on the contrary.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 07:32 PM
1

Why would the draft never go away? Because women don't care and won't vote against it? And no matter if it is possible to remove it, it's still taking away rights instead of giving them. I wonder what reaction Martin Luther King would have gotten if he suggested we started treating white people as shitty as we had been treating black people. You gotta fix the right side of the problem.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 07:29 PM
1

Strength tends to be lower in women as a group than in men as a group. That does not mean every man has more strength than every woman. Why not just put everyone through the same test and put the people who can handle it, regardless of gender, on the front line? Maybe there will be more men there, maybe not. It doesn't matter, the people who are there are the ones most suited for the job. Why would the men be bothered by having a woman there? Every other workplace manages to have mixed group wit…
/r/MensRights19/02/13 10:53 AM
1

Please tell me you are kidding me. How can you fight for equal rights and the claim this? Generalisation is one of the things the men's rights movement is against.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 10:49 AM
1

I absolutely agree that there is a great injustice in that men have this responsibilty while women don't. However whether or not you believe everyone should be drafted o that no one should is up to everyone to decide for themselves, and if a lot of women are of the opinion that no one should be drafted that does not mean that they want more rights than men. This graph is irrelevant to the subreddit.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 10:47 AM
0

But I think it's relevant. If you think being drafted is something essential to everyone, then this graph is a matter for men's rights, because that means women do not want to take their responsibilities like men do. However, if you do not believe that anyone should be drafted against their will then this graph is completely irrelevant to men's rights. It would be much more interesting to see how many want men to stop being drafted and gain the right to choose. Wanting women to be drafted as wel…
/r/MensRights19/02/13 10:39 AM
0

Why wouldn't women be suited for the trenches? Isn't it more about individual physical qualities?
/r/MensRights18/02/13 11:17 PM
-2

How is being drafted "taking responsibility like an adult"? Where I'm from taking responsibility like an adult is about taking care of yourself and being independent, while fighting for stuff is a voluntary thing that some people want to do and some not. USA never seizes to amaze me.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 11:15 PM
0

I didn't assume that and would have voted "no" because I don't think anyone should be drafted. In a poll where things are assumed results will be skewed because of interpretation.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 11:12 PM
1

Alright, I understand your definitions and absolutely agree. Desired outcome/expected outcome. Lol, people who want you to read their minds are CRAY. Of course I would be understanding, but I would also try to be clear on the point that the person has no right to try and change my behavior. I get that some would think it disrespectful, but my principles tell me it's more important that I get to decide over my own actions, to a certain point. When entering a romantic relationship it is understood…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 11:25 PM
1

Quite funny that I linked the picture for men to be offended and they're offended by the fact that I think they should be offended.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:35 PM
1

There is some truth to this. But I believe there is also some truth to the graphic. I guess men and women view this differently because we've always looked at the question from different perspectives. I, as a woman, have seen it from the perspective that the graph shows and I think it's a correct description of the way I was brought up and taught about the issue.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:34 PM
0

What are you witnessing about me and my upbringing? Nothing. You've never met me and you don't know where I live or where I grew up. You're basing this off of nothing but what I've said. I've never said anything to suggest what you assumed about me; on the contrary. Yet you made that assumption - assuming that I lied. That is not a very good argument.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:31 PM
1

This is true and changed my view of the picture!
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:23 PM
1

And now you're making assumptions about me and my life. So you know better than me the environment I was raised in?
/r/MensRights12/02/13 10:34 PM
1

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that's what I've been told, explicitly or implied, all my life, not that I believe it or that it's true.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 10:02 PM
1

Okay, I get your distinction. In most normal interaction though, I have a desired outcome. I might ask "What's for dinner" and hope you're gonna say Italian. Is that still testing for outcome? Exactly! Your distinction between tests and traps is what I've been trying to explain. I would never say something I didn't mean to trap someone. I would never act in a way I normally would not just to test someone. And I would never bait someone into thinking A is the "correct" response when I really hope…
/r/MensRights12/02/13 09:59 PM
3

Exactly. So I'm told to act as if all men are potential rapists. Which teaches me that all men are (potential) rapists. The graphic isn't trying to say that all men are rapists or that anyone claims all men are rapists. The graphic is trying to say that when we tell (mostly young and impressionable) girls these things we give them the impression that all men are rapists, which is insulting to men.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 09:24 PM
3

Not if you think all people are the same, if you act like all people are the same. Which a lot of people do. As a woman I am told to behave differently if there are men around. Wearing a short skirt around girls is okay but around men it's not because they "might think it's an invitation". This suggests that men just cannot contain themselves when they see a short skirt and that I should wear a longer one so as not to tempt them. Most of the times they are able to resist but in the end, if there…
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:43 PM
4

Almost no one has this opinion because it's not a conscious opinion, it's something unconsciously implied. Like I said higher up in this thread: When people tell women to not act a certain way or dress a certain way they are saying that this will affect whether or not they are raped. The only way this could affect whether or not they are raped is if a man who sees her wearing those clothes/acting that way will find it so arousing that he just can't help himself. That is almost never the case, a …
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:36 PM
0

When people tell women to not act a certain way or dress a certain way they are saying that this will affect whether or not they are raped. The only way this could affect whether or not they are raped is if a man who sees her wearing those clothes/acting that way will find it so arousing that he just can't help himself. That is almost never the case, a person is raped because they encountered a rapist at the wrong moment. It is hardly ever affected by clothes. This graphic suggests that men can …
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:33 PM
1

I don't want my dinner paid for. In what way is that awful thing the same as what I'm saying? Please do explain. Yes, I'm observing reaction. Good way of putting it, thanks! What would you say is the difference between observing reaction and testing for outcome? I think they are the same. And still you're obsessed with "the correct reaction". Forget the "who's paying for dinner", in which case many believe there is a right or wrong. Try and imagine another scenario, such as the one I gave you be…
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:24 PM
1

I don't get it. What's the difference between this and the original?
/r/MensRights12/02/13 04:18 PM
1

What? Where did you get that from? Okay, I'm leaving now if you're just gonna make shit up.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 01:18 PM
1

You're not listening to me. I don't want you to do what you think I want you to do. This sounds silly in the context of paying, because I think it's a silly issue to begin with (it shouldn't be that hard), but try to imagine any other scenario. Maybe I want to know if you are nice to servers and other people below you in the hierarchy. Maybe I want to know what your stand on abortion is. Maybe I want to know if you'd be okay with me checking other guys out. I couldn't just ask you because then y…
/r/MensRights12/02/13 12:11 AM
2

No, once again. There is nothing that you're supposed to do. There is no right or wrong. The person doing this simply want to know what you will do. Some people will do A, some people will do B. Some people will want the other person to do A, some people will want the other person to do B. If I want you to do A and you do B, then maybe we are too different and shouldn't go out. I'm not thinking about paying for dates specifically. That has never been an issue for me as a woman who enjoys paying …
/r/MensRights11/02/13 07:23 PM
3

Trapping is never cool. But the point is not that you're supposed to guess how your date wants you to act. Your date wants to know you and how you would act. She wasn't testing the guy's ability to guess whether she wants him to pay or not. She was testing whether he wants to pay or not.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:40 PM
5

It shouldn't put the other person in a weird spot, but I understand that is does. That's not her fault though. Are you saying that it makes you uncomfortable if the girl pays? Of course you can't know how you should act, you never know what another person is looking for until you know them. The point is that she acts like herself and you act like yourself and if you act in a way that is not compatible with her you should both find someone else. If I've had bad experiences with lots of guys who h…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 04:46 PM
1

I (F) almost always offers to pay and most often insist after the obligatory objection. Next time I expect the other person to offer and insist. Unless I've been asked out to a particularly expensive place that I cannot afford, in which case I usually say so before the date so everyone involved knows the deal.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:30 PM
7

It's weird if you're trying to set up a person by putting them in a tough spot. It's not weird if you do something you would normally do but maybe do it a bit earlier than you would normally to see if the person is compatible with you and avoid unpleasant surprises later on.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:26 PM
2

The fairest is of course to split the bill. If any one person should pay for both though (Which actually makes sense in a date situation where you want to impress the person and be extra nice to them), logic says the one who asked (and probably chose the restaurant/activity) should pay.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:24 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter