TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

5510 Archive

View 0 posts and 108 comments by 5510 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Sometimes? Show me one example when they didn't lose... You didn't have a source for claiming that Sweden lost 11 on 7 against twelve year old boys. And now you want to demand sources from me? I could type up a page from a book next to me by Todd Gallagher (Andy Roddick Beat Me With A Frying Pan) which addresses this subject in some detail... but I don't see why I should expend that effort for somebody who has no sources for their own highly implausible claims. Besides, just use some common sens…
/r/PussyPassDenied25/07/23 04:25 AM
1

I coach soccer for a living. I have a lot of experience with high level athletes of both sexes. I've read a number of sources about women's national teams vs teenage boys, and I have a fair amount of experience involving college women's teams using male practice players. And like I said, I'm fully aware that that women's national teams sometimes lose scrimmages against teenage boys... although I have never heard a credible account of a quality women's national team losing to twelve year olds. So…
/r/PussyPassDenied24/07/23 09:57 AM
0

Well back when Sweden held the title the lost with similar numbers to 12yo. And the boys wasn't even allowed to ue a full team so it was 7boys vs 11 women who at the time dominated female soccer. Yeah, I'm calling bullshit... and I can't believe 204 people believed this story. Yes... female national teams do sometimes lose to teenage boys in scrimmages (obviously the older the teenage boys, the more likely). But I've never seen any evidence of a decent female national team losing to twelve year …
/r/PussyPassDenied24/07/23 09:22 AM
1

is there video of this? No because it didn't happen. Female national teams do sometimes lose to teenage boys in scrimmages (obviously the older the teenage boys, the more likely). But I've never seen any evidence of a decent female national team losing to twelve year olds... let alone a to only seven players... having only seven players is a gigantic disadvantage. That story complete implausible bullshit.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/07/23 09:20 AM
5

This is nonsense... Male athletes have a large advantage once puberty kicks in. And older teen / adult males have a very dramatic athletic advantage. But 9-10 year old boys do not, in general, have an athletic advantage over 12-13 year old girls. In fact, one would generally expect 12-13 year old girls to have an athletic advantage over 9-10 year old boys. I can't speak to the specific teams in this story. Maybe it was a super competitive boys league, and they were all great for their age and ma…
/r/PussyPassDenied24/07/23 09:05 AM
13

A lot of people don’t seem to get the difference between PPD and “person who happens to be a woman does something negative.”
/r/PussyPassDenied01/03/21 11:55 AM
-1

Can’t believe I had to scroll down so far for this. Yeah, this is some ignorant shit, but I don’t see how she is expecting unreasonable special treatment or expecting to get away with something because she is a woman.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/02/21 11:50 AM
1

IMO both this sub and MRA often make great and important points that other people won't make. But on the other hand, you can tell there are many people on both who have a sexist viewpoint. Kind of like how TumblrInAction made a lot of great and important points against SJWs (at least last time I was there, haven't been in a while), but you could also tell there were also many people on the sub who used "hating on SJWs" as cover for just "being racist or sexist." Sadly it seems like most subs are…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/08/20 04:49 PM
1

So I almost never come to this sub except when something from it hits the front page. TwoX banned me for "participating in problem subs." But that wasn't actually written in the rules anywhere. I pointed out that I very rarely post here, and asked if any posts I made here or elsewhere would have gotten me banned if I made those exact posts in TwoX (the only remotely recent post I made didn't even express an opinion, I literally just corrected somebody who posted an incorrect legal fact). They ju…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/08/20 04:41 PM
4

latestagecapitalism sounds good if one only sees the occasional posts that make the front page of all, which are generally good content. But the mods and many of the regular users are kindof crazy. I got banned for posting that while I support protests, I don't support blocking highways, because of potentially obstructing emergency traffic. I guess that was a reactionary idea... Sorry I want the ambulance carrying my niece to get to the hospital before she bleeds to death, I'm a real slave to th…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/08/20 04:33 PM
1

Exactly. Too drunk to consent means they are barely even aware of whats going on around them and are pretty much nonfunctional. But it's not illegal at all to have sex with a regular drunk person. I also found it amusing that the site lists as a fact that no one fantasizes about rape, which is just false (though of course they don't want to actually be raped).
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 04:08 PM
1

No it's not https://www.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/6jnvit/19_year_old_college_student_faces_two_years_in/djgvjbm/
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 04:06 PM
1

That's not really a source with any legal standing. Forcing sex on someone who is too drunk to give consent IS a crime, but "too drunk to give consent" generally means more of "they aren't even totally aware of what is going on." Like, borderline passing out. We aren't just talking regular drunk but still somewhat functional. Not to mention they use the phrase "forcing sex." "Forcing sex" is illegal regardless of whether the person is drunk or not, but that's not really the issue here. They also…
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 04:04 PM
3

I was a little bit unclear. "Feminism is for everybody" refers not just to PARTICIPATION, but to BENEFIT. They even ask "what's the point of being an egalitarian, when feminism tries to help both men and women." And since they often claim that, men criticize them when they fall short. On the other hand, while I'm guessing Men's Rights is for the PARTICIPATION of everyone, they are upfront that in terms of BENEFIT, it's designed to address issues facing men. Like how gay rights groups welcome str…
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 03:50 PM
0

The fact that consensual sex exists but not consensual killing makes rape and murder cases fairly different.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 04:51 AM
15

I'm guessing because many feminists say that feminism is for everybody. AFAIK, MRAs don't say that.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 04:46 AM
3

I agree with your first sentence, but at least in the US the part in parentheses is just not true. People say it on Reddit all the time yet nobody ever backs it up with a source. At least not true in the court of law, no promises when it comes to college kangaroo courts.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 04:41 AM
0

No it's not true.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 04:36 AM
1

This is bullshit because the majority of physical attraction is based on PHYSICAL characteristics. Like having a penis or not, for example... I'm sorry, but I'm physically attracted to sexes, not genders. I mean if I was married to a woman, but then an evil wizard magically swapped her into a man's body, even though they are still a woman, the same woman I had been having sex with, I'm not going to have sex with them in a male body.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 01:03 PM
31

The toilet seat is touched the least if people leave it however it is when they are done using it. As for falling in and then blaming a man who left it up... how would a woman feel if she put the lid all the way down, and then a man walked in and just pissed all over the lid without looking, and then blamed her for the mess?
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:52 AM
4

People who think it's weird are being weird for giving a shit IMO. The only time I piss sitting down is when I just woke up in the morning and I'm not totally awake, but if somebody wants to piss sitting down every time, they can do whatever they want as far as I car.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:51 AM
3

It wasn't for calling men women. It was for not using the pronoun "xe" which is utterly ridiculous. I would be willing to have society add ONE gender neutral pronoun set. Both in these situations, and to replace "he/she or "his / hers" (or use of "they" to refer to one person of unknown gender). But people expecting you to learn a whole bunch of pronouns on an individual basis is crazy.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 05:30 AM
2

Yeah it seems clear that some of the commentators didn't read anything but the headlines and are taking this at face value.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 05:28 AM
1

It's not actually intended to be a law. It's somebody trying to make a statement.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 05:27 AM
7

I think Clinton is a snake, but even still, it's crazy to me that she actually said something so bat-shit off the rails.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 05:13 AM
3

I generally hate using words like "sheeple," but serious, how the fuck does everybody just sit around tolerating the two party system (and the electoral process that leads to it).
/r/MensRights21/03/17 05:12 AM
8

I like how it "caused" the friend to throw water in their face. Not "so my friend threw water in their face," but "it caused my friend to throw water." Like there was no agency on the friend's part at all. Not that that would excuse beating the shit out of them afterwards (although apparently that didn't happen anyways).
/r/MensRights21/03/17 05:08 AM
4

I don't think it should be a major crime, but it should be illegal to some degree. What's the alternative really? Can I just walk down the street with a cup and a big camel back to refill the cup, and just go around randomly throwing water in people's faces all day? I mean it's REALLY easy to just never intentionally throw your drink in someone's face.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 05:06 AM
1

I'm guessing pre ups are more complicated and much less straight forward, although I'm not defending them being set aside (which I'm not that knowledgeable on).
/r/MensRights21/02/17 02:55 PM
1

I think that's why a pre-emptive only opt out is a relatively fair compromise. That lets everybody know EXACTLY what the are signing up for, and makes it possible for men to not be virgins their whole life without playing fatherhood roulette, but also makes it possible for a pro-life woman who isn't super wealthy to also have sex... It just requires both parties agreeing on the terms. Guys who don't want any part of fatherhood or child support can hold out for girls willing to sign the paper, an…
/r/MensRights21/02/17 03:15 AM
6

We really need to do something about prison violence. The only punishments people should be receiving should come from the state after undergoing a fair legal process (ideally). People sometimes say "i hope he gets raped in prison." Well I don't think anybody should be raped as a punishment, but HYPOTHETICALLY, if that were the case, it would need to be officially administered by the legal system in line with sentencing guidelines, burdens of proof, appeals, etc... If you lock somebody in a pit …
/r/MensRights18/02/17 01:33 AM
1

So explain to me how a woman can ever have sex if she isn't prepared to be a successful single parent? I'm super pro-choice, but if somebody is pro-life, I don't think they should be PUNISHED for not getting an abortion, so long as they tried to be responsible about preventing the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. This sounds like instead of making a compromise, you are saying "fuck women, it needs to be exactly unfair as it is to men currently, but in reverse!"
/r/MensRights18/02/17 01:27 AM
1

Lol you have to be a lot more specific than that.... Especially with the biological asymmetry.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 11:27 PM
1

Well I'm already proposing something way more man friendly than the current setup... What are you proposing?
/r/MensRights16/02/17 10:35 PM
1

I didn't say anything about forcing. It would just be a logical situation that she would have to get an abortion OR be a single mother. __. And IMO some of the rest of it is pretty fucked up. Kids can just starve to death because their parent(s) were morons? That's not the kids fault. I support sensible ways for men to be able to have sex without playing fatherhood roulette. But that opens up a void, a void currently being filled by unfairly trapped men. But if those men don't fill the void, it …
/r/MensRights16/02/17 10:31 PM
1

Look this isn't complicated... Just don't have sex unless the two of you can agree one way or the other. If she doesn't agree, don't have sex with her. You are talking as if you HAVE to have sex with her. You can't have the complete right to walk away at ANY time, because that has the possibility to be quite unfair to the woman, just like the current situation is unfair to men. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5tviu1/oklahoma_lawmakers_want_men_to_approve_all/ddswfid/
/r/MensRights16/02/17 10:09 PM
2

I don't think you are thinking of this from both directions... Let's start with something we probably agree on. Imagine a man is dating a girl. They use responsible protection / BC / whatever. She is pro choice and clearly says that if she did get pregnant, she would get an abortion. Then the protection fails, and she gets pregnant. She then doesn't get an abortion (maybe she lied, or maybe she just actually changed her mind when the time comes). The guy did literally everything right to avoid f…
/r/MensRights16/02/17 02:11 AM
1

Yes, you would have the RIGHT to preemptively opt out. It has to be predicated on her signature because otherwise what is the proof that you officially informed her preemptively? And if you try and get her to sign, and she refuses, and then you have sex with her anyways... well my sympathy is limited in that situation.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 02:04 AM
1

Yes but many single mothers can't afford it alone.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 04:41 PM
1

Like I said though... You don't have to have sex with anybody who doesn't sign. And the existence of such a rule makes it possible to have sex without playing fatherhood roulette. You would have the RIGHT to opt out, you would just have to do it in advance so both parties know what the situation is. If she doesn't sign, then don't have sex.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 04:39 PM
1

I'd rather have my pay docked than be forced by law to host a large parasite, but to each his own. if you don't want to help pay, do you support something more Scandinavian where the state does much more to support all children? I'm not opposed to that idea, but SOMEBODY has to pay for these kids.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 04:25 PM
1

What?
/r/MensRights15/02/17 04:21 PM
0

That's logically nonsense. We are not talking about a binary event. If one culture removed some infants earlobes, and another their left hands, are you seriously going to try and say they are EQUALLY bad? Personally, I know little about FGM, so I can't compare how bad they are. But I'm saying I know how other people will react to the comparison, because I've seen it happen many times before.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 04:20 PM
1

It can by misleading AND circumcision could be bad. It's not like you can only pick one.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 11:55 PM
1

To be fair, I'm sure there are a variety of people there, and the photographer may not even be allowed to touch the baby. Not to mention such photos could sway other people's opinions.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 11:54 PM
-1

I think that's not always a good comparison, because people will get distracted arguing that FGM is much worse... but even if that were hypothetically true, it wouldn't mean that circumcision wasn't hypothetically bad. Edit: all these down votes are just shooting the messenger, like it or not, that is how OTHER PEOPLE will respond.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 11:52 PM
6

Uhh... what? How is that relevant?
/r/MensRights14/02/17 11:50 PM
2

If you attempt that strategy by allying with all the "pro-life" people, you may find us stuck in a situation in the future where NONE of us have any rights. Which might include you and your very pro choice girlfriend, who are now both stuck with a pregnancy that NEITHER of you wanted. Every time a woman successfully gets an abortion, that's one man who isn't paying child support.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 11:42 PM
1

The problem here is that most pro-choice people don't consider fetuses people... and the idea that a fetus is a person really only makes sense from a religious / spiritual perspective. Although FWIW even if they were considered people, I don't think it should be possible to legal compel somebody to let another person live INSIDE their body. I do agree there is a double standard, where men who are unhappy with a child support situation are basically told they should have kept it in their pants, b…
/r/MensRights14/02/17 11:39 PM
1

You don't have to have sex with anybody who doesn't sign... But the existence of such a rule makes it possible to have sex without playing fatherhood roulette. Or we could just switch to a system with much more support for children from society, rendering the entire idea of a man paying child support somewhat moot, but that would be a super major political change.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 11:29 PM
1

Calls baby a parasite... And...? and thinks men should only have rights if the women allow it... FFS, this is the problem with some extremists. I gave an answer ("financial abortion" as long as it's preemptive) that is more friendly to the men's rights movement than probably more than a pretty significant majority of people will give, and you still have to turn in into some sort of "thinks men should only have rights if the women allow it." Most people will just say the man should have kept it i…
/r/MensRights14/02/17 09:47 PM
1

I mean, in a scifi future where they could extract the fetus, put it in an artificial incubator / womb, and then the man could raise it himself, sure. But as it is, I don't ever support a woman being forced to let a large parasite live inside her. That being said, I think men should get something akin to financial abortion, but only if it signed by both parties preemptively, before she is pregnant (so it would be a "just in case" precaution").
/r/MensRights14/02/17 06:01 AM
1

To be fair, men's college soccer doesn't get more attendance AFAIK, and the women's national team is quite popular. The women's pro league not so much, besides Portland where they actually get like 17k a game or something. The MLS is much more popular.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 05:49 AM
4

Apparently some people think you are a white knight if you have ever helped a woman at all... even if the circumstance is such that you would also help a man in the same situation.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 06:50 AM
3

White Knight doesn't mean "ever helping a woman for any reason." It's going way out of your way to help a women in a fashion that you would not do if a man had the same problem / issue.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 06:49 AM
1

Depending on the size of the class, you could probably just show up and attend lecture without being enrolled.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 06:41 AM
1

What if she had a bottle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxENc6P06ww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMITzipEmNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1cEP2mZ8vI
/r/MensRights21/10/16 08:23 PM
2

If a women is smaller and weaker than you (which is usually the case), you should take that into account if it's a rare situation where physical violence may be called for, and adjust your force accordingly. But there are still very strong social prejudices involving people being more accepting of violence against men even after physical differences are accounted for. For example, take this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwEd1WvTN7M It's an FSU QB punching a woman in the face in a bar, a…
/r/MensRights21/10/16 08:17 PM
23

I find it interesting how people basically say "if you have faith in the marriage, you shouldn't feel the need for a prenup," because you should be confident it won't be necessary / relevant. OK... well... if she (usually, of course it could be he depending on the situation) has faith in the marriage, she should have no problem signing one, because she is confident it won't be relevant. Not to mention no matter how confident you are in the marriage, there is still something called the outside vi…
/r/MensRights21/10/16 08:08 PM
2

I love judicial / legal smack downs so much. Something about the juxtaposition between how formal and polite the language is, with how savage the message is... but in a way that feels more about "precision" than about some sort of two faced frenemy shit.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 06:45 PM
1

I think this issue all comes to do the insanely vague wording here: This bill would prohibit a court from granting probation or suspending the execution or imposition of a sentence if a person is convicted of rape, sodomy, penetration with a foreign object, or oral copulation if the victim was either unconscious or incapable of giving consent due to intoxication. The first part sounds OK. If the girl is "unconscious," then it sounds like rape if you have sex with her. I don't think anybody is sa…
/r/MensRights06/10/16 06:41 PM
1

Oh, this case has been in the news on and off for a while. People who downvoted you may have wrongly thought you knew more of the details. She is a teenager. It borders on a poster case for why these laws are fucked up. I think the only thing missing is I don't think she had a fake ID, although I dont remember that for sure.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 06:12 PM
2

It's glad to see this turn out this way, but legally isn't he guilty? I mean, we still have the insanely bullshit situation where strict liability statutory rape laws exist. How the fuck can anybody in their right mind think that you can meet a girl, she can look of age, you can meet her in a bar, and that you see her ID (which belongs to her similar looking older sister, so it's not even a fake, it's an official government document) "proving" she is of age, so you sleep with her... that you sho…
/r/MensRights06/10/16 02:32 PM
1

The girl defended him from the start and said she lied. There is also a minimum age on the dating app, so some amount of lie is involved with signing up. Also, you just described literally the opposite of how our justice system is supposed to function. Not so much in this case, because strict liability statutory rape is some of the biggest bullshit we have, but in general. Innocent until proven guilty. That means we don't start throwing people in prison and calling them sex offenders because "be…
/r/MensRights06/10/16 02:28 PM
1

In this case, the girl and her mom defended the guy from the start. She shouldn't have lied about her age to begin with, but I'm not sure she is really the villain to that degree here.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 02:25 PM
2

I mean say you have sex with a 17 y/o who claims to be 18 or 19, i mean what could you do at this point? Ask her for an ID and risk losing a chance for sex or go for it and risk going to jail. A hard decision i guess. Oh my sweet summer child... you think asking for ID even would protect you? Many states are strict liability, which means nothing can be used as a defense except saying the sex didn't happen, or that she isn't actually underage. If you had sex with an underage girl NO MATTER WHAT, …
/r/MensRights06/10/16 02:22 PM
2

IANAL, but I believe that's true in SOME states, but not all. Personally, I find strict liability on this subject one of the worst laws in America. I mean you could meet a girl who looks of age, lies about her age and claims to be of age, is in a bar drinking, and is using her similar looking older sister's ID card... which isn't even a forgery, it's literally an official government document that appears to confirm her age. Those Chinese gymnasts who pretended they were older than they were so t…
/r/MensRights06/10/16 02:16 PM
4

To be fair to the girl, IIRC she has been defending him from the very very start and never accused him to begin with. Of course it was still wrong of her to lie about her age, but this isn't the same as one of those false rape accusation cases.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 02:06 PM
12

Is this really attempted pussy-pass? I could easily see a man writing the same note. I mean, I realize this specific note was almost certainly written by a woman, but I could see a man leaving a similar note and then being pissed if they still got a ticket. (not to say them being pissed would necessarily be justified, just that they might be pissed).
/r/PussyPassDenied28/09/16 07:41 AM
3

Yeah, I completely agree. Nobody should ever be forced to let a giant parasite live inside their body if they don't want to. I support some forms of financial abortion (although I think they should be preemptive and up front), and am concerned about how one sided all the decision making is, but the idea of a woman being prevented from aborting because the father wants the child is sick to me.
/r/MensRights03/09/16 08:40 AM
1

And yet absolutely any discussion of a situation where a man is unhappy about paying child support from an unplanned pregnancy that he didn't not want to happen, he is just told "then he shouldn't have had sex." But if you say women shouldn't be able to get abortions besides rape or their health in danger, (I'm personally strongly pro-choice, but hypothetically) and "if they wanted to not be pregnant, they shouldn't have had sex," then you are slut shaming. What the hell, those are like the exac…
/r/MensRights03/09/16 08:14 AM
13

Mostly I'm just amused by the fact that if you took their statements and made them gender-neutral you'd be hard pressed to sort the comments from this lot and the pro-life pro-abstinence-only crowd. Exactly. And they talk like condoms are 100% effective. But the reality of their comments is basically that a childfree man who wants to be responsible has no choice but to remain a virgin forever.
/r/MensRights30/08/16 04:45 AM
1

I feel like there is a decent compromise for everybody that can be made. Yes, it IS bullshit that a girl can swear she will get an abortion if the birth controls fails (it isn't perfect), and then change her mind and hit you with child support. Maybe she even truly means it and isn't scamming on you, but changes her mind. On the other hand, let's be fair to women... the "financial abortion" (one-sided termination of parental rights and responsibilities) is also potentially bullshit. Imagine if a…
/r/MensRights30/08/16 04:41 AM
5

Uhhh... do they think that extremely unattractive women don't exist? Is it not rape even if it's a 300 pound woman? (Don't get me wrong, their logic is flawed on multiple levels, and I think it is definitely possible for a man to be raped by an attractive woman... I'm just trying to start with the most ridiculous part of their logic and work my way down).
/r/MensRights05/08/16 04:50 PM
1

I'm not saying they would have made the same choices sober. But when they voluntarily get drunk, they are responsible for the drunk choices they make. If you intentionally mess up your inhibitions for pleasure, you can't blame other people if you make drunk choices you regret. Like I said, if you don't like the choices you make drunk, then avoid the situation by making the sober choice to not drink.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 04:17 PM
1

I seem to remember an interview with Justin Bieber where i was very clear he did not know what the word "German" meant. Like in a generic "from Germany" context. edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76CqijPNGSk TBF the guy has a bit of an accent, but he even lets him read it off the card himself.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 05:37 AM
10

Or unless you were drugged or something, you take responsibility for your drunk choices. Drunk consent is still consent. If you don't like your drunk choices, then make the sober choice to not drink. (assuming you gave affirmative consent while drunk, being almost passed out and just "not saying no" isn't consent).
/r/MensRights23/02/16 05:30 AM
3

It's not really to protect ACTUAL hate speech (i mean there is a big of "even if it's fucked up, they have the right to say it," but that's not the most important purpose). It's more of making sure it's pretty much impossible to wrongly classify something as hate speech, and then crack down on it. For example, I'm sure there are people who would call talking about false rape accusations as "hate speech against women" or some shit like that, and then try and keep you from saying it.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 07:40 PM
2

Yeah, somehow I don't think it would go over quite as well if some white person wrote an article about how "black culture kills", and just made a bunch of references to gangbanger rappers or something.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 04:18 AM
4

Personally I'm wary of anybody who labels themselves as part of a gender specific movement. Being in favor of gender equality and fair treatment for everybody should be sufficient for anybody. I've seen some people try and explain how feminism is actually great for people of all genders, but in that case why are they still calling it "feminism"?
/r/MensRights20/04/14 07:32 PM
2

What the fuck are you talking about. What part of teaching = assuming they agree (and / or will agree when they are older) with your unproven theories just because they are related to you, and then CHOPPING OFF PART OF THEIR DICK because of said assumption. If you are Jewish, and try to teach your kid to be Jewish, that's fine (for the most part, so long as you don't go super over the top like some of the scary Jesus camp youtube videos). That's very different than just assuming that because you…
/r/MensRights09/01/14 07:34 PM
3

Religious justifications for circumcision are seriously bullshit of the very highest order. FWIW I don't know enough about the supposed medical aspects to be for or against circumcision in general, I'm just saying that religion is a horrible horrible horrible nonsense justification for them. You have freedom of religion FOR YOURSELF. You don't have the "freedom" to dictate the religion of others, even if the "others" are your kids. If you want to perform cosmetic surgery on YOURSELF because of y…
/r/MensRights09/01/14 05:48 PM
1

The fourth point may be technically correct, in the sense that some deaf people may actually feel that way, but that's a retarded belief to hold. To say there is nothing wrong with a deaf person is moronic PC gone mad. Being deaf is the absence of an indisputably useful sense. That's obviously something physically wrong. That doesn't invalidate a deaf person's worth as an individual, but there is clearly 100% obviously something significantly physically wrong with them.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 01:18 PM
1

I feel conflicted about this one. One one hand, you could argue it's a sucker punch in the back. On the other hand, who the fuck punches somebody in the face and immediately turns their back? A sucker punch is an unexpected punch, and she should have definitely expected to get punched. I don't think you should be able to walk up, punch somebody, immediately start to walk away, and be completely socially protected from any retaliation.
/r/MensRights23/11/13 09:18 PM
13

Isn't that like the whole "the terrorists win" cliche? Does these unreasonable people win and have their ability to bully people re-enforced if he deletes his account?
/r/MensRights23/11/13 09:10 PM
8

That's not really a good analogy. A relationship is a specific construct between two people. Saying he should completely delete his twitter is like saying a man in an abusive relationship should cease all social activity, not just with his "significant other," but with everybody.
/r/MensRights23/11/13 09:09 PM
21

I feel like that kind of advice enables this kind of bullshit. People should stand up for his right to state his opinion publicly, especially in a case like this where his opinion isn't unreasonable in any way (at least the part I have read). Saying "while you have every right to state reasonable opinions, if you do, unreasonable people will harass you, so you should just stay quiet" basically supports groups like this's ability to bully people out of speaking their mind.
/r/MensRights23/11/13 09:07 PM
3

I wish some famous people had the balls to stand up and tell them that you have religious freedom for YOURSELF. Your baby is not religious, nor is it your property. Seriously, this idea that religious freedom is at all a factor to this discussion is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard. And yet after that court ruling in Germany a while ago, there were a bunch of quotes from Jewish and Muslim people in the news about how religiously intolerant this was...
/r/MensRights18/11/13 05:12 AM
3

People trying to play the "religious freedom" card for circumcision is one of the stupidest fucking arguments I've ever heard. I'm not exaggerating, I actually can't comprehend how anybody who isn't literally mentally disabled can make that argument. Religious freedom is something you have for YOURSELF. It's not your religious freedom to make permanent changes to somebody else's body. A baby has no religion, it's obviously not even remotely capable of understanding the concepts involved, or maki…
/r/MensRights13/11/13 07:01 PM
1

If drunk consent "isn't really consent," then why is DUI a crime? Or why is getting drunk and assaulting somebody, or getting drunk and stealing something a crime? After all, people arn't responsible for the choices they make while they are drunk, right? (Just to be clear, I'm talking about a drunk person who does give affirmative consent. Not somebody practically blacked out who just doesn't say no). As long as you got drunk voluntarily (i.e., you weren't spiked or something), then you are resp…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 05:51 AM
1

I didn't say it clearly, but I meant how drunk they are, as long as they aren't actually passed out or whatever. Sort of like "I don't care how tired they are," not being intended to include somebody who is actually asleep. I meant "no matter how drunk they are," but I was refering to people who are actually conscious. Baring some sort of very unusual situation, having sex with somebody who is unconscious is generally rape.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 04:39 AM
3

That's not really what I had in mind. She still has to be physically capable of revoking consent. If she says yes, but then passes out, and you have sex with her unconscious body, that sounds like rape. I suppose "no matter how drunk they are" was unclear phrasing. I meant "no matter how drunk she is if she is still capable of giving (and revoking) affirmative consent." I'm talking about somebody who is really drunk, but not like, passed out.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 02:55 AM
1

I would agree that anytime somebody is "passed out," you should generally not be having sex with them, even if they say yes back when they were still conscious.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 02:50 AM
1

EXACTLY. If somebody voluntarily got drunk (not drugged / spiked), then they are responsible for the choices they make while drunk. If you give affirmative consent, then it's not rape, no matter how drunk you are. To say otherwise would set a precedent where drunk driving is ok, where drunk theft is ok, where drunk assualt is ok, etc..., because "drunk people arn't responsible for their actions." Of course that's give they give affirmative consent. If somebody is hammered and practically blacked…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 08:40 PM
-3

I don't care how drunk they are, or how sober their partner is, if they actually voluntarily got drunk (i.e., not spiked / drugged), and they actually give affirmative consent. Obviously is somebody is so hammered they are practically blacked out, and just "don't say no," then that is rape. But if they give affirmative consent, and got drunk voluntarily, then they are responsible for their actions. If they don't like that, they can always just not drink. Now, if you think the other person would …
/r/MensRights28/12/12 08:33 PM
1

On one hand, I agree that it's very wrong that male teachers (apparently / from what I have read) often get much harsher punishments than female teachers in these circumstances. That being said, at least from the article, it sounds like she is claiming to be the victim SPECIFICALLY regarding being video taped during sex, without consenting to the recording. Unless she is lying about not consenting to the recording, then that SPECIFICALLY is a fair point. Yeah, it's wrong that the media seems to …
/r/MensRights08/12/12 10:25 PM
3

I'm not necessarily pro or anti-circumsicion in general, because to be blunt, I'm fairly ignorant as to the merits (or lack thereof) of the supposed medical benefits. That being said, I hate how religions get away with calling this a religious freedom issue. The uproar of "religious persecution" after it was (temporarily?) banned in Germany was bullshit of the absolute very highest order. You have religious freedom FOR YOURSELF!!! If you are Jewish, or whatever, and turn 18 and then want to have…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:24 AM
3

Yeah, I agree with the driving analogy. Obviously if somebody is too drunk to give consent, then that's rape. But if they give actual affirmative consent, no matter how drunk they are, then I don't see how it would be different from drunk driving. Unless you spiked their drink (so they were drunk against their will), drunken consent is still consent. People are responsible for the decisions they make while drunk. If they have a problem with those decisions, maybe they shouldn't get drunk.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 02:53 AM
1

Plus imagine being a woman, writing your senator to tell him you feel strongly about an abortion bill, and then being told that since he is a man, YOUR representative can't represent you...
/r/MensRights04/09/12 07:35 AM
5

Yeah, while I would be interested in some possible ways for fathers to protect themselves from financial burden if they are clear they don't want kids from the beginning, there's no way you can force somebody to let another person live inside their body.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:48 AM
1

You didn't have sex with her at all though, right? Pardon my medical ignorance, but I thought that could be proved? I understand the cases are complicated if there was sex that you claim was consensual, but I thought a medical examination could prove you never slept with her?
/r/MensRights27/07/12 07:31 AM
2

Is "your" religion official in Germany? Do they keep a list of who belongs to what religion or something? Legally speaking, what's the difference between a 13 year old who want's to be agnostic / athiest / switch religions, and a 14 year old who does?
/r/MensRights26/06/12 10:09 AM
21

I have no idea how legit the supposed medical benefits are, but the idea that circumcision is a "religious freedom" thing is bullshit. YOU have religious freedom FOR YOURSELF. Not to make life altering decisions for a baby that is obviously too young to make it's own religious choices. I mean seriously, whose religious freedom is being violated? Yours, or the babies? Because what does YOUR freedom have to do with somebody else's dick? If it's the babies, that's just retarded, because it's obviou…
/r/MensRights26/06/12 03:18 AM
1

I don't mean "allowed" in the completely 100% literal sense. I mean it in the you saying that "he shouldn't do it / it's inappropriate" sense. If you replace "you aren't allowed" with "it's inappropriate" in my post, the statement remains basically the same. If somebody thinks that circumcision is terrible, and some well meaning people view it as a "culturally sanctioned procedure," surely one legitimate way for him to try and change their mind's is to compare it to other things that both agree …
/r/MensRights27/05/12 06:56 AM
1

"But still..." what? IMO the fact that it's obviously "sarcastic and begging to be rejected" is why it's appropriate. I read that as ""perfectly legitimate argument," but still..." And it's at least meant as a legitimate comparison. You make a good distinction that there is a difference between a rapist and harm done by well meaning but potentially misguided parents, but how else are well meaning parents / people who believe in a culturally sanctioned procedure supposed to LEARN that it's actual…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 03:48 AM
2

While i definately agree false rape claims should be viewed more seriously, this is a poor analogy. If you make a false rape claim, and then later admit it, the person can be declared innocent and freed. That doesn't mean "no harm done," because you likely inflicted massive hardship on their life, but the harm can at least be mitigated. But if you confess to a murder, it's not like your victim is brought back to life.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 10:14 PM
-2

Maybe I wasn't quite clear enough, but I was mostly talking in general, and not just about the specific case (and many of the others responses also discussed the general issue). I was saying that overall, I would be ok if the rules said girls can try and play on a boys team, but not vice versa. And I did acknowledge that if he is under 5' and 82 pounds, then specifically it doesn't sound like he has an unfair advantage.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 08:23 PM
-5

I'm very down with most of the Men's Rights stuff I've read here, but this might be an exception. I would actually be ok (in general) if girls could play on boys teams but not vice versa. Men truly are just vastly more athletic and much better at sports. Any girl playing with boys is very much fighting an uphill battle. On the other hand, even a decent guys player should be able to totally dominate the vast majority of female players. Of course if this specific dude is really under 5' and 82 pou…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 08:10 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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