TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AHrubik Archive

View 0 posts and 89 comments by AHrubik 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

Very true.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 05:27 PM
0

It would most likely be some form of verbal contract. Promises made while dating. That is the only examples I know of.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 05:25 PM
-7

I don't believe that's the point of the discussion. It's about Mens right to choose birth control without consulting their partner. I was simply speaking to how it might be viewed from a legal perspective if the partners were married and children were a premise on which the marriage was set.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 02:59 PM
-11

I honestly can see this as being viewed legally as a breach of contract. If you marry someone with the understanding that kids are coming but you get vasectomy you're negating the possibility of kids without surgical intervention. It would be the same for her if she refused to stop using birth control for non medical reasons or sought a more permanent control. Some ways around this could be private sperm storage. Have a few vials put back and then have the procedure.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 02:30 PM
5

What does sexual orientation have to do with your rights as a man?
/r/MensRights06/04/14 04:22 PM
6

Even if you don't get married you can get fucked. Palimony, Common Law, etc. Don't think the lack of marriage in anyway replaces vigilance.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 06:17 PM
15

The missionary position has nothing to do with biology. If we're speaking in science terms and about our animal instincts it's some form of doggy style at best.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 08:16 PM
1

OP has a point but's a minimalist one in the grand scheme of things.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 08:29 PM
1

What is the full story here? ... that because a licensed physician was not involved in the artificial insemination process, William Marotta is more than a sperm donor...
/r/MensRights23/01/14 02:39 PM
1

He is. He is the father of the girl and has been ordered by the court to call her home. Something the court can reasonably expect of a father the girl has identified as the parent she actually respects.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 11:43 PM
16

A 14 year old won't be allowed to bargain with the court that way. If she obeyed the court order then the judge might feel swayed to work with her. I know it sucks but this is how the court proves it's in control which it is. Edit: If you want an extreme example look at the lawyer that got jailed for 14 years for not producing the 2.5 million he was ordered to pay in a divorce settlement. He was released only because the court finally ruled that being in jail was not having a coercive effect to …
/r/MensRights01/11/13 09:25 PM
10

He's being held in contempt because the court feels that being in jail can coerce the ordered behavior it seeks. This is legal in our system if the action the court is requesting is legal which in his case looks to be a grey area.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 09:21 PM
-2

I tell you what. If your right I'll eat your tin foil hat.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 03:03 PM
-1

FYI child support is not about supporting the child. It's a misnomer. It's about normalizing the childs life between it's two parents. Parent A makes 1 million a year. Parent B makes 25K a year. The child would experience drastically different lives between the two parents so the court orders parent A to pay parent B to "normalize" the life the child lives at each home.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:59 AM
33

It's hard to draw a comparison because women don't have the same physical responses as men (obviously) but the easiest I can think of is this: Do you want to have sex every time your nipples are hard? I mean they get hard when you're excited right? So that must mean every time they get hard you want sex. The male body is designed to be ready at a moments notice but that doesn't mean mentally we always want sex.
/r/MensRights05/10/13 05:27 PM
6

If I had a friend who I knew was on a green card I would advise them to start the citizenship process immediately. If they were dumb enough to squander their time here without pursuing it "sucks to be them". Hope they Skype.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 07:00 PM
3

Not true. It can be proven fairly clearly if emotional duress was present based on testimony from other witnesses.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 03:48 PM
9

Guess she needs to start the process for HER OWN citizenship. You shouldn't be counting on marriage as the only option for her to stay.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 03:48 PM
6

The US does this on a State by State basis. Luckily my state requires "presentation as Husband and Wife" to qualify. As long as you're clear about the situation in regards to money and status you can simply be together.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 03:44 PM
2

Best I could do in the short term. This shows the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that... " ... just as a woman can ground an action on a claim that men discriminated against her because she did not meet stereotyped expectations of femininity, ... a man can ground a claim on evidence that other men discriminated against him because he did not meet stereotyped expectations of masculinity." It's a logical assumption that if a man could prove discrimination (or lack of action) from any person…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 08:18 PM
0

Female on male rape is something that must be brought into the light in order to get the status quo changed. I would bet statistically 95% or greater of all reported rapes on college campuses are male on female. It doesn't surprise me that a law meant to curb this shows significant female bias. That's just human nature. This can be changed by men coming forward and reporting rape when it happens instead of shrugging off the event.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 05:59 PM
13

Good luck to them. They have a hard road ahead.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 08:50 PM
6

Yes. Title 9 is gender neutral.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 08:49 PM
2

god damn it! Stop using the goddamn word privilege wrong. They use it wrong to describe us don't let them corrupt you.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 02:55 PM
5

I don't know to what extent Communism would have spread after Korea had we lost but we were defeated in Vietnam. It was Afghanistan in the 70s where the fight to repress Communism was fought and won. After that we spent them into bankruptcy in 80s.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 11:07 PM
1

Short answer: Yes but maybe No. Long answer: Probably not after all the facts are in and assuming the woman was convicted for the rape. I personally don't know how I'd handle it. On the one hand it is your child regardless of the circumstances and if you have the means why not raise it. It's not it's fault it's a rape child. On the other hand if the state could better provide for and raise said child then go after the mother for the costs so be it.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 09:18 PM
1

You're surprised a subreddit is nothing more than a circle jerk of acceptance rather than an intellectual discussion and that the mods of said subreddit crafted the rules to promote said circle jerk... Hmmmm.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 11:53 AM
0

"When the couple finally connected over the phone four months after the birth... " I'm not feeling much sympathy here...
/r/MensRights09/01/13 02:49 PM
1

Your asking for the legal right to fuck who you want to with zero regard for the consequences mate. That's NEVER going to happen. I support Men's (my own) rights but I would never stand behind you and lend credence to the idea that I'm some fucking dog. That I don't have the ability to decide for myself if I want a child or not. Last time I say this mate. The way humans work is you (men and women ) get to choose before sex. She gets to choose during pregnancy. Neither of you get to choose after.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 03:04 AM
1

At that point it's her body. You have no say. Once the child's born again too late. There's a child to raise. Take step back, breathe and try to see what it is your really asking for.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:49 AM
0

She has the same perception problem you do. Men's ability to choose fatherhood or not is before sex. If you have sex and your not sterilized (vasectomy or permanently) then you've chosen to accept the risk that you may become a father. This is the personal responsibility portion. Sex with a condom 93% chance your safe; 7% risk. Condom breaks .... 50% risk. My point is you've voluntarily accept the risk and there's no turning back once she's pregnant. At that point it's her turn to choose. It see…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:45 AM
0

I did answer your question. There is no opting out of fatherhood. You can opt out of sex. You can opt to use protection. You can opt to sterilize yourself. You can't opt out of your responsibilities to another human being.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:31 AM
3

Ultimately you're never going to get control over a woman's body. Accept it. From here on out its very simple. Don't have sex with someone who will screw you over. We're not dogs. We don't have to fuck everything with legs and some things without. What I'm trying to get you (and everyone else) to realize is that once the pregnancy exists you've lost your ability to choose. You've given it to her. Your ability to choose starts and ends with your decision to have sex. That's where your rights are …
/r/MensRights05/12/12 10:08 PM
1

No again your playing the victim. It's both of their faults.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 09:54 PM
1

That's not necessarily true as there are mitigating circumstances but unless you're raping someone or being raped there is always a choice in sex. No one gets a slipadicktomie.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 09:41 PM
0

I'm honestly sick and tired of the fuck around mentality. Sex while fun and pleasant has repercussions. Those repercussions can be mitigated to high probability and in some cases can be eliminated. You have the power over your own body and you can choose the level of risk you are comfortable with. The law will never again grant a man any say over what happens to a womans body nor would I support such a thing. The law could possibly be written to assist a man who is the victim of a criminal act o…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 08:32 PM
-1

Do you read your own posts? I'm advocating that if you're going to have sex (man or woman) you need to do what is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancy or you shouldn't have sex. It's really that simple. If calling me a moron makes you sleep better at night sweetheart then feel free. When you ready to join us at the big table let me know.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 08:23 PM
-2

I'm sure it will go over about as well as it goes over here. You're two peas in a pod. Both immature, juvenile and unwilling to accept responsibility for the repercussions of sex by having some personal responsibility before or simply abstaining. Expecting adults to act like adults has never been a winning argument and it is the doom of the species if it doesn't fix itself.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 08:20 PM
0

Why do you think I'm advocating any less responsibility for the woman in the scenario?
/r/MensRights05/12/12 08:17 PM
-3

Sure I am. You don't like where it leads. Expecting that people (men and women) take responsibility for the act of sex and the repercussions that may occur has never been popular with the juvenile and immature.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 08:16 PM
0

Why do you think I'm advocating any less responsibility for the woman in this situation? If two people make a child they should be responsible for that child and that starts with the act of making the child. I advocating personal responsibility for people (men and women) wanting to have sex. Crying about the repercussions of sex after the fact is juvenile.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 08:15 PM
-2

Of course because it wouldn't be the circle jerk of acceptance that this subreddit is sometimes without it.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 03:39 PM
1

God damn it I love steak and if I had no teeth I'd still gum that goodness to death. ;-)
/r/MensRights05/12/12 03:37 PM
-3

The man's choice is not the have sex, use a condom or get a vasectomy. Hopefully science will provide more options in the future. Sex is not a right and therefore doesn't abdicate your responsibilities by engaging in it.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 03:36 PM
-5

Still sounds to me like trying to find a way to shirk personal responsibility. Ooops I killed that guy but I didn't mean to so I should get a pass. You only get one chance at some things in life.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 02:39 PM
-4

Sounds like choice to me.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 02:39 PM
-6

Still sounds to me like trying to find a way to shirk personal responsibility. Ooops I killed that guy but I didn't mean to so I should get a pass. You only get one chance at some things in life.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 02:39 PM
-6

Honestly I've never understood this from a man's perspective or a woman's. Seems almost like a twelve o'clock flasher scenario. If you don't want to be a father there are plenty of tools to prevent it and still have sex or you can be certain about it and not have sex. The idea of giving someone a pass because their stupid and can't control their urges doesn't sit well for me or the species in general. Part of acting like an adult is thinking like one.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 01:54 PM
1

Rarely but courts have ruled that properly trained people's fists can be considered deadly weapons. In those particular cases I think the use of a firearm would have been justifiable.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 01:30 PM
6

I hadn't seen it either. Thanks!
/r/MensRights15/10/12 12:34 PM
2

In a similar situation with a similar very well liked celebrity type I think it would have had similar results.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 05:21 PM
1

That's sad to hear. I may be the exception to the rule but thinking logically about everything in my life has served me very well.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 04:27 PM
1

I would hope even in no fault divorces the reason for the divorce would still be taken into account.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 04:14 PM
3

It's very important that if you suspect your partner of cheating you should hire a PI and get proof. Very few marriages end "just because". Without the evidence it could turn into a he said / she said situation with a poor outcome.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:42 PM
2

I can confirm this. I got in trouble once for hurting my sister when she punched me in the face.
/r/MensRights25/04/12 06:02 PM
4

Just because it gets throw out doesn't stop you from doing it. SCOTUS has ruled that free speech is limited to speech that doesn't falsely disparage other individuals. Calling a prostitute a whore is legal. Calling a woman a whore who is not one is slanderous or in the case of twitter libelous.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 07:01 PM
10

The article is poorly written. It uses a shit example of a father wanting proof a child is his before agreeing to be it's legal father. Then goes on to say that in order for the law to be affective the father must not have: "... previously developed a consistent and substantial relationship with the child." Which it defines as: Consistent prenatal financial support Payment of prenatal and natal medical care for the mother and baby Child support payments proportional with his ability to pay Consi…
/r/MensRights11/04/12 03:18 PM
1

The mitigating circumstances are time with the child. I don't think a nanny counts either. If parent A is a billionaire and parent B is a pauper and parent A can't spend a minute with the child due to willful obligations then parents B should get fully custody allowing parent A visitation when possible. It's about what's best for the child not a fair division of resources.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 02:30 AM
0

There was no job loss in this situation. A contract ended between parties and a mitigating reoccurring debt had to be taken care of. The parties decided that one party of the contract would cover a larger share of the debt than the other. Who is to say why this agreement was made or under what circumstances. Suffice to say that the party paying the larger share had enough resources to have fought this arrangement had they not entered into it willfully. Is that better terminology or would you lik…
/r/MensRights10/04/12 02:27 AM
-13

It's not about how much it costs to raise said child but about the life the child would have lived were it to live with the higher earning parent as the provider for the household. I don't agree with the formula but it's not about the cost to raise the child. It never was and that misunderstanding is a pervasive lie that can't seem to be killed. I feel the same way about the courts deeming the mothers home to be the best place for the child without any sort of evaluation of the father. The child…
/r/MensRights09/04/12 07:55 PM
-24

Before you condemn her as a money grubbing hooker there may be lots of details here we don't know about. They are EXs for a reason.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 03:59 PM
1

I would argue that it was civil because of what your Dad did for a living. Your Dad knew he could get what he wanted and your Mom knew it too so they had extra incentive to make it work.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 02:13 PM
10

What's a retart? Sounds delicious! ;-)
/r/MensRights22/02/12 05:37 PM
1

I can't imagine in what world this would ever be true.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 06:44 AM
0

I suppose then it all boils down the agreements that the two made between each other.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 09:30 PM
3

How about we don't assume anything. Let's just get proof.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 07:45 PM
1

The case I'm looking at is broken trust. As long as we're making assumptions maybe he's been the sole bread winner while she stays home and tends to the house and kids. So she put her life on hold for the family. He continues his career and eventually cheats on her with someone else. The only real savings between the two of them is the 401K. Is she just suppose to deal with it? Nah dude. That isn't right. There are just as many scenarios where she justified in her action as she isn't. Remember t…
/r/MensRights27/01/12 07:42 PM
-4

My question is the assumption that he didn't do something to cause this. So many times in /r/Mensrights we assume the man did nothing. It's a bitchy move with the tag and all but as far as we know he could have caused it with a coke fueled threesome weekend.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 03:12 PM
13

To the top with this. I loath lawyers willing to fuck over people. This said you need to get everything documented. Add up the child support you should have been paying and what you voluntarily paid. They can come after you for the difference. You need to trudge forward to get the time you want with your child. The court will make a determination of what time you should have had as well and will calculate child support owed (or not owed) against that figure.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 08:07 PM
1

Wow ... I hope that's sarcastic. You don't even know him and you're making sweeping generalizations about him.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 02:13 PM
3

Snarky but funny
/r/MensRights09/11/11 09:09 PM
2

I don't understand doc?
/r/MensRights09/11/11 08:58 PM
1

I don't accept the assertion that it's human nature to be a piece of shit. I do however accept that a willing indoctrinate of Christian ideology should know better.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 07:00 PM
3

That's an fundamentalist viewpoint. There are some people out there who believe that all negative actions/reactions are derived from an evil entity known as Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, etc... The idea is that God can't possibly be evil so it must be something else.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 06:46 PM
1

I've often wondered the extent of that. It would seem the answer is yes as long as they truly seek forgiveness but if they continue to wax and wane from this zone of forgiveness is there a limit to the times it will be given?
/r/MensRights09/11/11 05:00 PM
1

Believe it or not there are just as many political forces in churches as the outside world. Having grow up in church and attended several this is a fact. How those political forces are used though is entirely up to the leaders of the parishioners.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 04:57 PM
2

I'm fairly certain that anyone who identifies themselves as Christian simply believes the Jesus of Nazareth was God in homo sapiens form.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 04:54 PM
5

Maybe it should simply be "No true Organism".
/r/MensRights09/11/11 04:52 PM
1

Thanks for the reply. :-) I don't have any questions. I'm a Deist and I long ago rejected the notion of divinity and the error of a homo sapienic deity.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 04:49 PM
2

Just had a wow moment. Let the thinking begin.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 03:50 PM
14

What is a real Christian though? She was is a worship leader. Her new husband is one too. Her father is an ordained pastor (not practicing). Her mother claims to hear God on a regular basis (they are Evangelicals). Is not the measure of a Christian they way in which they act? note: This is not a critique of the Christian faith. Believe what you want to believe. I don't care.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 03:39 PM
31

A friend of mines x-wife tried to get our church to do the same thing. She (and her family) demonized as him as a rogue cop wife beater when in reality she cheated on him. He got angry and put his fist through the wall. She (and the pastor she fooled)chased him off to another church and when the rest of the congregation realized the truth (thanks in part to me) she's now off poisoning another church with her new husband. Some people wonder why I'm not a Christian.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 02:38 PM
0

We as men have to learn to think more with the big head and less with the small one. A simple "check" moment would have told all 4 people this was a stupid thing to do and they would have avoided the whole situation. I could care less about the bullshit law because even if they didn't get caught by the one they would be in jail for public lewdness or some other decency act. This is the definition of complete lack of intelligence on all parties involved. The sad thing is these boys still probably…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 06:22 PM
-14

No sympathy. This is a keep your dick in pants lesson. Don't arrange sexual encounters over the internet to take place in a fucking park. Rent a room or use someone's house. The sheer idiocy of some men never ceases to shock me.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 03:33 AM
1

Nothing to apologize for and I came off a little dickish before. I absolutely despise anyone who advocates a lack of personal responsibility. I know there are grey areas and other things to be considered sometimes but this, to me, seems like a cut and dry case of lack of restraint and/or thought. Dude should have thought with the big head.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 09:56 PM
-4

I think the kid should have kept his dick in his pants. If people are going to start using Men Rights to push for zero personal responsibility then consider me out. Dude should have known to think of the girl's father.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:24 PM
3

Regardless of the morality or illegality of the situation you should never get involved with someone you are in a position of authority over.
/r/MensRights10/01/11 08:44 PM
2

lol ... After I get out of the hospital me and my eye patch are gonna get some vengeance. ;-)
/r/MensRights28/10/10 11:54 PM
0

A slap or two is most likely deserved. If she hits me with a closed fist then things become much more serious.
/r/MensRights28/10/10 07:33 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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