TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Blahblahblahinternet Archive

View 5 posts and 91 comments by Blahblahblahinternet 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)
1

well yeah, that's what I meant. I understand.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 12:08 AM
1

thanks. for saying sorry. I've misposted A LOT. but No one has said sorry when they kicked me out.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 11:56 PM
-8

I was sort of raped, surprise-raped actually....first date, fun. Afterwards we were making out I was sitting down, naked with my cock out. And she was facing me on my lap. she is fully dressed in leggings and a skirt. So I'm okay with being naked bc there is no way we could have sex, and I didn't want to but I was okay with a fun little make out session...but, what she didn't tell me was that she was wearing crotchless panties... And after a while this dry humping started to feel less dry and wa…
/r/MensRights23/12/12 07:46 PM
-1

Well The article has it right. 18 is the rule, but with parental permission I don't know how young it goes. It appears in the article to be up to the individual artist, not up to the government. I absolutely guarantee you that if tattooing was a cultural tradition, to at a certain age tattoo a child, the government could not interfere with that practice. Which is really the crux ofs the issue... I don't want government dictating culture
/r/MensRights23/12/12 06:24 PM
-5

Can you cite me something that says tattoos for minors are illegal?
/r/MensRights23/12/12 05:07 PM
-7

the opposition is due to the fact that infant boys are denied choice This is such a stupid position, though. Children are always denied choice. It's called being a child and having parents. They don't get to pick what school they go to, or what instruments they're going to learn.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 04:11 PM
1

I didn't believe the headline.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:12 PM
4

It's up to the individual practice to make policies like this.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 06:21 PM
0

That title is slightly inflammatory. I mean if you haven't drawn blood with a knife in bed, then you're not having the right kind of sex.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 07:05 PM
1

nice
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:45 PM
-4

It is a strawman. Infant and child circumcision is bad because it violates the rights of kids, causes unnecessary harm and impairs their sexual and bodily functions Right, that's your argument and you can make that all you want and provide evidence to support your position. the Article is not good evidence for that position for the reasons I've alreayd stated.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 03:25 PM
-4

NO it isn't. You can argue whey infant circumcision is bad all you want with a whole host of sources, but what you can't do is what the article did, and compare this in home botcehd procedure with proper medical protocol and then extrapolate the botched procedure to make your larger point.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 03:14 PM
-3

The [ill]-logical pattern is the same: A poorly performed medical procedure done improperly resulted in death, therefore, that same procedure is bad even when conducted in the correct environment by an expert.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 02:57 PM
-2

It's like "home abortion failed, therefore abortions are bad."
/r/MensRights29/11/12 02:08 PM
-6

Well this is interesting. As a guy with girl friends, it's ultimately our job to protect the women we're with when we go out in the City. I'm not talking run of the mill protection, I'm referencing serious danger, as has happened several times over the past few years. This is perhaps why I don't really like MensRights or TwoX. I think they're both full of their own shit. Men and Women are different, they generally have different roles, and I'm okay with it. It goes without saying they should be …
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:14 PM
0

NPR did an interview on that recently and interviewed the woman who sort of started bring this subject to light, and honestly, all the behavior she described is also experienced by men who game online. People just talk shit. Get over it.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:33 AM
2

right, but in light of this forum, I'm not getting any clients from reddit. So I have not motive to create family law conflict here.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 01:21 PM
1

That doesn't give me a conflict. If anything, it makes me an expert on how the system works... and as I've pointed out on MR before, MR has the tendency to take one case, as OP did here, and then blow it up disproportionately without any analysis of the particular facts of the case.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:18 PM
0

what conflict of interest do I have?
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:06 PM
-1

I'm a family law attorney in my state.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 03:37 PM
-3

Saying you should Never date a single mom bc you could end up paying child support is like saying Airports need new scanners in order to prevent another 9/11. The chances of a non-bio parent paying child support, is probably .000001%. Think about how many c/s cases go through every year. I can tell you with certainty this would never happen in my state. I can't really even tell from the article where this Presumed Fathers Act has been passed, which calls into question the veracity of the article…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 03:10 PM
-4

I think OP over-hyped this.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 03:02 PM
14

This place absolutely tore me apart for trying to have a rational discussion about my experience with child custody issues.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:46 PM
9

THis is probably considered kidnapping.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 05:27 PM
0

You'll find the same here, though.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 08:48 PM
2

I thought it would be pretty clear that I thought feminist's position would the same, which is why I offered the position. But I am by no means a feminist or capable of answering that question for them. I'm also not saying that "something being legal justifies it," what I'm saying is that the law above as it's written is actually fair and reasonable. Almost all, it not all, states have no fault divorce provisions, so if they're campaigning for it, they're wasting time on a battle that has alread…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 02:32 AM
6

well it seems to me you're acknowledging that the mistake was the marriage, not the system.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 01:53 AM
6

Here's your answer from the legal perspective. I agree with it and always get downvoted to hell in this subreddit when I bring it up: Distribution of the marital assets is based on the idea that marriage is a partnership intended for life. Using this basic framework, the marital assets (complicated definition) are split on essentially a 50/50 Basis, because the assumption is that both parties contribute equally to the marriage, whether it be through direct financial contribution, emotional contr…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 12:56 AM
-3

The More time I spend on this subreddit, the more crazy it seems to get. Most of the front page stuff is reasonable, but down there in the cracks, man, it's get's crazy & conspiratorial.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 08:14 PM
0

I fully support you arguing the science of it.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 10:09 PM
1

Nice observation, have an upvote.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:15 PM
-2

I'm NOT at all comparing circumcision to a vaccination, I'm comparing Reddit's response to the APA's position as similar to the response of the anti-vaccination people. I mean honestly, the largest & most prominent organization of pediatricians just concluded a 10 year study on circumcision and announced their results. These are experts in their fields, practicing, if you have any faith left in humans at all, in an objective manner. Reddit's response was overwhelmingly to scream and complain abo…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:11 PM
7

I would say the definite logical conclusion is that the sensation changes. Better or worse is a subjective call. Using your taste-bud analogy, removing some, could conceivably heighten others or at least make them interact differently with the others, changing the the taste/feel, but not making better or worse, just different.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 06:58 PM
-2

Tattoos... that are endorsed by the APA as providing health benefits. Honestly, I don't care one way or the other, I've already spent way too much of today talking about penis. If you want to argue the science, argue it all you want, and I hope you get the science on your side, if there are few/no health benefits, and there is a great deal of harm as a result of this "elective" procedure, then there's no reason to do it and it shouldn't be done. I agree with that. (However, I do think parents ha…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 06:47 PM
8

You can read the article yourself. I'm not claiming one way or the other. I'm not an expert in the field, are you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision
/r/MensRights27/08/12 06:33 PM
10

This is a different topic all together, but the science is in on Formula and most pediatricians will tell you it is not a suitable replacement for breastmilk.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 06:23 PM
3

I know it is only wikipedia, but the wikipedia article on circumcision says that the evidence is inconclusive as to whether circumcision increases or decreases sexual pleasure.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 06:10 PM
-1

And I think that's the best argument (for or against), sticking to the science of it. I think the consent issue is silly because children never get to consent, we don't ask children for consent to be put in time out, we make them do it because we believe it to be better for them in the long run.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:57 PM
3

Well one, because it's stupid. The analogy isn't a great fit for a host of reasons. It's slightly argumentum ad absurdum. It is also weak because the cost/benefit analysis isn't equivalent to circumcision. The benefits of keeping your breasts, namely breastfeeding, outweigh the risk associated with breast cancer.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:47 PM
-6

Most of my male friends are not circumcised and so far no one has had problems because of it.... I think that's ultimately the point. Most of my friends are circumcised and no one has had a problem because of it. And that I think is ultimately why the debate at least on r/mensrights is a stalemate. As someone who is circumcised, I honestly laugh at any insinuation that it is mutilation or torture, or any hyperbolic language of the sort.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:34 PM
-4

Thank you for saying this, I was going to make the same point. Although there are some causes and issues where we disagree, I like r/mensrights and I think it can serve a great deal of good. But lately I've seen a different face of r/mensrights, in a couple of threads. My first thought with this thread was the analogy to anti-vaccination group, the type of people who are presented with evidence from a group of experts, and reject it for their own pride. When I heard the piece this morning on NPR…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:24 PM
-2

The point was consent, not whichever procedure I haphazardly selected. Arguing that children must consent to something is illogical and goes against everything we know about the role of being a parent.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:11 PM
-7

children can't give legal consent to anything until they're 18, except in cases of emancipation, and a few other minor exceptions. I mean, they can consent, but it's irrelevant whether they do or not. This is a really illogical argument against circumcision. Every medical procedure a child has while he's under the age of 18, the consent of his parent/s is the controlling factor. It works under the assumption that parents have the right and responsibility to raise their children and make decision…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 03:44 PM
-9

well if it prevents urinary tract infections up to 90% in the first year, and reduces rates of contracting and transmitting STDs, don't you think that's doing less harm. I'm just saying your worldview could be expanded from, this is definitely harm, this is definitely is not harm to: There are some positives to this procedure and some negatives. Some harm and some gain.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 03:34 PM
-5

http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/prenatal/decisions-to-make/pages/Should-the-Baby-be-Circumcised.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token Her's the article from the Academy of Pediatricians.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 03:23 PM
0

American Academy of Pediatricians revised it's 1999 [neutral] position, and announced it's support for circumcisions after a 10 year study of its benefits in the intervening years. Including, reduction in likelihood of contracting STDs or transmitting them. http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/prenatal/decisions-to-make/pages/Should-the-Baby-be-Circumcised.aspx
/r/MensRights27/08/12 12:35 PM
1

I understand that.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 12:28 PM
-4

you know, this one time (known as yesterday) I posted a thread in good faith based off of my experience in this subreddit and got absolutely lambasted. All I wanted was a discussion. I really really enjoyed this subreddit until that experience. I've linked it for everyone's convenience: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/yrdsv/i_want_to_clarify_misconceptions_about_custody/
/r/MensRights26/08/12 01:15 AM
-1

I have. Again You seem to know concepts but have very little idea how they're applied. Presumably you agree that Parents have a legal obligation to support their younger child and that you want the children to have the best lives that they can. Imputed income is logical, and again, it can be applied in a gender-neutral way, and it states that if your earning capacity is XXX,XXX,XXX.00, then you should not be allowed to INTENTIONALLY take a substantially lesser paying job just to avoid paying chi…
/r/MensRights25/08/12 02:32 PM
-1

And when you claim men are NEVER (or very rarely) saddled with child support payments for kids not theirs...that outrageous claim is too much to take. Someone, not you, provided a link and it's the first case I've ever heard of that happening. However, as the link explained he did not contest paternity, in fact he admitted to being the father, at the time he was awarded to pay child support. It's ridiculous he isn't able to reverse the judgment. And logic dictates that the exceptions to the rule…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 10:06 PM
1

That is crazy. I'm sorry man. That's ridiculous, I fully understand your hostility on the issue.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:57 PM
-1

Look at my comment history, there 7 months of me talking about being a lawyer. This Must be one hell of a concocted scheme I've come up with all for this one moment of glory so I could fuck with r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:46 PM
-1

Where are you getting that I'd never heard the phrase? I've heard the phrase often, just not used in this context. I hear in the context of schools and of foster home situations. Are you telling me right now, that you're paying child support to a custodial parent for a child that isn't biologically yours? I'm really interesting in knowing how it was used in your case. As I said before I practice stateside, I'm interested to know a little bit about canadian law.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:45 PM
0

It actually turns out that I represent about 60% women and 40% men in divorce proceedings.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:41 PM
-4

First, thank you for providing an article. It's interesting to know that this has happened, but it is clear from the article that at the time the child support was awarded, he was found to have been the father. This is ridiculous that has happened I don't understand why a DNA test wasn't ordered prior to the award of child support. That is standard procedure where I practice. I guess it wasn't as common in the 80s and it didn't appear that he contested that the child was his. That is unbelievabl…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:39 PM
-3

I'm a Canadian, non Lawyer...and I know more about the Law than someone who PRACTICES IT What you know are concepts. What you clearly don't know is how they are practically applied in a judicial setting.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:35 PM
-1

I'm not going to post any personally identifying information for obvious reasons. Why do you resort to name calling?
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:33 PM
-1

Formula was marketed very heavily since the 70s. The science is pretty conclusive at this point that Breast Milk is optimum. You should look into it. The fact that the most common base for formula comes from a cow, should strike people as unusual. http://www.breastfeeding.com/all_about/all_about_formula.html Parents of course can choose how they want to raise their children. NO, i'm not saying that. What I said exactly in my post is that I see more bias towards mothers the younger the child is a…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:32 PM
-6

please provide evidence. i'm just asking you to provide evidence of your position. Edit: 4 down-votes for asking for evidence? That explains the very very sad situation some members of this subreddit are in.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:47 PM
-5

Second, this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent.[2] This is clearly a hypothetical... and it's also unclear from this sentence if it's referring to the case of when someone CHOOSES to start holding themselves out as the parent. Where you see this most frequently is when a GRANDPARENT starts to take in the child because their son or daughter is on drugs or is otherwise…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:41 PM
-1

That's crazy. It goes without saying I find that to be a huge problem. Where there is no drug/alcohol/child abuse (any child endangerment), I see 50/50 Splits most of the time.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:34 PM
1

Thanks, that makes sense. Also thanks for being the most reasonable person in this thread so far.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:29 PM
-2

US
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:25 PM
-4

right, schools are often said to function in loco parentis, during school hours. I've never heard the term applied in a custody context between parents. That is why they're given some latitude to discipline. Would you kindly link me an article where a man has been forced to pay child support for a kid that was not his own and that he did not adopt?
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:12 PM
-3

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-feeding/FL00133
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:04 PM
-4

Forumla is well proven to not be a suitable replacement for breastmilk.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 07:58 PM
-2

There are huge gaps in logic for these Stats. It doesn't take into account the multitude of factors (all of which are gender neutral) that the courts look at when evaluating custody and support awards. (1) 100% of the low-income clients/unplanned pregnancy cases I've handled the fathers have not wanted custody, they don't want any responsibility with the child. (2) Child support is based on the parent's ability to pay. If father makes the most money, and wife doesn't make much money, (Or vice ve…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 06:34 PM
-1

This is exactly what I mean. That's not a remotely accurate statement. She can get a protective order based solely on her word. And he can get one as well.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 06:25 PM
1

In ALL of pro bono (low income cases/unplanned pregnancy cases) work I do, the fathers always just want to dip out and don't even fight for custody. So do you know if that 10% figure is of all total custody cases or only of cases where the father competes for Custody?
/r/MensRights24/08/12 06:15 PM
0

I don't remotely understand your post.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 05:39 PM
0

No joke. I'm only reporting my first hand experience in the field.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 05:38 PM
-3

well Mr. truth and justice, to some extent yes. But Logically, a baby that is still breast feeding, why should that baby go to the father? Do you expect the courts to somehow fashion a scheme whereby the mother must pump herself and deliver her breast milk to the father so that he may strap on a fake tiddy and breast feed the infant? Is that your solution? But yes, for children under age 3 or so, I tend to see some bias. But by no means is it a great deal of bias, nor is it something that couldn…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 05:38 PM
-7

I'm unfamiliar with anything even tangentially related to that. Can you link an article or cite something?
/r/MensRights24/08/12 05:35 PM
8

Upvote for old rancid horse cum
/r/MensRights24/08/12 12:27 PM
6

Honestly, I was a new dude to this subreddit a few months ago and wasn't sure what to expect. But all in all, it's a very reasonable subreddit. One of the most reasonable subreddits I visit, actually.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 07:17 PM
4

I'm with you. And I always add to this same argument, women prize promiscuity of men of a desirable trait. If women are actually mad that men get praised for having a high number of sexual partners, all they'd need to do is stop giving these men positive reinforcement. (I don't think anyone, male or female should be THAT promiscuous)
/r/MensRights19/08/12 08:55 PM
1

Actually, for once, I did, but it ruined my joke.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 10:01 PM
2

Man, I usually have to pay for that.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 08:45 PM
1

You've vastly misunderstood the law of child support, and of rights of children and legal duties of parents, but christ alive I'm not in the mood to explain it to you. But just be sure that isn't quite like you say it is.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 08:05 PM
5

Now, more than any other, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 02:11 PM
-6

You're honestly so fucking stupid. Let me take these one at at time: Both remove choice from person it is being performed on, for aesthetic, cultural, or religious reasons Babies don't get to make choices. They never have. No civilized society let's babies, adolescents, or teens make their own decisions. Both inhibit sexual pleasure and have a high risk for complication if performed in a non sanitary environment. This isn't true according to the Wikipedia article. Circumcisions effects sexual fe…
/r/MensRights15/06/12 03:15 AM
7

On a side note, the ironic thing about Men's Promiscuity being a "status icon," is that it's only a "status icon" because it is a trait that women want in their Men. It makes women feel that HE is the catch, because he's so desirable to all other women. If they valued celibacy, then I think men's behavior would change. Meanwhile, I think most men value discretion in sexual partners when it comes to women. And that's why the double standard exists.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 02:25 PM
11

I dated a type of feminist that I have dubbed the, "gets-mad-when-a-guy-holds-a-door-open-for-her-type-feminist," or the, GMWAGHADOFHTF, for short, And all I can is, is that she was more screwed up with her understanding of life than anyone I've met, and she really hurt me and the sad part about it was, the thing she got mad at were the things that I genuinely had good intentions about. That's the worst. Having good intentions, and getting blamed for them.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 12:50 AM
14

Can we get a SOURCE up in here.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 07:25 PM
3

This is shit guys.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 07:13 PM
4

A substantial portion of this information is Inaccurate in the states
/r/MensRights03/06/12 01:39 AM
2

Here you go. Penile sensitivity and sexual sensation Results of studies of the effect on penile sensitivity have been mixed. In a British study of 150 men circumcised as adults for penile problems, Masood et al. found that 38% reported improved penile sensation (p=0.01), 18% reported worse penile sensation, while the remainder (44%) reported no change.[4] In a survey of men circumcised as adults for medical (93%) or elective (7%) reasons, Fink et al. found an association between adult circumcisi…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 02:30 PM
2

There are some late in life circumcised people on reddit, who say pleasure is increased. So I'd direct you to them.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 02:09 PM
-11

That's what you're not understanding, the justification for circumcision isn't bc they don't remember it.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:45 AM
-11

well, you're post is wrong. I don't know anyone who was circumcised "bc they won't remember it." People are circumcised for tradition, cleanliness, and pleasure." If you want, you can take issues with whether those are just reasons or not. Edit* that sounded weird. Sexual Pleasure. I'm quite sure circumcision isn't fun.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:40 AM
1

well friend, um, so, I'm an avid outdoor enthusiast and I often hike alone. It's the greatest. The fresh air, the connection to our environment and the freeing feeling people like us get from being surrounded by nature is terrific. But, and you can call me an "old timer" for playing it safe. But the very very very very first rule of being involved in recreational outdoor activities is to tell someone, anyone, leave a note or anything to identify your approximate location. It's not a fucking joke…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:15 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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