TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Bobby_Marks2 Archive

View 0 posts and 37 comments by Bobby_Marks2 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)
18

Create a sub about women wanting special treatment but only getting equality. Attract people who like seeing women get knocked down a peg. Sub becomes about women being knocked down pegs, regardless of whether they are asking for special treatment or just asking to be treated fairly. This is the curse of every "let's make fun of people that are/do X" subs. They necessarily attract people who want to fling shit at others, and over time the population shift creates a cesspool of irrational harassm…
/r/PussyPassDenied11/01/21 10:04 PM
4

I think one reason for it is access. I grew up in LA and OC, and my family went to some fantastic places. I moved to rural Washington, a couple hundred miles from Seattle and it's a different life. If I don't want seafood (which is good because most of it is locally sourced), I have crap options. My dad grew up fine dining up and down the California coast as a hobby when he was young. He and I joke now that the Round Table in town might be the best pizza AND the best burgers in the area. I think…
/r/PussyPassDenied13/08/19 03:55 PM
1

You said there are good reasons with respect to bathrooms - what are they? Embarrassment and humiliation? Those are things every teenager can tell you is embarrassing about sharing a locker room with the same sex, so its not embarrassment. To escalate it to the point of humiliation requires further action of others, which in an adult locker room is already harassment regardless of sex. Biological differences is an antiquated idea that is being driven out of our society constantly. It's happened …
/r/PussyPassDenied10/08/18 12:26 AM
0

Separate but equal has already been shown to be unequal. Otherwise we'd just arrest white people from drinking at colored water fountains and segregation would be a success.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/08/18 08:12 PM
1

Okay, let me rephrase: Sex is a protected class, so its illegal for one sex to be charged with a crime that the other is not. Segregation as a solution didn't work for black people, it didn't work in men's clubs, and most recently didn't work in the Boy Scouts. Eventually, our legal system is going to catch up on the issue of bathrooms.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/08/18 03:37 PM
-2

I'm saying that if men violate their privacy, so do women, and that the issue actually lies within the design of the room itself.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/08/18 03:32 PM
-14

Why? Does it violate a woman's privacy to have a man in the women's bathroom. If so, isn't her privacy also violated by women in the women's bathroom? If any person could walk in and immediately be violating someone's privacy, haven't we reached a point where the bathroom just isn't adequately protecting users?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/08/18 07:27 AM
7

Or unisex. I'm not saying one is more right than the other, but legally speaking a room either protects your privacy from anyone/everyone or it doesn't. The sex/orientation/gender/anything of the other people there has no bearing on whether or not your privacy is maintained.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/08/18 07:25 AM
2

Is doing what you just described wrong? Probably. However, is it any different if you did it in the men' locker room, legally speaking? Can we do it in public as long as there are no women around? If it's okay to create spaces on an expectation that you do not have privacy from one sex, can it actually be a violation of privacy for the opposite sex to be there? It's an ugly area of law, but eventually I think the end result is that a space either protects our right to privacy or it doesn't, rega…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/08/18 07:23 AM
-7

Either privacy is being violated or it's not. If I'm a guy in a guy's locker room, my privacy cannot be violated by a woman using that same locker room the same way all of the guys are. If she was violating my privacy, so were all the guys. The cultural expectation is that I should be okay with one and not the other, but that doesn't carry weight in terms of legal equivalence. If using a locker room with other people in it is legal, then it's legal regardless of sex/gender/identity/whatever. If …
/r/PussyPassDenied09/08/18 07:18 AM
1

I agree that deadbeats are deadbeats. But some things to consider: The kids targeted by these programs don't get to choose their parents. Trying to separate out the deadbeats from those trying to improve themselves is impossible, and usually results in the standard "lets just cut the program" solutions. Welfare would work a lot better if everyone had access to it. Yeah, taxes would have to be higher, but we'd get services out of it. Best of all, if you got it regardless of your household situati…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 05:03 PM
1

The reason I asked was if you were taking the stay at home father route, like my brother, and you had a partner working full time then you could afford buying shit for your kids. I have a full-time working partner. We were on WIC when I first went home (because she didn't make enough as to put us over the benefits threshold), and we temporarily went on assistance last year when she went back to school for a career change (which gave us the economic flexibility to make the change and today make m…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 04:15 AM
2

WIC isn't a program for single parents. It's a program for low income households. Because it doesn't really matter how many parents are around, a lack of access to nutritional food and healthcare at a young age has consequences our society ends up paying for until the day those kids die. WIC is just a super cost-effective program. It probably pays for itself in preventing longer term issues. That's why parts of that program in my state apply to households making up to like $55k-$70K.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 03:59 AM
-2

Incorrect. Alimony should (and does) last as long as the person collecting it is at an income-potential disadvantage. Usually, that's 10+ years. It has nothing to do with trying to be a partnership; it has everything to do with splitting everything the couple earned down the middle. If the working spouse earned the ability to make more than the supporting spouse, then that ability needs to be split and the only way to do that is through ongoing alimony payments. And those payments go on until th…
/r/MensRights29/10/16 08:35 PM
0

As an at-home dad who had kids on WIC, that shit is life changing. I'd cut hours to stay on it to: it's healthy food, medical coverage, and early development resources. It's literally setting kids up to have a better life.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 08:25 PM
0

Yes. Alimony is (in theory) a splitting of the income growth potential for the couple. So if you got married, and then studied and worked a career path for ten years (growing your income potential) while she quit working, had kids, and raised them (hurting her income potential), alimony is supposed to balance that out. In theory, it's supposed to be there as an equal split that allows you both to share the income growth you earned as partners while married. It's often warped by who has the bette…
/r/MensRights29/10/16 08:23 PM
1

The person I replied to implied that rape allegations should be ignored in this case, because the victim has a prior history of dishonesty. Not a strawman.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 03:25 AM
2

What evidence do you have that his credibility affects his statement here? You are discounting his testimony without any countering evidence whatsoever.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 07:30 PM
2

You are going to have to specify the point to which you refer.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 10:43 AM
2

Yes, I'm sure his shitty childhood, his getting sucked into the Disney machine at the age of 14 or so, and all of his subsequent issues in life have been more than fixed by his big fat paychecks. Must be why he is as mentally sound, upstanding, reasonable, intelligent, and not bat-shit crazy as all of the other child stars out there. Funny trivia: can you name any really well-adjusted child stars?
/r/MensRights28/11/14 10:42 AM
3

Yes, but that's we have investigators and judges who evaluate all the aspects of every specific case, right? You mean like we do now? Yes means yes laws don't really change the work-load, although they might encourage more victims to come forward. Or even better, they might encourage more potential perpetrators to think twice, and prevent a form of violence that comes with well-documented, long-term mental/physical/emotional damage that is an enormous net strain on our society. The internet shou…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 10:38 AM
2

It also covers people in several different forms of shock or mental-disorder related illnesses, such as PTSD, DD, or an acute stress reaction. I'd imagine Shia is at a high risk for all three based upon his unconventional childhood as well as the situation he put himself in that day.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 10:27 AM
8

But "this one particular situation" is irrelevant. He either gave consent verbally, or he didn't. One is rape, and one is not. It has nothing to do with how much he resisted or fought back. You need consent to have consensual sex: it's the same logic we apply when we make it illegal to have sex with children, mentally disabled, or animals. An adult has to give consent, and just sitting there and taking it is most definitely not consent.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 10:25 AM
3

I can not read signals very well, im 29 and barely recently learned to read anything from the opposite sex, and while a question like "can i kiss you" sometimes works, it just as often kills the moment entirely. Well let me ask you this: are condoms a mood killer? Because with proper education and public awareness campaigns, most people have realized the personal and societal value of love gloves. With the same cultural shift, verbal consent would be no different. Spontaneity is one of the most …
/r/MensRights28/11/14 10:22 AM
1

There are many many many more scenarios where verbal consent cannot or will not be given, but is still implied. You would have us lock up a thousand innocents to ensure no criminals walk free. No you don't, not at all. Just educate the public that verbal consent is required. At that point, the rules have changed, the laws have changed, and continued offenders cannot use ignorance of the law as an excuse. It's not a quick move, but it does in fact get a lot of those criminals from walking free. A…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 10:07 AM
2

Incredibly bad taste considering the content of the article and the supposed dedication of the journalist to unbiased reporting.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:58 AM
6

The real problem is that he was a kid when that life was "Given" to him. He had no idea what the consequences would be, what the lifestyle would bring to him in terms of ups and downs. We have so many child stars that end up being all fuckered up, but for some reason the "opportunities" they are afforded prevents the whole situation from being seen as exploitative. Makes me sad for Shia.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:57 AM
4

In any case, this is a situation Shia engineered. You don't invite random individuals of the public to sit in a closed room with you, and then not only apparently instruct your staff to do nothing if something objectionable occurs, but also do nothing yourself when something objectionable occurs, and then complain later that something objectionable occurred, when the particular event has a consensual explanation. Yes... And a woman can't be raped if she first decided to dress provocatively, go t…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:55 AM
1

How is it relevant here? Should judges dismiss rape cases when the alleged victims have been found to have lied in the past about things completely unrelated?
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:51 AM
5

Does one lie, or several/many lies, necessitate that every other statement he makes is a lie? Would you as a judge rule in favor of an accused rapist every time the accusing victim had lied before in their lives?
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:50 AM
1

Words are not required for an amazing sexual encounter. Not saying anything, and going along with it is consent, in my book. Shock? PTSD? DD? Alcohol/drug use? Fear of the consequences of saying no? There are many many many scenarios where verbal consent cannot or will not be given, and also where verbal or physical resistance will also not be applied. Look no further than how commonly children are sexually abused, or women will agree to a sexual act to make sure they aren't abandoned or forced …
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:48 AM
5

The whole point of the campaign is so that verbal consent happens more regularly. Enacting tax laws turns normal non-tax-payers into criminals, but that doesn't mean there is a fundamental problem with taxes. It just means society needs to reach a point of understanding why tax laws are important to society.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:43 AM
5

And I'm willing to bet that some non-zero portion of the male population suffers chronic or temporary conditions that lead to them to not resist when sexual advances are forced upon them (PTSD, Stockholm Syndrome, alcohol or drug use, Dissociative Disorder, and others). I'd argue in this case that mine are more plausible, considering that you are diagnosing his infidelity based upon his career path as evidence.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:41 AM
1

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2014/10/affirmative_consent_what_will_yes_means_yes_mean_for_sex_on_college_campuses.html Or just Google "Yes means yes" and read up. Consent is not implied. Silence is not agreement. Otherwise intoxication, shock, and other variables can lead to a person having sex when they did not consent nor would not have consented were they capable at the time of making a conscious decision.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:36 AM
8

The question is, why didn't he try to fend her off? Irrelevant except to question the accuracy of his statement itself, in which case you really need to offer some evidence or logic as to why he is lying. He could be in shock, confused, misunderstanding the situation, or just thinking about pie, but at the end of it if he was jumped without consenting then it is rape. There are plenty of reasons why he may not have fended her off, but the only pertinent question is whether or not he consented. H…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:33 AM
11

Did he give consent? Silence is not consent. That means it is rape, no dilution involved. We teach that "Yes means yes" now because the old phrase (no means no) implied that silence was consent. We've course corrected, specifically because silence is not consent.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:29 AM
12

if she could have easily at any point stopped what was happening then she should have, because otherwise shes playing pretty fast and loose with the definition of "rape" Changed the he's to she's for you to reflect upon. The slippery slope is that it's impossible to determine when and where a person is actually capable of stopping such non-consensual interactions, which is why we teach "Yes means yes" instead of "No means no."
/r/MensRights28/11/14 09:25 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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