TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

BolshevikMuppet Archive

View 0 posts and 1,546 comments by BolshevikMuppet 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)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,546 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-1

FYI, tomek77 was banned in /r/nopedophilesallowed (Obviously this subreddit doesn't exist, but this is meant to point out that tomek77 (who is the moderator of /r/malestudies) uses himself having banned someone to try to prove they are a troll; hence my use of banning him from /r/nopedophilesallowed to prove he is a pedophile)
/r/MensRights25/08/11 01:46 AM
1

So, you just didn't read the full page? But, even if you legitimately have a belief that there's no "castle doctrine" you claimed the necessity of retreating to the wall.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 05:10 PM
1

You supplied a Wikipedia page which itself did not claim that Iowa didn't have a castle doctrine, nor that it had a duty to retreat. So, were you just jumping to conclusions, or negligent, then? And considering that State v. Nelson involved a defense based on 704.4 (the statute providing for defense of property), your "it passed really recently" seems incorrect as well.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 04:08 PM
1

Just so we're clear, Iowa does have a Castle Doctrine law, and does not require retreat: "Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used even if an alternative course of action is available if the alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety of a third party, or requires one to abandon or retreat from one's dwelling or place of business or employment" Would you like to edit your post, or otherwise actually acknowledge that you were (at best) misinformed and at worst…
/r/MensRights24/08/11 09:29 AM
0

How about a quid-pro-quo? You've said it works more often than not. I'll show that it doesn't happen more often than not once you've provided evidence that it does. So, we'll need parameters. Since we're arguing about statistical likelihood of success, we can do this simply. You will take a random sample of 1000 cases where the "self-defense" argument was used. Obviously, just looking through newspapers isn't random, of course. So it'll be a lot of work for you. But, since you're the one claimin…
/r/MensRights24/08/11 06:09 AM
2

So, you're using the fact that you banned people from /r/malestudies to imply someone is a troll, despite the fact that you're the one who bans them? That'd be like me starting up a subreddit of /r/nopedophilesallowed, and saying: "FYI, tomek77 has been banned from /r/nopedophilesallowed for violating our basic principle". Come on, now.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 06:04 AM
1

Justice is treating equals equally and unequals unequally. It is injustice to treat equals unequally, or unequals equally. You are arguing that any two people should be sentenced the same because the underlying crime is the same. That ignores any of the contexts and circumstances that should inform sentencing. Jean Valjean shouldn't get the same sentence as the guy who jacks my stereo.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 05:53 AM
1

C.R.S 18-3-402(1) Any actor who knowingly inflicts sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault if: (d) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the actor is at least four years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or (e) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age and the actor is at least ten years older than the vic…
/r/MensRights24/08/11 05:48 AM
1

And even then plenty of women have gotten off or received much less time than men would have gotten for the same act The exact same act? I doubt it. If a man killed his wife who had been verbally and physically abusing him and his children for years, I doubt he would get more of a sentence than a woman claiming the same. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Man gets 10 years for sex with a minor, woman gets suspended sentence only doing 4 months in jail The problem is that the circumstance…
/r/MensRights24/08/11 01:20 AM
3

Interesting. I think the distinction here may be between the ability to "use force in self-defense" versus the ability to "use deadly force in self-defense". See my response to Demonspawn for the specific statutes.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 11:23 PM
10

Colorado "any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably…
/r/MensRights23/08/11 11:23 PM
2

[Needs Citations]. I bet I can find lots of cases where self-defense claims weren't successful.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 10:00 PM
1

What state are you in? I'm curious to read those statutes, since retreating to the wall is something generally given up in America but retained in England. To the extent that you cannot use deadly force without actually being in mortal danger, it's the same as most self-defense laws. But, you do not have to retreat to the wall to defend yourself. Here's Ohio law: "(B)(1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when usin…
/r/MensRights23/08/11 10:00 PM
2

Can I point out the irony (or perhaps hypocrisy) of complaining about another person cross-posting your statement to gin up downvotes, when you did the same thing?
/r/MensRights23/08/11 09:51 PM
3

Eh... That's something of an overextrapolation of female sexual plasticity. You're taking the fact that women respond to both male and female erotic stimuli as a way of concluding that women who decide or discover they are lesbians after being married are doing so in a strategic way. The difference is between saying "I no longer find you attractive, so I'm going to go find a younger partner" and saying "I'm actually gay, so this can't work, and I'm going to find someone of a completely different…
/r/MensRights23/08/11 09:47 PM
10

He wasn't forced to resign. He chose to resign out of embarrassment and loss of face from it. I'd expect little different if Nancy Pelosi were having legal sex with a 16-year-old boy.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 09:40 PM
1

Yes and no. Those states with lower ages of consent are usually contemplating Romeo & Juliet situations (where the older partner is 19, and the younger is 16). So, in Colorado, the AoC is 15, but only if the older partner is no more than 10 years older.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 09:39 PM
3

Which would be more of a statement if you didn't ban everyone who doesn't agree with you, including whole swaths of people who never posted on your subreddit.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 09:37 PM
2

Just FYI, the fact that she claimed abuse justified or necessitated her action doesn't actually mean it will fly.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 09:36 PM
4

That means if a armed robber comes into the house, I must retreat until I can retreat no further before I use deadly force AFAIK there's no state in America that requires one to retreat to the wall. Even without a castle doctrine, you can use force when there is an imminent threat. The only difference is that a "castle doctrine" allows you to use deadly force if someone breaks in and you have a reasonable belief he will commit a felony therein. Without that, your force must be the amount necessa…
/r/MensRights23/08/11 09:35 PM
3

To the extent that we must have sufficient evidence to convict a man (or anyone else) charged with a felony, I agree with the response. To the extent that it argues for reverting rape law to requiring a woman to resist before she can truly be "raped" I am disconcerted.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 05:42 PM
2

I've been auctioned as a bachelor; it's in good fun. None of the men are unwilling, none of them are being coerced (I got a bit of arm-twisting in the form of "it's for a good cause"). Bachelorette auctions aren't treated much different in my experience. I mean, I've seen more guys willing to do ridiculous things, but that's a personal choice.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 03:20 PM
1

In any other situation where a gift-giver is made responsible for liabilities resulting from the use of his or her gift, there has to be proof that the gift-giver intended his or her gift to be used in the way the giftee used it or the gift was intentionally complicit in enabling that use. So, your claim is that it wasn't a gift because she used a gift for a purpose other than what he intended her to use? But, wait, that doesn't make it not a gift. So your claim is that he shouldn't have to pay …
/r/MensRights16/08/11 09:51 PM
1

I'm saying that if someone gives another person a gift they are not responsible if that person misuses it. Prove misuse first, is the problem. Negligent entrustment does not cover such a case because there is no 'gift-giving'; the responsibility of the asset still lies in the entruster not the entrustee. It's called an analogy. I was not saying this was an example of negligent entrustment. In point of fact, all I have said is that it wasn't theft. Either respond to that or mosey along.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 09:41 PM
1

If he didn't know that she would properly dispose of his sperm in the way he wanted, she was not reliable. That said, you asked for another example, and I gave it. You keep trying to say "she stole it because she misused it" and that isn't the standard.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 09:06 PM
1

Name any other situation in which this is the case. Negligent entrustment But, again, that's a question of the fairness of him paying child support, rather than the justness of her using the sperm. Bifurcate the issue. Did she steal the sperm? No. Should he pay child support? Debatable.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 08:35 PM
1

Once again, the argument over where he should be forced to pay child support is separate from whether she "stole" his sperm through her use of it in a way other than what he would have liked. We can have that conversation, but it's one we've done to death
/r/MensRights16/08/11 08:26 PM
1

As I said, that's a second issue unrelated to the legality of her using the gifted sperm however she liked.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:11 AM
1

That is EXACTLY how you are treating oral sex and vaginal insemination which are two different acts with two very different meanings/consequences. Except that the act of switching from vaginal sex to anal sex (or any other kind of sex) still involves physical interaction with the other person's body. You're accusing her of rape for using tissue given to her as a gift without any other strings attached in a way counter to the implied desires of the grantor. Sperm in the vagina is NOT sperm in the…
/r/MensRights15/08/11 09:39 PM
1

No! Your just not discriminating. He never gave permission for vaginal insemination and to compare sperm that creates life to sperm that doesn't is insane. He doesn't need to. Once he parted with his sperm into her possession (a gift by any legal definition) he lost possessory interest in it. It was her property to do with what he likes. Again, your shady obliviousness is like saying a guy having sex with a woman can stick any object in her such as a knife or a condom with sperm on the outside. …
/r/MensRights15/08/11 08:00 PM
1

Like wearing slutty clothes? Or giving a guy oral and him raping her? Or her comming over to his place for coffee and him raping her? You're conflating that losing possessory interest in an object once it has been given as a gift is somehow similar in nature to if we allowed rape predicated on having consented to another act. Your argument is like saying "Once I give you $5000 for a new car, and you spend it on something else, I can't sue you? You're saying I consented to you using my money to b…
/r/MensRights15/08/11 07:57 PM
0

He didn't want her to use it! It was never meant to create life and equating to any other use is makes no sense. Except he didn't say that. He simply gave her the sperm. It'd be like if I handed you the keys to my car, you drove it, and I said "OMG, I just meant you could wax it". If he didn't actually say "these are the ways you can use the sperm" it's no different from any other way of giving something. He owned his sperm, and then he donated it to her. By the above quote he was raped because …
/r/MensRights15/08/11 06:54 PM
-1

Let's remember as we discuss this case what the limits of this ruling was: Paternity exists because... It exists. It wasn't theft because he gave her the sperm. Even if she used the sperm for a purpose other than what he wanted her to use it for, he had still donated it into her possession. For instance, if I give you $3000 saying "I want you to buy a new car", and you spend it on cocaine, I can't sue you for theft. I gave you the money without any real conditions precedent or contractual covena…
/r/MensRights15/08/11 05:13 PM
1

Again, an invalid comparison. If a wheelhair man was good enough to play in the NBA then he would be drafted. He'd have to be really fucking incredible. But there's nothing that says wheelchair guys can't play ball. And if a man became pregnant, there's nothing saying that a man can't have an abortion.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 12:47 AM
1

From a utilitarian standpoint I suppose there is no difference however, De facto vs de jure makes a difference if you talk about/against patriarchy theory. If disparity comes de facto from free choice then its an acceptable divergence, if it comes de jure from the definition of a right then it is generally unjust. I have no interest in talking about, against, around or in the general area of patriarchy theory. And I don't need to in order to discuss this. If we accept that divergence because of …
/r/MensRights09/08/11 06:56 PM
1

On the other hand, equal rights in workplace result in open options for all genders which leads to people picking what they want which results in trends. The divergent outcome is from people using the same right in different ways by choice rather than biological necessity. Except that one of the major reasons for the gap is (ironically) the fear that women will become pregnant. Since that is a condition which (as noted) only afflicts women, then it is divergence based on biological necessity. So…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 04:52 AM
1

gender-wage gap is an issue of equality of opportunity resulting in a divergent outcome. The current abortion/paper abortion situation does not give equality of opportunity (in that a soon to be mother has the opportunity to opt out while a soon to be father does not). That's the thing. You're applying a different schema to the two situations. In the wage gap, you see equality of simple right (no impediments to employment, employers can pay whatever they like) proving equality; and that the outc…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 01:03 AM
2

The problem with the "keratinization" argument is that it's largely theoretical, and based on essentially saying "well, it rubs against clothes, right, and anything that rubs against clothes becomes desensitized". But that'd be a bit like saying "anal stimulation for women who wear thongs will be less pleasurable". Once again, though, I am compelled to ask: why do the guys here have such a hard on (pun totally intended) about the state of other men's penises.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 04:18 PM
1

Scumbad MRA: Woman confesses to sex with an underage boy: rapist bitch who should be locked up Man confesses to sex with an underage girl: victim of a criminal justice system so stacked against him he had no choice but to confess for a plea agreement. If it had been a woman on trial, she could have basically said 'I did it' and a jury would have still given her the opposite benefit of the doubt Really? You know of a case where a female supervisor had sex with an 11-year-old boy and the jury let …
/r/MensRights08/08/11 04:12 PM
1

Where in that article did he say "don't test for it"?
/r/MensRights08/08/11 04:08 PM
1

You could avoid overcooking your steak I suppose. I kind of like mine medium-well, but whatever.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 04:03 PM
3

The question can be reversed, though: "It's hard to believe that the same MRAs who (apparently) believe that equal legal rights are proof of equality, even when the outcomes are divergent (c.f gender-wage gap) seem not to hold back when it comes to "paper abortion" and demanding a new right to equalize the outcome of rights, not just the rights themselves" Why the sudden awareness of the inequality of results that stem from equal "rights"?
/r/MensRights08/08/11 03:56 PM
3

It is kind of noteworthy that evo psych is a reversal of the usual scientific method, where we observe phenomena, test, and report. Because there's no way to do an experimental study, it's all longitudinal and simple statistical comparison. The problem is that you notice a correlation, but can't hold other variables constant, and you can't regress, and you can't experiment, so you basically just make up a causation chain and roll with it. The problem is that this is the same way Freud came up wi…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 09:29 AM
1

Downvoted. Sexual assault is rape. Most jurisdictions I'm aware of (Colorado and Wisconsin included) do not use the term "rape" in their statutes. So, for instance, in Colorado first degree sexual assault is what we would commonly call "violent rape". AFAIK the U.K uses a similar naming convention. Don't confuse "not using the colloquial term" with "OMG, lesser offense". The legal designations for things are often at odds with their common meaning. For instance, "burglary" is the breaking and en…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:31 PM
1

In Wisconsin, any sex with a person older than thirteen but younger than sixteen is second degree sexual assault. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0948.pdf
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:28 PM
3

For those interested in the actual statute (and why OMG she's only being charged with second degree sexual assault): http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0948.pdf
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:27 PM
1

Yeah, but when this is perpetuated by men against men, it loses its moral impact. The people I hear using pejoratives to describe men who aren't "man" enough are guys, not women. We're doing it to ourselves.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 04:26 PM
1

This reporting is just godawful. No explanation even of what she's charged with, and no analysis of the facts in the case (was she actually caught "needle in hand", did she admit she was trying to kill her child). If I had to guess, the problem is proving her intent to kill him, so they can't get murder one. At most, they could get murder two, but with the defense of "she was trying to help, blah blah blah" that might even have to go down to manslaughter.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 04:16 PM
3

Having read the article, here's my take: "Yes, women lacked things like voting rights, property rights, even often autonomy in economic decisions for herself, but that's all okay because their husbands were legally obligated to support them"
/r/MensRights03/08/11 04:10 PM
3

I wonder if fat, symmetrical face, and tall makes more than thin, ugly, and short for men? What about thin, ugly, and tall versus fat, symmetrical, and short?
/r/MensRights03/08/11 12:14 AM
3

Weird study results. Men have a normal distribution of rating for women, and then message only the most attractive. Women have a skewed distribution of rating for men, and then follow a relatively normal distribution of messaging (actually shifted low)
/r/MensRights03/08/11 12:13 AM
2

We're done now. I wonder if there's a Godwin equivalent when you have to devolve to accusations of trolling.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 06:43 PM
2

So, your entire sample is the audience of a women's daytime talk show? Where they were discussing a completely unrelated issue? That'd be like taking the misogynist guys in /r/seduction and saying "yep, that's what all think men". Protip: being overly general is rarely correct.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 06:32 PM
3

So, that's a "no" then? I mean, if I said "most men are rapists" you'd get all huffy and red in the face and say "that's not true, where's your evidence?" If I responded "obvious. Most men like sex enough that they'll commit rape to get it. Pay more attention" you'd throw a big ol' hissy fit.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 06:23 PM
1

The real irony is that the same people who say "yeah! Jury nullification is awesome" are the ones who will read this and hiss. The problem is that the same thing that allows for jury nullification allows for this result: we have no system of oversight for jury decisions in criminal cases. The courts (even the Supreme Court) have basically said that appeals and habeas hearings cannot retry the case, they can only determine if there were shenanigans which would throw the verdict out. Unless there …
/r/MensRights01/08/11 04:11 PM
1

Or, and this is just running it up the flagpole, they legitimately disagree about the level of harm that comes from circumcision and about whether or not it is something which should (a) be considered the kind of horrific abuse it is portrayed as by MRAs, or (b) regulated by the government. Perhaps they distinguish FGM from male circumcision in terms of the level of invasiveness and the amount of medical benefit? Perhaps they agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics that it shouldn't be don…
/r/MensRights01/08/11 03:53 PM
2

and the majority of women would agree with her. Want to cite that? I mean, I appreciate the citation that Phyllis Schlafly opposed the ERA, but throwing down the gauntlet of "and most women would agree with her" would be like me citing to Strom Thurmond's opposition of the Civil Rights Amendment and saying "and most men would agree with him". You'd really want me to give a citation for that.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 03:49 PM
2

I can assure you paying alimony and other spousal support payments are not optional Depends on circumstances and state law. In this case, he would owe her half of the marital estate (save for any prenup), but I'd wager that he wouldn't actually owe her maintenance in and of itself. He is NOT offering her more than the law calls for Insofar as he may be trading her portion of the marital estate for maintenance, you're right. Insofar as he actually does owe her half of the marital estate, it's a s…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 04:30 AM
1

True, but that doesn't change the truth of what I said. He is offering alimony of his own volition, not being forced to offer it
/r/MensRights29/07/11 03:40 AM
2

True, but that doesn't change the truth of what I said. He is offering alimony of his own volition, not being forced to offer it
/r/MensRights29/07/11 03:40 AM
3

Well, as far as I know no one brought suit, so this is voting with their feet, and trying to encourage others to do the same. Bitching and moaning is a time honored tradition for groups which are maligned (including MRAs). Seriously, if the situation I offered hypothetically had happened, guys here would be suggesting burning the place to the fucking ground.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 03:32 AM
3

Nowhere in the bill of rights do you have the right to NOT be offended. True, but nowhere in the bill of rights do I have the right to drink cream in my coffee. I still think it's something most people would accept I should be allowed to do. If I understand the underlying posts, the women did notify the organizers, and as a result all women were banned. Imagine if the same thing happened in reverse. Imagine a mostly-female gym where they demanded that the men go shirtless, refer to the men as "p…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:38 AM
0

How about a new resolution for MRAs: We don't defend male behavior when the only thing particularly "male" about it is that they're acting like dicks toward women? This entire thing started when guys were being douche-canoes, and women got angry. But the women were well within their rights to be angry. As a Jewish person, or a Black person, or an Asian person, going to any event (except a frigging Klan rally) is not signing up for hearing racial epithets. The girls (who were there to game) were …
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:33 AM
1

You know, I'm a guy. And I play games. It's a largely male dominated society. But, if someone started calling me a "filthy kike" and talking about how I "jewed him out of winning", I would take offense. Were I black, I'd take offense at being called a "nigger". As part Irish, I might take offense to being called a drunk, stupid, mick.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:26 AM
2

If you're going to a stadium to see a sporting event, you know what you're getting into. Unless you're saying that people go to LAN parties: To cheat To insult people, shout homophobic, sexist, and racist, insults To be bitches those people can be banned without adversely affecting the people who want to do what I would consider the primary purpose of a LAN party: to play the damned game. When did shrieking thirteen-year-olds become the core demographic for gaming? When did the jackasses calling…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:24 AM
-1

I've never understood the defense of "I was just talking shit, and those words came out". I don't buy it for sexual epithets, racial epithets, or ethnic epithets. I don't care if you're talking shit, if you started calling someone a "filthy kike" and talking about how you got "jewed out of your victory", I'd take offense.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:20 AM
6

Yep. Because no man could disagree with the hard-line MRA mindset without being "self-loathing". Of course, the entire debate would be helped if hard-line MRAs could distinguish between "he doesn't agree with all of our positions", "he disagrees with us vehemently based on principled stances", and "he's a troll"
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:18 AM
1

I can generally agree with this. I think you'll have an issue with what to do about fathers who don't want to claim the kid in the first place, though. Do they still pay? If not, why? If so, how do you get them to pay without a collection agency/government action?
/r/MensRights28/07/11 09:15 PM
1

"Scwarzenneger/Shriver Divorce Shows Absurdity of Alimony in Some Cases, Mitigated By The Fact That It Isn't Being Imposed By The Court and He's Offered It Of His Own Accord". Longer, but accurate.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 08:42 PM
1

So did the guy who shot the President. Your point?
/r/MensRights28/07/11 02:14 PM
1

It's based on state law. You're not comparing apples to oranges. MD's statutory rape law doesn't have a mens rea requirement, so an insanity defense there wouldn't fly. Ohio's statutory rape law apparently does have a mens rea requirement.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 02:04 PM
1

I don't understand how this application of the law can possibly be constitutional; isn't it "cruel and unusual" punishment? The standard for cruel and unusual is a pretty high bar, and requires that the punishment be wildly disproportionate to what someone would receive elsewhere. So, if one state punished carjacking with life in prison, while in other states it was five years in jail, that might be cruel and unusual. Any kind of physical torture is likely cruel and unusual, as well. But, simply…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 01:39 PM
1

As a man, if I beg another adult human to sleep with me over and over and they finally agree, it is not rape. If another person begs me over and over for me to give them a dollar, and I agree, it is not theft. If a woman asks me over and over to perform cunnilingus on her, and I eventually agree despite not being overly excited about this idea, coercion has not occurred because she did not use force or the threat thereof to make me do it! You seem to have missed part of both the original post, a…
/r/MensRights21/07/11 09:51 AM
1

In a perfect world, explicit verbal consent would be unnecessary. We don't live in that world. Since I consider the risk of people not having sex with both parties want it to be less harmful than the risk of people having sex when one party doesn't want it, I would rather err on the side of a higher standard of certainty. Optimally, I want the standard to be verbal assent, and some signed document (they make condoms which take finger-prints based on heat from fingers, but that has some issues to…
/r/MensRights21/07/11 09:47 AM
1

Just FYI, you should edit your post to be "we shouldn't discredit the masculinity of a man if he cries". Otherwise it sounds really confusing.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 08:43 PM
1

I'd go a step beyond and say that masculinity shouldn't even be about having a career and a happy family. I'd say that being a man has much more to do with simply being happy with who you are. If you're a street musician, be the best you can be. If you're a transvestite burlesque dancer, be awesome at it. To simply say "well, you have to get into fights and have a career and be a family man" is just heteronormative beliefs heaped on top of each other. We shouldn't be allowing ourselves to distin…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 08:42 PM
1

Sexual negotiation happens primarily through body language, which is easily misread, and often meant to be ambiguous Then don't allow it to be. If a woman is acting coy, tell her that she either has to actually say she wants to sleep with you, or move on. This whole "well, most women want men to take the lead and read their minds" crap only works if we accept that women should be the arbiters of proper sexual and social behavior. Feminists want to move the boundaries to one very far side (and th…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:58 PM
1

Feminists want to create a society that is so "safe" for women that women never need assert any boundaries, men will always be able to mind-read exactly what they want, and if not, punished to the full extent of the law That's where I disagree. In terms of rape law, their rule is pretty simple (and applied equally): if the person does not consent affirmatively (either through words or actions) it is rape. A simple lack of struggle or lack of refusal is not enough to show consent. That's the enti…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:34 PM
1

And that's what I was responding to. The definition of "consent" hasn't really changed in the last twenty years. It's affirmative consent straight up and down, and it's applied in both directions. I don't get what you're saying about the responsibility thing. The OP admits that she agreed to it, she has since concluded that she shouldn't have, and that she was pressured into it. I felt that way about the first time I drank, so I'm not sure what your high dudgeon is all about.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:06 PM
2

Legally, she consented. In her head she may have been ambivalent, but it is not the job of the other person to be a mind-reader. In this case, true. But when you started down the road of "it's not rape if she doesn't resist, say "no" and thrash about", which is what I was reacting to. My issue here is legal clarity. If you want to say that the OP's boyfriend was a douchebag, fine. But I'm unwilling to call him a rapist, which is what is implied here. The OP specifically says she's not willing to…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:00 PM
1

Absolutely. And I want to do away with 413, 414, and 415. But (as our lawyer friend Harlan should have told you) your analysis was somewhat myopic. The underlying principle is spot-on, but we should be careful that we're accurate in how we present it. If we present it as "no evidence can come in about the victim, but any evidence can come in against the defendant", someone will say something similar to my post, and use it as proof that we're simply misinformed.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:58 PM
1

Oh, then you're fine. Consent can always be withdrawn. I thought you meant (as many MRAs have of late) that women can withdraw consent after the fact. Upvoted for being accurate in the first place.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:56 PM
1

sexually repressed, to the point it's impacting her social life. Good thing they have doctors for that First, let's not make normative judgments about sexual repression. If we want to argue for the non-demonization of sexuality, that includes people who are not all that sexual. It has to cut both ways. If she's not comfortable with where things are going, then it's entirely up to her to do something about it In this case, maybe. She didn't like sex, and shouldn't have agreed to it. Fine. But she…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:55 PM
0

I had such high hopes for being able to discuss things with you here, since we had a lovely and enlightening discussion about PUAs. But this is crap. The law currently requires affirmative consent from anyone engaged in sexual activity. You would not accept a man being intimidated (perhaps by a boss, or just a dominant woman) into sex, never giving affirmative consent, and reporting it being told "well, you didn't struggle hard enough, so no dice". I'd be raising hell, I can tell you that. weake…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:16 PM
2

While I agree everyone should be concerned with 413, 414, and 415, your presentation of the issue is petulant at best. I'll also note, funny enough, that you choose to single out 413, and ignore the same problem that exists in 414. Why the distinction?
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:11 PM
3

Yes and no. The problem is that really slutty women can also be raped, so using "she's a slut, bro" to argue that she is more likely to have consented is pretty much bullshit (it'd be like a woman arguing "well, men will sleep with anything, so he consented when I slept with him"). Rule 413 and 414 are actually worse in that even just an accusation can come in to prove propensity. To digress, the normal rules about character evidence and past actions are that they cannot come in to prove propens…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:06 PM
2

For a long while I have wanted to see contracts and torts take over areas of law like nonviolent rape. Statutory rape is a little wonkier (and I will address it), but the types of rape which appear to have some wiggle room for moral accountability. Contract for the particular sex acts, and then go wild in conformance with the contract. This will eliminate any confusion defenses ("I thought she consented"), and also any blueball defenses ("she said stop, but I just couldn't stop", or "hey, guys c…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 02:51 PM
3

Goodness. Ever since that Canadian case, people have been using that canard: that women can "withdraw consent later". The problem is that the Court didn't rule that way, the case wasn't presented that way, and there wasn't any form of retroactive removal of consent. In that case (the only case I'm aware of dealing with such a matter) she consented to being knocked out and being penetrated. The Court held that after she was knocked out, she ceased to consent as she could not consent (dead girls c…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 02:45 PM
0

you've also seen no evidence that foreskin doesn't make a difference. You're asking for proof of a negative. We're done here.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 02:38 PM
0

I like the color vs black-and-white TV analogy. Are you saying color TV doesn't matter because understanding of the image occurs in the brain? Bad analogy. Your argument is basically "there's a decrease in sensitivity/loss of nerves, so there must be a loss of pleasure from orgasm" and yet no evidence to support it. It's the same tired "less sensitive must mean less pleasure, right?" argument that lacks intellectual honesty. If you have proof of loss of sensation, say there's a loss of sensation…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:22 AM
0

Conflation was never a concern. The point was/is amputation of sexual organs to deprive the person of sexual pleasure. I have to say, I've read more than my fair share of studies on the impact of circumcision on sexual satisfaction, and in none I've seen has there been a significant difference in reports of sexual satisfaction between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Which makes sense considering that orgasms occur due to a release of chemicals in the brain, and aren't dependent on the genital…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:45 PM
1

The problem, as I've written before, is that we have a situation where equitable application of the law leads to unequal results from the exercise of those rights. The right here is one to privacy and bodily autonomy; which is applied equally to both genders. A man can remove any unwanted tissue inside of him, as can a woman. But, the result of the use of this right is that women can abort, while men cannot. Much to the chagrin of MRAs, they have to argue for equality of outcome not equality of …
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:41 PM
1

There's even a problem with saying "equality under the law" because we run into some big problems with whether we measure it by the actual law (and right) or by the effect that right has. The big instance of this tends to be "male abortion": Looking solely at the laws and rights as they exist right now the law is applied equally: whatever exists inside of you can be removed at your will. You have bodily autonomy. The effect of this, however, is divergent. For men, it means they can remove tumors…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:32 PM
2

I'm neither upvoting nor downvoting because it raises an interesting question for the men's rights movement: what do we do about "masculinity"? It seems like there are two groups here: the men who want to return to "traditional" manliness (there was a list posted not long ago which was to teach males to be "real men" because we've been pussified by being raised by feminists, apparently); and those who want to throw open the doors and say "if you're a guy, you're a man, and I don't care if you we…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:28 PM
1

I came here for a repost of Thomas Ball; and was not disappointed.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:23 PM
1

At least in America, sure. If she was charged with it, at least, there's going to be a public record of it. Those records can be accessed by anyone. It's a bitch to accomplish, but that's your best bet. If she made the accusation, but it didn't stick (for whatever reason) and she wasn't charged, I don't know that there would be a record to be checked.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:22 PM
1

You're the reason we can't have nice things; like sane conversations with people who aren't MRAs.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:18 PM
2

Yes, but that was because for that episode they invented a law that does not exist in any jurisdiction. For anyone who isn't aware: statutory law trumps common law unless the statute itself is unconstitutional. In that episode of Seinfeld, the city they were in had passed a "good Samaritan" law which required one to act to stop a crime in progress. Since that overruled this common-law ruling, they were held culpable. Thankfully, that kind of thing doesn't exist, and "good Samaritan" laws usually…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 05:17 PM
0

Without having experimental data in front of us, it would be largely impossible to actually say whether any particular piece of advice is helpful, irrelevant, or harmful. To the extent that it advises men not to put too much stock in any particular approach, nor any particular investment, and instead to just get back on the horse; I don't deny its usefulness. But, the "training wheels" you describe are not just seen as manipulative, they are manipulative. If they work (and I'm not sure they do),…
/r/MensRights16/07/11 05:00 PM
1

Just trying to be helpful :-)
/r/MensRights15/07/11 07:31 PM
2

Interestingly, the phrase is "chomping at the bit", which itself is a misappropriation of the original (and grammatically correct) phrase "champing at the bit". It means the same thing, but in case you want to impress people with your linguistic knowledge. Remember, "Knowledge is power, France is bacon"
/r/MensRights15/07/11 06:37 PM
3

You make me happy today. Upvoted for having facts.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 06:36 PM
1

it is not unlikely that the confidence that permits n to increase also potentially increases (slightly decreases?) p I disagree. I find it highly unlikely that there is a statistically significant different in success between a PUA, and a normal dude, if they both approach the same number of women. I will add one caveat, though: if you are a complete social nitwit, you won't have success either way. So there is something subtle, call it "game", that influences sex and attraction. What you call "…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 06:22 PM
6

It's a settlement. So, it's not a divorce decree, they actually distributed the marital assets by their own will and agreement.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 06:13 PM
2

women want something other (or at least more complicated) than what feminists say they wan I think the perception of this is because implicit in everything feminists (and women writ large) say they want is an assumption which goes unsaid, but which should be said: they want those things in a body they would like to have sex with. It sounds really simple, I know, but I can't tell you how many guys seem to hear "I want a really nice guy, who's smart, and listens" as "I don't care what you look lik…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 05:51 PM
5

Because that's what the parents agreed to do with them.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 05:47 PM
3

With my partner I have found it helpful to do small things that might be perceived to be manipulative, but (I hope) they make him feel better/supported/loved Having read the comment, you do what every human being does: hide your true feelings if they would cause conflict. I don't consider that manipulative, especially since the goal you're working toward is to benefit your partner and your relationship. Maybe the difference is in motivation, but a guy trying to get into a woman's head in order t…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 05:18 PM
1

I think the same-number-of-approaches experiment might work best. The problem would be facilitating it, since you can't actually do multiple runs at the same women (oversampling), and time may be a factor (approaches made at midnight have a higher chance than approaches made at 8:00). But, if we can control for personal attractiveness and confidence, we could at least test it out in part. But, there are other aspects of the experiment that would not be tested. For instance, if PUA techniques do …
/r/MensRights15/07/11 04:50 PM
2

Because those dudes are out there, and if being a pickup artist works even some of the time then saying "no stop, bad" without that alternative is just a waste. I think the alternative is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Some of it is legitimately good advice (be interesting, be confident, talk to a lot of women) and can be employed without anyone raising an eyebrow. The problem is with some of the more manipulative suggestions, both in that it makes the entire process more difficult than i…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 03:44 PM
2

The problem with that question is that it's largely impossible to segregate the different tenants. So, we'd have to figure out a way to test the various underlying aspects. Two come to mind: (1) approach a metric ton of women. (2) The "neg". Since in practice they are done together, the PUA community presents overall success as proof that all practices work. But, in this case, what if simply approaching a lot of women yields a higher absolute number of successes than other tactics? My problem wi…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 03:42 PM
2

They make themselves very easy to hate. I live in a college town, and go to law school. Combine that with having been in college, and I've run into a plethora of douchebag, dudebro, fraternity asshats. It's not universal; some of them don't suck. But a whole hell of a lot of them do.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 03:33 PM
2

Speaking as a non-fraternity man only three years removed from being around fraternities, I can confirm that the equating of "fraternity" with "ignorant, douchebag, bro" while not always correct is usually applicable. I think you're confusing "eliminating stereotypes about males" with "eliminating stereotypes of certain groups of males". The first is eliminating stereotypes about men qua men (rapists, misogynists, what have you); the latter would be eliminating all stereotypes about all groups o…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 03:32 PM
2

She hasn't received money, the business refused and she was arrested for harassing them.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 10:12 PM
2

Which is fine. But this doesn't belong on men's rights to begin with. If you're going to complain about every time people have demanded too much money for perceived injuries, you're going to spend a hell of a lot of time reading ridiculous demands no one else takes seriously
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:41 PM
1

So, you would consider both to be "AMA from a woman/man who says he/she was raped"?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:10 PM
0

How'd you know? ;-)
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:09 PM
2

And promoting misogyny makes you a misogynist, then? So, the underlying article is wrong, and the guys forced to say "no means yes, yes means anal" were in fact being misogynist? Or does it only apply to women?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:09 PM
0

Would mens rights exist if more ugly guys got laid? That's the same basic question, so you start off by being a douchebag. For example, male "feminists" hold the perspective out of the idea that doing so will make them attractive to women I think it's worth distinguishing what male supporters of feminism actually think versus what MRAs accuse them of thinking. Protip: they aren't the same thing. would stand on its own without proof on word of mouth among most adolescent females, as does the patr…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 08:07 PM
8

Not for nothing, but why are AMAs from men saying "I was raped, and it was awful" are presented as truth here, while this AMA is a woman who "says" these things happened?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 08:01 PM
2

she didn't get the money, she demanded it.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 08:01 PM
0

So... You're complaining because a really stupid, selfish, woman walked into the wrong place, tried to sue, and was eventually arrested herself? Yeah. What an injustice...
/r/MensRights13/07/11 08:00 PM
1

Much to everyone's harm, the vast majority of people on reddit consider "I don't like this message" as a viable reason to downvote. But, if that's "trolling", it happens on every board and coming from every ideology.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:58 PM
2

Not for nothing, but why are AMAs from men saying "I was raped, and it was awful" are presented as truth here, while this AMA is a woman who "says" these things happened?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:56 PM
2

I agree, and I did upvote. What makes me nuts, though, is the large number of MRAs who are comfortable saying "well, you can't really blame men in general for the actions of a few" or "not all men are like that" or "well, this isn't sexism, just crappiness", and then reject similar arguments from their opponents. Funny enough, reverse those pronouns and you get precisely what hardcore feminists say, so perhaps we're more similar than we think
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:59 PM
2

Your post could be (and in my case was) interpreted as a defense of the OP, where mine was more neutral. Yours could be seen as saying that the TIL should have been allowed on its face. But, having reread it, you get my upvote to even things out.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:09 PM
4

Having not seen the original, I would distinguish between: "TIL there was a study which showed the following specific things" and "TIL the wage gap doesn't exist when you control for age". The former is fact (the study exists, and says "X"), the latter is not. Edit: I checked the OP, and it's a debatable validity as a TIL. On the one hand, it can be argued as "just reporting the results of the study". On the other hand, it presents that information in such a way as to lead people to conclude tha…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:56 PM
3

It's a fair point, except that the standard can't be applied unilaterally. We don't get to say "yeah, men acting like dicks are just men acting like dicks" and then say "OMG, women are so evil and misandrist". We can't really reasonably dismiss a lot of poor male behavior as being "douchebag" behavior, but not motivated by sex, and then things like "Thomas Ball being refused a wikipedia article is proof they're misandrist, authoritarian, feminists."
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:54 PM
1

Basically, yes. But, it also makes sense. From the perspective of the court, if you've been convicted, you did it (this isn't really true, and the rules suck), so maintaining your innocence is not "good behavior" for rehabilitation. A person maintaining his innocence is saying "I never did anything wrong", which in turn means he cannot be "rehabilitated". If he succeeds on appeal (unlikely) he will be let out. Otherwise, he's not really getting "treatment", since from the perspective of the just…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 05:00 PM
1

I see the moral question, but I approach it from a more measured perspective (and one shared by the American Academy of Pediatrics): Give parents the information, benefits and risks, and let them decide what is best. Insist neither that circumcision is good or ill overall, and instead let each parent-set decide what is best for their family. If they want to circumcise, it isn't "child abuse" or evil, and the child isn't going to grow up deprived and self-hating (at least, not because of the circ…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 03:48 PM
1

I don't get why the majority threshold has to be crossed before you admit the moral issue here. If there is a non-trivial proportion (say one in ten) of men who preferred their sex life while uncircumcised, you don't see how circumcising men as infants then becomes morally problematic? Once again, I'm happy to debate the actual merits of infant circumcision in and of itself. What I objected (and continue to object to) is the false statement that studies have found "most men prefer sex and mastur…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 03:38 PM
1

Or do our issues not count as "political" or "noteworthy" because ... what? There's not enough of us? 50% divorce rate isn't enough for you? It's only getting worse. We only have to wait a few years. There aren't enough people on your side, or who cared about Thomas Ball, or who were influenced by it. No major push for new legislation, no national reaction, no marches, no letter-writing campaigns. Aside from blogs, no one on the "OMG, he's a hero" side of things seems to have done anything. When…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 05:14 AM
3

So are the wiki people, except the sit in judgment of something conceptrual and are abusing their power and should be removed. That is the goal. Remove the corrupt. It is not an elected post, they voted, and Thomas Ball's entry was deleted pursuant to the judgment of the majority of wikipedia editors that it lacked notability; and further that those pushing for it were doing so out of an ideological agenda rather than out of a legitimate belief that his life should be chronicled for any influenc…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 11:37 PM
0

I have edited the post, even though it was technically correct already, I have added one word to clarify. The word is I added is some, right before "studies". That's not even true. In no study you or I have cited have a majority of men said that they preferred sex while uncircumcised. 20% in one study, and 38% in another. Do we need to talk about percentages? That is the nature of random data, and the nature of the differences between how studies are conducted, how the results are measured, and …
/r/MensRights11/07/11 09:13 PM
-3

I should have made it clear that there is no significant tendency toward decreased satisfaction, at least not under any valid statistical test I'm aware of. Given that we should care about whether men are enjoying sex, rather then about just how sensitive they are, the most reasonable measure is whether men who are circumcised report lower sexual satisfaction most do not. as long as these high of percentages (38%) are showing that they were not satisfied with the procedure That's not quite what …
/r/MensRights11/07/11 09:11 PM
-2

That, by the way, is false, circumcision doesn't greatly lower the risk of contracting HIV By itself, it does. I'd say "significantly" though These poor African men then thought they had HIV proof penises, and likely were less cautions about intercourse and using condoms because of it, and contracted HIV at even higher rates than the general population. That doesn't make circumcision less effective. It'd be like saying "penicillin doesn't really reduce the risk of dying from infection, because p…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 09:02 PM
-2

but many studies show that, and ALL studies show that some men prefer sex and masturbation with an intact penis You said "most men prefer sex and masturbation with an intact penis". Are you prepared to edit your post to reflect the reality that such a statement is far from proved? The only conclusion that can be drawn from any of these studies is that some men are happy with their circumcision, and some are not A much more reasonable statement. And a far cry from "most men prefer..." Doing this …
/r/MensRights11/07/11 08:57 PM
1

Sometimes it takes a "group" to make a "movement". And if Thomas Ball's actions lead to such a movement, I would not doubt that wikipedia would include him at a later time. Right now, he's a guy who killed himself and didn't like family court. Not exactly the stuff to go down in the annals of history. There will be a wiki, have no doubt, the feminist authoritarians at wikipedia are just a common target to rally around, bad tactics, but then again, men never fought back before. Once again, you bo…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 08:45 PM
-2

one of those studies DID show that men circumcised in adulthood reported decreased sensitivity. But not a "preference" for sex or masturbation pre-circumcision Second, read my comment again for why the reports of "increased satisfaction with sex" among those men is a red herring For those circumcised due to phimosis and other disorders. How do you account for the other studies (now linked to) which show no significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in general? You're probab…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 08:43 PM
-3

The first study concluded that circumcision was bad, but the data itself shows improved satisfaction, a direct contradiction of the OP. Second, look at the other studies on the wiki page you link to. I picked the wrong studies to cite, but your claim is not verifiably and uncontrovertably showed
/r/MensRights11/07/11 08:40 PM
-3

Your original statement: "According to studies of men who have been circumcised later in life, most men prefer sex and masturbation with an intact penis" I have provided studies that show men in adulthood being circumcised did not correspond to decreased satisfaction (the "prefer sex and masturbation"), and (in fact) correlated to increased satisfaction. As I said, the argument for infant circumcision is different; but your OP was misleading at best. Ironically, the site you link to (wikipedia) …
/r/MensRights11/07/11 08:37 PM
2

Sometimes a duck is a duck. This is straight up feminist corruption. Men are so brainwashed, we look for reasons to excuse it. The problem is that accusations of "groupthink" and "brainwashing" end any kind of reasonable discussion. You're basically saying "you can't possibly disagree with me for legitimate reasons, so I don't have to give your points any credence. Fine, but then there's no point in discussing. One could just as easily accuse you of being a lunatic conspiracy theorist, and it ge…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 08:11 PM
-4

Perfectly fair, but given that the poster I was responding to claimed that men circumcised in adulthood reported decreased sensitivity and decreased pleasure, how is he being upvoted for misinformation, while I am downvoted for the rejoinder? We can debate the merits of infant circumcision separately, but he simply lied.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 08:02 PM
-3

Perfectly fair, but given that the poster I was responding to claimed that men circumcised in adulthood reported decreased sensitivity and decreased pleasure, how is he being upvoted for misinformation, while I am downvoted for the rejoinder? We can debate the merits of infant circumcision separately, but he simply lied.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 08:02 PM
2

Devil's advocate for a second. Good behavior in the context of a sex offender would be behavior indicating he is being rehabilitated and is not going to do it again. "Good behavior" in the context of rehabilitation does not mean that you turn off the lights when they order you to. If we accept the validity of addiction programs (and I really don't), then a sex offender shows "good behavior" by going through one successfully (or at least trying to). Part of that would be admitting his guilt and t…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 05:57 PM
1

The discussion becomes a bit more nuanced. It is not just whether someone is famous for their death or how they died, but the extent to which it has been covered in reliable sources, and the extent of impact it had. If Thomas Ball had sparked a revolution, he would be given his own page. But, simply becoming a cause celebre among people who feel a certain way doesn't give him the amount of influence over the world necessary to have his own page.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 05:52 PM
2

If you read the rest of the discussion page, you'll note that Lepine's murders were motivated by gender and politics (as a sort of revenge for the evils of feminism). He killed women in order to kill women; this is not happenstance. If a rabid feminist were to kill fourteen men in order to fight against men's rights, I'd wager wikipedia would include the gender of the victims in its reporting. You're noting a difference in treatment and assuming that the motivation is sexist. But you're ignoring…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 05:46 PM
-4

According to studies of men who have been circumcised later in life, most men prefer sex and masturbation with an intact penis. Oh? Really? http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/masood1/ http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Fink Look at the actual data. There was either almost no change, or the majority reported better sexual function. Edit: if people are going to downvote me (and violate reddiquette in the process) the least you could do is read the studies provided, and respond to why the…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 05:34 PM
2

No problem. I certainly know the feeling of overreacting to a non-hostile poster on the basis that other people have been jerks.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 09:44 PM
1

Which is a fair point, but then we're arguing what the proper remedy for the misunderstanding is, and we've gone far away from the judge saying "hurr, never punish mothers".
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:31 PM
4

http://www.smh.com.au/national/judge-calls-for-urgent-changes-to-family-law-20090501-aq6f.html For anyone interested in what the judge actually wrote about it. And, of course, her position is less indefensible than presented (go figure). She is calling for the repeal of the amendment as written because it implies that costs will be applied any time abuse cannot be proved as opposed to the intention that they will be applied only where they are done maliciously. She doesn't like the writing, she …
/r/MensRights09/07/11 08:21 PM
6

Yep. Because trolling is something we should all encourage and laud.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 06:30 PM
1

Travel time would account for less sex. But it doesn't explain the greater satisfaction. It's easy to come up with reasons why one country might have more or less sex; but why was less sex correlated to more satisfaction?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 10:21 AM
1

Fair enough. I'll admit, I've been wracking my brain trying to come up with a confounding variable which would systematically lead to countries with less sex being more satisfied, and none come to mind. Traveling could have something to do with it, but that would be a bit baffling as well, since one assumes that long-distance relationships are the exception rather than the norm. Another one might be porn.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 09:57 AM
1

Certainly. I'm not editorializing, it really is just interesting. To editorialize for a moment: I recall a post not too long ago here where an anti-circumcision blogger "proved" the harm of circumcision because there's no stereotype of great American or Muslim lovers (as there is of the French). Either the Japanese have the best penises in the world, or that blog post was bullshit.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 09:29 AM
1

The satisfaction ones were interesting. Japanese couples have sex the least of almost anywhere in the western world, and are happier than Americans (who have more) who are in turn happier than Brazilians (who are close to the top of frequent sex)
/r/MensRights07/07/11 08:22 PM
2

Are you kidding me with this? His first "experience with misandry" was that an elementary school girl was mean to him? ಠ_ಠ Let's be real here. There's honest-to-god sexism out there, and it isn't in the form of little girls not being your friend. Not for nothing, but if she had said "no, because you're fat", or "no, because you're ugly", would anyone here be railing against the heavens? Also, his reaction "you're supposed to treat everyone equally" ignores a lot of our own arguments about things…
/r/MensRights07/07/11 06:12 PM
4

I got banned from mens_studies without ever being there.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 05:51 PM
1

The only reason to keep harping on what she wrote is to argue either that the statement itself was misandrist, or to do the tired game of "see? Bad woman, and that means feminism is wrong". If it's the latter (and I am glad to see AVfM at least does not do this) it's sad. If it's the former, it's unreasonable. Is the woman a feminist? Maybe, but it's irrelevant. To say "she said hateful things, therefore feminism is hateful" is like saying "priests molest children, therefore Catholicism promotes…
/r/MensRights07/07/11 03:34 PM
2

Fair enough. But my point was only that this was not a matter of six people saying "not guilty" (which would have led to a hung jury), but rather of twelve people all saying it.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 03:23 PM
5

That's another false equivalence. The reason why showing cash, or wearing a Rolex, or driving a nice car, encourages theft is because unless you display those things, no one knows you have them to be taken. Unless a woman is dressed so androgynously as to look male, everyone knows she has a vagina.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:58 PM
-1

The problem with much of the argument about men's rights is that the requested right is not usually a direct corollary to the rights held by women, but rather looking for a similar right in a different way. See also the "right" to a "paper abortion" as a balance to the right to abort (even though the privacy and bodily autonomy that lead to abortion rights are equivalent between genders).
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:54 PM
2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1iqJqNHX_g Relevant
/r/MensRights06/07/11 08:27 PM
1

I wasn't accusing you of anything, only pointing out that six jurors would have led to a hung jury. This was a "not guilty".
/r/MensRights06/07/11 07:10 PM
2

Not that I particularly want to open a can of worms, but let's look at the stereotypes: Boys are ‘silly’ in class They refuse to ‘sit nicely like the girls’ They are more likely to indulge in ‘schoolboy pranks’. They do not perform as well as the girls, and thus are in lower achievement groups when students are divided into accelerated programs. These are beliefs held by the teachers, and by the students themselves. So, here's my question: how many of us would have said anything different? I've …
/r/MensRights06/07/11 05:08 PM
2

The clerk of the court asked each juror individually if the recording of "not guilty" as to the counts of murder, manslaughter, and neglect were accurate of their votes. Each and every one said yes.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 04:29 PM
1

It was unanimously "not guilty". This wasn't a hung jury, this was "she didn't do it"
/r/MensRights06/07/11 04:28 PM
1

And by a crapshoot you mean they are not limiting at all. The common juror will look at you in awe when you even use the term propensity. Well, the instruction itself would be in plain English. It just doesn't stop the jury from considering it for other purposes. Do you remember if the balancing test even applies to 413 and 414 evidence. I thought they did... If not, I will all but concede. Technically? 403 still applies. The problem is that the "unfair prejudice" in character evidence is that i…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 08:15 AM
1

Don't use the evidence that this man is a convicted burglar in your determination that this man burgled this house this time, kthx. Limiting instructions are a crapshoot. But at least 404 says "please don't use this to prove propensity." 413 and 414 say "if someone says he's raped before, he's probably a rapist, so convict that fucker". The issue being the possible acts could be quite a large number of deviant things It's still subject to general relevance. And, again, at least it says "try not …
/r/MensRights06/07/11 06:40 AM
2

I'm downvoting you for being somewhat misleading. Rule 412 (the rape shield law, and what you're referring to by the "past actions cannot be used" part) provides that a woman's other sexual conduct cannot be admitted to prove that the woman was a slut, and so probably consented, or prove that the man had a good-faith belief she was consenting. It can, however, be used: To "prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence" "sexual behavior by …
/r/MensRights06/07/11 06:24 AM
1

Yes and no. The evidence introduced under 404 is at least not supposed to be used to prove propensity.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 06:10 AM
8

This aspect, while worrisome, bothers me less than how the rules of evidence are specifically and intentionally crafted to bitch-slap anyone accused of rape or child molestation. All of the rules which normally say "we won't let you use evidence of past actions to prove he did the current one" get thrown out the window when it comes to accused rapists. Under rule 413, if I am on trial for rape, any accusation by another woman that I raped her in the same way I'm accused of raping the current acc…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 09:55 PM
1

Even so. Why not explain it? It's a common question regarding men's rights in the legal system: with all of the power men in general wield, why are men so underrepresented? And, if they are, why is it a problem? Instead of saying "it is, you jackass", you could try to actually explain it. If someone asked me why it's a problem in Saudi Arabia for women to have fewer rights, I would endeavor to explain it. When asked why the apparent inequity in the legal system is bad, I attempt to explain it. E…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 05:19 PM
1

Not everything that shows an interaction between a man and a woman has implications about the relationship between men and women in society writ large.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 05:13 PM
2

Either this is a Simpsons reference I don't get, or this conversation went to a weird place
/r/MensRights05/07/11 05:07 PM
1

"Thanks! I'm just looking for an explination, all I get as a response is, "ITS SEXISM! ITS MISANDRIST!"" Could have just explained it, no?
/r/MensRights05/07/11 05:07 PM
1

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/thats_the_joke.jpg
/r/MensRights05/07/11 05:00 PM
3

Only a sith speaks in absolutes!
/r/MensRights05/07/11 04:58 PM
1

Go figure. When you make an affirmative declaration "men are treated worse/women are treated better" someone wants you to actually explain what about the legal system is unfair to men. I get that it sounds completely obvious to you, and that you believe that anyone looking at the data would say "oh, yeah, that's some bad shit", but it should be up to you to provide that information.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 04:48 PM
3

"Because people view the would in black and white terms". FTFY. Not to be a douchebag about it, but it's not like any group is immune to this.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 03:53 PM
1

The problem is that these kind of things usually cut out important bits of the actual statement. For example, the full statement by the AAP: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the …
/r/MensRights05/07/11 03:18 PM
1

Self defense requires that someone use only an amount of force necessary to end the fight. If you're seriously telling me that a UFC fighter couldn't do that without repeatedly punching, choking, and otherwise generally beating the shit out of someone, I'm disappointed in the UFC.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 07:43 PM
1

In the few states I checked the last time this argument came up, it was that there was one definition for "penetrative rape", and another for "sexual assault", but they carried the same penalties. I'll try to find citations when I'm a bit less busy.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 06:50 PM
1

some states don't even recognize women as being able of forcible rape AFAIK that's one of those things that gets bandied about, but it's because of a terminology kerfuffle (kind of like how Colorado doesn't have "executors" for estates, or how a man cannot commit "rape" against his wife in California). Different states have different statutes which comprise what we would consider "rape". Many use different things for penetrative sexual assault versus other kinds of sexual assault. So, a woman ca…
/r/MensRights01/07/11 07:23 AM
4

I'm calling bullshit. Being a man is not about machismo or any rituals of "proving" how much of a masculine he-man you are. Being a man is simply about... Well... Having a penis and not being ashamed of that fact. Some of this is good, we should not be cowed by women or society. But some of it is absolute crap. I don't like beer. I don't like fire. I don't want to needlessly cut down trees. I don't like to swear when it isn't necessary I don't want to pee in public I don't like camping I don't l…
/r/MensRights01/07/11 07:14 AM
2

It's a divergence between common law we imported from England, and American statutory law. Generally, any statutory rape is going to be strict liability (mistake is not a defense), but many states have "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 05:07 PM
4

I distinguish "symbolic speech" meant to sway opinion and further a national debate from speech meant to be cruel. I will protect to the death the right of any man to say any stupid thing at any time, except when the entire purpose of that is to make their ex-girlfriend cry. I would say the same if a woman posted a billboard of herself saying "I wouldn't have ever been raped, except for how my ex-boyfriend raped me" and included his first name on the billboard.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 08:24 PM
0

So, what you're saying is that because someone can call herself a feminist, anything she says is part and parcel what "a lot of feminists would say". But, of course, if someone identifies himself as an MRA, and spout stupid, misogynist, garbage, we'll call them extremists, and demand that people not paint us with the same brush, or we'll call him a troll, because no "real MRA" would ever hold such an opinion.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 08:21 PM
8

That's a pretty thin distinction. How much personal information is necessary to make it bad? If I include your name, and the city you live in, and your reddit handle, on a billboard, would that be enough personal information that you'd say "yeah, that's meant to attack me personally"? We're talking about a small town, where everyone knew her name (like Cheers, but awful), and likely knew about the break-up. Besides, his statement was made with malicious disregard for the truth (he says she "kill…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 08:18 PM
8

I'm going to respectfully disagree about the first part. The right to "free speech" does not include the right to attempt to publicly humiliate someone who broke up with you, especially not when you are including her name, and are making accusations of which you have no evidence.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 08:10 PM
1

The short version is no. The longer version is that they aren't really trying you for the same crime, but using the past acts to prove a propensity. They're saying to the jury "this guy was convicted of molesting a seven year old five years ago, and now he's done it again". It gets around it by the use of the older crime to prove a new crime. It's a contradiction of the general rule of past acts (past acts cannot be used to prove propensity) and they were rules passed over the strenuous objectio…
/r/MensRights23/06/11 10:52 PM
1

I should have included them myself. Of particular note in 413 and 414 is this: "In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant" and the almost-identical language of 414. This has been construed to include not just prior convictions, but any prior acts a person says he did. But, the…
/r/MensRights23/06/11 10:00 PM
5

I may be confused (in fact I probably am), but when did he say he supported it from "accused rapists". The closest I found was: "I favor the death penalty for rape" and "Do you support the death penalty for rape, as I do, or are you relatively pro-rape compared to me?" If we're not itching for a fight, both of those can be read as "in cases where a man has been proven to have raped, I support the death penalty". Are we so bereft of actual enemies that we desire to seek out other ones?
/r/MensRights23/06/11 09:57 PM
1

Upvoted for fairness. It'd have been nice if you spend a bit more time actually dissecting the Kanin study (as you do with the Koss study), but overall a very good piece.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 04:30 PM
1

So let me break here, can you point to any natural system where the result is completely and wholly independent of the process I see what you're saying now. You argue that because both the man and the woman must put into the process their reproductive abilities, both men and women should have the same rights. And, in that sense they do. Both men and women have the right to only have those sexual encounters (and donate those bodily fluids) they consent to. However, your argument is overly broad, …
/r/MensRights22/06/11 11:12 PM
-2

Cute. But, if the best you've got is to say "hurr, I don't like you, you're a meanie poo-poo head", perhaps you could do to toddle back off to your playpen. I'll bring you snacks and a juice later, mmmkay?
/r/MensRights22/06/11 09:37 PM
1

Equality demands that the system gives the same results regardless of the person of argument passed through F(x) The exercise of the same right can yield different results without the right being unequally provided. We both have the right to buy a house. But, if no one wants to sell me a house, I cannot exercise that right. It does not remove the right, only the execution. Or, as is often argued by MRAs, the right to employment does not mean the right to equal pay, or equal chances of promotion.…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 09:33 PM
0

Aren't you quite the jackass? Also, feckless doesn't mean what you think it means. Learn to troll, dumbass
/r/MensRights22/06/11 09:17 PM
1

AAP's position is that the benefits do not out-weigh the risks in the common case That is an interpretation. Another is that they do not see the benefits as enough for a doctor to say "absolutely do it" nor the risks enough to say "absolutely don't do it unless absolutely necessary" and so want both risks and rewards told to patients so they can make the decision. If the AAP wanted doctors to say "it's not worth it unless absolutely fucking necessary", their suggestion would not be "give them th…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 09:01 PM
1

and its implications, and I keep returning to it. And my take is that you're ignoring this sentence of the AAP's recommendation there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child\ and I keep returning to it.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 08:51 PM
1

Otherwise the whole system of mathematics is broken and inconsistent. I should have used the term "equivocation", but let's not tie ourselves to overly formalist defenses. F(A)=F(B). F(A) is not greater than F(B). F(B) is not greater than F(A). And each party has the power to determine solely what happens within their bodies. Thus, the right is equal, even if the result is different. That's where your mathematical argument fails. If we present F(A) and F(B) as being the rights of the person they…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 08:20 PM
1

While I don't agree with maintenance payments, the payment of half of his assets is fair. If the money is earned during the life of the marriage, it belongs to both people in equal share. The courts don't want to get into a he-said/she-said argument of who actually "earned" the money, since there's no way to place an economic value on companionship and the intangibles of marriage. Instead, they treat the married couple as one entity for the life of the marriage (c.f. Ownership by the Entirety) a…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 07:34 PM
2

Nothing in particular. The problem is that modern law really doesn't like people accused of rape, or any sexual misconduct. It sucks, and we should fight against it. We need to repeal Federal Rules of Evidence 413, 414, and 415, to start. We need to expand rule 412 to provide a rape shield for the accused. And we need to provide for anonymity in the press. Edit: wait a damned minute. I'm getting downvoted for saying we need to provide anonymity for those accused of sexual assault, and that the f…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 07:23 PM
1

I do not see how you think this at all. How is the equality of outcome mutually exclusive to equality of treatment? The mathematics provide a logical expression which shows that equality from start to finish is not only viable but symmetrically sound. With due respect, I'm going to jump past all of the mathematics. You make a very simple false equivalence early on, and it taints the rest of it. But, it's the same equivalence we're debating. So, let's put this simply: You see the right of a woman…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 06:44 PM
1

It's misleading at best. You're saying that the AAP really meant for it to be read as "tell parents not to do it", when their own words are: "In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child" Weird that you want doctors saying "don't do it unless absolutely necessary", and the AAP says "tell them about the risks, and the benefits, a…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 06:12 PM
1

Just as I have no land of my own does not grant me right to take land from you as we're common level in the eyes of the law. We're stepping back a bit, but that's cool. The baby has rights based on a decision we have made a society that it's not enough to simply say "whatever parents want to do is fine". Incidentally, it is MRAs who often argue that point, saying that children have a "right to bodily autonomy". Care to explain how babies have some rights against interference by their parents, an…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 04:40 PM
1

There was no ignoring it. It's quite possible. It's also equally possible that the father can't meet those as well. To assume she can't and that he can, is a falsehood. Refute that. No. I do not assume that he can alone support the child while she cannot. I do assume that there are situations where she can support the child with some contribution from him. But, in case both parents are S.O.L, we do need comprehensive child welfare. There has been no statement about financial coverage, nor level …
/r/MensRights21/06/11 09:49 PM
0

doctors should be telling parents: don't circumcise your child unless he develops a condition requiring it. If the AAP wanted to recommend that doctors advise parents not to have it done unless there was a condition "requiring" it, they would have said it. You're asking for an analysis based on assuming the AAP is speaking in code, and that's frankly silly.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:31 PM
0

You're thinking the AAP meant "fully informed" as code for "don't do it unless it's absolutely necessary"? That's a strained definition to say the least. I'd interpret it using the actual meaning of the words as giving parents both the risks, and benefits, and allowing them to decide what is best for their children.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 04:29 PM
1

They are not sufficient to recommend having parents do it as a matter of course (as in, they shouldn't tell parents "do it, it's awesome"). But, in the same breath, they say "parents should be fully informed and make their choice." Given that my position is "let parents decide" and yours is "no, ban it, it's evil" the AAP is on my side.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:59 PM
1

It leads to a reasonable doubt about your motives and argument. In fact, the kind of disconnect in declaring supporter for equality from one side of the mouth, but justifying the subjugation of men in the other leads to an eerily similar to those of religion. Oy. If you're going to continue to be unable to discuss the issue without devolving into "your arguments are stupid, which makes you stupid, and you're being mean", there's no purpose in continued discussion. Show some pride in yourself and…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 11:37 AM
1

Hah! I kicked your ass, so you're running away.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 10:52 PM
1

Hey, since you haven't responded in a while, do I get to claim you "stopped responding after I kicked your ass"? Just wondering what the timeframe on that is, mate.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 10:39 PM
1

You don't have an argument. You're circling around and around "but the child." The Child is irrelevant be they a natural birth or adoption. You don't have an argument either. You're going around and around "he shouldn't have to pay, it's being stolen, he's a slave." It's a fallacious appeal to emotion, no better or worse than any other. We have run out of things to say, but you so desperately want to win, to claim to have stymied and silenced me. The fact that your argument is no more logically …
/r/MensRights20/06/11 10:36 PM
1

Checked update. Fun times, but you didn't really dispell my argument, you simply disagreed with it. I get that to you it seems like you had me stymied and on the run. For me, of course, it's a matter of not having had a computer reliably these past few weeks, and missing some messages. Congratulations on claiming victory by default for me having not responded quite as quickly as you would have liked though, I'm sure that feels nice. your false third party argument is nothing other than an appeal…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:37 PM
1

Which I think I dispelled that whole argument with great satisfaction You are certainly free to think that. then she is responsible to the choice of a child if she so does produce it on her own accord We've done this before. That is fair only if you ignore the rights of the child. Women are capable of their own independent choice of their own volition and as such shall bear the rewards and consequences of those choices; just the same as any man. Except that there is a third-party involved. If yo…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:25 PM
1

It gets even more amusing that you don't seem to apply that to women who pull all sorts of funny stunts to gain offspring How so? I've maintained that if the father wants sole custody, send the woman to prison, or make her pay child support. I simply draw my line based on the rights of the child (who, seriously, did not have a say in what womb he gestated in) rather than on making it equivalent between the parents.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:09 PM
1

I support men's rights up to and until the exercise of those rights would constitute a greater injustice than the suppression of them. Kind of like how I support anyone's rights until the exercise of them infringes on the rights of others. I'm so evil.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:54 PM
1

Is a boldfaced lie. It is not because you were downvoted, it is because you got your ass kicked. Uh... Huh. So, it's not that people can't argue, it's that they don't want to argue. You can prove circumcision is wrong, but you don't have the desire to. Cute. But, put up or shut up. I am not interested in "throwing down the gauntlet" because every single time I have debated with you you have stopped responding after I kicked your ass. [Needs Citation]
/r/MensRights20/06/11 06:39 PM
3

Considering I've been called names which (were I a woman) would be misogynist, I don't find it that ridiculous. But, I consider our bad reputation to more be that a lot of MRAs are complete and utter jackasses, and that I can show in spades.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 06:38 PM
1

Maybe you need to go back and look at your comment history. If I was you I would be deleting comments all over the place. Ah, so the fact that I've been downvoted proves I'm wrong? That's an interesting standard to apply, since I'm pretty sure that if most MRAs posted on feminist channels, they'd be downvoted. Does popularity really equal correctness in your mind? Given that you can't find a single argument on circumcision that doesn't end with your side breaking down and calling me bad names to…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 06:23 PM
1

Nope, the real reason that you don't want to debate it is that every single time I have watched you try you get your ass handed to you. Really? My recollection (which can be confirmed in my post history) is that the conversations always end with some jackass calling me bad names and then claiming he's obviously right because I'm evil. Getting my ass handed to me, eh? I am pretty sure you know you are wrong as well. Good that you saved me the trouble of thinking for myself.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 06:14 PM
1

And I think I know why you don't want to get into a debate over whether Male Genital Mutilation is morally obscene or not. Because it's impossible to have such a discussion dispassionately and revolving around the actual benefits and harm? Because it gets everyone into a high dudgeon about the "evils" of circumcision, and no one is able to speak rationally about it? Because the data is so sparse (on both sides) that everyone involved clings to small studies rife with error to prove their positio…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:58 PM
2

Speaking as a man, I'm against financial abortion, and in favor of equality. I will never say "things are never going to be that fair", but rather that financial abortion is not good public policy, and is unjust on its face. Edit: Hey, cool, you're even linking to where we've already had this entire discussion, that'll save time.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:46 PM
1

The problem is that "men's rights" is an entire collection of issues and (sometimes contradictory) ideals. I don't think anyone is opposed to any men's rights, or even to the every MRM position, but many people pick and choose, and only support a handful (or less) of the positions.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:45 PM
1

There's also discrimination on the basis of socio-economic class
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:12 PM
0

This ignores that there are lots of men out there who legitimately abandon their responsibilities vis-a-vis their children. It assumes that the mother was the one who sent the Dad packing, or that men who "wander off" are really innocent victims of a woman's neglect. Are there men victimized by society? Yes. Are there a whole lot of men who simply shirk their duties? Yes.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 04:27 PM
1

First, this is basically a repost Second, without wanting to get into the same debate about whether circumcision is good, bad, or indifferent, I would like to note that the study itself has a few methodological problems. First, and most glaring, is that it is being performed solely in a country which has a minuscule population of circumcised men. This opens the analysis to a whole bunch of confounding variables (like psycho-physiological responses, more awkwardness and shame among circumcised me…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 04:24 PM
3

The apostrophe still has to go in there to make it possessive. "Mens" is just a redundant pluralization.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 04:17 PM
2

Or, of course, the women's rights folks at the ACLU recognize that there is injustice against men to fight against, too.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 04:16 PM
6

The /r/mensrights-bashing circlejerks have nothing to do with 4chan comics. Speaking as someone who has been here for a good long while, it'd be nice if we didn't live up to the bashing quite as much.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 04:05 PM
3

If the best we can do vis-a-vis our perceived "enemies" is to engage in the same bullshit name-calling that we despair of when it is directed at us, we need to take a good long look at just how long we've been staring into the abyss. Telling an MRA to knock off being a jackass doesn't make someone a "white knight", it makes them a decent person. Being a man who disagrees with some MRA positions does not make someone a "mangina", it simply means they have legitimate disagreements. We should actua…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 04:05 PM
0

So, in rejection of the facts as presented through neutral sources, you will instead invent a narrative that suits your own pre-existing beliefs? That seems hypocritical.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 03:53 PM
-4

Well, if there's one thing decreased sensitivity would do, it'd be to make you orgasm faster. Wait... That doesn't sound right
/r/MensRights18/06/11 01:33 AM
0

I'm also male, and circumcised, and I've never really given a damn about it. It's a penis, not a Picasso painting.
/r/MensRights18/06/11 12:09 AM
0

Personal experience is tricky, though. My experience is different, so we can't draw many conclusions.
/r/MensRights18/06/11 12:02 AM
0

Maybe. But, the Denmark part of the study casts even more doubt on the results
/r/MensRights17/06/11 11:59 PM
0

Well, it would be interesting to see this study replicated in different populations. Denmark has a circumcision rate of 1.6%. Could part of it be culturally influenced? Where circumcision is less commonplace it's seen as weird, and something which would interfere with pleasurable sex, but where it's normal, it's not?
/r/MensRights17/06/11 11:47 PM
1

Wouldn't those (proved adverse impacts) be the risks the AAP is referring to when it says that the benefits don't outweigh the risks? Actually, they say this: " In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided t…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 09:24 PM
1

The exact same thing could be said for FGM and footbinding. And you know what stopped those? People like me. Not quite. I mean, it could, but that wouldn't be correct. FGM and footbinding have provable, long-term, adverse impacts on life, health, and wellbeing. You're creating a comparison (and analogy) that isn't valid. I realized that you probably won't get the implication I was making which is that it is people like you who would fight to continue the practice. I got the implication. The fact…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 09:18 PM
2

The simple fact is that you cannot justify non consensual circumcision with the information that is currently available. For you, perhaps not. Which is why I would never support making it mandatory. But, the entire assumption of parenting is that the parents will make the most responsible decision they can with the information available. If circumcision is so awful, parents will stop. Are you really comfortable substituting your beliefs and opinions for that of millions of parents?
/r/MensRights17/06/11 07:38 PM
0

And in the the case of the definition of mutilation, this is what it means or cutting off someone's earlobes wouldn't be considered mutilation. There are two meanings to "inherent". One means "occurring by the very nature of the thing" the other means "necessary for its function". Foreskins are inherent in that they come prepackaged, but the "inherent" that Merriam-Webster is using is the latter definition. this is what it means or cutting off someone's earlobes wouldn't be considered mutilation…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 07:37 PM
0

The only way you can be right is you can refute my argument that circumcision reduces function. Can you? You never proved it did. Remember the whole burden of proof thing? Your "standard" is irrelevant. A reduction in sensitivity is a reduction in the overall function of the penis. One sec: "You are the one that is making a positive claim. It is your responsibility to defend your argument. That's how rationality works. So please, convince me." Go for it Moving parts than interact with one anothe…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 07:33 PM
0

Not really. Breast tissue on men serves to purpose beyond the aesthetic. Which is at least some cost. Considering that the reduced risk only exists for the actual area removed as opposed to reducing cancer in a more comprehensive way the analogy is inapt on all levels. Hardly. You're doing it! I need a checklist for this. Wait, I have one: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/i1yts/baby_dies_after_circumcision_surgery_blood_loss/c20b0fe Awesome It is also the only one to actually measure …
/r/MensRights17/06/11 07:11 PM
1

But you still didn't answer the first part. Why do you think that the (small) chance of getting HPV justifies circumcision? Any benefit is worth it if the cost is small enough. Excluding cases of gross negligence (see OP), circumcision has no proved adverse impacts. As such, even a small reduction in HPV risk justifies it. Would you be in favor of some types of female circumcision if it was found that it reduces transmission of HPV as well? If it provably reduced cancer rates, and had no evidenc…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 07:06 PM
0

Don't question my objectivity and I won't question yours; it is not a contest you can win. Nor you. So, instead of attempting to tilt at windmills until one of us falls down, why don't we instead accept that both of us have ideologies. But, where yours is "ban it", mine is "let parents (in full possession of the information) decide what is best for their families. And this is not an argument. What are you trying to say by quoting this? Is this an argument for routine male circumcision? Elaborate…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 07:03 PM
1

How many of those men are uncircumcised? I don't honestly know. It'd be an interesting statistic to find, and I know that penile cancer is a lot more rare in circumcised men (there's a link I posted somewhere around here).
/r/MensRights17/06/11 07:01 PM
0

Though I may very well have a solution for that I don't need to provide a solution as I'm not here to solve everyone's problems. So, you're fine screwing the child as long as it helps the Dad? That seems... Odd. If a financial abortion is performed there is no father to speak of just like there is no mother to speak of if an abortion is performed. That's circular. You're saying "the child doesn't have a right to support from the father if he says he isn't the father", I'm saying "the child has t…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 07:00 PM
-1

Maybe you're just an old old man 23 as of Wednesday, so probably not that old. Honestly, I'd never run into a discussion of circumcision outside of a clinical perspective until I started running into stuff like Penn & Teller going off on it, and news stories about guys who don't like their lack of foreskin.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:58 PM
-1

In fact it's obvious that it does not. Very true. But, then, the statement that you "never hear about" good lovers from the U.S, Jews, or Muslims, is misstated. Not knowing precisely what accounts for the difference, there's absolutely no reason to devolve to "well, obviously uncircumcised men are better in bed, you hear about French guys being awesome". Especially considering a whole lot of people in France aren't particularly satisfied by the whole lot of sex they're having. Maybe it has nothi…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:57 PM
1

Right above. I'll reproduce it. Remember, this is the American Cancer Society: "circumcised men are less likely to get and stay infected with the human papilloma virus (HPV), even after accounting for differences in sexual behavior" Things like number of partners, condom use. The thing you're missing is that condom use and circumcision are not mutually exclusive. Circumcised men who use condoms will be less likely to be infected than uncircumcised men who use condoms.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:47 PM
0

Which means Americans have less sex and want considerably less sex. Possibly because it doesn't feel as good? Or, of course, you can read it as two separate questions: What is the frequency of sex How satisfied are you with your sexual life In this latter analysis, the French are having a hell of a lot more sex, but not enjoying it nearly as much. Go figure. I'm trying to find the questions. This writeup implies the second way of reading it is appropriate: http://www.physorg.com/news123833176.ht…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:45 PM
1

Except for the rights the child has against the parents, like the right for child support. The issue I took with your analysis is that you would be allowing a father to contract out of his obligation to a child by having the mother sign, that's not legally kosher. The mother can refuse to go after the father for CS, but only if she already has the financial wherewithal to support the child to begin with (otherwise the state steps in and does go after the father).
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:40 PM
0

which can be more easily and more effectively prevented with a condom I even quoted the "important wording". You're not even trying now.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:38 PM
1

In fact if she's against having an abortion but doesn't want to risk having to make child support payments this would appear to be a very attractive option for her. So, if a woman doesn't want the child, she can put it up for adoption as long as the other party doesn't know and/or object. Okay. But, that then is different. See, if a woman secretly puts a child up for adoption, neither of the biological parents have remaining rights nor responsibilities, and the child is (god willing) put in a go…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:37 PM
1

No I am not dodging, a father simply does not exist after a financial abortion. So, then, if the mother cannot raise the child without outside support (she doesn't make enough money to provide for it), what's your solution? Yes in much the same way that abortion is only okay before the child is born financial abortion is only okay before the child is born. So, a right which a born child would be able to exercise under normal conditions can be removed so long as its parents decide to remove that …
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:34 PM
-3

But women are generally told the opposite in our society. Sex with natural men is supposed to be worse then sex with men who have parts of thier penises missing. I've actually not heard that. Perhaps we run in different circles, but when I hear it discussed (if ever) it's by men who hate their lack of foreskin and believe they're "missing" something, and women who seem to think that having an extra bit of skin would make a man a better lover. cite? Happy to oblige: http://www.durex.com/en-US/Sex…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:32 PM
-2

Your argument, then, is that the benefit isn't worth the cost. That's fine, and if you don't want to circumcise your sons I won't force you, but there's room for legitimate disagreement here, and you should accept others deciding for their own families what is best. the numbers are about the same. It's utterly ridiculous. Yes, technically the same number of cancer cases will be reduced, but at a much greater cost. Your belief is based on the unsubstantiated claim that circumcision creates some h…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:25 PM
0

You already have your ideology well-set. If you want to be persuaded, you must start with an open mind. You have pre-set beliefs, and have little interest in being convinced. Don't present yourself as impartial, it's intellectually dishonest. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/pdf/circumcision.pdf That's the Centers for Disease Control, we usually call that a good source, right?
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:22 PM
-1

HPV infection itself is only a possible risk factor for penile cancer http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm 1900 men per year. Maybe we don't save all those lives, but at least a few would be cool. Especially considering there is no cost to circumcision excluding rare complications from botched (in the OP's case negligently performed) procedures. Now, as below, you'll say: "of course there's harm, penises become less sensitive, sex is less fun" Then I'll say "Where are those studies…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:19 PM
0

The foreskin is an essential part of the body, in the sense that it is inherent to our anatomy. Being inherent in the body and being essential are not synonyms. Appendixes are not essential, but they are inherent. Circumcision is not only highly conspicuous but also completely irreversible. Begs the question. You're assuming it is both "disfigurement" and "damage", which is what you're seeking to prove. Circumcision reduces the function of the penis both in obvious and subtle ways. [Citation Nee…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:13 PM
-1

You missed the part where the older a man is when he is circumcised, the more likely he is to have HPV, and the less effective it is. Optimally, it is done while the man is a virgin. So, are you going to put it off until he's 18? With any luck, he's had sex by then. Are you going to leave it up to a thirteen-year-old boy?
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:08 PM
1

No the child is fully supported by its one and only parent. Assuming the mother is capable of supporting the child on her own. Considering that one of my points was "people are not rational, so children will be born to mothers who cannot support them alone", you're dodging. decision is made by a man there are no children and furthermore there will never be any children of his. Ah. So as long as the rights are removed before the child is born that's okay?
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:06 PM
2

That the outcome differs is of no importance. You mean that in one situation the child doesn't exist and in the other, the child exists and is simply going unsupported? That's a significant distinction. If a man rejects being a father then he isn't a father and the resulting children isn't his children So, you're saying that a parent should be able to of his own volition simply remove the rights of his children?
/r/MensRights17/06/11 05:26 PM
-1

If there are gains to Male Genital Mutilation when it comes to STIs why not wait until there is actually a chance of someone getting an STI from sex? Not immediate repercussion. Furthermore every single "benefit"(relating to STIs that can be gained from Male genital Mutilation can also be attained using something else called a condom. Maybe you have heard of these things. Would you like me to provide a link? Funny story, the American Cancer Society disagrees with that analysis. http://www.cancer…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 05:24 PM
-1

The anti-circ websites would be a great place to start, then the Google. I'll stick to google. I'd rather get my information from unbiased sources without an axe to grind. Accusations of "hurr, it's just about stopping masturbation" and "hurr, doctors are harvesting foreskins" are turn-offs. Further down we see that there's a suggestion that cervical cancer rates may be closely related to genetics. Interesting. Allow me some counter-examples: Penile cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/158…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 05:20 PM
2

With that said your argument collapses You're implying that I mean "well, shit, if the baby isn't drinking from a solid-gold baby bottle, the man should be jailed". Are you really saying that there is no minimum for what parents must provide for children?
/r/MensRights17/06/11 05:07 PM
-1

To be honest, I'm less concerned with transmission than reception. The foreskin contains membranes which are susceptible to small tears. They wouldn't affect sex with a woman, but are entry vectors for all manner of nastiness.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 05:06 PM
4

This kind of thing bugs me, as though a "real man" is the kind to give it to a girl "hard and rough", and that anyone who doesn't is a "wuss". It bothers me, first, because it (as always) puts the onus on men to know what a particular woman wants, and to push just far enough (but not too far), and hope to god that she isn't going to decide that she was "coerced". Second, it's fucked up because we're letting our masculinity be defined by whether a particularly selfish woman ("here's what would ma…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:58 PM
2

Or. A woman can have an abortion when ever she wants but she is not entitled to any monetary support from the Father without a pre-existing contract. She isn't entitled to monetary support (maintenance is almost unheard of in most American states now). Child support is owed to the child. How can you justify saying that a child only has a right to support from its father if the father agrees to it? Aren't you on the side of "babies have rights"?
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:55 PM
2

Legally (and ethically) the obligation is owed to the child. You're really okay with letting prospective parents contract away the rights of their children? I'm really amazed that people here (so fervently against letting parents abridge the god-given rights of their children when it comes to foreskins) are okay with letting parents sign away their child's rights before he's even born.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:53 PM
0

It is only if both parents want to give up a child that it can be put up for adoption. Funny enough, if the woman ceded full custody to the man (as in her not wanting to raise it, but he does), she would be on the hook for child support. So, no, women can't walk away from all obligations "simply by turning it over", she has to get the father's approval
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:51 PM
2

just choose to abort his status as father during the pregnancy. See my post above. The problem is that if he "aborts" the child still exists, and since it didn't have a choice we're basically saying "yeah, since your mom's a bitch, you get to eat shit, baby." Not exactly what I'm comfortable with. There are two assumptions underlying this that I find interesting: (1) that women will rationally decide to abort if the father "aborts" (2) that women who "use" child support are doing it out of greed…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:49 PM
-1

My argument is a bit more nuanced. It's not "the man could have avoided her becoming pregnant" (we have enough instances where he didn't have much choice), but rather "injustice is going to be done either way." If we assume that the single mother lacks the resources to provide for the child by herself, then to relieve the father of any obligation would be (in essence) a punishment for the child for its very existence. It would be giving the child less financial support than he his due simply bec…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:45 PM
-1

There's the "lowered risk of cervical cancer" canard, and after that was debunked a good two decades ago (wash your dick) Would you mind finding that study for me? My understanding was that the reduced risk of penile, anal, and cervical cancer was due to micro-ulcerations which the foreskin is particularly susceptible to, and thus wouldn't be solved by "washing your dick". Same thing with HIV. If you'd be willing to spend the time to actually find where you're getting your information, I'd appre…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:32 PM
-2

That's kind of an evasion, though. What are "serious immediate repercussions"? If I don't have my child's vestigial tail removed, there's no immediate repercussion from that, would you say I would be morally indefensible for having it removed? And, on the other side, if the gains from circumcision are based on reduced susceptibility to STIs, that would only be a gain if done prior to becoming infected. Most teens become sexually active around 15, long before they reach the age of majority. Would…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:28 PM
-4

Having searched for the actual study, I only managed to find the abstract. Funny enough, it's based on self-reported surveys. Since there's no way to really control for that, the researchers admit that there can be error due to selection bias, sampling bias, and self-reporting oddness. Plus, there's absolutely no consideration of how much of this may be psycho-physiological. For instance, if I were a woman told repeatedly "sex with circumcised men isn't as good", I might actually think sex which…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:12 PM
-9

This "medically necessary" surgery thing has always kind of confused me. What I mean is that a tonsillectomy is "not-medically-necessary", and carries risks, but I never saw a push to see it banned. Technically, removal of wisdom teeth is the same thing. Do you support plastic surgery to repair cleft pallets and physical deformities? Those are "not-medically necessary" in the sense that the child will not die without them. Or are you defining "medically necessary" in terms of cost-benefit analys…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 04:02 PM
2

I was responding directly to your comment, rather than the article. Sadly, I am not "misfitx". Some similar letters, to be sure, but... Men are far more likely to be assaulted than women. In a public changing room? I accept that men are more likely to be assaulted, but my understanding is that those assaults come from altercations and violent attacks, not some strange woman following him into the changing room and giving his junk a squeeze. it was because the men were arrested for something the …
/r/MensRights15/06/11 09:30 PM
3

That's a bit off-topic, though. These changing rooms aren't in prison, so it's a question of "who is more likely to be assaulted/watched changing?" I don't think even you would argue that there's lots of voyeurism directed at men changing.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 09:10 PM
2

First, where was this? Second, when's the last time you heard about a peeping tom problem in a men's changing room?
/r/MensRights15/06/11 09:08 PM
1

Part of the problem with a lot of the societal reaction to men in bad situations is that we're expected to be stoic and manly, and that if we aren't able to "take it", it's our fault. What's sad is that the same "man/pussy" dichotomy happens even here.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 03:45 PM
1

This could be part of how I ended up with a "B" in Crim.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 03:44 PM
1

That's what it is: "What would YOU do?" Is the name of the segment
/r/MensRights15/06/11 01:08 AM
1

It would depend on the state. Perhaps I should have been less general. That said, the common-law definition (IIRC) is that you still need an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. I'd have to check my Crim notes, though, and they're on a computer whose hard drive is in another city and the rest of it is in California.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 01:07 AM
0

If a mother robs a bank, in order to provide for her kid, and she is caught, do we throw her in jail, or not? The Jean Valjean analogy is inapt. You are conflating a violent crime with a purely civil liability. I promise you that if a woman holds a man at knifepoint to induce him to pay for a child, I will be all in favor of sending her to jail. If we do that, then what happens to her kid? How dare you slap a kid around like that! Notice that I never said not to punish the mother, only that we h…
/r/MensRights14/06/11 10:59 PM
0

doesn't sound to fair does it. Nothing in these cases can end up fair unless we're willing to step in as a society and pay the obligation as a collective.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 10:06 PM
1

Woman beating a guy on a park bench, would you intervene?
/r/MensRights14/06/11 06:55 PM
4

It's also worth remembering that a conspiracy requires an affirmative act after the conspiracy has been solidified. Here, they agreed, but after that she didn't do anything to further the conspiracy. But, since all accomplice liability carries the same penalties, it's not a substantial difference.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 06:26 PM
-2

I love you so much right now. Edit: just to explain, I was going to come here to post exactly that, nice to see someone beat me to the punch.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 06:24 PM
-1

A child does not deserve the support of a person who did not willing bring it into the world, unless that person is presented with the choice to adopt the child and is willing. But, the child deserves support. So, the question becomes "who pays?" Considering the mother is either in jail, or likely not all that wealthy, do you punish the child for the crimes of its progenitor? When you force a man who was tricked into thinking a child is his to support it, you weaken the moral force of the law in…
/r/MensRights14/06/11 06:16 PM
-1

I think if paternity fraud were punished when discovered, instead of shrugged off, there would be less of it, and therefore fewer children put in that position, which would be better for children generally. Perhaps in the long-run, but we're all dead in the long-run. And in the meantime, you're smacking around a child who didn't choose to be born to a lying woman. So, we punish the woman with jailtime. What happens with the kid? Foster care? The system is overburdened and sucks in general. Make …
/r/MensRights14/06/11 06:12 PM
1

Not surprising, really. In places where someone can call you a pussy, and obligate you to go "prove your manliness" by doing something absolutely ridiculously stupid, you're more likely to get yourself killed. Of course, the same sort of things happen in the rest of the country, and we should be working to teach our sons (a) not to let "masculinity" drive a wedge between men, and (b) to accept that one can be a great man without doing dangerous things.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 03:37 PM
0

What I mean is that signing up for it has no actual harm to me. Unless they bring back the draft, my being a part of the Selective Service is pretty meaningless.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 02:36 PM
2

I'm not sure what, though. If we say "cut the bitch off", we're also throwing the kid under the bus. We could remove custody, but the cases where the injustice of paternity fraud are where the guy doesn't want the kid at all. How do we protect the men from obligations they don't deserve, without preventing the children from obtaining support they do deserve?
/r/MensRights13/06/11 10:41 PM
2

My guess was that it was going to be the old canard that a key that opens a lot of locks... clicks link Well, at least I was right.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:40 PM
1

I'm usually on the side of child support being okay, but outright fraud is really crappy. If she knew the child wasn't his, she's an absolutely awful woman.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:26 PM
5

Well, there are a lot of appeals to "think of the children" that are bullshit. In this case, I don't think it's unreasonable. They're saying "fraud sucks, the woman sucks, but the child didn't do anything wrong." It's the way I think of normal fraud. If I steal your identity and buy thousands of dollars of stuff, I am the only guilty party. The merchants I bought from didn't have a role in it, and so they deserve to be compensated for their goods. The bank (despite no wrongdoing) still owes mone…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:23 PM
8

This one has always bugged me. It's purely symbolic at this point, since there is no draft (and there is unlikely to be one in my lifetime), but it's a bad symbol.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:12 PM
1

others are being put to burden for her choice as an exception to what would otherwise be her liability alone unless she has intentional accomplices For the same reason we force banks to pay merchants even in cases of fraud and identity theft: it is unconscionable to foist the cost of those acts on a party who is completely innocent, and who had no way to protect itself from the act. The child did not choose to exist, and so its rights should not be hampered by whatever choices its progenitors ma…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 02:55 PM
1

If the father wants the child and is the only one capable of paying for it, he should be the sole parent of it. That's another argument, since "capable of paying for it" is a difficult standard to suss out. Does it mean "would be the only one able to pay for it with no outside help"? If she chooses to produce a person, others are subject to punishment from her actions. Child support is not punishment. Characterizing it as such does not make it true, and it does not grant weight to your inapplica…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 04:20 AM
0

Punch out, then, man. Don't delay!
/r/MensRights13/06/11 04:16 AM
1

The previous post which said little more than "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're dumb"? If that's what counts as an "actual argument" in your world, I shudder to think what you consider a lack of substance. You should stop accusing others of trolling when you've inserting yourself into a thread to do nothing but accuse others of trolling. That's some M.C Escher stuff. The eternal jackass.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 09:29 PM
0

Well argued, I applaud your logical and pedagogical acumen.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 09:28 PM
1

Except the dad usually doesn't get the kid when he's the one who is financially capable. If the fathers wants the child, I would default to equal custody. That's not the situation we're discussing. If a woman murders someone, is she not held responsible for her actions? Huh? Why do we not hold her responsible when she chooses to produce a person? We do. She is responsible for the child. But we also recognize that we can't (in good conscience) screw the child to punish the mother. That would be l…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 09:09 PM
0

Wait, so because I responded to personal attacks with personal attacks, it somehow becomes my fault? GTFO
/r/MensRights12/06/11 09:06 PM
0

You dislike me enough to reopen an argument 24 hours after it happened; you dislike me enough to go juvenile. I don't personally dislike you at all. I have no feeling about you one way or the other. I responded the next time I was on reddit, since I have other obligations in my life (like work and school) which kept me busy between mid-day Friday and evening Saturday. For the record, that's reading for, and then being in, a five-hour evidence class on Saturday. I came back to find that (rather t…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 04:59 PM
1

the points your making I already dealt with paragraphs ago Through recitation of unproved statements. We're simply repeating our fundamental points over and over again. You believe (without evidence) that if a woman "flaunts" themselves enough, they will eventually attract the attention of one willing to take them by force. I believe (without evidence) that after a certain level of attractiveness, rapists are looking for an vulnerable victim. We have inconsistent beliefs, and neither of us has t…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 04:56 PM
0

That's why I said the last. I admit I engaged in personal attacks, but only after being attacked myself. I responded in kind. Try to read the posts as written, mmmkay?
/r/MensRights12/06/11 04:55 PM
1

After this the discussion usually degrades to defensive poo-throwing. Absolutely true (see my discussion with disposable_human for testament to that). In part, it's a reaction to a long history of using women's apparent "sluttiness" as a defense in rape cases (seriously, they had to add a rule to the Federal Rules of Evidence to stop it), and partly because dispassionate debate doesn't happen often. It would be best (always) to be able to say "this isn't true because", and have that be enough. B…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 03:38 AM
1

Actually, no, I would definitely say both the former and the latter I'm... Confused. You would say "yeah, I shouldn't have nice things" and "fuck you, that bastard stole my car"? it's be responsible with what you have and understand the risks in going out of your way to show them off The analogy isn't perfect, since women can't precisely hide that they have vaginas. Your point about not flaunting it is an interesting one, though, I'll grant you that. Still, in a situation where just being out in…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 03:33 AM
1

It's a simple question. You're arguing that a woman can help protect herself from rape by not dressing like a slut. Okay, but then why not the same advice to "minimize the risk" of other crimes?
/r/MensRights12/06/11 03:29 AM
0

B'awww. Little boy wants to act like he's a big boy. It's cute, in a pathetic kind of way.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 03:29 AM
1

Aww, disposable_dumbass is trying to prove he's a big man with a life, while arguing on the internet. Do you have to be to the gym in twenty-three minutes?
/r/MensRights12/06/11 03:28 AM
1

And wearing cloths that are provocative, intentionally/overtly sexual and that stand out make these women both available and attractive to any potential rapists. Either way, you have still admitted that sexual attraction does matter but I would add to that that the more desirable, attractive and perceptibly vulnerable/accessible a person is, the more likely it is that a potential rapist would risk getting caught to get what they want from them If you cannot understand why I am objecting to that …
/r/MensRights12/06/11 03:26 AM
0

I like how you said something completely true like it couldn't have possibly happened. Read a history book. We believed all that stuff until someone could prove it wrong. It was believed but it wasn't true. You said (and I quote): "The status quo, wheither you call it prima facie or not, is true until proven false." (emphasis mine). Care to walk that back, then? If the idea that women's clothes had nothing to do with presenting them as a more attractive target for rape wasn't the de facto assump…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 03:01 AM
0

When you're dealing with a problem which can only possibly have a limited number of solutions, one of them must be true. I never said absolutes are incorrect, so I'm not sure why you've resorted to ad hominem attacks. Hypocrite.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 02:57 AM
0

Are you kidding me? When I'm personally insulted, I'm expected to come up with a "logical rejoinder" or concede? Given that the last thing which was said that didn't include personal attacks was my post above, perhaps you're directing your condemnation improperly.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 02:56 AM
0

I think she was saying rapists would be encouraged to rape by clothing The problem is you must assume one of two things: Rapists are men predisposed to rape, and who will do so if there is a vulnerable target of appropriate age There are men who will not commit rape unless they see a sufficiently hot chick. I don't believe the second is true. I don't accept that there are any men out there who are just minding their own business until they see a low-cut top.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 11:32 PM
0

That's not where the burden of proof falls. It falls on whoever is trying to argue against the established assumptions. Perhaps in your bizarro world of "whatever a bunch of people believe is probably true." But in logical terms, it's up to the person purporting to prove that something exists not the one proving it doesn't. See, for instance, the debate over the existence of the supernatural. Are you really saying that an atheist has a burden to prove god doesn't exist, rather than a Christian h…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 11:30 PM
1

most statisticians prefer to measure the median income precisely because the few obscenely wealthy outliers do not skew it Well, it skews it in different ways. If you have a bimodal system, the median show data which is inapplicable to the actual "average" man. If you have a modal system, you can get decent data, but which doesn't account for outliers. (I would say it is about the idea of equal pay for equal work, but the feminist movement moved the goalposts there with the "mommy tax" argument.…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 11:05 PM
-1

Emphasis mine. You said that. You know what? you are trolling. Or you are retarded or delusional And you are either illiterate, or an idiot. Or you drive a dodge dart because driving a BMW would make it more "desirable" to carjackers. Do the girls love the Dodge Dart?
/r/MensRights10/06/11 10:56 PM
0

I don't want to parrot girlwriteswhat too much, because voicing an opinion is more valuable than voicing agreement Frankly, I find her to be full of crap a lot of the time, including this case. I find it insulting that there's an implication that men are unable to distinguish between flirting and invitations for sex, or that men will be encouraged to rape by clothing. We are not animals, we are men.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 10:54 PM
0

I'm pretty sure that's basic common sense I'd say it's common sense that rapists are choosing victims of opportunity, not because they're the most attractive or sluttiest. The problem with that kind of argument, though. while I may not personally know any rapists, I am quite certain that they would pick out victims they are attracted to first and foremost Why? I'm quite certain that they pick victims based on who is most vulnerable. I will digress for a moment, since I can almost hear the scream…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 10:53 PM
-1

For someone trying to defend an assumption An assumption that something is not true unless it can be proved that it is true? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html I used inductive reasoning And I used deductive reasoning (the cooler kind of reasoning, IMHO). But, considering you are asserting a positive statement "wearing slutty clothes makes you more likely to be raped" or "wearing less slutty clothes makes you less likely to be raped", it is your burden to prove it. Fin…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 10:44 PM
-2

You're jumping a few questions, like "does dressing provocatively make a man more likely to sexually assault you?" And "are rapists sufficiently similar to other men in worldview so as to be analyzed using the same schema?" If it's so easy to show that clothes induce rape, why not just find a quick study and shut me up?
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:48 PM
1

...keep going to? I mentioned it once? Sorry, my bad. If you drive a fancy car you should lock it when you aren't at it But that's the difference. I'm fine saying "don't walk around alone, don't get drunk, don't leave your drink unattended." Those reduce the vulnerability to rape (much like locking the doors). Saying "don't dress like a slut, it'll make men want to rape you" is like saying "don't drive a BMW, people will want to steal it." Because I do have an expensive TV and don't want the ent…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:47 PM
1

Assumption Actually, it's a presumption. I will not make a few assumptions to prove my presumption accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions. Are you saying that some men are induced to rape by seeing attractive women? I assume not. So, you're instead saying that there are some men predisposed to rape, and will do so when the opportunity presents itself? I also assume you do not posit that men who are likely to rape are going to simply go home if they never see anyone slutty enough for…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:44 PM
0

Can you discuss anything with a person with the slightest disagreement without being condescending? I try, but that was a legitimate question. I was actually asking if the distinction I'm drawing makes sense to you, so I can endeavor to explain it better if it doesn't. I'm saying don't put an attractive theft item into an extremely risky situation. It's doubling up risks. Lemme put it this way: If 90% of the risk comes from the "extremely risky situation", and 10% from the "attractive theft item…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:40 PM
-1

level of benefit from attacking target Define what a "level of benefit" is to a rapist? Do you really believe the rapes of 80-year-old women occur because a man looked at her and said "aww yeah, I've got to get me some of that"? Second, even if true, changing the second input can only protect the individual woman relative to increased risk for others, thus if everyone followed it it would be a net gain of zero, where reduction in vulnerability can actually reduce rape. True, but it fits with sec…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:32 PM
0

Gotta love when even an admission of being less than completely detailed is considered somehow bad. Dude owns up to something, and gets downvoted. Classy, guys.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:21 PM
2

they could just as well be charming, social, attractive and cautious swindlers who spotted an obvious pray weeks prior Prey. I know it's a little thing, but it grates on me, and since this conversation will take a while I wanted to politely point it out up front. There's no evidence that your statement is true. If the man is a rapist (pure and simple) there's no telling what his criteria are, or how to be less obvious to him. AFAIK, rapists go after the most vulnerable women, not the hottest. Ev…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:20 PM
-1

For the second part, no. For the first part, yes.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:16 PM
1

That's fair
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:15 PM
0

And how often have we heard the advice to not leave your garage door open for long periods of time displaying all your "toys" to the world because some thief might notice and then target your house? Because you made it easier to steal your cars. No one objects to saying to a woman don't be vulnerable, the objection is to "don't look too sexy, because they will try to rape you." So, to correct your analogy: Saying "don't dress like a slut" is akin to saying "If you have a nice TV, put curtains on…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:15 PM
-1

Except then you're saying "don't make it easy to steal", which is the same as saying "don't get blackout drunk". The equivalence is between saying "don't look nice, so you don't attract the attention of rapists" and "don't drive a nice car so you don't attract the attention of carjackers." No one is saying women shouldn't do things to make themselves less vulnerable (not parking my BMW in a bad neighborhood, ect.); the objection is to saying "don't be as attractive a target" (don't drive a BMW a…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:12 PM
-1

I would like you to look up the definition of "burden of proof" and "proving the negative" on wikipedia. They may shed some light on this.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 06:12 PM
1

True, I was being overly simple about it.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 06:11 PM
-1

I must have gotten a weird link the first time I clicked. I saw someone explaining the other risk factors, ignoring clothes, and getting massive upvotes
/r/MensRights10/06/11 06:10 PM
1

If we give her credit of competency, then she is making an active decision which carries responsibilities and is thus up to her to tend to the level of care necessary to cover basic needs. That's a lot of assumptions. I would be fine with a system of testing the single parent's ability to provide a minimum amount of support, and only use child support if they can't. That's kind of what happens now. With item two (out of bullet points), this is tended by my last line. She's making a decision, she…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 06:03 PM
-3

You can own a nice television, but do you display it in the window with everything unlocked Why do you keep going to "everything unlocked" or "locking your doors"? Dressing like a slut does not make you easier to rape (just as having a nice television doesn't make you easier to rob), it only arguably makes you a more desirable target. So, go tell the guys of the world "yeah, that BMW you want, you shouldn't ever drive it because that's just inviting someone to carjack you". And, yeah, most peopl…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:54 PM
-1

You were massively upvoted, and those who accused you of "victim blaming" were downvoted. True, I was incorrect that no one does it, but even the feminists downvote those idiots. The vast majority of people don't call the rest of it victim blaming.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:52 PM
3

You'd best not drive that BMW down the street, 'cause if you're driving around showing it off you must be selling it. I don't care if you do it because you like how nice it looks, or because you like the feel, if you're in that BMW you must be willing to give it to me. What, you don't want to? Fine, I'll just take it. Of course, you shouldn't have driven around in a BMW if you didn't want it stolen, right?
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:50 PM
-2

[Citation Needed]
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:48 PM
-2

So, you would also agree that men shouldn't own nice flatscreens or cars, because that's a precaution to minimize the chances of burglary, right?
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:48 PM
1

He's being sarcastic, I think. We need a sarcasm font.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:47 PM
1

As long as you accept that it's true for all advice given to anyone. I've seen plenty of fits thrown here, too.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:47 PM
0

The thing is that it's attacked for "blaming the victim" because it's shitty advice. No one attacks "don't leave your drink unattended" because that's something we know actually helps. When you say "don't dress like a slut, or you gonna get raped", if it's not true, you're both being misleading, and implying that rapists are somehow induced by clothing to rape someone.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:46 PM
1

A fantastic idea! Ignore that the region where those rules are enforced have some depressingly high rape rates.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:43 PM
1

Except all "revealing" is relative. And, whatever reduced risk a woman gains from wearing more conservative clothes is an increased risk for her "sluttier" neighbors.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:43 PM
1

Unless I'm confused, that's the protesters' point. They're saying "the clothes don't matter, so don't say shit like "don't dress like a slut if you don't want to be victimized" like that jackass cop."
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:41 PM
0

Bad analogies are bad. Saying "lock your doors" is akin to saying "don't get blackout drunk". Saying "don't dress like a slut" is akin to saying "don't own a nice television".
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:40 PM
-4

And there is none in the opposite direction either, likely because it's very difficult to study. And since the null hypothesis is "no connection unless it's proved", even if there is literally no evidence the assumption should be "no connection." Edit: More details. As R0d points out below, it'd technically be a "failure to reject the null hypothesis" or that "no significant link existed". The actual methods are important (first because we start by proving correlation, then attempting to limit c…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:38 PM
-3

I've never seen someone called a victim-blamer for saying "bring a friend, don't be alone, don't leave your drink unattended." If you had the poor choice to say in response to an actual rape victim "well, it might not have happened if..." That would come across as crass. But saying it in the abstract has never appeared to be objectionable or objected to.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:36 PM
-1

I think where feminists, white knights, or whoever get stuck is here: This advice isn't about shaming or blaming the victim, it isn't rape apologism, and it sure as shit isn't intended to promote "rape culture" which is a farce for a whole other rant. The problem is that you conflate "dressing like a slut" with the rest of the actual risk factors. A woman in a headscarf and bee-keeper-outfit getting falling-down drunk and going with a stranger in a cab is more likely to be raped, that's true. Bu…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:33 PM
1

I agree that dress and behavior have a lot to do with "date rape." But is that an inclusive "and" (put together, they have an effect) or an exclusive "and" (either one, by itself, has an effect). I think it's an inclusive one. My argument would be that while dress and behavior combined increase the risk of rape, it's almost all the behavior. If a woman wears sweats and goes and gets falling-down drunk at a frat party, she's likely to be date raped. Her likelihood doesn't go up much from being dr…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:21 PM
7

That said, dressing slutty, flirting with bros all night, and getting blackout drunk in a frat house probably isn't a solid plan for avoiding date rape. The problem is that the "blackout drunk" is the superseding, intervening, cause there. So, divide the two pieces of advice: Don't get blackout drunk. Absolutely solid advice. Don't dress like a slut. There's no evidence that there's an effect, and it's on par with saying "if you don't want to have your house robbed, don't own a nice television".
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:19 PM
-1

Since the null hypothesis is that something is not a cause of something else, you need to cite that it is a cause. Otherwise you're asking Matt to prove the negative.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:17 PM
1

Precisely. Saying "don't do things that make you an easy target" is perfectly fine. Saying "don't do things that make men attracted to you, since one of them will want to rape you" is silly.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:17 PM
0

Preach it! As a man, I am always pretty insulted by arguments that somehow women who seem less sexy will be raped less, as though there are some normal guys out there saying "yep, not gonna rape anyone", but who see an attractive woman and are driven to animalistic lust.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:15 PM
2

Oh come on. That's a bit far. None of the women in question are actively lifting their skirts and saying "gee, I wish I didn't want to have sex so much". Even if we accept that there's some extra incentive to rape when she's dressed provocatively, your analogy takes a running leap into the absurd. Would I wear a nice suit downtown, a nice watch, maybe drive a nice car? Yes. Would anyone here say "well, don't do that, get a Dodge Dart, that way you won't get robbed"? I doubt it
/r/MensRights09/06/11 09:03 PM
3

I rather feel that if someone stabs me, they're violating something much more sacred than my vagina--like my vital organs that I need to, you know, live and stuff. Yet getting stabbed is not accompanied by the same sense of shame and loss of self-worth as is rape. I'm a male, and I would much rather be stabbed than raped (even non-penetratively). Perhaps we will simply have to agree to disagree, but I see sexual violation as being worse than simple physical harm I'd expect they would feel deeply…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 08:05 PM
2

anymore than leaving your door unlocked makes people burglarise The problem I have is this: that statement makes it seem as though the two actions are considered somehow comparable, and they are not. Leaving your door open makes you more vulnerable to theft. Wearing revealing clothing makes you (arguably) a more attractive target. The proper analogy would be "wearing provocative clothing is like having a really nice flat-screen T.V" The rest of it is inoffensive enough.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 07:59 PM
1

What they're getting at, and what you don't seem to realize, is that dressing in that manner is a significant risk factor. The car/tv? Yeah, those are risk factors too, but nowhere near on the same level. Without any evidence to support that, the distinction loses any credibility. The only argument you have is "well, rape is based on physical attractiveness, so the more attractive someone is, the more at risk they are for being raped". Even if true, that is no different from "theft is based on a…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 07:56 PM
1

I'm not sure how much of the loss of self-worth is real, and how much is played up in fiction. But, even if it is wholly true, it is because someone has done something so intrusive, and committed such a violation of the sanctity of the person's body. We all take for granted bodily autonomy, and when that is destroyed it is a shock. If a man were anally violated by someone non-consensually (be it a man or woman), he would react much the same way. Men don't display it because we are taught that we…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 05:05 PM
2

Job done? I don't think so. It would be just dandy if life were so simple. The comparison to theft is problematic for me not because I don't buy that both are bad luck, and both are based on an aberrant mind doing bad stuff, but because the advice given to combat them is not equivalent. To combat theft we say "don't leave your door unlocked." We advise people to make themselves less vulnerable in case someone decides to do something bad. We would never say "well, you shouldn't buy that new flats…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 05:02 PM
1

Upvote for you. You should be able to walk around in Compton and people shouldn't shoot at you. Ohh, you walked around in Compton and got shot in the head? Well what the fuck were you doing that for? That's just dumb. Walking in a dangerous area =/= wearing nice clothes. If you can't tell the difference between saying "don't put yourself in dangerous situations" and "don't look so sexy, someone will rape you", I'm sorry.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 04:53 PM
5

if I advise my daughter on how to reduce her chances of being assaulted, then in the eyes of some I'm a rape-supporter It depends on the advice. Advice which is really valuable (and reduces the actual vulnerability of your daughters) isn't frowned upon. No one objects to saying "don't go out alone, don't leave your drink unattended, don't go down dark alleys". But, given that there is no evidence I have seen making a causal link between clothes and rape (and given that it's logically counterindi…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 04:53 PM
4

The real reason for theft is thieves, but no one thinks recommending to people that they lock their doors is victim-blaming, do they? That's, frankly, a bullshit analogy. Saying "don't dress like a slut if you don't want to be raped" is more akin to saying "don't own a nice car if you don't want to be carjacked" or "don't buy a nice house if you don't want it robbed." One set of factors deal with the attractiveness of a target (nice houses have nice stuff in them), but which no one accepts as be…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 04:50 PM
1

I agree there should be studies. The problem would be distinguishing between where clothes were ancillary to the attack, and when clothes caused the attack. I'd wager there's some correlation, but perhaps only because girls wear nice clothes when they go to a club downtown. It is not the clothes, but the area which increases the risk of being raped.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 04:43 PM
0

Just headlines, AFAIK there's no way to search comments
/r/MensRights09/06/11 04:37 PM
1

Great. So you've at least backed off the idea that a man should owe a girl who empties a used condom into her big checks for 18 years? And you agree that the 100,000 pound judgment against frozen sperm man was a travesty of justice? You love putting words in my mouth, which is making it very difficult to continue discussing with you. How you transposed "I'm not saying keep child support exactly as is" into "you agree with my fundamental position on all levels" baffles me. I believe the man shoul…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 03:13 PM
1

So I don't think it's a budgetary measure, even if stated If that's true, then it's an empty gesture (since it won't stop any circumcisions from happening, given your "foreskins are valuable" thesis). It seems much more likely that it's either a cut to save some small amount of money, or a cut to avoid putting the medicaid system in the middle of the kerfuffle about whether circumcision is "mutilation" (hey, look, a second explanation; my god, it's full of stars). I'm also aware that no states h…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 02:58 PM
1

Ya know, one of these days you're going to have to accept a source outside the feminist fold as 'valid'. You mean a guy with tenure and a PhD don't count because his concerns are too....er...in tune with the issues presented? Where's his sources, where's the data upon which is position is based? At least when I say "there is evidence of a gender wage gap in certain circumstances" I cite to sources. The best I've gotten from you is "some dude I agree with said it". Hardly the stuff of legends. Yo…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 02:53 PM
1

It's well documented that women's median income has more or less tracked with GDP, while men's has stagnated since the 70's. Heck, I just watched a vid on the Male Studies symposium where the guy goes over the whole thing...maybe go watch that. Show me the money (I've always wanted to say that) If you're going to pull out the big gun of "some dude talked about it", maybe go to an impartial source. Going to the Male Studies symposium isn't exactly going to give you the unvarnished truth any more …
/r/MensRights09/06/11 06:14 AM
1

My identical twin has the exact same DNA code. This means that the actions of my identical twin can put "my" genetic code into a baby. Am I now responsible for child support by your logic? That's a decent point, so perhaps genetic code is not a good dividing line. Keep in mind that my position is not "child support is awesome, keep it exactly as it is". I agree we should change it, and make the financial obligation fall to society at large The business owner must, in order to comply with this la…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 06:08 AM
1

Some forms of "not discriminating" are inactions, and some are actions. Which means that the dividing line is not that an affirmative right is "do this" while a negative one is "don't do this", since both can be phrased either way. If there is a right of rescue in tort liability (there isn't, but let's say there were), it could either be viewed as either (a) a requirement that someone act in rescuing, or (b) require that someone refrain from ignoring the plight of another human being. Indifferen…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 06:06 AM
0

Nope, I meant the cut in funding. If there's one thing I hate more than the "OMG circumcision is evil baby molesting mutilation", it's inaccuracy in reporting.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 05:55 AM
2

at a time when other states have also begun to defund and make illegal circumcision Other states may have removed circumcision from medicaid funding for the same reason that Colorado may have: budget cuts necessitated cutting non-essential programs. No state has made circumcision illegal, and if California does (and it isn't overturned) I will go buy a hat and eat it. So, no, there's a lot of room for other explanations, and the sentiment is implied not a whit.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 05:52 AM
1

In your example, non discrimination in employment is a positive right because it obligates another party to take an action But, all that is is an obligation not to engage in discrimination. See the problem? Did you sleep last night? If so, how? There are millions of kids living in poverty and/or starving. They have a positive right to resources in your view. From their parents, sure. Or, by their consent, society writ large. since you've basically stated that food, shelter and education even are…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 12:07 AM
0

That screams of naivety. And your position screams of undue cynicism and a perverse conspiracy theory. See how easy it is to say "hurr, you're stupid and so is your position"? If you have evidence that some number of doctors would not recommend circumcision save for a financial inducement in the form of sellable foreskins, I await the citation. Until then, the burden of proof rests with you. In the UK where the NHS doctors frequently ignore excellent treatments because they cost so much - I can …
/r/MensRights08/06/11 08:59 PM
2

Damn, I punned unintentionally.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 07:16 PM
1

Hospitals also sell placenta, and research on spleens (to make drugs they make money on). The fact that there can be a side-effect of a procedure which leads to money for doctors does not imply an bad motive for doing the procedure. Unless you've got doctors, hospital admins, willing to line up to say "we only do it for the precious, precious, foreskins", you're simply making a circumstantial ad hominem. Actually, you're doing that either way, but it's more persuasive if you can prove the allege…
/r/MensRights08/06/11 06:03 PM
0

The problem is that there's a difference between "we do the procedure, and there's this leftover tissue we can do stuff with" and "we do the procedure to get the tissue". There was a case where doctors got rich studying a patient's awesome spleen, and the court decided that since the doctors would have removed the spleen either way, the financial result was not improper.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 06:00 PM
0

Let's bifurcate the issue, though. Yes, this particular part of circumcision (which is practiced only by the relatively small orthodox population) is disturbing on about fifteen levels. But, it should not be used as an argument against circumcision in general.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:57 PM
5

Other possibilities, of course, include that because the measure is median income, the existence of a few obscenely wealthy males, and the stagnation of most of the workforce's pay in general (while women are more clustered in their incomes) accounts for the difference. Given that men are more likely both to not have graduated (or gone to) college, and more likely to have advanced degrees, we would have a widening gap in the middle, which would stagnate the median income for me (which, let's rem…
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:54 PM
0

It'd be possible to link to the actual information without linking to the unsupported editorialization. It's misleading, at best, since it states that the Colorado government "acknowledged" the "unethical" nature of circumcision, as did the seventeen other states. To the best of my knowledge and cursory research, no such "acknowledgement" has taken place, and is entirely based on the perception of "intaction".
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:41 PM
1

The problem with posting a link to comments early-on in the life of a thread is that the more extremist posts are often voted-down.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:12 PM
1

Given that there are multiple reasons for why this kind of cut might take place (like it being an elective procedure, not emergent care, ect.), I think the article may be putting too much emphasis on what is (in reality) a short statement by the government on the issue. They do not identify the whys and wherefores of the decision, so to speculate and provide it as "proof" that Colorado believes it to be unethical is, itself, negligent reporting at best. Perhaps someone (say, "intaction") should …
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:07 PM
3

Wow... See, he meant that he's a member of those boards despite being against the practice. Goodness, dude. Also, even if he represent himself as being pro-circumcision (or, rather, pro-letting-parents-decide-to-have-it-done), cursing at him and calling him a sack of shit is not appropriate. Your behavior shines the kind of bad light on the MRM that is unnecessary.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:04 PM
4

There are similar "position of trust" statutes in a lot of states.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:01 PM
3

It's interesting, since IIED doesn't require that the action be untruthful. But, I was just marveling at the fact that someone would look at you, of all people, and say "yep, that's a feminist". I mean, I'm used to me being accused of being a fifth-column-quisling-feminist-sympathizer, but...
/r/MensRights08/06/11 04:25 PM
2

A positive right makes an obligation some party. If it's my right to have lunch today, it's somebody's responsibility to provide it if I can't myself. That's a bit too simplified, though. Do minorities have a right to not be discriminated against (a "negative" right), or a right to be employed without discrimination (a "positive" right). Almost any right can be expressed in either way. And, since any right does oblige others (your right to be free of assault limits my right to commit assault), i…
/r/MensRights08/06/11 04:18 PM
2

I'm in agreement generally (though I'm actually okay with saying "he has a right to speak, but he also did cause her damage, so he has to pay for it"), I was just saying that for someone to accuse you of being on the side of feminists is rather out of place to me.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 04:04 PM
2

She should give the child up for adoption. She is not entitled to a 50% off child bargain at the expense of a man. Perhaps, but unless you're willing do force her to do so, you're still going to have lots of situations where the woman refuses an abortion, but also refuses to put it up for adoption. True, it would be justice vis-a-vis the relationship between the man and woman to give her no help. But, as that would be unjust to the child (which had no way of influencing the decision), I cannot s…
/r/MensRights08/06/11 12:54 AM
0

The reason I said "If I recall correctly" is that I don't have any data on the subject.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 12:33 AM
1

I think you identify most of the important factors here. I would add a couple more, though: (1) The "All or Nothing" Approach Both in terms of the reaction to possible supporters, and in terms of what issues we focus on, much of the MRM has a problem picking battles. It's not so much that they're bad at picking battles, it's that they don't. For many MRAs, if you do not believe in every aspect of Men's Rights they believe in, you are simply another part of the enemy. And when it comes to the iss…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:43 PM
0

I don't think that's a good wagon to hitch ourselves to. First, libertarianism has way too many internal inconsistencies to represent a viable third party, but lacks the ability to influence and assimilate into an existing party. Second, libertarianism is bad for the majority of men, who lack the resources and advantages which the wealthiest among us have, and can pass on in perpetuity. The last thing any man aside from Bill Gates should want is a society where we limit collective bargaining, al…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:29 PM
1

[Needs Citation]
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:26 PM
1

In fairness, many of those who "stand up" for our rights actually are pretty extremist, and many are anti-woman.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:26 PM
4

I'm sure if he wanted to sue for conversion of his genetic material, small claims court could award him something. But, other than that, he's simply being an unbelievable jackass. As for the number of men here supporting his actions, I can say only say that I am sadened
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:24 PM
3

Actually it has everything to do with him and his message. Privacy law, and libel law, does not make something public simply by one party doing something publicly. To allow that kind of rule would say that if I manage to say libelous things about you in enough papers, you're a public figure now. Being a public figure takes the choice of the person being made public.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:21 PM
4

The problem I see with that is that it will adversely affect children whose mothers don't want (for whatever reason) to abort and realize how awful the foster care system is. You're going to have some number of babies the mothers elect to keep. Allowing men to "financially" abort, then, can end up with those children deprived of their rights to financial support.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:20 PM
1

I've got to say, I don't think I've ever seen you implied to be a feminist, or a feminist sympathizer. This is... Weird.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:17 PM
3

It's a difficult question, and one we've been discussing here ad nasuem recently. I would ask you to consider something, though: You are currently looking at it from the view of "what makes men and women equal". That's a fair view, but I would encourage you to consider not only the relative rights of the parents, but what rights the child comes into existence with. Remember that the child had no part in deciding the circumstances of its birth. If a child deserves financial support in its growth,…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:14 PM
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress I thought you might find this interesting. So... Yeah, no. You'd have been right until fairly recently, but the tort of IIED is recognized in most jurisdictions (and by the Restatement) as being wholly independent of any other claim. If a person calls you personally at all hours of the night and leaves threatening messages, you can probably sue for distress Lack of personal contact is not an elemental defense to IIED, sinc…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:06 PM
1

Bravo. If there's one thing on which we can agree, we should not be inaccurate or misleading in our reporting when it comes to hot-button issues in Men's Rights advocacy.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 09:00 PM
1

As noted by both SharkSpider and Kloo2yoo (the latter of whom is especially credible here given that he's bashing a pro-MRM post), the statistics are rampantly misleading. First, because 95% saying they had been victimized by female staff does not mean that only 5% said they had been victimized by male staff. Second, given that 91% of the possible victims are teenaged males, we have some selection bias and sampling error going on. It's a common-place "women doing bad things" post, but it goes to…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 08:59 PM
1

Both the article and the headline are misleading.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 08:54 PM
3

Ehh... I'm not sure this is "defending men" so much as "defending the opulently wealthy", as though the Horatio Algers story weren't largely a myth. I'd be a bit wary of throwing the lot of men writ large in with the lot of the men who make millions.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 08:52 PM
1

It is legal, and often encouraged, to remove a cat's nails (admittedly not a dog, maybe there's an anti-cat bias), a surgery which is equivalent in a lot of ways to taking off the last digit of a human finger. It's legal (and encouraged) to spay and neuter pets of all varieties. You're... Uh... Barking up the wrong tree
/r/MensRights07/06/11 08:51 PM
2

Who defended that ruling? If my memory is working, everyone got really pissed about that case, and with good reason.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 08:46 PM
1

IIRC, most headlines about male teachers having flings with students also call it an "affair", or a "tryst", rather than a rape or molestation. Given that she is charged with child molestation, perhaps we're making hay where there is none.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 08:45 PM
1

If she is not only unaware but does not give consent to that debt, we legally consider this fraud. The system recognizes this as such. Not really. Unless I misrepresented myself as having no debt, I wouldn't be chargeable with fraud, nor could my wife necessarily rescind her obligation to service my debt. That said, it was a bad analogy, blame it on being tired. then it's simply acceptable to place the burden on the state as it is the state which is bound to oblige individuals' rights Absolutely…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 04:33 PM
1

If this is actually your stance, I find myself unsurprised that (judging from your other posts) you have chosen to enter the legal profession, and I'm sure you'll find yourself surrounded with other pleasant individuals with similar moral values (which is to say, absolutely fucking none). Aww. Most people here can at least go two posts deep into an argument before having to resort to "hurr, you're stupid and immoral". If your best argument is simply "it's wrong, therefore it's wrong", kindly let…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 04:15 PM
1

If a woman wants a child and produces one without the consent of the father and then forces him to pay, that is forcing him to work for "the child's" benefit. If he chooses not to, he goes to jail. There's a difference between working to pay for an obligation which you owe, and working for no wages as a piece of property. For one thing, a woman cannot "sell" the servitude of the man, nor force him to relocate, or do anything other than "give x number of dollars per month". I do not consider "bei…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 03:01 AM
0

So your position is that, even in the cause of deceptive 'self' impregnation, the father should be compelled not only to finance the upbringing of the resulting child, but also to participate? Well, I can't force participation, so I will settle for support. Does it suck? Yes. Is it crappy that the woman can do that? Absolutely. Should the child suffer for it? No. Gag inducing strawman. Fine "the woman did [insert x,y,z "bad" thing] so no child support". The existence of such sociopathic views as…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 02:54 AM
1

It's applicable since in most instances I've heard, reasonable people would side with the donor parents who wanted the kid; if surrogate took the kid that's fine, however it's then her choice and she is bound to the financial burden. The would-be parents get to pay and start all over. Without knowing the details or where it happened, I'd be hard pressed to argue about it. My position is (really) coming from the same place yours is: what is fair and equitable. You find equity in balance between t…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 02:49 AM
1

It wasn't actually asking you to prove anything. At one point in time some time ago, you said you "found" some kind of evidence for your side based on proceedings of family court cases. I wanted to know what I asked above so I could actually try digging and building real numbers. If I said I had "found" it, I apologize. I should have said that from my experience in working family law cases, it does not seem as unbelievably unbalanced as presented by MRAs, and that I can say with certainty that t…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 10:50 PM
0

The important part of the analogy is that the gift is not an expensive obligation. It's the choice of the giftee to turn it into one. The responsibility for the choice lies only with the person who made that choice. We're at an impasse. Your consideration is the relationship between the parents. I don't care if the mother and father never speak; I care about the relationship between the child and its parents. The child (innocent in all cases from any wrongdoing) deserves the support of both. Per…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 10:15 PM
1

A better analogy to the car gift would be a gift of parts and tools, which another person combined with parts and labor of their own to create, say, a fission reactor. That is, if the "giftee" could sue the "giftor" for a lifetime of expensive fuel for the built reactor. Not really. In that case, the reactor has no rights. You're equating "having to support my child financially" with "having to buy reactor fuel for another person". That's assuming the illegitimacy of child support to begin with.…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 09:19 PM
0

Obtaining resources under false pretences != misuse of a gift. When did she give a pretense of what she would do with the sperm? Did she say "Oh, yeah, I'm only going to swallow this, or spit it down the sink, I promise not to do anything else with it"? If she did, I promise I'd take a different position. Otherwise, this is like me saying to you "I'm really behind on my rent", you giving me $100 and I buy cocaine with it. You meant for it to be used for my rent, but it's not "false" if you're as…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 09:13 PM
2

If the current state of the law is that the former is illegal, and the latter is a-ok (and I have no idea whether this is the case), then what does that say about the morality of the law? The law distinguishes between "not being completely forthright" and "attempting to lie". A man is "forced" to pay child support if he either consents to paternity, or never (ever) contests it. There is no situation I can come up with in which a man loses the ability to contest child support on the basis of non-…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 08:50 PM
2

My God. Do you have a mental illness? Because you're acting like an obsessive compulsive. Because the argument you laid out for injustice is the one I argued against? Just because you were wrong about the equivalence doesn't make it obsessive to point that out. If you're going to say "men engaged in fraud are jailed, women engaged in "fraud" aren't, and that's bad" (implying that because the acts are equivalent, they should both be punished) don't admit the lack of equivalence. Would you like to…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 08:44 PM
1

The problem is that there's a lot of baggage involved, and it does no one on the side of the MRM (who isn't just interested in bitch and moaning) favors to make people think that all this subreddit is about is guys calling women bad names
/r/MensRights06/06/11 08:03 PM
1

Legally, obviously. Morally, no. So, since your complaint is about a lack of legal action taken against women engaged in "fraud" while men have legal action taken against them, the legal distinction would be dispositive of your point. Q.E.D I would include dumpster diving for condoms under 'theft'. Or inseminating oneself after oral sex. I don't know a case of the former, and the latter isn't. The semen is a gift. The fact that it is used for a different purpose than its intended one does not al…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 08:00 PM
1

There's still a difference in the level of vulgarity, though. Saying "my ex-wife is so crappy" is different from "she's a cunt". Saying a guy is a "dick" is different from calling him an "ass-raping faggot" (especially if the guy in question is a homosexual).
/r/MensRights06/06/11 07:53 PM
1

One of the things you will likely notice with enough time here is that the difference between feminists and MRAs is which group they feel is worse off. The tactics, the shaming, the ideology and punditry are precisely the same.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 07:51 PM
2

This was the compromise in many states, moving away from the draconian and misandric "paternal presumption." Only one state do I know of where you can disavow paternity at any time. Is it Colorado or Kentucky, because those are two I know of where you can contest paternity at divorce and even after a child-support order. I may be insane, but I also have the statutory and common law to back me up. Come at me, bro. I have a post now in the broadest level of this comment section, which you should t…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 07:45 PM
3

In order to combat the misinformation that it is impossible to contest paternity after 90 days, I'm going to put the actual statutory law on the subject up here. Anyone who is interested can find similar information in their own jurisdictions, and if challenged I'm willing to put $100 that I can find plenty of caselaw supporting the following reality: A man can contest paternity at divorce (no matter how long after the children were born divorce occurs), and if he proves to not be the biological…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 07:38 PM
0

Also, fraud, rape and theft have been illustrated with numerous stories on this very subreddit. I've not run into a case of actual theft of sperm, where the man was minding his own business and she just up and stole it out of the blue. Can you link me to one? Or will you resort to the old chestnut of "well, you can find it elsewhere on this subreddit"? So it's fraud if he pretends to be another person, but not fraud if she passes a child off as another person(namely a real child of the punitive …
/r/MensRights06/06/11 07:32 PM
2

I'm visiting from the one where statutory law is applied in court. I guess that's a different universe. Fiddlesticks. For the record, my other post included Colorado law, but I can find a bunch (and I mean a bunch) of other states which allow protesting paternity during divorce, or any time post-divorce. What you're talking about is if a man is sued for child support and fails to respond. But, even in those cases, he can appeal within six months of the default judgment, and have the case reviewe…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 07:27 PM
0

No, he doesn't. See my post above pertaining to the actual statutory law.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 06:03 PM
0

You seriously need to read up on your state's laws regarding this kind of stuff. It's obvious that you've simply taken as a given that the complaints of MRAs on the internet are true. In this case, they are not. Many (if not most, if not all) U.S jurisdictions allow for contesting of paternity either at divorce or post-judgment. See my citations above.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 06:02 PM
2

It's also untrue. See my above comments. In U.S jurisdictions (my brief survey didn't yield any which don't allow it), paternity can be contested at the divorce proceedings, or post-judgment. If the man is truly not the father, he can be relieved of child support payments.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 06:01 PM
1

I believe that is not the case, and would challenge you to provide evidence of the veracity of that statement. Unless Colorado is at the forefront of the MRM (which would amaze me considering that the following portion of the Colorado Revised Statutes was passed in 1968), you're misinformed. http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1/25686/25d78/25d7a/266db?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_14-10-122 (Stating that child support may be terminated when the man contests custody post-j…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:59 PM
0

IANAL, That is not my understanding of the law. If you are seeking to be a custodial guardian (you want to see the child), that's the standard. However, if you are seeking to avoid parental responsibility, contesting paternity at the divorce will do the trick. Most states I've looked at have statutes which allow for after-the-fact review of child-support orders if you can prove it isn't your kid, but that only eliminates future payment obligation.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:51 PM
1

I doubt that society at large would back her personally. Legally speaking, as long as he contests paternity at the divorce, he's going to be able to flip her off and cackle maniacally.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:47 PM
2

I'd have to check on Kentucky law, but AFAIK many states have specific exceptions for those in a position of trust, even if the sex is otherwise consensual and legal.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:45 PM
0

Women who get sperm by fraud, rape and theft aren't prosecuted for it. If it's by rape, they have been prosecuted, and we've never seen a case of out-and-out theft. The worst we've seen is the Irons case, but even there she was only not able to be charged with theft since he gave her the sperm. There were other charges brought against her. Women who defraud men by getting them to pay for children that aren't theirs aren't prosecuted. The problem is that either this is a woman is a marriage simpl…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:44 PM
2

It's not quite the same thing. He actually interfered with what seems to have been a court-ordered paternity test. He actually represented himself as someone else for the purposes of engaging in court-ordered activity, and that's a no-no. I think we're all smart enough to distinguish between "a woman representing a child as being a man's either not knowing whether it is his, or knowing it is not" and "a man trying to get out of paternity by having a friend pose as him for the purposes of taking …
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:38 PM
1

We start to, and then you go mute. If this is untrue, I would really appreciate the sources on where to go to actually fish out family court proceedings - the thing I asked for quite some time ago. Well, first, let's remember some limitations. Most family court decisions aren't reported (that is, they are on record, but not in a reporter, and thus not easily accessed). Those which are reported are appellate review, which is done on an "abuse of discretion" (did the trial court screw up) basis, n…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:25 PM
1

He expressed black anger at white people in a way that could not be marginalized or dismissed. What he achieved was an appeal to white america for racial justice that resonated with them. Citation? I've read more than my share of history of the civil rights movement, and in none of them is Malcolm X presented as having appealed to white America in a way that resonated with them. If fear of millitancy was all he instilled, he would have worked against black rights, as blacks were out numbered 10 …
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:15 AM
1

The only operations which parents should be able to force on children are ones that are medically necessary, and circumcision clearly isn't, so allowing parents to elect it is clearly wrong. Define "medically necessary", please. I'll wait. When you discover that you must either define it so broadly that you include circumcision (if you define necessity as "there are medical benefits", circumcision counts); or define it so narrowly that you also exclude a lot of other accepted practices (a child …
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:08 AM
1

I have asked for means of sourcing the information you use to justify your side and never get them I believe we've had the circumcision argument before, and I have always provided facts. The fact that you blithely dismiss them does not make the information nonexistent. When you basically state, "yes you should be a slave class because someone has to pay for these kids" that tends to attract ire. I'm pretty sure there's a difference between "forced to pay for your children's wellbeing" and "owned…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:01 AM
0

As I have said, were there evidence of benefit from FGM which outweighed the probable harm, I would be fine with it. As that is not the case the comparison is inapt. But, since you cannot define "bona fide", nor engage in a discussion on this issue in a mature, thoughtful, or nuanced way, can you save tour breath for your preferred activity of preaching to the choir?
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:25 AM
1

If you'd like, I will once again trawl the archives of posts made by MRAs in response to my disagreement. I promise you I can find at least one which is little different from "you're obviously just a evil feminist who hates men." Wait, wasn't it you who accused me of being a "scumbag" who profits from circumcision, simply because I don't think it's a had thing? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:21 AM
1

That being said, my statements still stand that feminism, as an ideological institution, is threatened by the Men's Rights movement. It stands in opposition to many of the central tenets of feminism. I'm not sure I would characterize any social movement as any ideological institution (the word ideology carries an implication of unthinking devotion to an unfounded belief). But, to the extent that feminism is an ideological institution, the MRM is as well. Two sides to the same coin, I feel. I am …
/r/MensRights04/06/11 02:24 AM
1

Out of curiosity, what do you claim Malcolm X achieved in and of himself? Yes, he put the fear of angry black militants in white America, which encouraged Kennedy to actually listen to MLK, but AFAIK he didn't accomplish any of the goals of the civil rights movement of his own power or influence.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 02:19 AM
1

The problem is that MRAs by and large do not have a point between something being absolutely true (grr, circumcision is evil) or absolutely false (grr, men aren't all rapists). They don't have a setting for "I believe circumcision is distasteful, but I do understand there is evidence to support the practice; on the whole I still believe it to be unnecessary". Instead of anything which acknowledges the controversy or lack of information, we get "circumcision is evil, and anyone who disagrees prof…
/r/MensRights04/06/11 02:18 AM
2

Dude! How could they possibly be 'far more pronounced and harmful' if you're just cutting off the same structures that correspond to the foreskin? First, FGM isn't often done as corresponding with circumcision. Second, the types of FGM which you cite to in Tanzania (which is the study I noted, with all the confounding variables) aren't just cutting the clitoral hood. Different types of FGM have different results, and the ones which are as undamaging as circumcision are the ones with the least po…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 08:35 PM
-1

Yes it does. If it supports a widespread difference in earnings which adversely affects women, it just as easily supports a widespread difference in earnings which adversely effects men. Single men and married women earn less. Single men in their twenties earn less than single women in their twenties. Married men earn more than single women, and married women earn less than single men. But, even if we accept that there is a wage gap on both sides, that proves that the reality is not one of the e…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 08:31 PM
2

That's exactly what they found for MGM and their rationale for going forward with more wide scale tests! And if a world health group wanted to offer women the option, test it, found that it was a big benefit to preventing cancer and HIV, and say "yeah, it's good", I'd be fine with that. Though, keep in mind that the longitudinal circumcision studies done in the U.S (indicating medical benefits) predate the ones in Africa. FGM is no more dangerous then MGM in a clinical setting. I'd be curious to…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 08:23 PM
2

Contort, contortionist. Nice of you to quote one sentence of an entire paragraph, ignore the rest, and accuse me of being a "contortionist", when I drew a legitimate distinction. Yeah, so is FGM in some areas of the world. And the evidence I've seen suggests that women who undergo it report that they orgasm. And it is being studied in those areas. The fact that those studies report no widespread benefit (the closest one got was "a region high in FGM reported less HIV", but the authors admitted t…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 08:16 PM
1

Where am I using belief? If your arguments against feminism and in support of male victimization is limited solely to those cases where the evidence is indisputable, incontrovertible, and uncontradicted, you're on the up-and-up. I've just not run into any MRAs who limit themselves like that. I shall henceforth hold you up as a shining example of restraint and reason on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 08:12 PM
1

You could equally argue that there is a wage gap against men. Why do you immediately start humping the female victimhood there? The evidence doesn't support a widespread difference in earnings which adversely affects men Nobody removes tonsils or wisdom teeth before there's a problem anymore. Actually, tonsillectomies are still routinely done preventative. And the standard is to remove wisdom teeth before they become impacted (the "problem" they cause).
/r/MensRights03/06/11 08:09 PM
2

Okay then, there is some preliminary evidence that FGM prevents HIV infection. Really? I'd be interested in seeing that Should parents be able to cut off parts of their daughter's genitalia. Not the clitoris, but, you know, the parts that correspond to the foreskin such as the inner labia and clitoral hood (we'll leave the frenulum out of there.) If the practice had existed for centuries without long-term ill-effect on the affected women, no loss of sexual pleasure (despite many studies trying t…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 08:08 PM
2

Wage Gap Fact 1 points to a wage gap that is working against men; Wage Gap Fact 2 points to a wage gap that is working against women. Therefore it's not as simple as a wage gap based on gender. That's the thing, you're once again trying to fit it into the schema of "either the wage gap exists completely and pervasively, or it doesn't". The wage gap can exist against some women, and not others, and still be based on (and caused by) gender. Believing that infant circumcision is medically beneficia…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:58 PM
1

Well argued
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:51 PM
2

I'm arguing that in a situation where there are medical benefits, but also possible side-effects, parents should be trusted to make the best decision they can for their children. I'm arguing that the "truth" of whether circumcision is "good" is hardly as simple as "no, it's evil, end of story"
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:49 PM
-3

You're missing the rest of the discussion, it seems. I'm fine with MRAs being hated because they're loud, angry, and trying to make people pay attention. But, then they need to accept that they'll be hated, and stop complaining about their bad reputation.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:47 PM
2

Which? That the gender wage gap doesn't exist (because educated women 20-30 in urban areas are paid more than men) or that it does exist (because married women and those with children, even with exactly equal qualifications, are less likely to be hired and receive lower compensation, while married men and those with children are more likely to be hired and receive more)? That circumcision is evil, barbaric, and done for mercenary purposes; or that circumcision is medically beneficial, relatively…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:46 PM
1

If their response to people saying "yeah, but here's evidence that it isn't that bad, and some evidence that it's also bad for the people you're saying have it so much better" was "nuh-uh, you're an evil misogynist who hates me", I'd chide them just the same.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:44 PM
1

Oooh, you got it off of the site about her. The first part (where it had nothing to do with Roe itself aside from that she had to sue because she couldn't legally obtain an abortion) is still true, but I now back down.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:31 PM
3

The solution would seem to be not restricting abortion rights. Though, this law would be struck down as a violation of Casey so fast it'd make your head spin.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:07 PM
1

First, no it wasn't. The rape accusation was not involved in the Roe case at all. The attorney, in fact, specifically did not challenge the abortion law on the basis that it did not exempt rape, the attorney brought a broader challenge to it, ignoring the rape part completely (read the decision, please). Also: https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=47+Hastings+L.J.+779&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=8c3d37605776d42551fda4352dd0eb36 …
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:06 PM
1

Ah, so it's the definition of "healthy" on which it hinges. If something is "normal" under your definition, or "healthy" by your beliefs, it must be protected above all. But tonsils are normal, and healthy. Wisdom teeth are normal, and the teeth themselves are healthy. Webbed feet are healthy. Your argument holds no water.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:57 PM
1

Ah, so it's the definition of "healthy" on which it hinges. If something is "normal" under your definition, or "healthy" by your beliefs, it must be protected above all. But tonsils are normal, and healthy. Wisdom teeth are normal, and the teeth themselves are healthy. Webbed feet are healthy. Your argument holds no water.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:56 PM
2

Ah, so it's the definition of "healthy" on which it hinges. If something is "normal" under your definition, or "healthy" by your beliefs, it must be protected above all. But tonsils are normal, and healthy. Wisdom teeth are normal, and the teeth themselves are healthy. Webbed feet are healthy. Your argument holds no water.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:55 PM
1

And that's where we come to the end of reasonable discussion. You cannot accept that someone can both not find circumcision objectionable, and not have some secretive, evil, reason for it. Instead you accuse me (without evidence) of something which is untrue in an attempt to discredit me. For shame. I do not profit from circumcision. And my "excuses" are those supported by evidence. Quit with the long spammy comments. It is easy to see why many might find you a nuisance because you utilize wease…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:54 PM
1

You are forgetting that you do not have to be popular to get your message heard. I would argue that feminists are largely unpopular in today's culture. Just take a poll around the street. I live in Connecticut, a liberal bastion, and popular perception seems to be that is that feminism is no longer "cool." Despite this, they get shit done (example: Yale). That's an explanation of why it's okay that MRAs are hated. If your point is that MRAs can be hated, and that's okay, I agree. But, if the poi…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:42 PM
2

That's circular, though. We often allow parents to "take part of someone's body", when they determine it is worthwhile, so long as it is not abusive. We allow the removal of webbed feed, vestigial tails, and wisdom teeth. Not to mention tonsils. Your consent and bodily integrity uber alles argument doesn't seem to extend beyond the penis.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:38 PM
1

You said non "condone". The existence of an authority (a damned fine one, to boot) which says "it's up to the parents to decide what is best" is at the very least a condoning of the practice, if not tactic support for it.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:37 PM
1

no circumcision to babies (excluding bona fide medical reasons). Or circumcision for both male and female babies Why? First, define a "bona fide medical reason" (does reducing the risk of penile cancer count? How about anal, oral, and cervical cancer, too). Second, why does there have to be "equality" when the circumstances are different? MRAs often argue that men are only paid more because they work longer hours, ect (and thus a lack of equality is justifiable). Why not accept that if circumcis…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:36 PM
2

no medical authority condones the practice The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with that statement: "In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision" http://aappolicy.aappu…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:28 PM
2

That assumes (without proving) that feminism is akin to an invading army. The problem is that while MRAs view themselves as a stalwart underground resistance to the "enemy", most third-parties don't. We've also moved far afield. The hatred comes from the level of vitriol, disrespect, and general douchebaggery of many posters here. It comes from the treatment of respectful dissenters. If you're claiming that those things are necessary to further the final goal, that's fine (I disagree). But, that…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:25 PM
-2

To be fair, screaming the loudest is a viable strategy. Often times people may get mad at you, but points will be heard, and people WILL think about them once they cool down. Perhaps, but then what you're admitting is that MRAs aren't hated by feminists and "white knights" out of fear of reason, or disdain for disagreement in and of itself. You're admitting that MRAs are hated because they're acting like a bunch of shrieking children to get their way.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:23 PM
2

But what distinguishes the two, aside from personal conviction? You belief that you are using reason, which threatens the beliefs of feminists. Feminists believe they are using reason, which threatens the beliefs of privileged men. You're asserting that the only thing those who disagree with you have is faith/ideology, threatened by your reason. But as someone who has disagreed (reasonably) with MRA positions, I see the same vehement opposition to anything which threatens MRA ideology.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:21 PM
1

It's fair to point it out, but only in the context of a broader analysis of the issue. But, it's also worth nothing that if you're going to accuse people of doing a medical practice with ill-intent, there must be a higher standard than being able to point out that the end result of it is sold. I'll give you an example. A guy had hairy-cell leukemia in his spleen (this was in like the 1970s). In order to treat him, the doctors removed the spleen. It helped him, and it turned out that the spleen c…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:18 PM
1

Some of the expressions of opinion here are insulting to those who disagree. However, I don't believe that the contention that those who disagree with MRAs and adhere to feminism are ill-informed, is entirely inaccurate. But that's indistinguishable from the core point of the MRA movement (that feminism is wrong, and bad). To present it, then, as painting anyone who doesn't think that family law screws men, men should have "financial abortion" as an option, and circumcision is a "magina", a "whi…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:03 PM
2

Some of them are decent. But, there's nothing wrong with porn, prostitution, or pole-dancing.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:50 PM
3

It's this kind of stuff that makes a lot of MRAs sound like jackasses. People can disagree with you without losing their status as a "real" man, and making it personal (not to mention invoking the dudebro concept that a "pussy" like this almost deserves to be cheated on) detracts from the arguments made here. It's possible to think this list is largely crap without simultaneously being a douchebag about it.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:49 PM
1

Well, the analogy is somewhat strained due to the lack of social movement by either group (it's mostly in the "bitching about it" phase right now). But, even if true, people still hated the hell out of Malcolm X.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:44 PM
2

For the same reason that religious people sometimes lash out at non-believers. They don't like having their beliefs questioned. The problem is that the same can be said of many people who post here. The dogma of MRAs is indistinguishable from the dogma of feminism in many ways. Both have core beliefs that form a catechism: I am part of a group which is systematically and intentionally discriminated against. The group discriminating against me, despite claiming to have no power, actually exerts n…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:40 PM
14

White-knights hate people who call them dogs begging for scraps. I'd wager anyone would dislike being insulted. But, to assume that anyone who disagrees with you falls into one of two groups (both of whom you can blithely dismiss) is both intellectually dishonest, and a bit lazy. I have faith that you can do better than that. Respond to those who feel that there are ways in which men are discriminated against, but that there are also ways in which men are privileged; that there are ways in which…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:24 PM
3

That wasn't his point, though. The idea that those who disagree with MRAs are either ill-informed, immature, or otherwise duped, is insulting on its face.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:20 PM
1

The problem is that neither gospel is necessarily correct.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:18 PM
2

No different to any politics, tech, gamer,feminist/2xc subreddit. I don't see this "massively" part anyway. Looking at my comment karma you can see this applies to the rest of reddit. Poking and prodding the hive mind of mainstream thought eviscerates your karma Then it shouldn't be claimed that /mensrights is a haven for intellectual thought, and distinguishable from feminism insofar as you are looking for "truth" and they rely on "faith". If you're saying that there's a hivemind here, that's f…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:17 PM
1

The problem is that Malcolm X and Reverend King were contemporaries. The moderate movement, and radicals, worked simultaneously. What we have here is the radicals (and slacktivist complainers), but without a moderate conciliatory element. Even if we accept that Rev. King would never have been successful without Malcolm X, the reverse is certainly true. Without a moderate, reasonable, face, the civil rights movement would have gone nowhere. Malcolm X would have been dismissed as an angry black ma…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:08 PM
2

With due respect, that seems like an oversimplification. It's far too easy to say "they disagree with/have disdain for us because we're showing the errors in their reasoning, and they are a faith group so they don't like it". It's not like most of this has absolute "right" sides (c.f circumcision debate, family law, abortion rights), but rather contradictory beliefs and priorities. In most arguments, MRAs value perceived fairness between the genders above almost all else (we can't circumcise gir…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:04 PM
-15

Oy. The entire argument is "if you ignore the medical benefits (pshaw, penile cancer, whatevs), it's an awful practice with no purpose except cosmetics". That's like saying "if you ignore the medical benefits of knee surgery, it's just to give money to doctors, so why should we do it?" If you ignore the medical benefits of any medical procedure, it's absolutely unjustifiable (which should come as no shock to anyone willing to think about the issue). The rest of it is pure sensationalism. The ide…
/r/MensRights02/06/11 09:57 PM
1

How could this ideology even be conceived as one that supports the idea of a happy homelife If the women in question are availing themselves of family law, divorce law, and criminal justice to get out of marriage and "take hubby to the cleaners", what makes you think their homelives were happy pre-feminism? I wasn't alive fifty years ago, but I doubt the smiling June Cleaver was precisely the prototypical housewife. Also, play the victim card a little harder, it totally makes your argument more …
/r/MensRights02/06/11 09:49 PM
1

It would be possible to make something like this legally operable (at least insofar as you prove consent happened in the first place). The problem would be that the same things which destroy consent under normal circumstances (intoxication, duress, fraud depending on jurisdiction) would also void this contract.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 09:47 PM
1

No one in their right mind will disagree that she is pretty well despicable, but the first comment on the blog being "that is your modern day empowered women. Why would you be afraid of her?" is disheartening. First, because it confuses its pluralization at least once, and second because it's the wrong analysis of this issue. Awful people exist everywhere, and we don't need to look far to see similar behavior by men when given anonymity, immunity from consequence, and an audience (4chan's antics…
/r/MensRights02/06/11 09:45 PM
0

Possible (though I only know it vis-a-vis American law), but unlikely. From the reporting I've seen, the pictures don't show them exposing the naughty bits, so they're (for the purposes of the law) clothed. It's kind of like how /r/jailbait gets by. If there are pictures of them naked, she could (in America, at least) be charged with producing child pornography, which involves some hefty jailtime (and not much by way of defenses if the subject really is a minor). For better or worse, being a jac…
/r/MensRights02/06/11 09:42 PM
1

"I want the option to either stay-at-home, or work, so I'm going to support an ideology dedicated to giving people that choice". The fact that most women have since said "the nuclear family (which mostly existed in Leave it to Beaver episodes to begin with) isn't a system I want a part of" doesn't eliminate the desire for choice. You're inventing inconsistency where there is none.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 06:07 PM
1

Flip things around and see how you feel about it: imagine a guy is all about men having hookup culture, video games, and all that as a way, but says he wants a traditional relationship where the woman cooks & cleans for him and defers to his wants & desires. Doesn't that sound "off" to you? That sounds about like what men want. And what's wrong with it? If you can find girls willing to hook up with you, and then find a woman who's willing to cook and clean, more power to you. Or, if you just lik…
/r/MensRights02/06/11 06:06 PM
1

There was an investigation, the DA tried to make some charges stick, but the court basically said "that's cute, but we don't criminalize behavior which is abhorrent until the legislature actually says so"
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:55 PM
0

Monica Waddell pleaded guilty to the same charge but not as a subsequent offender. Hurr.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 07:14 PM
2

Availability heuristic. It's possible you don't see more cases, you just recall more cases (and more vivid and irksome cases), and so think the availability of cases in your memory corresponds to actually higher numbers. Confirmation bias. Those cases where the woman is the perpetrator are more likely to stick with you, because they confirm your existing beliefs about the likelihood of women committing abuse compared to men. Sampling bias. It's possible (and I would need to actually find numbers…
/r/MensRights01/06/11 07:08 PM
1

I know I'm inviting being called all manner of awful names about this, but I fail to see the analogy between (1) being forced to carry a being inside of you for nine months until going through a painful birthing process, and (2) paying money every month for the wellbeing of ones child.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 10:19 PM
1

I fail to see how it is worse than anything 4chan does to any woman (or girl) unfortunate enough to find her way on to their site. The internet is full of trolls, and many of them are cruel enough to do exactly this kind of thing. Cyberbullying of all stripes is hardly new, and the fact that the woman is unlikely to serve jail-time is less a "pussy pass" and more because no countries have adopted anything close to a sane policy vis-a-vis social responsibility on the net.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 10:16 PM
2

The problem with any statistics in this area is that they could either be much lower than suspected (the FBI has a relatively small pool of cases, likely limited to those cases where it would be difficult to determine, so many more cases may be excluded by local police); or much higher (takatori's point is absolutely right, plus the FBI comes in on tough cases, so it's possible that they only come in when the local police are having a hard time proving it). This kind of statistic (and the implic…
/r/MensRights31/05/11 10:10 PM
1

would mean that the president, commander-in-chief does not control the armed forces or even the white house kitchen staff. To the first, it's more of a "sort of" situation. He controls them in the sense of ordering them; but he does not control the purse-strings. To the latter, he absolutely does (they're hired by the President). But, how are you defining "control"? If we say that "influence over how money will be spent" is control, we actually end up with both men and women "controlling" a majo…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 03:01 PM
1

Only if you're predisposed to take it that way. The statement "stop slut shaming" can either be taken as "you should yourself stop the slut shaming you're doing" or "you should endeavor to see it stopped in society writ large"
/r/MensRights11/05/11 02:59 PM
1

The human nature being that she gets invited back to a guy's place, she invariably says yes, and he invariably rapes her? I guess I'm just confused what the clothes have to do with him actually sticking it in without her permission? Is it that he thinks she wants it? Otherwise, the clothes seem to be irrelevant.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 02:11 PM
1

That's a different issue entirely. The idea that women "control" a majority of the wealth must be premised on the idea that they can (of their own volition and entirely on their own recognizance) decide what to do with that money. If that can't be substantiated in data (that women actually spend (without any input from their spouses) 51% of the money), it's not a valid statement.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 02:06 PM
1

No, being human does all of that. Thats all normal behavior. Done more frequently or more effectively will increase the chance of the purple unicorn, a rape, appearing. So, assuming that women cannot change their other behaviors at all (they will continue to drink, respond to flirting, go home with men, and men will continue to rape) the affect of clothes can be seen? Seems kind of sketchy to me.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 01:59 PM
1

That's assuming that the decisions are made despotically, though. Bearing in mind that I've yet to be married, I've seen enough married couples that I feel comfortable anecdotally arguing against the idea that women are making those decisions in the complete absence of their husband's input. What counts as "control" when decisions are made as a unit? I'd be interested if you have a study that shows that women are (by and large) purchasing decorations, furniture, appliances, automobiles, and hous…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 01:58 PM
1

NO. I believe a man TALKED to the girl initially because she looked easy. . . . Then how is her clothing leading to her getting raped? In the parlance of torts and con law, you're piling inference upon inference to get from "dressed like a slut" to "raped". There is literally no causal relationship between the clothes she wears and her chance of being raped under your schema (especially if you're focused on date-rape or intoxicated-rape). Being dressed like a "slut" doesn't make her drink, it do…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 01:40 PM
1

If your clothing contributes to that attention and in turn that you wind up getting raped by a guy because he thought you looked easy, well, then it became a factor. There we get to the actual crux of the issue. You believe a man would rape a woman because she looked easy. Okay, but is it (a) because that man was going to rape someone no matter what, and just happened to pick her, or (b) that he wouldn't have committed rape save for her looking "easy"? No, I'm assuming it gets her more 'high qua…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 01:34 PM
-1

Once again we have an article all about how the opponents of MRAs (or, even people who agree on some issues, but disagree on others) resort to "shaming" and logical fallacies; as though such rhetoric is never employed by MRAs. Shit, guys, it's this kind of thing that actually makes me dislike the MRA movement, even though I agree on quite a few issues... And then the article got worse. As a minimum, your name and your online username should be watched for – so that you will know who is lying abo…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 01:30 PM
1

You seriously don't think being courted while drunk is a contributing factor to rape? Being courted? No. Being drunk? Yes. Going home with strange men, yes. But you're confusing a correlation with causation (more attractive = more men approaching her =/= she's going to go home with one of them) . Clothing just gives her more suitors to choose from in a given night, so yes, that would factor in. . . Only if you assume that there's some threshold of suitors after which a woman is compelled to agre…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 01:16 PM
0

I don't see saying "relishing making people cry is unprofessional" as somehow a double-standard or special treatment. I wouldn't want to work for, with, or supervise a person with that kind of sadistic tendency.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 01:14 PM
1

His point is fair, but so is the response. Women should be more capable of saying "this is what I like, this is what works, and for the love of god stop that other thing". But, the following post is also reasonable; part of the problem is the hang-ups we have in this country about female sexuality. We can't simultaneously say "we want you to know what works for you" and also "but, the way you find that out would make you a horrible slut undeserving of a good man"
/r/MensRights11/05/11 01:12 PM
2

No, that's the problem. Are we talking self-reporting (notoriously unreliable)? Are we going off of who makes the purchase at the point of sale (which means whoever physically goes to the store is "responsible)? And how do we measure "control" of wealth?
/r/MensRights11/05/11 01:07 PM
1

While men as a group may earn more money, women make more of the critical decisions about household purchasing and exercise control over many family financial resources. Women actually control 51.3% of percent wealth in the United States So, to clarify, women don't have 51% of the wealth (despite being 51% of the population, interestingly), they simply "control it" nebulously because they have "purchasing decisions". Of course, the article has no citation for how they came to that number, or wha…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 01:04 PM
1

It wouldn't. Welcome to my point, the weather's pretty nice. So, we have two groups: The men who will rape either way, no matter what (you defined them as "they don't care") The men who will rape if they can justify it to themselves ("delusional"). For the first group, all that matters is reducing the opportunity to rape (locking doors, as it were); make women less vulnerable (take back the night kind of things, I suppose). They aren't raping based on clothing, just based on wanting to rape, and…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 10:12 AM
1

The difference is that rather than locks discouraging the criminal, the thing stopping the potential rapist is internal to his mind. So, your point (at its core) is that women dressing like a slut makes it easier for rapists to justify to themselves raping them. But, do you then believe that if all women dressed conservatively, it would eliminate rape, or is it a comparative thing (the "sluttiest" women are "asking" for it, but there will always be comparatively "slutty" women)? If it's an absol…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 08:04 AM
0

That doesn't happen, people may question why that person did this or that, or why they were in a certain part of town, but no one ever blames them for what happened to them. Read the New York Times article the author references. Lots of people were just shy of saying "she was acting like a slut and asked to get raped". Referring to hear wearing makeup, or dressing older, are used as mitigating factors. There's a famous court case where the judge had to specifically order that there be no mention…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 08:01 AM
1

The Universities I am familiar with set 1-2 day deadlines. Discovery gives you at least a few weeks. If it's that sped-up a timetable, I'd be inclined to agree. I know the honor board at my university took its sweet time investigating charges of academic dishonesty and cheating on an exam. Trust me, you'd want a diversity of ages from a typical city over a group of 3 kids ages 18-22 who haven't had much life experience. Not necessarily. For my part (as a supporter of the legal system itself), I'…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 07:57 AM
1

So, even though you admit that clothing can be a factor, you refuse to admit that it is something worth talking about? Sounds like sticking your head in the sand to me. I don't admit that. Clothes are not a factor. Even taking your original statement at face value (women who dress slutty are more likely to...), clothes are correlated (but not causal of) other factors which do influence rape. We can however say someone made a bad decision by choosing to go home or something like that. A woman cho…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 07:48 AM
2

But if a rapist were to stalk a local bar wanting to pick a victim, then that rapist will pick the victim most sexually appealing. If the rapist isn't particularly turned on by any of the women/girls then that rapist would just try again tomorrow. Clothing/make-up will only effect targeting of who the victim will be. So, at best all a woman can do is make herself less of a target, and make other women more of a target in comparison? And in exchange for giving the advice to women which will not l…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 07:45 AM
2

There are African countries where that is true, but none we'd consider particularly civilized. That said, there are plenty of cases of rape in Arab and Muslim countries where it's not "she was in a bikini and all the other women were in burqas". That's kind of the point. If you accept (as I believe we all do) that there are men who are sick enough to commit rape (and are looking for targets of opportunity and ease), they are going to rape someone no matter what. If that's the case, then the clot…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 07:34 AM
1

Changing behavior can move the line in this continuum, between those who commit rape and those who just had potential to commit rape. Let's focus on the "potential" rapists, then. Your claim is that there is some number of potential rapists who do not rape because they do not see slutty-clothed women, and thus cannot convince himself that she "wants it"; and conversely that there are some rapists who would not have committed rape if they had not seen slutty-clothed women? If I be wrong, correct …
/r/MensRights11/05/11 07:30 AM
1

I said «being the one targeted», and that's what I meant. It is possible - but not certain - that the rapist finds a different victim. First, that assumes that the target is based on the attractiveness of the target, rather than the ease and risk of being caught (two considerations which seem more relevant, but which clothes affect not a whit). Second, you're assuming that the men who commit rape are going to give up and pack it in if they don't find someone slutty enough that they think she "wa…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 07:29 AM
1

"older"? Who on earth brought that up? The question was never about age or apparent age. That was the quotation from the article this author was responding to. That's what brought it up. Again, false dictonomy. Only a minority of men are capable of performing rape (in civilized society, that is. With sufficient brutality and indoctrination all bets are off), and even of them, only a minority will actually do it. But, of that minority of a minority, what causes them to rape? Are they just normal …
/r/MensRights10/05/11 09:17 PM
0

Yes, this is a false dichtonomy. Psychological examination of rapists have shown that they are especially bad at interpreting people's signals. Many rapists seem to convince themselves that the victim wants it - even as they use violence to get what they want. How one dresses may well be a useful "argument" for the rapist in his self-delusion. So, you're saying that the men who commit rape actually wouldn't if these women didn't dress "like sluts"? That's my problem with your argument here. At a…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 09:06 PM
1

It's still not really an apt analogy. If no one builds a house in a fire danger area, no houses burn if there's a fire there. Even if every woman wears a burqa, some are going to be raped (c.f Iran, Saudi Arabia, ect.). You're still mixing up making yourself an easier target, with making yourself a more "attractive" one (though fire is indiscriminate)
/r/MensRights10/05/11 09:02 PM
1

Can you edit that post so it makes sense?
/r/MensRights10/05/11 08:50 PM
1

Well whether you like it or not it is the truth. A man who walks around with a rolex, or who parks his Bugatti in a crappy neighborhood is more likely to get robbed. A woman who is more sexually appealing is more likely to get raped. Fancy outfits, make-up, etc, are tools to make yourself more sexually appealing. That's a false analogy, though. You're comparing putting yourself in a compromised position (bad neighborhoods with expensive stuff) and simply being in society as an appealing target. …
/r/MensRights10/05/11 09:48 AM
1

Right, but then we're saying that there are certain men who are going to commit rape either way. The problem is that there's a difference between saying "don't be an easy target" and "don't be an attractive target". Saying to a woman "don't dress x,y,z way because it makes you more likely to be raped" would be like saying "don't own a nice house, because it makes you more likely to be robbed."
/r/MensRights10/05/11 09:41 AM
2

And the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club :-)
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:46 AM
-1

I understand your core point, but the distinction between civil and criminal liability is pretty much only that the latter comes with jail time. A negligence suit could set me back millions of dollars, something I would work off for the rest of my life. It's not the extent of the possible "that sucks" that matters, but the character of the punishment; something that doesn't deprive you of your life/liberty is civil, something that does is criminal. In a civil court you can only lose as much mone…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:45 AM
1

It'd be a logical induction if there were no other factors involved
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:25 AM
1

All of which means the clothes are (at most) related to other factors which influence rape; it certainly isn't the proximate cause (which was my point about #2 in my original post). Inditing clothes as being the determining factor (at best) isn't the right focus, and (at worst) gives comfort and succor to men who commit rape, but who justify it on the basis that she was "asking for it" or "deserved it"
/r/MensRights10/05/11 06:24 AM
1

The problem is that there's no place the buck stops. Poverty does cause single-motherhood, and single-motherhood does cause poverty. But to (as AnnArchist does) imply that single-motherhood causes criminality would be like saying "most felons are black, therefore black people are just more criminally-inclined".
/r/MensRights10/05/11 05:18 AM
2

The problem is that saying "clothes lead to rape" or "more conservative dress can prevent rape" is that you have a limited number of things you can be saying: If every woman dressed conservatively, there would be no rape (obviously ludicrous). But, if women all dressing in burqas wouldn't prevent all rape, then you admit that there are some men who will rape no matter what; which means that there's no way to "prevent" rape, only distribute risk. Women who dress like "sluts" are more likely to ta…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 05:14 AM
3

The problem being that sharks have no higher sense, no ability to discern right from wrong. Are you saying that men will attack women for being dressed too nicely, much as a shark will attack a chum-covered swimmer? The chum induces a shark to attack a swimmer he would otherwise leave unmolested. Are you really saying that if all women dressed in burqas, there would never be another rape? If not, then what you're saying is that there are some men who will commit rape either way. But, then, it's …
/r/MensRights10/05/11 05:09 AM
3

The problem is that there's a difference between "making it easy to commit a crime" and "making it more attractive to commit a crime". Telling a woman "don't dress pretty so you don't get raped" is like saying "don't own a nice house so you don't get robbed". If your advice was simply "don't go to bad neighborhoods", I agree. But the idea that they will be targeted for being "too hot to pass up" is laughable. The part about needing to be able to get away, though, is absolutely true.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 05:08 AM
3

I completely agree with you. The idea that men are being driven into a frenzied lust by women in their skivvies and otherwise-decent men who would never otherwise rape are being induced to by short hemlines and plunging necklines insults me, and insults all of us.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 05:04 AM
1

Or they're called studs and players. /r/seduction probably wouldn't call themselves rats, eh? And I see plenty of men around this subreddit who extol the virtues of being single in your thirties and forties so you can go have sex with a cavalcade of young women whom you don't care about. The irony of it is that the two mindsets can't mix. A mindset of "don't get married, just bang lots of chicks, man" can't actually coexist with "women should be chaste, preferably virginal, and only have sex for…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 05:03 AM
1

The problem is that there are so many interconnected causal chains in there that sorting it all out is a fool's errand. And yet, there are many people who want to say "most convicts were raised by single women", and use that as proof of something, as though that were the only variable.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 04:58 AM
2

yet the notion persists that we're living in a culture that not only supports rape/rapists, but promotes it and even empowers rapists Think about it for a second, though. Imagine you're a rapist, who just violated an eleven-year-old girl. If you see news reporting that people think she was asking for it, or deserved it, or that she was somehow to blame, might that not encourage you? When we limit our vilification of rapists to say "well, she did dress like a whore", we're saying that the rapist …
/r/MensRights10/05/11 04:55 AM
0

I cannot conceive of the mind that simultaneously says "there's no rape culture, most men will never commit rape, and the few who do are evil villains with sick minds" but also believes that a girl who dresses "older" than she "should" is somehow inducing men to rape her, or brought it upon herself. Either we're all one short hemline away from rape, or there are a small number of men who are so depraved they will commit heinous crimes. We can't have both.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 04:53 AM
1

The problem is in defining what a "criminal matter" is. Do we define it based on the nature of the offense (so, all sexual-assault-related matters are "criminal matters"), or do we define it by the possible punishments (only those matters which could result in jail time are "criminal")? It's an important distinction. If we remember that these offenses when dealt with by a school can result only in suspension or expulsion (at worst), we have a situation where it's only a "civil" penalty. Using th…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 04:49 AM
2

Goodness no. But can you now stop questioning my credentials as a supporter of MRA issues? I don't agree with some MRA issues (circumcision, notably, and I have argued about the gender-wage-gap), but there are lots of positions between "completely agree with the most hard-line MRA positions" and "troll"
/r/MensRights09/05/11 06:55 PM
1

Fraud should always be fought. It's disgusting to take advantage of people who are lonely, or who have lost loved ones. Caveat emptor my ass
/r/MensRights09/05/11 06:42 PM
3

That's simply untrue. The fact that I find it distasteful to present an attack on the poor (both men and women) as a push for equality (as though the existence of obscenely wealthy men justifies attacking programs which help both men and women) does not mean I never support MRA issues. For instance, I've supported an end to the Selective Service requirement for government loans for school. I've supported government-funded representation for those too poor to afford representation in family court…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 06:41 PM
2

It's interesting to see the usual "to hell with the poor" rhetoric re-branded as an MRA issue, but I don't buy it. First, there's no actual numbers behind "men pay 115% of federal taxes" and the claim that "men" pay $97B "directly" to the IRS which sends it "directly" to single-mothers is a misstatement of how the tax system works (income tax is not the primary generator of government revenue, and the EITC, TANF, and every welfare program (claimed here to be "subsidies" for women) combined is li…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 06:29 PM
0

That's fundamentally circular. Your point is "truth, logic, [and] reason" only because you define it as such. Someone who does not begin with the same fundamental assumptions can easily look at the problem from a very different perspective, and come to a different conclusion. The only way to deal with issues where everyone has an axe to grind, and a strong emotional reaction (for instance, someone in support of child support would accuse you of wanting to be able to abandon children and act like…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 02:58 AM
0

The system is flawed, no one can dispute that. The question is of the extent of the abuse, of the flaws. We can, absolutely, try to come up with some solutions to the problems (though, I'd hesitate to say "many" women are greedy), but that's a far cry from accusing the entire system of being corrupt and used as a form of alimony and indentured servitude. This conversation can be had without resorting to appeals to emotion and spite. My objection is not to saying (neutrally) "the current child su…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 01:27 AM
5

Depending on how much you want to spend, it's entirely possible to select the gender of your baby. One procedure (the most expensive) actually takes a single sperm, and uses it to fertilize an egg. Because the gender of the fetus is determined entirely by the sperm (eggs can only contain X chromosomes, sperm can contain either X or Y chromosomes, but remember each would only have 1), if you select a sperm with an X chromosome, you're getting a daughter. If you select one with a Y chromosome, you…
/r/MensRights04/05/11 09:34 PM
1

Was it worth six thousand American lives? Was it worth tens of thousands of civilian lives? Was it worth tens of thousands of casualties? Was it worth sinking hundreds of billions into a war with no end in sight? All to kill one man? That's what makes the victory hollow, the cost we paid to get him far exceeded whatever psychological benefit we got from killing him. If we could have killed him like this ten years ago, it would have been brilliant. The fact that we're celebrating when we've alrea…
/r/MensRights04/05/11 08:55 PM
1

I think they are two separate concepts being brought up simultaneously as a big "what the fuck, government?"
/r/MensRights04/05/11 07:27 PM
1

If those numbers from the disaster center are based on the FBI's reporting criteria, then we have a problem of comparing apples to oranges. The definition of "forcible rape" for reporting purposes (as discussed elsewhere on this subreddit) is vastly different from the legal definition, or the definition most people use. For instance, a rape predicated on "do it or I'll kill your family" would actually not be rape under the FBI's definition. Obviously not the most common form in colleges, but if …
/r/MensRights04/05/11 07:01 PM
1

I got a different sense from the article, less "the FBI defines rape in general", and more "Congress tried to do some bullshit about defining rape, but the FBI already defines rape in a parochial and antediluvian way".
/r/MensRights04/05/11 06:59 PM
1

It was funny the first half-dozen times.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 06:43 PM
1

In fairness, the critique (not just from feminists, but from many people) is less "I feel bad that he's dead, he was just a good guy fighting for his homeland", and more "I am disappointed in America for cheering the death of someone, especially given how many lives and billions of dollars it took to win what is, essentially, a hollow victory". I'm fine being happy about his death, but this is being treated as though it justifies all of the lives and money thrown down a sinkhole in the middle ea…
/r/MensRights04/05/11 06:37 PM
2

It should. The actual legal analysis is a bit of a sticky wicket, though. Basically, it comes down to the difference between a specific intent crime, and a general intent crime. With a general intent crime, you only need to have meant to do the act; with a specific intent crime, you have to have intended to do it and been aware of the attendant circumstances. So, defining rape as a general intent crime, any time you have sex with an unwilling woman, you're sunk. Defining rape as a specific inten…
/r/MensRights04/05/11 06:24 PM
1

Yeah, but the reporting criteria determine what the numbers are going to be. If, for instance, I say "last year, there were 10,000 rapes in America"; you only know what I mean if you know what a "rape" is. If you're taking it to mean "all non-consensual sex", but the number from the FBI only includes "forced sex by a man on a woman not his wife", it's a different thought process. I agree about it all being reported as "sexual assault" lacking nuance, but to say "it's just a way of classifying th…
/r/MensRights04/05/11 06:18 PM
0

I'm going to bold the relevant portion of my above post for you: The argument goes that because there are no safeguards, the recipients of child support can spend it on whatever they'd like. I'll admit, being called a misogynist is kind of refreshing here, I'm usually accused of misandry. I was shooting for sarcasm, mate
/r/MensRights04/05/11 06:11 PM
0

The standard is applied consistently across genders. No person who is intoxicated can consent, period. If you get drunk, and I convince you to sell me your computer for $2, the otherwise enforceable contract would be voided due to your inability to consent at the time. The question is not one of "fault" but one of whether the person at the time of the agreement (contract, intentional tort, or sex) was capable of consenting.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 06:08 PM
0

That would make sexual relations distinct from every other area of law, wherein a person who is intoxicated cannot consent to anything. A man cannot assent to a contract while intoxicated; nor consent to an intentional tort.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 06:06 PM
-2

The argument goes that because there are no safeguards, the recipients of child support can spend it on whatever they'd like. Since custody is most often awarded to mothers, and women (as we know) are greedy bitches only after money from the men they can sucker into marriage and fatherhood, child support is just giving money to women who don't deserve it.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 05:55 PM
1

The case would be more simple if this weren't a public high school. The applicable Supreme Court precedent allows for limitations on student speech when it is school-sponsored, but there's little out there where a school can compel speech. There is a case where a girl was forced to apologize for having violated the limitations on her valedictorian speech, but that's distinguishable. I don't know the 5th Circuit well enough to speak with any specificity about it, but all the cases I know of are a…
/r/MensRights04/05/11 05:50 PM
1

The problem with the "if they had a case, they'd have brought it" argument is that DAs can get it wrong. They bring cases that they don't win, and fail to bring cases they could win, in the name of expediency. I've seen plenty of cases of a charge which could have been a slam dunk being plead down. I'm not saying he's guilty, but the girl refusing to cheer for him seems a bit out of character for a the usual false accuser.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 05:32 PM
1

Incidentally, I will give you credit for following the reddequette and not downvoting me simply for disagreeing with me, and I have extended you the same courtesy.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:45 PM
-2

Actually there isn't and I proved this to you last time this was discussed. It has the same sexual effects that circumcision does on men. No you certainly did not. If you had proved that removal of the entire clitoris is functionally equivalent to the removal of the foreskin, I would still be shocked even today, I'd have walked around for the past however-many weeks with my mouth hanging open. Boys are vectors for diseases and we should cut their penises up because if we allow them to choose the…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:43 PM
1

I did. It's a bunch of quotes with zero context. That is literally what you posted. The whole thing was a non-sequitur. Except they were examples of MRAs doing the very things the author accuses feminists of. If you want to just say "yes, MRAs can be just as bad, but some of us want to debate the issues rationally, just as some feminists are bad, but some of them want to debate the issues rationally" I'd be a happy panda. Otherwise, you're glibly dismissing evidence of MRAs acting in a way which…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:39 PM
1

I don't comprehend your first point. The entire argument the author makes is "feminists hate logic and hate people questioning their ideology." If you're not willing to debate the issue of discrimination in schools, and instead say "it just is discriminatory", doesn't that put you in the same boat? Typo? Freudian slip? Do you mean... for men? Typo, I'm writing quickly to respond to all of your posts. Most of them are still doing it for women to this very day despite the disparity. Most? I mean, …
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:27 PM
-7

Goes to show bias on your part. Or that there's a difference between removal of the foreskin and either a clitorectomy (more equatable to removal of the glans of the penis) or an infibulation (I have no analogy here, I guess sewing up the urethra for some inexplicable reason). But, to your "let him choose" point: I've responded before, but I'll do so again (and give you the benefit of the doubt that you'll listen to the actual points, and not just immediately go to your happy place of ignoring a…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:22 PM
0

I did? Link me to my post, please. Thank you. Actually, I owe you an apology for that. It was Factory2 who did that. Mea culpa. The rest of your post was contextless garbage? Could be why. If it's so worthless, you can easily respond to it. Don't accuse someone else of "cherry-picking" and then do the same. The fact that I've shown MRAs just as quick to use "kafka-traps" is something you must respond to. I await your "no true scotsman" argument. Actually my proof is in the black letter of law it…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:16 PM
0

You have to prove that discrimination, is the point, and questioning the validity of the dogma that "it just is" either doesn't make me a troll, or makes you as bad as the feminists you decry. Actually, schools are moving toward affirmative action for women: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/03/27/admit http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,90446,00.html Try again?
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:07 PM
1

These would only be dogma if they weren't proven fact by merit of the laws They would only not be dogma if reasonable discussion of those merits were not only allowed but encouraged. Your position is not so unimpeachable that you can claim divine inspiration for it, so your choices boil down to either saying "it's right, and I'll brook no disagreement" (making it dogma) or engaging on the subject (which you do not do). And, if you're going to say "hurr, that's a false dilemma", I'd encourage you…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:02 PM
0

The existence of one school doing it doesn't prove it for the entire set. That's not even a difficult portion of number theory. Anecdotes also aren't evidence, scientifically speaking, which was aetheralloy's charge.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 08:54 PM
0

Feminist education has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One needs look no further than the recent SaVE act and all of the politically correct thought policing that has been taken place for decades where those who don't walk lock-step with feminist orthodoxy are bullied into resigning. That there are laws meant to protect women? Yes. That the state of primary and secondary education is discriminatory toward boys, and that it is the cause of lower graduation and college attendance rates for …
/r/MensRights02/05/11 08:53 PM
0

A bunch of contextless cherry-picked quotes? You can do better than that. For the record though, you do have a storied history of trolling here. Anyone who reads your posting history can confirm it. Ad hominems and begging the question? Come now, you can do better than that. Call me a genocidal maniac again, that at least has a nice ring to it. Pretty open and shut case that the bias in sentencing of men vs. women exists. The individual cases where women were caught with their students display t…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 08:51 PM
-1

More like a lot of people who (a) think Bin Laden being dead is good, (b) that men who join the military do so freely, and (c) that there are also dead female soldiers, so this isn't a "men's rights" issue, but a "war sucks" issue.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 07:32 PM
-2

it's all just terminology - buzzwords. Kind of like "hypergamy", "The Contract" or "feminist education"? Things which can't be proved, but which many hard-line MRAs take as gospel? What amazes me is how similar radical MRAs and radical feminists are; both see themselves as being on the receiving end of a laundry list of injustice, and that the other side is the one doing it. Neither can see their own advantages. Now, since I also posted a rejoinder to the original article, which was not so simpl…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 07:30 PM
-1

I'll address each "kafka-trap" separately, but it's worth remembering that every ideological group does the same thing. The argument always devolves into "you believe that because you've been [brainwashed] to believe it". I recall a post not too long ago by aetheralloy which stated as much of the so-called "white knights" and male feminists, that they are simply the unenlightened "past selves" of MRAs. If these kafka-traps are the abyss, we too stare into it. I intend to find actual quotations f…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 07:26 PM
0

For a man claiming to be examining the faults with feminist logic, you'd think he would avoid making so many fallacies, wouldn't you? We know, assuredly, that it is - with some feminists going so far as to claim that logic is nothing but a tool of the patriarchy First, it begs the question. If feminism uses logic, it is not "threatening", ergo to say that it is threatening begs the question of whether they use logic. Second, it's the fallacy of composition. The use of "some feminists" as a way t…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 07:25 PM
-1

The funny thing is that we can treat relationships like contracts, and come out all right in the scheme of things. If she wants to get married, and sees that as the inevitable "if we've been together for X number of years, we must get married" end result, you should break up with her unless you feel the same way. In the same way, if you see a girl who dresses like a slut, you don't have to date her (though judging her as a third party is kind of douchey anyway). If people are upfront about their…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 05:56 PM
-3

Likewise, doctors are finding all sorts of arguments why circumcision is beneficial... as long as they're in countries where it's a well-established cultural practice The fact that circumcision spent ten years as being "not recommended as a routine practice" belies that point. The doctors aren't saying "let's find us some evidence circumcision is good", they're doing their jobs and finding that circumcision does have benefits. Your point boils down to "in countries where circumcision is acceptab…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 05:36 PM
-10

Short version: The jury is largely out on whether the benefits of circumcision outweigh the costs. The problem many (myself included) take with the "circumcision has no benefits, and look at the awfulness... Foreskin facecream!" argument are threefold: The benefits of circumcision have never hinged upon the HIV studies in Africa. It's quick, dirty, and dishonest to present (as Fatalistic does above) that the "proof" that the HIV studies in Africa are inconclusive is proof that circumcision has n…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 08:07 AM
0

My defense of circumcision is not premised on HIV transmission, but on HPV and cancer rates (including penile and anal cancer, both of which affect men). Because there are benefits, and no demonstrable harms, I'm comfortable allowing any individual parent unit to decide it for themselves and their family.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 06:34 PM
0

The problem is that we can't have it both ways. We cannot simultaneously say "guys aren't pedophiles and rapists, don't treat us like we're all one short hemline away from ravishing a woman", and then say "but if she dressed like a slut, she did make herself a target for rape". If we're saying most guys aren't going to ever rape, no matter what, and clothes don't matter (we're not pedos and rapists), then we're saying that men who rape are an aberration and sick. But, if they're an aberration an…
/r/MensRights25/04/11 06:27 PM
6

I wouldn't feel upset or insulted, but I'd bet dimes to dollars that someone here would get all butthurt and claim it as proof that feminists/women really are "hypergamous" and all that jazz.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 03:43 PM
11

The problem is that it makes us look bad. In the same way that if a woman came on this subreddit and wrote "I'm going to marry you, have children with another man, but make you pay child support when I divorce you and take half your stuff", this doesn't come across as "trolling" to anyone on the other side. And in the same way that we would use the woman's post I described above as a discredit to feminism, that post is a discredit to our movement.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 03:11 PM
0

I'm going to do my Johnny Carson routine and guess three things this article says (all from just the headline): There's no wage gap, because it can all be accounted for because off individual choices Women are evil and will go after men for money and status, and are always willing to leave their current partner for a wealthier/ "more alpha" one. There are so many other areas where women benefit from societally-imposed standards that they shouldn't bitch. And... Survey says... Right on the money.…
/r/MensRights19/04/11 06:28 PM
1

That was a really long way of saying "it's only true as an axiom if it's true in each individual instance", and I agree. The problem I have is that "it's not true in every instance, and therefore there is no universal wage gap" is not the same thing as saying "because it's not true in this instance, it's not true in any instance, and therefore there is no wage gap ever". There is evidence of wage gaps in other instances.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 08:10 PM
1

That's interesting. So, your point is that there is no universal male-female wage gap (as there can't be a universal when there's a lack of completeness). But, that's a different statement than "there is no male-female wage gap" or even "this disproves the positive". If your only statement is "there's no universally-extant wage-gap" I agree. But, this is being interpreted as "there's no wage gap ever, period" which is an illogical extension.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 07:32 PM
3

Look harder, I guess. Especially when it comes to statutory rape laws, and attempting to bring together men from all walks of life into one cohesive whole with mutual respect and support, I'm generally pretty positivist.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 06:42 PM
1

Trying to be a good person to be a good person, simply because you've been told it's what you're supposed to be doing, really isn't all that different from trying to be a good person because you've been told that's what you're supposed to be doing for women(and, really, I doubt a part of you isn't hoping someone out there will see some value in your altruism) I disagree. Being a good person because it's simply how people should act, is different from being a good person expecting a reward. I do …
/r/MensRights13/04/11 06:04 PM
1

The same laws would apply to a man in an abusive relationship. Many jurisdictions don't allow battered-woman-syndrome defenses anyway
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:47 PM
-1

The girl was trying to be polite and not say "oh, god, this sucks, stop". I mean, come on.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:42 PM
1

False dichotomy, man. Just because one type of rape is one of the most awful things a person can do doesn't mean that the other types are okay in comparison. That's like saying "would you not rather be the victim of identity theft than a violent mugging" as an argument for not punishing identity theft as severely. There's no five-second-rule for sticking it in.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:25 PM
0

Shh... It's okay. Half the guys here want rape to be redefined to the old English common law system, but without having done any research into why both America and the U.K changed it.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:21 PM
2

I responded there. But, I'll reproduce it here: The studies themselves don't look at real people, they took prospective (and fictitious) "candidates" whose genders and numbers of children were changed when being sent out. So, yeah, it's not a "men worked harder on the job" or a "different jobs" thing, because they were fictitious applicants sent to the same job, whose only difference was gender. I'm calling shenanigans on your post. Links? You bet: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/fa…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:19 PM
3

Everyone, even MRAs, use them. Hell, they've been used against me on this subreddit. "You're not a real MRA", "you're a man-hating troll", "you're dumb" are all attempts at shaming people who disagree with the hard-line MRA positions into silence.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:06 PM
1

You saved me a lot of trouble posting this.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:04 PM
3

People, both men and women, are idiots when it comes to the probabilities and chances of molestation occurring. We look at any scenario where there are adults interacting with children, and view it through the filter of "what if everyone in the world was a scumbag" instead of "everything's fine, predators are very rare". It's like we have the opposite problem of the bystander effect now, we're all so paranoid about it that we can't help ourselves.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:01 PM
-1

If you compare married men to married women, you find that married men are more likely than their single counterparts to be hired, and paid more. You find the reverse for married women. True, it's a "choice" to be married, but that's like saying "it's not discrimination for black people not to be able to vote, they don't have to try to vote anyway".
/r/MensRights13/04/11 04:57 PM
0

That's not true, man. If I say "the legal system is stacked against men" (and can substantiate it in any circumstances), you can't refute the entire claim by proving that men are able to fight traffic tickets and win more often than women. Proving that there is no discrimination in one area only proves there's no discrimination in that area.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 04:54 PM
3

Come on, man. I don't think we need to make everything a contentious issue. Admitting that everyone is engaging in logical fallacies is actually a sign of an honest intellectual discussion.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 03:50 PM
2

In your example at least, it's a violation of the assumption of uniformity. Yes, if the rules are applied unequally, you're going to have different results happening, and could have a huge amount of both types of error.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 03:49 PM
1

There isn't much actual science going on here, just selective interpretation of results. It is like it always is with statistics, keep twisting which perspective you look at them from and you can almost always find the conclusion you want. So, why don't we all stop dancing, admit that there's no more "truth searching" on our side, and either (a) really try to raise the level of discourse, or (b) stop trying to bludgeon everyone down. We could also do for some soul-searching, and maybe stop sayin…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:48 AM
1

Selection bias seems to get ignored around here sometimes. By everyone, is the problem. At the moment, most earn more than I (a male) do, but by the time that year is up, the tables will likely have turned. Interestingly, there are studies which indicate that married women earn less than married men even when they have the same qualifications and no children
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:45 AM
2

Repost. It's an op-ed, not in the science section There is no wage-gap for a specific group of workers in a specific group of industries at a specific age. Please, for the sake of my respect for the men here, do not make the fallacious extrapolation that if something is not true in one circumstance, it must be untrue in all circumstances.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:43 AM
2

Statistically speaking, if we apply the standards universally, any percentage in which the type-one error occurs should be less chance of the type-two error. The more guilty people we set free, the fewer innocents we should be jailing (assuming true uniformity and that the system conforms to statistical modeling).
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:41 AM
0

That's funny, but kind of sad. While it's true that we have a long history of precedent that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is applied in any criminal cases, there's no precedent to say that a school's admin board has to use that standard. Furthermore, as the penalties here are purely civil (rather than criminal) a "preponderance of the evidence" standard is entirely reasonable. Lurk more, and then read some Civ Pro; I can lend you my textbook if you'd like.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:37 AM
-2

Universities are already hostile environments for young men, with student populations approximately 60/40 favoring women Due to young men graduating from college at lower rates, and performing more poorly in school and on the SAT and ACT tests than girls. Hell, man, I had some affirmative action benefiting me when I applied for college. Your point is like saying "The UC school system is hostile to whites because there are so many Asian students". Perhaps, but it's because the Asians are outperfo…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:34 AM
0

Frat-boy douchebag
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:20 AM
0

Evolutionary psychology is crap, please stop relying on it. Correlation does not prove causation Ignoring confounding variables is bad science. but the bait of a masculine man that keeps a woman in her place is too much to resist for many women. Correlation between women going for "jerks" and those jerks treating them badly does not prove the latter causes the former. The fact is that the former could cause the latter (guys who are attractive enough to get girls put less effort into relationship…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:19 AM
0

Really? I'd wager most guys, if they do adhere to a code of honor, adhere to something more akin to "meh, as long as it doesn't inconvenience me or make me worse off, I might help someone", but I've yet to see many men who wouldn't screw their best friend over in pursuit of sex.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:12 AM
2

That's absolute crap. Most men don't adhere to any sense of honor or fair play, and you're making unfounded assumptions vis-a-vis women adhering to a code of honor.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:11 AM
2

You are legally bound to pay. See "promissory estoppel", "parol evidence rule" and basic contract law.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:09 AM
3

Fair enough Personal opinion (at best). But, we've had this argument here a good dozen times in the past six months, and I'd rather not rehash it. I completely disagree. You're "friend zoned" because the woman doesn't find you attractive sexually, even while wanting to be your friend. She offered you emotional support, you seemed to reciprocate. It's not her fault you also wanted sex. Women are not cats to be distracted by shiny things. Like any person (including our male friends) they deserve r…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 11:07 AM
-1

It's a good first step, but it does not (in any way) disprove the contention that there is a wage gap in other age groups, or other areas. There is, for instance, a good study indicating that employers are more likely to hire married men and pay them more than either married women or single men. This exists even if they are childless, and even at exactly the same experience levels.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 10:54 AM
1

Here's the point: this study shows there is no pay gap in the 22-30 age range for childless urban workers". Extending that to say there is no wage gap is both unscientific and counter to all logical precepts.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 10:52 AM
1

As statistics go, comparing apples to apples is good. The problem is that we're extrapolating from that into the oranges, pears, and grapes. A truthful statement would be "there is no wage gap in single workers between 22 and 30 in urban environments" and an acceptance that we can't extend that statement (logically) into a broader "there is now wage gap period". But we, like all humans, like to extrapolate and to have certainty.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 10:50 AM
0

Yes and no. There's a statistically significant increase in wages for single fathers, and significantly lower wages for single mothers. Married men get higher wages, married women get lower wages even if those women don't go have kids. These problems even affect women who don't leave the workforce to go have kids.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 10:48 AM
2

Ehh... The problem is that it only accounts for one group where inequality could exist. But, if you compare men and women who have children (especially single parents), male parents are more likely to be hired, and paid more. Same thing with marriage; married men are more desirable workers than either married women or single men. "Now wait a god-damned minute" I hear you shout "those are choices women make; no one forced them to have children or get married". And that's true. But, imagine if tha…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 10:46 AM
2

I'm claiming that we can define for ourselves what it means, rather than letting others define it for us. The problem as I see it is that we lose power as a gender when we allow ourselves to be divided in order to gain approval from women. Really, though, yes. Masculinity and maleness is such a self-defined construct that we can redefine it however we like. We can define it in its broadest terms.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 09:30 PM
1

Interesting. I'd wager in practice that it's extended to artificial penises as well, though, so any penetration would be counted. But, I don't know that for certain.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 07:58 AM
2

If you can actually dissect it, do it. Claiming there's no substance there is a crappy cop out of actually a arguing. Your three bullet points have literally nothing to do with either my post or the one I was responding to. do female rape victims get more attention and aid than male rape victims from society and institutions And yet, oddly, no one says to men "if you don't want to get raped, don't look so damned sexy". does rape (female) get more attention and aid than say victims of beatings fr…
/r/MensRights12/04/11 02:49 AM
1

I don't even understand that. There's already law against gender discrimination, this would simply codify it in the constitution.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 12:40 AM
1

The only "men's rights" issue feminists want to push is the one that emasculates men. It's that very thinking that stops us from being able to mount an effective offensive on any of the other issues. You're allowing yourself to be distinguished and divided by the very people who you should be garnering support from. And why? To conform to some traditional notion of what men "should" be? To make yourself feel more manly? To seem more manly to women, and thus get more sex? The first step in solvin…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 11:18 PM
1

Absolutely, when I feel there is something to be sympathetic about. Being rejected by for being "too nice", when she never would have wanted him either way doesn't seem to rise to the occasion
/r/MensRights11/04/11 08:52 PM
1

No, but juries are meant to listen to testimony and decide who was credible.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 08:51 PM
1

women aren't just rejecting nice guys, or even putting them down, for other reasons; they are doing so specifically because they exert those qualities. The deception in of itself is justification enough for frustration but the level of apathy or disdain that those women typically show those men(or attempt to justify while doing so) is especially worrisome. I have literally never run into that. I've had many friendships with girls, and watched many more, and I've had my share of rejections (perha…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 08:50 PM
1

Perhaps, but why does it have to be one or the other? My gender solidarity does not exclude women who are in support of the solidarity (i.e women who are accepting and supportive of all variety of men and do not draw shallow distinctions in an attempt to pit us against each other); they will be accepted and venerated.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 07:09 PM
-1

Weird. Does the "he" get applied to both genders? It is English, and "he" can be used as a unisex term.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:52 PM
0

is a false dichotomy. Bad analogies are bad. Didn't you say you were done? I already proved that a large number of people think women are partially to blame if they get raped while wearing revealing clothing. That's yet another fact I showed that you ignored. Which doesn't go to prove that there would be fewer rapes (or a change in target) if women wore less revealing clothing. Since you love calling out fallacies, we call this a "non sequiter". I can do it, too. So, people who are willing to ra…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:27 PM
0

Women were singled out in a constitutional amendment to change the fact that prior to the 19th Amendment, the right to vote was reserved for men. The word "men" did appear in the constitution when it was drafted. Hence the need for the 19th Amendment.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:23 PM
0

Combat I'll agree with, but the suicide rate seems pretty well out of their control. We don't know why men are more likely to succeed at committing suicide (women are more likely to attempt it).
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:22 PM
1

The problem, as always, is that no one side is guilty of this alone. I can go down that list of fallacies (and have before) and find examples, upvoted to boot), here on this very subreddit. Glass houses, mates.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:16 PM
1

where, on one hand, you will find countless women criticizing/attacking men for being insensitive/inconsiderate and constantly reinforce the idea that they want nice guys; while, on the other, you have women perpetually rejecting those nice guys for having or making the conscious effort to adopt those qualities The problem is correlation and confounding variables. Nice guys look at being rejected, while girls go out with "jerks" and think about it as a binary system: girls want "jerks" even whil…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:11 PM
3

Speaking as someone who was a "nice guy" for a long while before realizing that it's just as douchey to use being "nice" as a way to try to get into a girl's pants as anything else (and have henceforth simply tried to be a good person) I think we do it to ourselves. Guys recognize that we can't compete in looks and money, and so try to compensate by being nice. But, we get wrapped up in it, and start to think of girls as single-issue voters (as it were) who are deciding solely based on "niceness…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:05 PM
4

Citation? I'm seriously curious here. Most American jurisdictions have even done away with the penetration aspect of rape.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:01 PM
0

Wrong. So, if women didn't wear revealing clothes, rape wouldn't happen? Really? False dichotomy. You're just full of logical fallacies, another reason why I'm done with you after this post. Not all dichotomies are false. I've presented the only two logical options. Your failure to respond to them, and instead hide behind "hurr, logical fallacies" is a pathetic debating tactic best left in high school. You think rapists (rapists by a normal definition, not by theirs) don't also believe this? So,…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 04:56 PM
1

There are some men willing to commit rape by an objective definition, but who rationalize it to themselves and don't think of it as rape since "she was asking for it by the way she dressed." And if they couldn't rationalize it that way, they would rationalize it another. You cannot escape the fundamental reality that one of two things are true: Rapists are men who will commit rape no matter what the outside circumstances; thus changes in attire won't change the absolute number of rapes (and may …
/r/MensRights11/04/11 04:22 PM
3

Realistically, I don't really think most men would even be willing to isolate themselves from women or even attempt this type of emotional/sexual blackmail(A type of hostility/sexism which might work for women, or that women might generally might view as acceptable, but not necessarily so for your typical man). Which makes it our fault that we fail to solve these problems. We can't really blame women when we can't step up and declare ourselves autonomous, and not desirous of female approbation a…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 04:16 PM
1

Wrong, that's a common fallacy that feminists like to use (comparing men to animals), and it's bullshit. In addition, you also used a strawman. I actually said that I don't believe men are animals, and that there are aren't men whose self-control is overcome by a desire to rape. It's possible it's a straw-man, but I do think it's a fair extension of the attitude that there are men induced into rape by seeing women dressed in sexy clothes. I already said it: there are some people willing to rape,…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 04:05 PM
1

And I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that clothes help them determine their target... And I'm just saying they don't. Hence the impasse from which we cannot proceed. Pretty hard to make studies about that don't you think... Probably. But, it'd probably be possible to regress for. I'll sleuth for some information when I'm not so tired.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 03:58 PM
2

Are people walking around looking for girls to rape? Probably not. Are there people who are willing to rape? Yes. That's where you're making a point I doubt many people would support. You're basically saying there are men out there who would not rape except by seeing women dressed sexily. You're saying that there are men who (otherwise normal) can be so overcome with animalistic lust that their minds lose their moorings, and they commit rape. I don't accept that. A man who commits rape is one wh…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 03:42 PM
5

women do this too(a lot) and, if anything, have a significantly greater level of influence towards heterosexual men than other men do(most heterosexual men can manage being teased by other men, very few are willing to endure being ostracized from women). That's what I'm arguing against (see my posts in response to aetheralloy). I want to see men willing to say "if you want to ostracize him, you ostracize all of us", and unwilling to accept (much less support) artificial distinctions between "rea…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 03:37 PM
1

But let's say you succeed in getting him to sell all him stuff. Are you a thief? In this example you are obviously taking advantage of a drunk person, and anyone who goes around prowling on the drunk for sex or anything else are the scum of the earth. It's difficult, since the contract would be declared null, and thus I would have to return the property. But, arguably, no damage would have been done long-term. I could be hit with consequential damages, but those are purely economic. Rape is a di…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 03:34 PM
2

As I explained in the first part, vaginas aren't the target. And you only know that particular person exists until you see them as well. We're both arguing from a position of unproved assumptions, sad to say. My belief is that there are men who are going to commit rape no matter what, and that their target is not determined by scanning a crowd for the best-looking woman. I believe they're looking for targets of opportunity. It's why I'm okay with saying "don't get drunk and wander alone", but fe…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 03:27 PM
2

Well, there's a reason why the courts don't accept consent to intentional torts, or assent to a contract, given while intoxicated as valid.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 03:23 PM
2

Laptops may also be always a target, it's just easier to take them when they're out in the open. Same with this, a rapists won't try to rape someone when that person is surrounded by friends or family. Right, but the fact that I have a laptop in my car is only evident if it's out in the open. Same thing with a big flat-screen-TV. It's only obvious that it even exists on the premises if it's visible. Vaginas are kind of ubiquitous in the female population. Same with the laptop really. You're not …
/r/MensRights11/04/11 02:07 PM
0

Okay. Lemme get you drunk and see if I can persuade you to sell me all of your stuff for like a third of what it's really work. It's what you meant to do all along, right?
/r/MensRights11/04/11 02:04 PM
0

What could they do about it? Even if hypergamy is real, what could women do to force us to give up our fraternity? We would be in a place where women can no longer pit us against each other to struggle and jockey for position to be first in line to have sex; their ability to influence our behavior would be greatly diminished. What we need is to step forward as a gender and cease to enforce segregation and degradation upon ourselves, and instead say that all men are deserving of the same respect,…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 12:47 PM
4

You seemed to be taking issue with a court believing a woman who claims in court "I said no", when she had been (at the time) drinking. My point was that if she was too drunk at the time for her present-day memory to be correct, she was too drunk at the time to have consented.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 10:29 AM
1

Now, a drunk guy that thinks a slut wants a one night stand is probably going to go ahead with sex. That's a difficult situation. I'm fine saying "don't go to a club, drink heavily and be alone with a guy", but the clothes don't really seem to bee make-or-break in that circumstance. Besides, we're still saying that the guy is so besot with lust that he can't distinguish between "Oh, no, don't stop" and "Oh no! Don't! Stop!". If a guy plans to rape somebody, or even if doesn't but is prepared to,…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 10:28 AM
1

I'm fine saying "being drunk makes you more likely to be attacked, as does being in a bad neighborhood". But the sign only referred to clothes.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 10:22 AM
-4

Well, that's the thing. I'd call it blaming the victim to say "if you didn't want to be robbed/raped/mugged don't make such an attractive target" and good advice to say "don't make it too easy to be robbed/raped/mugged". Dressing like a slut doesn't make it easier to be raped, just more attractive (arguably). Same with having a nice house.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 10:21 AM
1

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Decreasing the difficulty of committing a crime =/= arguably increasing the attractiveness of committing the crime. Telling women to protect themselves from rape by dressing more conservatively is like telling me to protect myself from car theft by driving a '94 Dodge Dart. Furthermore, as long as some men are going to commit rape either way, some women will be victims no matter how they dress. And, if you're arguing that clothes induce men to rape, I …
/r/MensRights11/04/11 09:54 AM
1

That's a slightly better analogy, but that's still somewhat different. The laptop is only a target if it is out and about (i.e people only know to break into my car to get it if they see it). A woman is never without her vagina, and unless you're claiming that men are induced to rape by short hemlines, some number of men are going to commit sexual assault either way. So, unlike my laptop, women are targets simply by being out and about in the world. Since staying home is untenable, we should rig…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 09:51 AM
1

If I go to a rough neighborhood wearing millions of dollars in flashy jewelry, don't you think it's obvious what is likely to happen? It's like walking into a wolf's den covered in gravy. Are the people who stole from me 100% guilty for their crime? Of course! That doesn't mean I was a fool to put myself in that position. The problem is that you walking around with millions of dollars in jewelry means that you are presenting a target where none otherwise exists (who would rob a homeless guy). Bu…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 09:48 AM
2

That's not an apt analogy. Making a place easier to rob is different from a woman looking (arguably) more attractive as a sexual conquest. The former actually makes the crime more easy to accomplish, the latter speaks to whether a person is likely to want to. But, unless you're saying that rapists are men who were simply overcome with lust and lost control of themselves (which implies that all men could be so overcome, which would be a disturbing notion), all rape is caused by an aberrant man do…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 09:44 AM
2

Not the same thing at all. A real analogy would be: My house was robbed last night That sucks, did you happen to have a nice house? Yeah, it looks great, and it was really expensive Oh, so it looked like a place someone might find attractive to break into? Yeah, I mean it has a beautiful garden and skylight and everything That was kind of dumb, if you don't want your house robbed, you shouldn't have a nice home, that's just asking to be robbed.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 09:42 AM
0

*fondling a 17 year old girl friend in the US is rape Depends on the state. In most states, if you're within a certain number of years (usually two) it's not rape of any kind. So, a thirty-year-old with a seventeen-year-old would be rape, a nineteen-year-old with a seventeen-year-old is kosher. *Having sex with a drunk girl in the US is rape. The amount of drunkenness needs not be proven, like in a car accident. The girl's word is enough, no matter how much she drank. If the woman drank enough t…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 09:39 AM
0

The problem is that you're trying to analogize between: (1) Decreasing the difficulty of committing a crime and: (2) Possibly increasing the appeal of committing that crime The thing is, women dressing sexily is not making is easier for them to be raped (I guess jeans are more difficult to take off, but I doubt that's part of a rapists consideration); and thus the only difference is in the attractiveness. I will respond to that in two ways: That says something disgusting about our view of men: t…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 09:37 AM
9

You're saying that cross-dressing would be done (and hence acceptable) if it got men laid. I'm saying that we should not be beholden to women to dictate what behaviors we accept. Whether women like it or not shouldn't be determinative of whether we (a) accept, (b) support, or (c) push for greater societal acceptance of a given behavior. We have in our hands the power to change whether crossdressing by men is acceptable, and the fact that we don't only proves our continued dependence on approval …
/r/MensRights11/04/11 09:31 AM
20

But that means that we're accepting that the only way for us (as a gender and as a movement) to end the stigma is to wait for women to do it for us. Bullshit. If every man, today, promised to never again insult, belittle, or demean a man who wears women's clothing, we could end the stigma today. If we agreed to not discriminate in hiring, nor act disgusted, nor insult such men, we represent a large enough population to end the effective discrimination today. Why don't we? Why are we waiting for …
/r/MensRights11/04/11 09:19 AM
7

I dunno, it seems kind of odd of us to place the entire blame for societal problems on women. If we said (as an entire gender) "we're going to wear women's clothing, deal with it"; I doubt all women everywhere would say "well, that's the end of the species, no more sex". Why do we victimize ourselves by making ourselves beholden to women to approve or disapprove (and reward or punish) male behavior? If men banded together and said "crossdressing is awesome, fuck those bitches who think it's gay"…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 09:16 AM
1

I was aware of the anal cancer concern, but not the penile cancer angle. Regadless, there is a vaccine for at least two forms of HPV, why not continue fighting the cause? That's a false dichotomy. Why not do both? Why not get as much reduction of STIs and cancer as we can? I will freely admit that I cannot remember the source for that, but I can try to dig it up if you're sceptical. I'm a little skeptical.. But even if you're right, that >1% amounts to (let's say it's .01%) 150,000 possibly stop…
/r/MensRights10/04/11 10:03 PM
1

HPV can cause cervical cancer. As far as I'm aware, men don't have cervices, and most other STIs that would be reduced by a circumcision can be equally reduced by hygiene. HPV also causes penile and anal cancer (the latter of special concern for homosexual males). HPV's transmission can occur even with a penis, and while I've never seen a study about whether HPV transmission occurs more or less with condoms and circumcision than condoms alone, the benefits may well stack. The unqualified claim o…
/r/MensRights10/04/11 03:31 AM
1

If there were a legitimate medical justification for female circumcision, yes I would. Were there studies indicating a decrease in STI transmission, HIV, and various forms of cancer, I would be okay with parents making that decision. If it, furthermore, had no demonstrable adverse impact on normal sexual activity (barring the rare complications) I would be okay with it. That's the difference. FGM has no medical benefits and (depending on the type, even short of a cliterectomy) can have huge impa…
/r/MensRights09/04/11 04:05 PM
1

The same is even more true with feminist "blank slate" social and cultural conditioning theories. We actually can test evolutionary theories much better than any social conditioning theories. We can look at twin studies, the David Reimer study is a good one, and we can also look at things like sperm competition and penis shape and function. We can test some evolutionary theories, but all of "society is this way because we evolved for it" is pure speculation. Every pet theory can be "proved" by s…
/r/MensRights09/04/11 03:58 PM
1

Oy. I like how the headline specifically calls him a "nerd", presumably in order to inspire in us "OMG, I'm a nerd too, could this happen to me?" Even though I'd wager most of us don't climb into beds with sleeping women whose boyfriends are passed out downstairs, and start fingering them. Imagine if a woman crawled into your bed while you were passed-out drunk and started fingering your ass. Not only would you want her prosecuted, you'd be pissed as hell if anyone said "eh, she stopped when you…
/r/MensRights08/04/11 11:25 PM
3

Evolutionary psychology, or any other attempt to trace human interaction back to some evolved trait, is (at best) speculation, and (at worst) simply spurious arguing. Can we, for the love of my sanity, please stop talking about human beings in "alpha" versus "beta" terminology? Those terms aren't even properly applied to wolves, much less to the more complex and nuanced human society. Even if we accept those kinds of definitions as valid, it's circular logic. The men who are most successful with…
/r/MensRights08/04/11 03:30 PM
1

That is power and policy. You seem to be belaboring under the delusion that politicians have magical powers, when they don't. All politics is just people listening to each other and making collective decisions. My point, as it has been from the start, is that in order to assign blame for decisions madee by government (i.e. going to war) we should look at who is actually in control of the government. To latch on to your rather tenuously argued notion that because women talk to each other and deci…
/r/MensRights08/04/11 08:30 AM
1

Because the former is saying "take simple safety precautions to make it more difficult to break into your house"; the latter is saying "well, if you didn't have such a nice-looking house, they wouldn't try to rob you". If I said "if you're going downtown, don't go down dark alleys, don't walk alone" as advice to avoid being mugged, that's fine. If I said "if you don't want to get mugged, you shouldn't wear nice clothes, that's not okay.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 10:00 PM
1

Some of the advice is good (don't drink too much, don't go out alone), some of it sounded like "she asked for it" (don't dress like a slut, don't be flirty). So, it sounded to many like the whole thing was "well, the woman was irresponsible, so she deserved it"
/r/MensRights07/04/11 09:57 PM
1

That's not a proper analogy. Leaving my car or bike unlocked makes it easier to steal, not more attractive. Dressing like a slut would be comparable to driving a Porsche. No one would say "well, if you didn't want your car stolen, you shouldn't have been driving a Porsche"
/r/MensRights07/04/11 09:56 PM
4

It's a reasonable point, and we make the same point all the time: men should not be treated as nothing but rape-thirsty monsters and animals ready to commit rape any time they see a pair of breasts. As such, men can be responsible for resisting their urges (even when they see sultry women in slinky dresses). And, as such, women are not responsible for trying to limit how many men will go crazy with lust. If rape is a matter of men being animals, women should be more demure. If rape is a matter o…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 09:50 PM
1

Women's networks and collective decision making is power and politics. Once again your projecting you theory that only male groups have power. No, once again I'm asserting that power is to be measured by the people who can actually dictate policy. If there is an absolute monarch, all power over going to war is his. You are continuing to return to an assertion that women (pre-20th-century) had power to compel a country to go to war without any evidence. I have evidence that men in the middle-ages…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 09:44 PM
0

Your headline is somewhat misleading. He is apologizing for stating that not all sexual assault perpetrators should go to jail. He specifically defended a man who "penetrated a woman with his fingers" at a party, and was convicted of having done so without her consent.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 08:58 PM
1

To put it plainly women talk to each other like men do and make up rules and expectations.) Women's networks would come to decisions about matters of war and that men are the ones who go to war. These networks also help to determine gender roles. Once again, you're assuming that "women talking to each other and voting" somehow confers on women the power to actually cause war. It's spurious at best. Women, for as long as has been recorded use most the resources. As in women are the main benefacto…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 08:17 PM
1

That's really weird. When I applied I only had to include my father's information. Whichever one took you as a dependent on their taxes is your family for the purposes of FAFSA. Maybe your school was different.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 06:53 PM
2

The problem is that none of the searched words themselves implies that there's a teaching in schools about why feminism is awesome. Someone working on a paper for an undergraduate law class might search for "gender", "discrimination" and "reproduction" in order to find Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In fact, I did just that Junior year, and my professor was a crotchety fifty-seven year old man. Reproductive rights and gender discrimination (in both directions) are hot button topic in general, so a…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 06:05 PM
1

I went for a year, but they wouldn't approve me for another loan, I couldn't scrounge up enough to pay tuition (no scholarships for those white males who never EVER need help) Unless something changed between when you went to school and when I did, that statement is false. I had two different scholarships, plus Pell Grants, a grant from my school, and a housing stipend.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 05:58 PM
1

Women ask for wars and have as much steak in them as men, yet they leave the dying to men. They are involved in the development of war and the killing of men in the most important ways. Stake, not steak. The former kills Dracula, the latter you grill Political power and military decisionmaking has never been in the control of women. women raise and engender children. Women engender boys to take on more risks and fill in the dangerous roles. Even my own mother told me women should get men's right…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 05:57 PM
2

The difference is men aren't encouraged or even permitted to act outside their gender specialization the way women are. Girls growing up in the last generation were told they could grow up to be anything, they were encouraged to explore their 'male' side and to peruse traditionally male subjects. Therefore have many developed a dualistic gender approach to work more suitable for today's environment. There is some research, however, to suggest that there is societal backlash against women in non-…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 05:31 PM
1

Do you have an objective measure of how many women say or act the way they're often accused of acting? The NAWALT arguments I see are for things like false paternity, ect.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 12:43 AM
1

I have evidence to support my position, you have (at best) a daisy chain of syllogisms and assumptions. It's not cognitive dissonance to adhere to positions supported by evidence, and demand evidence of positions purported to be true.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 10:00 PM
1

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html I got this for you, I hope you enjoy and learn from it.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 09:03 PM
1

That's the issue. We perceive that the majority of women do X, Y, Z bad behavior, and thus reject any argument that women in general don't do it. But, feminists perceive the same of us: the majority of men (and MRAs especially) are misogynist, antediluvian, jackasses who are likely to engage in sexually exploitative behavior. What both sides need to admit is that the silent majority of people are just living their lives out as decent human beings.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 04:24 PM
1

Still waiting for you to recognize quoting your own statements and replying to them is replying to what you said. Thanks.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 06:35 AM
1

When someone quotes directly from your post, it's difficult to argue that they're not basing their argument on what you've said. But, since your entire debating tactic is "pretend my opponent isn't making any points and claim victory" perhaps you can just claim victory and save everyone the trouble of downvoting your absurdity.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 04:36 AM
1

Ehh, sort of. The removal of the foreskin is not beneficial only because it eliminates problems with the foreskin itself, but because it actually reduces harm overall. Lower transmission and acquisition of various STIs, lower incidence of penile cancer. If the diseases reduced by circumcision were diseases solely of the foreskin, I would grant your analogy, but they are less localized diseases. If removing the labia reduced cervical cancer, I'd agree with the analogy on that level (and we could …
/r/MensRights05/04/11 08:48 PM
0

The most likely people to commit and be convicted of violent rape are lower class men. But, one wagers (without, I'll admit, evidence) that the more likely perpetrators of so-called date-rape/acquaintance-rape/she-was-drunk-or-sleeping-rape are likely to be upper-middle-class college frat-boys. I'm only two years removed from being in college myself and. while I don't hold anecdotes as evidence, there's a lot of that going on. It turns out that when it comes to rape, "masculinity" isn't the prob…
/r/MensRights05/04/11 05:11 PM
1

Come on, man, you don't want fifty bucks to prove what you're "sure" about? I'm practically begging to give the money to you.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 04:10 PM
2

Next time, be able to actually respond substantively to people when they explain the flaws in your logic.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 04:02 PM
1

I wasn't arguing against neonatal circumcision with that, just saying that the analogy about why people don't seem to make a fuss about this is more apt than it at first appears That's the thing, though. The analogy to things like slavery and child abuse depend on the implicit argument that the only reason I (and most circumcised men) don't object is because we've been brainwashed. But, a similar "if people only knew, and stopped being sheep" argument applies for almost any conspiracy theory. th…
/r/MensRights05/04/11 03:53 PM
1

Okay, the way you had written it originally could have been read as "I'd bet that gay couples would be even better than heterosexual couples", and that seemed like an odd assumption.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 07:20 PM
1

I really don't know, but let me say this about women in the business world and I think it is very possible that something similar is occuring with boys in school. That was kind of my point. If we're going to say "we should change schools because they aren't catering to boys" we should also say "we should change business schools because they aren't catering to girls". I DO NOT believe the business world has a male "mindset and attitude". To the extent you believe that is just a product of gender …
/r/MensRights04/04/11 06:21 PM
1

I imagine if they tested the kids raised by gay couples, they'd probably do better too despite the lack of gender diversity in their parents. Why?
/r/MensRights04/04/11 06:16 PM
2

Our teaching methods and curriculum is managed and to the extent it has a bias against boys then I see a problem that should be addressed. This is NOT inconsistent with maintaining that the global free market "is what it is". That's the problem I have, though. You're assuming as an immutable truism of business schools and the business world that they will be more geared toward a male mindset and attitude, and that women who do not succeed there are simply failing to live up to the natural and in…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 03:16 PM
-1

I do, in fact, object The point is numbers. If one out of every hundred people object to a procedure, and the other ninety-nine don't care; it's difficult to call that mutilation and a horrible abridgment of human rights. babies DO object too, insofar as they scream when cut Babies also cry when given inoculations, or when given hair cuts, or when their favorite toy is taken away. The authority of parents is often to say "I need to prioritize the long-term benefits of what I'm doing over any sho…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 02:57 PM
0

The problem is that you can use similar "anyone who disagrees with me is just groomed/conditioned/brainwashed" arguments about anything. Capitalism is only perceived to be the preferable economic system because people have been born and raised in it, indoctrinated from day one to believe in it. Democracy is only a good political system because people have been groomed to believe in the democratic process. It's an interesting argument, but it also begs the question. If one of the qualifying facto…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 02:52 PM
1

If I'd ever run into one, or see video of one, or even heard a story about one, I totally would. Are you really telling me a paid talk show host has actually advocated the extermination of men while on a major television station and kept her job?
/r/MensRights04/04/11 02:49 PM
1

Without rehashing a debate which as been done quite well to death, my objection to your post is comparing a system wherein the oppressed actually did object to being oppressed (and where the defenders of the system were the oppressors) to circumcision wherein the "oppressed" by and large don't mind it, and the defenders are not part and parcel of the "oppressors". Your analogies were an undue appeal to emotion, and it simply makes the entire debate tacky.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 01:50 PM
2

You missed my point, methinks. My point was that we cannot reasonably simultaneously argue the following two positions: The fact that so few boys succeed in primary, secondary, and increasingly post-secondary education proves a slant against men in those areas which is (a) a problem, and (b) should be changed The fact that so few women succeed in business school and the business world is simply reality, and we should accept it as being part of the inherent makeup of the business world. Imagine i…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 01:46 PM
1

Are you sure you meant to link that first study? Which has to do with imagined competition by friends, and nothing to do with marriage vis-a-vis "promiscuity"? Similarly, did you actually read the second study, wherein they determine that when they controlled for confounding variables, the apparent correlation disappears? That divorce and having pre-marital sex are both related to things like "willingness to break traditional social roles", and not each other?
/r/MensRights04/04/11 01:42 PM
0

Well, this kind of depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about the transsexual who was brutally beaten to death here in Colorado for having the temerity to want to have sexual relations as a woman, and the men who used a "tranny rage" defense at their trial, I can understand why you would be banned for defending men who beat someone to death over something as (frankly) small as having had accidental sex with a transsexual. I can also see why your statement in defense of such men …
/r/MensRights04/04/11 11:23 AM
1

If only those numbers came from somewhere which could be studied and analyzed. We have a link from a blog, to a blog, to a "cannot be found" page.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 11:16 AM
2

Regardless of biology, this is how social interaction works. And if it's how society works, it should never be questioned or changed. Wait... Aren't we the ones saying that society should be changed to value men more, and have the same expectations of men as women? This is a biological explanation of why things work the way they do. Which has no basis except posteriori reasoning. Do you also buy the Freudian explanations for all of human interaction? Because he has just as much "ooh, this thing …
/r/MensRights04/04/11 11:12 AM
2

The problem with that argument is that we make the opposite argument about primary and secondary education. We argue that if the culture is different from how boys succeed, the culture needs to change. How can we simultaneously argue that the culture of education needs to change because it doesn't allow boys to succeed, and then argue that business schools don't need to change even though they don't allow girls to suceed? Gooses, ganders, mate.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 10:58 AM
1

What I find disconcerting about the rejection of the "not all women are like that" argument is that we make the same argument all the time. Think about how we react to men being forced to go to assemblies about why rape is wrong ("well, only a small number of men actually do that, not all men are like that") or about deadbeat dads ("most guys do take care of their kids, and even want custody, not all men are like that"), or even the sexists among out ranks ("they don't speak for the entire movem…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 10:54 AM
0

I'll be honest, if a woman used terms like "nigger" or "spic" or "mick" on the air, I'd want her thrown off the air. When Imus called a group of black women "nappy headed hos" I wanted him thrown off the air. That's not a lack of political correctness, it's just a lack of basic human decency. You don't get to throw around slurs with a simple defense of "well, I'm not trying to be PC". It's bullshit.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 10:39 AM
1

It's the usual "circumcision is a choice the young man should make for himself" argument that happens here about twice a week.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 10:35 AM
1

Think of it this way, slavery was a non-factor for slave owners, women's lack of the vote was a non-factor for people who didn't want them to vote, child molesting is a non-issue to paedophiles Your argument is like saying "capitalism is bad because a vocal minority of people really want Communism" even though the majority of people born into capitalist societies (we don't have a choice there, natch) are fine with it. Your analogies would be valid if the divide were that people who do the circum…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 10:33 AM
0

I'm sure cutting off womans labia minora would provide all sorts of 'benefits' but we don't see us doing that now do we, so why is it not only accepted but vigorously promoted for males? It's done often in African and Middle Eastern countries. If you can find me a single (valid, peer-reviewed and checked) study showing real, confirmable, medical benefits to female circumcision (or FGM) I will paypal you fifty dollars.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 10:31 AM
2

There's a very vocal minority of the men out there who have been circumcised who feel that they have been denied (a) a human right, and (b) the awe-inspiring pleasure of sex-while-having-a-foreskin. For the majority of circumcised guys, it never even comes up (no pun intended), so all we hear from are the guys who have a really strong feeling about the horror they were put through which (scientifically speaking) they can't possibly remember.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 10:30 AM
2

I'm not going to flame you, just ask you to consider that you're ignoring a lot of confounding variables. The one line of statement by the researcher, and rather short treatment in the article, leave a lot of open questions and possible other variables they don't account for. Is it possible that the reason the correlation exists is because interacting with both genders of parents causes better results? Sure. Is it possible that the ability of fathers to spend time with their children has to do w…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 10:20 AM
6

The problem here is identifying correlation as distinct from causation. For instance, the raw data that a disproportionate number of black men are in jail could be indicative of a few different things: 1. Black men are just criminal in nature, 2. The system is skewed against black men, 3. The types of crimes black men are likely to commit are punished more seriously, ect. Without trying to control for the other possible factors, we're left with a statement without a while lot of real meaning beh…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 10:18 AM
1

Do you happen to be from Lake Wobegon? I hear it's a wonderful place to visit.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 10:13 AM
2

I like the default assumption that a woman is always mentally ill when she kills her children. Andrea Yates, Elaine Campione and the like, and now this woman too. She was shown to be mentally ill in court. We'd no more punish a mentally disabled man. It's sort of like the default assumption that when a woman does something bad to a man, the man must have done something to deserve it... Completely unrelated. Really sets the tone for the man=bad woman=good thing we've got going. Oy
/r/MensRights01/04/11 07:06 PM
-3

Sounds good to me. It's untenable. It would fundamentally require a video of her saying "aww yeah, I wanted that guy behind bars, even though he never raped me". I guess you could run into a situation where he had a recording of her saying "yes" early on, but because consent is terminable and revocable at any time, the woman could still argue that she had (after the recording) said "stop. I guess you could record the entire way through, and somehow prove that there was no editing of the video (o…
/r/MensRights01/04/11 05:02 PM
2

Non sensationalist headline: "mentally ill woman receives a seven year sentence for manslaughter for killing her son". In both England and America, the truly mentally ill lack the intent for murder, so they get charged with manslaughter. Seven years is about right for that. They're sympathizing with a mentally ill woman who should have gotten help, rather than being left alone to get worse and kill her child
/r/MensRights01/04/11 04:42 PM
-2

Given that it doesn't distinguish between simple mistake and "lies" and that it would be difficult (under the best of circumstances) to prove that a woman intended to make a false claim, one of two things would happen: Women who were raped, and who were mistaken (or traumatized) out of properly identifying their attacker will be punished, thus actually representing a chilling effect on women who have been raped coming forward (for fear of being mistaken, and being punished for something they did…
/r/MensRights01/04/11 03:32 PM
1

The issue is that you're trying to prove the goodness of young girl/older man relationships by asserting that they are in certain circumstances good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Basically, the article says "relationships between young girls and older men are (in hindsight by the women) bad, and they're not genetically programmed". You responded (basically) "some young girls need relationships with older men, so it's good". But the very statement that some young girls "need"…
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:19 AM
1

I don't think it's arguable. Saying "without a doubt this is best sometimes" as "proof" that is is both good and natural begs the question. It'd be like if I said "rape happens all the time because men often commit rape". If the supporting rationale is simply a restatement of the core thesis, it's not logically sound. I also wouldn't call young women's sexuality part of any 'set' the variation is wide Kind of irrelevant. If the question is whether behavior is acceptable (or "good" ethically) mer…
/r/MensRights01/04/11 05:38 AM
1

This has what to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights01/04/11 05:30 AM
-1

He was misrepresenting his opponent's argument as "if not for socialization, men would want sixty-year-old women" and refuting the extreme and illogical statement he made up. That's almost the definition of a straw man. You realize that technically all hyperbole can be considered "strawmanning" Perhaps, but it creates a presumption that the person cannot win the actual argument, and so has to create an extreme and illogical argument he can win.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 10:59 PM
3

You've come up with one example (and an arguable one at that, since it begs the question), that doesn't create a presumption for the general set
/r/MensRights31/03/11 10:58 PM
-2

It's really more of a hyperbolic example to illustrate the absurdity of the notion That's kind of the definition of a straw man.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 09:21 PM
5

The issue is trying to pin down a definition of "natural", and (from there) assess whether "natural" is the same thing as "good". We tend to use two standards: If it is male behavior, which is "natural", it is by definition simply part of being a man, and something we should (at least) accept and (preferably) lionize. If it's female behavior which is "natural" it represents why women will always be awful toward men ("hypergamy", infidelity, false paternity, ect.) It seems like what's good for th…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 08:22 PM
-2

And, oh yeah, men don't actually prefer younger women because they're more attractive, it's because they've been conditioned! If it weren't for social conditioning, men would be lining up to fuck 60 year old grannies! Loving the straw man, man.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 08:17 PM
5

I'll agree with you except the first part
/r/MensRights31/03/11 08:14 PM
1

The only benefit a husband got out of his wife’s land was livelihood. Which was exactly the same benefit his wife got out of it. Except that she also got the benefit that, should her land for some reason fail to support her, her husband would have to on pain of incarceration. And station, and the ability to sell it (the liquidity issues you raise being assumptions rather than supported fact). You're also ignoring that the landed aristocracy "lived" on the land in the sense that they received tri…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 05:38 PM
-4

Ah. Well, in fairness, the DV argument and the wage gap argument would have been better presented separately. We've had the argument here a lot, and the problem is that both sides want a ONE TRUE RING answer for why women earn less than men. Feminists will only accept an explanation of sexism, MRAs will only accept an explanation of personal choice. Neither explanation is wholly correct, and both sound unreasonable and dickish to the other side.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 05:24 PM
1

Without seeing the article(s) she's responding to, it's difficult to pass judgment on either side.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 04:55 PM
1

In Victorian England, property was not going anywhere and because of that, you really couldn't do a damn thing with it--it's only benefits were 1. Shelter. 2. Food. And when he died, she got it back. Are you fucking with me now? Land in Victorian England was the primary basis of wealth. Come on. I get that you're arguing that there are different interpretations of Blackstone, but now you're just being historically inaccurate. In fact it was common for trusts to be set up for heiresses to protect…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 04:50 PM
1

I don't know when the US adopted coverture but it seems like they changed it over fairly quick in order for women to be able to buy and sell. We brought over all of English Common law at the founding, which meant we went about seventy years under coverture. c.f Robinson v. Trousdale County, 516 S.W.2d 626 (1974), which held that the 1913 Married Women's act removed the concept of Coverture. *1913**. BTW, property in England was different then in America. It was difficult to buy and sell so it wa…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 04:43 PM
-1

Do you mean when the inquisition did that? Because you may have your "theys" mixed up a bit, as the U.S court system existed about five-hundred-fifty years after the fifth crusade. Also, that's a subjective measure. But, seeing as how karma on reddit doesn't matter, and the decision of the courts do, I'm going to be happy with having "won" in terms of the outcome being what I suggested. If you'd like to have a mature, respectful, and reasonable conversation on this issue (as others have), I'm ha…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 07:13 AM
1

The case went up on appeal in 2005, and the court affirmed the dismissal with regards to the conversion and fraudulent misrepresentation claims, while reversing and remanding the dismissal on the emotional distress claims. That said, it's interesting that I can find nothing about any case filed in family court. It seems like he willingly paid the child support (and agreed to it), but is suing her in civil court.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 07:12 AM
0

Assuming she did. All we have right now is a he-said-she-said thing, and we're usually loathe to jump in on one side or the other of those.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 07:06 AM
2

That's not what the ruling was. The ruling was that he could not sue her for theft. He can still sue on other theories, and still attempt to mitigate his child support payments.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 07:05 AM
1

Not really, of course. The court ruled that he couldn't sue for theft, but could still sue for emotional distress. http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/divorce/4611/More-on-Phillips-v-Irons The controversy surrounding this case comes from the judge's currently standing ruling which states the sperm resulting from Phillips' ejaculation during sexual contact was a gift from him to Irons and as a gift, she had the legal right to use it as she saw fit. Again, not quite. The suit is proceeding on t…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 07:04 AM
1

Assuming his claims are true, that is. Aren't we usually the ones saying "don't assume that someone is a victim just because (she) claims to be?"
/r/MensRights31/03/11 07:00 AM
-1

It's cute that you think winning and losing an argument about a legal and policy question is based on whether people on a subreddit agree with me. Actually, since the Courts agreed with me, I won the argument. Don't be a sore loser and support violent threats just because you can't actually win your argument except on the internet.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 06:58 AM
0

I see your stance as allowing a child to be abandoned by one of its parents, and raised in a less proper environment, due to no crime of its own, for having the sheer gall to exist.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 06:54 AM
1

Privy examination laws meant that he couldn't dispose of her property without her consent. Sort of. But remember those were American laws, so not applicable to the discussion. Also, on the subject of "could women own land": http://www.propertyhistorian.com/wp/women-and-property/ To understand what I'm saying when I ask, what did men get out of this situation, consider another that is relatively similar. Your analogy is inapt. In addition to gaining all of his wife's debts and obligations, he als…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 06:53 AM
1

For some reason this post was labeled as deleted when I replied. I had a double-post, I wanted to delete one and keep the one you had responded to. Odd. Nope. At least not in the states. Privy examination laws prevented the husband from disposing of property without his wife's consent. I did some digging. Such laws were passed in the mid-nineteenth century. Not to throw a wet blanket here, but that means a good hundred years of American jurisprudence where women's property rights were subsumed i…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 06:46 AM
2

That's actually an interesting argument. If one enters into an agreement under false pretenses, it can be voided. I'll look into it and get back to you. Really? Death threats?
/r/MensRights31/03/11 06:28 AM
-14

He made an agreement (i.e a contract) with his ex-wife for payment of child support. The fact that he didn't contest custody when he made that agreement was him being an idiot.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:37 PM
0

I'm giving the rest of this a pass for now, to focus on this: I wait with bated breath for your substantive reply. How is this a benefit to the man? His wife's right to be financially supported and not subject to cruelty are not subsumed into his rights. So how is being responsible for another adult for the rest of his life a benefit to him? His ownership of her property interests? That's what marriage was about for most of the Victorian Era. You're applying modern legal concepts (equality, both…
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:33 PM
-1

in the case of every father but the richest in the world, it'd be even more in the interests of the child to garnish the wages of someone richer than the child. That's too attenuated, though. I've never argued "best interests uber alles", but rather that the child is entitled to support by its parents regardless of their relationship to each other. My defense is solely of the child's right to support from its father, whether the father wants to be one or not. For all intents and purposes with th…
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:30 PM
-2

Surely you can prove as well, that in most cases 100% of the child support is spent by the mother on things which are integral to supporting said child. E.g. it's truly Child support and not Mommy support. I agree there should be better monitoring and keeping track of how the money is spent (made more difficult because money is fungible: if the mother buys both diapers and a flat-screen television, what specific dollar went for which purchase), but you're throwing out the baby with the bath wate…
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:24 PM
1

1) Men could not dispose of their wife's property without her permission. They did not have complete control over it. My understanding (from a property law class) is that this is a modern invention. The law of Coverture actually did give him complete dominion over his wife's property 2) Men were legally responsible for her criminal behavior. They could go to jail in their wife's stead. Citation? Here's what Blackstone actually wrote: "in criminal prosecutions, it is true, the wife may be indicte…
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:18 PM
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture I'm just going to leave this here
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:02 PM
-2

Eh... Saying "I only like women with large breasts" is more akin to "I only like guys with big cocks" than "I only like tall guys". Tallness is more like saying you only like redheads. Saying you judge based on sexual characteristics is generally considered gauche, for either gender.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 06:40 PM
-6

The problem I have with this kind of headline is that it implies that the child support is obtained by the mother. The child support is obtained for the child.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 06:38 PM
2

Like the Duke Lacrosse bit? I've never disputed there are cases where it's a frame job. The problem is that we're running into selection bias (the false rape society doesn't pick cases to blog about where it's not clearly a false accusation made with ill intent), and confirmation bias (we remember the examples of when there was a frame job because it confirms our existing beliefs), and the availability heuristic (the more readily something comes to mind the more commonplace we think it is). This…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 08:02 AM
2

Does it need to be verbal, or are body ques fine? This is the problem with going with affirmative consent. That's a lot of the difficulty. I think the most consistent thing would be to require verbal consent at the time. The problem I have with "if she doesn't say no, it's okay" is that we should assume that no one is consenting to sexual activity until he/she says "oh, yes, do me baby" rather than assuming that they're consenting until they say "no, god, stop". Under current jurisprudence, non-…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:42 AM
1

The problem is that women have a veto on this decision, and can compel a man, against his will, to subsidize her decision. The reverse may be true in theory, but is rarely seen in practice, as a) men are far less likely to get custody of a newborn infant, and b) women generally aren't subject to pay equal amounts of child support. Perhaps I've seen only a small slice of family law, and the actual law on the books is informing my beliefs (rather than whether it happens in practice). I find it dif…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 01:59 AM
-1

How does a man legally go about abandoning his child then? Explain the process so we can inform guys like the OP of their rights and options. He doesn't. That's kind of my point, but neither does the mother. Neither (once the child exists) can simply say "fuck this noise, I'm done". If the woman attempts to abandon it, the father obtains custody (legal battles notwithstanding) and also gets child support from the mother. If the mother wants to put it up for adoption, same thing. The rights and r…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 09:36 PM
-5

When does the fetus become a baby? The moment it pops out? That would be preposterous Why? While it is inside of someone else (pre-viability), it is fundamentally subject to that person's choices. Were it implanted in the man, the man could then do with it what he likes (the whole "privacy and bodily autonomy" thing). You're comparing an actual right (privacy) to its effect (ending parental obligations) and calling them the same thing. They aren't. My right (privacy) and its effect (drinking cre…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 09:34 PM
2

If the woman is open with the man, "I want a kid," then he is walking into a situation with full disclosure at which point it is buyer-beware. Otherwise, no. It's an interesting standard, but I default to the rights of the child in this case. As a fundamental right, all children are entitled to support (financially, and preferably emotionally) from both parents. Ignoring the right to abortion (which is not founded in a right to "abolish parental responsibility", but rather in a right to bodily a…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 09:31 PM
-1

I'm saying that a father should be able to legally 'abandon' his child just like the mother is. I'm saying that the woman can't "abandon" it, either, at least not the way you're implying. If the man is aware, he can get custody and AFAIK get child support from the mother. has nothing to do with whether or not a man can legally abandon his child as a mother can. Except legal abandonment is putting the child up for adoption. The woman can't just say "here, man, you wanted it, you keep it, and don'…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 09:22 PM
-3

A man does not have the right to abdicate responsibility for an already existing child. A mother does via adoption and abandonment. This is an unequal right; outcome is irrelevant. AFAIK, the child cannot be put up for adoption without the father's consent and permission. If the father refuses, and gets custody, he is owed child support by the mother. I believe it's the same thing with abandonment (at least it would be under the law, the practice may be wonky). After all if a child's rights supe…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 09:06 PM
-2

You apparently didn't read my post below. You're asking for equality of outcome (the ability to end the parental relationship) rather than an equality of right (privacy and autonomy over ones body). The fact that the same right leads to two different outcomes between the genders is happenstance. All citizens have privacy and autonomy over their bodies. That is the right we all have. The outcome is unequal because the right can be applied differently for different parties. But, this is no differe…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:25 PM
2

That's not a legal instrument, it's a social construct. You can say to your kid "you're out of the will, and I won't support you after you turn 18" which is "disowning" a child. But, you can't end your obligation to a minor child.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:39 PM
-6

Because the obligation is to the child not the mother. Once the child exists, the obligation exists for both parents. Before the child exists, the mother can abort only because it is inside her body. Your analogy is spurious.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:38 PM
-2

He does. The problem is that we're viewing the right as 'the right to end a pregnancy', when the real right she has (and he has) is simply privacy and autonomy over ones body.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:34 PM
-5

That's assuming there should be an equality of outcome, rather than an equality of right. The right (in both cases) is one to privacy and autonomy over ones body. As arstin pointed out, the man has that right. The difficulty is that you want equality of outcome for the right to have the same effect for both. The man has the same right, he just can't use it to the same effect. See the difference? Kind of like how we often say that there should be equal opportunities for advancement and education,…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:33 PM
5

Sure. Financial Abortion I was actually a strong proponent of this for a long while when I was a younger man. It struck me when I was about seventeen that there was no way for a man to relieve himself of the burdens of having a child, while there is a way for women to. My position then was very similar to what MRAs now believe: if women can (after the fetus exists) choose to either become a mother or not, men should be able to make a similar decision. The problem is that a "real" abortion and "f…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 05:42 PM
1

Wow, I totally missed responding to this. There are feminist who hold this double standard do you agree with that? I have no way of stating with any certainty either way. I neither specifically believe nor disbelieve it; and I will not attempt to prove a negative. If there are feminists who have stated such contradictory opinions, I would be happy to see documentation. If so then saying There are feminist who believe in a double standard would be a correct statement would it not? The problem is …
/r/MensRights28/03/11 04:18 PM
0

This is a bit of a stretch, guys. It's an anti-theft poster directed at women; who rarely give their numbers to other girls. It has nothing to do with rape, or demonization. I mean, jesus, are we just looking for things to get pissed about now? Isn't there enough bad stuff happening that we don't have to invent new outrage?
/r/MensRights28/03/11 04:08 PM
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States It's a good overview of both sides' explanations. The point that's difficult is that no one explanation (or even group of them) has been shown to be the be-all and end-all of causes of wage disparity.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 04:04 PM
2

Seems like we don't have had enough examples of that posted in this subreddit yet. Just do a search here, you'll find s few. Convicted solely for "looking"? I've been on this subreddit for at least four months now, and I've never seen a story like that. Could you link me one?
/r/MensRights28/03/11 04:02 PM
3

Perhaps, but that assumes that the women will take time off (and be the primary caretakers), which then can also be considered sexist at its core. Beyond that, there are studies were single fathers are likely to be hired and paid more; single mothers are less likely to be hired, and likely to be paid less. Both potential applicants have kids (and the same attendant time constraints and difficulties), but single fathers are seen as heroic, responsible, men (c.f "The Pursuit of Happyness", and a b…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 03:55 PM
1

I guess it'd be the content of the harassment. Cat-calls and whatnot are almost always sexual in nature. Boiled down to its most salient feature, that form of harassment is basically saying "I'd like to have sex with you". And it's directed from men to women (usually). On the other hand, harassment against ugly/fat/whatever people is seen as being bilateral (it's not men saying to a fat girl "I'd never want to have sex with you", it's both genders saying "fatty fatty fat fat"). But, you make a r…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 03:51 PM
1

Yes Depends on the subject area. It's difficult to compare apples to apples when sexism takes many forms. Yes It's a difficult question because it's tough to argue what the real "cause" of feminism is. True, there are some feminists who just want to put women on top, but there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between MRAs and feminists about the current state of affairs. MRAs believe we're (at least) already equal. Feminists seem to believe we're still unequal (at least in some areas). If …
/r/MensRights28/03/11 03:47 PM
0

A man can get beaten to a pulp for looking funny at someone else. Or be thrown into jail for looking funny at a woman or a kid. Or thrown into jail for someone else telling the police he was looking at someone funny. Men are the majority of assault victims by far. That wasn't really the question, though. You're twisting the response "women experience more sexism" into something the OP never said. Also, you do misstate the law. I've worked cases where women have gone to jail for assault, and wher…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 03:42 PM
3

As I've pointed out before, the problem with the mindset of "everyone who is extremist here is an agent provocateur" is that it means that we never have to take responsibility for our own most cruel and extremist elements. I've been accused of being a white knight (here the same thing as "slut shaming"), a troll, and worse by people who would usually be considered the old guard of the MRA movement here. It's a way of exculpating ourselves, a sort of "no true Scotsman" fallacy: if someone says so…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 03:38 PM
1

Your lawyer is awful, get a new one.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 03:31 PM
2

The problem is distinguishing between a loyal dissent, and "trolls". I've been accused of "trolling" a good dozen times (at least) here, simply for finding little wrong with allowing parents to circumcise their sons. There are many, many, men around these parts who can brook no disagreement. And I believe the movement hurts itself by saying "you're either with us lock, stock, and barrel, or you're a troll". I'm sure there are trolls here (just as I'm sure there are misogynist trolls in any of th…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 03:18 PM
1

That's not the statement I'm making, though. I've both studied the law (and worked family law cases), and been keeping track of this kind of issue in particular. I'm not saying "I've never heard of this, so it isn't true", but rather "I know the laws regarding this issue, and I've seen cases dealing with these issues, and never run into the wholesale jailing of men who simply cannot pay child support". Besides, the burden is on those saying "it happens" to actually provide evidence.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 09:43 AM
1

This post was in response to someone who claimed men/fathers were the majority of perpetrators. This study shows that claim is false. True. And I'm granting that absolute numbers are a ridiculous measure. The study included boyfriends and step-fathers, not just biological parents. Thus your comparison does not really tell us about the rate of abuse as a function of opportunity. (Notice the study said that female perpetrators were significantly older than the male ones, which generally isn't the …
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:09 PM
-1

I simply find it unfair to say "person A from [group] said X, and thus represents the beliefs of the entire group" followed by "person B from [group] said Y (which contradicts X), and thus represents the beliefs of the entire group" to conclude "OMG! Double-standards!"
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:03 PM
1

Perhaps, but that's then a very different thing. Family court is fundamentally civil law (burden of persuasion) where sexual assault is criminal law (beyond a reasonable doubt). If we apply that kind of contract theory, it would create a bit of a clusterfuck, to be honest, but I think it'd be doable. I think it's more similar to an intentional tort, though.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 03:14 PM
1

If that's true, that does represent a problem with the system (likely a lack of representation for the men). I don't mean to be dismissive or deny the claims made here, but I've never seen something to indicate that a significant population of men are being jailed for contempt for being unable to pay
/r/MensRights25/03/11 09:46 AM
1

Let me make you an easy chart: Stories about children: creepy but legal Adults roleplaying as children: creepy but legal Drawn (or otherwise entirely fictitious) images of children: creepy but legal. Actual pictures of real children: illegal. Possession of child pornography is a strict liability crime (so intent doesn't matter). And while most guys here (myself included) would say that a nineteen-year-old boy shouldn't go to jail for a decade for sleeping with a fifteen-year-old girlfriend, no o…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 09:05 AM
1

There are a lot of posts of the "OMG some woman did something evil" or (even worse) "men can't wear dresses without people making fun of him, that proves we're oppressed" which can grate on the more legal-oriented MRAs. Those of us who care primarily about legal equality can get a little irked by stories flooding the front-page which are primarily bitching and moaning
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:59 AM
1

She'd have to prove duress, though, which is a tough needle to thread. Though, if the jury believed she had been threatened, he'd be sunk.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:54 AM
1

Rape is the only crime that does not rely on factual evidence, only hearsay headdesk. It's not hearsay. It's not hearsay. If a person is testifying (in court) to events he himself saw (or she herself saw) or to statements made by a party opponent (i.e. the other side) it's not hearsay. Hearsay would be me saying what you said about what you saw, that's not admissible. You saying what you saw, and said, and heard, is almost always admissible, and is never hearsay.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:52 AM
1

You're not really good at giving the whole story, though. The initial burden of production would be on the prosecution (to prove there was no consent, and hence it was rape), the defendant can bring evidence that it was not rape, and prove that there was consent in the proscribed form (much as in a contract dispute, natch). If he is successful, the prosecution must prove an avoidance of that consent (to use K-law terms). It's the same way any prosecution with affirmative defenses functions.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:50 AM
1

contract law standard of consent That's a difficult analogy, though. Insofar as any action which assents can create assent, yes. But, contractual assent cannot be revoked without a breach, and you're ignoring that contractual assent also has a lot of limitations that consent to sex doesn't (detrimental reliance is out the window, as is promissory estoppel, throw out anticipatory breach and specific performance too). I'd shudder to think if any of my one-night-stands could sue me for breach of im…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:47 AM
1

without even being notified of a hearing based purely one someone else's word I've read the F.R.C.P, the C.R.C.P, title 18 of the C.R.S, and many state codes on the issue of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and temporary protection orders (TPOs). I do not know of a single one which does not require notification and a hearing (which the defendant attends) within 14 days of the original order.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:31 AM
1

It is horrifiying that a court can throw an indigent man away for lacking the resources to pay child support That's not what happens. A man can be sent to jail for contempt for failure to pay only if he is found to be doing so willfully (the "contempt of court" part). I encourage you to read a family law attorney writing about this: http://fentonslaw.squarespace.com/fentons-law-blog-lgbt-divorce/2011/3/23/supreme-court-case-do-child-support-debtors-facing-jail-time.html
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:29 AM
1

To top it off, if the vet gets thrown in jail due to not paying, they lower his monthly subsistence to $100. That makes it impossible for him to pay enough to get out. Unless he was brought up on charges from the U.C.M.J, that should not happen unless the judge found that he had the resources to pay and willfully chose not to. If the man is disabled and simply cannot pay, the law does not allow for him to go to jail. You should be provided an attorney for the hearing, but I think the posts which…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:27 AM
1

Ooookay. I'm going to actually throw down some law here, I hope no one minds. He did not go to jail for a failure to pay, he went to jail for contempt. What's the difference? To go to jail for contempt, you must have willfully disobeyed an order from the court. It's a civil penalty, and can be removed whenever the person ceases to be in contempt. If he had proved his failure to pay was because he didn't have the money, he would not have gone to jail (the judge concluded he was being "willful" ab…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:26 AM
0

Without seeing the study, I take issue with the reporting: In data collected over 10 years on 34 cases of abusive head trauma (AHT) in infants, researchers found that abusers' gender was evenly split and that female abusers were typically significantly older than males. Does that mean that the total number of abusers was evenly split? Or that (taken as a percentage of the population which would be in a position to (primary caregivers)) women had the same chance of being abusive? It's a very diff…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:18 AM
1

Yet then they set out to argue that given the time, women are just if not more violent than men. I don't know why that argument is still alive... Simple. Being in a position to abuse (and relative numbers in those positions) is a confounding variable. The argument is that if 10% of women are likely to abuse, and 20% of men are, but three times as many women are in a position to abuse, there will be 10% more female abusers (in total) than male abusers. Any time the ratio of samples is so wildly o…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:10 AM
2

Comparing absolute values to absolute values when there's a disparate number of instances of one versus the other is bad stats work. You can't say "of the 1000 women who returned this IQ test, there were 250 geniuses; of the 100 men who returned it, there were 25 geniuses... Women are ten times smarter than men". You have to compare like numbers to like numbers. I'm not saying "what would x do if y", but rather saying that we can't compare apples to oranges. If more women commit abuse solely bec…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:07 AM
1

Ooookay. Please don't just drop a link to an entire website as way of saying "it's there, go find it". If you have research to support your belief (even anecdotes would suffice for the burden I set above), actually post them. My wager, though, is that there will be plenty of examples of what I suggested (feminist A disagrees with feminist B) and fewer of what you imply happens (feminist A later repudiates her previous position)
/r/MensRights25/03/11 08:02 AM
2

The difficulty of this is that the right to actually abort the child is both legally and ethically distinguishable from the right to "financial abortion". But, in the parlance of many men (including myself for many, many, years) the similarity is sufficiently overriding "women can choose whether to become mothers, men can't choose whether to become fathers". It's a reasonable point, and (all things being otherwise equal) a compelling one. But, for better or worse, all things are not equal. Let's…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 07:59 AM
-2

Just out of curiosity, are there many examples of the same "feminist" saying two contradictory things like these? My understanding and reading of the lay of the land is the tendency is more "feminist A says violence is always bad; feminist B says 'sometimes men deserve to get slapped'" rather than any individual feminist (or group of feminists) subscribing to both viewpoints concurrently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems somewhat unreasonable to accuse a movement of being inconsistent simpl…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 07:35 AM
0

If my admission is that you never used those words, I'll grant you, and shout it from the rooftops. If you want me to admit that you have not espoused views roughly similar to my paraphrase, I won't.
/r/MensRights22/03/11 07:14 AM
1

I just quoted exactly what you wrote, man. It's not trolling to use your own words. Here are other examples of your belief that any position taken by any feminist (or supposed feminist) represents the whole (a fallacy known as composition, FYI): "Feminists don't want men to be anything but support units. The last thing they want is men they can't control. So they'll encourage anything that makes men more docile, they'll even encourage macho behavior - if they can "white feather campaign" it... b…
/r/MensRights22/03/11 06:40 AM
1

I take this ban as a badge of honor at this point. It means that I'm saying something respectably independent of the herping and derping of tomek77.
/r/MensRights22/03/11 06:24 AM
1

That's the thing, one need not deny saboteurs on one side to ask that the same benefit of the doubt (to wit: crazy statements are made by trolls trying to discredit the movement) to the other side. When kloo2yoo quotes Phylis Shafly as representing the feminist movement, we're being disingenuous.
/r/MensRights22/03/11 06:23 AM
2

"Considering the amount of feminist trolls and saboteurs we get here, the worst things said here aren't even said by MRA's." "I think there are certainly feminist ringleaders. There are certainly feminist gestapo... but most women I tend to think are just civilians pulled into a war they probably never wanted." Basically, you're saying that if it's something crazy said here, it's a troll; if it's something crazy said by a feminist, it's proof that feminism is crazy.
/r/MensRights22/03/11 06:21 AM
1

I'm not denying that there are trolls and saboteurs. What's intriguing (and disquieting) to me is that you simultaneously say "extreme positions on /mensrights are simply trolls trying to make us look bad" and "every extreme position espoused on /r/feminism et al is actually real opinions of those subreddits". Consistency is all I'm advocating.
/r/MensRights22/03/11 04:31 AM
6

I don't get that argument, though. It basically means that anything awkward or "too far" can be explained away as "sabotage". But, we don't give that same benefit of the doubt to /r/2X or /r/feminism. Why are we so certain of sabotage and fifth columns in our ranks, but are more than willing to believe that any extreme position is part and parcel of "feminism". Double standards seem contrary to our stated goals.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 09:49 PM
0

based on the claims of a dubious study or two in Africa that may or may not support your claims. I have never one cited those studies. My studies (if you'll check my posting history, kindly) were in the western world, and included not only HIV, but HPV, and penile, anal, and cervical cancer. We are doing this to reduce disease in the OTHER SEX (not even the person getting mutilated) Factually untrue. We are doing it for a number of reasons, a big one of which is reducing cancer and HIV in males.…
/r/MensRights21/03/11 09:44 PM
0

Quite a good response. Except you failed to answer the call of the question, and engage in at least four fallacies. Good times
/r/MensRights21/03/11 09:34 PM
2

I don't disagree at all, I think it'd be awful, I just sought to explain the reason why there are so many men who were congratulating the boy instead of being sympathetic.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 09:12 AM
0

Can you not understand that a comparatively minor surgery can have major effects on future quality of life? Also, you are begging the question about Male Genital Mutilation being logical. You have in no way proved that. As I offered, if you'd like to have a real discussion about this (sans invective and personal attacks) I'm happy to. But, you don't seem up for it. We do not let the parents decide if the benefits outway the risks in the removal of any other functioning, healthy tissue(special pl…
/r/MensRights21/03/11 09:10 AM
0

Do you really think laws are the only thing stopping the average man from violenty forcing himself on all the women around him? Seems like a bit of projection to me. I didn't say the law was the "only thing", but there's no reason to believe that (left alone) any children would grow up to be kind, gentle, souls. Children are not born with empathy, or the ability to understand other people's feelings, they are creatures with no morality or goodness to speak of. We are crafted into decent human be…
/r/MensRights21/03/11 08:38 AM
1

If women are less likely to build reactors in the "wake" of the nuclear "disaster" in Japan, they're simply being illogical.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 08:33 AM
3

It's a pretty poor analogy, man. Men and women are not as different as cats and dogs, and (not for nothing) but I've owned dogs who were far more cat-like (in terms of skittishness) than they were dog-like, and vice-versa. Yes, the meowing versus barking is an intractable difference, but that's like saying "well, this guy talks with a cockney accent, he can't possibly learn". Also, no one is advocating making men act like women and women act like men. The only context in which I see boys being p…
/r/MensRights21/03/11 08:32 AM
2

The problem for many men appears to be that it just doesn't seem "that bad". Most of us can remember (or have had it thrust into our memory by movies and media) that we were horny little buggers at fourteen, who wanted sex from any willing (attractive) woman at any time. Add to that crap like The Graduate, and there's a sort of "hell yes" mentality about a young man "scoring" with an older woman. They assume it's all "here's to you, Mrs. Robinson", where the boy seduces the woman, and thus prove…
/r/MensRights21/03/11 08:26 AM
1

And those state laws are bad. I don't think it's too controversial to say that people shouldn't be charged with rape for having consensual sex with their peers. Hell, this doesn't even violate the half plus seven rule.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 06:44 PM
1

If only our side didn't do it too. Pots, kettles, gooses, ganders?
/r/MensRights20/03/11 09:00 AM
0

But nine studies say they’re wrong I'd like to see them This is a propaganda piece of the worst kind, rolling out all of the fallacies of why circumcision is "evil", and citing nothing to boot.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:57 AM
1

It's a flawed system either way. In your system, we'll have women who consented under duress, but can't prove it because they didn't struggle. Under the current system, we have women who can claim rape when it didn't happen. It's an old statistics problem. You can't eliminate both type one and type two errors, the less you have of one, the more you have of the other. I'm just a bit irked when people say "this is how the law is, and we shouldn't change it" while misstating the law. Sorry if I cam…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:51 AM
1

If this is the case I'm remembering, we should all bear in mind that the girl was 19, and the boy was 15. We're usually the ones hot to trot to defend a nineteen-year-old boy accused of rape for sleeping (consensually) with a fifteen-year-old girlfriend. I think it's mostly a matter of consistency. If age of consent laws are fucked up when they send boys to jail for having sex with a girlfriend who was four years younger, I'd wager they're fucked up if they sent a girl to jail for it. After that…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:47 AM
1

If this is the case I recall, my defense of child support was that the girl was 19, the boy was 15, and the child shouldn't be punished for having been sired by two really stupid kids. But, this may be a different case he was talking about.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:45 AM
1

The thing that's interesting for me, is that most women orgasm clitorally, not vaginally. In fact, most women have not experienced "vaginal" orgasms. So, this study could just as easily be read as "women who prefer vaginal orgasms prefer uncircumcised penises". Here's what I'm curious about: Their circumcised partners were more likely to have premature ejaculation Isn't circumcision supposed to "keratinize" the penis and make it less sensitive? Boy, either the anti-circumcision folks are talking…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:42 AM
1

It exists. It's called rape by fraud, it just has been very narrowly tailored. I'd make it a tort, and put it under the same standards as assent to a contract: no deceit as to important information related to the substance of the contract. If we have a contract for widgets, I can lie about my daughter's dance recital (I don't have a daughter), but I can't lie about the quality of the widgets. Colorado does something interesting and draws a moral line between good reasons to have sex (like him be…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:35 AM
1

That's exactly why I don't consider anything but forcible and/or legitimate drugging to be rape. Anything else just stretches and attempts to redefine it. You don't have a working knowledge of American rape law in the past century if you think that "force or drugging" is the standard currently, and this "stretches" the definition. The current definition of rape in most jurisdictions is "sex without consent"; force or drugging are two ways to prove a lack of consent, but if the jury finds that th…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:31 AM
1

It's worth noting that he's not accused of "sex without a condom" he's accused of "sex when she said "no, the condom broke" and "sex while she wasn't awake to consent". Your analogy is flawed, but in the wrong direction.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:29 AM
1

None of which disallows gag orders or trials without the presence of the press or the suppression of names and evidence from released documents.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:28 AM
2

Oy. If he did what he is accused of doing, he committed rape in every sense of the word. He is accused of having sex with a woman who was asleep, and failing to stop having sex with a woman when she said "stop". No "sex by surprise" or any other bullshit ginned up by his attorneys, he's accused of rape. And he should be tried in a fair court of law (which Sweden, last time I checked, has). We should not be passing judgment either way at this juncture.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:27 AM
1

The problem with citing an abstract of a study is that it doesn't let us look at the actual methods. It's basically saying "we asked this number of people... Something... And they said something derogatory about... Some men... With some number of sexual partners... Here's what we took from that"
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:23 AM
2

And "bitch" is its natural counterpart. Let's not play the victims too much
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:21 AM
-1

I've worked in offices before, and I'm all the way to law school, and I've never met a woman who chewed me out (or would chew anyone out) for holding a door. If you do it politely, simply as a normal gesture (and do it for everyone, not just women you want to bang), I've found no one who objects.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:19 AM
0

which means that the romanticized characters from Mad Men are gone forever. If my only options are living in the society of "Mad Men", and living in a perpetual adolescence, I'll take the latter every time. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:17 AM
2

Correlation does not prove causation. Don't say something is "tied" unless you can actually show a causal "tie" between them. Otherwise, we just know that both went up concurrently. Maybe one caused the other, maybe both were caused by the same thing, maybe it's coincidence.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:15 AM
1

I wish I could give some explanation for why this was posted here
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:12 AM
-2

I have read your posts here many times before. You are obviously a troll. Called it. Also, if you've read my previous posts you've seen me bring up numerous citations and studies to the medical benefits and lack of substantive harm of circumcision (discussed below) The number of boys circumcised for non religious reasons after infancy is incredibly, incredibly small(like the men who get cut by choice). And it is not even that big of a surgery. Which means two things: either (a) the surgery perfo…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:10 AM
2

I dunno, I play WoW, and there do seem to be two very specific groups of responses to women who expose themselves as female (incidentally, it's almost impossible to do the end-game content without voice chat): "I love you, be my wow girlfriend, I'll give you stuff" "OMFG, stupid bitch". Now, admittedly, the girls who allow themselves to take advantage of reaction 1 make things more and more like reaction 2 for the other women, but there is a lot more vitriol for women on the games I've played.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:42 AM
-1

Oy. Just... Oy. We eventually just came to the inevitable conclusion that with A LOT of women, "The worse you treat them the better they like it." It's only inevitable if you have absolutely no understanding of logic or reasoning beyond basic pattern recognition. Maybe the jerks are more attractive, maybe the "jerks" are better in bed. Maybe the "jerks" are actually nice to girls they're with, but simply are willing to go after a lot more girls (getting more "action" because they go after a wide…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:34 AM
1

It's really amazing to see people (like antifeministmedia above) who believe that little boys come to earth pure as the driven snow. Anyone who has interacted with kids know that they're hellions (boys and girls) who need to be taught to be decent human beings
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:22 AM
-2

Humans start off as monsters with little empathy or connection to anyone outside of their own selfish desires. Through interaction in society, we realize that we cannot succeed in life by alienating others, and so we adapt to society. We follow laws out of fear, not out of love for our fellow people. We don't rape because we are taught that it would have repercussions. Ask yourself how many men would resist the temptation to rape in a situation where there was no consequence for it. And then loo…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:21 AM
-4

Not quite my point, of course. My point was that in almost all walks of life, all people will respond to what they perceive as the group-think. Christ, stock bubbles, beanie babies, looking up into the sky at nothing, it's called an information cascade.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:16 AM
0

I was guessing this would be all about how boys being diagnosed as being hyperactive and disruptive is proof that society now hates what was once accepted as "normal boyish behavior"... And... Right on the nose. I love it when I'm right. I'll have more sympathy for this mindset when we get back in the habit of ingraining discipline and self-restraint into our young men.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:14 AM
-3

The piece does encapsulate the problem with the debate. There's no common narrative about it, and we all disagree about even the fundamental reality of the situation. We can throw studies, and presumptions, and suppositions, and "common sense" back and forth until the cows come home, but the reality is that there's no general consensus that it is either: A. A horrific medical procedure with no benefits that leads to decreased sensitivity (among myriad other sexual dysfunctions). or B. A simple p…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:11 AM
-5

It's called human nature, and everyone does it. Everyone has herd mentality (I can cite study after study about just how easily people can be galled into things because other people do them, too). We don't need to resort to petty invective.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 06:56 AM
4

I guess. I've seen enough articles (and books) of the "women are evil" variety to think that perhaps men are pointing out women behaving badly and not being punished for it. And I've been called a misandrist on this subreddit enough to not believe that MRAs writ large are any different from their distaff counterparts.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 01:03 AM
3

Hence my upvote in the first place. I think one of the most unnerving things is the habit (by both sides) to only see the "evil" of what the other side does, and never notice that they have some privilege and evil of their own.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 12:45 AM
0

To take the emotion and assumptions out of the equation, we have two competing narratives. The woman says "they pushed for sex, we started having sex, I said stop, they didn't" The men (who were the only other witnesses) say "we pushed for sex, we started having sex, but she never said stop". The issue I believe that the protesters are taking with the decision not to prosecute is that it is taking the statement of the men at face value, and assuming that because their statements do not "corrobor…
/r/MensRights07/03/11 12:43 AM
2

Well, it does, though. It's behavior combined with context. The more a woman is interested in you, the more you can do before you become "creepy"; the less the woman is interested, the less you can do. The bar is set different places, but it doesn't seem like the bar is ever "merely existing is creepy".
/r/MensRights07/03/11 12:32 AM
14

I upvoted you, because it's a good point. My only quibble is that those terms aren't quite equivalent. A woman is called "slut" for having sex with "too many" men. A man is called a "creep" for showing "too much" interest in a woman (or women) who are not interested in him. Obviously, it's a subjective measure (for some, three is "too many" sexual partners, for some, saying hello is "too much" interest) But, fundamentally, the difference is that a man is bemoaned for trying too hard, and a woman…
/r/MensRights07/03/11 12:30 AM
1

In the same way that much of what's posted on/by avoiceformen is not reflective of the commonly-held beliefs of most MRAs. Oh well.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 10:29 PM
1

Hm. What's funny is that many MRAs here will say "the problem with education is that too many teachers are female" and point to a study that shows the majority of teachers across the country are female now. Interesting
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:58 PM
1

I agree completely. The bigger problem is the guys who treat those writings as being the standard beliefs of the feminist movement, and respond to them as though they're putting the lie to the entire cause. I mean, shit, we'd call a woman out if the said "Roissy represents the beliefs of all MRAs"
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:44 PM
1

And men don't want to take jobs as nurses, teachers, or social workers. If your point was neutrally that men and women have different interests, I'll grant you. But, your implication was far more pejorative, as though men are doing the hard work of society-building, and women don't.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:28 PM
1

top working on their cars, enforcing their laws, building their houses and buildings, putting out their fires (literally) One day, I hope you find a female mechanic, police officer, district attorney, and construction worker, and read them this post. I want to see them kick your ass soundly.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:13 PM
0

We have no indication that the man in the picture is an MRA. And, not for nothing, but given the article submitted here about how men shouldn't go out of their way to assist women in danger, your implied criticism rings hollow.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:08 PM
2

A straw cage-match
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:07 PM
1

To attempt to refute it by showing at men are good.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:07 PM
1

I can prove my point that the foreskin contains nerve endings and is physiologically similar to the rest of the body(and more innervated than most parts of it). I shouldn't need to prove it as it is basic human knowledge for anyone who has one. Are you really denying that the foreskin has nerve endings, is innervated and is sensitive? Irrelevant to the question of whether there's proof that there's a loss of sexual function or pleasure. You are restating exactly what I said. You are arguing for …
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:52 PM
1

Don't mistake tiring of your lack of substance as silence. Your failures to argue with logic and reason (not to mention data and evidence) are simply boring.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:11 PM
9

No, Bolshey, you've demonstrated a very real pattern of man-hating bullshit that never ends. And I will call you on it every damn time. Oy. The best you've got is a personal attack? I thought you were better than this. Can't you just go back to making up words? A random woman, would I risk for my life for her? Fuck no, man. I know you would like men to continue to sacrifice themselves for the pussy, but it's not going to happen anymore. Either you're looking for a fight, or you're illiterate. I …
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:10 PM
1

Must... Resist... Urge... To... Point... out... That... Circumcision... Helps... Protect... Against... HPV
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:09 PM
1

Dem bitches, amirite?
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:02 PM
11

If you see a person under attack by anyone for any reason, and self-righteously refuse to render assistance, you're being a jackass. I would render assistance to a man under violent attack without hesitation, in the same way I would for a woman. That's not being a "white knight", it's being a decent human being. And stalwartly refusing to do it isn't striking back against the "evils" of feminism, it's justifying your own willingness to see women harmed. If you're claiming that you would never in…
/r/MensRights03/03/11 06:53 PM
1

Are you quite done bitching and moaning? I mean, christ. I expected you to whine like a little bitch, but not that much.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:43 AM
1

It'd be a portmanteau. Also bite me, but the word you're looking for is a portmanteau.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:42 AM
1

I don't really get the automatic rejection by many MRAs of the "women don't all believe the same things or act the same way" argument. Isn't one of our strongest arguments against a lot of the college initiation "you shouldn't rape" crap that not all men are going to commit rape? Isn't our argument against being tied to true misogynists that "we don't all believe that"? I think you're absolutely right, and I upvote you for great justice.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:35 AM
1

Use words that actually exist in English, douche-nozzle.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:08 AM
1

Well, at least your insults are becoming less burdensome to read. Perhaps next you can just insult me by jumping up and down and flinging your poop. Or a series of grunting noises. That'll show me.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:07 AM
1

I'm not sure you can turn slander into fact merely by stating "no, it's totally true". Also, what the hell is "noblesque"? I can only find it as a carpet company...
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:04 AM
0

Which "proves" (at best) a loss of nerve endings. You've yet to provide anything beyond speculation, and inference upon inference to show any loss of sexual pleasure or function. Prove your claims, mate. Edit: unless you can't, of course. But, since you've already devolved into "it's true, it's true, it's totally obviously true, so STFU", can you just leave this kind of discussion for the people who are willing to look for more evidence than "whelp, it makes sense to me"?
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:03 AM
1

As Neofool discusses below, it's a question of sampling. If you get a large enough sample of the entire representative population, you can also get a pretty good confidence interval talking about the component groups. It's possible for it to be change, or sampling error, but the confidence interval (which reflects how certain we are that the "real" number is close to what's reported) here is such that I don't think there's a problem.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:56 AM
3

I don't think the debate is "anti-circumcision" and "cut 'em all up", but (much like the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate) between those who want to say "don't ever do it" and those who want to say "leave it up to the parents to make the best decision for their children." I'm neither in favor of nor against circumcision writ large (I don't really have a vested nor future interest in what the penises of little boys look like), but I don't believe that the evidence is so stacked against it as to ind…
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:52 AM
-1

I think that every parent should be given all of the information (pro and con) and decide for him/herself and his/her children what is best for them. Especially when the evidence is in such dispute, and the information is controversial, we shouldn't have a rule imposed from on high. Some parents will decide it's morally wrong, some will decide it's not worth the cost, and some will decide it's a net benefit. I don't get to make that call for society at large, and neither do you.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:47 AM
3

The only lesson here is that if you are the victim of rape you have a responsibility to resist That'd be an interesting reversion in the law. But, lemme ask you this: If you were mugged on the street at gunpoint/knifepoint, and simply gave up your property without objection, how would you feel about the police saying "whelp, son, I know it sucks, but we can't really prosecute the guy, because he'll claim you just gave him your stuff voluntarily, it's not like you have any knife wounds"? Would yo…
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:30 AM
1

Aww. Can you let the big boys talk about this, the ones who don't have to resort to petty name-calling? If you have something to add, I'm eager to hear it, but you seem to have no use here except to take issue with any who disagree with your word from on high.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:24 AM
1

See my above discussion. You are asking I prove a negative. That's not the burden. You must prove the positive claim you make. If it's such a slam-dunk obvious-to-all-doctors kind of thing, I'm sure you'll have no problem with finding evidence that (by and large) circumcised men have a loss of sexual function and pleasure I'll just repost the Carl Sagan quotation here: "Appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compel…
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:23 AM
2

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume you just mean this as a practical analysis of the problems of getting rapists convicted where there's a loss of evidence due to not immediately reporting it, or where there's not sufficient trauma to prove beyond any doubt that it was rape.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:20 AM
0

Prove it. Prove that it actually does reduce sexual function and pleasure (sensitivity is a silly measure; if I'm less sensitive, but have the same sexual pleasure, how am I worse off?) If you can't do that, or have to resort to "nuh-uh, I know it reduces pleasure, you have to prove it doesn't", please just stop.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:20 AM
1

Also, what you are saying goes against the way every single other medication and procedure is tested. More special pleading. If there is medical purpose for a procedure, one must show harm from it in order to get it banned. You are arguing something that goes against proven scientific knowledge. Therefore you must cite sources to back it up. Given that you've stated no basis for your "proven scientific knowledge", I'm arguing against a wholesale lack of information. For instance. I claim that my…
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:16 AM
0

Do you have any sort of citation for that? The studies I've seen indicate that men who were circumcised as adults report an increase in sexual function and satisfaction. Simply stating "this is true" it not sufficient. Data, research methods, dealing with confounding variables, repeatability. Those are the hallmarks of valid research.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:11 AM
-1

It is not speculation that MGM reduces sexual pleasure. It is basic knowledge of biology/physiology that tells us that. I.E. When you cut off healthy, functioning, sensitive tissue you can't feel anything with the part that was cut off. You are using special pleading to argue differently. You need to look up "speculation". It's a hypothesis based on conjecture, and conjecture is an "inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence". Sounds a lot like your "it's basic knowledge,…
/r/MensRights03/03/11 05:08 AM
0

but to say it has no adverse effect is to ignore the physiology of the penis. nerve tissue is removed, and the remaining dense nerve clusters are left dry and open to friction, which reduces sensitivity It's speculation at best. Even if we accept a sort of "callous of the penis" argument, there's no indication that that decreases sexual pleasure. Hell, even if we accept that there is a decrease in sensitivity, we have no indication for a loss of sexual satisfaction or function in all except the …
/r/MensRights02/03/11 11:21 PM
2

seven children were rescued and at least three mothers have been arrested. Prosecutors say all of the children are now safe. From the AP article. So... Yeah
/r/MensRights02/03/11 08:34 PM
-1

i do think it also removes the mucous membrane tissue, which presents a more permeable barrier. My understanding is that the foreskin is more susceptible to micro-ulcerations, which create an easy infection vector. i'm going to see if i can find the source later today. it came from workers in africa dealing with female genital mutilation in areas where HIV infection is epidemic. That would be interesting. I would still argue that FGM is distinguishable in that circumcision does not (normally) ha…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 07:26 PM
-1

I'd be curious to see a citation for that (since this post doesn't contain it). I'm more concerned about the decrease in HPV infection (which cannot always be stopped by condom use) and resulting decrease in penile/anal/cervical cancers. Your second two bullet points are counter to my understanding of the medical reason why circumcision protects men. Your third bullet point is nothing I've ever seen in any study.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 07:14 PM
-3

Why don't we mutilate women's genitals so they don't like sex as much That's a bad analogy, mate. One can circumcise a boy, and him still have full sexual function and pleasure. Why don't we put drugs in the water so people have less sex drive. (At least its not permanent) Why don't we... do any other insane public health measure Same thing as above. Is that really the best you can do to make this discussion overly emotional and hyperbolic.?
/r/MensRights02/03/11 06:42 PM
1

That has been the opposite of my experience. Since we're dueling anecdotes right now, perhaps my presentation of this as a question is more reasonable than posing it as a statement of fact.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 06:38 PM
1

Really? I'd wager most people (if offered a ridiculous amount of money without working that hard for it) would accept it without balking too much. Think about models, actors, ect. Ethics is not about rejecting a benefit without working hard for it. My point was that any given guy who doesn't have to work hard for sex isn't (generally) going to work hard for sex. It does us absolutely no favors to pretend to ourselves that we work harder than the hot "jerks" out of some high-minded idealism. We w…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 06:33 PM
2

Uh... It means that American rape law hasn't been the whole "she has to resist to the utmost, and it isn't rape unless she's truly battered down" standard for the better part of two centuries.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 06:05 PM
0

It's accurate. Many here attempt to distinguish it because "it's from Africa" or "just wear a condom". But, I think the medical benefits versus any harm from it isn't the right argument. The real argument to have is over whether parents should be trusted to make this decision for children. Those who believe in the autonomy of the child believe that (whatever the benefits and harm) the child should be able to make that decision for himself when he's of age to decide. Those who believe in the auth…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 06:01 PM
1

I remember just as much fanfare about Emma Watson turning eighteen
/r/MensRights02/03/11 06:22 AM
2

It's all right, man. I've been butting heads with some of the more hard-line MRAs here for a while. There's a tendency to equate "not agreeing with everything they believe" with "being a misandrist". I appreciate the support, though.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 06:13 AM
3

Resort to ad hominem attacks and fail to respond to the substance of other people's articles? I get the feeling it doesn't take much to drive you to do that every day.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 06:11 AM
2

Oy. Can you just stop? You're not doing anyone any favors. Not for nothing, but if you'll notice my karma for this particular topic as compared to yours or avoiceformen's: either my stance isn't bullshit, or the people reading this are liking what I'm shoveling. Your personal attacks are not appropriate, and do nothing to further either discussion on this subreddit, nor any interests of the men's rights movement.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 06:10 AM
9

I'm not sure why people are interpreting my post as one-sided, but on to your post. The presumption should be shared custody excepting either an agreement by the parents or a determination that one parent isn't capable of raising the children (I'm leery about the "documented abuse or neglect" standard since it's both difficult to prove and I'm more a fan of getting it right the first time). But, if by mutual assent, the father (or mother, as was the case in my family) wants to relinquish some po…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 01:33 AM
1

Love? Ethics? We're talking about dating here, not stock picking. True, but irrelevant. It's of no benefit for us to conceive of ourselves as defenders of virtue and really "good" guys, when it's just as (if not more) likely that we're simply nicer because we have to be in order to get girls. Are there people out there who would still work even if someone offered them a million dollars just for being attractive? Sure. Is that the majority of people? I doubt it.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 01:15 AM
1

Bad question. We're arguing that jerks are more attractive by virtue of being jerks. So, then, you're claiming that if offered a choice between two otherwise-similar guys (same physical attractiveness, same social graces, same job), she'll pick the jerk solely because he's a jerk?
/r/MensRights02/03/11 01:14 AM
1

Oy. Either you're itching for a fight, or you've never heard a colloquialism before. What I meant was that the fact that guys who look for hook ups get more girls in bed is nothing more than a reflection of probabilities and large sample sizes.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 01:13 AM
5

I agree. But, if you're claiming there are no men who would ever abandon their children, fail to be a significant and positive influence in their lives, or ever display a desire to be able to wash his hands of children he didn't want (financial abortion, often suggested here), you're simply being disingenuous. That's why I said there must be blame fairly assigned to both genders. We have no way to know if these children have fathers who want to be involved but are prevented from, or fathers who …
/r/MensRights01/03/11 07:56 PM
5

This is part of the problem with the issues about family life in America. As much as it's easy to feel bad for guys caught in messy divorces, custody battles, and an overarching desire to not pay child support (or even interact with) children who he didn't want in the first place, the result of that act is often to leave a bunch of kids in the lurch. The blame lies in both men and women, and of all races and classes. It's no more useful to simply say "men should take responsibility" than to say …
/r/MensRights01/03/11 07:35 PM
1

She repeatedly told him no, rejected his advances, she has injuries from the attack, and he was convicted of rape. Those seem like claims of violence and threatening
/r/MensRights28/02/11 07:08 PM
1

I'd say voluntarily taking off ones clothing is consent. . . and so on. Define "voluntarily". If she did it with a fear that he would hurt her otherwise, is that 'voluntary'? Does she have to resist to the utmost to defend her honor? I'm seriously curious, since we haven't applied that kind of standard for a long damned time in this country.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 06:58 PM
1

In fact, it sounds like she never said no. It just sounds like he misunderstood her body language and was non-threatening. It sounds more like regret than anything. She "rejected" him, and the court found that she did say "no". That's how he came to be convicted. Just because a woman doesn't scratch and bite and kick and scream doesn't mean she consented. If you don't have affirmative consent, you don't have sex. It's that god-damned simple, people. Your statement is perilously close to the "she…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 06:57 PM
2

The part where a rapist gets off without jail time on the basis that he totally didn't understand that "rejection" doesn't mean "keep trying"
/r/MensRights28/02/11 06:51 PM
1

But she never said no "Rhodes began making sexual advances toward the victim, who initially rejected him but later returned his kisses. Rhodes then forced himself upon the woman once they were alone." Really? You're counting that as "she never said no"? Any rejection should be enough to get a bloke to stop. We haven't used "she has to defend herself from rape to the best of her ability" as the standard for the better part of two centuries now.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 06:48 PM
1

He was convicted of the crime. There was no question about whether he actually did rape her (she said "no" he kept going, that's rape, folks). The judge did something abhorrent and said (basically) "even though he committed rape by any reasonable definition, she was being a total slut, so he might have thought when she said no, she meant "oh, no, don't stop"". It's crap.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 06:39 PM
1

hooks up all the time when he's single People who want to hook up will always find someone to hook up with, man. It's a numbers game, don't worry about it. Just wanted to clarify that I don't want to hook up, or have any relationship other than good Freinded until I can support a family so that my wife can stay home and not work while we are raising kids. That's certainly interesting. But, you're actually part of the very phenomenon you're noticing. Your friend hooks up all the time because he's…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 06:27 PM
2

girls always go for the assholes That's the thing. Do they go for the "assholes" in and of themselves, or do they go for the hot guys (who happen to be assholes)? To wit: if given a choice between an equally-attractive nice "beta", would these girls really still go for the jerk? That has not been my experience. I just spent the weekend in san deago with an apartment full of them. It's disgusting and demoralizing. If I'm right, and it's about hotness first and foremost, what makes it disgusting o…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 05:58 PM
3

The problem is that we kind of have this backwards. We're seeing two different phenomenon (first, women want hot guys; second, guys who ask out more women get more yeses) and conflating them into "guys who don't care get women". So, first: if we define a "jerk" as someone who does not put effort into relationships, who doesn't treat his girlfriend/wife/whatever with the level of respect or caring that a so-called "nice guy" would, the question is why those "jerks" get the girls. I'm reminded of …
/r/MensRights28/02/11 05:00 PM
1

I don't think you can go through more than a page of comments on any issue about marriage or "hypergamy" without hearing the alpha/beta language. This should be a community to have outgrown the tired and trite "if you hump and dump, you're an awesome alpha, if you're supportive, kind, or willing to be with a woman who isn't a virgin, you're a baleful beta" dichotomy. I feel like it's less society, and much more us. I rarely (if ever) hear women using the alpha/beta stuff, it's men talking to oth…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 04:51 PM
1

My guess was either that this was going to be about how /mensrights is influential and the feminists are "scared" of us, or that it's because we don't censor for content, and actually discuss the issues. Well, I was definitely right about the second, and implicitly right about the first. I'm Johnny friggin' Carson. Let's dissect this one by one: There is no censorship in here like in r/feminisms so people are free to come here with their complaints, yet they choose not to There's no explicit cen…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 04:40 PM
1

"But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account." "Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer." "Still, circumcision does not completely protect against HPV infection - men who are circumcised can still get HPV and pass it on to their partners. The risk of being infected with HPV is also strongly linked to having many sexual partners …
/r/MensRights27/02/11 11:49 PM
1

Letter from the American Cancer Society. I've been trying (in vain) to find a primary source for this (since, of course, the first guy seems to have no official ties to the American Cancer Society), but everything I've found is a report of the letter. If you have anything which is officially from the ACS, I'd be eager to see it. There are non-surgical treatments for phimosis and paraphimosis that must be explored before drastic surgery such as amputation, let alone the fact that phimosis and par…
/r/MensRights27/02/11 04:44 AM
5

There's a conspiracy theory which argues that the charges against Assange in Sweden (when they're brought down) have been ginned up, and that his accusers were consenting at the time, only later coming forward. The argument also includes a misapprehension about what the charges consist of: taking the misstatement by AOL news that the charges are "rape by surprise" for failing to wear a condom at face value. In reality, of course, he's being accused of acts (and investigated for acts) which would…
/r/MensRights25/02/11 04:23 PM
0

Hm... Interesting. Since HPV is related to both cancer and smegma, is it possible that it's HPV that's responsible for both? The problem is that both the harm and the benefits are so hotly debated. But a parent has the authority and the need to decide what is best for his children.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 05:27 PM
0

Penile cancer is easily treated and diagnosed? Awesome.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 03:48 PM
0

Proven is a funny word here. What level of proof do you require? Longitudinal studies in the U.S? Demographic studies? It seems like you're setting a pretty exacting standard for what makes it proved. How much evidence must exist before we can simply say "give the parents all of the information, and let them decide"? Here, though, reposted from another section in this topic: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/1/19 "These results suggest that the absence of neonatal circumcision and potent…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 03:07 PM
0

The risks are proven, the health benefits are at best benign and no justification for the procedure on their own. The risks or the harm? If you mean the risks of complications are proved, I'll agree. If you mean the 'risk' of a loss of sexual pleasure/satisfaction, that's highly debated in the literature. Also, you're simply incorrect. The medical benefits (at best) are far more significant and positive than merely being "benign". And my argument hasn't been that circumcision is "bad", it has be…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 03:02 PM
1

Except that removal dramatically, demonstrably, and negatively impacts the girl's eventual sexual and reproductive health. The vast majority of guys with circumcisions go on to have very satisfying sex lives, and can still engage in all of the normal parts of male reproduction. A girl who had been given a mastectomy at birth would never be able to nurse her children (something which is actually good for the children). So... Yeah. Bad analogies are bad.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:57 PM
0

Which is why the comparison is not a good one. Circumcision can meet those criteria (excluding rare complications), FGM cannot.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:55 PM
-1

Remember my other standard, though: Is there a legitimate medical benefit to it? Though, I guess with the crucifix/satanic symbols, there'd be an extra question of whether it actually makes their social lives more difficult.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:53 PM
1

I think the same should be said of women, but they already have a lot of the "take back the night" kind of stuff. I guess I'd call my program "take back the knight" (though, especially among this subreddit, "knight" has a bad reputation). I guess I want a similar program to empower men to help stop rapes (and not in a silly "don't do it" kind of way), something to tell young men "we get it, you're not rapists, but you can't sit blithely by, either". I'm also assuming that a guy is more likely to…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 06:52 AM
1

hould the former be admissible to "prove" the latter? And can every bizarre sexual fetish, legal though it may be, be used to insure the conviction of any male accused of a sex crime -- while his accuser's own sexual fetishes (that might prove her accusation is a lie) are typically immune by reason of thirty years of feminist legal reforms? If the question is whether I intended to do something, it should be admissible. If I shoot my father, and claim it was an accident, the prosecution can (and …
/r/MensRights24/02/11 06:42 AM
1

She denied ever expressing interest in sado-masochism, and he tried to introduce emails showing that she had expressed interest in sado-masochism. The email evidence was excluded, and her lie was permitted to go unrebutted. That must be a jurisdictional thing. I know of cases (some through Dan Savage's column) where the reverse happened. I'm curious why the e-mail evidence was excluded in those cases, though, do you have a link or a cite? Edit: In the case you did cite, I do agree it should have…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 06:37 AM
2

That'd be fair. I'm generally fine with circumcision, but it does the debate no good to either say "there's no risks, it's fine, s'all good in the hood", nor to say "it's evil mutilation with no purpose". I'm all about moderation.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 06:35 AM
-1

Edit: C'mon, guys, if you're going to downvote, the least you can do is give a real response why you think my reasoning or beliefs are off-base. I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, it sucks a lot that guys can't really go into a lot of the more feminine professions (especially working with kids) in part due to worries about being accused of rape. False rape accusations really suck, and it'd be good if we could figure out a system of law which was more accurate than the one we have one …
/r/MensRights24/02/11 06:20 AM
1

Wow. This takes me back to high school. I thought the guy who showed me this was so damned clever. Yay for equivocation.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 06:12 AM
1

Bearing in mind that I'm not a doctor, I'd guess it would be. The vagina is actually built to protect itself from tearing (one of the reasons why "she got wet, so she must have liked it" isn't a good excuse for rape is because the vagina lubricates in order to prevent injury). But, I don't really know. Still, the comparison is between circumcised and uncircumcised men, since the vagina can't be made more tear-resistant.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 06:08 AM
1

My understanding of the medicine: Because of the structure of the foreskin, it is more susceptible to micro-ulcerations (tiny, imperceptible, tears on the foreskin) which are entry vectors for STIs. Since HPV is an STI (and associated strongly with penile, anal, and cervical cancers), it's a step removed, but: No foreskin --> Less transmission of STIs --> Less HPV infection of the male penis --> less transmission to partners --> less cancer for everyone.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 05:53 AM
1

The purported medical benefits are miniscule. Gotta love that the focus when most folks talk about this here had gone from "there are no benefits whatsoever" to "because the individual HIV studies done in Africa aren't necessarily valid, there are no benefits". Here (though you didn't ask nicely): http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/1/19 "These results suggest that the absence of neonatal circumcision and potential resulting complications are associated with penile cancer." http://www.jfpo…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 05:51 AM
-1

We don't need to prove there's cheese on the moon, those who wish to go there must prove that there is no cheese on the moon. The affirmative statement (there are problems) has the burden of proof. That is, because it's impossible to prove a negative, you must instead prove the positive. However, my point is that without proof of actual, quantifiable, harm (excluding the rare complications), there's no reason not to allow each parent unit to decide for their children what is best.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 04:11 AM
-2

If the loss of your finger conferred a benefit (and no actually loss of function) to you and your sexual partners, I'd probably be fine with it. But, as it stands, your argument is a reducio ad absurdum fallacy
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:56 AM
-2

Genital mutilation might, kinda-sorta-maybe, but nowhere near effectively enough to justify the risk, damage, and pain that it causes. The data (if you bother to look it up) shows a significant decrease in instances of penile cancer (not to mention cervical and anal cancer) The risks do suck, but risk is inherent in any medical procedure. It's a balancing every parent must make for his/her own children. Define the damage aside from the risks, please. Is there a quantifiable "harm" from circumcis…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:53 AM
0

If you're going to do the appeal to authority, please do us all a favor and quote the entire statement: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:50 AM
1

It's an issue because it is non-consensual, has no valid justification, and has negative side effects and risks Most things done to children in a medical setting is "non-consensual" Medical benefits abound, look up some of the more detailed arguments around here. If you ask nicely, I'll go find the studies. What side effects exist except in the rare cases of complications (which fall under "risks")? Do you have evidence of the whole "loss of pleasure" thing? All surgery has risks, we don't use t…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:44 AM
-2

I don't think it's outrageous demand if you want to give patients the right to give or withhold their consent to a purely cosmetic procedure Not purely cosmetic, medical benefits abound, ect. (this argument has been had in every thread about this every time it comes up, it's done to death). Isn't that true of every cosmetic surgery? My parents can have my vestigial tail removed, they can have the plastic surgeon repair my cleft pallet, they can have my tonsils and wisdom teeth removed. Unless it…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:41 AM
-1

Some would claim that the rate of irreparable harm from circumcision is 100%. That harm being decreased sexual enjoyment at the very least. While this falls far shy of being a devastating harm... it is still a disfigurement against a human's consent. Some would claim that there's no decreased sexual enjoyment. Hence the problem with letting people "claim" shit. We need facts, not anecdotes, not "well, I know this dude, who knows a doctor, who said something about loss of sensitivity". There is l…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:36 AM
2

Were it usually of no harm to their later sexual pleasure and function, and if there were medical evidence that it reduces both cervical cancer for women, and penile cancer for men, sure.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:34 AM
7

I don't generally agree with the alarmist "circumcision is evil" rhetoric, but I do think we should admit that it (like any procedure) carries risks, which parents should make an informed choice about.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:31 AM
5

My doctors tell me my penis is in the normal range for infant circumcision. Tell me again how it is different? If they took so much off that you had ripping or bleeding from erections, they did it wrong, and you have my sympathy.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:30 AM
1

Circumcision was instituted to curb masturbation. Once that fell out of vogue, scientists researched to 'find' other things it 'cured'. Without stopping the practice. You assume that the "institution" of it on a broad scale was to curb masturbation (Kellogg certainly liked that idea), but you're still expanding one guy's belief as being the entire rationale. You're assuming that the researchers wanted to find a rationale to circumcise, which is a circumstantial ad hominem. I would be just as sus…
/r/MensRights23/02/11 08:29 PM
0

It's an interesting analysis, certainly. We don't have any experimental data, but (at least in America), circumcision is not a religious issue. So, we're not talking "jews with jews" are less susceptible, it's across the board. Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and Atheist all have the same apparent benefit.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 08:23 PM
0

You think that religious affiliation (or level of adherence to a religion) affects ones susceptibility if we control for number of sexual partners and condom use? My understanding of the medicine is that the foreskin is more likely to develop micro-ulcerations which increase the risk of transmission of all STIs. If you're claiming that men who are circumcised have more sex (true in the African studies, but not in the American studies) all you've shown is that it's possible to offset the benefit.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 07:57 PM
1

Does anyone actually say that it's sexist to not be attracted to small breasts? I've never heard that from anyone in my life. I've heard it's shallow, and somewhat short-sighted, but that's hardly saying it's sexist.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 03:24 PM
1

I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference between danger and plight. I'm sorry if the definition of a word in the dictionary is somehow not as meaningful as the one you personally ascribe to it.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 03:22 PM
1

Then I went to secondary school... Bam. All the competition gone. In fact, they made learn what I had already learned in primary school again... This bored me and you can see how I give up over the years with my grades further plumeting. I had to give up engineering for the exact same reason and I'm now doing some courses that I'm wondering why the fuck I'm in classes that are so easy. The only comfort is that at least I'll earn about as much.. That doesn't seem to be a complaint about the male …
/r/MensRights23/02/11 03:21 PM
1

That's an interesting way of going along the logic, so I'll give you credit for it :-). That said, you make a couple of inferences that I'm not 100% sure are reasonable: That girls actually get "significant" help from the schools or teachers which is unavailable to boys. That the boys cannot improve of their own volition to keep up. That the playing field was or is actually level (i.e. that girls don't need help).
/r/MensRights23/02/11 03:19 PM
1

I focus on the tea party because its agenda is most amenable to men's rights in my opinion. And I would caution that relying on the MSM for an understanding of the tea party is as useful as relying on the MSM for an understanding of the men's rights movement. I'm not talking about rhetoric or how they come across, I'm talking about the very planks of their platform. My concern is that by tying ourselves to one particular subset of one particular party, we weaken ourselves overall, because of peo…
/r/MensRights23/02/11 03:16 PM
1

To give Skeptically the benefit of the doubt, perhaps what he's saying that even parents who want to have their children circumcised should have it done by a doctor in a hospital, rather than a Mohel in a Synagogue.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 03:13 PM
2

So, your point is that the statistics and science are wrong because statistics and science have been wrong in the past? How can my doctor tell my wife to take folic acid when she's pregnant, doctors used to prescribe thalidomide! Isn't it fascinating that a force which was originally thought to cause heavier objects to fall faster is now used as the basis of much of our space-travel? See how attacking the current validity of scientific evidence and research on the basis that other scientists wer…
/r/MensRights23/02/11 03:03 PM
1

No it doesn't. Circumcised men are less likely to use the thing that really prevents HIV transmission--a condom. Do you have anything to actually show that? I know there have been a few studies out of Africa indicating that, but (as circumcision opponents do so love to point out): Africa is not America.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 02:29 PM
0

There's a difference between a practice which completely eliminates the desire (or ability) to have sex, and one which (excluding rare complications), does not. I'd wager if you asked every circumcised man in America, the vast majority (and I mean almost the entire population) still loves having sex. If there were a practice which significantly reduced the woman's chances of getting cervical cancer (and her partners' chance of getting penile cancer) but which caused no risk (beyond speculation a…
/r/MensRights23/02/11 02:27 PM
1

I've gotta say, I love throwing down the "correlation doesn't prove causation" gauntlet as much as anyone else here, but it isn't really a reasonable charge here. If you can show a statistically valid correlation which persists even when controlling and regressing for as many of the other possible confounding variables as possible, you do edge toward implying causation. We never really proved that smoking "causes" cancer in people, we just saw that (accounting for as many other reasonable possib…
/r/MensRights23/02/11 02:24 PM
0

I'm sure there already exist some extremists out there who call for this, but I doubt it will ever become more than a rallying cry for the legitimately misandric. In the same way that "she deserved it" is only said seriously by those among the MRA population who are truly misogynist.
/r/MensRights22/02/11 09:37 PM
3

Congratulate her, wish her the best, and keep your nose the hell out of it. This would be like someone on the other side hearing your wife's pregnant and trying to persuade you to get the lad circumcised, it's simply rude. Basically, what you'd be saying is "I don't believe you're smart, mature, or rational enough to have made a thoughtful decision about this". If you don't respect her, why should she listen to you? If you do respect her, why do you need to try to persuade her?
/r/MensRights22/02/11 09:34 PM
2

It's not "extra incentive", they're going to be dumbasses either way. Personally (being only about five years out of the cesspool of Freshman dorms), I'd rather not put the force of law behind them being douche-canoes.
/r/MensRights22/02/11 05:19 AM
3

This reminds me how (in America) we have a comparable rate of teenage/young-twenties binge drinking and alcoholism as most of Europe (France, England, and Spain included). This reminds me that a bunch of college students are fuck-ups no matter what.
/r/MensRights22/02/11 05:06 AM
1

The final piece in my political vision is to introduce MR concepts to the tea party. The goals of the tea party are already very much conducive to MR objectives. That's kind of where you lose me. I mean, I'm not a huge fan of some of the arguments you make above (the alpha/beta thing really always bugs me), but the idea of aligning ourselves with the tea party movement is really disturbing to me. Some of the VAWA stuff is bad (though reducing the size of the federal government won't help DV rest…
/r/MensRights21/02/11 10:53 PM
2

Basically, women accuse men of being gay, than (most importantly) they assert even the perception of being gay will effect his mating chances negatively. This results in men wanting to avoid even the perception that they’re gay (because they’re not, and they want to have sex). I dunno, I see a hell of a lot more of that from other guys than from girls. Perhaps there's a bit of competitiveness in there (guys call other guys gay in order to reduce their competitiveness). I guess ones conclusion he…
/r/MensRights21/02/11 10:47 PM
1

Since spouses are (generally) excepted from privacy requirements in HIPAA (and you can waive them anyway), a doctor could always require that you get approval from any number of people. If you don't like it, you move on. Edit: just out of curiosity, who downvoted me for this? Seriously, I'm making a pretty neutral statement of fact. Spouses are almost always HIPAA exceptions, and a doctor can ask you to do almost anything in order to get him to perform an elective surgery; if you don't want to d…
/r/MensRights21/02/11 10:45 PM
0

I'd posit the attitudes of teachers and administrators towards male behaviour. As you said, 50 years ago, a boy being naughty would get a rap on the knuckles and that would be the end. These days, the boy would receive a detentions; meetings with his parents. Then he might have to have counselling, and a referral to a psychologist who might prescribe any number of medications. Essentially, he'd be psychologically abused because he didn't fit the preferred feminine mold. This attitude hasn't just…
/r/MensRights19/02/11 02:42 AM
1

I am putting this on a plaque. You will be sent to feminist hell for saying this. I'm fine saying that different outcomes =/= discrimination, as long as it's applied across the board.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 02:33 AM
-1

-3 inch federal catalog dedicated to girls education (its illegal to have one for boys.) Did that cause schools to be more strict on boys in school? Shit, man, I went to high school only about a decade ago, and I don't remember many people punishing boys who were screwing around in class (girls either, for that matter). -"Female only" scholarships even tho they represent 58% of college attendance and of course their are no Male only scholarships. That's private scholarships. AFAIK, there are no …
/r/MensRights19/02/11 02:32 AM
0

You REALLY need to learn the meaning of the word "empathy"...because you have none my friend, none at all. Of course, it's hardly a stretch for a psychopath to become a lawyer...and that would explain your attitude on a lot of things as well.. Lack of empathy and psychopathy are not synonyms A lack of empathy is a trait of antisocial personality disorder A lack of empathy in psychological terms requires a lack of ability to feel any empathy, not simply lacking empathy for a group of people you f…
/r/MensRights19/02/11 02:18 AM
1

Do me a favour and put your huge fucking ego aside for a second, ok? It's patently obvious that you think if YOU were able to do something, then there's no way anyone else is experiencing discrimination. You are quite literally ruled by your personal experiences. I don't get it. When the OP wrote that he was a "genius", and thus never had to work hard, you don't call him out on his "ego". When I admit that I worked my ass off to succeed, you accuse me of having an ego? WTF, dude? the wholesale r…
/r/MensRights19/02/11 02:17 AM
1

The point is that (if men will commit rape either way), the only benefit to going in the burqa is if there is a more scantily clad woman for the men to rape. Once everyone is in burqas, there's no benefit to wearing them in terms of preventing rape.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 02:07 AM
2

What a gross simplification of gender dynamics. You're not really this simple are you? Don't interrupt when the big boys are talking. Or, at least, if you're going to, try to actually read the context. I'll spell it out in as small words as I can. Noah wrote that (in a society where people dress the same) there will still be rape of the most "attractive" people. Thus, the statement that clothes actually change who gets rape confers a comparative advantage for a given women, rather than actually …
/r/MensRights19/02/11 02:06 AM
1

Somehow I knew you'd pick an inaccurate definition that suited your desires. Huh? I picked the definition that's the first one to pop up on a freaking Google search for it. Damn, dude, I'm not using some arcane dictionary here. Ignored the rest. You poop out words. Can't you just admit you've backed a losing horse argument here? I won't continue to hound you if you stop claiming that the reason you won't respond is some deficiency in my statements. Hell, if I was so off-base, it should be child'…
/r/MensRights19/02/11 02:03 AM
1

If you have a legitimate response in the other threads, feel free to go there. At this point, all we're doing in this thread is saying "nuh uh, you're not being responsive", which is kind of silly.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 02:01 AM
1

Here's the thing buddy, your reading comprehension is going to have to go WAY up if you plan on passing the Bar. I have not, EVER, argued that AOC laws are unjust because they hurt men. What I have CONSISTENTLY argued is the injustice lies in the unequal application of said laws. Then, yes, I simply misunderstood your position. To be honest, I guess I conflated your statements with that of many other MRAs here (who take a more broad "AOC is crap" approach), but I think I'm simply wrong. I apolog…
/r/MensRights19/02/11 02:00 AM
2

If I did say clothing didn't give a guy a hard-on, it wasn't my intent. My point was that the argument that clothing induces rape is too tenuously connected to the data to be facially valid. To wit: we have evidence that rapists prefer younger victims --> This proves they want more attractive victims --> that proves that victims wearing slutty clothing are more likely to be attacked. At each step, we have to make inference upon inference to justify it. Plus, then, it only confers a relative bene…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 06:11 PM
-2

Still needed money to get in, silly. That meant merit-based scholarships and my own hard-earned money, on account of not having a vagina. I don't know a single woman who didn't either have to pay for all of school (loans and money) or got merit-based scholarships. I don't know where you're seeing women who (by dint solely of having a vagina) got a free ride. If I'd had a vagina, I would have gotten paid to get my bachelor's. I would have gotten a free ride to graduate school, too. If there are p…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 06:07 PM
1

I make no bones about this. I believe in equality of the sexes, that no one should have more rights than another. But do not think for one second that I will waste one breath advocating for womens rights. I will not advocate, or defend, sexism...that does NOT mean I am obligated in any way to support "women" at all. Then can you stop banging on about the inherent injustice of AOC laws? You don't give a damn about the injustice in and of itself, just that it hurts men. That's what disturbs me. AO…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 06:03 PM
-1

I received no scholarships due to my penis, only due to my scholastic achievement. So, the lack of a positive benefit for having a penis is equivalent to a punishment for having one? I received no internship because I had a penis, and two hot though not particularly bright women seem to have an advantage when being hired by men. Well that's kind of disappointing. I don't really understand it, though. I've never been at a disadvantage for internships because of my gender. I was supposed to believ…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 05:39 PM
1

There should absolutely be a fund to help defray the legal costs for men alleged to be fathers (and owe child support) who want to fight, or who are in custody disputes. When I pass the bar, I plan to follow my pro bono requirement, and I hope to (as my boss does) help men in the family law system.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 05:29 PM
0

I didn't bust my ass, I am just a fucking genius. But I was discriminated against for being male. And I feel for other guys who were, because I'm just the type of person who cares about other people. You didn't work hard, yet succeeded to whatever extent you have, and you're claiming that society is aligned against you because (despite not working hard) you didn't exceed even further? Come on, man.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 05:23 PM
1

I've stated that, as proven by a multitude of articles and books in the manosphere, misandry is institutionalized, especially in the education system, and that this has resulted in hardships for men and boys in the educational system. All those "show" is that the way we've come to expect/allow boys to act is counter to the educational environment. But, whether we should tailor boys to education or tailor education to boys is a fundamental question. In my life, I am bothered by people (both boys …
/r/MensRights18/02/11 05:22 PM
1

But as to specifically helping a woman in this situation? Why the fuck would I do that? There's already literally hundreds of >bureaucracies set up specifically for helping women. You think there's a bureaucracy helping this girl? Where's your outrage about charging a teenager for having sex with another teenager? Where's your hate of age of consent law which makes sex offenders out of innocent teens having normal sexuality? Where is your disdain for injustice? Do you really only care about this…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 05:11 PM
-1

Edit: Man, this isn't even a misandric or misogynist issue for me. I hate justifications which say "men who fuck around in school aren't at fault, it's the school's fault for not catering to them". I busted my ass in school to do the reading, to pay attention, to do well, and all of this "boys aren't to blame for when they don't buckle down, put their shoulder to the wheel, and get shit down" stuff just rubs me the wrong way. But, I apologize for my attitude, I usually attempt to be less antagon…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 05:09 PM
2

Ah, the old burga argument that disproves beyond any question that sexual attractiveness has nothing to do with rape. Where'd that "g" in there come from? I'm wondering how you square the two. Aside from an attempt to blame the victim (she was dressed like a slut, she was asking for it, ect.), what evidence do you have that slutty clothing increase the incidence of rape? Even if we agree attractiveness is part of it (younger victims are preferred), the link between that and clothing is inference…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 05:07 PM
0

The reasons for males dropping out of the system are discussed here at reddit/mensrights all the time. When faced with institutional misandry, a stark reality, many men simply give up. So, the fact that men have worse results proves that there's institutional discrimination (as opposed to some men simply lacking the discipline to excel in academia)? Out of curiosity, if a woman said "I didn't go into engineering because I saw a lot of sexism", does that prove that there's actual institutional se…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 05:02 PM
1

I'm not sure what you are inferring here. Are you saying that I think she should not have been charged? Are you saying that I think she SHOULD have been charged? Or are you trying to infer that my position on this issues waffles with the sex of the defendant? I was curious if your rage about the injustice of age of consent (and charging teenaged boys with statutory rape for having sex with teenaged girls) extends to when the party charged is female. If it does extend that far, I'm mostly encoura…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:49 PM
-1

Today's feminized education system neglects the learning styles of most boys, who are not content to sit still in a classroom and are taught primarily by female teachers. Boys desire competition and active learning, and it benefits them to learn from a teacher who understands them. What changed in the past fifty years, out of curiosity. My father grew up in the supposedly golden days of yore, and he had to sit still in class for hours at a time, was taught mostly by female teachers, and (since h…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:45 PM
1

Out of curiosity, does being a slut, or even unfaithful, make someone deserving of being attacked and physically harmed? Did Lorena Bobbit's husband deserve it because he was carrying on with another woman? Or, perhaps, ones political views and ones level of faithfulness are unrelated to whether we should be sympathetic about an attack. Would we really be less sympathetic to Daniel Pearl's murder if it turned out he was in favor of war, or had been having an affair?
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:37 PM
5

You do know there's still an awful lot of rape in the Arab world, right? Those hot, hot, Saudi Arabian women wearing their burqas are certainly never attacked.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:31 PM
1

I completely agree, there should be a change in the law. I absolutely approve of age of consent laws which depend both on absolute age and on the relative ages of the actors (a Colorado prosecutor would never charge a sixteen-year-old with a sex crime for sleeping with a fourteen-year-old). Out of curiosity, were you in any of the threads about the nineteen-year-old girl being charged with rape for sleeping with a fifteen-year-old boy (and the horror of making this rape victim pay child support)…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:24 PM
1

not a plight A plight is a dangerous, difficult, or otherwise unfortunate situation. See how "danger" is right there in there? If a story discussed the PLIGHT of male soldiers in Iraq, then yes, that story would be implying there's more danger to military men than women. Which, when it comes to American military members, would certainly be true. Quit twisting my words to suit your needs. I'm not sure what semantic distinction you're drawing, but plight and "dangerous situation" are synonymous. S…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:14 PM
1

You used the term "misandry" a goodly number of times (which is a conclusory statement, and an ad hominem to boot) and stated categorically that society "doesn't care" when men are killed, but do care when women are sexually assaulted. That's hardly disputing anything I said in my original post, and linking to it as a smokescreen to claim that you've actually engaged in reasonable debate is misleading to anyone who might happen upon this thread.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:05 PM
1

I think I owe you an apology. Maybe I was tired when I read your post, maybe I was just looking for a fight, but I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. I jumped immediately to the conclusion that what you were saying was that as long as the women doesn't resist, it's never rape, instead of assuming you meant "all other things being kosher, the lack of verbal consent doesn't make it rape as long as she didn't resist". So, since I should practice what I preach: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 07:05 AM
1

We both know what you are trying to do. I do apologize for not being as gullible as some others. If you have a legitimate response to anything I've said, I'm eager to hear it. Simply saying "you're a troll, and you say mean things about men" is hardly high-minded discourse. You've yet to engage with me on any issue beyond simply saying "you're wrong, you're wrong, and I know it". If you have logic, facts, or anything else, to object to my points, I'm eager to hear it. Since in the past dozen tim…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 12:13 AM
1

Nope. Perpetuating the false idea that men are treated as equals to women in the news is misandry. Do you have an example of a man being rapped in Egypt where he wasn't given this treatment? No? I didn't think so. No plight is shown by an isolated, vaguely described incident against one woman. Dude, even Harlan admits that there's a danger of women being raped, what are you smoking? Omitting men does indeed imply the plight of women is somehow greater than that of men, especially in the context …
/r/MensRights18/02/11 12:06 AM
1

Huh? I mean, come on. With that kind of gauntlet thrown down, you've got to substantiate that shit.
/r/MensRights17/02/11 10:54 PM
1

If the best you can do is personal attacks, you could at least spare me your indignation.
/r/MensRights17/02/11 10:49 PM
1

Almost never is there any serious discussion from these folks over the issue. At best it's a sort of "You're right, it's terrible...but you need to tone it down or no one will listen to you"...sort of deal. And outside of the initial agreement, you'll see little else from these people BUT complaints about tone and demeanor. I rarely complain about tone or demeanor, but rather try to have a serious discussion about content. But, when I object to one-sided or misleading (or even factually incorrec…
/r/MensRights17/02/11 07:27 PM
1

Feminists have tried, and failed, repeatedly to come up with the reverse of this game. I'm not sure what you mean. Once again, MarxistPuppet deigns to tell us all how wrong we are.... Not wrong per se, feminists do say some objectionable things. But, it seems only fair to point that magnifying glass at our own community and ask whether when one stares into the abyss, it stares back.
/r/MensRights17/02/11 07:24 PM
1

Edit: as discussed below, I misread your post (or was looking for a fight) and I apologize for my antagonistic approach here. A more legitimate question would be: If we assume that both force and the threat of force count as work, how do you deal with "let him take off their clothes" if there was no overt threat, but an implied one? Wouldn't affirmative consent protect against a lot of grey areas?
/r/MensRights17/02/11 06:38 PM
1

We’ve seen them for years redundantly making statements like “You can’t get laid,” or “You’re just bitter.” They do this so often, and to the exclusion of substance, that they give the impression they all have presidential teleprompters and a pull cord in the back of their necks. I've actually heard that charge aimed more at your so-called "manginas" and "white knights" than the reverse. Perhaps both sides can take a step back and stop using personal attacks... Such as the terms "manginas" and "…
/r/MensRights17/02/11 06:33 PM
3

They can serve you either at your home, your place of business, or in person. So, if you plan to be out of the state, be prepared for them to "serve" you without you necessarily getting the paper. For the love of god answer the complaint. Hire a lawyer, who can draft the answer pretty quickly, but you will likely have to go to court in person. You can argue lack of personal jurisdiction, but that'd just be more expensive. If you fail to do the above, remember that you have a deadline to appeal t…
/r/MensRights17/02/11 06:20 PM
2

I've been searching in vain for an interview with Logan about the attack, do you have a link to that? Everything I can find is the statement by CBS and a request for privacy; did Logan really give an interview while in the hospital?
/r/MensRights17/02/11 06:04 PM
-1

women, by virtue of their gender, should be immune from harm even though men aren't Neither men nor women should be at risk of being sexually assaulted, that simply must be a given. If a male reporter had been sexually assaulted in Egypt, I would expect the same sort of "holy shit" response from the news media. All people should be protected from sexual assault/rape, but the simple truth is that (especially in Africa) women are more likely to be on the receiving end off that kind of abuse. Physi…
/r/MensRights17/02/11 04:27 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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