TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

CVTHIZZKID Archive

View 0 posts and 114 comments by CVTHIZZKID on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
17

That’s not how it works. The IRS will not just audit someone on the hunch of a random person. To report someone you need to know their personal information. And to claim a reward you need to be specific about exactly what they are hiding or falsifying. It’s mainly for whistleblower employees with insider knowledge reporting their company if they know the company is engaging in tax evasion.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/21 09:22 AM
2

If you find this to be a truly significant issue in your life, you might want to consider going to a male therapist and working through some of these attitudes with him. But therapy can be pretty expensive if your insurance does not cover it, so it’s not necessarily a first resort if this isn’t a major problem for you.
/r/MensRights02/01/20 05:55 AM
–

Sorry but no, you are the idiot and I am an independent thinker. I'll bet you believe the fake news lamestream media (((globalist))) narrative, which that "science" is somehow the arbiter of objective truth, even though they are poisoning us with vaccines. You need to open your eyes to the truth, and open your butthole to Trump. This may help you wake the fuck up. https://youtu.be/Fwrz0-dnZIA
/r/MensRights08/07/17 10:16 AM
–

The (((globalists))) have brainwashed you. Wake up sheeple, stop taking your suicide/mass murder pills, and buy my water filter.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 06:38 PM
2

Look, I have an eight hour video that proves it, I just need you to buy some vitamin supplements before I can show it to you.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 06:00 PM
–

Yeah the mansplaining bit is dumb, but she is right in this case, the moon landing was fake.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 05:13 PM
2

I think you are misunderstanding the concept. If you are dating a single mom, then the kid is already born by that point, and already has a legal father. I believe that parentage by estoppel can be used to determine legal parentage when the biological father is in dispute, but it can't be used to change the legal parentage after that has been established. Also, it seems like parentage by estoppel is for when a man gets cheated on, but Wants to be the legal father. For example, let's say you fuck…
/r/MensRights22/06/17 05:19 AM
3

Source?
/r/MensRights22/06/17 12:51 AM
1

They close the theater to public, sell tickets ahead of time, and call it a private event. Discrimination through that method is completely legal.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 05:21 AM
3

When we see people show up without wearing masks it shows they truly believe in the cause I have heard that the bandannas are to help protect against tear gas, but I'm not entirely sure if I buy it.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/05/17 04:17 PM
3

That's not what the person I replied to was arguing for. Obviously, bosses having sex with subordinates is inherently inappropriate
/r/PussyPassDenied29/09/16 10:24 PM
3

Right. Because there are different standards for different situations, you should think carefully before making absolutist declarations that apply to all situations. I realize that you aren't the person why I first replied to and you didn't make the statement, so I'm not blaming you personally.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/09/16 10:22 PM
2

If I'm so stupid it should be really easy for you to refute my point then.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/09/16 09:39 PM
-6

The point is there's no such thing as legitimate consensual sexual between someone in authority over someone else Do you really think so? Like for example, my dad is my mom's boss at work (small family business), but she still consents to sex with him. Well at least I think so, I don't actually ask them about their sex life.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/09/16 09:03 PM
12

This is more like the Clinton Pass. Bill has it too. He sexually assaulted at least two women and faced no consequences. It just shows that some people are above the law.
/r/PussyPass05/07/16 05:32 PM
23

And then you accuse them of doubting a rape victim, and watch them flip out.
/r/MensRights29/04/16 03:00 AM
1

That's not really true, they do have the legal authority to make arrests. If your point was that they shouldn't, then I won't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't really know enough about the industry to have an opinion on it. So I just looked it up. This took place is California, which does not require bounty hunters to be licensed, but they are regulated to some extent by the Department of Insurance and are required to be certified. Maybe somebody could file a complaint with them, but if…
/r/PussyPass06/12/14 03:24 AM
16

Bounty hunting exists because if someone who posts bail with a bond tries to flee, the Bail Bonds company is responsible for paying. As such, the government has little incentive to track down these low level fugitives because they are already guaranteed the money. In many states, it does require a license. But modern bounty hunting is more about tracking people like a detective ("skip tracing"), and not acting like a Boba Fett wannabe. And if you really think that a license and training will alw…
/r/PussyPass06/12/14 01:38 AM
3

Even though most posters here (including myself) disagree with you, you do not deserve to be downvoted for holding that opinion.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 06:32 PM
21

There's no "gray area" here. It isn't illegal to make a pop tart gun. Being suspended from school is not the same thing as being charged with a crime. School disciplinary codes can (and always will be) stricter than the actual law. Students routinely get suspended for doing things like using cell phones in class, dressing inappropriately, using hate speech/slurs, possessing cigarettes, disrespecting teachers or staff members, cheating on tests, ect, which are all things that generally are not il…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 07:08 PM
5

"Despite these possible penalties, government records indicate that from 1980 through 1986 there were only 20 indictments, of which 19 were instigated in part by self-publicized and self-reported non-registration...The last prosecution for non-registration was in January 1986, after which many believed the government declined to continue enforcing that law when it became apparent that the trials were themselves causing a decline in registration" From the wikipedia article. So I'm going to have t…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 10:14 PM
6

Wasn't the rigged/fake survey a different one? I think this one is a little older, but doesn't seem glaringly inaccurate. The fake one got a lot of attention because a certain douchebag (who happens to be doing an AMA right now) posted it on his tumblr, but that one said like 99% of the posters were male, and didn't have as many categories for age ranges. It also had some pretty outrageous results, like that 85% of the posters are "strong conservatives". The original link to that survey seems to…
/r/MensRights07/05/14 11:35 PM
7

Referring to the president's administration or the executive branch in general with just the president's name is a very common and old practice. It is a form of metonymy.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:54 PM
54

he was surrounded by five other officers, dressed in plainclothes and “resembling thugs.” They don't resemble thugs, they are thugs. Assaulting an innocent person, kidnapping him, and stealing his laptop literally makes you a thug.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 07:16 PM
11

Freedom of speech doesn't apply on private property or a private website like Facebook. This isn't censorship.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 07:09 PM
2

The survey used the federal Bureau of Justice definition of rape Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the definition that says only females can be raped?
/r/MensRights10/10/13 12:23 AM
3

The video was posted on /r/cringe yesterday, and some people theorized that the guy could have had a fetish for being hit and got off on it (and maybe the girlfriend was in on it too and it was all a roleplay). I don't know a whole lot about Chinese culture, but I'm pretty sure that men being submissive isn't usually a part of it. I don't know if the fetish thing is true or not. There are of course women out there who abuse their boyfriends. But she doesn't seem to be holding him down, he's on h…
/r/MensRights08/10/13 09:55 PM
1

The article has a picture of the author, NDT, and Bill Nye standing together.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 12:13 AM
1

Which law? "The Law" is not some monolithic thing that applies everywhere. This is an outrageous claim, so I think it is not unreasonable to ask for a source.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 12:17 AM
21

Unfortunately, the police don't really care if you agree with a law or not. If you attack an agent of CPS, even in "self defense", the police are going to come and arrest you. If you "defend yourself" from the police, you're going to get tazed or shot. So now you're in jail, injured, or dead, and for nothing because CPS is still going to do whatever the fuck they want with your kids.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 10:43 PM
3

You had me until the end, but that last sentence was pretty rude and immature.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 10:25 PM
7

How can you not hate them? Those sweatshop workers who make 60 cents an hour are just oozing with privilege.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 11:25 PM
4

Name me one example (in a first world country) where a man convicted of statutory rape got life in prison without parole.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 08:51 PM
3

There's no need to niggle over this kind of stuff, in neither case is there any offensive language.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 04:37 AM
-5

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the people who were downvoting you.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 04:29 AM
-2

Please don't downvote someone just because you disagree with them. If you feel the need to tell them they are wrong, leaving a comment is much more productive.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 04:22 AM
1

Oh ok, I see. I had never heard of "headmates" before, but from the way you explained it I thought you meant they were created intentionally.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:30 AM
1

Are headmates the same thing as tulpas?
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:19 AM
1

This is the first time I've ever heard of "otherkin", but I'll say that almost every hobby can appear pretty stupid to those not acquainted with it. Is it really any more ridiculous than playing World of Warcraft or Skyrim and pretending you are a knight or a wizard or whatever? As long as they don't take it too seriously, I don't see any reason to judge them or make fun of them. If it starts to become the very core of their existence, that's a different story, but in that case they probably nee…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:07 AM
1

The issue with car insurance is that the Govt. is integrally link simply by the fact that it's not a good or service that we're allowed to operate without. Now you're getting it. There are basically three problems here: The government is forcing people to pay for car insurance. All the car insurance companies are sexist. The insurance companies can get away with #2 because of #1. We can complain all we want about how the discrimination is unfair, but if the government wasn't allowed to regulate …
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:04 PM
2

I'm not the author of the parent comment you replied to, but based on the wording of his statement I'd bet anything that he is a libertarian and/or anarcho-capitalist. If you aren't American, libertarians in America are basically what the rest of the world calls "liberals" (liberal has a different meaning here). They are supportive of free markets, and against any government interference of business or people's personal lives, that sort of thing. Which includes any regulations against discrimina…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 10:31 PM
1

Probably also because the very elderly pay for a lot of healthcare, and women are somewhat over-represented among the very elderly, due to women having a longer lifespan on average.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 10:20 PM
-1

A marriage contract is not a sex contract. You are in no way obligated to have sex with your partner, even though nearly all married couples have sex (at first at least lol). All states have different laws, but I'm pretty sure it's perfectly legal in all states to pay someone to marry you, or to marry someone for their money. In any case, it doesn't even sound like that's what happened. She was the one who wanted to get married (probably for money but maybe she liked him, who knows?). Bill has f…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 09:14 PM
0

What does prostitution have to do with it?
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:48 PM
-1

The lawsuit had nothing to do with feminism. She claimed that he had promised to marry her and support her financially, so she made lifestyle changes such as quitting her job, but then he never came through. I can't attest to how much of it was true. If it is, I think she has at least somewhat of a valid point, but it doesn't necessarily entitle her to $9 million either.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 07:53 PM
1

Isn't he a PETA freak as well? Also, if you've ever seen Religulous, it's basically "r/atheism: The Movie". It's a "documentary of him driving all over the country, interviewing religious people while looking smug, and then making fun of them behind their backs after he gets back to his van.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 07:47 PM
-7

I think if a man said "I want you to eat my pussy" the woman would probably just laugh. If he had a knife pointed at them, they would probably be pretty confused.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:10 AM
1

All states have totally different laws, and there is no federal standard. This was in West Virginia, and I have no idea what their laws are. In California, it would not be considered rape, since rape must involve sexual intercourse. I don't think it's a big problem. If you look up rape in the dictionary, it's not just another word for sexual assault. It literally means forced intercourse. But if people are being given harsher penalties for rapes than for assaults like these, then that is a probl…
/r/MensRights24/11/12 04:32 AM
1

You're wrong for two reasons: This happened in America, not Scotland, so that law doesn't apply. Just because the crime is not called rape doesn't mean it isn't a crime. She does not get to do "whatever she wants".
/r/MensRights24/11/12 04:16 AM
1

If sensationalist headlines really bother you that much, I'm surprised you can stand Reddit.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 12:48 AM
6

Who is treating it as humorous? Neither the police report or media stories were framed as as a joke. There is legitimate sexism in the media and criminal justice system. Complain about that, but don't try to see it where it clearly doesn't exist. People on this subreddit always say "This wouldn't have happened of the genders were reversed". Well in this case, it did. Woman threatens men, gets arrested just like a male assault perpetrator would. No sexism here, move along.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 11:48 PM
7

It was. She was arrested, charged with domestic assault and brandishing a deadly weapon, and is awaiting sentencing. The story was reported by the media, wasn't covered up in any way. What more do you want?
/r/MensRights23/11/12 11:38 PM
19

He wasn't a victim at that point. Here is the order of events: Woman shows up at husband's house with other dude (all are drunk). Woman asks husband to eat her pussy Husband declines, woman asks other dude, he agrees. Other dude smells foul pussy, withdraws his consent Woman is upset at getting no action, threatens both guys with a knife. Woman gets arrested There was no threat or assault before she pulled out the knife
/r/MensRights23/11/12 11:27 PM
18

Sort of a similar thing happened in my community college a couple years ago. The school put out an announcement that there was a "possible sexual predator" lurking around the parking lot. Apparently a male student had offered another female student a ride home (admittedly someone he didn't know) and she reported him to the campus security and administration because he "looked rapey". Having some guy inviting girls into his car is probably slightly more cause for concern than two people just walk…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 04:45 PM
1

I meant in this thread, not discussions in general.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 07:52 PM
-6

No one is arguing that they're not ethically the same. They're saying that in terms of damage done to the body, FGM is usually worse because it removes much more tissue. Also, circumcision is done by trained doctors with clean tools, while FGM happens in tribal communities in third world countries, by people who aren't medical professionals. Morally, both are equally wrong. It's assault on an infant. Physically, FGM is much more harmful.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 06:29 AM
7

It's a complicated issue. Some people would like to see universal health care. Others would like the free market to handle health care, just like most other services. Many politicians pretend to be for one side or the other, but really care about the interests of the big insurance companies. In my opinion, Obamacare mostly consists of that third option. Obamacare isn't universal health care, it just imposes more regulations on insurance companies. You might think that regulations make the market…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 07:21 PM
3

The difference is that Rick Flair is a famous celebrity, and the media is going to report on any involvement he has with police, regardless of whether he is the victim or perpetrator. I'd like to say that this wouldn't occur in any other case of abuse with a male, though sadly it's more likely that spousal abuse with a male victim probably wouldn't get a news story at all.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 06:41 PM
1

You should be upset that you were patted down at all, and treated like a criminal for not doing anything wrong. Wanting to subject women to the same humiliating treatment as you in the name of "equality" does not do anything to benefit you personally or men as a whole.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 10:22 AM
1

Sorry that you're getting downvoted. I think that's mostly true, and it's the reason why I rarely post here anymore. A great deal of the comments are circlejerking about how all feminists are evil, disguised with very thin sarcasm. It reminds me of shitredditsays in a lot of ways, just with opposite opinions.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 10:13 AM
13

I know you're joking, but I'll give you a serious answer. NBA players aren't employees of the NBA, they're private contractors. The government doesn't regulate contractors nearly as much as they do for employees, and as far as I know, there aren't any protections from discrimination. It's why modeling agencies, strip clubs, casting agencies, ect, are allowed to hire based on whatever specifications they want. Oh, and happy cake day too.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:34 PM
1

It doesn't get much attention or protest because it isn't enforced.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:28 AM
3

Just don't register. I didn't. The government doesn't enforce the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Failure_to_register http://hasbrouck.org/draft/prosecutions.html Basic summary: In over 30 years since Selective Service has been active, only 20 people have been indicted, and 15 convicted of failing to register. All of them purposefully drew attention to themselves as part of a protest campaign. Additionally, there hasn't been a conviction since 1986. I think it's safe t…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:25 AM
2

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Making adultery illegal is fucking insane. First of all, contract law is separate from criminal. If someone breaks a contract, you can sue them for breaching it, but no one is going to prison over it. Secondly, marriage contracts are not an agreement of sexual exclusiveness. In fact, contracts about sex are unenforcible by courts.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 11:20 AM
-7

This list is bunch of crap, and I'm embarrassed by all the people who want to put this on the sidebar. A handful of these points are actually legitimate issues. The rest of the list is subjective, generalizing, stereotypical, misogynist, and total bullshit. If someone really wants me to go through this list, I will, but it just seems like a waste of time when anyone with half brain should be able to see this. Of all the points, most are some variation of: All women are hypocritical (Some are, so…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 10:47 AM
1

Laws vary by country, state, and locality. I can only speak for California law, which I'm by no means an expert on. Someone can be charged with rape if they have sex with someone who is intoxicated enough that they "cannot resist". That is obviously very subjective and open to interpretation on an individual basis. Women are capable of being both rapists and victims, as are men. If two drunk people have sex with each other, they could both be charged with raping each other. It just usually doesn…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 09:27 PM
15

No, actually it is ok to make laws against violence. Circumcision is assault and mutilation of babies. I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian and generally think a lot of the laws and regulations need to be gotten rid of, but I actually would like to see more regulations against circumcision. edit: typo
/r/MensRights20/05/12 09:07 PM
2

Alimony is a separate thing from child support. It has its roots in English common law (the basis for much American law), and I would argue it is an outdated tradition, much like marriage itself. Traditionally, when a couple was married, the woman gave up all property rights to her husband, as well as the right to make any financial decisions. Most women didn't have any property of course, unless they were nobility, but that's beside the point. It was generally accepted that it was the husband's…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 02:11 AM
-1

There are financial benefits to getting married. You have to weigh that against the potential financial setbacks of getting divorced.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 09:50 PM
13

Definitely agree. Also, laughing my ass off at the notion that homeless women have anything better than average, middle class women. Homeless women have it just as rough as homeless men. The difference is that there aren't nearly as many of them because there are more programs that exist (both private and government) to prevent women from becoming homeless in the first place. Granted, many of the resources are aimed at helping homeless children, but since society by default usually assigns the r…
/r/MensRights10/05/12 09:39 PM
2

Ok thanks for clarifying. I'm not familiar with Nevada law. Not sure if you know the answer to this, but how does defining your gender work in regard to state identification? Can you change it at will, or do you actually have to go through surgery and have a doctor approve it? If it's the former and you wanted to go to the show, it would probably be cheaper to just pay for a new driver's license saying you are female rather than buying a male ticket.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 07:31 AM
-2

Gender isn't being "legally defined". This isn't the legal system discriminating, it is a private business. They choose to define gender however they want to (and it looks like they didn't). Ultimately, they can choose whoever they can choose whoever they want to let into their venue, and refuse anyone as well.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:37 PM
3

I had this exact same discussion with someone in r/atheism a while ago. There was a help wanted sign in a repair shop that said "Christian mechanic wanted". This is pretty much the same issue. Bigots need to be able to express their bigotry openly, if for no other reason than to let the rest of know to avoid them. I would never buy a ticket at that venue because I don't want my money going to support sexism. But if they can't legally openly advertise their bigotry, I might inadvertently support …
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:31 PM
1

Both parties have to consent to the test. If one party refuses, the court is supposed to rule in favor of whichever party was willing to take the test.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 08:39 AM
2

No problem. The internet is a sad place when you get specifically thanked for not being a jerk. But don't be afraid to speak your mind even if you think it will be unpopular to your audience. I only marginally consider myself a MRA, and I sometimes get downvoted pretty heavily too, but I try not to let it bother me. When people are afraid to speak up, that's when discussion stops and the echo chamber begins.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 08:04 AM
2

For me, as an intactivist, it would be like saying, circumcision is legal to force on infant boys but not girls, so we should make it legal for girls too. That's a horrible idea. It should merely be nonexistent for both genders. As the draft should. That's a great analogy. And I think we pretty much agree. My point is that equality of oppression is not an acceptable solution. The draft isn't bad because it targets men. It's bad because it forces people to kill others against their will. Circumci…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 07:11 AM
1

Equality in slavery is not a goal worth pursuing. The draft is fucking disgusting. In hinges on the entire premise that your body belongs to the government, and that they can force you to leave your home and put your life in danger, and force you to kill people who most likely don't deserve it. Advocating that woman should be subjected to the draft is like an abolitionist in the 1800s claiming whites should be enslaved too, in order to make the races "equal". Forget about men's rights or women's…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 05:04 AM
0

I'm a libertarian too, and I see my ideology as inseparable from MR. MR has opened my eyes to a lot of the ways that feminist ideology is imposing fascist controls on our society (the urinal article on the front page is a perfect example of this). I'm not trying to plug libertarianism here specifically, but I will encourage that people strongly consider liberty as the solution to most of these problems. If government didn't have the power do as much stuff, the feminists wouldn't be able to push …
/r/MensRights20/04/12 09:25 AM
0

This is a political issue because the state lottery is government controlled. I don't see how it's off topic. Edit: I'm just trying to point out that I think a lot of people are missing the bigger issue. The state lottery is bad because it's a hypocritical idea and a monopoly. The sexist advertising is bad, but it's just the icing on the cake. It kinda reminds me of when during the debate about Obamacare, a lot of the Republicans were getting all worked up over the fact it allowed for funding of…
/r/MensRights20/04/12 07:56 AM
4

Sort of a victory, but mostly pointless I think. I suppose not having offensive advertising is better than having it, but there shouldn't be any advertisement for it at all. Hell, I'd like to see the whole state lottery gone. It's a government run monopoly on gambling. Gambling was outlawed because all the prohibitionists back in the day thought it was evil, just like alcohol. But then the state realized they could make some money off of it, so they're ok with breaking their own rules as long as…
/r/MensRights20/04/12 05:39 AM
10

But then you can never go back to that Burger King again. At least until she leaves/gets fired. Which actually might not be that long considering the turnover of fast food employees. Fuck it, go for it!
/r/seduction13/04/12 09:06 PM
11

This is what happens when you stick your dick in crazy. But seriously, I feel bad for you and hope this works out for you. This bitch sounds psycho, why were you dating her for so long? It's clear you haven't trusted her for months, when you found out she was lying about the pill.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 01:29 AM
11

Reading the bottom comments on any thread is always entertaining.
/r/MensRights01/04/12 10:58 PM
1

Well here's something I just thought of that isn't even hypothetical, it's totally real. Child support payments are tax-free income for the parent receiving them, but they can't be claimed as a deduction by the person who pays them. This isn't officially favoring women - but guess which sex is most often paying child support, and which one usually receives it. Spousal support (alimony) is actually the opposite and does favor the payer, which is usually the man. But perhaps as an idea for your fi…
/r/MensRights21/02/12 04:18 AM
1

I probably shouldn't be giving you personal tax advice. For legal reasons, and because I'm not that experienced at it. I do work at an accounting office, but I'm not certified or anything. I don't know what your income level is, but most middle class people who don't own homes are probably better off just taking the standard deduction (and it's a lot less work). The thing about married couple tax rates: they're sort of a holdover from a time when it was expected that families would have a single…
/r/MensRights21/02/12 02:09 AM
2

You are allowed to deduct any medical expenses. They don't ask you to provide what it is for (unless you are actually being audited). All you have to do is separate it into broad categories such as doctors, in-home nursing care, medication (which would include birth control), ect. I don't think the US tax code is particularly sexist against men. Maybe in an indirect way they are though. In my opinion, tax laws fuck over small business owners the most, around 70% of which are owned by men. I don'…
/r/MensRights20/02/12 10:52 AM
8

The "single man tax" already exists. Tax rates are much higher for single people than for married couples or people with children. Though I suppose the tax rate applies to single women too.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 12:05 AM
3

I had never heard of Essure, but I am reading more about it now, pretty interesting stuff. And thank you for being civil, I realize my comment could possibly have come across as offensive to some people.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 05:45 AM
13

If consent is not given, it is rape, plain and fucking simple. Exactly. But sometimes there are situations where one party thinks the other has consented, and the other party does not think they have given consent. The point of the article is that the "victim's" interpretation of the facts is not automatically the correct one by default. By the principle of Mens Rea, the "perpetrator" has to be aware that the other party has not given consent in order for it to be rape. Sometimes it helps to loo…
/r/MensRights18/02/12 05:43 AM
3

Just to let you know, tubal litigation is a pretty major surgery, especially compared to a vasectomy, which is fairly minor. Tubal litigation, is definitely not safer, and much more expensive. Also, a vasectomy is only surgery on the scrotum, it doesn't get anywhere near the urethra. Tubal litigation is a major abdominal surgery. I'm not trying to give you medical advice, or tell you what you should or shouldn't do. I just suggest you do some research about this before making any decisions.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 05:17 AM
3

Hmm, ok. It just seems strange to me, because I post lots of stuff on reddit I would never tell anyone in real life. But probably not everyone is like that.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 04:57 AM
2

You use your real name on Reddit? Why?
/r/MensRights18/02/12 04:45 AM
1

Someone here needs to get that book and share all the lol-worthy quotes with the rest of us.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 05:21 AM
1

Yeah I know. Well at least that's the Men's Rights perspectives on it. Still, I find that to be kind of a silly position. If a law is unfair or oppressive, it doesn't do anyone any good to advocate that that law should be applied across the board. An admittedly more severe, but appropriate analogy would be people complaining against slavery by saying that white people should be eligible for slavery too because the law only currently targets blacks. If a law is unwise, the focus should be on the …
/r/MensRights26/01/12 07:43 PM
4

What does this have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights26/01/12 07:29 PM
2

I can't really answer that then. I'm not exactly sure what the difference between a mature and immature attitude toward sex is. Sex itself is inherently a pretty mature activity.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 07:09 PM
1

I remember wanting to have sex quite a bit actually (never got any though). But if an older woman had propositioned me for sex, I would have jumped on that shit. Maybe not a teacher, that would have been a bit weird, but maybe if she was attractive. No matter what our relationship, I would not have considered it rape and would not have wanted the woman to go to jail, assuming the sex was consensual and she wasn't in a direct position of authority over me.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 06:56 PM
3

We are both going to get downvoted, but I don't care, I agree with you. This was not rape or forced sex. It might be have been problematic if the teacher let the relationship affect the kid's grade in the classroom (like any boss-employee or teacher-student relationship), but other than that I don't think there was any issue. This was CONSENSUAL sex. If you are old enough to understand what sex is and consent to it, you are old enough to have it. Statutory rape laws are bullshit, and an insult t…
/r/MensRights26/01/12 10:06 AM
0

Personally, I think guys who wear earrings look kinda douchey, like they are trying too hard to be a punk or rebel. But your fashion choice is up to you of course. Yes, it is discrimination if the school allows one gender to do something, but not the other. Well, it meets the definition of the word discrimination. As for whether the law treats it as such, I have no idea, because I don't really know anything about UK law. However, I would advise you to not try to fight this in the courts. Legal c…
/r/MensRights24/01/12 02:07 AM
2

So what does a libertarian say about totally biased one sided reporting in press Nothing wrong with biased press, as all of it is biased, just some more than others. If one newspaper or website isn't working for you, find a different one. NGO's They're fine, as long as they aren't funded by the government. It's not really an issue if charities want to focus on the issues of one gender. After all, there are plenty of Christian organizations, no one complains that they aren't doing enough to help …
/r/MensRights19/01/12 07:26 PM
2

My point was that the world didn't really care about Darfur, period. But my own libertarian politics probably color my views on Men's Rights. Even if more aid was sent to help out women than men, I don't really see that as discrimination, because private charities are entitled to do as they wish. It really only bothers me when our government discriminates against men.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 10:33 AM
0

I really don't think this is a Men's Rights issue. Darfur is a total shit hole, and everyone is a victim there. The real travesty isn't that nobody cares about the men there, because I believe that nobody cared much about Darfur at all. It got a little bit of media coverage for a few months, and then everyone forgot about it, despite the fact that there were hundreds of thousands of murders.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 10:12 AM
1

Wouldn't this definition technically classify the man as the rapist even if a female raped a male? If the act of penetration without consent is the crime, the male is still the one doing the penetrating, even though he is getting raped.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 11:09 PM
9

Most rapists are men, this is a statistical fact. But most men are not rapists. I am a man and I am not a rapist. To imply that I hold any responsibility for any rape committed, for no reason other than my gender, is not only fallacious, but an insult to any justifiable moral system. The same reasoning would hold me to blame for the Holocaust because I had ancestors that came from Germany, or suggest that I contributed to the success of Justin Bieber because I listen to music.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 10:19 PM
11

So Hilary Clinton is a sexist idiot. It's not like this is breaking news, we've known this for a while. This general attitude on social issues is the reason I despise most modern liberals. Sometimes they have the right idea, but it's always for the wrong reason. They'll speak out against domestic violence, but not because violence is wrong, but because the victim was a woman. Speak out against murder, not because murder is wrong, but because the victim was gay. Criticize discrimination, not beca…
/r/MensRights08/12/11 09:48 PM
8

I hope this is sarcasm. This has nothing to do with the government. Holy Cross is a private school.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 07:09 AM
1

It's not censorship. Freedom of speech only applies in public spaces. You're free to pass out pictures of young girls on the street, but I don't have to allow you to do that in my house. Reddit is a private website, and the same as a company's private property. They can pull any material off their own website, and it isn't censorship. Posting here is a privilege, not a right.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 07:03 PM
10

I guess it really depends on what your definition of "children" is. I'll bet that if you polled most young guys, many of them would find 15-17 year old girls attractive. Girls that age have hit puberty, and many of them are sexually active. 18 is really just an arbitrary age when the law starts treating you as an adult. Comparatively, it wasn't all that long ago when most people got married in their mid teens.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 06:47 AM
8

I subscribe to nearly all of these. Does that make me a bad person? There is also: /r/TeenGirls /r/realteens /r/LegalTeens /r/randomsexiness /r/femalejailbait /r/niggerjailbait /r/pro_teen_models /r/japanese_teen_idols /r/trapbait /r/picsofdeadjailbait (this one actually offends me a little)
/r/MensRights06/12/11 06:31 AM
2

Violation of contract lawsuits are part of civil law, not criminal law. I only really know about American law, but marriage contracts about sex are usually not enforceable.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 06:02 AM
1

Because the person who reposted gets karma instead of the original creator.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 10:46 PM
7

I think it's a bigger issue that "adultery" is a crime at all. Jail time for cheating on your spouse? Really?
/r/MensRights05/12/11 05:53 PM
2

Please don't take OC from other redditors and repost it. It's generally not a polite thing to do. Make a self post and link to the other thread.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 05:50 AM
7

Good article. This is really scary if it's true.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 08:22 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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