TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Cu_Gorm Archive

View 0 posts and 76 comments by Cu_Gorm on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I can't see the link, maybe it's region blocked, but so long as she's not looking to create laws to enforce that position then I'm fine with it. If it works for her and some guys are ok with it then it's none of my business.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 12:42 AM
1

Feminism can mean almost anything, including the oft cited "dictionary definition" so why not. it cuts both ways.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 12:41 AM
2

If I had a kid of either gender in such a school I'd pull them out effective immediately.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 12:39 AM
1

I don't see that as being the same as posting a video of something two people in a trusting relationship have taken together, and one has decided to post it with the intention of humiliating the other. Would you agree that those people probably posted those pictures with the intent that only the person they sent them to would see them? That's all that really matter here.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 02:13 AM
1

Maybe, but the "traditional family values" we're talking about here are also pretty common in tribal cultures and cultures with large family groups.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 10:02 PM
1

I also wonder how much profit there is to be made by said NGO’s when going about circumcising a continent of with Millions of men Probably not much tbh
/r/MensRights17/06/15 09:59 PM
5

Where the vast, vast, vast majority of people who would be getting a circumcision are consenting adults. Who might be mislead into thinking that circumcisions help stop the spread of HIV
/r/MensRights17/06/15 12:41 PM
0

Np
/r/MensRights16/06/15 02:15 AM
3

I considered getting one on my back when I was a teen, very glad I didn't. The tattoos people want when they're young are usually cringe central.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 01:52 AM
12

"Verbally skewered" is what, a stern talking to? That or an aggressive rimjob. Not sure.
/r/MensRights15/06/15 08:47 PM
1

Fair enough
/r/MensRights15/06/15 08:44 PM
9

Eh. I don't think it's all that big an issue, although it's probably better for people to avoid doing so. Also, I don't think "cunt" and "dick" are quite on the same levels as "faggot" and definitely nowhere near "nigger"
/r/MensRights15/06/15 08:09 PM
8

However, women call men pigs, dicks, and assholes all the time Not just women in general, this woman in particular called him a dick: So, whatever. I mean I guess Dan is an artist and artists are a) not exactly known for not being dicks, and b) they can do whatever art they want just like I can ask for whatever tattoo I want. But man, Dan, you must work on those analogies. Also, bonus shout out to her White Knight: Sasha, to his credit, remained calm and let me handle it myself, although I’m sur…
/r/MensRights15/06/15 08:06 PM
32

If you read the article, that wasn't actually his objection, he just flat out refused to create face, neck and hand tattoos for newbies. Which is still perfectly within his rights and reasonable.
/r/MensRights15/06/15 08:01 PM
57

She very much sounds like someone who isn't accustomed to being told "no." Especially not by little people.
/r/MensRights15/06/15 07:50 PM
6

Archive link to the original article: https://archive.is/asX6a It also bugs me that they used a really cool thing like "milihelen" and made it crap :/ Edit: Just finished it and my god that's the most pretentious bag of crap I've come across to date. Also, his tattoos look awesome.
/r/MensRights15/06/15 07:38 PM
1

Np
/r/MensRights15/06/15 05:34 PM
6

Well, more accurately, the students do. It's ostensible a student lead movement to ensure representation and advocacy. In practice it's lead by the few people who bother to turn up and struggle to get enough people to vote to pass their ridiculously low quorums (often less than 10% participation). Bahar is typical of the trend, she was the only one to run for the job, she got all her friends to vote for her, and now she has a cushy paid office for a year subsidised by a bunch of people, most of …
/r/MensRights15/06/15 03:51 PM
11

Nb: Her position is elected by the student body. She's not directly employed by the university.
/r/MensRights15/06/15 09:13 AM
8

I think this is technically true, in that the lack of slut shaming would result in fewer motivations to make a false accusation. But it's not much use to an individual falsely accused as they probably weren't the one doing the shaming. And then there's the issue that some things described as "slut shaming" are actually "infidelity shaming." I'm don't see why anyone, male or female, shouldn't be shamed for cheating in a monogamous relationship, but this will also encourage a certain number of fal…
/r/MensRights15/06/15 01:24 AM
14

And a bunch of the top comments are SRSlike single shot accounts.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 11:02 PM
1

I think that's stretching the concept of duress beyond any meaning tbh.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 01:19 AM
1

Then you're saying that other adults aren't capable of making agreements regarding the intimate parts of their own lives. If you want to be restricted from doing so then that's fine. I don't.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 01:18 AM
-1

If you feel you need protection from your own signature, then that's fair enough, you should delegate your responsibility to someone you trust. Personally I'd rather have the freedom to make the agreements I want to. Even if they might later turn out to be bad ideas.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 11:41 PM
-1

I'm ignoring nothing. If people were arguing this was wrong because it's hypocritical then that would be one thing, but that's not what I'm seeing in this thread. And yes, he did make that agreement. If you think adult men can't be relied upon to make decisions for themselves then just say so.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 11:25 PM
-1

Not enforceable as in the terms can't be physically brought about or not enforceable as in you personally think it shouldn't be enforced? There is no child yet. He did not decide to have a child, only a potential one. An embryo is not a human being with rights like one, until it is impregnated and even then it can be aborted by the mother. I don't see why the father can't abort this embryo, seeing as women abort their foetuses regardless any of the fathers' wishes. Because that's not what he agr…
/r/MensRights13/06/15 11:23 PM
0

I see your point, but I still think all of those issues are best solved by people not agreeing to such things in the first place, rather than a court retroactively coming back and determining what kind of contract a consenting adult is permitted to sign.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 08:13 PM
0

No. This isn't a question of rights, it's a question of agreements.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 08:11 PM
-2

If he wanted to make the agreement specific to their relationship then he should have done so. This doesn't even get into the fact that the state is forcing fatherhood on someone who does not want to be a father. The state is only enforcing their mutual agreement.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 08:01 PM
-1

Going with that (and I agree) I still say he should be bound to his agreement.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 07:56 PM
-1

If those were the terms of the contract she, for some crazy reason, decided to sign, while adult, sober and (by some definitions) sane then yes.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 07:55 PM
-3

They shouldn't be allowed to do so either. If the genders were reversed I'd say the same thing: Too late, that's what you agreed to.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 07:10 PM
-8

No, the right to not becoming a father should absolutely supersede any "contract." Sure it should. I can think of no right I shouldn't have the ability to sign away if it suits me to do so. If a woman signed a contract stating that she would have a baby and not have an abortion and a man tried to enforce that "signed contract" he would rightfully be laughed out of court. Probably, but I don't think he should be, eg. surrogate womb.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 06:59 PM
-2

In theory, if I had an oral agreement with my ex to have a child and it never happened can she, after divorcing, sue a sperm bank where I have made a deposit since I consented to having a child with her? Probably not, since you never agreed to give her that semen. A fertilised egg could be considered joint property though, or human life, depending on the jurisdiction.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 06:54 PM
-2

He did not agree to father children for her, he agreed to father children for them. And you know this how?
/r/MensRights13/06/15 06:52 PM
-1

Nope. Having embryos frozen has a lower chance of success. And anyway, like I said, he agreed to all of this so it doesn't matter what either of their intentions were. This guy shouldn't have to be a father just because the lady couldn't foresee the end of a relationship. On the other hand he should be because he couldn't. Don't agree to a contract you don't want to honour. Simples.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 06:24 PM
-2

How do you know he didn't get the embryos so they can have a possibility of having children together in the future, but that now he is out of that situation and the agreement no longer applies? I don't. If that was a specific condition of the contract then I agree it should be upheld. I'm discussing the situation decribed in the article though, which doesn't include that. When situations change greatly, contracts do become renegotiable. Then the contract is meaningless. If he wanted the cells de…
/r/MensRights13/06/15 06:12 PM
-7

Not if he signed a contract agreeing to do so.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 06:07 PM
0

If that's what they agreed to then I'm glad to hear the contract was upheld.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 04:13 PM
0

According to the article (the only thing we have to go on) he did. I don't see the point in discussing every other hypothetical scenario.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 03:03 PM
-1

I'm going on what's actually in the article. If that was their agreement, then I'd agree, she should also be held to what they agreed on, but that's a completely different argument.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 02:37 PM
-4

Why?
/r/MensRights13/06/15 02:30 PM
-2

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you're arguing that courts are hypocritical about stuff like this and tend to favour women then I doubt anyone here would disagree, but that's a separate argument from what should be the outcome of this in a fair world. Some people are saying he should have the right to retroactively revoke consent even when the contract says nothing of the sort, I'm saying no, that's not what he agreed to.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 02:30 PM
0

I don't see any essential difference, it's a contract agreeing to an exchange of property, or consenting to perform a service, whatever you prefer to call it. I don't see why it should be revokable after the fact unless the contract explicitly provides for that.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 02:26 PM
0

Not necessarily, people act as sperm donors all the time. For all we know the contract was non-specific about whether or not they were required to be in a relationship. I'd imagine if it had provisions for them breaking up, or him revoking consent, it would have made the core of his case and come up in the article at least once.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 01:00 PM
0

Is that what their contract actually said? I can't see that in the article.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:55 PM
-1

She could just as easily adopt. It doesn't really matter. Arguments about the importance of genetics aside, he agreed to all of this with no provision for revoking consent after the fact.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:55 PM
0

I disagree that she has a right to have a biological child at the expense of his autonomy, but he made that agreement with her, so his autonomy isn't in question.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:53 PM
2

Apparently they have a better chance if the eggs are fertilised.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:52 PM
-3

I think it's pretty straightforward: He made an agreement, now he's being held to it.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:52 PM
-3

This isn't really the same as withdrawing consent to sex during the act.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:50 PM
0

If the contract specifically allowed it then the courts were absolutely wrong to overturn it.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:50 PM
0

He left it a bit late to back out tbh.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:47 PM
2

And then it'll be all "it's not about her, it's about the child"
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:45 PM
-2

I'm not sure if that matters. If someone agrees to be someone else's last chance at having kids like that, I don't think they can back out after that person no longer has any other options.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:45 PM
0

If you read the link, he agreed to become a father before she entered chemotherapy. If he had refused she could have used another donor. Unless he's arguing that she's lying and he never made the agreement, I think this is a reasonable result.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:42 PM
1

Ugh, yeah, I still make that mistake sometimes.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 04:52 AM
8

I'm not fighting for a country that perceives me as a chess piece to be controlled against my own will. Good for you. Too many people think they exist to benefit their government, rather than the other way around.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:05 AM
2

That sounds more like the sillymod I know :p From your post it just looked like you were suggesting they'll treat us the same as SRS and AMR.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 09:36 PM
19

I'm scratching my head as to why you trust the reddit mods sense of fairness so much. Do you really expect them to apply the same standards to SRS after all this time?
/r/MensRights10/06/15 09:23 PM
48

I didn't like them one bit, but I see no reason they shouldn't be allowed to talk shit on their own corner of reddit.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 09:19 PM
1

No, I mean, what changes if they include MRA ads in that category?
/r/MensRights10/06/15 05:52 PM
2

What effect would this have
/r/MensRights10/06/15 12:20 PM
4

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. This started out as meaning that colleges had to give equal funding to male and female sports teams, even given unequal interest and participation. Then the dept of education (I think) issued the "Dear Colleague" letter which required colleges to investigate and ta…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 01:47 AM
6

Fortunately, since then, things have moved on and intersex individuals are usually not operated on anymore except if there's a pressing medical need.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 11:16 PM
3

the only reason she hasn't personally been sued yet is she doesn't have anything to sue for. Unless he's looking to get a dirty mattress and discarded condoms. I feel genuinely sorry for the school staff: With the way title IX is, it would have been career suicide for anyone to oppose her. Heck, it was pretty brave of them to request her not to bring the matress to graduation.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 11:08 PM
3

Oh he did. He made another overnight film for another brief and he managed to extend another assignment by handing in a DVD he'd deliberately engineered a glitch into. Eventually he screwed up though: He made a conceptual piece of nonsense which advocated more or less the exact opposite politics to his lecturer.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 11:06 PM
3

I remember in college a friend of mine making a similar movie to avoid having to make a proper one. He was out of time, so the night before the due date he mixed together a bunch of random footage with filters and made up some stuff about it being a phantasmagoria.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 10:36 PM
2

Apparently she was put in touch with him via Marina Abramovich.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 09:59 PM
3

Hahaha! I got linked to that too somewhere along the way. Turns out that the only clever part of the piece (the title) isn't even original.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 09:58 PM
1

Well, surely all the other cases prove that the decision to raise him as a girl at least contributed to the disaster, even if there may have been other causes.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 09:25 PM
3

It's not the only example though. Efforts to socialise children into an "easier" gender in cases like this have mostly failed. If it were possible to do this, GID wouldn't exist.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 09:06 PM
8

Yeah, probably.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 08:54 PM
3

It certainly sounds like that.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 08:53 PM
7

I remember when that guy tried to sue LSE for that very reason, they actually came out and said that "Gender studies is the study of women in society"
/r/MensRights09/06/15 08:52 PM
26

Dr. Money's rationale for these various treatments was his belief that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity" It's even possible that that's true, but how on earth would someone come to the conclusion that an adult forcing kids to so would have positive effects on their mental health.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 07:37 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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