TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

GoatBased Archive

View 1 post and 190 comments by GoatBased 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)
26

GoatBased/r/MensRights11/06/11 07:39 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

She*
/r/PussyPassDenied25/12/16 09:28 PM
4

Absolutely, but "it" in this case is the dataset. The dataset cannot be bias.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 03:28 AM
3

Someone/thing can have bias but someone/thing is biased
/r/MensRights29/08/16 02:34 AM
5

He hates women.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 02:19 AM
6

For those interested: 47.5% of homeless people are single, adult men from 25 to 55
/r/MensRights29/08/16 02:18 AM
6

be bias Be biased.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 02:16 AM
3

Unless someone made a mistake when entering the answers.
/r/MensRights25/06/16 03:51 AM
2

I'm comparing the circumcision that actually occurs in women to the circumcision that actually occurs in men. That is not dishonest, especially when the topic of FGM is brought up in response to a discussion about circumcision of western men, where complication occur as low as 0.2-0.4% of the time. Even in Africa, where persistent complications occur more frequently, they are still far less common than those associated with FGM. FGC in Indonesia is a comparatively minor problem to FGM in Africa,…
/r/MensRights27/12/15 11:30 AM
2

Perhaps because babies born to mothers with FGM I, II, and III die at a rate 15, 32, and 55% higher than babies born to mothers without FGM, resulting in an additional 10-20 deaths per 1000 infants in Africa. Maybe it's because it's far more painful and often performed close to puberty without anesthesia. Or it could be because there's a 70% increase in postpartum hemorrhaging. And then there's the fact that the procedure is far more extensive, often performed without antibiotics, and results in…
/r/MensRights27/12/15 09:34 AM
1

Much in the same way that the cure for prostate cancer is currently given-away for free on every street corner. I lol'd. Also male birth control.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 05:15 AM
-1

Why is it that some people are so passionate about male circumcision? It's almost like people completely lose the ability to be rational about the subject. In an ideal world, we'd all probably be uncut except for those of us for whom a tight foreskin is an issue, but even in an ideal world, we're talking about negligible benefits. In the US, right now, it's probably a little better to be cut than uncut for social reasons. I support the notion of moving towards a safer practice, but if you're cut…
/r/MensRights27/12/15 05:13 AM
2

The number one determinant factor of whether a boy will be genitally cut is the genital status of the father. Which doesn't say anything about it being passed down from the father, only that the status of the father is a predictor. Couples are made up of two people, one man who is cut or uncut and thinks that it's normal, and one woman who is with a man who is cut or uncut and thinks that it's normal.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 05:04 AM
-1

At what point did the article advocate lying to anyone when dating two people at once? You must have read a completely different article than I did.
/r/TheRedPill08/01/14 08:08 PM
-1

You need to work on your reading comprehension. The article says "see how long it takes to blow up in your face." It doesn't say that either of the people you're with "blow up" at you, just that you lose control of the situation. This could be as minimal as one of the guys giving you an ultimatum that they want to be exclusive or stop seeing you. The reason the author suggests dating two people at once it is that while it's common for men to date multiple partners at the same time, far fewer wom…
/r/TheRedPill08/01/14 07:57 PM
-4

Hello there, perhaps you missed the "blow up in your face" part As long as you're not dishonest with anyone, how is it your fault if they get their feelings hurt by wanting a commitment that you refuse to provide? I'm assuming we're talking about adults engaging in a relationship at will.
/r/TheRedPill08/01/14 07:38 PM
1

AOL owns the Huffington Post.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 01:34 AM
1

How does that statement exclude jokes "about someone being a neckbeard virgin" from what I consider offensive?
/r/MensRights13/12/11 06:13 PM
0

It should be considered assault, not sexual assault. There was no sexual intent or sexual gratification. Obviously Canada's laws are different, and I don't know whether this was the right call or not given the laws on their books, but this is just crazy.
/r/MensRights25/11/11 05:19 AM
1

Who said only being called a slut is offensive?
/r/MensRights24/11/11 03:32 AM
13

There is no reason to believe it says anything bad about men or male behavior because it doesn't say that men are sluts, only that women who act like men are (unfairly) called sluts.
/r/MensRights20/11/11 12:49 AM
34

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. This image doesn't mean that men are immoral or have loose morals, it means that women are expected to fulfill unreasonable expectations above and beyond their male counterparts. Really, this isn't an attack on men or male morals in anyway. It's just an attack on society's elevated expectation of female conduct.
/r/MensRights19/11/11 11:08 PM
0

It's common in South American and European prisons too.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 09:17 PM
1

Actually it is true that men are more physically oriented than women when it comes to finding a partner. It's not absolute, and it isn't a bad thing in any way, but it's a well documented trend.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 08:31 AM
2

Word meanings come from their use, not from authorities. If enough people start using the word "rape" to mean any sort of forced sex, then sure, the meaning will change. However, you're not going to see a bunch of professors smoking pipes declare the word to have a new meaning, because that's not how words change meanings.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 01:33 AM
9

It's not a mistake on Google's part. That's the definition in most dictionaries as well as the definition of the crime in most jurisdictions. Rape is typically considered forced penetration by a man. That doesn't mean women can't be guilty of sexual assault and face penalties equally severe. Either way, the word "rape" shouldn't be used anymore because it has an archaic definition. It should be replaced with "sexual assault."
/r/MensRights05/11/11 09:59 PM
14

It's not like instances of child molestation perpetrated by a man cause a lot of mainstream outrage either unless the person is high profile like Michael Jackson. This woman isn't high profile. She wasn't a household name, the only reason it's interesting is that she's a highly educated researcher who was into some really kinky and illegal things. That being said, I've seen this surface in quite a few media outlets. Even Howard Stern talked about this woman for 10-15 minutes straight.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 07:16 PM
1

So you want to win the war based on appeal to authority and appeal to emotion rather than facts? That'll work..
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:08 PM
3

But she hasn't been excused yet...
/r/MensRights29/10/11 04:40 AM
2

This is just an anecdote and means nothing. This subreddit should be about facts and statistics, not individual events that on their own fail to show a pattern.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 04:40 AM
2

Anecdotes like this do nothing to further any cause.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 04:39 AM
4

This is not feminism, this is hygiene.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:20 PM
-1

You get out of here right now with your logic and reason!
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:19 PM
1

I edited the original post within 2 minutes of the original post which was before you commented. I know, because when I reloaded the page there were no child comments. Pretending to be someone's boyfriend, pretending to be a doctor, and pretending to be a police officer are all "this sort of situation." Now get your panties out of a bunch and do your own research.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 07:55 PM
2

In cases where the law only protects women from someone masquerading as her husband, yes. This limitation doesn't exist in all penal codes and the current trend is to broaden the law not narrow it.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 06:22 PM
4

Interesting, I found Rape by Fraud and Rape by Deception when I did a ctrl+f "rape" I am not a house of public records, and I don't know where to search for court cases, but here are some links I found using Google that point to state penal codes: California Idaho Arizona (not law text, a paper about the penal code)
/r/MensRights26/09/11 09:05 AM
2

I guess England is fucked up too? Edit: Tennessee and California are also fucked up, apparently.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 07:11 AM
9

You should disclose this because most men don't set out intending to sleep with a transexual. Maybe in the future men won't care, and in that case you wouldn't need to disclose it, but because you're sleeping with someone under false pretenses you should disclose it. Sounds crazy, right? Except, if you've got an identical twin, and you sleep with your identical twin's significant other under the pretense of being your twin, you're guilty of fraud and rape -- even though the person at the time wi…
/r/MensRights26/09/11 07:04 AM
1

But are criminals still sometimes treated as minors up to age 18? In that case, crimes may be treated with less severity.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 09:09 PM
2

It might have something to do with the payment. I heard her story about how it wasn't payment, but I don't know if the judge believed that. He's also 21 and she's 18, it's possible that the laws there are different when it comes to 18 year olds.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 03:06 AM
1

In order to drive in Qatar, women need the permission of their husband or a male family figure. But yeah, I see how the driving laws are actually sexist against men and not women.
/r/MensRights03/09/11 04:38 AM
1

I was with you up until you started talking about sexism in the Middle East.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 06:11 AM
1

She will be better served by that, society won't.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 07:29 AM
2

That hyphen changes everything.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:41 AM
1

What were their respective weights and builds? A fat girl can't do as much damage to a muscular guy as he can do to her. Maybe they were just doing that math and not worried about their sex?
/r/MensRights17/08/11 05:55 AM
1

That's why I said treating not curing...
/r/MensRights16/08/11 02:01 AM
-1

She's not saying there "shouldn't" because of some archaic rule that must continue to be enforced, she's explaining why companies haven't been putting a ton of resources into it. They don't put resources into it because it's (a) much more complex than female birth control and (b) there is a low demand from the overall population for male birth control so they don't think it will pay off. It's all about profits, and male birth control doesn't seem very profitable -- at least not as profitable as …
/r/MensRights14/08/11 10:18 PM
10

Regarding Amanda Marcotte: she did NOT say they didn't deserve it because they can't get pregnant. (source) To be clear, I'm not saying men are irresponsible monsters. I'm saying that people are generally unmotivated to step up unless they have to. (Here's a good article that really lays out why people don't do stuff they know they should do until it's really pressing itself upon them.) Men don't use contraception because women are already on it. It's the same principle in play as toilet-cleanin…
/r/MensRights14/08/11 08:59 PM
1

I didn't see a death threat.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 01:49 AM
3

Men's rights, not mens' rights.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 01:32 AM
1

The person who asked out the other party should always pay. You never extend an invitation to anyone unless you can pay for them, or have expressly stated the costs they'll incur if they accompany you.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 05:03 AM
2

It's actually more an issue of chivalry - and the attackers defending the woman's honor. Stuff like this happened in the stone ages too.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:07 AM
5

Is there any other kind?
/r/MensRights24/06/11 01:26 AM
3

I'm sorry for what you're going through, and I wish you the best of luck.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 06:55 AM
4

Nice thought, but this does not apply. He's better off fighting with applicable and reasonable laws.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 06:53 AM
1

Sure, it's a HUGE difference in the vastly different scenario you mentioned that changes the situation from having sex with a passed out girl to having sex with a girl who then passes out. Regardless, they are different. That difference is that in option A, you are committing multiple crimes in addition to rape. False imprisonment and assault (poisoning) come to mind. In option B, you're not committing those other crimes, but in both scenarios, you still raped someone.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 02:16 AM
15

This is a two part comment. This doesn't mean that there are fewer rapists. Regardless of whether someone is passed out because of something they did or something you did, it's still rape if you have sex with them. This makes me think that many of the people who claimed they were raped are also just trying to put the responsibility on someone else. If they can't take responsibility for their own drinking, what makes you think they're going to take responsibility for their sexual activities?
/r/MensRights13/06/11 03:17 AM
7

That's what this comic is all about (the epilogue at least). The first part is just to be funny and is not logical.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 09:31 PM
3

You are a guy, and I'm assuming you've had sex, therefore you are a rapist. Didn't you know that?
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:13 AM
3

That doesn't necessarily mean they're insulting women or that they're not feminists, just like it people who are in favor of affirmative action aren't necessarily insulting minorities.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 05:36 PM
41

Paternity fraud should be illegal instead of reinforced (by child support).
/r/MensRights06/06/11 01:20 AM
7

I posted over there a few times yesterday. They were surprisingly receptive. The only post I made that got down-votes was actually one I made calling out anti-female sexism.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 01:19 AM
20

Just like black people shouldn't spend an inordinate amount of time being bothered by the KKK's website, we shouldn't spend an inordinate amount of time being bothered by anti-male websites. There's a minority of crazy racists and crazy sexists, but they don't speak for the rest of society. MR has bigger fish to fry.
/r/MensRights05/06/11 12:29 AM
2

NAFALT?
/r/MensRights05/06/11 12:29 AM
2

I down-vote every single one of them, even if I laugh.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 07:08 AM
1

It looks like the law is balance here, not in favor of the mother for father. Thus, I'm not sure that this is specifically a MR issue. It is illegal to take your son or daughter out of the US without permission and we do have extradition treaties for this with the UK.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 06:07 AM
1

At least she got convicted of a felony. I doubt she'll get much jail but it sure will be hard to get a job after this.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:58 AM
3

He wasn't banned for reposting information, he was banned for posting new information. (source) Fair game in general, yes, but not on this site. The admins don't want it for very valid reasons.
/r/seduction01/06/11 01:44 AM
17

Makes sense. If I post my own personal information, and then I delete it, it's no longer on reddit. If during that time someone else reposts it, I have no control over that and it will persist. I kind of like this rule when applied reasonably, meaning that non-identifying information shouldn't count.
/r/seduction31/05/11 06:52 PM
3

They're also incapable of consenting, apparently. However, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt here. I think she means if you find a drunk girl or get a girl drunk, you can't make it "ok" to have sex with her by then getting yourself drunk if it's your intent all along to have sex with an incapacitated person.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 07:13 AM
1

At least you'd get your cherry popped in prison if this blogger had her way.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 07:07 AM
1

implies women aren't responsible for their own actions. That's pretty insulting to women don't you think? I'm sure feminist groups will be all over this. I actually think the "may be a rapist" means that the woman OR the guy can be the rapist in that scenario.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 07:02 AM
3

He's a rape supporter if... He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available. Yes, yes you did.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 07:01 AM
1

From #13: You are a rapist if you ‘nag’ her for sex. From #14: You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her “No” by talking her into it. From #15: If you say, “All the other kids are doing it!” then you’re a rapist. NO.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 06:58 AM
3

Citation provided: BBC: Sperm donor to pay child support Post Gazette: Sperm donor fights order to support 2 children Fox News: Pennsylvania Court Orders Sperm Donor to Lesbian Couple to Pay Child Support And now here's the real kicker. A couple sued to reveal the identify of their sperm donor so they could go after him for child support. Boston Globe: Court: Lawmakers need to tackle sperm donor issues
/r/MensRights31/05/11 03:04 AM
1

The physical attraction thing is not gender-wide and probably should never be used to say "I don't want a guy to live here because I will be physically attracted to him" unless the person is a nymphomaniac or has some disorder which causes them to be attracted to everyone. Determining whether or not you have the ability to be physically attracted to someone is apparent in the first few seconds of meeting them, unlike personality traits which can be well hidden for weeks. So where does rational l…
/r/MensRights30/05/11 11:16 PM
1

What makes something sexist instead of a non-sexist preference? Where does that line get drawn?
/r/MensRights30/05/11 07:30 AM
10

Sometimes women can even go after sperm donors for child support. It's beyond crazy.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 12:54 AM
2

Maybe we should start producing some buttons for this issue? I can see them now: =incarceration.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 07:28 AM
5

Don't you get it? Males run all aspects of society. It's their fault, especially the white ones, that there are disadvantaged people in society.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 07:25 AM
1

Not if your 30% of women are disabled LGBTQ foreigners.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 06:28 AM
5

Very compelling statistics.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 04:55 AM
1

A manifestation is a perceptible, outward, or visible expression that clearly demonstrates something such as a theory or abstract idea. We have different core beliefs. The manifestation of that belief is that he feels single sex housing is wrong and I don't. Our belief and reasoning does not begin and end with the issue of single sex housing. Thus, we shouldn't bother trying to debate single sex housing when the real difference in our opinions lies deeper than that and is much more general. I di…
/r/MensRights29/05/11 03:54 AM
0

I don't agree that it's similar to racism (because I don't think single sex housing or bathrooms are inherently sexist), but I can see what he's getting at. I just want to know more. Rather than debating a boring manifestation of our different opinions in an endless loop, I want to really understand his perspective. I want to know whether he thinks all segregated treatment of sexes is unnecessary and sexist, or whether he thinks there's a line somewhere, and what causes something to be unaccepta…
/r/MensRights29/05/11 01:06 AM
1

A lot of schools have co-ed bathrooms, and it's really important to the point. You shouldn't be ok with one and not the other, I'm glad you aren't. If you were ok with one but not the other, I'd definitely want to know why you draw the line where you do. Do you think it's sexist for an young adult to prefer to live with males or females (specifically the same OR opposite sex) when searching for roommates later in life?
/r/MensRights29/05/11 01:00 AM
0

Are you also a proponent of co-ed bathrooms and showers?
/r/MensRights28/05/11 08:13 PM
1

I'm not saying I have the real story or the facts, I just quoted the judge. There was no evidence supplied by the writer that the judge's statement was unfounded.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 07:56 PM
7

No, don't call her out. Then she'll just lie about it in the future. Either pursue it or let her make the same mistake with someone who will.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 10:02 AM
25

It often doesn't exist due to lack of demand, not because of sexism. You need to be able to fill an entire floor for a year, and there typically aren't enough guys [who want to live on a single sex floor] to do that. I guess you could expect them to offer it anyway and waste the 10-20 unoccupied rooms, but most colleges have an issue where they can't provide enough housing, so really what would happen is 10-20 guys who want to live on a co-ed floor would be forced to live on a guys only floor. T…
/r/MensRights28/05/11 09:59 AM
1

This is where you need to take your source's perspective when you read things. The source is obviously promoting an agenda, and I find it's my reaction to think "ok, this person is trying to convince me of something, what could they be excluding from their article that might hurt their agenda?" I'm interested in finding out what the judge actually said and why, and until I have the whole picture I'm not just going to assume the judge is in the wrong based on one biased source.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 09:43 AM
1

People can be insane, under the influence of drugs, or retarded. All of these states make it easy to take advantage of someone. It looks like the judge thought she fell into the first category. He didn't think they broke the law, but it looked like they were taking advantage of someone who couldn't make sound decisions due to some serious mental issues.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 05:41 PM
1

The judge said "Patenall [was] not a free moral agent who was fully capable of deciding whether to engage in a wild, albeit stupid, sexual encounter." So, that's where I got it.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 05:38 PM
1

Find me a judge who doesn't lecture and I'll show you a gravestone. The question about whether it's immoral or not has nothing to do with whether multiple partners were involved (though that is a good sign that you should be wary). The issue is the judge thought that "Patenall [was] not a free moral agent who was fully capable of deciding whether to engage in a wild, albeit stupid, sexual encounter." Even if the person is not legally prohibited from giving consent as in the case of minors, they …
/r/MensRights27/05/11 06:07 AM
-1

So the courts acted as they should. They didn't do anything illegal and they didn't go to jail. They did something that was morally reprehensible (assuming she was borderline unable to give consent) and they got a lecture. Judges lecture all the time, they want to encourage people to be good citizens and good people. Running a train on a screwed up girl isn't something they'd praise.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 05:20 AM
-2

There's obviously a lot more to the story, but it seems like she was barely able to give consent. The fact that something is legal does not make it ethical.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 05:14 AM
-17

It's easy to conjure up an image of a judge scolding a group of guys who did nothing wrong, but what they did isn't advisable. If one of these guys were my son I wouldn't have approved either. Their actions were really scummy. If someone propositions you and four of your friends, you should know something's wrong with them. It sounds like the girl is almost on the verge of being unable to give consent due to her serious mental health problems.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 03:03 AM
2

It turns out they have same ads with a woman as the model.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 04:37 AM
-1

It's sad that most people's reaction to this child is going to be "that's a freak." Now instead of getting boy baggage or girl baggage it's going to get "your parents are weirdos" baggage. Is there a better way to accomplish the same goal of removing gender baggage where we don't inadvertently introduce more?
/r/MensRights22/05/11 06:29 AM
1

It's clearly a boy.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 06:23 AM
1

Why'd you do it?
/r/MensRights22/05/11 06:20 AM
3

It's not always so cut and dry as "the lazy bitch decided to stop working." For example, what happens if you're a relatively successful lawyer but your significant other gets a job paying twice as much as he or she currently makes in another country. The combined income if you stay where you are is lower than your SO's income in that other country. It makes financial sense as a couple to move to the other country, even though it means you can't practice law anymore because you are not licensed. …
/r/MensRights21/05/11 09:15 PM
3

Pretending for a second that what you say is true, that is the application of the law, not the law itself. If the law is "all people regardless of race must be permitted to use public facilities" but the law is never used to defend the rights of black citizens, then it is not the law that is racist but the enforcement of that law. Do you have any statistics that show this?
/r/MensRights21/05/11 08:59 PM
1

In what way does the law unfairly favor one gender?
/r/MensRights21/05/11 08:56 PM
1

That's why I said "me" not "most people." This stuff needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 08:48 PM
1

I can understand some entitlements. If I marry a girl, and she becomes a wildly successful singer, I might be pressured to quit my job so that I can go on tour with her or live in another city. She also may want to spoil me. If she leaves me in 10 years, I think I have an entitlement to a share of our assets. Maybe not 50/50, but something to counteract the 10 years of income I've lost because I quit my job so that we could be together at her request. In fact, now that I've been out of the indus…
/r/MensRights21/05/11 09:17 AM
0

I'll disagree with one of your points. There is a logical reason for him to pay her something. She was about 30 when they met. Presumably she was making more money or somehow supporting herself. In the time period during which they dated, if she was not provided for financially by him, she likely would have been earning more money and saving it. They split up when she reached 40, and now she's got no financial security. And so a typical reaction is something like "well, she shouldn't have assume…
/r/MensRights21/05/11 09:03 AM
-1

By engaging in actions that lead to a common law marriage, he willingly entered into the agreement. Engaging in the prerequisite actions for a common-law marriage is agreement to marry. If he was really concerned about it, he wouldn't have done so without a prenup. The law sucks in this case, but if you don't like it, it's your responsibility to make sure it doesn't bite you in the ass.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 08:53 AM
0

You mean it puts the burden of financial protection on the wealthier party. Men are equally entitled to alimony if they earn less than their male or female counterpart.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 08:51 AM
-3

It's not sexist against either gender, it's just incredibly stupid. Both men and women are entitled to alimony, it just happens that women file more often for various reasons. The law doesn't favor one gender or another (if you live in another country this may be different).
/r/MensRights21/05/11 08:50 AM
5

They do, and it hasn't.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 08:47 AM
1

Is that the black woman who went to jail?
/r/MensRights18/05/11 07:14 AM
4

That was only one comment made on a throwaway account that got down-voted. There are idiots all over, and clearly that idiot's opinion was not popular. Oh, and the guy's post starts off with "I DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU IS YOUR FAULT."
/r/MensRights17/05/11 06:16 AM
1

Other people in this subreddit may get mad at you for not treating the question seriously, but you made me laugh out loud. Thanks.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 06:12 AM
2

Do you have statistics that prove this is a typical female argument?
/r/MensRights16/05/11 08:10 AM
3

This directly conflicts with the wikipedia article on rape, which states "The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999) estimated that 91% of U.S. rape victims are female and 9% are male, with 99% of the offenders being male." Any ideas?
/r/MensRights14/05/11 08:11 AM
1

That's actually not why it was condemned. While I think a lot of people's reaction was that it is horrific, WHO came out against it because of the health effects.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 05:16 PM
1

It's a perversion of altruism to say that you can choose cause bodily harm to the individual for the good of "the people," for another person, or even to himself. Doctors choose to operate on children all the time for the good of the child, even though every surgery poses severe health risks and can have potentially irreversible chronic side effects.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 05:07 PM
2

Yes, I agree 100%. The health effects of male circumcision should be taken into consideration on their own and legal decisions should be made by weighing those findings.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 05:03 PM
1

And circumcision isn't sexual contact.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 05:01 PM
1

If two people are fighting, and the during the fight a punch lands on the breast, penis, butt, etc., that would not be considered sexual assault because there is no sexual component (unless there is reason to believe there was sexual intent). That would be considered assault. This is very different from if the same body part was groped, in which case it would be a sexual assault.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 05:00 PM
-1

You need to drop the "girls have this law, I want one too" mantra. They're different procedures with different results and effects. If you want male circumcision to be illegal, the argument needs to stand on it's own. As to cutting the labia of a girl, it can result in future complications in childbirth including death. It can lead to bladder, urinary infections, and cysts, and may require many corrective surgeries for to return normal bodily functions. They are clearly very different, regardles…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:44 PM
-2

I'll just leave this here. Now, do the benefits outweigh the risk? That's another topic that is by nature subjective.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 07:39 AM
0

I hope you realize that I haven't been debating your statistics, or even whether your opinion is right or wrong. All I'm debating here is the method of your argument. So while you're pointing to health issues, you're not pointing to anything that suggests there's an inequality. The WHO came out against female circumcision for the reasons I mentioned, not because there are consequences in general. The statistics you're quoting, if accurate, would suggest that the government should consider enacti…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 06:25 AM
-1

Childbirth complications means complications when giving birth. It has nothing to do with the complications of the procedure itself, about which I made no comment.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 06:10 AM
-6

I understand what you're trying to say, but they are not the same. While it may be the same during a period of growth in the womb, the end result is a very different body part who's removal yields different consequences.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 06:09 AM
-9

Nice semantic play. The point was that if the action and results were equivalent, the prohibition of one would lead to inequality. The action and results are not equivalent, so you cannot rightfully claim that there is inequality. Female circumcision has been condemned because it has a tendency to produce the following long term complications: recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections cysts infertility an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths corrective surgeries lat…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 05:58 AM
-5

Ok, so you make a great post with research (at least there are resources within the 2nd article). Then you go and ruin it by comparing it to the female situation. You can't say it wouldn't be approved if it were to happen to a girl because female circumcision is not equivalent. That said, thanks for trying to argue based on the merits of your stance, at least in the beginning.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 05:39 AM
-16

One is the excision of a clitoris or labia, the other is of the foreskin. They are different by default because the biology is different. If the argument against male circumcision is strong, it should stand on it's own. You should not need to resort to pointing at at laws regarding labias or clitorises.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:49 AM
2

You don't understand the definition of sexual assault.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:30 AM
-5

I specifically made no comment on the accuracy of your previous statement. The law does apply to everyone. Here is the law: "(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." No one can do that to a baby, regardless of the baby's sex. If you wan…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:29 AM
0

It is not a sexual experience for the child. It does not cause arousal. However, this is irrelevant. In order for it to be a sexual crime you would really have to look at the mindset of the person performing the act.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:20 AM
2

Amputation is not rape.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:18 AM
-18

The accuracy of your statements notwithstanding, the circumcision of a male is not equivalent to the circumcision of a female. If you want to argue against it, you cannot use laws protecting women as your foundation. You instead have to show why it is bad for men.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:16 AM
1

Because there's nothing sexual about it for either party. The mere fact that genitals are involved in an action does not make it sexual.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:13 AM
-22

Men and women aren't the same physically. There is no equivalent action for a female. Female circumcision is not equivalent in any but the least discriminating light.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:07 AM
3

It is not rape. Rape is sexual assault. Go get yourself a dictionary.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:03 AM
12

How about false rape claims? Or ridiculous alimony payments? Or this crap about women getting 70 cents to the dollar which isn't true? Or the difficulty men face in getting custody?
/r/MensRights13/05/11 03:53 AM
5

This calls for a little murder-suicide.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 01:56 AM
-2

Most people don't seem to confuse rape between adults with child molestation. I think men have done the second all to themselves. You don't see people touting numbers like "1 in 4 people was molested." It's always about rape among adults (including college kids, as by that age they're adults). You're really going to to have to do a better job proving that this has anything to do with feminism, but I'm all ears if you've got the time.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 04:09 PM
2

I interpreted it as the OP blaming feminists for the situation. I'm guessing the OP's thoughts on this had something to do with not enough men being awarded custody. This is an issue that resulted neither from him being a single dad nor the feminist movement as far as I can tell.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 01:53 AM
29

I don't think the issue was that a woman thought he might be a predator, but that people automatically assume that men are predators.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 01:41 AM
0

Right, it wasn't for your amusement.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 10:28 PM
1

If the team opens the locker room to credentialed members of the press, they cannot discriminate based on the gender of the reporter.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 08:16 PM
-1

Obvious troll is obvious.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 08:12 PM
1

Anecdotal evidence doesn't help anyone unless the police were involved. Since 1978 both male and female reporters have been guaranteed access to locker rooms by a federal court ruling.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 08:09 PM
1

The 1977 World Series.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 08:07 PM
2

During the 1977 Wold Series, reporter Melissa Ludtke was barred from accessing the men's locker room because she was a woman. Time Magazine filed a lawsuit, and one year later Federal Judge Constance Baker Motley ruled that male and female reporters should have equal access to the player's locker rooms under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. This applies to men's and women's sports.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 08:06 PM
1

It uses "him" for agreement with "typically committed by a man," fyi. They could completely restructure the sentence to make it more equitable.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 03:31 AM
2

It comes from older English. He or she is a relatively new way to speak, as is "they." I'm sure the laws have been updated now, though, to use more current language.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 03:28 AM
2

I don't need to calculate the odds of anything else because I already am a straight white drug-free American male. The factors I included are exactly what I needed to in order to conclude how much circumcision helps the average straight white drug-free American male avoid contracting HIV. The next logical step is to consider the odds that your child will fall into different risk levels, but I never made any claims about children at all because I don't have the statistics. I could also reassess m…
/r/MensRights03/04/11 01:44 AM
0

The post you replied to was my reasoning for why it's within the realm of parental rights to determine whether or not your kid loses his foreskin. This is my post about whether or not I would do it myself.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 01:12 AM
0

What does any of this have to do with Christianity? Even the unrelated /r/atheism thread you linked to was a discussion of general belief in God and religion. The topics I brought up had to do with Bahai, Buddhism, Quakerism, Islam, and Catholicism, and so on. Stop being so angry.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 01:06 AM
-1

Nice try, but I'm an atheist.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 12:55 AM
4

The point I was making was about the issue, it's called a counterexample. Here's the point, in case you missed it the first time: "Thus the risks of circumcision could outweigh the possible upside." I showed that you need to analyze more than just the protection rates against diseases when making the decision about what's right for a particular person or group, and that you need to understand that person or group's specific risks. If circumcision offers protection against a low risk disease but …
/r/MensRights03/04/11 12:43 AM
4

I said ME and MY and I. How did I apply these statistics to everyone? These statistics couldn't possibly apply to anyone else except straight white drug-free American men who have sex with straight drug-free women.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 11:54 PM
-8

Your parents determine your IQ, language, citizenship, and health based on decisions they make when raising you. They also have a huge influence on your personality. All of this happens without your consent before you even know what's happening. This is just another part of the child's life that is determined by the parents, and it's far from the most important one. (IQ is determined more by your environment than your genes)
/r/MensRights02/04/11 11:50 PM
5

We should be looking at the risks and facts. You're missing a key point though: the chances of getting HIV are already very small. 0.2-0.6% of circumcisions done correctly have complications circumcision offers 60% protection against HIV (did I read that correctly?) my risk of contracting HIV as a straight drug-free white male who has sex with straight drug-free females is about .000005% my risk is thus reduced to .0000025%-ish if circumcised that means I've lowered the likelihood I get HIV by .…
/r/MensRights02/04/11 11:29 PM
0

That's the whole point. You have a list of items 1..n, you then use the likelihood (probability that the event will occur) and multiply it a personal opinion (negative for bad, positive for good). Then you sum up the results for the entire list and if it's positive, it's a good thing. If it's negative, it's a bad thing. Whether something is good or bad is always based on personal opinion. Claiming whether something is good or bad is not complicated, as you say it is. You may have a different opi…
/r/MensRights02/04/11 11:09 PM
0

Is this really a complicated claim? It seems like assessing the pros and cons by creating a list, and applying weights to each of the items in the list to represent importance and likelihood will result in the right answer for each person individually (because different people have different levels of importance for the same item on the list).
/r/MensRights02/04/11 10:56 PM
0

Wait, no. A great "writer" will be good at conveying thoughts, feelings, and ideas through written word. Hemingway didn't stick to facts. You continue to confuse writer with reporter. There are places in the world for all types of writing. Op-ed columns are actually pretty popular.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 10:52 PM
4

That's generally what reporters do. They don't make laws, create cures for disease, or fight wars... they just report on the facts. If she's not citing and quoting sources then she's not a very good reporter -- or she's just writing an opinion piece.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 07:43 PM
1

As stated, the baseline is Yearly Income.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 02:47 AM
1

Ah, you're right. When I referred to the feminist argument I meant the intelligent feminist argument, the people who would say women in general get paid less and that's an issue, without justifying why it should be equal (for the same job) don't even show up on my radar. I don't know what study you're referring to with "the study," here's the information I was talking about: VARIABLES CONSIDERED: MEN'S PAY AS A % OF WOMEN'S Yearly Income: 141% Hourly Income: 114% Hours, Specialty, Practice: 102%…
/r/MensRights19/03/11 08:03 AM
9

This type of math doesn't disprove anything because the argument feminists use is that women working the same job get paid less, not women in general get paid less. The best way to disprove it is to take each profession they mention, hold all factors constant, and disprove each claim. For example, male doctors make more than female doctors [fact]. But when you account for location, type of practice, education, years of experience, and hours worked, men and women make the same amount [also a fact…
/r/MensRights19/03/11 07:34 AM
1

Actually that's more the corporatization of Catholicism that created an environment where pedophiles were protected. There is no "forgive them and move on" tenant, a priest who doesn't believe the practitioner has completed the steps necessary to absolve his sins, yet offers God's forgiveness is not doing what he is supposed to do. Just like all jobs, there are bad employees, and the poor performers don't change the job description.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 04:14 AM
1

As much as I don't believe in god, I have a lot of respect for good priests. His job wasn't to forgive her and move on, see my other comment.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 03:55 AM
1

He was criticized by other priests for breaking confidentiality, not for urging her to help the man she wronged. The criticism is unrelated to his guidance. As to his job, it is not to forgive her and move on. His job is to act in persona Christi and provide the penitent a path to redemption in the eyes of God. There are three acts that penitents must complete: contrition confession satisfaction (penance) In the case where the wrong can be righted, or at least lessened, the third portion may req…
/r/MensRights17/03/11 03:52 AM
1

Was he? Typically heros are named for their courage and achievements. I feel like this priest was just doing his job - one that put him at no risk. He definitely did the right thing, but he didn't necessarily act selflessly to a degree that he should be called a hero. I think if the majority of the people were in his situation, they would have told the girl to confess. While they might not have been successful, I don't know that success alone is worth the [hero] tag. On the other hand, I don't t…
/r/MensRights16/03/11 04:32 PM
1

He'll at least get the standard, I think it's around $50k per year falsely incarcerated, give or take a few thousand. That money wouldn't be awarded in a lawsuit, though, it'd be paid out by the government either way.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 04:26 PM
1

I'm not sure where the topic of morality or good and bad came up, I'm just concerned with accurate descriptions of behavior.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 05:33 AM
2

I think you've missed the point. I'm not talking about what should happen, I'm merely talking about our labels of masculinity. See this post. To summarize, you should not have to do anything you don't want to. You should be able to live your life according to your own concept of duty. However, when your concept of duty doesn't line up with views of masculinity (as shaped by the actions of the majority of human males), then your actions cannot be described as masculine. That doesn't mean it's wro…
/r/MensRights04/03/11 05:31 AM
4

I think you're right, people should not be restricted by primal laws. Men and women should not have their individual roles limited to a predetermined set of options. Each person should live life according to their unique preferences. However, if you're a male and your preferences don't align with that of your gender role, you cannot very well be described as "masculine." That being said, you shouldn't take that as an insult. You should be proud to be unique and different, and shouldn't let what …
/r/MensRights04/03/11 05:23 AM
0

This is going to get me downvoted into oblivion, but... I don't know if I exactly agree with your issue. The males of most species are the protectors. Even when the women are the hunters the men are still the protectors (e.g. lions). And it's definitely the way the majority of the world thinks when it comes to our own species. Is it so wrong to assume that the "masculine" role in our species is to be the protector? At least, it should be considered so until the typical human male no longer assum…
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:41 AM
5

How is this a Men's Rights issue? The article doesn't laugh off the violence committed, and the guy took it seriously. He called 911 immediately afterwards. It sounds like he doesn't hold it against her anymore, but that's because she has mental problems not because she's a girl. Either way, it doesn't sound like they'll be dating again.
/r/MensRights27/02/11 09:17 PM
1

You were, you quoted parts of my statement out of context giving them new meaning. I see domestic violence against women and against men all the time movies and TV. It's generally not broadcast network TV because they're too scared to show anything that might offend someone, but it happens on basic and premium cable. So I'd support you in saying that they should have shown the violence against the girls, there's no good reason in my mind not to, but seeing neither of these scenes would outrage m…
/r/MensRights27/02/11 11:21 AM
1

See this.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 09:59 PM
1

The two are not mutually exclusive. Unless I'm misunderstanding the word chivalrous, you can be chivalrous without exhibiting benevolent sexism. I think that being chivalrous, though it has a definite modern connotation of blind male courteousness towards women, originally started out as a general moral code. If you treat all people with courteousness and respect, then not only will you be chivalrous, you'll be a good person. Going out of your way to show support and affection for someone you lo…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 09:58 PM
1

You're right, I have many.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 09:51 PM
1

I'm not claiming its ok for women to hit men because they can take it. I'm not claiming that men are strong and women are weak. I did not claim that violence against men makes men powerful and women powerless. I did not imply in any way that every action is misogynistic. It is ok for violence to occur when the recipient of the violent act does not consider himself or herself a victim (see Boxing, Martial Arts, S&M) Stop creating straw men. What I said was, it's ok for these girls on the show to …
/r/MensRights24/02/11 09:41 PM
2

Here are two to get you started, but there has been plenty of research about this that you can find with Google Scholar and other sources. Glick, P. & Fiske, S. T. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (1996) Grewal, D. The Hidden Dangers of Benevolent Sexism. Psychology Today (2009)
/r/MensRights24/02/11 09:27 PM
20

The real tragedy here is that you're watching the Jersey Shore.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 07:55 AM
0

I think it's ironic that you're accusing the most misogynist show on TV of undermining men for any reason other than it's depiction of chauvinist men. The reason it's ok for the girls on that show to hit the guys is the guys take pride in it and thrive on it. They want to be the classic Italian American man who's wife can wail on him and and he can stand there and take it, knowing that he'll still lay down the law. It makes the males feel stronger because it shows that the female is powerless in…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 07:53 AM
2

Yeah, I don't buy it either. But how is this a men's rights issue? Solely because of her wording "man up?" Or is it because a woman is claiming to be the scape goat for an organization? Men do this stuff all the time and it wasn't a gender motivated crime.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 06:22 AM
1

I really don't think they care about women being "loose," this isn't the 1800s. They just don't like lifestyles that threaten their own, or make them question their life choices. It stems from jealousy and insecurity. Stop trying to make it a gender issue.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 04:33 AM
1

I see your point men being more supportive towards abortion than women. However, did you miss the point where the author is implying that anti-abortion crusaders are trying to keep women from having sex? They're trying to keep people from having sex (outside of marriage). Seems really narcissistic to me.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 08:29 AM
0

Whoever down-voted you was an idiot. Here's an upvote.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 08:25 AM
1

My dictionary says marriage is... between a man and a woman, but also a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex. But just to play devil's advocate, if it weren't defined that way, I'd say sure. I wouldn't have a problem with the two being named differently. However, because so many resources would be spent debating whether it was fair or not, for logistic reasons, I'd say call them both marriages or both civil unions. I don't think it should make a difference, though. The…
/r/MensRights04/02/11 07:09 AM
0

The definition of rape, according to my dictionary is: the crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them We have the same rights, just a different name for linguistic reasons. I know a lot of places have a concept of male rape or include men in the victim category, but why should we care what it's called when the original concept of the word rape only concer…
/r/MensRights03/02/11 04:36 PM
-1

Y U NO CRY OUT?
/r/MensRights03/02/11 08:50 AM
2

Tl;DR summarize please?
/r/MensRights02/02/11 04:21 AM
2

I definitely think she should be prosecuted. However, charging her with this false rape does scare me in general. If a girl wasn't raped, but says she was, she may back out of the accusation midway through if she knows she won't be charged. If she knows she'll be charged and likely found guilty of a false rape claim, maybe she'll continue with her accusation and end up putting an innocent man in jail.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 04:19 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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