TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Hypertroph Archive

View 3 posts and 360 comments by Hypertroph on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-1

Thanks for actually providing links, though the first one doesn’t work. The second is at least something, though the evidence is largely survey-based. Although the premise is reasonable, this is hardly a slam dunk.
/r/MensRights06/02/20 11:45 PM
-16

Without a mechanism to explain the disparity, that is nothing more than a spurious correlation.
/r/MensRights06/02/20 06:30 PM
1

Her comments don’t make threats of any kind okay. There’s no need to resort to those tactics. Pointing out her own hypocrisy or highlighting examples of her being a terrible person? That’s fine, but responding to this with threats of violence is too far. It invalidates the message and makes the messenger no better than the person they are messaging.
/r/MensRights22/01/19 09:11 PM
1

Politics aside, that subreddit is not based on open, honest discourse, which is something this subreddit prides itself on. While not every perspective here is agreed on, it is still allowed to exist for the sake of discussion. TD aggressively censors any and all dissent. Whatever other ideals they exemplify, closed mindedness is not one we should associate with.
/r/MensRights16/01/19 01:59 AM
1

At least at my school, that’s because of the BA program. The BSc Psych program is still majority men, but the BA psych program is overwhelmingly women. It would be valuable for these kinds of statistics to make the distinction.
/r/MensRights16/12/18 12:48 AM
1

Yep. It’s been a while since I’ve gone to a club, but there wasn’t a single visit that some drunk fag hag didn’t grope me at least once. If I said anything, I’d get shot down since it’s “all in good fun” or something. Between that and the creepy older guys, it was a pretty disgusting place. In hindsight at least.
/r/MensRights30/11/18 09:11 PM
0

First does not mean more common. Go ask 10 people if the work “emasculate” is simply a descriptor, or if it’s insulting. Let me know what they say.
/r/MensRights29/11/18 05:59 AM
0

You conveniently left out the other definition. For your convenience: make (a person, idea, or piece of legislation) weaker or less effective. Since the word is more often used as a pejorative, I feel you’re being deliberately obtuse here.
/r/MensRights29/11/18 01:34 AM
0

It is when you consider the reversal to be emasculating, which you did.
/r/MensRights28/11/18 06:54 PM
1

It is a reversal of typical gender roles. The female assumes the male role and dominates and fucks the male like he is a woman. If you dumb asses don't think that is emasculating you have your heads up your asses. Read that again. Yes you did. Pretty clearly too.
/r/MensRights28/11/18 08:02 AM
6

The idea that men and women must be confined to typical gender roles, when the human experience is so much broader, is why people disagree with you. The idea that men need to be the strong, stoic stereotype is a major contributor to the ever increasing rate of male suicide. The idea than men who enjoy prostate play are either gay or emasculated both contributes to homophobia and limits men’s sexual experiences. These things are problems, and the only person with their head up their ass is you, s…
/r/MensRights28/11/18 03:26 AM
24

How? Because the guy enjoys his prostate, and his partner is part of that? This idea that men can’t enjoy anal because it somehow makes them less of a man is what should be seen as toxic masculinity. Not the BS they gets thrown around, but this idea that men should exist in a box, and any men that don’t fit that mold are somehow less of a man. This is part of the problem.
/r/MensRights27/11/18 08:12 PM
0

Creating a whole new term to mock men in sad states is pretty disturbing. They might be hostile and negative, but they're openly accepting their sad status. You don't help people in a rebellious state by demonizing them further. It may have started out that way. It was sad, but pretty supportive at its inception. Now it is a horribly misogynistic group of bitter men who blame everyone else for their shortcomings and toxic worldview. There was a point when Pitt was a reasonable response, but that…
/r/MensRights27/11/18 06:45 PM
17

That guy is a fucking cuck and I have no doubt that she fucked him with her strap-on. Is pegging immaculating now? EDIT: emasculating
/r/MensRights27/11/18 06:42 PM
1

It’s bullshit. A few photos that look similar is not evidence. If it was true, why does it matter? Are his policies dictatorial? Are they even remotely similar to those of Castro? Or is it just a juvenile attempt to associate Trudeau with someone that was disliked, even if the only thing they have in common is similar appearance?
/r/MensRights27/11/18 07:50 AM
3

The Justin Castro meme is tired. It makes all sorts of associations that are false, and unfairly ties him to the policies of a dictator. If you have critiques, make them. This “link” isn’t a critique, it’s just stupid.
/r/MensRights26/11/18 10:56 PM
5

Ah. I read that as a typo of “Trudeau!” My bad!
/r/MensRights26/11/18 10:54 PM
-1

Oh god, not that tired meme. Did you insult Chrétien for his speech too?
/r/MensRights26/11/18 08:51 PM
5

It was written by Trudeau Sr., true, but it was ratified by Brian Mulroney. It has also been in effect for over 30 years. But sure, blame Justin.
/r/MensRights26/11/18 08:49 PM
2

Private browsing does not make you anonymous. Every browser states that pretty clearly. It may make you harder to track, but there are plenty of ways for your data to be harvested without cookies/trackers.
/r/MensRights20/11/18 12:36 AM
-6

When? Their entire business model is based on hoarding data. EDIT: No answers, just downvotes. Typical.
/r/MensRights19/11/18 06:24 PM
-23

Google has never sold user data. It would be counter to their model. They sell access to advertising databases based on user data. There’s a pretty big difference. EDIT: Sure, downvote away. I’m not defending Google’s data hoarding, just clarifying what they’re actually doing.
/r/MensRights19/11/18 05:22 PM
1

It’s worth noting that insurance is charged by unit time, not by mile driven. If men are in less accidents per mile but drive 60% more, that means, on an annual level, men will cost more to insure. It’s easy to twist numbers to make insurance seem terrible, but at least be honest about how you approach it. Keep comparisons consistent.
/r/MensRights27/07/18 07:02 AM
4

Well that was infuriating.
/r/MensRights21/05/18 03:40 PM
38

I don’t see a problem with most of those. Non-offending pedophiles are mentally ill and need support to prevent them from offending. Treating them like shit for an attraction they can’t change, and likely don’t want, will only push them into hiding, where they won’t get help, and are more likely to offend. Shit talk child molesters all you want, but pedophiles need support. It’s not SJW bullshit of being an apologist; after all, they’ve done nothing wrong. I was under the impression that this su…
/r/MensRights13/05/18 03:51 AM
-4

No. The White House hasn't responded to any petitions since Trump took office.
/r/MensRights01/05/18 06:49 PM
1

That was not my intention.
/r/MensRights23/02/18 07:00 AM
1

What broad stroke generalizations did I make? Literally all I said is that a disproportionate number of mass shooters are men, which is factual. I made no judgements or assumptions as to why.
/r/MensRights23/02/18 06:59 AM
2

I didn’t claim that masculinity was a factor. I didn’t suggest any reason. All I said was that men make up a disproportionate number of mass shooters given their prevalence in the general population. To be honest, I feel like it is more likely a symptom of how some men are treated than a result of “toxic masculinity”, but I don’t have anything to back that up, and decided to leave that out. I chose to only post what I knew: men make up the overwhelming majority of mass shooters. That is complete…
/r/MensRights23/02/18 01:14 AM
-2

The population is, unsurprisingly, ~50% men, and they make up >90% of shooters. It is wildly disproportionate. EDIT: Apparently my post implied that I think “toxic masculinity” is a root cause for there being so many more male mass shooters compared to women. That was not my intention. I was simply pointing out how wildly skewed it is, but did not intend to imply a why.
/r/MensRights22/02/18 10:58 PM
1

It does. 21% of women in construction are actual labourers. 9.1% of employees in that industry are women. Therefore, 1.9% of the entire industry is labourers that are women.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 01:55 AM
1

That is literally the first time I've ever linked to that sub. Check my history if you don't believe me.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 11:20 PM
-6

Yes, they should. The point is that often such celebrations for women are bashed for ignoring the contributions of men, yet here we are doing the same thing when the situation is reversed. This subreddit is terribly hypocritical sometimes.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 08:33 PM
-6

/r/gatekeeping By that definition, gays are negligible, and we shouldn’t bother worrying about their contributions/struggles.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 06:25 PM
-8

2%, according to a link posted above. But sure, let’s pretend it’s zero, and fall into the same traps feminists fall into.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:53 PM
-2

Read the comments a little closer. He’s not far off.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:52 PM
-7

2%, according to a link posted above.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:50 PM
9

That chart said that women make up 9.1% of the construction sector, and 21% of those women are part of the actual construction. 9.1%*21%=1.9%. Credit where it’s due.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 05:49 PM
1

Because this subreddit loves to criticize others for exaggerating claims, but they're totally fine doing it themselves. This hypocrisy is part of why the movement isn't taken seriously.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 08:09 AM
2

Some alteration is in order, which would be the presumption of innocence. If rape was handled like any other criminal act, the system would work. Accused are innocent until proven guilty, and false accusers would be punished under perjury laws. We only have a problem now because the accused are presumed guilty, and false accusations are rarely punished. Enforce the current system appropriately, and things work properly.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 07:39 PM
1

The actual law being broken is perjury or filing a false report.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 07:36 PM
-7

False rape claims are effectively perjury and/or filing a false report. There is no need to come up with eye-for-an-eye punishments here. Just enforce the laws already in place.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 05:32 PM
5

It's supposed to be. It can sometimes walk a fine line between supporting men's rights and simply hating on feminism. Unfortunately, you found one of the latter. If you're actually curious about the sub, there is a lot of good info if you browse a bit. Just bear in mind that many of the members here have a negative history with women or feminism. Although they genuinely do care about supporting equality, time does not heal all wounds, and you'll come across a lot of bitterness. The information a…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 10:07 PM
3

True, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. This is a sub for discussing men's rights. This post is only tangentially related. If this were an anti-feminism sub, you'd have a point, but it isn't.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 09:58 PM
6

Why is thinking about someone sexually a bad thing?
/r/MensRights28/11/17 04:41 PM
1

My biggest issue isn't even with the ethics. Although it wasn't approved, I agree that there was no risk of additional harm. My issue is that the study provided no additional knowledge. It didn't further the field, and didn't help to verify the idea that circumcision is inherently harmful to men. Accepting it's "findings" only supports the assertion that the MRM is an asinine movement that will do anything to push it's ideals forward.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:18 AM
1

So what — even if that's true. And there may be all sorts of ethical rules and regulations, fair enough. But who was damaged in any way by the observations that the team made? No one. The boy was going to be mutilated anyway. They didn't fill some forms in and tick some boxes — who really cares in the face of such child-abuse. If anyone had been damaged they would have been prosecuted. Life is not always smooth — sometimes you have to stick your neck out and have some courage. It doesn't matter.…
/r/MensRights07/11/17 10:54 PM
0

Under the context of a study. This study wasn't ethically approved, so the parents were either mislead or okay with that. Both are concerning.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 10:10 PM
1

Depends on where you are. Some places consider parents to be complete proxies, consenting on behalf of the child. Some see them as representatives, as you described them. It's not the same everywhere.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 09:24 PM
0

We're okay with it because we're tired of roadblocks in the way of getting data That's rather dystopian of you. A kid was getting circumcised anyway. There's no harm in recording brain activity on top of that. None at all. First, that's not for you to decide. There's a reason that ethics committees are involved in this kind of research. Second, the data produced meant nothing. It was unable to be generalized, and was unable to determine if the changes were even harmful. The interpretations were …
/r/MensRights07/11/17 09:23 PM
1

If you read my posts at all, I made it clear I am not in favour of infant circumcision without medical reason. That's not my reason for opposing the findings of this study. I'm opposed because it didn't follow proper scientific procedure, was done by a biased non-expert with no valid controls, and produced data with no meaning.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 09:20 PM
1

So what it if was is 1996 — what has that got to do with it? Are Newton's experiments now invalid? The point was that there were different standards of ethical research back then. So what? Same rules apply. You are experimenting on humans. And different study types have different thresholds and requirements. er... because this sub is about Mens' Rights, and male genital mutilation is one of the greatest human rights violations of both men and women. It's junk science, which hurts the movement mo…
/r/MensRights07/11/17 01:58 AM
1

The only doctor involved at the time was a PhD in fluid dynamics. The neurologist only saw the results after the fact. This was bad science at best. Either the nurse was mislead, or was in on the whole setup. Both are bad, but one lets the nurse off the hook. How are people okay with this? It was a deliberately terrible design with no meaningful findings, motivated completely by a political agenda, was not approved by an ethics committee, and involved using an infant to push an ideology. It does…
/r/MensRights06/11/17 11:24 PM
3

It wasn't even a proof of concept, because it wasn't a properly designed study. It had no controls, no validation method, and most importantly, no ethics approval. The results are not punishable for good reason, and it's not because of an anti-circumcision bias.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 09:25 PM
3

Nope. You don't need approval for it to be "proper": Heck, even a NINE YEAR OLD GIRL can conduct a scientific study on humans — and it was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa She didn't get "permission" from anyone, let alone an "ethics committee". Mind you, I think her dad gave her "permission" LOL. First, that was in 1996, and second, that was a behavioural study. It was not a medical study in a medical/research facility. That …
/r/MensRights06/11/17 07:01 PM
1

Was it under the guise of a legitimate study? If so, then it was consent given under false pretences. If they knew it wasn't a legitimate study, then I am concerned that the parents consented to allow their child to participate in an illegitimate study composed of non experts trying to push an agenda.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 06:29 PM
6

I'm suggesting it's possible to be all of the above. As for the claims made by the article, and everyone here supporting the article's findings, those are all positive claims. Those are the claims that require proof. I can't prove a negative. What I can say is that this was not research, in was unauthorized testing on an infant, without ethical approval, and without meaningful interpretation. I can say that the findings prove nothing, and that this community is all too willing to assimilate the …
/r/MensRights06/11/17 05:49 PM
6

If it's his study, he needs to understand the results. Considering the neurologist's description is a nonsense answer, and we don't have an actual statement from the neurologist, I doubt the stated interpretation is genuine. It's likely a paraphrase made by a man with no related knowledge in the field, and this no way to effectively interpret the information he was given. That leads to bogus conclusions like the ones he's made. It's what is seen in science journalism all the time, and why I'm qu…
/r/MensRights06/11/17 05:23 PM
8

Removing jargon does not require abandoning accuracy. Describing the changes as a total brain event is alarmist, especially while providing images that don't support that claim. In the end, we only have that one statement by the neurologist, and it's a paraphrase. The overall findings and methodology of this 'study' though, that is questionable. It's not science, and it provided no real information. What it did do is feed the anti-circumcision circlejerk in this community. I'm not opposed to out…
/r/MensRights06/11/17 05:19 PM
2

In my research, I'm working with a device designed to measure brain activity that looks like a normal pair of sunglasses. Yet having someone wearing them while unknowingly being recorded would be a massive violation of consent, autonomy, and privacy. Just because it's non invasive does not make it okay to look inside people's heads.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:49 PM
6

I'm a neuroscience masters student studying learning and decision making, so hardly ignorant when it comes to the brain. I will hazard that I know more about the field than the guy doing the research, who has a PhD in a completely unrelated field. Admittedly, trauma is not my speciality, but when I see comments like those made by the neurologist, coupled with two images that hardly show total brain involvement, I question his description of the effects.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:46 PM
8

If he doesn't properly understand the field, he can't properly isolate variables, account for confounds, or interpret the results. He sure as hell can't get ethical approval. Being in an unrelated field doesn't make this impossible, but it is unlikely that he would have the knowledge required to make an actual study of this.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:41 PM
1

You mean 'cured', as in no longer plastic?
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:37 PM
1

If he performed research without ethics approval, I question his ability to do any research on human subjects, let alone infants. The fields he did research in would not have exposed him to the rigorous approval processes human trials require.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:32 PM
21

They never received ethical approval for the study in the first place, so it isn't proper medical research. And you can't say it's valid, because there's no way to know that all of those changes were due to strictly the procedure, or that the observed response is typical. Do you even know what 'valid' means in the context of research?
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:29 PM
3

No, you need to be able to justify the study, and thoroughly understand the background literature before an ethics committee will even look at you. Especially if the study involves infant humans. Sure, you don't need a degree in the field, but you can't just up and start gathering data.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:24 PM
10

The piece also said that the changes affected the regions concerned with reasoning, perception, and emotions. That's pretty much the entire brain. If that is actually the description the neurologist gave, I'm questioning his credibility.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:20 PM
8

It doesn't matter. If the parents didn't consent, it's a violation of autonomy. You can not do a human study of any kind without the complete informed consent of everyone involved, no matter how harmless the intervention.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:16 PM
9

No. Violating consent, no matter how noble the reason, is never acceptable. If they are trying to study the effects of circumcision on the brain. it must be done with proper consent and ethical approval.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:14 PM
2

Don't dilute that term more than it already has been.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 03:51 PM
1

I looked into his credentials. He's a very established clinical psychologist at the University of Toronto. That said, his area of expertise does not give him the qualifications to make the claims he has made. His two focuses are alcohol addiction/abuse, and the Big 5 personality profiles. The former is completely irrelevant, and although the second may seem relevant, it isn't. The Big 5 is a modern personality inventory, but it is not appropriate for making the claims he makes with it. The bigge…
/r/MensRights20/10/17 05:23 PM
0

Ah, triggered. I feel so shut down. If the data is so freely available, then provide it.
/r/MensRights20/10/17 02:16 AM
-5

What a bunch of pseudoscientific, unsubstantiated bullshit. Take your redpill opinions somewhere else.
/r/MensRights20/10/17 12:46 AM
3

Why are you being downvoted? OP is literally advocating for him to do exactly what we're all against her doing. Talk about double standards...
/r/MensRights22/09/17 04:51 PM
7

I see you've never lived near the border of two school districts. I have. When I was growing up, the school I was supposed to go to was 45 minutes away if you drove, and the bus ride was well over an hour. My parents wanted me to go to the school just up the road, which was about 5 minutes drive away. We had to petition for me to go there, because it was a different school district. A parent can literally move one block away and change districts. The above scenario is too extreme to be viable.
/r/MensRights19/09/17 05:10 PM
177

Did you just mansplain the definition of mansplaining?
/r/MensRights07/09/17 04:27 PM
2

I think evolutionary productivity is a poor metric to use here. Especially since all the symptoms tend to be a direct result of social conventions, rather than true dysfunction.
/r/MensRights27/07/17 12:03 AM
3

Puberty delayed by blockers is not unaltered. It still happens, but primary and secondary sex characteristics will remain underdeveloped. It is not 100% reversible and without effect. The body continues to undergo changes in spite of puberty blockers, and those changes are intended to occur in tandem with puberty. When one is delayed, both occur to a lesser degree. Sure, they may not have life-threatening side effects, but there are absolutely irreversible changes that occur. Effects that may ha…
/r/MensRights27/07/17 12:00 AM
13

Fapping to trap porn is the least gay thing there is. If you fap to gay porn, that's 2 guys, and that's 100% gay. If you fap to 'straight' porn, then that has a woman, sure, but you're also fapping to a guy, which makes it 50% gay. But a trap is like half male, half female, and thus a trap with a girl would add up to 75% girl, and thus only 25% gay. 2 women would be ideal, but that would be a lesbian relationship, which brings it around to gay again.
/r/MensRights13/07/17 03:40 PM
6

You can be put on a sex offender registry for urinating in public. It doesn't even have to go as far as sex.
/r/MensRights23/05/17 04:54 PM
2

Dear White People is not SJW bullshit. Maybe you should actually watch it before judging.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 05:18 PM
14

They didn't continue any of those. They were all released in one lump, or they released as much as they were required to by contract. It's not like they continued through low ratings or anything.
/r/MensRights07/05/17 05:06 PM
1

As far as we know. should she have been fired over an error in judgement?
/r/MensRights18/04/17 05:12 PM
3

So how do your stats line up with the stats in OPs photo? Because they're in direct contradiction.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 06:07 AM
3

Really? Sex workers, by nature of their trade alone, prevents them from having healthy relationships altogether? I agree it is far less common, but what you just claimed is bullshit.
/r/MensRights03/04/17 05:24 PM
14

That is approximately the same odds as winning a single number bet in roulette, FYI.
/r/MensRights26/03/17 07:56 PM
12

You mean the one that is supported by solid neuroscience? I'm all for making tasteless jokes, but you're just being a dick.
/r/PussyPass03/03/17 10:02 PM
2

Holy shit you're delusional. If you honestly can't differentiate between a loosely organized mass of cells the size of a grape and a human being, then I am genuinely terrified for those around you.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 09:22 AM
2

I'm not just a lump of cells. I have a beating heart, a brain that has developed sentience, and the ability to survive independently.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 03:35 PM
2

Did you read my post? I specifically said that, once they are given personhood, the bar to get an abortion becomes almost impossibly high. A bar I am in full support of. I don't see a problem with abortions when the embryo is still a lump of cells, but there is a point where it is more than that. It is absolutely murder to get an abortion frivolously at that point. There are times where complications arise, and difficult decisions must be made, but those are few and far between. That said, it is…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 12:03 AM
1

The assessment needs to be validated by a psychiatrist if it's something as trivial as "stress". They need to have some kind of mental crisis for a phychiatrist to sign off on the order. Once the fetus us granted personhood, which happens at the end of the first trimester in the US, there are many more restrictions. Bullshit excuses don't cut it, because at that point, we are talking manslaughter if the proper protocol isn't observed.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 09:34 PM
5

Wait, so mental health isn't important now, and people are using it as an excuse? Fuck off. Mental health is highly stigmatized because of this exact thing right here. Just because it's less understood does not make it less real, less important, or less debilitating.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 08:05 PM
1

When you drive perfectly within the law, let me know. Sometimes, cops are just out to meet quotas, and will pull someone over for the littlest things. But sure, make whatever judgements you're going to make.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 10:46 AM
1

Dude, not all women are man hating monsters. She does it because the system allows her to, and it hurts absolutely no one. My sister is one of the kindest people I've ever known, and would never put her own well being ahead of someone else's. If there was a chance that pulling the woman card would hurt someone, she'd keep it tucked away as much as possible. You should also look into that misogyny. I know that word gets tossed around a lot, but based on your posts, you seem to really have a probl…
/r/MensRights18/02/17 05:20 AM
1

She doesn't need to be a martyr. If she has an opportunity to avoid something stupid, then by all means. She's aware that there's a double standard, and there's no victim to what she's doing.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 03:07 AM
17

My sister has admitted to using her gender to get out of tickets before. Undo the top button and turn on the waterworks, and watch that ticket turn into a warning! I don't blame her either. She knows it's fucked up, but if the option is available, why would she avoid it? Some people may be paranoid, but some are absolutely just playing the game.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 08:15 PM
12

If I remember right, you're thinking junior doctors, which are similar to residents in the US.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 10:21 PM
12

No. Don't sink to their level.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 07:26 AM
0

That is at best not fully known, or at worst completely untrue. Particularly in regards to fatal complications, close to half of deaths are attributed to the direct cause of death (blood loss, fatal infection, etc) rather than to the underlying cause. If the scope of fatal complications resulting from genital cutting are unknown, it is irresponsible to continue to practice. No, it is unethical to continue a practice that is known to be harmful. There is no ethical dilemma in a procedure without …
/r/MensRights01/02/17 05:31 AM
-1

Those are fair points, but I disagree with your original. The burden of proof lies upon the party going against the status quo, not on the active party. Circumcision has been done for a very long time with very few complications not attributable to poor medical practices, like sanitation, which have largely been solved. There is recently a claim that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, and is emotionally damaging to men, which is a new claim counter to the status quo. Such a claim requires pro…
/r/MensRights01/02/17 02:02 AM
-1

That's a matter of opinion. You're right, it is a matter of opinion, on both sides. Tell that to anyone who has experienced a botched procedure. The fact that complications arise is why the risk isn't zero. You're point does not in any way change the fact that the risk is negligible. And none of them involve body modification for infants. Not explicitly, no, but there are many with lifelong effects, for good or ill. If the parent chooses to have a procedure done on their son, why does it matter …
/r/MensRights01/02/17 01:03 AM
-2

It's hardly mutilating, and it has no real risk. There's many decisions parents make on a child's behalf with similar risks/rewards that no one has an issue with.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 09:39 PM
0

You're the only one I've seen explicitly say it, so I'll respond to you: there is insufficient evidence to make any claim on circumcision impacting sexual pleasure. It does keratinize the head and remove fine touch receptors, but it has been suggested that those receptors are the least involved in sexual pleasure. The primary receptors for that are pressure and vibration receptors, which are not impacted by circumcision at all.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 08:20 PM
-5

It has a minute medical benefit (reduction in UTI or HIV risk, and for treatment of phimosis), with a similarly minute risk. It still carries cultural significance, with little chance of harm. If parents decide it's the right thing for their son, since the procedure carries nearly no risk, there's not a lot of reason to change that status quo.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 08:16 PM
-2

Should we ban a procedure because an extremely small percent experience complications? It has negligible risk for a negligible reward. There's really no need to change anything.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 08:12 PM
-3

They also perform the procedure millions of times a year. The risk is real, but extremely small. Just like the benefits. A small number of children also experience severe and potentially life-threatening complications from ear piercings, which has zero medical benefit. That is a risk widely considered to be acceptable though.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 08:10 PM
0

Don't forget the reduction in UTI and HIV risk. That reduction is extremely small, but statistically significant. The procedure also carries very little medical risk. It's a low risk, low reward procedure that is often made on traditional or cultural grounds.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 08:08 PM
1

You're going to get downvoted to hell for this, but you're right. There are some medical benefits to male circumcision, though they are small. There is also low risk in the procedure. It's a low risk, low reward scenario that comes down largely to tradition for most people.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 08:06 PM
1

no, I won't. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.
/r/MensRights28/01/17 09:08 PM
0

A) Is it possible that she was unaware that the cild wasn't his? She obviously knows about the infidelity, but if she was never aware that he was not the father, can you hold her accountable for that? B) Because some people are shitty. That said, making a child pay the price for her actions is even more shitty.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 11:42 PM
1

So the guy is paying magic money that he doesn't need to live on? I've been divorced, it was fucking brutal. I was cash negative for 6 months before I bought gas or groceries. Divorce is expensive, support expensive, rebuilding is expensive. Guess which of those 3 I couldn't afford? I am sorry for what you had to go through. I can't imagine how difficult it must have been to see a relationship you cherished become so warped. The broken divorce system certainly doesn't make it easy. Even couples …
/r/MensRights27/01/17 11:40 PM
0

I haven't brought it up because it's straightforward. If the mother is capable of meeting all the needs of the child independently, then she should. However, these situations are rarely straightforward.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 11:27 PM
0

Do you have a better alternative then? Unless you think that the child's wellbeing is secondary to the father's, simply discontinuing payments is not an option.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 11:15 PM
0

The men here want and encourage strong relationships with their children. I notice your response only signifies the child as the only innocent victim of the mothers actions, which is typical of the dehumanization of men. Their feelings or thoughts be damned. You haven't been reading very close then. I have never said that the child is the only victim, and readily admit that the father has been wronged. Why does everyone here seem to think that genetics are the only determining factor for fatherh…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 11:12 PM
0

Making a man who was otherwise uninvolved would absolutely be the wrong move, but having a father continue to provide for a child he ha already been providing for just because a genetic link is no longer present is not further victimization. It's maintaining the status quo in a shitty situation because there isn't a viable alternative. And that sucks, but a hypothetical, one day child is not relevant to the continuing care of the right now child.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 11:05 PM
0

That is not forcing it on him. It is lying and deceiving, but it isn't forced. Why is biology the only meaningful metric of fatherhood to you? Being a father is a lot more than just DNA. Why do you feel the lack of a genetic connection means he isn't the father anymore?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 11:02 PM
1

He is a victim, but he's not the only one innocent of adultery. The child is too. All that the proposed solution does is shift the burden of punishment from the father to the child. Yes, it sucks that the guy pays, and it absolutely isn't fair. But how is making the kid pay instead an improvement?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 11:00 PM
0

Disposable man to the rescue. Maybe he can sleep in his car? But fuck that guy, right? Never said that, and never implied it. And who fucked that up? In this case, the mother. So why are you making the child take the fall? No, one party is shouldering all the shit, and it's the wronged party. And you're cool with that. For reasons. I'm not cool with that. I just don't see a better alternative. I especially don't see forcing the child to shoulder the brunt of the punishment to be an alternative. …
/r/MensRights27/01/17 10:58 PM
-1

Those are separate issues to the one being discussed here, and they are absolutely unfair. If the child has two caregivers, the third wheel should not be forced to continue support further. Are you unable to see the child as a victim in this, and unable to see that all I'm trying to address is that the proposed alternatives are extremely punishing to the child? Do you not see why people might not consider that a viable alternative to the current system? The current system sucks. I readily admit …
/r/MensRights27/01/17 10:32 PM
1

They absolutely have moral weight. How can you see that the wellbeing of a child is a moral issue here. Do children mean so little to you that you consider their involvement to be morally irrelevent?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 10:24 PM
0

So a woman having a child is now forcing it on the man? Yes, she cheated, but the father was presumably present for the entirety of the pregnancy, was okay with being a father, and proceeded to be a father for years until the biological disconnect was revealed. He wasn't "forced" into anything up front.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 10:23 PM
0

And by your arguments, there is nothing that can be done to the mother that won't affect the child. ex: I readily admit that. Can you think of anything that doesn't result in excessive collateral for the child? I can't. "No one really wins", but some people lose a lot more than others. People who were already cheated on, for instance. Or the child who just wants to grow up with loving parents. But it's harm to a disposable man, so go for it, I guess. I don't think the man is disposable at all. F…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 10:21 PM
-1

No, I'm not. If the mother was dishonest, that is on her, and she should absolutely be held accountable for her actions, but not at the expense of the child. No, I'm not. It's a situation with a lot of grey, and no one really wins. I do think that the system disproportionately favours women. I don't think that removing financial support does very much to harm the mother, but certainly harms the child. I never claimed it's a great idea, and you're right to point out the flow of money. It's a shit…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 09:16 PM
-4

In a perfect world, maybe not. But those factors exist now, and you can't just pretend they don't to simplify the issue.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 08:58 PM
-4

Superficially, no, I don't think it is. That said, parenthood is much more complex. The person who deceived is the mother, and the child is innocent of the deception. Assuming the father cares for the child, withdrawing support is more detrimental to the child than the mother. This means that the act, which is intended to punish the mother, disproportionately punishes the innocent child. The other factor is that, if the father cares for the child, how is cutting off child support a benefit for t…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 08:57 PM
-2

Not paying hurts the child more than the mother. Sure, he may have grounds for a lawsuit based on false representation or something, but if the guy cares for the kid, cutting off payments will have more collateral against the person he cares about than revenge against the one he doesn't.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 08:47 PM
-1

Wait, so does the relationship with the child mean so little that direct DNA similarities are enough to completely discount it?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 08:41 PM
-1

Did they become the legal parent or guardian? Those people are caregivers, just like teachers, coaches, and other people in role to impact the upbringing of the child.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 07:59 PM
-5

Happens all the time with adoptions. The guy is the father in every way that matters. Why is the biology enough to discount every other factor?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 07:58 PM
0

Being involved in a child's life is now punishment?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 07:57 PM
-3

Legal acknowledgement of the parental role would be a big one.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:55 PM
0

No, that would be murder. Removal of a fetus in the first trimester is legal, but that has to do with bodily autonomy. They're also not sentient and can't feel pain at that point. The two are not really the same at all.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:34 PM
1

All joking aside, I highly doubt you assumed all the roles and responsibilities of the parent. That's the key difference, even if your role was more significant than in most cases.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:14 PM
-11

In these cases, the man isn't unrelated. He's been acting as the father in every way that matters for years.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:11 PM
-21

It's designed to protect the child. If he withdraws support, the biggest victim is the child. Not only will they be financially disadvantaged, but their parent just disowned them. Do you realize how damaging that is to a young child? I realize we can't legislate emotional attachment, but look beyond the issue to the consequences a bit. Sure, the woman will be hurt a bit by what people are proposing, but the child will be serious collateral. They did nothing, but they'll carry the brunt of the da…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 03:31 PM
33

Did you take on a parental role for years, or just a supervisory one?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 03:26 PM
1

People with developmental disabilities are often considered incompetent and require a proxy, just like children. Unlike children, their competence is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Disability is suggestive, but not determinant of competence, so why is age determinant? Even if only a small minority of adolescents are capable of effective decision making, denying them the ability to give consent is robbing them of their rights. If some adolescents can choose to deny lifesaving blood transfusion…
/r/MensRights19/01/17 04:41 PM
1

You're absolutely right on two counts: sex has serious consequences, and most adolescents aren't mature enough to comprehend them. My question was not in regards to those points though. My question is about why age is an automatic determining factor. The law doesn't recognize that the difference between two arbitrary days has no real meaning on cognitive ability, yet it draws a hard line there. While a young age makes their incompetence extremely likely, it is not a given, and the law needs to r…
/r/MensRights19/01/17 04:22 PM
10

The ability to make a 'good' decision has no bearing on competence. It is the ability to clearly understand a decision and its consequences. That said, for some things of arguably similar significance, minors are able to make independent decisions. In the medical field, age may be an indicator for incompetence, but is not definitive. There have been minors as young as 14 who have, under their own power, refused treatment and had a court support their decision, even against the parents' wishes. S…
/r/MensRights18/01/17 07:42 PM
5

Wait, so was this handled right and you're angry because other cases aren't? Why aren't we happy here and saving the anger for when something is actually done wrong?
/r/MensRights17/01/17 04:26 PM
24

As funny as it is to fight fire with fire on the Internet, it's rarely a productive response in real life.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 11:30 PM
2

Is a higher education of significant duration required to validate a job?
/r/MensRights15/01/17 11:25 PM
3

link So document anyways, just in case it becomes a regular issue. If it was a one off, no harm done. If it's a regular thing, now you have a paper trail just in case someone does something really out of line.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 11:13 PM
3

You are responsible for your actions in both cases. A drunk driver is responsible for damage caused while driving under the influence, just like raping someone while drunk still leaves you responsible for your actions. That said, you can not legally provide consent while drunk. This is a concept that is independent from responsibility. One person is still responsible for having non-consensual sex with someone, even if they are drunk as well. The problem is not in the false equivalence of drunk d…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 05:26 PM
3

Less aggressive? You don't know many gay men, do you?
/r/MensRights07/01/17 09:40 PM
3

Oh god, as if political lesbians weren't bad enough already.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 09:38 PM
1

Feminism hasn't been about equality for a long time. I'm judging based on the results of the movements actions, not by the details expressed by specific individuals.
/r/PussyPass04/01/17 07:31 PM
2

You sound like you're judging feminism by their best and MRM by its worst. Like the person above you said, feminism is viewed here based on its general actions and results, not the opinions of any particular group. Look at the MRM the same way. Yes, there are red pillers, and TERF-like people here, but what are the results of the movement as a whole? Ignoring the extremes on either end, does the MRM have a net positive effect? That is the yardstick here, not the opinions of the best or worst of …
/r/MensRights04/01/17 07:57 AM
24

How about guys that have been charged with picking up an underage girl at the bar, where not only is she presumed to be above 18, but she must be above 21. She couldn't be in the building by law if she was a minor, and that is checked at the door. What degree of proof is enough? Do you want a notarized birth certificate, or can we really not hold people accountable for lying and false representation?
/r/MensRights15/12/16 09:58 PM
11

Their additional source was the USDoJ. I think that's pretty credible for this kind of information, don't you?
/r/MensRights15/12/16 09:50 PM
4

Well, you worded that in a completely loaded way. Of course I don't think molesting 15 year olds to be okay. Canadian law does allow minors to make legally binding decisions and provide informed consent in some areas, like the medical field. The law only says age is a strong reason to question a person's competence, but does not eliminate the possibility of it. Why does that not apply to sexual activities? 16 is an arbitrary line, albeit a necessary one. There are some 15 year olds with the matu…
/r/MensRights15/12/16 03:10 AM
10

Absolutely. They have a mental illness, and should be supported so they can control themselves. Ostracizing them only forces them underground, where they don't have access to the resources they need to cope, leading to them acting on their compulsions. What I think you meant was child molesters, in which case I definitely do not support their criminal actions. That said, encouraging suicide is completely inappropriate and immature.
/r/MensRights15/12/16 03:03 AM
7

LOL!!! Kill yourself, scumbag! Not cool.
/r/MensRights15/12/16 02:51 AM
5

Is a 16 or 17 year old still considered a child?
/r/MensRights15/12/16 02:51 AM
93

If its statutory, then it's voluntary, since the minor is not legally capable of giving consent.
/r/MensRights08/12/16 09:30 AM
40

Did you miss the part where u/chocoboat stated that "inappropriate relationship" was the right term, because the student was above the age of consent, meaning it wasn't statutory rape? There were no consent issues present at all, and using the term "rape" would have been unproductively hyperbolic.
/r/MensRights08/12/16 09:29 AM
3

And men are getting raped and killed en masses just for being men too, but that's not okay to bring up. It's a human issue, not a gendered one. Focus on treating people like people, not unnecessarily demonizing half the population.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 07:39 AM
1

No, it does not. Guilt has been shown to have some positive effect on weight loss, but shame does not have any association, and some studies have found a negative correlation with weight loss. This is largely because shame is an extrinsic motivator, and guilt is intrinsic. Extrinsic motivators are notoriously ineffective at motivating change, whereas intrinsic motivators are highly effective.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 08:08 PM
0

No, it doesn't. A great example, but one not really related to this sub, is obesity and weight loss. Shaming is actually counter-productive in that arena, and I suspect it would work the same here. Shame creates animosity and promotes "othering", which is exactly what we don't like to see in this sub.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 06:57 PM
0

And this is why people look down on the MRM.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 08:43 PM
3

Could she not be seen as a murder, using the state as her weapon of choice? If the state was following proper procedure, it was ignorant of wrongdoing. She was the killer, even if the state flipped the switch.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 08:40 PM
1

I assume you supported the right based on your disdain for the left. Recently, yes. But that's not the point I made. I don't judge the merit of the right based off the views of their extremists. I'd appreciate the same respect. Is that an unreasonable request?
/r/MensRights15/11/16 03:36 PM
0

Those examples are extremes, in the same way that the Westbro Baptist Church is an extreme for the right. Yet you don't damn the right based on the actions of extremists, when it would mean damning your own ideologies. How about you give mine the same respect?
/r/MensRights15/11/16 05:57 AM
2

The Democrats are not the left. They share some ideologies, but not all. Don't confuse the two. Universal human rights and egalitarianism are ideologies belonging to the left. If you feel the current administration has not been aligned with those ideologies, then they aren't aligned with the left in those areas.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 05:45 AM
2

Like I said, the Democratic Party is not the same thing as the left wing. We aren't talking about parties, or at least we didn't start by talking about them. We're talking about the left and right wing. I'll agree with the statements you made, about the toxicity of many of Hillary's talking points. That said, both my point about her not being representative of the ideology, and the fact that Trump supported much of the same, are both important. The former is what this comment chain has focused o…
/r/MensRights15/11/16 04:16 AM
1

Laws and amendments are how a country adapts to a changing world. Congress also has a long list of other responsibilities beyond the obvious: To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, a…
/r/MensRights15/11/16 04:10 AM
3

I would strongly discourage you from thinking that Democrats are always left and Republicans are always right. Mostly accurate, but not always. Egalitarianism is one that doesn't fit the categories neatly. That said, You're still considering the regressive left to represent all of the left. You're also ignoring that both sides were guilty of racism and sexism, in different ways. By electing Trump, the US was hardly voting against sexism and racism. They were just choosing a different kind. Trump…
/r/MensRights15/11/16 01:11 AM
7

As someone from a country with multiple parties, that just fragments the power and promotes deadlocks. In my humble, non-expert opinion, an educated and active electorate is the answer.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 09:19 PM
12

Hillary is not the entire left, just like Trump is not the entire right. Egalitarianism, something commonly supported in this sub, is a left-leaning ideology. LGBTQ rights is grounded in it, as are men's rights. Socialism, often misunderstood as a version of communism, is also left leaning. The socioeconomic stability of the Scandinavian countries is often cited in support of this system. Workers rights, unions, and government regulation are also part of the left. One of the big negatives the ri…
/r/MensRights14/11/16 09:16 PM
4

The regressive left =/= the left. They are a part of it, but the right has its own problems too. Don't demonized a whole group because of a minority of outliers.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 08:55 PM
18

You legalized gay marriage a decade later than most of the west, for example. And even then, it's still contentious.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 07:57 PM
2

And you ignored the 16 proposition items on the ballot because your bitter about the presidential vote.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 07:53 PM
3

Because the president is the only issue on the ballot, right?
/r/MensRights14/11/16 05:59 PM
51

So the social changes promoted by the progressive left are now forgotten in the wake of the regressive left? The left and right keep each other in check. If either is too strong, the system is imbalanced, and it doesn't work out well. A weak left is no better than a weak right. Knee jerk comments like this are a part of why America is so divided today, and why you continue to lag behind the rest of the world in social issues.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 05:59 PM
24

A business can not deny service on the grounds of a protected class. Gender is protected, so in theory, these businesses shouldn't exist. That said, in practice, it ends up being women that are protected, and men are out of luck.
/r/MensRights06/11/16 10:53 PM
1

Is it really that cheap? I should buy property there.
/r/MensRights03/11/16 09:33 PM
2

The housing bubble is a big problem in Vancouver and Toronto, so it's definitely in North America. Some taxes against foreign investors have been levied to control Vancouver, but both are going to be in trouble soon.
/r/MensRights03/11/16 07:06 PM
3

~$20k is enough for a down payment in a lot of places. I highly doubt she outright purchased the house with 20 iPhones.
/r/MensRights03/11/16 07:05 PM
1

I don't think so, but everything that people were suggesting was something that would harm the kid and not her. Simply bailing out, after raising the kid as a father for 11 years, would hurt the wrong person. The mother screwed up, but she would be hurt the least by that action.
/r/MensRights28/10/16 10:04 PM
-3

This right here is what I'd hope to see more of in this post. Everything people are suggesting doesn't "get back" at the mother (not that she deserves it either, since she was in the dark too). Instead, posters are suggesting abandoning the kid. Just up and out the door, and leave it with a single mom, and the knowledge that the only reason the father cared was because he thought there was a genetic link. As if the 11 years spent together meant absolutely nothing. Let's not forget about two of t…
/r/MensRights26/10/16 07:05 AM
-4

No, it's not. It's a mistake that cost everyone a seven year court battle. She had no intent to deceive, no malice at all. This was not fraud.
/r/MensRights26/10/16 06:58 AM
-10

Dude, don't take it out on the kid. It was not the cause of the issue.
/r/MensRights26/10/16 06:46 AM
1

TIL that religion=race.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 07:18 PM
2

FYI, the standard of evidence for a civil suit is more likely than not, unlike criminal cases that operate as beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the situation, it's pretty clearly more likely than not.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 07:20 AM
13

Hey, not all of Tumblr. It's also a great source for porn.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 07:17 AM
3

If your life is being threatened, call 911. Even if the Duluth model is used, arrest is preferable to severe physical injury or death.
/r/MensRights05/10/16 02:52 PM
5

Neither of those are crimes against children, unfortunately. Using cocaine is a crime, but it isn't more of a crime if used while pregnant.
/r/PussyPass25/09/16 05:10 PM
2

Or have the case nullified by the jury. What he did may have been illegal, but it was not wrong. This is an unjust use of the law,and it is unfortunate that so much effort is made when selecting the jury to prevent them from exercising their power.
/r/MensRights16/09/16 02:58 PM
1

If you actually add up the values from the CDC table, you'll come up with 37.8% of cancers with an attributable cause of HPV occur in men.
/r/MensRights15/09/16 12:10 AM
1

All good. It's something I am frustrated about too, as I missed the age cutoff by 6 months myself when they rolled out the program. I'm a big proponent of preventative medicine, but don't have the funds to pay for the vaccine out of pocket. The age limit makes some sense, but the gender divide is absolutely biased. Women simply have better lobby groups and more political pull than men.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 07:22 PM
1

26 is well beyond puberty. Part of the reason is that, by that point, people have likely already been exposed to HPV, so the damage is done. Past that age, people start to exhibit reduced immune response to the vaccine, and antibody production is reduced.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 06:48 PM
2

It is the leading cause of oral cancer in men, and men account for 40% of all HPV caused cancers. I'd say that's significant enough to matter.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 06:38 AM
1

It's not approved for men or women over 26.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 06:37 AM
3

An appeal to tradition is an extremely poor argument. While it has been done a long time, and people have gotten by, modern research has shown that is sexual relations at an early age can have a negative impact on sexual development. This effect is only compounded by the extremely stratified society we have today. The world you are supporting no longer exists, and would not be the best option for our children if it did.
/r/MensRights12/09/16 03:30 PM
2

Of course they do, but they lack the maturity, world experience, and cognitive development to act on them in a healthy way. They do not have the resources to manage the consequences of sex, let alone the ability to understand them. Children that young should not be having sex. 16+, maybe, but not pre-teens.
/r/MensRights12/09/16 02:36 PM
1

I think you're missing the difference between blame and responsibility. It is never the victim's fault in these cases, but everyone needs to take responsibility for their safety and take reasonable precautions for their safety. Let me use an example. You neglect to lock your front door when you go to work. While you're gone, someone walks in and steals your valuables. Your insurance refuses to cover the losses, since you did not take reasonable precautions against the theft. They are making you …
/r/MensRights08/09/16 11:13 PM
0

And in the meantime, take all reasonable precautions to prevent the above, since these people do exist, even though we wish they didn't.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 09:21 PM
-1

Yes, that would be what I'm talking about. While blame rests clearly with the individual committing the act, both parties may carry a degree of responsibility. If all reasonable precautions were taken by the victim, then they did their due diligence. If not, then they are partly responsible for creating the situation leading to the event.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 08:28 PM
5

Blame? None, since you did not commit the crime. Responsibility? Some, though a numerical value is up for debate. By not taking reasonable precautions to protect yourself, you left yourself vulnerable to the situation.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 08:09 PM
1

The point I'm trying to make is not that HIV shouldn't disclose, because it's simply a decent thing to do. The point is that they shouldn't face criminal charges for deciding not to, assuming they've taken all reasonable measures to prevent transmission (e.g. Adherence to ARV protocol, condom use, etc.) in that scenario, they are not exposing their partner to unreasonable risk, and that is backed by science. Yes, it isn't zero risk, but it's lower risk than the person that hasn't been tested and…
/r/PussyPass17/08/16 03:30 PM
1

Really? So how many criminal charges have been filed for the transmission of herpes over the years? Nearly 70% of adults have it, it is transmitted sexually, and I find it highly unlikely that every single transmission was disclosed. The thing about the law and ethics is that is must be consistent. If you apply charges for intercourse without disclosure of HIV status due to: it being an STI, you need to apply the same rules to all STIs. it being a lifelong infection, you need to apply it to all …
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 07:06 PM
1

Out of courtesy, I agree completely. Under threat of criminal negligence, though, absolutely not. The chance of exposure is so low that the positive individual is not exposing you to any reasonable or measurable risk. The chance is so low that on a two year time a single case resulted in transmission. The law was from a time where any sexual contact with an HIV+ person was a major risk, due to poor understanding and a lack of ARV treatment. That law is overly punitive now, since the chance is so…
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 06:26 PM
1

Based on current studies, proper ARV treatment alone is enough to bring the effective chance to zero. Using condoms or PReP will bring the chance even closer to zero.
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 04:05 PM
1

Based on current studies, proper ARV treatment alone is enough to bring the effective chance to zero. Using condoms or PReP will bring the chance even closer to zero.
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 03:54 PM
1

For what, exposing you to no additional risk? Two major studies have found that the risk of transmission when undetectable without a condom is functionally zero, so it's even less likely still with one. Not mentioning their status is not irresponsible, since you were not exposed to excess risk. It might be courteous, but it is absolutely not criminally negligent. The only people that are negligent are those that aren't tested, so they don't know, and can plead ignorance. But at least they can pu…
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 02:18 PM
-1

For what, exposing you to no additional risk? Two major studies have found that the risk of transmission when undetectable without a condom is functionally zero, so it's even less likely still with one. Not mentioning their status is not irresponsible, since you were not exposed to excess risk. It might be courteous, but it is absolutely not criminally negligent. The only people that are negligent are those that aren't tested, so they don't know, and can plead ignorance. But at least they can pu…
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 07:56 AM
0

If the positive partner is under treatment, and condone are used, I find it highly unlikely. In fact, one study of 1100 serodischordent couples who regularly engage in unprotected sex had exactly zero transmissions over a two year period. Another study from Sweden in 2098 also determined that the risk of transmission with an undetectable viral load is functionally zero. This already extremely low risk is made even lower by using a condom. If the positive partner is on ARVs, and a condom is used,…
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 07:43 AM
1

Neither does properly treated HIV. HIV transmission is also prevented by condoms, unlike herpes, and has a lower chance of transmission to boot. Several orders of magnitude less likely. Like I said before, when properly treated, disclosure doesn't provide a meaningful health benefit to the other party (so no upside) besides making them feel secure, but has a risk of ostracization and physical violence due to antiquated perspectives (so tangible downsides). The only people that are a meaningful r…
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 07:27 AM
0

Being responsible lies in being tested and adhering to treatment protocol. Disclosure may be courteous, but if the positive individual adheres to the first two, and a condom is used, they are not elevating your risk in any meaningful way.
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 07:17 AM
0

There isn't a risk free guarantee, but it is more risky to have sex with someone untested than someone who knows. But at least they can say they're clean, right? I mean, to their knowledge, they are. Unless someone is positive they're completely disease free, the only answer you'd be comfortable with is actually the one that buts you at the highest risk. Disclosure does not help anyone involved. It's not about ruining sexy talk, it's about other risks, from being ostracized to physical violence,…
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 06:16 AM
-5

Disclose what, that they pose almost no risk to their partner? "Hey, before we get started, I want to make sure you know I have a disease that I'm so unlikely to transmit that it's effectively a statistical impossibility. I know that this admission opens me up to stigma based on knowledge 40 years out of date, while providing no meaningful benefit to you, except that it somehow makes you 'feel better' that you've been told, and that alone is enough to motivate lawmakers." Real sexy talk, right t…
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 03:48 AM
-16

You're more likely to catch something from someone who doesn't know than someone who does. So what benefit does knowing have for you? What risk does it force them to take? Besides "it makes me feel better", how is their risk helping you in any way, especially considering that hearing someone say they're disease free concerts a higher risk of transmission than someone saying they're HIV+ and undetectable?
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 01:13 AM
-22

If you want to minimize risk even in the presence of protection, don't sleep with people you don't know. You're at less risk sleeping with a positive person in treatment than someone who doesn't know who may have a runaway infection. In fact, the risk of transmission for HIV, if a condom is used and the positive individual is properly treated, is effectively zero. They are so low that it really isn't worth mentioning. So why should they be at risk for stigmatization and legal action If you reall…
/r/PussyPass16/08/16 12:03 AM
-38

Then use protection. I'd rather sleep with someone who knows they're positive and is on treatment than someone who doesn't know with an out of control viral load. Take responsibility for your own health. If you don't know their health status, act like they're positive for something. There's a good chance they are anyways.
/r/PussyPass15/08/16 11:43 PM
7

So? Why can't they objectify? The issue is that they complain when it's done to women, not their objectification of men.
/r/MensRights08/08/16 02:10 AM
14

You seem to be of the opinion that I've lived some kind of charmed life, with no social hurdles. While I know many people with it worse, I get marginalization in this area. I'm a gay male that was raised in a highly religious family, attempted suicide twice over it, and ended up disowned by most of the people I was raised with. I get what you're saying, I do. Being represented in the media is validating for people struggling as a member of a marginalized group. However, it's also belittling. See…
/r/MensRights13/07/16 09:18 PM
25

If you need a movie character to be gay to identify with them, you are putting way to much importance on a relatively insignificant character trait. People so overemphasize seeing characters that are almost cookie cutters of themselves in a movie, so they can have someone to identify with. I, and I would guess most other people too, don't want to see a movie about me. That's why I go to movies instead of just living my life.
/r/MensRights13/07/16 04:23 PM
1

You're right that it's a broken system, and many of the balances needed to ensure its appropriate use do not exist. I'm not defending the effectiveness of the system. I'm merely suggesting that this judge's ruling is consistent with extant case law and legal precedent.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 02:02 AM
0

This doesn't wash with the fact that if someone kills a pregnant woman, it's two counts of murder. Depends on the jurisdiction and context, but it can. However, at that stage, the fetus has been granted rights, and thus same scenario would play out again, except before the child is even born. This is where you're being deliberately obtuse. We're in a thread talking about a man not knowing, so why is he being held accountable years after the fact? If the woman gave up the child, he would not have…
/r/MensRights20/06/16 03:15 PM
0

That's the priority the legal system provides. Frankly, I'd hate to live in place where children take the back burner in favour of the parents, but that's just me.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 03:02 PM
1

An opinion that, if appealed, was not overturned. An opinion shared by multiple judges in subsequent cases. The fact that a ruling is an opinion does not invalidate said ruling.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 07:30 AM
1

He was 15, and very aware of what was going on. It was still statutory, but it wasn't forced. It doesn't excuse the woman, but don't equate this situation to the level of actual, violent rape. That term has already been so diluted by overuse; let's not add fuel to the fire there.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 07:29 AM
1

Because the child always has priority. If you make the child's rights conditional or lower priority here, you do the same everywhere. That's the danger of legal precedent. The law must be consistent, and any ruling that reduces the rights of the child will have far reaching effects.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 07:26 AM
-1

But only one of those parents has the option to unilaterally give up that responsibility, either with an abortion prior to birth or giving up the child free and clear after birth. (google safe haven laws) Abortion is about bodily autonomy before the fetus has legal rights. Safe haven laws exist to prevent infanticide, and hold because an abandoned infant can't have a positively identified parent. In this court case, both parents openly admitted to being the child's parent. I'm not muddying water…
/r/MensRights20/06/16 01:31 AM
1

You mean this ruling? Considering I saw it cited a few times in more recent cases, I think this judge's ruling held
/r/MensRights20/06/16 01:14 AM
1

You're right, it's about legal parenthood, not biological. However, based on this ruling, the legal system seems to support the idea that a victim of statutory rape can, in fact, be a legal parent.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 01:11 AM
1

This is not about the parents, it's about the child. The court is enforcing the child's right to financial support to ensure the child's needs are met. You keep bringing up permutations of parental complications, but even as hypotheticals, they don't apply. The child is entitled to the support of both parents. Maybe two caveats should be added, to be entirely clear. First, is the child is entitled to parental support, if possible. If one parent is deceased, or has fled the country, then enforcin…
/r/MensRights19/06/16 09:37 PM
2

The case notes state that the court determined that the rights of the child supersede the rights of the parent in this case. The origin of the child is not a relevant factor for how the rights of the child are applied. In cases where two individual's rights conflict, it must be determined who's rights take priority, and the judge ruled in favour of the child. Had the judge ruled in favour of the parent, they would have been setting the precedent that the child is less important, which is contrar…
/r/MensRights19/06/16 09:06 PM
-2

Invented like every other law, yes. I don't see how that factors in at all.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 08:43 PM
1

Like I said in my original post, women do have more options available to prevent the birth of the child, but that isn't the issue here. Once born, the child does have the right to financial support from both parents, as stated directly in the case notes. That right exists independent of the origin of the pregnancy, the sex of the primary parent, or any other factors you bring up. Your muddying the waters by citing issues relating to the differences between the sexes in terms of mitigating parent…
/r/MensRights19/06/16 08:41 PM
-1

No, dangerous to the child. As soon as the child no longer has an overarching right to the financial support of both parents, people of both sexes will find ways to wiggle out of their parental responsibilities. Yes, most single parents are women, but this isn't about the parent, it's about the rights of the child. While the two issues are often overlapping, they are distinct legal precedents. Linking them together muddies the waters, especially in an already muddy case like this.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 08:14 PM
1

Like I said, that's the biggest failing, at least at first glance. That said, being a sex offender does not automatically exclude a person from having a child. Depending on how she registered, there may be no legal precedent preventing her custody.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 05:43 PM
8

Step back for a second here. The law states that a child has a right to receive financial support from both legal parents. That is an unconditional right, provided to children born of a married couple, a one night stand, or of statutory rape. The origin of the child is not relevant to that right. This is the law being consistent in its application. To do otherwise would set a precedent that a child's right to financial support is conditional, and that's a dangerous precedent to set. In gender re…
/r/MensRights19/06/16 04:14 PM
1

You can also solve the overcrowding issue by not writing a legal system that criminalizes the mundane. Less incarcerations overall saves the taxpayers money, frees up space, and ensures prison is there for the people who truly need to be there. Killing inmates is not the answer.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 03:22 PM
30

Charges don't even seem to need to be filed. An accusation alone is often enough.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 11:38 PM
26

It's still statutory rape regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 03:15 PM
13

Right? Don't drag women down to a place with no resources, build men up so they have resources too. Men and women do have different needs, and they should both be addressed, not equal,y ignored.
/r/MensRights13/05/16 05:59 PM
31

Uh, second wave was heavily focused on legal inequalities. I would hesitate to lump 3rd and 4th wave in with 2nd, since legitimate issues were still being addressed at the time.
/r/MensRights13/05/16 05:58 PM
-4

Really? It is from a widely circulated video. It was well known before I even knew reddit existed. I appreciate that not everyone has seen this video, but it's reposted in one form or another on a weekly basis. It's on the top posts of the sub too, so it's hardly buried.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 09:01 PM
1

I feel like this is becoming me defending Canadian health care in a way that implies it has less problems than it does, which I can't honestly do. However, I'm going to reiterate my previous statement that, although Canada does have its share of problems, I'll take them over the alternative. For example, in America, one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy (possibly the largest, with some studies pointing as high as 60%) is due to medical costs. Yeah, there's insurance, and yeah, people …
/r/MensRights17/04/16 02:26 AM
1

You do realize that an ER is triage based, right? It is not "first come, first served," it prioritized based on severity. Yeah, 10% are having obscenely long waits, but I'd bet that those same 10% are also visiting an ER when they should go to a family doctor or a walk-in clinic. Because Canada has "free" health care, we have an issue with people going to the ER for every little thing. In the states, money is your gatekeeper. In Canada, it's wait times. I guarantee that if you go to an ER for an…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 08:41 PM
-5

The cherry picking was your one legal case and your anecdotal horror stories, something I think most developed countries would also have. Yes, the wait times for non-urgent care is long, unacceptably long for some. The quality of that care is amongst the best in the world. For acute scenarios, the speed is spectacular as well. Canada has it's issues, yes, but I'm happy to deal with them. I know that if I get in an accident and fracture a limb, my quality of care will be spectacular, and use of t…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 05:44 PM
-6

Yeah, it's pretty easy to cherry pick. Every country has their screw ups, but overall, Canada's health care system has a lot going for it, and I'll gladly take it over the American system any day of the week.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 05:28 PM
1

But then how would I get my outrage porn???
/r/MensRights02/04/16 06:52 PM
9

Is it? If you get into a car accident where you're at fault, and someone dies, are you a murderer? Mens rea is a thing, and it's important.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 11:05 PM
2

What about university scholarships for minorities, because they are less likely to attend post secondary? Is that discrimination, or levelling the playing field? As for your location, you missed the point. This facility opened within an already existing women's shelter. The program is supplying the medical staff and supplies, while the women's shelter provides the facility itself. The whole place is already women only, so it stands to reason that the exchange program would be as well. As to your…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 09:53 PM
4

Why is this a problem? It's like this subreddit sees anything for women and gets up in arms. You people claim to be more rational than the feminist movement you oppose, but I'm pretty sure most people here read the thread title only before becoming outraged. Maybe at most skimmed the article. Very few seem to have read it. So, tell me why this is a problem. Is it because they're excluding men? Nope, this initiative is an ancillary program to help an at risk group, and men still have access to Wi…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 07:27 PM
5

Title IX is about inequalities in treatment between people of differing biological sex (i.e. men and women being treated differently in the same situation). This is a clear difference; he was treated as an aggressor when reporting domestic abuse, which is not how a woman would be treated. This isn't about the physical act of sex, but rather biological sex. It is a clear Title IX violation.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 01:42 AM
10

No one being arrested just means the case wasn't criminal, but this is a civil Title IX violation. You absolutely have a case here. Hell, you might even get a lawyer that will do it for part of the damages, meaning you owe nothing up front. Seriously, get a lawyer. You have all the proof you need, and I'm sure people here will offer you all the support they can as anonymous internet accounts to help you through this.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 01:37 AM
3

"Something" doesn't have to be the exact thing you're fighting against.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 03:35 AM
3

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 02:57 AM
2

The right way to do equality is to pull everyone up to the same level. Dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator benefits no one at all.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 01:49 AM
3

So your response is to make a the issue larger?
/r/MensRights18/03/16 01:31 AM
3

The extension of what you're suggesting is that any sex between any two people aged 12 to 18, consensual or not, is rape. Any sexual activity, for that matter. There is such a thing as the spirit of the law, which is being violated here. You're trying to ban all sexual activity for anyone under the age of consent under threat of criminal charges.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 11:39 PM
4

So you'd let guilty rapists walk to make some kind of point? Rapists who would then be free to repeat their crime? It's almost like you'd create the exact "rape culture" that feminists falsely claim is real. You'd play right into their narrative.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 11:35 PM
1

I stand corrected. Although the structure and spirit of the system is functionally the same, maintaining my point, I am not intimately familiar with American law. So that specific feature may not apply, but the intent of the system is unchanged.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 07:34 PM
-1

Thats not what I'm saying, you're just being antagonistic. I said the law can never prove innocence, not that a person can never be innocent. Look at it like a null hypothesis: there's the proposed and the opposite hypotheses. In this case, the law is determining guilt, so the null hypothesis is no guilt. By saying that not guilty is the same as innocent, you are making the mistake of assuming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That's really the important point about the descri…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:33 PM
3

No they aren't. In the same way that science can never prove, only disprove, the law can never establish innocence, only lack of guilt. Not guilty does not mean innocent, it means guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There are people who walk from crimes they are guilty from, and that "not guilty" ruling doesn't mean the crime didn't happen, only that the evidence wasn't there.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 04:03 PM
1

You know what? Fair points. I briefly skimmed the article, but I did follow the story when it was still a "big deal." At the time, the official line was that he was pursuing restitution on the grounds of sexual harassment. That's what I based my post on. I suspect that the story has changed since I last looked into it in depth, and I'm sorry for assuming. As for the target of the lawsuit, that was simply a mistake. I'm well aware that he isn't going after her at all, and I did respect him for le…
/r/MensRights16/03/16 01:10 AM
1

He's suing under the grounds of sexual harassment. Maybe I suggested the wrong target for the lawsuit, by the point still stands. The university's actions were unfair, and could constitute libel/slander. That would be a valid direction. Sexual harassment is not applicable under Title IX for this case. You're right that he was treated differently based off his sex, and that is a violation that should be addressed. He pursued it as sexual harassment, which it wasn't. Does that make sense, or am I …
/r/MensRights15/03/16 11:32 PM
-2

Thank you. His case should not have been pursued under Title IX. She was guilty of defamation, slander, and libel, depending on the media used to make her statements. She made false allegations against him that damaged his character, but in no way was her conduct a sexual attack. She did not make unwanted sexual contact, unwanted verbal comments of a sexual nature (he raped me is a criminal accusation, not a sexual advance), or anything like. Unless there is something about the case I'm unaware …
/r/MensRights15/03/16 07:50 PM
1

Fair enough. Good talk. "I'm right, you're wrong. I won't tell you why, you just are." Whatever. I came into this for an honest discussion. I'm open to hearing what you have to say, but you haven't said anything that deviated from what I've said, in meaning at least. So fair enough, if you don't want a discussion, that's cool. Carry on and have a good day.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 09:21 PM
1

And it currently is. I don't see where your issue is. Are you pro-life, or are you seeing some inconsistency I'm not? I don't even know what point you're trying to make. First I thought it was that you thought the law defined biology, but we agree there. Then I thought it was that you thought the law was denying personhood to those deserving, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Now you seem to think the law is inconsistent in this area, but it isn't. Are you arguing for the sake of it, and jus…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 09:13 PM
1

If the law were to do that, how would you draw the line? What is a human being, in terms of how the law interacts with it? If you use DNA, then masturbation could be considered murder. If you consider post-fertilization, then Plan B is murder. What about complete, fully formed human beings? Then someone who is an organ donor would no longer be a person. Fully function human being? Organ failure also takes legal rights. Cognitive ability? Sucks to be mentally disabled. Using biology as a metric t…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 08:39 PM
1

We would never cease to be humans if the government dissolved, as that is a biological feature that is not changed by governance. We would cease to be persons under the law, because, in this context, that law no longer exists to enforce the term. Sure, we'd still be persons under the common use of the word, but that's not the relevant metric in this conversation. Under the law, we are given rights based on our status as a person, rights defined under the Constitution in the US. Now, if the US ce…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 07:56 PM
1

That's how the law works... Go ahead and downvote, but it's reality. That's why you see "personhood" appear in the law so often, not "human being." A fetus is not a person until the law defines it as one. That's why abortion is not considered murder.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 04:36 PM
1

No law refers to whether or not a fetus is a human being. They only state when a human being is considered a person under the law, thereby granting all associated rights.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 08:51 AM
5

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine
/r/MensRights12/03/16 07:26 PM
3

That's a douchy comment? You must be new to the internet.
/r/MensRights12/03/16 07:22 PM
1

While true, you also need to use the same definition of abuse used by society and/or the law, if you want your findings to be applicable in those theatres. Neither this study, or the "1 in 4" study did so. Even if the studies are internally consistent in their categorization, they are highly disingenuous and misleading in the way the findings were presented and utilized.
/r/MensRights12/03/16 02:00 AM
8

I've got to agree with you, that statistic is BS. It automatically assumes that contact with age disparities is abuse. Now I am not suggesting that "the boy always wanted it," but the example you posted would absolutely be classified as childhood sexual abuse when it likely was not. If that was the methodology used to derive their "1 in 6" statistic, I'm already questioning the validity. It's even worse that they go on to call it an underestimate. This is the exact mentality used to arrive at th…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 08:43 PM
2

Now that would be a dangerous legal precedent.
/r/PussyPass01/03/16 09:42 PM
7

Nobody's. Let the court system handle it, or we're no better than they are.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 06:21 PM
5

I think the problem here is that women don't deserve equal pay, they deserve equitable pay, which they get. If women want equal pay, they need to make equal sacrifices. Demanding equal pay for unequal sacrifices is inherently unfair, and exactly what this facet of feminism is pushing for.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 10:46 PM
2

Well, IANAL, but here's how I understand it. Many waivers state that the company is not responsible for any injury or loss that occurs while under their care. Should injury happen, depending on the reason, you can still prosecute. If you are injured due to their negligence, you are still able to seek damages, or press criminal charges, if appropriate. That is a legal right all are entitled to, and you can not agree to waive that right. Rights are things that all citizens can utilize, but are not…
/r/MensRights01/02/16 01:04 AM
8

Yeah. You can't agree to something that takes away your rights, that you couldn't understand (not didn't; important distinction), and various other things. Take a release of liability for example. They act more as a deterrent, but a person has a right to press criminal charges or peruse civil compensation in the event of an incident, as appropriate. You can't sign away that right, and this, most releases don't hold up. They're more a barrier to participation than anything.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:31 PM
1

When it's a post in line with the prevailing opinion here, yes. That said, events that benefit women are more often a witch hunt than a fact check. When people here get angry, they also get a lot less rational.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 05:18 PM
1

Well, if that's your stance on scientific evidence, then there is no discussion. If you're going to discount validated, peer reviewed findings simply because you disagree, or have hand-wavy biases not grounded in any understanding of the topic, there is absolutely no chance of convincing you. It'd be more productive to talk to a brick wall. This is the same mentality used by anti-vaxxers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, so I'd take a step back and reevaluate your thinking. Seriously. It's not abou…
/r/MensRights17/12/15 07:13 PM
1

Nice red herring. How are brain scans biased? Are you suggesting that your proposed alternative would result in different scans? Cool, where is your evidence? You can't just discount what I've said because you don't like or agree with it. You'd better be able to support what you've said, or your dismissal carries no weight. Yeah, the legal drinking age is odd. Citizens are able to decide their country's future, and die defending it, but can't raise a beer to celebrate. But the legal drinking age…
/r/MensRights17/12/15 02:37 AM
2

And that's why statutory rapists are considered the criminal, and not the minor.
/r/MensRights17/12/15 01:48 AM
0

Because we have brain scan evidence that people's brains aren't fully developed until as late as 25, although most people are done by about 21. This hampers their ability to weight consequences and make decisions. Whether or not you 'felt' like you were all grown up, the evidence does not support your anecdotal, and perceptually biased, option. Although 14/16/18 are all arbitrary lines, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. The law is the law. Think it should be younger, because you feel teens a…
/r/MensRights17/12/15 01:47 AM
-1

No, they would not necessarily be able to know that. And if you think sex can't be a weapon of sorts, you're incredibly naive.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 09:29 PM
2

No, it's about them not being able to consent properly, either because of the power differential or the lack of development. The laws aren't saying they didn't consent, they are saying the minor can't consent.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 09:27 PM
3

They lack the brain development to properly weigh decisions, so your solution far from perfect. That, and this is clearly an abuse of power, which only compounds the issue.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 08:30 PM
11

Sex, maybe, though the lack of development in the brain may be relevant here. However, it's more a power dynamic issue. There's the teacher-student, as well as adult-minor, dynamic at play here. From my understanding, statutory rape is more about abuse of power than it is about simply age.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 08:29 PM
2

I'm with you on this one. Making an observation that the company on the other side of the table had a demographically consistent membership isn't discriminatory, bigoted, or anything. She simply said it's interesting. She may have implied that it's a negative, but I got that it's due to the lack of diversity, not what demographic the other company was. If someone values diversity, and comments negatively on a company that isn't, it's hardly 'SJWs gone crazy.' It may be a poor business move, but …
/r/MensRights15/12/15 08:48 AM
1

I'm with you on this one. Making an observation that the company on the other side of the table had a demographically consistent membership isn't discriminatory, bigoted, or anything. She simply said it's interesting. She may have implied that it's a negative, but I got that it's due to the lack of diversity, not what demographic the other company was. If someone values diversity, and comments negatively on a company that isn't, it's hardly 'SJWs gone crazy.' It may be a poor business move, but …
/r/MensRights15/12/15 03:58 AM
1

I'm with you on this one. Making an observation that the company on the other side of the table had a demographically consistent membership isn't discriminatory, bigoted, or anything. She simply said it's interesting. She may have implied that it's a negative, but I got that it's due to the lack of diversity, not what demographic the other company was. If someone values diversity, and comments negatively on a company that isn't, it's hardly 'SJWs gone crazy.' It may be a poor business move, but …
/r/MensRights15/12/15 03:58 AM
6

Police don't determine guilt, courts do. Being arrested does not imply 'guilty until proven innocent' at all.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 12:39 AM
4

OP didn't say people hate men's rights, OP said people hate /r/mensrights. There's a pretty big difference.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 04:10 AM
-1

If it helps, we do know that a homosexual male brain has many similarities to a heterosexual female brain. It is very possible that there is enough overlap to provide for a child effectively. It isn't like there are two heterosexual men, which seems to be more likely to have gaps.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 04:08 AM
0

I'm pretty sure we have concrete proof that a man can not, in fact, give birth. There is no concrete evidence that both parental roles can not be fulfilled by a same sex couple.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 04:05 AM
5

I just did some Google searches on this, so I might be off... Herceptin costs $70k for a full treatment, with about 30% effectiveness. If every HER2+ patient receives a full run, that's about $230k per cure. High level estimates put the average cost of treating breast cancer at about $100k per patient, making Herceptin 2.3x more expensive than conventional approaches, and only 30% effective.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 11:39 PM
4

Because this sub is turning into another /r/feminism, except it's men seeing injustice and inequality in anything, if it involves a man being punished to any capacity.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 07:11 PM
2

I watched the video, as well as the APD press release.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 06:37 PM
2

Isn't the 1/4 referring to rape? This is sexual assault. The different categories may explain the disparity.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 05:26 PM
2

That isn't how the force continuum works. Could they have? Maybe. Do you actually feel that it's in a police officer's job description to take down a perpetrator directly, when they are being threatened with a lethal weapon? No. If they are threatened with lethal force, they are authorized, and justified, to use lethal force in response. They did use all other non-lethal options available, according to the release. What you are failing to realize is that he was less than 8 feet from an unarmed o…
/r/MensRights26/03/14 05:01 AM
9

I reiterated the points being ignored by those who didn't watch the police report. Did you have other details to add, or are you just here to say I'm wrong without qualification?
/r/MensRights26/03/14 01:58 AM
6

Did you read any of my post, or just the first sentence?
/r/MensRights26/03/14 12:48 AM
13

This title is incredibly inaccurate. I'd Like to make a few important points for people to consider before pointing too many fingers. All of this can be found in the APD press release and official reports, verified by several videos and outside reports of varying involvement. the victim has a long history of criminal activity the victim has previously assaulted police officers the shooting took place after three hours of standoff, during which the victim threatened officers repeatedly and stated…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 11:28 PM
1

That I will agree with. It starts with education in the voting populace, and discouraging voter apathy. But we are not there yet.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 11:17 PM
1

I do get what you're saying. It's about precedence, prevalence, expectation, and interpretation. You're saying this is only one facet of a larger issue. Correct me if I'm wrong and discount this. I'd disagree overall. Yes, there are major institutions that do have extreme bias towards women (e.g. the Tender Years Doctrine and women's advantage in sexual assault proceedings), but this isn't one of those. In everyday life, female priority is fading. Women are having doors held for them less often,…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 11:13 PM
1

Absolutely. But the judges don't jump through the same popularity hoops as elected officials do. They don't have to come up with some way to reach, if they're lucky, 30% of the eligible voters in the country. Judges speak to informed individuals who know the stakes and know the data. Yes, these people have their own bias and agendas, but they have the information to make informed decisions, which is something the vast majority of voters do not have, nor do they seek it out. It's not a reasonable…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 10:57 PM
1

People vote on their representatives. It is very rare that a citizen has a direct role in determining the law. That's another matter though. I was speaking on the judicial branch: the courts and judges. That is something that citizens have no control over. Judges are appointed, not elected. This is for the best. If judges were elected, the courts would be another popularity contest, with rulings based not on application of the laws, but on their impact on elections. The courts would be a place o…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 10:24 PM
1

Unfortunately, the opinion of private citizens in no way reflects the functioning or application of the law. Not supporting this sentence, just commenting on your overall concept.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 09:38 PM
0

top throwing temper tantrums every time people disagree with you. Shut the fuck up and get the fuck out. It's hard to take advice from someone who can't take their own. But thanks for reading a single sentence of what I said, misinterpreting it, and blowing up over it. If you'd like to actually address my post instead of, well, throwing a temper tantrum, I'll respond in kind. But you seem committed to just being angry, if not at me than at someone. That is something I can't talk to.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 02:18 PM
1

That would hurt the restaurant, not the individual. Unfortunately, the most that could happen to them is termination. Employees can't be held liable for non-criminal actions while on duty. There's a few exceptions, but this isn't one.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 04:11 AM
0

Part of fighting for rights is knowing which battles are worth it. Some inequalities are genuinely harmful and need to be addressed. Some are harmless tradition. This is one of the latter. Fighting the harmless battles is making a mountain out of a molehill, and detracts from the movement's credibility. Will he get fed? Yes. Does taking the men's order last reduce the quality of his experience? No. Servers can't take everyone's order at the same time, and that's the accepted heirarchy. Should me…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 02:54 PM
8

Exactly. Especially since, if anything happens as a result, the best case is that they'd need to remake the dish on their already incredibly busy line. At worst, they could be fired. As annoyed as the kitchen and wait staff may be with a customer, you never fuck with the food. It simply isn't worth the risk. That's completely ignoring the professional pride that many staff show once you go above the level of fast food. There is nothing a customer could do to make me mess with my plates. I might …
/r/MensRights24/03/14 04:42 AM
2

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. I've been a chef for ten, and this is the convention. The order is oldest woman ---> youngest man, then the host last. Same goes for pouring wine. A tiny bit to the person who ordered it to taste, then the same order, then top up the first person's glass at the end. This is tradition. It's not implying discrimination of any kind. That waiter, however, was out of line. He could have easily made it humourous, but he instead attacked your integrity. In any…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 04:35 AM
24

The max weight for a carry on is 22lbs/10kg. If you follow the rules.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 08:30 AM
1

That's all I was saying. There's little point to this liberal parenting. Research has shown that boys will be boys and girls will be girls. That aside, if they aren't, you're only setting them up for a life of mockery and solitude. It's not a choice that supports the child. It's a choice that lets the parents brag about how PC they are.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 06:08 PM
2

If forced, yes.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 06:01 PM
2

I have to agree. Although it'd be nice for all of these factors to be societally irrelevant, we aren't there yet. The child will either be ostracized his whole school career, or be forced to homeschooling with limited social contact. Either way, they are not helping him.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 02:58 AM
4

Research has shown that, with very few exceptions, children will develop as their genetic sex. Even the child that had his penis mutilated as an infant and underwent both surgery and continued treatment to develop them as a female, always had gender confusion problems. Problems that eventually lead to suicide. Letting a child choose their gender is pointless, because the result is predictable in most cases. Rather, people should let their son/daughter choose their own interests.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 02:56 AM
4

In regards to the intentional deception, yes, as well as the long-term damage to the man's life. Otherwise, I'll agree. The severity isn't the same. It may have been a sloppy analogy, but it still seems like a deliberate perversion of the system.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 02:45 AM
7

I understand where you're coming from, but she's old enough to know that you cannot frame a man for a crime he actively attempted to avoid, and expecto to get off scott-free. This is like those little girls who accused their gym teacher of sexual assault a while back. She may be a minor, but she is not a child. She broke the law. Sure, don't try her as an adult, but this is a criminal matter.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 12:53 AM
1

I'm not. I think there are a lot of stupid laws, but there's a place for each. This is not the place to argue financial laws. You don't see people advocating marijuana legalization here, do you? So why are you pushing something that clearly has other places for it to be discussed?
/r/MensRights21/02/14 05:08 AM
1

I fail to see your connection to the subreddit. Yes, I agree that the way the law is written is stupid. I just do not see how you're carrying on like it's some injustice when it was an objective application of legal practice.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 04:57 AM
1

So you're still saying that the sex and money is all that's important in a marriage. She got the money because the law defined it'd be that much based on his income. That is all. There's no other bias. Seriously. EDIT: By the way, you know the misogyny that feminists say that MRAs display? Your post is what they mean. Take it elsewhere.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 04:33 AM
1

Woah, you're going in some interesting directions here. First, that's the law, and it's not a discriminatory law. Sure, it is somewhat ridiculous when it comes to amounts if the state uses a percent system, but those values have nothing to do with sex/gender. Not to mention that they are hardly cleaning out his accounts. This is a subreddit for discussing gender inequality, not laws that are stupid financially. So you're saying that her benefit to a marriage is the finances (which she keeps), an…
/r/MensRights21/02/14 04:16 AM
2

You know what? I stand corrected. I read the article such that Wednesday was the date of incident, not final sentancing.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 02:41 AM
0

Source? Since it just happened yesterday, I doubt bargains are already on the table.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 11:54 PM
2

Or message the mods directly? I'm putting together a post for it already, to be honest.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 11:53 PM
0

California calculates spousal/child support based on a percentage of income. Considering he makes $170k/month, that's about 20% of his income. While these numbers may seen ridiculous to a person making average wages, that's how they work out in wealthy relationships. The court wasn't trying to break him. It was a simple calculation. The laws are also gender-less, referring to parties as "high/low earners", meaning that the situation would be the same were the genders reversed. The only two facto…
/r/MensRights20/02/14 11:52 PM
2

Exactly. It does come down to a failure of the mods as much as an allowance by the community at large. If we want to prove we are being what feminism refuses to be, then we must rigidly police that stance, or we are as useless as a Tumblr SJW in influencing any opinions overall.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 11:21 PM
4

Well, it's only a list of recommendations at the moment, but I'll keep an eye on it. After reading clauses supporting "equal opportunity" agendas, and citing discrimination statistics clearly supporting their goals (which are not accurate statistics), I'm concerned. Looks like I may have to reassess my first choice for med school applications.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 11:20 PM
2

Well, I value points significantly less than calling people out for supporting exactly what they say they're against, so... It's sad, really. Like how r/JusticePorn has become more about celebrating people in pain than karma.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 11:09 PM
0

Child support payments ruin a life in the same way as physical abuse? It's a false equivalency. If you want to use fallacious arguments to support your bias, you'd fit in real well with the guys over at r/TheRedPill or r/Feminism.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 11:06 PM
5

That's not what the MRM supports. That post is idiocy, and the responses called him on it. Yes, we're falling into the same trap that feminism has, where there are some actually fighting for equality, and others calling for the murder of men. Thing is, the more vocal people become the representatives, regardless of majority intent. If we support these people here, and allow them to fester, they will become the face of the MRM, and that is unacceptable to me, and likely to every other man unsatis…
/r/MensRights20/02/14 08:37 PM
1

You're actually comparing assault and physical abuse to child support?
/r/MensRights20/02/14 08:35 PM
2

I misread, and apologize for my comments.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 08:28 PM
23

No, he came to the right sub. The MRM is never about bashing women, and if you see it, call them on it. It's about evaluating overequalization for women that femenism has established in some areas, to keep it in check, and genuinely support equality. Bashing women is sexist and not welcome. Bashing people for abusing a broken system in favour of their sex, or supporting people suffering due to unbalanced laws/social views is the MRM. You want to bash women? Head over to r/TheRedPill/.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 08:19 PM
0

A contract terminating parental rights is not something that can be drawn up on a napkin. It requires witnesses, a lawyer's signature, and various other requirements. This is true of any termination, regardless of gender. This guy decided not to, so it came back to bite him. This isn't a men's rights issue. It might be a faulty law issue, but it isn't sexist.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 07:13 AM
1

I'm in Canada, and it's not available universally for men. Some provinces do, some don't. The clinic I went to told me it'd be an out of pocket expense, since I'm not covered provincially or through private student insurance.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:54 PM
2

While a singular anecdote isn't the evidence policy makers need to change, I appreciate your input. You do show that it is a real problem that, at the very least, needs to be further considered to prevent both cost and lives down the line. Universal vaccinations seems like a no-brainer to me. I wish you all the best. Although I can't imagine what you've been through, the tone of your post suggests that you're on your way back. I can only hope that that's true. Cancer is an awful disease, and you…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:50 PM
1

If that's the case, then fine. I'd think herd immunity would support universal vaccinations, but I'll settle for this.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:46 PM
1

And? I think I'm missing the point you're making.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:45 PM
1

How so?
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:43 PM
1

The factor is prevalence. While there are other strains, these vaccines do hit the biggest 2/4. Making a universal vaccine is just unreasonable.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:43 PM
3

I think they do, but the need is just less severe. Vaccines should always be available to the public, as their expense is always lower than the disease they prevent. It should be gender free.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 08:43 AM
2

I'm not in the US. I'm in Canada.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 06:15 AM
5

Same thing for the flu shot, yet everyone is encouraged to get those. It's to protect the very old, very young, and immune compromised, yet the healthy, middle aged people are part of the herd. It's not funds, it's a lack of pressure. If the money is needed, it'll be found.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 06:15 AM
2

In this case, Canada too.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:34 AM
4

I do understand the risk analysis. Anal and throat cancers also occur from HPV, and that is a gender less issue. If nothing else though, I think the herd immunity point holds a lot of water. If we want to reduce cervical cancer, we need to reduce vectors as well as victims.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 04:18 AM
1

What, that she had to have known it was a child? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of more likely things that could be in a leaf pile. They both knew they hit something, and it wasn't until later that they realized it was the girls. They didn't even have any blood on the vehicle, or damage. It was easy for her to rationalize it away, like any reasonable person would in the face of the death of a minor.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 02:40 AM
1

Of course they both knew that she hit something. Neither knew what until later though.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 01:07 AM
1

So then what's the problem? You're here to rage about how a woman was fairly charged, but a hypothetical man would be charged more? Because that's a pointless debate. If your supposed situation were true, I'd be all for calling foul on an unfair ruling, but that's not the case here, so I really don't get what your issue with the story is. As for the evidence thing, he covered it up, and as such, was charged with impeding an investigation. At no point did she impede anything. How can you suggest …
/r/MensRights02/02/14 12:47 AM
1

Reckless? Not by the definition of local law. What she did could be considered careless driving, which is a minor infraction. For it to be the manslaughter you're claiming it should be would require a reckless driving charge, which didn't apply. So she was only charged with failure to provide aid, since that is the only law she broke. This was a genuine accident, where one family was already torn apart. You're demanding blood for something that does not require further penance than she's been gi…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 12:19 AM
1

No. If you have truly let your resentment grow to the point that you believe that, then you're as jaded and prejudiced as the femenists you fight against. She knowingly committed no crime at the time of the event, and was not charged with manslaughter, nor was that charge permitted by the situation. The only thing she was charged with was failure to return to the scene, which she was found guilty for. Her charge was reduced due to the extreme circumstances of the accident, the emotional distress…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 11:47 PM
3

There's another factor you're forgetting. In Asia, a lot of men are so dedicated to their work that they literally have to time for women, or friends for that matter. A probable source of their situation is the career pressure on men, not just the proposed "hypergamy" or dissonance suggested here.
/r/TheRedPill01/02/14 08:47 PM
1

Sure, it may have seemed odd. But the first thought is never children. I can see how she'd think she hit something inanimate, but passed it off. Went home and mentioned it to her boyfriend, since she knows nothing about cars. At this point, she still doesn't realize she did anything wrong. He goes outside and sees blood or whatever, and realizes what happened. She shuts down, and, trying to help, washed the evidence off. She did nothing wrong by "fleeing", as she wasn't aware of what had happene…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 08:31 PM
4

Thank you for saying this. This blind, senseless rage and automatic demonization of women is exactly the kind of thing that destroys our credibility. We are doing the same thing feminists do, while claiming a higher standard. If this is the direction this subreddit is headed, I may have to tap out. I'm interested in speaking out against obvious inequality, not witch hunts.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 06:26 PM
3

When you hear hoofbeats, you think horses, not zebras.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 06:21 PM
-5

Am I the only one who really doesn't care about this? I mean, I do personally support the MRM, and have made an effort to speak out when I see issues, but honestly, male circumcision doesn't even come close to my top ten. Female circumcision I get, since it removes the majority of the sensation in the area, but i have never seen male circumcision as an issue worthy of the venom that people put into it. So, yay, I guess?
/r/MensRights25/01/14 12:30 AM
3

I appreciate the comments section as much as the court ruling.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 05:39 AM
2

In addition, you don't eat. Proper nutrition is important to learning, and a drug like that can make you so focused that me slimed just slip by.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 05:41 PM
1

Couldn't the woman just be a strong, independent female and pop the question herself?
/r/TheRedPill06/12/13 07:45 AM
3

I don't know how many of the comments originated from here, but I was happy to see that almost none of them were in agreement with the article. People are speaking up.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 06:41 PM
2

The way I read that post was that she was just as guilty as he. There's more to marriage than sex, namely love and affection. While she didn't physically cheat with anyone, she broke trust by revoking her love and affection first, leading to an emotionally and sexually dead relationship. That is as much of a betrayal as the physical act he did. She should not have been surprised by his move, as she was the first to kill the marriage. It just took him doing the same for them to realize it.
/r/TheRedPill27/11/13 07:53 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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