TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

InPrinciple63 Archive

View 1 post and 545 comments by InPrinciple63 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)
8

The point it has always been: women's advantage.
/r/MensRights24/02/25 06:59 AM
2

It's going to come around and bite civilisation on the arse eventually: you can't maintain a civilised structure when part of that structure was created by men and no longer supported because women aren't interested and there are no more men available; it inevitably decays with people just using what was built until it stops working and then not being able to repair it and having to drop back to increasingly more primitive arrangements. Women deserve to reap what they sow.
/r/MensRights24/02/25 06:57 AM
3

In some ways women are like children, to better identify with their pre-verbal needs. It kind of does your head in, then, to imagine that men are having sex with effectively children, which is villified as pedophilia.
/r/MensRights24/02/25 06:51 AM
8

I think you will find a concerted push to retrospectively make sperm donors responsible for offspring: greed has no limits.
/r/MensRights24/02/25 06:45 AM
4

To be used only for tuition, room, board, sperm storage and a vasectomy. It's too damned dangerous for lads to spread their sperm around these days to be used against them.
/r/MensRights24/02/25 06:44 AM
10

Men don't get women pregnant: womens bodies do that, however society doesn't want to accept that as it prevents making the man completely responsible. Contraception is generally not 100% reliable, even assuming she doesn't sabotage its efficacy. Condoms are only about 71% effective when not used perfectly and no-one uses them perfectly in the heat of the moment. It may not even be your child, although depending on where you are, that may not be considered relevant by the authorities. Have a read…
/r/MensRights24/02/25 06:36 AM
2

The natural division of role by biology required to achieve sexual reproduction in human beings, plus the natural evolution of society to leverage those roles most efficiently through the economy of scale automatically leads to a system where male strength and reason protects, provides resources and structure for women to best raise children: it's not practical or efficient for women with children (born and unborn) to protect and provide for society beyond low risk activity when they aren't spec…
/r/MensRights23/02/25 02:02 PM
3

Feminism attempts to correct areas where women are considered disadvantaged, but it ignores areas where men are disadvantaged: that is selective equality at best not actual equality. But it gets worse, with women continuing to receive advantage even after they have achieved numerical equality: men are now under-represented in higher education after women were advantaged to achieve equality and then continued to be advantaged to tip the scales in the other direction as just one example. The purpo…
/r/MensRights23/02/25 01:08 PM
2

I think it depends on what "equality" you are referring to: equality of outcome, numerical equality, expectation of being the same, etc.
/r/MensRights23/02/25 01:00 PM
1

Hierarchy is not an issue if an individual is able to fully self-actualise within it and achieve equal fundamental outcomes in life. People have different abilities that automatically create a hierarchy and yet each person could be equally happy expressing those abilities: it's only the artificial assignment of different financial remuneration to different abilities, despite a person having no control over the abilities they were born with, which creates a problem within that hierarchy. Why woul…
/r/MensRights23/02/25 12:57 PM
1

The only difference is that women can show their emotional side because it’s socially acceptable, while men often don’t want to appear as victims, even when they’re suffering. Moroccan society always says, "You’re a man, you shouldn’t act like this." Men are still expected to play the role of protector and provider, which requires ignoring emotions to get the job done. I don't believe men don't want to appear as victims: society despises them when they do, because men are expected to play a role…
/r/MensRights23/02/25 12:34 PM
1

It's about giving consent, not the seeking of consent: seeking of consent is considered harassment unless you are someone she is attracted to. Actually it is no longer about giving consent in certain jurisdictions but the man having to interpret "enthusiastic consent" and deciding not to pursue sex if it is not: a woman doesn't have to do anything about consent, it's all about the man and his ability to modify his own desires to protect her.
/r/MensRights23/02/25 06:39 AM
1

Crimes are usually based on malicious intent, pre-meditation, etc however it is worrying that we are seeing accidents start to intrude into that realm (eg manslaughter) and I fear it will extend even further into things we have no control over (such as condom breakages). If a woman says no to sex without a condom and the condom breaks, then it's still sex with a condom that she agreed to. Unfortunately, with the way things are going, people want scapegoats to blame for anything going wrong they …
/r/MensRights20/02/25 04:51 AM
0

I'm not surprised you found it uncomfortable when an untrained woman, who probably resents being penetrated and wants to make it so for a man in revenge, just sticks a finger in. GPs doing a prostate exam deliberately don't make it a pleasurable experience so they can't get accused of sexual molestation. There is a definite technique to most comfortably take a man's anal virginity, so that it isn't a traumatic experience instead, assuming a man doesn't explore it himself first to "ease the way",…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 01:01 PM
1

Have you explored "other things" to see the full scope of what is available? Most men have never even considered exploring prostate mediated orgasms, for example, which offer the possibility of multiple for as long as you can stand the intense pleasure. Would that perhaps satisfy your desire for erotic fulfilment, or does it have to be only via vagina or simulations? Not criticizing your desires, but genuinely interested in other mens experiences and what it would take to consider sex with men f…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 10:06 AM
1

Why bother trying when the deck is so stacked against you? Even if they had a perfect presentation, the bias would still have been to preference those poor oppressed women in the patriarchy: no positive discrimination for men to achieve numerical equality.
/r/MensRights18/02/25 05:05 AM
1

Consider this: it's exceedingly difficult for minorities to change society, but it's easier for individuals to change themselves or their own perspectives. Whilst I agree with attempts to change society for the benefit of men as well as women, I think it will have greater short term benefit to also develop mens groups to educate men about alternative lifestyles that might better achieve their fundamental life outcomes under the current circumstances (and I don't mean monk or suicidal ideation). …
/r/MensRights18/02/25 04:59 AM
0

Does that really matter to us today, unless it impacts fraudulent coercion of resources for men today? I thought the objective of nature was to ensure as many combinations of genes as possible in the hopes that some might confer greater survival opportunities, regardless of how that was achieved; people's personal feelings not important. I think that is why nature has lots of non-consensual sex: it doesn't care beyond the perpetuation of the species as there are no physical consequences generall…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 04:50 AM
1

That's why I suggested legislating mandatory DNA testing say 1 year from now and providing an amnesty/exclusion for all births between now and then. There will be no massive retrospective revelation to destabilise society, but women will be deterred by penalties associated with any future revelation at birth and so the numbers should be small and not enough to destabilise society. Of course if men get a hankering to know for sure, then all bets are off.
/r/MensRights18/02/25 04:42 AM
6

Men want a variety of fundamental life outcomes, but I think they are prioritised with ongoing sex at the top of the list.
/r/MensRights18/02/25 04:36 AM
1

I think you have to separate sex and intimacy as two different things. Intimacy is mainly about sharing whilst sex is about erotic fulfilment and whilst it is largely true that historically they are combined, I don't think that has to be the case (just as ejaculation and orgasm are notionally combined, when they are actually different things that just happen to mostly coincide). I believe men are more focused on erotic fulfilment than intimacy. In fact women have traditionally complained that me…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 04:29 AM
7

Men were quite happy to enter into a relationship when their needs were met: the difference now is that their sexual needs are being thrown under a bus and 18 years of labour coerced from them without return, in order to facilitate women to have it all. Win-win is objectively possible, but women don't operate in an objective reality and the only avenue available to them is subjective emotional impulse which has unknown objective outcomes and consequences. Society does not have procreation contra…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 03:44 AM
9

What men-only spaces do men have to consider mens issues, let alone consider the issues of a different sex? Charity begins at home, or so I have been led to believe. How do men sympathise with issues women face when most of them reside in a subjective feeling space, devoid of objective reality, that is alien to men's mental processes and thus difficult to walk in those heels, whilst women not being able to even imagine mens issues, let alone sympathise with them? You can't truly love someone unt…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 03:00 AM
12

But some lives are more important than others. /s
/r/MensRights18/02/25 02:43 AM
17

Uh, this is a sub for mens rights, where the focus is on men: if you want an echo chamber of compassion for what women go through, go to any womens based sub. Men will always struggle understanding women and vice versa, because we each see the world through different biologies. However, I think men are more capable of understanding through reason than women are through applying their own subjective feelings to an unknown world which is based on objectivity. It's not surprising that some trans-me…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 02:36 AM
7

I think it is more about living in a world of subjective fantasy and its consequences in the objective reality of life.
/r/MensRights18/02/25 02:34 AM
6

1984, feminist edition. Objective reality is not really within the scope of womens thought, versus existence in a subjective feeling realm only, where it's how they feel about the nail protruding from their head, not the objective reality and consequences of it being there. Can't blame women for their nature though, but have to find ways to incorporate it within society that cause the least damage.
/r/MensRights18/02/25 02:31 AM
4

I think it is more about employing reason instead of just primitive emotional impulse: it's hard enough for reason to moderate emotional impulse without facilitating emotional impulse only. Men are being contaminated by women's intrinsic nature and throwing away their own intrinsic advantage that has built modern society. Imagine a civilisation run by people who believe #killallmen is reasonable (hint, it wouldn't be a civilisation if operated on emotional impulse).
/r/MensRights18/02/25 02:22 AM
-1

That would disrupt society. If men are okay when they don't know, there's no point in destroying society so that they do. However, instituting DNA tests at birth from a future known point would decrease the attempts at fraud because women would be caught and thus decreasing the number of people caught up in a deception and subsequently the magnitude of its impact on society. Retrospective information is not always a good thing. Does it really matter to you in a material way that your ancestors e…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 02:14 AM
1

DNA tests at birth are a great idea, but only if coupled with an amnesty for all births up to a year before the legislation is implemented (people who are already born will of course not be retrospectively tested). That's the only way this could possibly fly. Society would not be plunged into chaos as most men would remain blissfully unaware. It would also be a disincentive to women thinking of cuckolding in future because they would know they would be caught and suffer the full consequences of …
/r/MensRights18/02/25 02:05 AM
13

A very thought provoking and interesting article, but it focuses on procreation and not the driving force behind it of the sex drive of men (women are more driven by procreation because of their biological design for creating children). Marriage was the ideal way to ensure ongoing sex for men to satisfy their sex drive, whilst diverting the saving of effort in pursuing it to providing for the family and also facilitating women's desire for children and sex. It did come with the disadvantage for …
/r/MensRights18/02/25 01:03 AM
2

Like most men, I don't think you have ever considered what your fundamental needs are, without pre-solving the solution to them all with one woman and thus constraining the outcome to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Certainly one woman was an efficient solution to those fundamental needs when she was agreeable, but that has significantly changed recently by empowering women to decide their own and men's needs expression. If you are into women, what does a man do when women in general begin to reject…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 12:13 AM
3

Honestly its hard to imagine anyone being for male genital mutilation Amazing the number of women who say they like a circumcised penis better because it looks neater to them, yet they have probably experienced far more circumcised penises than not, so have exposure bias. Also, how would women react if men said they found sewing up the labia to create a tighter opening more pleasurable for them and thus it should be common practice? One sex does not get to determine the bodily integrity of the o…
/r/MensRights17/02/25 11:39 AM
0

Do your fundamental needs as a man require a woman, or is that simply the only solution society has offered for so long, that you can't imagine any other (plus a healthy dose of encouraging phobia against anything else)? I mean society in the 1700s and 1800s deliberately tried to suppress male masturbation as though it was a threat. Perhaps it was to the growing monopoly women had over men's sexual fulfilment. Women aren't part of male masturbation because male masturbation is about sexual fulfi…
/r/MensRights17/02/25 11:35 AM
4

all the criminals, terrorists, rapists, murderers, pedophiles etc. that they see or hear about regularly on media and seeing that they are predominantly male That's your problem right there: selectively defining and reporting to manipulate the statistics and thus the agenda. Rape for example is mostly legally defined from a penetrative perspective and women don't usually penetrate, so they have automatically excluded themselves from any statistics for a start. However, engulfment is the opposite…
/r/MensRights17/02/25 11:12 AM
1

Or her own biological nature with men the only scapegoats in sight?
/r/MensRights17/02/25 10:38 AM
7

Saying #killallmen, which must have hate at its heart, is merely shrugged off as a joke, but expressing natural emotions about a woman's behaviour is not permitted.
/r/MensRights17/02/25 10:35 AM
2

In the 50's and 60's, "mothers little helper" was all the rage and many women were sleeping with prince valium in order to get through the day. It's perhaps not surprising this has morphed into SSRI use instead: the root cause of women turning to "mothers little helper" were not addressed. Advertisements for Valium and other benzodiazepines in the ’60s and ’70s were, by today’s standards, shockingly brazen in their depiction of stereotypical women who might be saved from their disappointing live…
/r/MensRights17/02/25 10:29 AM
3

Don't want men and bears in the same vicinity to force women to choose.
/r/MensRights15/02/25 04:26 PM
1

The "free love" movement didn't last because of the development of consequences as a result of removing restrictions, so I wonder how long the "female advantage" fad will last before consequences again impose restrictions. Many men are already annoyed with women feeling entitled to something on a commercially fabricated day whilst not reciprocating. It seems like human society doesn't consider the possible consequences of their actions and so throws caution to the winds and is then beaten back b…
/r/MensRights15/02/25 03:54 PM
1

Once you start to accept that none of us are perfect and people make mistakes, you can start to forgive yourself and even others for making mistakes and begin to let go of that emotion. Even people who hurt us are influenced by things outside their control and may be just as damaged as us by it. That doesn't mean accepting that harm is okay, but accepting some of the reasons for it and trying to be better. Acceptance and forgiveness are very difficult for emotion-based humans, but I think they a…
/r/MensRights15/02/25 12:40 AM
2

Parents living together suggests they already have children. Perhaps you meant men and women living together having children.
/r/MensRights14/02/25 01:34 AM
4

Who is going to construct this women-only island and maintain it? I can't see that being women, especially as many of those women will want children and resources to raise them. Trucking in a load of filled turkey-basters? But that would involve men.
/r/MensRights14/02/25 01:31 AM
2

100% is an abstract, nothing is 100%, only statistically distributed between the unattainable end points of 100% and 0%. There can never be 100% certainty, and right and wrong are relative. All you can do is reason whether your judgement best achieves the outcomes and consequences you ascribe to it and then implement it. I think Stockholm Syndrome and similar (better the devil you know than the devil you don't, etc) can bias our judgements and decisions, which can make it more difficult to leave…
/r/MensRights14/02/25 01:26 AM
4

You have built up automatic defenses over many years of abuse: it's rare to be able to dismantle them overnight. If you were to express anger in those situations, I think the response would have been even more brutal as you would have posed a threat to the abusers instead of simply a punch-bag. They may not seem particularly useful, but your automatic responses to protect yourself probably saved your life. Think of them as the best you could achieve under the circumstances, but now, where circum…
/r/MensRights14/02/25 01:10 AM
2

The striving for female advantage doesn't have a place for mens participation, feelings, or wellbeing, just leverage of their resources.
/r/MensRights14/02/25 12:06 AM
5

When different families cohabit as a blended family, there is usually suddenly less resources per child and conflict in new members assuming roles of ex-members. Even if the new addition doesn't have children, it usually transpires that an additional child is created to bond the people together, but it helps fracture relationships for the existing children. Even in ongoing families, new offspring often create friction, merely from absorbing some of the family resources that were spent on the exi…
/r/MensRights13/02/25 07:08 AM
18

I'm waiting for the inevitable "even a one-night stand is a marriage for the purposes of supporting any issuance of children". I believe at least one country toyed with an idea like this.
/r/MensRights13/02/25 07:01 AM
1

It needs to be a legal contract or else there is the opportunity for one or other to scam it for their own advantage, when a contract balances the wishes of both parties.
/r/MensRights13/02/25 06:58 AM
28

For the very reason that a man walking away from a family jeopardises the resources necessary for successful procreation because it takes 2 people to raise a child successfully. He was held hostage by a social contract. Women didn't need to be held by contract as they needed the resources of a man to successfully raise the children they wanted, but I think a wedding was an extra inducement. Nowadays women are able to still obtain the resources of a man to raise a child, even if they leave and do…
/r/MensRights13/02/25 06:54 AM
13

It's advantageous to women to get married (or be defacto) because they can legally leverage the resources necessary to raise a child they might want, even if they walk away after being serviced by the sperm donor, without having to do much themselves. I think the idea these days is that women can have it all: expensive wedding, car, house, children, holidays, career, sex when they want it but not when they don't, live-in handyman willing to work for scraps of sex from the table, etc. Traditional…
/r/MensRights13/02/25 06:38 AM
2

I believe much of it stems from religion and the hubris of thinking only you are gods chosen, when all the competing religions can't all be right as they are philosophically mutually exclusive at heart. We would have to lose existing religion to begin to accept diversity.
/r/MensRights13/02/25 01:21 AM
1

An interesting perspective. Fundamentally it's about identity and that is important from a social perspective, because if you didn't identify with acceptable patterns you would be shunned from society and all its protections and left to fend for yourself. It's not so bad in modern society where we are starting to accept the rights of the diverse should equal the rights of the most acceptable as both being humans and slowly coming around to the philosophy of at least live and let live. It's inter…
/r/MensRights13/02/25 01:11 AM
1

Homosexuality is about sexual orientation only and sexual orientation is not a preference, you don't cognitively choose it, it's inbuilt. Whether or not sexual orientation is flexible and influenced by cognitive choice has not yet been determined. Certainly conversion therapy which coerces a choice has not proven to be completely effective, yet I can't believe that all men in prison who engage in same sex activity are homosexual, young people who experiment can change their original perceived se…
/r/MensRights13/02/25 12:29 AM
1

"I ain't afraid of gays" No, it's fear of being seen as gay where not only is gay = effeminate (thus questioning your masculinity) but also how gay men are treated. However, gay men aren't necessarily effeminate: homosexuality is about sexual orientation (ie same sex attraction) and spans behaviour of hyper-masculine to effeminate, but somehow gay has become associated only with same sex orientation plus effeminate behaviour and excluded every other expression of homosexuality. You can explain h…
/r/MensRights13/02/25 12:22 AM
2

It's more about the testing for earliest termination than anything, not waiting for a missed period and then waiting again because periods can vary and then taking time to decide and before you know it, it has been 3 months and the decision is so much harder because there is a recognisable fetus involved instead of a cluster of cells. Regular fortnightly testing would seem to offer the earliest practical intervention.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 11:51 PM
2

It's a long term process of change with both men and women needing to change in sync to retain a balance: it can't happen overnight or trust women to wind back advantage once equality has been achieved as we are already seeing demonstrated. Women have been protected by men for eternity, including not exposing them to the man's world that was necessary to create civilisation and technology. What happened when women forced their way into mens world, they wailed that men's behaviour in their world …
/r/MensRights11/02/25 09:35 AM
2

Women are designed around emotions and emotional expression, men are not and thus don't need to express like women. It's a mistake to view men and masculinity as some form of broken femininity, it's not. Moderation of primitive emotion accompanies reason, which is why men don't emote like women: the reason is in their role in society that fundamentally hasn't changed. Women do not reason like men, they react emotionally which is not great in a modern reason based civilisation but is perfectly ta…
/r/MensRights11/02/25 09:19 AM
2

It's not a social concept, men and women are sexually dimorphic to best perform their roles in sexual reproduction as a matter of biology. Those roles have changed a little with the development of technology reducing the dependence on certain sex-related characteristics, however, still there is a difference between men and women in certain skills and interests that attracts different genders to different things. What I believe complicates this is that biology is not strictly binary but diverse a…
/r/MensRights11/02/25 03:08 AM
1

Particularly if bad men or boys are turned into even worse women who do not act on reason but subjective feelings.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 02:06 AM
12

Deception over sex is considered rape, which attracts criminal charges and is considered evil by women. Why should deception over paternity be considered any differently by men? It's equality.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 01:58 AM
2

It's not an accusation, but a suspicion with historical reason regarding human behaviour: they are two different things. I can have a well founded suspicion without actually accusing someone.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 01:47 AM
1

Paternity testing can be thought of as a confirmation of paternity with the knowledge that cuckolding has been a quite prevalent thing throughout history. It's not necessarily an accusation of infidelity, but a suspicion based on human behaviour. Accusation is a deliberate thing different from suspicion. According to statistics, 25% of men are unknowingly raising kids that are not their own, but I think those statistics are questionable as they would only be those instances that have been discov…
/r/MensRights11/02/25 01:44 AM
2

Would not matter if every child was assessed for medical consequences of genes anyway: a paternity test would just piggyback on that and probably be more accurate as the medical information would require rigorous proof that it was genuine and not contaminated or otherwise influenced by error than just a simple paternity test.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 01:35 AM
1

Too much risk of contaminating material clouding the results, or errors in prediction having negative consequences to an individual: a single automated result must not be taken at face value because garbage in = garbage out, without statistically significantindependent corroboration (eg 3 different samples evaluated by 3 independent labs where only unanimity in result is accepted as truth). Even then, the positives must be re-examined to confirm the identity of the person involved.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 01:27 AM
1

The benefits outweigh the potential for abuse, which can be counteracted by legislating to protect the information from anyone except the owner except under very limited circumstances. It should be covered under a right to bodily sovereignty which includes how the specific genetic information you own can not be used by anyone else without your consent. This will inevitably include sperm. All infants should be genetically tested anyway to screen for future medical potentialities that need to be p…
/r/MensRights11/02/25 01:24 AM
1

The love drug does not last and the 7 year itch is real, suggesting nature doesn't expect a relationship to last beyond 7 years, but perhaps that is long enough to raise a child that no longer requires the resources of 2 people to survive: whilst it is detestable, at worst a 7yo can work to help support themselves. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, many children aged 5–14 from poorer families worked in Western nations and their colonies alike. It's a thing we don't like to do now, not th…
/r/MensRights11/02/25 01:15 AM
1

Stop beating your head repeatedly against the same brick wall, expecting a different outcome: that way lies madness.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 01:07 AM
1

Does abortion include chemical terminations? I think it would be reasonable to allow chemical terminations in the earliest stage of pregnancy, instead of medical abortions, on the proviso women could easily test their state of conception say every fortnight. Ultimately I think fortnightly testing and early stage chemical termination should be an option instead of contraceptives with consequences.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 01:01 AM
2

It becomes less complicated if men are given the enshrined right to consent to use of their body (sperm) as part of the wider right for everyone to determine use of their own body. Non-consensual use should come with consequences, just like breaking consent for use of a womans body for sex, which could take the form of a man no longer being responsible for the welfare of that child.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 12:51 AM
13

She believes the lover's genes are better, simply because her lips are drawn to him, when it may simply be primitive attraction to the markers for highest testosterone levels (which just happens to be associated with certain other characteristics).
/r/MensRights11/02/25 12:44 AM
5

It has never been proven that women can detect "good genes" (whatever they are) instead of seeking superficial markers of attractiveness such as looks, wealth, status and the current influencer fad: some of which are influenced by external circumstances and not necessarily genes. Where does needing to be over 6' tall become a reasonable consideration for being a good partner, unless being dominated is an unconscious requirement?
/r/MensRights11/02/25 12:40 AM
38

There is a fantasy expectation that all females are royalty (queens and princesses) and all men just servants to it, when the barest reason suggests this cannot be in practice: that doesn't stop females trying to make it happen and becoming frustrated and emotional when it doesn't, and even more determined to find ways to achieve that outcome, regardless of societal consequence. I await Adam & Eve mark 2.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 12:31 AM
2

Difficult to tell as men have largely sacrificed themselves in the past for society and still do. Men are not only struggling against women gaining absolute power over mens sexual expression, but also those men simping to women in the hopes of getting more scraps from the table, so majority male decisions for change in government may not be possible. It may be in the USA at least, anti-discrimination can be used to bring things back on track, although I believe the Constitution allows an out. Me…
/r/MensRights09/02/25 03:58 AM
0

Your powers of interpretation are failing you if that is what you took from what I said. I was talking about the practice of downvoting being an emotional impulse, not performed by reason. And no to disgust or shame, because that is how many boys historically eagerly lost their virginity and the women were happy to comply with no harm to either. However, sex between teacher and student is not appropriate in a school situation because it creates envy as it's doubtful a teacher would willingly hav…
/r/MensRights08/02/25 10:19 AM
0

That same argument has been applied to homosexuality too, with people falling over themselves to convert the problem and demonising those who refused conversion. In that situation, homosexuals were also accused of recruiting boys by turning them into homosexuals, which was unfounded. So forgive me for believing your offers of help to pedophiles are no more than rehashed wishes to help homosexuals by trying to convert them. It's no surprise they might want to reject that help. Pedophiles have a d…
/r/MensRights08/02/25 10:09 AM
-12

Not when the kid (usually a boy or young man) is actually seeking such an experience. It's completely different for females as they have to worry about becoming pregnant and obtaining resources to raise a child, quite apart from the sexual aspect. Applying blanket rules of consent based only on age denies young men the opportunity to consent to sex, whilst not having enshrined rights over consent to use sperm means males can be abused by females wanting to use them to provide a child and the res…
/r/MensRights08/02/25 09:53 AM
-3

Downvoting is not reason but emotional impulse: it should never be permitted because the rules governing it cannot be enforced. It also serves no function except to punish. Upvoting is perfectly okay and achieves the same desired outcome without the associated punishment.
/r/MensRights08/02/25 09:45 AM
5

Historically young men have often had their first sexual experience with an older woman, frequently with a prostitute. The issue has rarely been lack of consent in losing virginity, just trepidation. These women were mature enough and without legal support to accept the responsibility for not getting pregnant and raping men of their resources for child support. My how that has changed though. The more recent issue is about women not only violating consent through power dynamics but abusing boys …
/r/MensRights08/02/25 09:34 AM
13

I don't believe it is lack of confidence, but women finally starting to be given the power to suppress male sexuality for their own subjective and selfish benefit through legal punishment of subjective feelings that can't be questioned. The better way would be for men and women to pursue win-win solutions, but I think power is corrupting women. Stop beating your head against the same brick wall expecting a sudden different outcome and look to the fundamental life objectives you want to achieve a…
/r/MensRights08/02/25 09:06 AM
1

Tens of millions in a population of 345 million is not a majority and even if it were, allowing anyone to have an unfulfilling life whilst you have a fulfilling one is simply a continuation of primitive survival of the fittest, not the development of greater civilisation. I believe vested interests have suspended the pursuit of greater civilisation for everyone for personal advantage.
/r/MensRights08/02/25 08:38 AM
4

During Covid, I noticed an uptick in complaints from women that they were being asked for sex more than the balance they had previously been able to achieve. It suggested to me that men now had greater opportunity to pursue sex that was not generally being matched by women having the same interest at the same greater opportunity. I believe it reflected womens comfort with the status quo that had been achieved, whilst men were sexually frustrated, who then jumped at the chance for an opportunity …
/r/MensRights08/02/25 08:23 AM
0

It is a frustrating thing to happen, but try not to let a natural emotional response to it lead to "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Take a deep breath, count to 10, calm down and apply reason to the situation as most men are able to do but sometimes lack in practice in utilising their abilities. The feminists will win if they can get men to leave the sub by simply engineering one post removal. With respect to your previous post that I did not respond to, I believe that, despite protes…
/r/MensRights08/02/25 07:54 AM
-4

We are material beings that exist in a material world and that is the environment we inhabit, but we do have another layer that I will call spirituality that is not material, however I think this is best left to when we inhabit a spiritual plane, beyond a theoretical or philosophical consideration in this one. In other words, do not be too quick in wanting to leave the material plane: we are here for a reason that we don't yet fathom and we die soon enough anyway. There is more than one way to s…
/r/MensRights05/02/25 08:11 AM
-2

Hatred is counterproductive because it doesn't actually solve anything, which requires reason, simply expressing subjective emotion leading to primitive emotional impulse action. I think part of the problem is that we still look at biology as strictly binary, when in fact it is a diverse continuum. Traditional masculinity and femininity exist as only 2 points on that spectrum with the rest various combinations of characteristics, each to varying degrees. Consequently there is no real definition …
/r/MensRights05/02/25 08:01 AM
1

I tend to think of it in this way: we are created by the universe in a miracle of life that implicitly makes a place for us and a basic "worthiness". Other people can try to take it away or convince us we don't have it, but it's a principle they can't destroy because it was given to us by a much higher power than them. With that mindset kernel of worthiness, it's easier to resist those that would put us down, because there is a point they can't force us below. Life was given to me, to use and I …
/r/MensRights05/02/25 07:33 AM
-9

Men need to be clearer and more direct about what they mean by loneliness, without fear or favour, instead of using womens definitions, because men are not women and their needs differ because of biology. In my opinion, men primarily need sexual fulfilment, but also to protect and provide for others through which they derive much satisfaction and happiness. You didn't think men undertake grueling marathons to give women multiple orgasms for their own sexual enjoyment did you, when men can take t…
/r/MensRights05/02/25 06:39 AM
2

DIY can be quite productive, however, whilst it may result in an unexpected and serendipitous connection with another person, that is far more likely if you pursue your interests and meet with like minded others. Even without meeting another person, exploring DIY beyond the very narrow focus of tradition in terms of meeting fundamental life objectives can reveal hitherto unknown gems.
/r/MensRights05/02/25 06:23 AM
2

When you say "improve ourselves" I hope you don't mean for the benefit of women so that they might choose us more. I think men need to explore their own selfishness for a change, like women do, as long as it doesn't impact negatively on someone elses rights. Women don't need to be protected by men in modern society as society is taking over that protection. Men should be free to explore other avenues of self-expression that aren't dependent on women. I have no doubt that as men learn to be more …
/r/MensRights05/02/25 01:57 AM
2

I belonged to a mens group for a while and it is amazing how men can learn to support each other and open up to other men when they feel it is safe, but maintaining reason and not becoming like women. The problem is that of tradition in society trying to maintain the status quo of male competition, because of fear of the unknown and remaining in the relative safety of tried and true practices. It doesn't help that society still has entrenched homophobia: actors are still afraid to express who th…
/r/MensRights05/02/25 01:46 AM
2

No, but they are oppressed by biology in being a target for the male sex drive whether they want it or not: that's not men's fault, take it up with the creator. Women are happy enough to take advantage of male biology when they want a child or sex, but when it doesn't benefit them, they don't give a toss about men, only themselves. If men didn't give a toss about women, rapes would be close to 100%, but they aren't, so most men do care: it's a shame women don't. There would be a solution if men …
/r/MensRights05/02/25 12:47 AM
4

I still can't get my head around "It's not about the nail" when for men it's all about the nail as the cause. I don't think it is as easy as being a fabrication: women believe they are in danger because they feel they are in danger, they can't reason that the probability is quite low, or that they could learn to defend themselves; but that's due to their biology being tailored towards raising children. In effect, women are more like children in some ways to ensure greater empathy: it works for b…
/r/MensRights05/02/25 12:40 AM
2

Don't expect it to last: feminism considers prostitution coercive control over women and has been working to have it eliminated. Scandinavia has already implemented policy that makes selling sex legal but buying sex illegal and I expect that to be implemented elsewhere. It means that men get fined for paying for sex to boost revenue and reduce the occurrence.
/r/MensRights04/02/25 11:34 PM
5

It's a worry that society is forcing men to go their own way to avoid financial penalty as it's going to hurt those they are trying to protect. And when there are no more alternatives for men, then there will be a revolution that takes us back centuries to a time that women will definitely not like, so it seems bizarre they want to risk that instead of working with men to achieve win-win outcomes. I guess expecting reason and rationality from women is futile.
/r/MensRights04/02/25 12:19 AM
3

If women can be discriminatory in mate choosing, then so can men: if it's shallow for one it's shallow for the other. Equality also means no double standards, like not making rape gynocentric by including only penetration but also its reverse perspective of engulfment.
/r/MensRights04/02/25 12:15 AM
13

Women risk rape, assault, murder, or even just incompetent lovers Isn't that the point of dating, to better understand the other person to determine if they are suitable to open up to for a long term relationship and reduce the risk? I'm concerned that you put incompetent lovers in with rape, assault and murder when its only regret compared to much more significant outcomes. Incompetency can be remedied with training, but I guess women just want everything handed to them on a silver platter with…
/r/MensRights03/02/25 03:49 AM
2

Very poor substitutes for the real thing, but also less risk of feelings being hurt, although exchanging it for a different hurt. I have often wondered how a woman can love a man and not want to see him happy by giving him all the sex he wants, when he wants to see her happy by protecting and providing resources and ensuring she has an orgasm even if it requires a marathon.
/r/MensRights03/02/25 03:25 AM
0

There has to be a lot of lonely women if they only go for 20% of men. The problem of loneliness for women is different from loneliness for men, because men want to be with women primarily for sex, but women are not primarily interested in sex or in the men who approach them. In a sense, men's loneliness is created by very picky women not as interested in sex as they are. Women wouldn't be as lonely if they lowered their standards and felt more amorous towards men: it's women's behaviour that is …
/r/MensRights03/02/25 03:19 AM
5

A culture of competition rather than comradeship, entrenched homophobia, fully occupied with providing resources and protection and little spare time to just gossip, with any spare time used to recover. I kid you not, the number of times I have walked into a shop staffed with women who expect you to wait until they have finished their conversation they were engaged in before you entered, instead of doing productive work, as if the job was to be paid to socialise with an unfortunate bit of effort…
/r/MensRights03/02/25 03:08 AM
6

Advocacy, as in trying to repair the damage, does nothing to address the cause and so you will be forever advocating whilst the cause continues to create suffering. The only prevention is prevention and that starts with opposing the perspectives that continue to create harm. Feminists have argued that women are the most shelter oppressed and thus shelters for men are a waste of resources. If you don't tackle this at the source, then it continues and you are forever fighting fires. That begins by…
/r/MensRights03/02/25 02:44 AM
11

The difference is that women only have to ask to have sex to let out the frustration as there is a queue of frustrated men lined up already, whereas men's sexual outlet via women determines how much sex they get (which is why there is a queue lined up for all women but not for all men) because it depends only on what the woman wants. Women are the protected monopoly gatekeepers to sex which gives them power over men and holds them hostage, however power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absol…
/r/MensRights03/02/25 01:41 AM
4

If women find certain things sexy on men, then its an obvious avenue of attraction and perhaps having more sex; however I think there is more to it than just one element. Anecdotally, if women find Chad attractive, we need to understand what that is exactly in case it can be manufactured artificially and employed as a weapon as women do with makeup and augmentation of body shape. Women have to find men sexy in order to have sex and thus children: once they get what they want though, I'm not sure…
/r/MensRights03/02/25 01:32 AM
2

Biology is not shallow, everything serves a purpose and men and women are biologically very different because of their roles and are motivated by different things. Men don't have to risk having a child grow inside of them, so they can be blase about sex (except for the laws making them responsible) whilst women have more to consider. I think that study would have been better to identify what in particular aroused women more: I expect it would find attractiveness rather than simply genitalia to b…
/r/MensRights03/02/25 01:17 AM
14

You won't be forced. Expect to see the rate of baby trapping based on one night stands and enforced child care payments increase as men disengage from romance: women still want children (and government increasing population for economic growth) and someone else to pay for them so they can afford a better lifestyle as a single Mother. Men will become little more than ATMs and sperm donors if they continue to engage. I believe it is disingenuous to suggest men give up the search for sexual fulfilm…
/r/MensRights03/02/25 12:53 AM
2

only men are expected to go to war Men aren't expected to break down in tears on the battlefront and be paralysed in the face of enemy fire like a bunny in headlights. Imagine if women went to war and did that en-masse, or more likely suddenly became pregnant before going to the front.
/r/MensRights02/02/25 08:16 AM
4

About on par with crime in total then. Are women too afraid to do anything in society because they may get killed, mugged, home invaded, etc; or do they go about their business and reckon the odds are against it happening to them? Society hasn't been able to eliminate crime yet no matter how it is approached.
/r/MensRights02/02/25 08:11 AM
8

If you live in scandinavia, I believe that is illegal: coming soon to a feminist venue near you.
/r/MensRights02/02/25 08:06 AM
2

Considering most graphics cards are now unaffordable because of being leveraged for AI, I can't see the products available in the future based on AI being cheap.
/r/MensRights02/02/25 08:05 AM
0

There is a remote possibility the call for crowdfunding is a red herring and a way to get men to waste money on pointless pursuits to still keep them unsatisfied (the equivalent of barefoot and pregnant).
/r/MensRights02/02/25 08:02 AM
-8

Some that can't think further than the tip of their nose. Yet you can't see outside the box.
/r/MensRights02/02/25 08:00 AM
0

Sex robots will never be more than glorified fleshlights in the near future, regardless of funding, so save your money for a fleshlight and the exploration of other avenues of fulfilment for life goals.
/r/MensRights02/02/25 07:58 AM
-2

I'm human and I have a right to pursue intimacy. Actually you don't, society doesn't give a toss whether you do or don't or whether you are able to succeed, only that you obey the laws, so it hasn't enshrined that right. Society is still fundamentally based on competition and survival of the fittest: it's not very civilised. You are right though that you shouldn't be shamed for something that is completely outside your control and humans should have rights to pursue their biological nature, as l…
/r/MensRights01/02/25 10:23 AM
1

I'm not, some discriminatory gynocentric laws and situations have already started to swing back in some places in the world where they realise the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme instead of achieving balance through fundamental equality: feminisms claim of equality when it was always about female advantage is going to come back and bite them on the arse, in my opinion through reason.
/r/MensRights28/01/25 08:37 AM
1

Women still have great power, because most men believe there isn't anything else as good. There probably isn't anything else that meets all mens needs in a single package, but then who says mens needs can only be provided in a single package? Very few men explore alternative ways of getting their individual needs met because they don't know they exist because they haven't deconstructed their needs to the basics; plus I think they may have a degree of Stockholm Syndrome and afraid to give up what…
/r/MensRights28/01/25 08:32 AM
1

However, women want children and they need sperm and resources for that, but children will always be born one way or another: from a womans perspective, preferably with Chad, but if not maybe with Chad's sperm and a cuckold or at worst any man babytrapped and then divorced once she gets what she wants with resources guaranteed by the family courts for 18 years. Sex is only used for procreation a miniscule percent of its overall expression for men: it can take a single ejaculation for very fertil…
/r/MensRights28/01/25 08:17 AM
1

Whilst I agree with this, I think the easiest path is to enact legislation to make use of a man's sperm to create a baby without his consent illegal, similar to how women have made use of their bodies for sex without consent, illegal; but it won't be achieved without a fight from women who don't want to see their power eroded.
/r/MensRights28/01/25 08:11 AM
1

There's too much entrenched competition between men, encouraged by society and leveraged by the role men play, plus trauma from men trusting their emotions to women and being betrayed, to be easily or quickly altered. It doesn't help that men are not allowed to create their own men-only groups, because of discrimination, yet women are allowed to create discriminatory women-only groups because they feel uncomfortable with men around. It's hypocrisy: if women can have women-only groups then men sh…
/r/MensRights28/01/25 08:07 AM
1

Women were effectively in a hostage situation in the past, because there were few opportunities to go it alone; and if you had a child without being married, that was the end of the world. However, did women really expect to be provided for and protected from other men without paying some price? That price was to accept more sex than they would like and to maintain the household. Basically women learned the reality that they couldn't have it all. Men couldn't have it all either, they were requir…
/r/MensRights28/01/25 05:09 AM
25

Men are biologically designed around doing rather than feeling because of their roles as protector and provider. Women are biologically designed around feeling in order to connect with pre-verbal needs of children, they don't have to do that for men who meet their needs by doing. Women derive pleasure from their emotional expression as well as their ability to have multiple orgasms, so they are well provided for, whereas men are more limited to pleasure from doing, which is why they seem to want…
/r/MensRights28/01/25 03:32 AM
8

It's all in the name "domestic violence" because men are seen as more violent and aggressive than women, so it targets their characteristics. If it was named "domestic abuse" then psychological factors would be involved, including goading men beyond breaking point so they physically act out and can then be criminalised, thus painting women as inciters. Part of the problem is ignoring the cause of abuse and only focusing on an event after the fact as if punishment will prevent crime, it doesn't. …
/r/MensRights28/01/25 03:08 AM
3

Well they are actors, who pretend for a living. I have often wondered how one could live with an actor and believe it was sincere and not all just part of some act.
/r/MensRights23/01/25 06:31 AM
1

Curious that the audio evidence wasn't thrown out of court because it wasn't consensually made.
/r/MensRights23/01/25 06:29 AM
5

More like "the little girl who cried bear", these days, considering the man vs bear hypothetical idiocy.
/r/MensRights23/01/25 06:22 AM
3

Talking about "work" is like talking about the gender "pay gap": it obscures differences that are inconvenient to the narrative and introduces false equivalence. It all comes down to money in the end, which creates a level playing field for comparison. Convert actual physical or mental effort into a monetary equivalent, if it isn't already, by applying how much it would cost to hire someone to do that effort and that will provide a common basis on how to compare: it's not about actually doing th…
/r/MensRights23/01/25 06:09 AM
5

If you were a woman in the past who had to hand scrub the laundry, sweep the floor, cook food from scratch and take care of children, that was a huge effort; however, now "doing the laundry" is bundling the clothes into a washing machine, adding detergent (unless it is one of the new machines that has a tank and draws what it needs), setting the cycle (if it wasn't the default), literally a 5 minute max effort, and having 1-2 hours free to do other things. Same with sweeping the floor being repl…
/r/MensRights23/01/25 02:26 AM
5

If a woman is a stay at home parent, they have to do something apart from caring for children (which they want equally with their partner), to help pay the bills for the food and shelter she is receiving for free and that just happens to be the housework. If she is contributing financially, then that amount of housework responsibility decreases. But remember, men are working and also doing unpaid property maintenance work (often for her benefit), so she has a large work quotient to equal, for eq…
/r/MensRights23/01/25 02:05 AM
22

Are you using the term "girls" literally or symbolically instead of women? I thought you meant women, so I was surprised, since many women seeing a man alone with a boy will immediately come up with an accusation of pedophile and approach to try to confirm.
/r/MensRights23/01/25 01:56 AM
0

This is all a red herring when sexual characteristics are only meaningful to personal intimates, in which case they want to know the actual reality, not the nearest closest category; and the rest of society only needs to identify every individual uniquely (which is the real problem). Business can employ people according to the characteristics they need, not the erroneous binary sexual shorthand we have adopted for decades. The medical profession needs to be able to treat everyone, not selective …
/r/MensRights23/01/25 01:46 AM
2

Women characterise men seeking sex as predation, when its simply the nature of biology. As a more evolved species, humans can reason and moderate biology, but it always remains as the foundation of our lives. The argument is not as simple as sexual predation though: men have to pursue sex with women if they want any and women selectively choose to accept or reject the sexual advances of individual men, so it would be ridiculous to say men are predators when women welcome Chad with open lips and …
/r/MensRights21/01/25 05:21 AM
2

Harems (polygyny) only traditionally worked when the male had enough resources to service multiple women. With the move to support single Mothers by society and through holding the sperm donor in relationships hostage to child support for 18 years even though the man may only have received marital favours for a short period of time, polygamy is possible by forcing all men to pay whilst getting little or nothing in return, whilst the woman gets the children she wanted and the resources to raise t…
/r/MensRights21/01/25 04:20 AM
5

Women can't see beyond their own perspective and feel entitled to determine mens lives. How would women like it if men decided how much and what sex they would receive (including no sex because they weren't attractive enough) and told women who didn't like that to just go diddle themselves? Men can only have sex when women choose: we are not autonomous sexual beings but held hostage to womens choice because no other alternatives are openly offered in society. Women currently have a monopoly over…
/r/MensRights21/01/25 03:09 AM
1

No, however now you mention it, his theory on lack of free will makes sense because we are not free of external (and internal biological) influences over our responses.
/r/MensRights12/01/25 02:57 AM
1

I no longer believe men are expendable, they just pay a price for their specific role which hasn't changed as much as the price paid by women. This change differential may be a result of some people viewing men as expendable and not wanting to destroy their ability to exploit the male role for their own benefit. The feminists that want to reduce the male population to 10% wish to continue leveraging the male role in the price they pay, so I would expect them to be at the forefront of conscriptio…
/r/MensRights12/01/25 02:50 AM
1

It is a system that asks men to deny their humanity in exchange for power Rubbish, it's an intrinsic element of biological differentiation for sexual reproduction that leverages male characteristics to protect and provide: that role traditionally comes at a cost, but then so too does childbirth traditionally for women and I would argue that men are compensated by sex and women by the children they want. However, this is the traditional biological perspective and human intelligence varies that so…
/r/MensRights12/01/25 02:27 AM
0

Nothing wrong with equality of outcome, but you have to select the right fundamental outcome that doesn't have built-in gender or other biases, including an outcome an out-group doesn't want.
/r/MensRights12/01/25 02:05 AM
1

The best way to gender parity is to sack Ministers for Women, introduce Ministers for human rights and enshrine non-gendered human rights.
/r/MensRights12/01/25 02:03 AM
2

having a family and getting married come with responsibilities that extend well beyond just providing financially Why is it only men who are expected to be responsible and to provide financially: what happened to confident, capable, independent women? those injuries left such a traumatic impact on his body that recovery was difficult for the family. Man injured, family most affected. Says it all about the role of men as ATM and sperm donor and not an autonomous person.
/r/MensRights12/01/25 01:59 AM
1

Ultimately, everyone's life is their own. The arrogance of children thinking a man owes them time, good things and not to do anything for himself as if the universe revolves around them. Do we know if Mr. Hammond even wanted children or was just doing it to appease his wife?
/r/MensRights12/01/25 01:54 AM
3

Doesn't matter if men (general) seem to want sex all the time, it's an assumption that this specific time and this specific man does. Consent is about each time for each person individually. Women say they want sex as much as men, so that would mean consent should be implied for them too: I don't think so, so unless we want yet another double standard based on gender, consent must be non-gendered and never assumed. The assumption that a man with an erection automatically consents to sex feeds in…
/r/MensRights12/01/25 12:48 AM
3

Then they would claim it was signed under duress and it would be back to her word against his and we all know #believewomen.
/r/MensRights12/01/25 12:38 AM
0

Yet you did it twice: was that because you refused to see it as the nature of women?
/r/MensRights11/01/25 04:40 AM
1

The current reality is that the law is on women's side: it hasn't always been thus and may yet be different again in the future, to be more balanced and based on reason, not subjective emotions and hurt feelings.
/r/MensRights11/01/25 04:38 AM
2

I'm not so sure men have been expendable historically, just that their greater sacrifice in their particular biological role was usually rewarded by sex whenever they wanted because of their greater strength and was probably considered a fair exchange. Unfortunately now, men are still required to play that role, but they only get as much sex as a woman chooses to give.
/r/MensRights11/01/25 04:35 AM
1

Everything you say is suspect if you are so convinced I am a woman when I am actually a man: your ability to interpret correctly is seriously compromised.
/r/MensRights10/01/25 03:39 AM
1

Probably driven by penis envy, however women don't know what it is like to be a man (and vice versa), so the grass seems greener on the other side. The experiences of some FTM transgender people, or even women who pretended to be men, however, should be a cautionary tale that the grass on the other side is very different from what was imagined, because the person was looking through gender tinted glasses in an echo chamber.
/r/MensRights10/01/25 03:26 AM
3

There are good reasons behind some of the "oppression" in the middle east: women being covered in public is less likely to arouse men and thus less likely to result in conflict such as being approached for sex when she doesn't want it. Aggressive policing of this policy however does veer into oppression. Western women complain about sexual harassment at work and yet they dress provocatively to attract male attention and create the circumstances they dislike. However, this is a result of advertis…
/r/MensRights10/01/25 02:39 AM
3

Freedom of religion needs to be circumscribed to personal freedom of religion, not the ability to impose your religion on anyone else, especially those who can't consent: it's the civilised thing to do. If that upsets people with certain religious ideas, they can emigrate to a country that supports them, however our children should not be sacrificed to the outdated historical ideas of others. The Swedish people gave her feminist ideas a chance, but ultimately decided to elect someone else, which…
/r/MensRights10/01/25 02:01 AM
7

This simply highlights how perverted the justice system has become in having double standards over the presumption of innocence: the accused are effectively deemed guilty until proven not guilty in a court, by punishing them in various ways before due process is actioned as if they were guilty. Detaining people alleged to have committed a crime in conditions completely opposite to those they would experience with freedom is effectively a punishment for assumed guilt. Even if a man is proven not …
/r/MensRights10/01/25 01:07 AM
1

Why the insistence on hate crime? Surely what she did is more important as a crime than why, or is this another example of males being dismissed as victims because a womans feelings are justified and more important?
/r/MensRights10/01/25 12:49 AM
1

They aren't avenues to find great women, but avenues to still achieve fundamental life outcomes that women were providing but are now unavailable from that source to many men. In other words, it's finding alternatives to women for fundamental life outcomes, such as sexual fulfilment, when women aren't available to you, instead of feeling life is hopeless and consequently becoming depressed or even ending your own life. There's more to life for men than putting it all in the hands of women to dic…
/r/MensRights05/01/25 04:55 AM
1

Hope for what? The nature of women has been known for a very long time: they are emotion not reason based with a fundamental biological agenda of having children with alpha males and securing resources for that in any way possible. Sure there is diversity and some women may better match the interests of men, however most men will be competing against each other for those women and the serpent is once again whispering in Eve's ear that she can have it all without considering the consequence. Howe…
/r/MensRights04/01/25 12:03 AM
8

Relationships require work to maintain: you simply won't have the same time, money and opportunity to work on yourself whilst also meeting the needs of a woman in a relationship. Above all else, remember your needs as a man are secondary to hers: sex and everything else is only when she wants it. For good reason it is "happy wife, happy life" but it means a man's happiness is controlled by the happiness of another person and they are no longer autonomous.
/r/MensRights02/01/25 12:11 PM
2

Pregnancy can only happen if a man chooses to put sperm there. No, there are a number of stages before pregnancy can only happen, including primarily a woman consenting to sex, the use of contraception and finally the option of termination, as well as the man choosing to have conventional sex. All of these steps are controlled by the woman because it is her body, her choice and ultimately her responsibility to ensure her own safety. If a woman is so concerned about becoming pregnant, she can cho…
/r/MensRights01/01/25 10:58 PM
24

She got herself pregnant, it's her body her choice remember, given so many options for contraception and ultimately termination. She's not a victim in this situation, he is as he did not give consent. It's amazing how women have been able to legalise consent for sex but men have not been able to legalise consent over use of their sperm. Unless there are legal consequences such as mandated alimony or child support, and even if there are, men should consider whether walking away is the best option…
/r/MensRights01/01/25 01:40 AM
2

There are some male masseurs out there who would be open to providing a happy ending to the massage, as an introduction to male-male interaction, however legally they can't because it would be considered prostitution, just like female masseurs. Such are the instruments being used to constrain men's sexual exploration and choice, along with a dose of homophobia. There are groups, however, that introduce men to additional potentials in their body eroticism, through workshops that could be an inter…
/r/MensRights01/01/25 01:11 AM
1

What's this "other team" you are talking about? Men span the spectrum of sexual orientation from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual and everything inbetween. Within the exclusively homosexual group, known as gay, behaviour can range from hyper-masculine to hyper-feminine. Homophobia is largely about men being thought of as effeminate. However, even within the homosexual group, many remain masculine and outside that exclusive group are the bisexuals and heterosexuals that are also…
/r/MensRights31/12/24 07:25 AM
1

Men are still battling entrenched homophobia in society, which I believe has been deliberately introduced to prevent men from discovering there are other options. Unless you go "eww" when you masturbate, your fear or lack of interest in engaging in sex with other men is all in your mind, since you have no problem engaging in sex with a man, yourself: it's just that we are not encouraged to look at ourselves as having a relationship with ourselves.
/r/MensRights31/12/24 12:50 AM
1

Not only onanism, but mutual masturbation with other men (which gives you the sharing aspect of sex). Even in onanism, you can look at it as having loving sex with yourself, with a man's body stimulating a man's body: it's just that society has viewed sex through the lens of gynocentricity for so long and punished androcentricity for so long, most men can't imagine anything else. Traditional penile-centred masturbation also isn't the only way to experience orgasm: indeed, other erotic zone stimu…
/r/MensRights31/12/24 12:46 AM
2

Unfortunately people can change over time from sane to crazy. An interesting anecdote is that men lament their partners change from the sweet girl they married, whilst women lament their partners don't change and are determined to change them (they see it as a challenge).
/r/MensRights30/12/24 06:32 AM
3

It doesn't matter if you are gay, sexual abuse is becoming all about a woman's feelings only. You can bet no women are going to be making accusations against Chad, but any other man is fair game, including gay men.
/r/MensRights30/12/24 06:13 AM
3

We need to stop representing gay as monolithic and mens sexual expression as being binary one or the other. I swear most people only think in limited terms of procreation and not the unlimited environment of sexual expression.
/r/MensRights30/12/24 06:11 AM
1

Ever considered loving yourself and pursuing sexual fulfilment in that direction? I think that is part of Tantra. Too many men have not only not explored anything beyond penile stimulation by women, but have been circumcised and are missing the function of the foreskin without knowing that they are missing something. I strongly believe that eventually circumcision will be found to be just another method of controlling men.
/r/MensRights30/12/24 06:07 AM
1

In other words, sex with women is not the only avenue to male sexual fulfilment, you don't have to go celibate or monk.
/r/MensRights30/12/24 06:02 AM
2

40% of women could see themselves making a false rape allegation should be added to the percentage of women who do make false allegations to arrive at the risk factor of women. It makes as much sense as just giving that one statistic.
/r/MensRights30/12/24 05:57 AM
3

That solution tends to the "F U Jack, I got mine" response. Whilst there will be some women who are "good" for men, that will only cater to a small number of men, so what are the others supposed to do?
/r/MensRights30/12/24 05:53 AM
1

You are ignoring the other ways of men enjoying sexuality that don't involve women, which are at least as enjoyable as sex with women and usually more enjoyable than sex with women who abuse men. Many men have not explored their own sexuality beyond penis in vagina, blowjobs or handjobs by women.
/r/MensRights30/12/24 05:50 AM
2

How about fucking your friends instead? It's only recreational sex, little different from shared contact sports except in your head. You touch man parts with man parts when you masturbate without going "eww". Just something to ponder how much society entrenches homophobia to keep men enslaved. A monopoly only exists, along with its power, if there are no other options. Bill Burr suggests men have a never ending sandwich in their pants, if a woman locks the refrigerator, however the never mention…
/r/MensRights25/12/24 11:55 PM
1

Ever heard of sabotage, theft or failure? Contraception is not 100% effective, there is always a risk, unless you have been successfully sterilised.
/r/MensRights25/12/24 11:37 PM
1

Trump is going to have a battle on his hands from both the Jewish and Muslim communities who will argue it is an aspect of religious freedom.
/r/MensRights25/12/24 02:04 PM
5

Children and young creatures, yes, it's obvious a protective instinct towards the young, but I'm not so sure it also applies to women as an instinctual thing versus a desire to maintain access to sex or a societal indoctrination. Remember "never hit a woman"? That's not instinctual and had to be ingrained through punishing and making an example of those who did, which has now evolved into significant punishment if you upset a woman's subjective feelings.
/r/MensRights25/12/24 01:52 PM
1

Peoples views can be shaped by nature and nurture: the research doesn't seem to distinguish which is responsible, so it's possible it's a learned expression, constantly reinforced within society and thus becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Shame is a powerful tool in manipulating people and the white feather women who shamed those men who refused to go to war was an example of how society reinforces the sacrificial nature of men and the importance of women's lives, by women, no less, in this in…
/r/MensRights25/12/24 01:42 PM
-1

Don't be too hard on other men, we are all forced to compete for scraps from the table women choose to drop. Because of women's monopoly control over access to sex, they can create a thirst that drives desperation and competition, but only for men, they get their pick of guys from a queue, just waiting for a chance because of their desperation. Women don't just create incels, but desperate competitive men too.
/r/MensRights25/12/24 09:13 AM
1

Not just a rape charge, many men don't even consider they could be hit with baby-trapping and then conned into support because of a sob story and guilt trip, if not legal requirement.
/r/MensRights25/12/24 09:08 AM
4

Are you sure it is not the desire for sex rather than some intrinsic value to the woman herself, that motivates men to save women over men? What are the statistics on gay men saving people? That might indicate whether it is biology or the sex drive at work.
/r/MensRights22/12/24 02:31 AM
6

Laws can always be changed to close loopholes and workarounds: the real problem is if they are made retrospective so you aren't able to minimise risk.
/r/MensRights22/12/24 02:21 AM
8

Instead of asking whether the solution is worthwhile, start asking what fundamental things marriage is the solution for and whether there are other solutions to provide those things that are more easily individually obtainable, or even if they are things you actually want (instead of something you are forced to accept in order to get the other things). Putting all your eggs in one basket is a risky proposition. Men are usually good at breaking down problems into their component parts. As for a d…
/r/MensRights22/12/24 02:17 AM
1

Threat should never be an option, just quietly go about facilitating men to GTOW with fundamental options for achievement of considered life goals that are more readily available than women. The Body Electric workshops are slowly progressing one aspect of that development I believe. Men and women were never meant to be opponents and a civil war between them will be very destructive to civilisation. It's not capitulation to choose to go your own way in order to prevent destruction, but choosing t…
/r/MensRights19/12/24 06:28 AM
1

I don't think you can blame men for wanting sex, it's a powerful drive, but the reality of ethics is that we can't coerce women to achieve that outcome and we aren't going to change women's emotional decisions with reason, so the only logical path is to provide men with other options for sexual fulfilment than only pursuing women. However, that's a hard thing to do when society has an entrenched tradition that most follow and aren't prepared to look outside the box. If you build it, they will co…
/r/MensRights19/12/24 05:50 AM
2

Attractiveness is already a consideration at the very heart of women's subjective decisions as to whether they fear or love a man. I doubt Chad evokes fear instead of sexual arousal. But these responses are fundamental to criminal charges being laid as the laws have been widened and the bar lowered to include increasingly trivial events which still trigger a subjective emotional response. The real issue is that justice is going from objective harms to subjective hurt feelings, which is completel…
/r/MensRights19/12/24 05:37 AM
1

It's going to be difficult when men have been used to competing with each other over women for centuries. Now men are being shamed over their innate biological sexual expression by being called "predators".
/r/MensRights19/12/24 04:42 AM
6

We need to add a protected class: people who are accused of a crime, but found not guilty or had the charges dropped. Everyone accused of a crime should be a protected class if we believe in the presumption of innocence. That protection should only end on a determination of guilt and the expiry of reasonable appeal.
/r/MensRights19/12/24 02:17 AM
2

Charges usually are accompanied by detention or advancing a fine in advance (bail) and advertisement of identity: both are effectively punishments in advance in anticipation of guilt and do not reflect the presumption of innocence. If we honoured the presumption of innocence, loss of freedom and privacy would be reduced to the absolute minimum required to ensure the process can continue. Where detention is required to prevent further potential harms to society, that should be conducted in the fo…
/r/MensRights19/12/24 02:13 AM
2

It murt be happening to a huge number of boys, because their foreskin isn't very large (especially infants) and large quantities would be needed to provide for the industry.
/r/MensRights19/12/24 12:45 AM
1

If you are prepared for the commitment to its care and happiness, owning a dog is the closest thing you will ever experience to unconditional love. Womens love is always conditional.
/r/MensRights17/12/24 06:51 AM
1

Eventually, I believe all nations will move towards de-facto recognition of all opposite sex sexual relationships as equivalent to marriage with the same constraints.
/r/MensRights17/12/24 06:10 AM
1

Whilst sharing sex with someone adds to the experience, the orgasm is still the same, yet men can achieve multiple orgasms and levels of sexual pleasure they didn't think possible by exploring other avenues of erotic stimulation that doesn't involve women. Most men haven't explored beyond vanilla penile stimulation and penile stimulation after having part of their erotic anatomy mutilated without their consent. Then there are all the other things a man can do for his own enjoyment beyond sex.
/r/MensRights17/12/24 06:06 AM
1

There is no guarantee she won't change though and the prevailing anecdote that says women lament their men don't change whilst men lament their women do, suggests she wants to change you as she changes herself. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce, which is not encouraging for the long haul.
/r/MensRights17/12/24 06:00 AM
2

Do the majority of men treat women like that under patriarchy? If not, why would women treat men even worse than shit under their own system?
/r/MensRights17/12/24 05:52 AM
2

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so this "empowerment" can only result in one thing: don't women understand this? Men no longer have power over women, yet women still yearn for power for themselves.
/r/MensRights17/12/24 05:47 AM
2

Not only more female voters, but also male voters that sympathise with women in order to get laid or continue to get sex, because women are now the ultimate arbiters over whether sex occurs given that men are punished for going against their wishes.
/r/MensRights16/12/24 11:52 PM
1

Babies are the result of men and women. Whilst it is correct that one man can impregnate many women but a woman can (usually) only have a baby with one man at any one time and superficially it might seem that women are thus more important than men in maintaining a population, it ignores the important principle of biology of maximising gene combinations in an attempt to confer survivability against the challenges of nature: reducing the genetic contribution of many men, especially down to one man…
/r/MensRights16/12/24 11:50 PM
1

Men and women are interdependent and can't continue to exist without the other, thus both are equally important from a biological perspective. The issue is fundamentally about womens subjective feelings, which they believe are more important than objective matters, reason and mens feelings, which unsurprisingly comes back to biology again and the psychophysical differences between men and women in the service of sexual reproduction. Society needs to accept these differences and not pretend they …
/r/MensRights16/12/24 11:39 PM
1

It can't be a fundamental instinct because males of other species don't prioritise female needs above their own. Nature is replete with examples of rape, for example, however humans now consider higher order ethics as well as their own instinctive needs. Unfortunately we aren't intelligent enough to also consider the ethics associated with still meeting mens needs as well as those of women and achieve the intelligent outcome of win-win. The feminist solution to ethics for womens needs is to igno…
/r/MensRights16/12/24 11:17 PM
1

I think it is in the nature of women to want to settle down with Chad, but are disappointed when Chad doesn't want to settle down with them and they subsequently take it out on not-Chad. You can't reason with them, because for women it's all about their emotions, so it's like banging your head against a brick wall expecting a different outcome. It's also their choice which one can't argue with at an ethical level. The only support I can offer men in an involuntary celibate situation is to sugges…
/r/MensRights10/12/24 07:54 AM
1

To my way of thinking, a community is a group of like minded individuals who choose to be a part of that group. For the most part, incels are forced into their situation by the choices of others, they don't choose it themselves and forming a community tacitly suggests it was a personal choice. It's also a label carrying hatred by those who want to create the circumstances of a particular group of male victims, classify them into a group and thus have a group to further vilify. It's difficult to …
/r/MensRights10/12/24 06:10 AM
4

Men impacted, women most affected apparently.
/r/MensRights10/12/24 02:13 AM
2

It's disturbing that they want to create a rights division between men and women instead of creating a human rights umbrella for both: broadening the program for women to include men at a notionally equal but segregated (to maintain womens feelings of safety) and targeted (due to male/female differences) level. Calling for input from already disenfranchised and depressed men is not going to solve the problem: there needs to be an advocacy body of men, for men, by men in addition to casual input …
/r/MensRights10/12/24 02:13 AM
1

What is the point of responding to you when you interpret and reframe what I have said into a narrative that better supports your own opinion and try to put the words back into my mouth?
/r/MensRights08/12/24 11:47 PM
1

You spoke about balance of male and female energy, however I doubt those other male presences will be balanced with the continuous household female presence. I hope that 10 years reflects the time period before you have a child, otherwise the important child early years will suffer with an even greater imbalance if you leave it until the child is 10.
/r/MensRights08/12/24 05:06 AM
1

The "empathetic" left is as true a statement as feminism being about equality in principle and practice for everyone in all areas: instead it relates to a very narrow definition in service of the empath only.
/r/MensRights07/12/24 04:31 AM
3

i work every day with children that have behavioral health problems and a lot of it stems from not having stable balances of female and male energy in the home, among abuse and other factors. Yet you want to bring children into a relationship between 2 women where there isn't a stable balance of male and female energy, merely when the financial situation is better? I hope you see the contradictions between what you are saying and what you want to do and have plans to incorporate balanced male en…
/r/MensRights07/12/24 04:17 AM
7

Welcome to the return to geocentric theory, but with women believing the universe revolves around them gynocentricly.
/r/MensRights07/12/24 04:00 AM
4

It certainly helps in that situation if you are more like Chad than not. I never cease to be amazed that humans have developed so much in intelligence and yet here we are employing primitive attraction techniques without any reason behind it, as our distant ancestors used.
/r/MensRights07/12/24 03:15 AM
7

I've got news for you: if a woman is halfway decent any man is going to be interested if given a chance. Men aren't quite so selective when it comes to access to sex without having to go through the mating ritual expected by women every.single.time (because women are more alike than different when it comes to sex).
/r/MensRights07/12/24 03:11 AM
16

Unless you are Chad and then any inhibitions are thrown to the winds, with lips wide open; except Chad likely won't settle down with you and provide the stability and resources you want to raise a child, so disappointment is on the horizon and yet more reason to hate men. Yet if getting resources to raise a child is the objective, many not-Chads will still be quite suitable, however reason and logic are not operational in this mind space. Making perfect the enemy of good seems to be a hidden fem…
/r/MensRights07/12/24 03:06 AM
17

Emotional intelligence is an oxymoron: emotions aren't intelligent but primitive knee-jerk reactive impulses devoid of reason. I don't believe women can empathise with anyone except children, without it all being about them: children are their biological target, so in some sense women remain infantilised to better relate to them and their needs. Many men get more satisfaction with far less stress from a pocket pussy than a woman, which is sad because sex with a real person adds an extra dimensio…
/r/MensRights07/12/24 02:55 AM
1

The real world is what we create, including an economic model where prices have so outstripped income of one person, they can no longer fund an "adequate" lifestyle for families without an extra income. Yet this was possible a scant 50 years ago. It hasn't helped that women want to be the same as men, despite being biologically tailored to be the best child raiser from an economic standpoint during the crucial early years and wanting children, not being paid to have them. There have to be sacrif…
/r/MensRights07/12/24 12:04 AM
1

Humans literally are the way they are because women selected for men who attracted their favors by giving them what they wanted. I understand wolves often mate outside the pack, but I thought that was driven by an instinctive biological desire to maximise gene combinations, rather than an external wolf giving her something she wanted (unless you consider a biological drive to be an instinctual thing she wanted without being consciously aware of the reason). An interesting theory. I guess the ten…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 04:18 PM
1

The driving force for women working is needing to pay bills. According to feminism, I thought it was to have a career the same as men, however I believe it is part of an attempt to become independent from men and have it all without having to meet the needs of men or indeed have any male involvement. The pay gap is simply a ruse to be paid more for less work, whilst menstrual leave and menopause leave are further efforts to be paid for doing nothing and child support is getting those without chi…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 04:02 PM
1

Every diversity is kind of in its own category, different from the rest and finding it difficult to relate to and interact with the others because of those differences. Fear of difference is a fundamental aspect of our natures that we struggle with, no more so than between male and female. Gay is a far too imprecise term to describe someone, beyond their same sex sexual orientation.
/r/MensRights06/12/24 03:45 PM
1

Most of the environment is secure, with big predators mostly under control Many women now argue that men are the predators today: sexual predators, yet its still the same old sexual biology at work that hasn't changed for millions of years. What has changed is developing ethics but only applying it in favour of outcomes for women and ignoring men completely. Both men and women have been required to sacrifice in their own way: men their lives to protect women and provide resources (more likely th…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 03:33 PM
1

Society still hasn't accepted the reality of diversity and statistical distributions and is clinging to the binary model: where they are forced to accept elements of diversity, it is always shoehorned into the most acceptable narrative: effeminate men who pose no sexual threat but can still be slapped down as men and not true sisters if the need arises, except diverse men are not necessarily effeminate. There is greater difficulty dealing with the nature of transgender diversity because it is mo…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 02:52 PM
3

Homosexual men are sexually safe for women, because they aren't interested in sex with them, yet they can still offer women benefits of their gender: it's like having more women friends but with additional talents that can be exploited and without some of the downsides of other women.
/r/MensRights06/12/24 02:41 PM
1

I think it is important to look at why men are harassing and assaulting women and why women are becoming more than fearful but paranoid beyond the actual incidence of objective harm. It is said that women don't owe men sex, yet biologically they are designed to do so through sexual reproduction, whilst men are designed with a sex drive. Of course as an intelligent species, eventually choice becomes a factor into this dance, yet it doesn't expunge the fundamental biological sex drive of men. I be…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 02:32 PM
0

The problem with that is that it doesn't need many women to be the opposite of wonderful and supportive to deny an equal number of men and themselves a relationship and thus the suffering of not being able to obtain the benefits of such, because the numbers are roughly equal. It's basically cutting off your nose to spite your face and it gets worse the more women that this applies to. Civilisation should be at the point of supporting the happiness of all the people as much as that is possible, n…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 02:15 PM
1

Men are more similar to each other and therefore more compatible, than to women: it's only the expectations of a fixed sexual orientation and society's resistance to any other options that doesn't offer any other choice to heterosexual men, whilst diverse men have more options particularly because men don't necessarily hate other men.
/r/MensRights06/12/24 02:05 PM
1

I think society misunderstands the reality of diversity: sexual orientation is only one characteristic that can extend from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual, with varying proportions of bisexuality between them; however this is only for sexual orientation and other behavioural characteristics can also span a spectrum from stereotypically masculine to stereotypically feminine. As a consequence, a man can be sexually attracted to other men, but also be a screaming queen to a hype…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 01:53 PM
1

I believe one of the driving forces for women working is to obtain independence from men by providing resources for child raising themselves as though women can have it all without the pesky involvement of men in their lives, completely ignoring the reality it takes 2 parents to raise a child unless you are an outlier and that the current structure that supports the working of society was constructed by men and would not exist (at least in this form that women are trying to leverage) without the…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 07:18 AM
3

A lot of women say “all my girl friends have some sort of sexual assault or rape story” That's because to women, anything that hurts their feelings or causes offense is a crime of the same magnitude and so of course all women have a hurt-feelings-offended story: it's why laws are being widened to include trivial things and eventually we will arrive at the "he raped me with his eyes" crime.
/r/MensRights06/12/24 06:58 AM
1

At the end of the day, society is based on the differing biology and characteristics of men and women and that hasn't changed even today when male strength and sacrifice still largely supports society. It's no coincidence then that society has a male dominated hierarchical structure to manage this support function. Women are welcome to take over the defense services front lines at any time if they think they can do a better job. Any takers?
/r/MensRights06/12/24 06:39 AM
3

Men and women are too fundamentally different to work together except where it relates to their biological reason for existence: sexual reproduction, where they are complementary.
/r/MensRights06/12/24 06:28 AM
3

Society was built on the strong backs and sacrifice of men that would not have been possible if they had dissolved into tears at the first hint of a challenge or balked at putting their sensitivities on the line. Without strength and willingness to do things women won't, society would collapse. Who is going down in the sewers to fix blockages and who has the physical strength to work on oil rigs, fishing vessels in the North Seas, etc? It's a nice idea for men to show their emotions and perhaps …
/r/MensRights06/12/24 06:10 AM
1

Recent graduates without experience are not hugely employable, especially if they have a criminal record. Are you able to obtain voluntary work or work experience and some kind of income associated with it until you gain more employability? I know when I graduated you were lucky to get a job with a career path in your field of study and many graduates ended up having to work low paid jobs outside their degree just to live, but that was a long time ago, although such circumstances do recur in cyc…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 05:47 AM
2

Firstly, society has to abandon this idea that prostitution is wrong: it's your body to do what you want with and it's the oldest profession; however, it is unfortunate that some people are driven to it because of financial reasons, not because it's something they want to do. There is also nothing wrong with men having sex with men if they wish and it's consensual: it doesn't even mean you are gay. It sounds like the potential for war is increasing, so whilst enlisting during peacetime is simply…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 05:35 AM
1

Firstly, I thought there were concessions for age of consent for youngsters with similar ages, where it is otherwise consensual, so I'm sorry you were incarcerated for it. Secondly, whilst a couple of women being selfish isn't a mens rights issue, if women generally behave in a selfish way that impacts the rights of men to equal access or equality, then it would be. It doesn't even need to be many women to have an impact: we have an entire justice system to deal with the small amount of crime re…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 05:13 AM
1

Parity is not equality because feminists garner male sympathisers too which can give them a majority.
/r/MensRights30/11/24 11:51 AM
5

Australia operates on the principle of de-facto relationships as well as marriage, to the point that having characteristics of a relationship is viewed as being equivalent to marriage. I understand you don't even have to cohabitate to be deemed to be in a de-facto relationship as long as other factors are involved. Refer to https://damiengreer.com.au/family-law/de-facto-relationship-australian-law/ Marriage in Australia is now more of a religious ceremony as it doesn't confer any legal benefits …
/r/MensRights30/11/24 11:49 AM
9

Where sexual assault for women is defined as being looked at in a way a woman doesn't like, whilst cutting off a man's penis is considered a joke. Feminism, equality: absolutely. /s
/r/MensRights30/11/24 07:28 AM
3

That's the "F U Jack, I'm okay" response. Does every male on the planet need to be lonely before anything is done for even one man?
/r/MensRights30/11/24 07:25 AM
2

You are forgetting that biology wants as many gene combinations as possible to maximise the chances that some of them confer a benefit to future populations survival and minimise the potential for regressive combinations (ie inbreeding). It's kind of a reverse eugenics program without considering the consequences.
/r/MensRights30/11/24 07:19 AM
1

The arrogance of someone believing they get to determine the solution to another autonomous person's drives, desires or wishes as though they own them. But having a sex drive doesn’t mean you are entitled to sex. Biologically speaking, a sex drive and greater strength granted to men suggests an underlying bias towards an outcome of sexual reproduction: nature wants men to have sex, regardless of women's feelings. You can see it in nature. However, humans are more than just biology and other fact…
/r/MensRights20/11/24 12:39 AM
1

I think the hatred for men comes down to a projection of hatred of biology. Nature is cruel, it only cares about procreation, not the feelings of the participants. I do feel for women who are pursued by men whether they want to be penetrated or not and then have to provide resources to a child growing in their body and be vulnerable and uncomfortable when they may not even want it. Whilst women have been given a particular interest in having children and gaining pleasure from sex, I don't think …
/r/MensRights19/11/24 01:48 PM
2

In a similar manner, in Australia, employers and employees are required to follow a Respect@Work document to prevent sexual assault, harassment and other frictions, however it allows an employer to dismiss an employee for failing to respect the document, without due process, based on allegations that often can't be tested. Deprivation of livelihood is a major punishment for what often can be "he looked at me strangely and I felt uncomfortable" level type of complaints. Increasingly we are seeing…
/r/MensRights19/11/24 01:25 PM
1

Justice and fairness demand that innocent people not be punished for crimes they were never convicted of. However, even without a guilty verdict, men are being punished by the very process of the justice system when it requires them to be incarcerated for lengthy periods of time awaiting the wheels of justice to slowly grind onward to a conclusion because of under-resourcing. Even where bail is used to free those less likely to flee, it's still a punishment. The very nature of suspending freedom…
/r/MensRights19/11/24 01:07 PM
4

A single international mens day is not going to change any of that, in fact I think it makes it worse by focusing attention on only one day and forgetting the other 364. We need recognition that men's issues are important, continual and ongoing.
/r/MensRights19/11/24 12:27 PM
1

The crime rate is something like 0.8 per 100,000 people, yet we spend vast amounts of money in tackling such an already quite small number. It doesn't take many people to have an unacceptable impact on society, so "not all women" or "not all men" is an absurd retort to the damage that is being done that is important.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 12:40 AM
1

Absolutely agree with voluntary circumcision from an age where he can provide informed consent. I think circumcision in stone age and even later societies was more a way to control young men via "this is just a taste of what we can do to you if you misbehave" as well as a group bonding event via common adversity as a group (which is still used in SAS etc training to bond the group into a supportive unit, not by circumcision, but going through more mild adversity as a group), or to cement adheren…
/r/MensRights10/11/24 12:31 AM
3

Roe vs Wade was always a shaky foundation to base such an important principle on, that the legal profession warned could be overturned. The USA Constitution is overdue for a right to bodily sovereignty to put this issue to rest for everyone and to perhaps initiate a rethink of contraception, which is not 100% effective and has significant side effects on some people, and perhaps could be replaced with regular testing for conception status and a "natural" abortion induced if pregnancy at that tim…
/r/MensRights09/11/24 02:27 PM
1

All Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) grew up in the same hot, dry, dusty area of the world. Medically, if you get as little as one grain of sand under the foreskin in an environment that has no clean running water to wash it out, it can get embedded and infected, and eventually the entire penis has to be cut off. I don't think this is supported by other male animals in that region getting infected foreskins that would require amputation. Also water isn't the only thing that …
/r/MensRights09/11/24 02:06 PM
3

The next battle is for the right to personal religious belief, not the right to impose that belief on another person. Until that battle is won, I don't believe we will be able to make circumcision illegal, unless we can convince enough people that banning FGM but continuing to allow MGM is sex discriminatory.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 01:47 PM
1

Upholding human rights that do not have gendered elements in legislation and which are gender non-discriminating.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 01:42 PM
1

It's not just vagina: stimulation of the genitals or other erogenous zones of a male, whether by body parts of another person or objects, as well as penetration, without consent, should also be a crime as it is for a woman as the subject.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 01:38 PM
5

Circumcision is not about reproductive rights, but the opposite sex equivalent of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM does not impact reproduction). If a society bans FGM, it must also ban MGM or else it is sex discriminatory. There will be a fight with religious organisations, however if the society accepts MGM but bans FGM then all sex discrimination legislation is at risk of double standards and I think women will prefer to uphold sex non-discrimination and accept banning MGM and FGM instead of lo…
/r/MensRights09/11/24 01:06 PM
6

The balance between men and women is close to 50%, so it doesn't take that many to choose to opt out of biological roles to make the lives of an equivalent number of men miserable. "Not all women" is basically saying "F U Jack I got mine and I don't care about you" to all those who miss out.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 12:42 PM
2

People are scared and reacting on primitive emotional impulse. How about we metaphorically count to 10 to allow those feelings to dissipate and for reason to come into play again, instead of also spitting the dummy and reacting impulsively? There are many things in life we can't personally control, only do our best and then deal with the consequences as best we can: that doesn't mean simply accepting the consequences as the end of the world. It's not over till it's over. I have to keep reminding…
/r/MensRights09/11/24 12:35 PM
1

No-one likes to be denigrated in school by others doing better than them, so when a gender is biologically advantaged, it's reasonable the other gender experiences repercussions. I think the issue might be a reluctance to admit the genders are substantially different due to their biology and forcing them together in the forlorn hope that will make them the same, when instead it creates friction. Older societies tended to segregate their adolescents by gender, one would expect as a result of expe…
/r/MensRights06/11/24 11:33 PM
1

Biology doesn't just go away because feminists find it inconvenient, it's at the heart of our existence. Females have always had the right idea about males: it's always been about sex and males have always had the right idea about females in that it is largely about having children. The dilemma for females is not sex per se, but the prospect of pregnancy and needing to ensure a man to provide resources: bonding him to her by providing all the sex he needs has been the key historical way of doing…
/r/MensRights06/11/24 09:10 AM
1

That seems reasonable, girls only means males are less likely to trigger the biological impulse to have children, leaving girls minds more open to other pursuits, but the presence of males triggers biology girls can't as readily resist.
/r/MensRights06/11/24 08:52 AM
1

No, a slut is (generally) a female who sleeps around excessively against the cultural norm, whilst an incel is a male who is forced to be celibate because women refuse access to sex. They are completely different things and not simply swapped gender. There is no female equivalent to incel, because all women have access to sex just by saying they want it: men are so sex starved there would be a queue for any woman who says yes; that's why there is a market for prostitutes, because women largely d…
/r/MensRights06/11/24 08:41 AM
2

Isn't AI trained on large amounts of real world data, so whatever biases are present in that data set will be present in the resulting AI condensed algorithms? If women represent the squeakiest wheel, then they will be over-represented in complaints, which would bias the data because it only represents complaints and not applause (which usually is never presented as people rarely call up to applaud something that is working well, only when it isn't).
/r/MensRights06/11/24 08:13 AM
1

Ever hear of the 7 year itch? I believe nature only love drugs people for a limited time, 7 years would be my guess based on anecdotal evidence of "wandering" at around that duration, however they may find their own reasons to extend that relationship as love has many dimensions. In biological love, both people appear drugged and they ignore behaviour that would otherwise really bug them, because nature wants people to readily procreate, but once that has happened, I think nature feels 7 years i…
/r/MensRights27/10/24 09:57 PM
1

I had a period of vegetarianism as an adolescent and then relapsed for 40 years, but now the reports of ongoing cruelty are retriggering that fundamental concern and I am again looking into alternatives, but it isn't easy changing a lifetime habit, especially butter. I'm thinking part of the problem is trying to replicate meat with veg instead of promoting veg for their unique characteristics which should be as appealing.
/r/MensRights27/10/24 09:35 PM
0

There is an old anecdote that wives often lament their husbands don't change, whilst husbands lament that their wives change from the girls they married. It means that wives want to change their husbands into something different, but the husbands resist. Women can and do change and men need to be aware that can happen after the honeymoon and perhaps love dies out. I believe it often happens after children arrive, when the woman realises she has what she always wanted and the other stuff is incid…
/r/MensRights27/10/24 04:43 AM
1

It isn't enough to become vegan yourself as it doesn't reduce the suffering by much, but to encourage other people to see how cruel we are and to follow your example will eventually change the world. It's interesting that in some locales, shouting or yelling is considered violence and a criminal offense, although it's usually targeted at men as if women don't do the same thing (and they tend to call it "violence" rather than abuse, to better hook men who stereotypically react in a physical way e…
/r/MensRights27/10/24 04:23 AM
1

I disagree, both men and women by and large have separate stereotypical responses because of the particular biological pattern of sex roles that are common to each sex only. 50% of marriages end in divorce suggests a substantial issue between the sexes that is getting worse. Covid resulted in an increase in relationship conflict, because couples were thrown together for far more time than they would normally spend together. I believe this was largely because the men took the opportunity for more…
/r/MensRights26/10/24 02:54 AM
1

The crime rate in Australia is currently 0.86 per 100,000 people, an incredibly small minority of the population and yet we spend so much money and attention on it because even that small number creates unacceptable consequences for society. You are right, it's not all women creating issues (and I never said it was), but it doesn't have to be to have an impact on society requiring attention.
/r/MensRights25/10/24 05:17 AM
1

A fetus contains 50% of a woman's DNA and it develops within her body by design, its life fully supported by a woman's body. Even if you consider a fetus is not the woman's body, she has sovereignty over the parts that provide life support and can choose what happens to them. It's completely within a woman's right to inject a chemical into her body that will trigger a natural expulsion process of that fetus and in fact early induction is what has been recently discussed as a method of abortion w…
/r/MensRights25/10/24 05:07 AM
1

Certain tissues and parts of the body are designed to normally be safely detached and expelled when they have completed their purpose, or as part of the purpose, without killing the "host" organism, such as the placenta and the attached fetus. Abortion avails itself of part of this principle in relatively safely advancing a natural detachment and expulsion, although by unnatural means, but it depends on those tissues already being amenable to expulsion and medical skill in doing it as safely as …
/r/MensRights25/10/24 04:40 AM
4

Was in a therapy session with a female psychologist and struggling to reveal an issue with not receiving any human touch beyond a handshake for more than a decade. When I finally managed to get it out, with her encouragement, she sat back in her chair with her arms crossed and said "we don't do touching here", which just reconfirmed the issue.
/r/MensRights24/10/24 11:55 AM
3

So long as they're not harming others Don't you see that men behaving in a masculine manner results in women feeling subjectively uncomfortable, even threatened, and thus harmed, so should be discouraged? /s
/r/MensRights24/10/24 11:45 AM
3

Mens Sheds were originally exactly that: safe spaces for men only, like women had their own safe spaces for women only. However, women objected to being excluded on principle and the Sheds were forced to accept women too because anti-discrimination, yet women are still permitted women-only spaces because apparently being uncomfortable and fearing for your safety in the presence of men trumps anti-discrimination if you are a woman, but not vice versa, even though the reason for women only spaces …
/r/MensRights24/10/24 11:31 AM
1

The able in society support everyone, including the less able, to ideally have an acceptable minimum quality of life that is not one of suffering, regardless of one's ability or circumstance. Consequently, ideally there is no need for separate widow funds, unemployment funds, etc, just a single wellbeing fund for those who can't obtain a livable income themselves. There is also an ethical need for a program to assist people with a disability achieve at least that minimum quality of life. However…
/r/MensRights24/10/24 01:36 AM
1

However, the principle of society having children to maintain its structure over time and educating them to make further progress and not re-invent the wheel, provides benefit to all in society including single people, who should also contribute. The question though is the appropriate limit to put on having children to ensure sustainability and stability of society, not mindless growth. Another debatable point is that of inheritance, which needs to be abandoned to ensure all of society benefits …
/r/MensRights24/10/24 01:24 AM
1

it comes from the baseless premise that society exists for male supremacy (ie. patriarchy) across all times and cultures. I would suggest that instead, male supremacy exists for the benefit of society: someone has to moderate their subjective emotions and use their greater physical talents to do the jobs that need doing to protect and provide for society. Stereotypical male characteristics are better suited to that task than stereotypical female characteristics. It isn't supremacy though, it's a…
/r/MensRights24/10/24 01:11 AM
36

Everyone deserves the freedom to decide what happens with their own body. Yes, there needs to be a fundamental right to bodily sovereignty including tissues, which would cover not only a woman's rights to abortion, but a man's right to determine use of his sperm as well as sexual crimes. Breaking consent over sex is a criminal offense and in the interests of equality, breaking consent over the use of a man's sperm should be viewed similarly in relation to procreation. Breaking consent over use o…
/r/MensRights24/10/24 12:37 AM
2

I think many women hate their biology and by association project that onto men: the awareness that comes with intelligence can be a cruel thing when biology was designed only with animals in mind. Female animals may not like being pursued for sex whenever a male has a glint in his eye, but I think they accept it because they don't know any different and it's just another life burden they take in their stride like having offspring.
/r/MensRights20/10/24 01:39 PM
1

Men disengaging is to protect women. Women are adept at goading men to snapping point, which is what women want because men usually act out in a physical way, which women have been able to criminalise by lowering the threshold of violence. Now violence can be as little as a raised voice and then wham, they have you as being domestically violent against a poor defenseless woman victim and you are evicted to protect women and children and be processed for your alleged crime (which presumes you are…
/r/MensRights20/10/24 01:29 PM
1

That's how it has always been: "happy wife, happy life" is a subtle recognition that men are held hostage to women's happiness in relationships but now, if a women is unhappy, she can accuse you of a crime even if it is not true and the system will enact punishment even if you aren't guilty. Relationships have been about what the man can do for the woman for a long time, with ongoing sex as the prize for keeping her happy.
/r/MensRights20/10/24 01:16 PM
3

2 years ago, the Australian Tax Office changed the filters on its systems that had previously ignored old debts deemed uneconomical to pursue and last year they raised letters of debt for these outstanding items, despite dating back up to 20 years where people had long since disposed of their own records and consisting of cents to thousands of dollars. It's not just old parking tickets in the USA starting to be enacted on. Historical rape of minors decades ago is also starting to come out of the…
/r/MensRights20/10/24 11:49 AM
1

If you can't rely on human nature, pursue something you can better rely on that is not dependent on another person's choices: sexual fulfilment for example is only dependent on women because most men haven't even tried looking outside the box, but only focused on the lowest hanging fruit. It's no good going for non-neo-feminist women, because the sad reality is that women change (men lament their women change whilst women lament their men stay the same), so unless you are content with potentiall…
/r/MensRights05/10/24 05:14 AM
2

However, women can't invade private spaces (yet) because people are still allowed to discriminate on a personal level: men are still allowed to invite other men to their home and women aren't allowed to gatecrash as it would be trespass. I can see the only way forward is for men to develop friendship circles with unattached men at a private level to keep women out: men with women partners may not be able to exclude them once they have their hooks into the space.
/r/MensRights04/10/24 11:52 AM
8

The current crime rate (ie the percentage of the population experiencing crime) is of the order of 0.05% (ie 50 per 100,000 head of population) and has been dropping for quite a while. Thus the chance of being directly affected by crime is quite low. Whilst it is not possible to determine the number of criminals per capita, it is unlikely to be many multiples of the crime rate. Thus even if men were the only ones committing crime, which they are not (see the UK considering measures to reduce the…
/r/MensRights30/09/24 03:05 AM
1

Also known as the technique of boiling a frog: a few extra degrees here or there can't hurt, can it? That is, until the cumulative effect of all those seemingly innocent few degrees reaches a threshold that kills the frog.
/r/MensRights28/09/24 07:36 AM
2

We are sex driven though, it's fundamental to male biology and we should acknowledge that. Just because women don't share the same biology or understand the male perspective or like the consequences of their own and men's biology doesn't make it go away or be acceptable to suppress it. Instead of having an open and honest discussion about women's reasonable concerns and working together for a win-win outcome, feminism has been pushing to unilaterally suppress what they don't like at the expense …
/r/MensRights12/09/24 02:16 AM
6

It is pretty barren, largely because I believe there is still a lot of shame surrounding sexual pleasure and its exploration, derived from the attempts to suppress it from the 1700's, when even masturbation was considered an evil that needed to be eradicated. Mr. Kellog invented the breakfast cereal to prevent masturbation as he thought it was a result of insufficient nutrition. Sex was viewed as only for procreation for the longest time and that attitude became entrenched and hasn't yet been co…
/r/MensRights12/09/24 02:11 AM
4

A California state senator forced a former staffer to do sexual favors for her while she was his boss as part of a “quid pro quo relationship” that left him riddled with back and hip injuries, a new lawsuit alleges. The married aide claims he relented and performed the acts on his boss over the years as part of a “sex-based quid pro quo relationship” in order to protect his job No sexual coercion involved due to the power dynamic at all. /s If the genders were reversed, this man would be indicte…
/r/MensRights11/09/24 03:36 AM
9

Males shouldn’t be working in a female-dominated industry like childcare, because we are not as nurturing or caring as our female counterparts Now just reverse the gender and see women scream for the opposite of what they are advocating: "Females shouldn't be working in a male-dominated industry because they are not as physically strong as their male counterparts". Humans are the direct result of sexual reproduction of two dimorphic sexes, by design, who bring specific individual talents to the …
/r/MensRights11/09/24 03:19 AM
6

women are passive victims of men's actions No greater example than in the continuing prevailing view that sex is something men do to women (ie penetration, rape) instead of women being active participants from the reverse perspective: penetration = engulfment. they believe that it's men's fault that they're not going to college When it's the quotas introduced to achieve numerical equality that have now gone beyond equality to advantaging women for mathematical sake. Feminism has always been abou…
/r/MensRights11/09/24 03:11 AM
6

When it comes to sex, biology suggests most males will engage if given the opportunity, particularly if it is being signaled by exposed female flesh; however when it comes to procreation (and associated long term sexual engagement), men can be just as choosy as women although perhaps over other aspects, because more is at stake. For women though, I think sex and procreation are more heavily intertwined because of their biology being so much more linked, so they are choosy most of the time becaus…
/r/MensRights11/09/24 02:55 AM
7

My ex was a cheater -> fear that all men have the capacity to cheat -> unreasoned paranoia that all men will cheat.
/r/MensRights11/09/24 01:57 AM
1

Femenism FTW.
/r/MensRights08/09/24 03:02 AM
1

Procedural issues: the judge inappropriately allowed witness testimony for the prosecution outside the case in question. I believe another one was withdrawn because of insufficient evidence to prosecute. Mr. Weinstein is currently serving 16 years for a case that has not yet been contested and a retrial is still possible on another case: he hasn't been exonerated of all allegations yet.
/r/MensRights08/09/24 02:46 AM
3

Don't forget the current legal obligation on men to process consent and protect women at all costs, even whilst intoxicated, whilst a woman doesn't have to do anything, not even show consent, especially when intoxicated. Sex is still viewed as something men do to women and therefore they should carry all the responsibility.
/r/MensRights08/09/24 02:36 AM
0

It's all part of convention and many people stick to convention like glue, even where it may no longer be appropriate in an era of opposing discrimination. However, business is the one that still seems to be a hold-out on dress code for one reason or another, although I think that will eventually wither under anti-discrimination.
/r/MensRights08/09/24 02:02 AM
1

The good old "let them eat cake" solution, proposed by someone who doesn't experience the situation they are trying to solve and attempting to override the inherent autonomy of others in developing solutions that meet their needs.
/r/MensRights07/09/24 01:18 PM
1

You do not get to dictate how or how much someone else satisfies their personal biological desires, subject to your own.
/r/MensRights07/09/24 06:15 AM
1

Except women usually don't approach and if they do will only approach a good match to their shopping list, so unless you happen to be Chad, your chances are slim.
/r/MensRights06/09/24 08:51 AM
3

That's why it is so tragic that more men aren't sexually attracted to men as so many are finding it impossible to express their sexuality with women and therefore have something more in common with other men in a similar situation. It's particularly frustrating that men share the same erogenous tissues and the same fundamental stimulation of those tissues and sexual response, plus know what feels good, but don't get aroused by other men because sexual orientation gets in the way. Even more frust…
/r/MensRights06/09/24 08:37 AM
-1

Lifeguards can't do anything about protecting women from pollution, although swimming pool water quality is usually well controlled, so perhaps, as you say, women should look to existing better quality places to swim, with the advantage of supporting swimming pools year round and with less heating required in the colder weather. There would even be scope for refrigerated swimming pools to provide them with safer cold water swimming year round.
/r/MensRights23/08/24 03:59 PM
2

If pollution is becoming a safety issue, then I fully support moves to make it safer. However, this is an article focusing only on the impact on women, when polluting the environment with huge amounts of estrogen and estrogenic compounds has an impact on men, but no mention of that of course. These articles are never balanced, it's always about how women are affected, with men ignored. So much for the equality of feminism.
/r/MensRights23/08/24 03:53 PM
1

If men were fully advised of all the risks and downsides of chasing pussy and facilitated with safer alternatives that might achieve similar objectives, perhaps they wouldn't be so casual about chasing it. It can be interesting how the more things change the more they stay the same: historically societies believed literally in "vagina dentata" (toothed vagina) and although that belief has now extinguished, it will likely come back into favour as a metaphor as it was probably originally meant; we…
/r/MensRights23/08/24 03:39 PM
1

The justice system is operating in hypocritical mode: on the one hand, the basic tenet is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt through due process", yet men are detained or otherwise have their freedom curtailed (which is effectively being punished) based on accusation only, which is tantamount to an initial presumption of guilt.
/r/MensRights23/08/24 03:33 PM
1

The focus shouldn't be on money but on consent: sex is currently only by legal consent and so should procreation, with a man's sperm only used to create a child with his express consent, with the default position of no consent without a notarised formal statement of consent. Of course breaking consent is a crime that should be punishable in a similar way to breaking consent over sex. The alternative view is that since it is the child's welfare that is deemed most important and a child requires b…
/r/MensRights23/08/24 03:26 PM
1

If men resist conscription en-masse, prison is not a reasonable option because it will never be able to accommodate the numbers and it also means a deficit in manpower to keep society running. If society is not careful, it will radicalise men to turn against the society that abuses them.
/r/MensRights22/08/24 09:59 AM
-1

He who can destroy a thing controls that thing: conscription will not matter if men stand together in solidarity against it, because if men choose to withdraw their labour society collapses. Yes it's scary to think you might be killed for resisting, but if you are sent to war, the likelihood is that you might be killed or maimed anyway and most come back with psychological issues. We all die eventually and it isn't about the amount of time we have in this world: someone can live a long no-life a…
/r/MensRights22/08/24 09:54 AM
4

Biology planned womens lives for them, so blame the creator. Oh, you can't challenge an almighty deity who might strike you dead for saying so? The next best thing is to blame their other creation, man, who also had no say in his biology. So guess what actually happened. Society did the best it could with what it had available: joining men and women together individually to play their roles in the most stable and complementary way. Without that, women would have been at the mercy of every opport…
/r/MensRights22/08/24 09:38 AM
2

By getting other female family members to step in where appropriate to provide the female balance, yes.
/r/MensRights21/08/24 04:43 AM
2

Remember men of the UK, your eyes must not meet the gaze of your betters (Women) and you must sit at the back of the bus. Just imagine the response of women to men's gaze on the back of their heads from the back of the bus and what women will be imagining men doing behind their backs: it's going to drive them crazy even if men do nothing but sit still and look forwards. What happens when men decide to deliberately offend, en-masse? Society will be presented with the option to punish men and have…
/r/MensRights21/08/24 04:34 AM
1

Imagine if men responded to women complaining about non-consensual sex with "It's biology, hence you deserve it, hence it's your own fault". The fundamental issue seems to be a general incompatibility between the sex drive of men and women, except when trying for a baby: more often than not, men want more sex than women, so it becomes a burden to them. However, instead of accepting the reality of the situation and finding other suitable options (and by that I mean options suitable to men, not op…
/r/MensRights12/08/24 04:31 AM
0

Building up has a number of interpretations, so I think we should both try to be a bit more descriptive about what we mean. However, if you rebuild a life to the same as it was before, then its vulnerable to the same trouble all over again. Unfortunately, human lives are fundamentally based on sexual reproduction, which makes it more difficult to avoid trouble.
/r/MensRights12/08/24 02:26 AM
2

Hatred is an emotion and women are the champions of emotion, so hatred of women is simply a woman's projection of how she thinks she might feel when imagining herself in a similar situation, but women aren't men, so their projections are somewhat meaningless. I don't think men generally hate women, but they are confused why biology is being rejected and they are now being demonised.
/r/MensRights12/08/24 02:18 AM
0

Building men up is simply kowtowing to what women want, if you aren't already there: its objective is to make you more attractive to women, however it's still the same old position of being dependent on women. A better solution is to explore fundamentally what you want out of life and the perhaps more achievable options to get what you want than depending on one woman to meet them all, who has her own agenda. Ask yourself if you want sexual fulfilment: there's more than one way for a man to obta…
/r/MensRights12/08/24 02:03 AM
3

We don't need a men's rights movement to balance against feminism, but an egalitarian movement to target actual equality for both at a fundamental level that permits equality: men and women are so different, enforcing equality where there are differences is pointless and damaging. For example, rape needs to be replaced with sexual assault because it is currently framed around penetration, which is intrinsicly biased against men, when engulfment is the equivalent of penetration from a female pers…
/r/MensRights12/08/24 01:46 AM
1

Lawyers can only advise on how best to deal with existing law, which doesn't really help if the legislation itself is biased against men and the system itself designed to punish on mere accusation from a woman, regardless of guilt.
/r/MensRights12/08/24 01:24 AM
2

I hate men is all about a womans subjective feelings, not really anything to do with men at all. Those feelings will change with the wind, so they aren't exactly reliable. It also seems to be changing now to "All men are sexual predators" to justify "I hate men", when it's simply biology and they really hate themselves for being created female.
/r/MensRights10/08/24 01:47 PM
3

In other words they love what men can do for them and mistake that for loving the men themselves. It's interesting that when you analyse the statement "I love you", it's really all about the person making the statement as they are the one experiencing the emotion.
/r/MensRights10/08/24 01:43 PM
9

The OP is wildly open to interpretation and characteristically both men and women not only interpret it differently, but don't even attempt to arrive at a common understanding, but go off in a huff over their own interpretation. I interpreted the OP at first glance to mean she was in the relationship for the long haul, not as a casual, disposable interaction: it wasn't until I read the responses that the other interpretation also made sense. It's disturbing that people are reading so much into a…
/r/MensRights08/08/24 02:06 PM
4

You may not get much choice in the matter in future: already women are able to bypass most contraceptive protections, become pregnant, and demand resources for child raising, particularly as they have major control over contraception and men don't even have rights over the use of their sperm. It won't be long before you don't even have to be the biological Dad to be forced to raise a child as your own, only have an accusing finger pointed at you. Some are even extracting sperm from dead male par…
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:27 AM
3

Yet I don't think it is deliberate or malevolent, but a side effect of how women have been created to fulfill their biological role, just like men have been created to fulfill theirs. However, it makes it very difficult to progress a technically advanced civilisation with all its benefits if reason is always fighting against illogic and emotional impulse and being progressively suppressed by it: men and women were designed to be complementary, not for one to enslave the other in order to be top …
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:17 AM
2

That's what I am hoping men will work towards: breaking the monopoly control women have over sexual fulfilment. The question is what would constitute sexual fulfilment in a world where women control access to sex, to the point of creating incel men? Would multiple prostate orgasms available at will, be adequate compared to not getting any (a little or a lot but with considerable effort and expense) access to sex, for example? This is what men should start to explore instead of dealing with the s…
/r/MensRights04/08/24 02:05 AM
2

How much is perceived sex addiction and obsession related to an inability to get enough and envy? A starving man will kind of appear addicted and obsessed with food. I don't accept the focus on obsession or women going "ick" when it's the observers perspective being provided, which has no connection with the internal state or causes of behaviour in a subject man: it's just a woman's opinion, clouded by her own experiences and emotional reactions that don't include being able to understand or con…
/r/MensRights04/08/24 01:56 AM
1

Look up the word "paranoia": women seem to see everything in terms of potential risk and not the likelihood of that risk occurring in any given situation. I don't think it is fear of being overpowered, but being penetrated without their consent: there is good reason for this in that women have been vulnerable to conception and pregnancy because of their biology and thus need to be able to choose the optimum environment to become pregnant, where they can be reasonably assured of receiving resourc…
/r/MensRights03/08/24 05:18 AM
1

By virtue of their biological role, women need to be empathetic to non-verbal children's needs, however they would be naturally more empathetic to other women because women are largely a known quantity to them (as would men be to other men). Outside of these areas, women would not be specifically empathetic unless they deliberately studied and practiced that field. Nature is nothing if not efficient in how it goes about things. Therapists used to have to go through their own therapy first to ens…
/r/MensRights03/08/24 04:20 AM
3

Alternatively, when was the last time you saw women learning and practising moderating their emotions with reason? It's possible they feel they don't need to try to develop certain skills because they should come naturally and they are perfect the way they are like all fairytale princesses.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 04:11 AM
1

People are getting their nose bent out of shape over suspected specific genetic differences that might confer an advantage, when competition itself is fundamentally about genetic differences that confer an advantage. Complaining about one and not the other is a double standard.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 04:00 AM
1

In a boxing competition of men or women, one of them will lose, so now it's because the other person has to be intersex or transexual?
/r/MensRights03/08/24 03:21 AM
1

Competition is not only based on skill, but specific biological characteristics that confer benefit or impediment: Ethiopian long distance runners are prized for their particular biological characteristics rather than just their skill, which is why it has become which country's Ethiopian runners are better than another's Ethiopian runners as they have a natural advantage. Civilisation has yet to accept that most competition is based largely on genetic inheritance and so is effectively subject to…
/r/MensRights03/08/24 03:07 AM
1

Not necessarily: intersex people with complete androgen insensitivity are XY but do not respond to testosterone and so they develop as female but do not have a uterus, fallopian tubes or ovaries and their testicles are hidden inside the pelvis or abdomen. They might have higher levels of testosterone than a woman but it doesn't express or confer benefit with male characteristics that we would usually expect from that testosterone. However, people are diverse yet we still struggle to accept that …
/r/MensRights03/08/24 02:53 AM
1

In other words, men aren't viewed as autonomous beings, but as tools that either benefit or disadvantage women.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 02:31 AM
0

Reverse Darwinism: self-extinction of the most stupid.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 02:28 AM
4

These people chose to engage in boxing, they weren't forced. There is a current issue in most everything as we begin to understand the reality of diversity and the old simplistic status quo of believing only stereotypically male and stereotypically female persons ever existed is now being challenged, with consequences. That's what you get for basing everything on an absolute binary situation that never existed: the universe is more complex than that, requiring complex solutions that require actu…
/r/MensRights03/08/24 02:27 AM
1

Derived from Latin, trans = "across, beyond, so as to change" and is not related to anything else, however trans-gender, trans-phobia, trans-continental, etc are all modified by trans.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 02:19 AM
0

Life is based on biological advantage, but we don't hear people complaining that its unfair unless it is to their own detriment. Perhaps this will start to get people questioning the status quo they have blindly accepted up till now.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 02:06 AM
1

Men and women were designed to work together in a complementery fashion with each bringing to the table something the other lacks: it's a shame one gender wants it all to themselves.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 04:01 AM
2

Prostitution is heading back towards illegal territory, but this time it is because women see it as exploitative of their bodies and encouraging sex trafficking.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 03:57 AM
1

You are depriving him, but then people don't owe each other sex or so we have been told. Have you discussed ways he can get his surplus needs met? And I don't mean you telling him he can simply masturbate. Is his need for sex or intimacy? How would you feel about him getting surplus needs met with another woman or another man? Perhaps you can suggest he explore prostate triggered multiple orgasms as a substitute for surplus needs that may be more fulfilling than masturbation alone.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 03:54 AM
1

They will be sex robots, not intimacy robots, so just a more advanced masturbation tool.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 03:45 AM
1

Men have a biological sex drive from testosterone as well as enjoyment of sex. Women have a biological baby drive as well as enjoyment of sex. The two dovetail in the making of a baby, as designed by nature to ensure procreation, but once that is achieved, nature doesn't care what happens to the players; however, men still have a sex drive that continues as a need until they die whilst women don't. Womens drive/need for babies ends with the end of their reproductive capability and unfortunately …
/r/MensRights28/07/24 03:25 AM
2

I disagree, both men and women are driven to get their needs met, without thinking, which coincide over baby making and are simplistically encouraged by society without education of the reality or the consequences. Instead, society traps them through naivity and then attempts to weld the bars of the cage closed for men so they can't escape.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 03:02 AM
1

Women are not without the potential for agency, they are just in the habit of using men for agency, which is tragic as women are complementery to men and can play an equal role in society, if they accepted equal responsibility.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 02:57 AM
0

Compromise is a dirty word: it means neither party gets what they want. Various people have suggested we should look to the fundamental issue in any disagreement to find a win-win solution because people often part-solve problems without understan ding the actual issue and thus constrain the possible solutions that might have led to win-win. The classic is a couple believing they have to be with each other for everything, going on vacation to a destination neither want but both can agree on and …
/r/MensRights28/07/24 02:45 AM
3

Abrogating responsibility also means giving up control, but women want it all: to abrogate their own responsibility but still control the outcome; heads I win, tails you lose.
/r/MensRights28/07/24 01:22 AM
3

Consider this: women refuse to take responsibility for anything and if challenged, twirl their hair into pigtails and act like children to generate sympathy, but they don't realise the ramifications that civilisation will then be based on having sex with children, a taboo that is strongly upheld by women even whilst they encourage its selective devaluing (women are having sex with boys and even suing them for child support). Can you say contradiction and double standards? If women don't get thei…
/r/MensRights27/07/24 08:53 AM
2

It doesn't help men in general that there are (some) good women out there, as most are going to miss out. Interestingly, it's a similar situation for women in that 80% of women go for 20% of men, leaving the remaining majority of men and women missing out, except it is a result of women's choice in both situations. In other words, women's choice is leading to unhappiness in both men and women: Adam & Eve are being expelled from paradise again because of women and we never learn.
/r/MensRights27/07/24 03:58 AM
3

Women now have a state supported monopoly control over sex, so unless men start facilitating other ways to obtain sexual fulfilment, they will be held hostage to their biological needs. Men have been complacent for too long that nothing would ever change in the balance of biology, when the parable of Adam and Eve is a glaring example of the propensity for women to introduce unwelcome change unilaterally through their natures. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
/r/MensRights27/07/24 03:42 AM
4

Have to also remember that women have a monopoly control over sex and men are held hostage to what a woman wants, not what a man wants.
/r/MensRights27/07/24 03:19 AM
4

If you have children, there are penalties for leaving, so a man can't just leave a sexless relationship at will and it only takes a single sperm to fertilise an egg regardless if there is sex involved or not. Even if you don't have children, women are increasingly being given legal power to punish men for leaving through false accusation of Domestic Violence (even hurting themselves to frame a man). It may not be long before a man leaving and withdrawing his resources from the relationship is co…
/r/MensRights27/07/24 03:14 AM
4

What if I just say well I don't feel like paying rent or for groceries this month you got it right? That is already being incorporated into Domestic Violence definitions, so men will be punished for making a woman feel uncomfortable and "happy wife, happy life" will become enshrined in law. The problem is, these issues often only arise after marriage has been sealed, when it's too late to break the contract, although with the way many women now behave during dating with red flags, it's getting e…
/r/MensRights27/07/24 03:07 AM
4

Society will simply legislate other rules to force men to carry the can for a child, such as conception being automatic consent to a relationship and child support: they aren't going to let the golden goose escape.
/r/MensRights27/07/24 02:57 AM
6

In many cases women don't even need to get a man as long as they can accuse him of being the Father: women in USA are having sex with boys and claiming child support when it is technically rape of a minor. Biologically, I think women obtain much of their "pleasure" needs simply from intimacy and sex is the cherry on the top, whereas men only get what they need from sex. I remember seeing a study on oxytocin levels of men and women which peaks for both during sex, but for which women have a conti…
/r/MensRights27/07/24 02:53 AM
3

It's perfectly reasonable given a woman should have control over the use of her own body and its tissues. Now the Swiss court needs to apply a non-discriminatory perspective and introduce the corresponding legal right of a man to control the use of his body and its tissues (including sperm).
/r/MensRights27/07/24 02:37 AM
1

I hope men boycott the airline so it becomes women-only and see how long it lasts with reduced patronage.
/r/MensRights19/07/24 08:24 AM
2

It's a loaded question: answering it confirms the existence of a patriarchy and the notion that men mistreat men (not women mistreat men).
/r/MensRights14/07/24 07:19 AM
14

The behaviour wasn't sexual. The logic doesn't flow: female doesn't like X -> female is a sexual being or thinks about X in a sexual way -> X is sexual misconduct. I think society has abandoned an objective definition of sexual misconduct that can be used to objectively dispense justice, for an open ended subjective definition, utilising the justice system to prosecute subjective hurt feelings.
/r/MensRights14/07/24 06:22 AM
1

Absolutely, no reason, just knee-jerk acts resulting from emotional impulse.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 04:05 AM
1

No, the Mother pays someone else to do the dirty work: it still originates at the Mother deliberately making the decision to do this. It's like taking out a contract to do a hit.
/r/MensRights08/07/24 04:03 AM
1

When you get right down to it most women don't want careers they want kids and a family. Is that really true, or have they been swayed by feminist propaganda that tells women they deserve it all? Every girl is a princess and every woman a queen, when the merest exercise of a brain cell would suggest that is simply not possible: not even Disney makes movies where every woman is part of a monarchy (servants are women, don't they get to be queens too?).
/r/MensRights08/07/24 03:59 AM
1

The very notion of "sexual" assault as a completely separate thing to any other assault seems quite strange, particularly when it relates to other parts of a woman's anatomy that are not related to sex but are included simply because she is a woman. It's as though the entirety of a woman is a sexual thing, whereas only a man's penis is considered sexual.
/r/MensRights06/07/24 02:54 AM
6

No-one has a right to protection from discomfort, yet laws are heading in that direction for women only. Penetration needs to be removed from laws because it is gender discriminatory as it primarily relates to male physiology. I would accept the inclusion of "engulfment" or similar descriptive term to cover the reverse perspective of penetration, instead of removing penetration, to provide egalitarian balance.
/r/MensRights05/07/24 04:04 AM
28

Men being silently killed, harmed, etc: women most affected.
/r/MensRights05/07/24 02:18 AM
7

Rape happens to women more, but not only women. Sexual reproduction relies on penetration (or engulfment depending on your relative perspective) and sexual activity in various ways is common, so rape and sex are physiologically identical and therefore penetration is somewhat irrelevant. Rape is now "sex without consent" with possibly some associated level of physical assault and should be defined as such. Rape is an emotive term from a bygone era when it was about brutal violation and is no long…
/r/MensRights05/07/24 02:05 AM
39

I think they may have left off the satire identifier.
/r/MensRights05/07/24 01:30 AM
6

Lies, damn lies and statistics! Statistics completely rely on the questions asked, the definition of the terms in those questions and the data source: without those factors included with the resulting statistics, there can be no independent auditing of the statistical validity of the process, let alone questioning the data itself. Take Sexual Assault for example, whilst there will be a legal definition in society, we can not know what definition was used in gathering statistics or the question u…
/r/MensRights05/07/24 01:29 AM
1

I could equally say we are all animals at the end of the day, but it wouldn't deal with the reality that men and women are biologically different and specialised to their biological roles of sexual reproduction and this has inevitable consequences.
/r/MensRights04/07/24 06:15 AM
-2

You invited responses to a couple of questions related to your emotional attachment style and I provided my concise opinions, so don't complain when I say something you don't like.
/r/MensRights04/07/24 06:12 AM
1

Men are emotional beings, they just moderate their emotions to play a role in society better than women can. You don't have to act out your emotions to have them. It's nothing to do with honesty but how society conditions people according to their biology and how biology encourages certain traits to best fulfill roles.
/r/MensRights04/07/24 06:05 AM
1

Emotions cover a wide range of what could be considered positive and negative feelings. Invalidation of feelings is a deliberate act to distress and distract an opponent in order to achieve an objective: it may be motivated by powerful emotions in the person wielding the weapon of feeling invalidation. I think it is a contradiction to believe men are emotionless, but then to use invalidation of feelings to achieve an objective if there weren't feelings to invalidate. Resiliance and being thick s…
/r/MensRights04/07/24 06:00 AM
4

Men have been discouraged in showing their emotions throughout most of history in order to better play their role, however they do have emotions and they often act out their emotions when pushed too far: it takes considerable effort to moderate emotions for other reasons, something women don't appreciate. In mens spaces, men traditionally challenge each other with insults to see how stoic they are, to understand they are just tests and to not take them personally or react emotionally, as they kn…
/r/MensRights04/07/24 05:29 AM
3

Are you so sure women don't also feel the same as your friend, but keep it to themselves? That was a brave thing for your friend to be so open about his position and what is so wrong about a man having such an honest position? I would have more respect for someone being honest upfront instead of deceiving someone to get what they want. However, honesty does have consequences.
/r/MensRights04/07/24 04:51 AM
-2

Our own experiences and feelings don't necessarily reflect everyone or even the majority of the same gender, so we need to be cautious about representing the norm. Similarly, women may be attracted to particular types of men and thus experience other aspects of those men they don't like and then generalise their unpleasant experience to all men. They think we’re all the same. Most women I have been with say the worst things ... Do you see how you are also starting to think women are all the same…
/r/MensRights04/07/24 04:17 AM
-6

You do realise those emotions you just expressed are all about you, so the emotional attachment is one of narcisism. Maybe most people feel about how anything only affects them rather than also about how the other person is feeling: it's not something normally talked about to gauge the societal norm. However, I do hear far more responses like yours than those that have emotional reciprocity and include interest in the other persons emotions as well as their own. Real friends tend to be concerned…
/r/MensRights04/07/24 03:34 AM
2

As a man I dgaf what a woman wears or not, as long as she gets wet and she helps around the house. If it makes you happy to wear trousers, rock it.
/r/MensRights29/06/24 07:08 AM
4

Then the law will change to make any recording made without consent by both parties inadmissible in court. Women are presiding over the largest potential movement of men avoiding women: is this really what women want?
/r/MensRights29/06/24 06:54 AM
3

Men, expected to not only be in full control of their actions whilst drunk, but also able to rationally understand the concept of consent, interpret the situation correctly with reason, suppress heightened biological impulses accordingly, and protect women's virtue, all whilst also drunk. The double standard extends to the definition of sex as being penetration, when it can equally be ascribed to engulfment from a different perspective than the gynocentric one assumed.
/r/MensRights27/06/24 06:49 AM
4

Part of the problem is defining rape as penetration, when the opposite perspective of engulfment is also happening but is ignored, creating a discrimination. It is particularly bizarre when rape is only one element of potential unwanted sexual activity, which is all based on consent and not gendered in practice, unless you discriminately ignore male as victim and predetermine automatic consent for men.
/r/MensRights27/06/24 02:44 AM
0

Consent requires cognitive processing, which is why drunk women are deemed unable to consent to sex; however the responsibility to interpret consent is completely placed on the man who, if drunk, has had his cognitive ability suppressed by the alcohol in a similar way to a woman's cognitive ability, yet somehow he is still expected to cognitively process consent whilst she is not. I don't believe consent is compatible with intoxication, firstly because cognition over consent fails but secondly b…
/r/MensRights27/06/24 02:35 AM
6

Rape is based on the lack of consent, but fundamentally employs the idea that sex should not happen without enthusiastic positive consent from a woman, cognitively interpreted by the man. However, alcohol dulls cognition, so it is not reasonable to expect a drunk man to understand and apply the cognitive aspects of consent to a situation, plus he is fighting against the dis-inhibition of his biological sexual impulses by the alcohol as well, yet he is expected to do both whilst intoxicated, whil…
/r/MensRights27/06/24 02:17 AM
21

Rape ain't rape now either: it used to refer to a violent, brutal violation however that emotional association has been carried forward to now when it is simply sex without consent which covers a far broader range of non-violent interactions, like change of mind and regret. At the bare minimum, changes to the definition of rape should have included changes to the term used to refer to it. Screaming "failure of consent!" doesn't quite have the same emotional punch as "rape!", does it? Consequentl…
/r/MensRights27/06/24 02:00 AM
2

You were created into existence to live for yourself, not for the benefit of a society or someone else: you are already being productive by having a job, even if you consider it shitty and dead end and you are not a nobody if you exist, at worst a somebody who hasn't yet had the opportunity to reach their potential. Loss of virginity is overrated since it is completely dependent on the wishes of another person that you have no real control over (that is not an excuse to attempt to wield control …
/r/MensRights13/06/24 03:24 PM
1

raise the boys to become men you would of wanted to date And when women want to date Chad, but a boy is not Chad, then he is victimised for his inadequacy: women aren't going to try to improve something that isn't working, but more likely to grind it into dust under their heel for offending their feelings or not meeting expectations.
/r/MensRights11/06/24 02:45 PM
2

Let me get this straight: up until now men could choose to not register, despite knowing the consequences, but now men are even being deprived of that choice? Doesn't the Constitution have protection against people being automatically registered into programs against their will? That sounds kind of like the oppression of liberty, even if it is the liberty to accept consequences instead of them being chosen automatically for you.
/r/MensRights11/06/24 02:11 PM
1

How is that working out right now for Ukrainian men versus Ukrainian women? There sure is a high degree of manhating going on in Ukraine, whilst the women were allowed to flee to safety, although I'm not sure how safe it is for those women no longer having the protection of a male partner and having to raise children without a job: they are going to be tempted into selling their bodies one way or another to live in a strange country.
/r/MensRights11/06/24 01:54 PM
3

That's profiling which I thought police were trying to avoid because of how discriminatory it is.
/r/MensRights08/06/24 01:34 AM
2

Rape covers a large range of outcomes, now that it is based only on failure to honour consent, however the same single emotive term is being used to conflate that range into the most heinous possibility to bolster the victim narrative and sway the court on emotion. I would not be surprised if rape is eventually extended to looking at a woman in a way she feels subjectively uncomfortable, not for any objective measurable reason and we finally get "he raped me with his eyes as a major crime". The …
/r/MensRights08/06/24 01:31 AM
3

Knowing that memory is imperfect in that way means that it is not necessarily lying to give conflicting evidence and using lying to suggest the accused is guilty of the crime is not evidence they did. I can't believe courts pursue this illogic when the prosecution is supposed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: there is already reasonable doubt in the accuracy of testimony due to the inadequacies of memory to base a prosecution on it. I know it was argued that there weren't enough convicti…
/r/MensRights08/06/24 01:09 AM
0

We should stop using the emotive term "rape" because it is still equated with historical brutal physical violation and murder, when today it is merely the failure to honour consent (sex can still be brutal physical violation if a woman consents). However, brutal physical violation plays better as a general victim narrative than the usual sexual regret or hurt feelings.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 11:35 AM
2

It would also go well if you were abusive but a Chad. Chads rarely have problems getting women to say yes regardless of their behaviour. The 2 main rules for success with women: be attractive don't be unattractive
/r/MensRights07/06/24 11:28 AM
9

Women say men aren't owed sex, meaning men are placed in discomfort over frustration of their biological sex drive; then in the next breath demand no discomfort for themselves. I'm sorry ladies, equality, supposedly espoused by feminism, doesn't work like that: if men are expected to accept being uncomfortable, then women must also learn to accept that state.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 10:56 AM
4

Rather than being a pervasive culture and sexual harassment, I would suggest that it is simply a reflection of the biology of the male sex drive and how society has frustrated and not facilitated its expression in less damaging ways. At its heart is the concept that men aren't owed sexual expression, but should be constrained according to the wants of another gender, without any reverse constraints. This isn't about men being permitted to rape, but being facilitated in "societally safer" express…
/r/MensRights07/06/24 03:45 AM
1

Society needs to separate sex from procreation and monogamy for a start, because procreation is the least focus of sex and is more about the needs of the child. I think we need to bring back the marriage contract, but for procreation only, so that it can't be easily broken in the best interest of the child but gives flexibility to obtaining surplus sexual needs outside the contract and the needs of procreation. Society has deliberately entrenched homophobia to dissuade men from breaking the mono…
/r/MensRights05/06/24 10:44 AM
1

What is the loneliness about: not having someone to do something with, not having a sex partner, or not having one perfect person that fulfills all your needs? If you want someone to do something with, men can also be good company. If you want a sex partner, first consider what the actual objective is: intimacy, sexual fulfilment, etc. When it comes to sexual fulfilment, most men have only experienced penile orgasms which are brief one-offs, when most men are capable of multiple prostate orgasms…
/r/MensRights05/06/24 07:37 AM
1

OnlyFans is about pornography, not prostitution, however I think the Swedish gynocentrists will view it in the same way, although I don't know how they will make demand illegal whilst still legalising supply over the internet: shutting down the OnlyFans websites would be a form of financial violence against independent women according to the current narrative.
/r/MensRights01/06/24 05:03 AM
-3

You don't, however it is in womens interest to ensure some form of relationship is recognised in order to have legal access to partner resources they didn't earn or pay for: it still takes the resources of 2 people to successfully raise a child. All types of relationship are trending towards recognition where even lack of cohabitation is no guarantee of avoiding that recognition.
/r/MensRights31/05/24 06:37 AM
2

Society can withstand a little population reduction, but I think the impact of that is going to affect women far more as a result of recession reducing luxury and returning things to basics. It's up to men to solve their own problems with reason and one of the things that men reason is to break problems down into component pieces that can be better managed and hopefully to not continue to beat their heads against the same brick wall expecting a different outcome: women tend to conflate everythin…
/r/MensRights31/05/24 06:30 AM
7

It's not surprising women are over-represented as they are more emotion-based than men and thus more volatile, more easily triggered and less likely to moderate their emotions with reason. I personally can't blame women because that is their biology, just like I can't blame men for their sex drive (which is interpreted as predation) when that too is just biology. However, knowing that women are this way, society should be compensating and not allowing women to turn subjective hurt feelings into …
/r/MensRights31/05/24 06:24 AM
2

It takes 2 to tango and effects require causes, but I don't think it is productive to find blame or fault except where divorce is deliberately used to objectively disadvantage one party (as tends to happen in family courts). People falling in and out of love or finding their needs no longer being met is normal and expected when autonomous people interact: the issue surrounds whether the relationship was equal (or one taking advantage of the other) or the mechanics of the dissolution being unfair…
/r/MensRights31/05/24 12:34 AM
11

Is the divorce rate declining because divorce is tied to marriage and marriage itself is declining, now mainly becoming the stronghold of people more committed to the relationship than common law or casual relationships?
/r/MensRights31/05/24 12:14 AM
2

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden The laws on prostitution in Sweden make it illegal to buy sex, but not to sell the use of one's own body for such services. Procuring and operating a brothel remain illegal. The criminalisation of the purchase of sex, but not the selling of one's own body for sex, was unique when first enacted in Sweden in 1999. Theoretically, the gender of the seller and buyer are immaterial under the law, that is it is gender-neutral. However, t…
/r/MensRights31/05/24 12:04 AM
8

They don't want to acknowledge that sexual repression of men in society increases sexual violence: they believe men should just keep it in their pants as if they can just throw a switch at will and turn off the sex drive and it is all men's responsibility if they don't. As far as women are concerned, men aren't owed sex, but women are owed protection from men's sex drive.
/r/MensRights30/05/24 02:00 PM
1

Problematic if a man is guilty of breaching low threshold workplace rules simply on accusation from a woman that allow punishment by termination (although it's usually couched in terms of creating an environment that disturbs effective workplace functioning for which the solution is finding somewhere else to work). Australia recently implemented a Respect@Work document that includes termination as a valid punishment for someone judged guilty of certain activities that make workers feel uncomfort…
/r/MensRights30/05/24 01:04 PM
7

Data and the statistics derived from it are only as good as the equality and independence of treatment (apples versus apples with no biased outcome agenda), yet DV spans a range between killing and hurt feelings conflated into a single element and its focus is on women as victims (in particular victims of killing), men as perpetrators, avoiding occurrences of the reverse. It's so far below the reasoned scientific approach to problem solving, in order to justify a desired outcome, its a witch hun…
/r/MensRights30/05/24 05:32 AM
1

However, women will claim discrimination and insert themselves into those groups and sabotage them from the inside. The turning point will only come when society accepts subjective hurt feelings are not objective harms that need protecting: women's tears are the first to dry. It will help when a safe male contraceptive is developed and men can finally control use of their sperm in practice instead of hoping women honour mens choice. It's going to further help when men assess the fundamental thin…
/r/MensRights30/05/24 05:10 AM
26

They have gone even further by making selling sex by women legal (re-affirming their rights to the use of their bodies) but buying sex by men illegal.
/r/MensRights30/05/24 04:25 AM
5

The problem is in allowing organisations to usurp the role of the justice system, without any of the protections of the justice system for peoples rights. Firing someone from their livelihood is a severe and disproportional punishment, for something as minor as subjective hurt feelings and if the "crime" is severe enough to be proportional then it is a crime that should be treated as a crime through the justice system with due process. Title IX is being used to perpetrate bypassing the system of…
/r/MensRights30/05/24 04:15 AM
2

What makes it so obviously a woman's watch: just because only women wear it currently? If even one man wears it, it is no longer a womens watch, only that more women still currently wear it than men, but that can change. What can't really change is women giving birth: something that is strictly related to the fundamental biology of human beings. Other things are more flexible, like wearing plaid shirts. However, people still assign rigid gender associations that are only historical to things tha…
/r/MensRights28/05/24 04:58 AM
11

As if men will be allowed to group and work together in men-only groups when women feel fearful and threatened, whilst in multi-gender situations women can accuse any subversive man and have them expelled if they won't simp. Women have turned men denied sex into "involuntary celibates" who are now deemed as hate groups by default, vilified and further punished by the system as a threat. MGTOW have all been closed down as hate groups and I fully expect MensRights to be given the same treatment ev…
/r/MensRights28/05/24 04:02 AM
5

Women are metaphorically all queens now (who have grown up from being metaphorical Disney princesses with all the entitlements and privilege that provides) who have the power to cut off any man's head who offends her for any subjective reason and ignore any man she is not interested in, whilst being supported by society. The current thrust is to claim pay gaps that require women be given more money for no extra effort because of female specific issues that oppress them and to keep them in the qu…
/r/MensRights28/05/24 03:52 AM
5

The population was never supported by Kings but by the common people. The reality has always been that it only takes a few sessions of sex to create a child and only a short number of years to create enough children to maintain and expand the population and then men are theoretically expendable. The issue is that someone has to provide for those women and children to be successful at a procreation level. Thus men can be used to provide sperm and then enslaved for their labour: who cares if they …
/r/MensRights28/05/24 03:31 AM
19

Given the opportunity, men spread their seed widely, through nature's desire to maximise gene combinations. Human society translated that desire into more guaranteed sex with one woman at the cost of providing resources and protection to that woman. In exchange, that woman was protected and provided for and supported in having the children she wanted at the cost of working to maintain a family and sex she may not want but which could still be pleasurable. This enabled a stable society to develop…
/r/MensRights28/05/24 03:13 AM
13

a girl, let's call her Tiffany, was being hit on pretty aggressively by a guy. Aggression is now associated with violence, where men are the only ones deemed to be violent and it is perceived as criminal. Perhaps you meant persistent, but persistence is deemed to be harassment, which is criminal, and even an initial approach can be considered harassment if a woman isn't interested, in the perception of some. If a woman is intoxicated, she is considered incapable of giving consent and thus a man …
/r/MensRights28/05/24 02:41 AM
2

Fundamentally it is still all about biology: humans have progressively influenced that biology to better support a society, however the latest trend to implement arbitrary choice based on subjective feelings regardless of consequences, because it seemed like a good idea at the time, is causing society grief and threatening to collapse it. Women have generally been better off within society than living as animals and brutally raped by any opportunistic male or group of males. They still are, howe…
/r/MensRights20/05/24 02:36 AM
15

It's not about who you are now, but what women think of you subjectively that matters. You can't battle against that sort of pervasive subjective discrimination despite the reality of anti-discrimination legislation, because women play the vulnerable victim that needs protecting card to get an exemption. The only place men can get away with banning women is from mens friendships that are not linked to public organisations: it's the only place subjective discrimination by men is still allowed, wh…
/r/MensRights19/05/24 12:59 PM
15

Nature has to love drug men and women to stay together long enough for procreation to be successful: what does that tell you about the fundamental compatibility of men and women, despite the attraction of sexual pleasure for both? We only have ourselves to blame for ignoring traditional practices of segregation for role purposes and believing men and women could be equal and work together on anything except making a baby. Adam and Eve is a parable about the nature of women that hasn't changed si…
/r/MensRights19/05/24 12:47 PM
1

Women have to be careful about who they sleep with due to their biological vulnerability to conception/pregnancy and the need for resources to raise an ensuing child (if they cuck a man they risk losing his resources and protection and no guarantee the biological Dad will support her). There's less concern now that women have safer contraception and termination options, plus society is supporting single women with children far more (either through family courts or welfare), and enabling women to…
/r/MensRights19/05/24 05:46 AM
2

Sex always revolves around a woman's pleasure, never a man's Isn't this largely because men are assumed to experience pleasure, regardless, despite the obvious issues with Erectile Dysfunction (which are now addressed with medication)? What I don't understand is the insistence on a good member, when any number of sizes of dildos are available for any woman's requirements of dimension and cunnilingus is only about technique which can be learned. Any man can theoretically satisfy any woman with tr…
/r/MensRights19/05/24 05:35 AM
1

Male sexuality is not celebrated, it's reviled: the erect penis is hidden from view as much as possible and shamed when it appears in public, despite being a completely natural biological expression. Even the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs were defaced by more modern civilisations to hide such "disgusting" public displays. Male masturbation in particular has been reviled for centuries, with diabolical devices created to prevent it. Even more recently, it has been shamed by the statements "stop it …
/r/MensRights19/05/24 05:19 AM
2

Do you think that pampering daughters might be a subconscious way of providing them with some advance relief, knowing what waits in store for them from the biological male sex drive? I don't think society is honest about how much our reality is still underpinned by basic biology, where civilisation is just a thin veneer over the surface and is becoming akin to the Disney fantasy instead of a challenge to civilisation of a win-win solution and outcome.
/r/MensRights19/05/24 04:21 AM
3

To be fair, Disney was usually balanced with the 3 ugly sisters in Cinderella, or the wicked stepmother, or even women servants, plus princesses were usually descended from royalty, so it was obvious that not every human female could be a princess, if one explored the full story and applied reason. It wouldn't have been so bad if society had not pretended that every girl was a princess, or pointed out the fantasy nature of the movies and stories (fantasies are never meant to be realised by every…
/r/MensRights19/05/24 04:08 AM
4

While wanting to work less and have more time to enjoy more aspects of life is not a gendered issue. True, however many women have developed an unrealistic expectation that they deserve it just by existing. Men are realistic enough to understand they have to work to create the possibility. It's gotten so bad that many women want to be paid for not working and having the children they want.
/r/MensRights19/05/24 03:52 AM
5

Then women wonder why they are objectified when they characterise themselves as objects.
/r/MensRights19/05/24 03:39 AM
10

It's not an obsession with sex but a natural biological drive that feminists are trying desperately hard to suppress for female advantage to create a win-lose outcome. The problem is how to facilitate expression of the natural male biological sex drive whilst also allowing women to choose who, when, how of sexual interaction for their own needs. This isn't easy because society has become entrenched in the male-female relationship as the nexus for everything, when as you point out, women aren't e…
/r/MensRights18/05/24 04:54 AM
0

Most children have already seen womens breasts for a couple of years up close, so why is it going to spook them when they are older?
/r/MensRights17/05/24 02:21 AM
1

How are men going to help each other when women have shut down any internet site that supports organised male connectivity as a hate group?
/r/MensRights12/05/24 11:01 AM
2

Women are just going to claim discrimination and uphold anti-discrimination legislation to allow them to gate-crash, whilst maintaining the reverse mustn't be allowed because it compromises women's safety. What men need is the ability to have private messages with many men simultaneously, but I don't think the platform exists yet to support that.
/r/MensRights12/05/24 03:45 AM
1

Unless they intend for them to wear skin-tight clothing, you aren't going to see much of that shape as it is generally hidden.
/r/MensRights12/05/24 03:37 AM
7

Please don't give Lorena Bobbit wannabes any ideas.
/r/MensRights12/05/24 03:32 AM
2

This is the beginning of suppressing freedom of speech for males and seeking vengeance by punishing the source of females hurt feelings.
/r/MensRights12/05/24 03:29 AM
2

the only penalty he's got is being disqualified for the biggest international music contest in europe if not the entire world It's not "only", he has been judged guilty and severely punished in advance by being prevented from doing his job, based on only an accusation, that voids the principle of justice of innocence until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the world, men are being stood down from jobs and even fired from their livelihood upon mere accusation by women and the accusation often based on …
/r/MensRights12/05/24 03:23 AM
26

I think increasingly men will have to rely on private personal contact with other men to talk about otherwise sensitive issues as feminists are infiltrating organisations and controlling the narrative through anti-discrimination legislation. They can't do this (yet) for private personal functions. However, there is a double-standard in that female-only groups are allowed to exclude males "for female's safety" despite being contradictory to anti-discrimination legislation, whilst male-only groups…
/r/MensRights12/05/24 03:02 AM
2

Firstly, I believe men are kept in sex thirst with their drive rarely satisfied, so any sexual attention from women may be welcomed even if not consensual and thus not mentioned. Secondly, unconsented sex itself is likely to have less impact on men because they don't get pregnant and thus suffer less consequences; however that doesn't include women getting pregnant because of their non-consensual activity then cashiering men as a result of the child which would be unwelcome. Overall, non-consens…
/r/MensRights09/05/24 02:18 AM
0

Women are just starting to get a taste for their power, however power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Unfortunately you can't tell a woman this in a way that she will accept reason before her own emotions, so it is just going to get worse. Men can't oppose unreason, because they will simply be called misogynists. I'm not convinced men will be able to stem the rot until things start to collapse and women realise, although I hope I am wrong. I think men should try to oppose it, bu…
/r/MensRights09/05/24 12:22 AM
3

Are you so sure about those risk statistics? Sexual crimes are now based primarily on consent and I think it is likely that men experience more situations of technically breaking consent than are ever reported, either because it is a pleasurable or desirable experience despite being technically a crime (as a result of thirst not being satisfied), or because of shame. The crimes themselves also cover a broad range of subjective harms now, when justice used to be about objective harms that meant s…
/r/MensRights09/05/24 12:06 AM
2

I think men are battling against the entrenched "protect women" principle in that womens concerns, whether objectively real or simply subjective hurt feelings, trump men every time and are used to justify womens advantage. I'm not convinced reason can win over subjective emotion, because it gets twisted into an attack and then "protect women" gets engaged and game over. I'm wondering if the most effective approach might be to demonstrate how women are acting like children and then invoke the "pr…
/r/MensRights08/05/24 11:51 PM
11

If they’re interested they’ll let me know. Initial interest is no guarantee that she won't try to amputate your manhood later, metaphorically or in reality. Even the 50% of marriages ending in divorce means there can still be some good years at the beginning for all marriages, but the writing is on the wall that once they get what they want (generally children and family assets) they may consider jettisoning the donkey for greener fields.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 11:36 PM
13

Avoiding women will have a similar effect in that it will raise their ire and lead to false accusations just to punish. We already see that with men doing things that women don't like, or not doing what women want, the men get punished when the women make a complaint. I think protection of women has gone way too far from its origins of protection from objective harm to counter the reproductive bottleneck women used to experience, into protection from subjective hurt feelings. This is not surpris…
/r/MensRights08/05/24 11:29 PM
2

There is no reasonable counter to illogic and you can't reason with emotion.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 11:18 PM
1

He's on notice that his marriage span is about 6 years, unless she finds a different home improvement project before then.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 11:17 PM
1

Women go hysterical if men don't put the toilet seat down for them: that's really close to the concept of women not doing anything without the help of men and an expectation of privilege when it only takes 2 seconds to drop the seat themselves. Or, they could pay themselves for a self-closing toilet seat, but they never suggest that, preferring to abuse men for leaving the seat up.
/r/MensRights08/05/24 11:14 PM
8

Perhaps it is time for Dads and their sons to develop friendships with other Dads and their sons and take over the function of the scouting organisation as a more family based education arrangement than strictly structured organisation arrangement. Dads who had been boy scouts in the past would have an advantage in already having training they could pass on. I think part of the problem is that Dads have abrogated much of their responsibility to educate their sons to establishments and organisati…
/r/MensRights08/05/24 01:17 PM
11

Reverse Darwinism at work; fools step in where angels fear to tread; etc.
/r/MensRights07/05/24 04:04 AM
11

Men have never been able to do what they wanted: they have always been required to provide and defend their woman in exchange for meeting their needs as a societal contract. Without that contract, women would have been used by any man and forced to also provide for herself even if she became pregnant. It's only in the last 50 years that women have been able to ignore the contract requirement for meeting mens sexual needs but still enforce mens side of the contract.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 02:48 PM
6

So sad that men don't have many of those rights granted to women only: that differential is where the slavery exists.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 02:38 PM
5

Children are a choice not a barrier and they come with consequences. Just more confusion between choice and barriers.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 04:29 AM
1

You could do worse than continue to reach out to all the men here and communicate privately with those you think might be compatible. It may help to break down what you want out of life into fundamental components and then consider ways you might more easily fulfill them individually, including outside the box, than putting all your eggs into one risky basket. People have been conditioned for millennia to only look at a narrow paradigm of how to achieve happiness and what constitutes happiness. …
/r/MensRights06/05/24 02:28 AM
6

Is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? Loss is a very painful business, probably more painful than envy.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 02:23 AM
1

The people always separate into factions of belief and are rarely unanimous, so the only way to obtain practical rule is to select a methodology of determining which faction to select; the easiest one being the one with a majority, although there are various ways to calculate majority and deal with its accompanying challenges.
/r/MensRights28/04/24 04:02 AM
2

Didn't Mr. Weinstein suffer from Necrotizing Fasciitis, which usually requires severe excision of damaged tissue? It's not surprising he had abnormal disfigured genitalia. The fact that someone saw and could subsequently correctly identify genitalia only means they saw them, not that any subsequent events were necessarily non-consensual. If we make simply seeing male genitalia which arouses discomfort in women a crime, then its a slippery slope to suggesting women being uncomfortable with any as…
/r/MensRights27/04/24 07:55 AM
1

How can there even be a fair re-trial considering all that has happened so far has tainted the public to believe he is guilty? That perception is not so easy to overturn or ignore.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 07:42 AM
3

I think this is fundamentally about exerting power over men: traumatic circumcision says "I can control you and make you suffer any time I choose, so you will obey me". Imagine a baby boy exposed to such a trauma in the presence of parents who are supposed to protect him and what message he receives right from the start about authority and autonomy.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 07:24 AM
2

The Jewish community is a minority, so they should have lost to the majority in a democracy, however if you also include Muslims, you likely have a battle on your hands.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 07:20 AM
3

I wonder if there is legal precedent to retrospectively sue for FGM if a boy subsequently identifies as a woman.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 07:18 AM
1

You forgot to mention the extreme trauma of circumcision without anaesthetic and the often painful healing process with the wound exposed to urine, not to mention the botched attempts that amputate or result in amputation or complications due to infection and even death.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 07:14 AM
2

Is it really so difficult for religions to modify their practices to allow adults to make those decisions for their own bodies and not ignore consent despite children not being able to consent? I understand that for Jews circumcision originally was just the tip of the foreskin, but was later changed to the entirety, so waiting until the boy reaches adulthood to make a consensual decision is not a huge change when they are still a "son". It's not just the mutilation aspect: the practice is severe…
/r/MensRights27/04/24 07:12 AM
1

If intoxicated and diminished cognition, I do think it is unreasonable to treat a person as though they should understand their circumstances and be able to make rational decisions in responding to authority. It would be inherently dangerous to just leave such a person to sort out their situation, but that is exactly what was initially proposed. The woman even tried to ask for help but it was refused on her own recognisance. In these circumstances I believe the police should organise a tow of th…
/r/MensRights27/04/24 06:59 AM
2

There is no place left if you color between the lines, however the coloring book isn't the only possibility, it's just the only possibility traditionally presented to men. Look outside the box (sic) and you will find plenty of options to achieve the fundamental building blocks of life and happiness, but they won't be combined into one pink ribboned basket that hides a potential fickle neuroticism and carries huge risk.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 06:11 AM
2

Those other countries are increasingly following the same feminist tactics, if not worse. The only comfort I can offer is that the American system is not geared towards happiness for the individual but leveraging the effort of slaves to another agenda: following Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs independently yourself may lead to greater happiness than the traditional higher education, job, wife, house with white picket fence (and mortgage and divorce and financial rape and baseless accusations of rap…
/r/MensRights27/04/24 06:06 AM
5

In other words, men should avoid getting involved with women unless they enjoy a form of Russian Roulette. What a sad situation for a civilisation to come to.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 05:58 AM
2

Welcome to the new Spanish Inquisition featuring feminism as the new Inquisitor.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 05:55 AM
-1

A fetus is more part of a womans body than not, especially as it is intrinsically and biologically within her body and not that of a man.
/r/MensRights24/04/24 03:41 PM
0

A fetus contains 50% of the Mothers genetic material, was derived from an egg generated by her body and is nourished inside her body, so is part of her body. If her body dies, the fetus also dies, so it is an integral part of her body.
/r/MensRights24/04/24 03:26 PM
2

Every backstabber that is dumped leaves one less desirable woman for the same number of men and considering many women are adopting the feminist paradigm that means a substantial reduction in the relationship pool for men. Add womens extreme selectivity to that situation and you have a large number of men competing for a small pool of women. It isn't leverage because it isn't going to convince a woman engaging in that behaviour to change her spots (perhaps temporarily, but its an entrenched mind…
/r/MensRights24/04/24 05:09 AM
5

I'm so wishing Russian and Ukraine men rise up in revolt against being forced to be cannon fodder and instead force peace, but I realise the risk that would be of having the authorities kill them as an example to force the others to comply.
/r/MensRights24/04/24 04:53 AM
9

Why is women ignoring consequences of actions such a surprise? Whilst transitioned to a man, he is still fundamentally based on a female template with a brain initially conditioned by estrogen, so his perspective is still largely from a female basis but in a superficially male appearing body. Just because we may want to be a thing, doesn't mean we get to be that thing in the way we fantasised.
/r/MensRights24/04/24 04:39 AM
1

Society is largely based on majority which is equivalent to being dominated but with less negative connotations even though it can also be negative when it deliberately disadvantages the minority. I suggest we use majority in future instead of dominated.
/r/MensRights24/04/24 03:39 AM
1

No uterus no opinion is a glaringly obvious highlight that we largely only have womens rights and not human rights, because there is no "no testes no opinion" mens rights equivalent and thus no equality of rights. Furthermore, "No uterus no opinion" opposes free speech and is an inadequate expression of the intent which was better represented by the precursor expression "hands off our ovaries". Everyone should be allowed an opinion via free speech, however only the owners of womens bodies (and s…
/r/MensRights24/04/24 03:24 AM
1

Surely it doesn't matter if there are women-only opportunities if there are equivalent men-only opportunities as there is no overall discrimination, which I assume is the intent of Title IX, not using differences in numbers over a local domain to identify discrimination (which would be quotas and a different form of discrimination).
/r/MensRights23/04/24 05:23 AM
9

Government will just mandate male partners support female partners who have a child, regardless if it is due to the man's sperm or that of another man, through the family court. Men are not going to be allowed to have sex for free, without any cost, when there is more job fodder to create to keep the population ponzi going. There are already countries that refuse to mandate a paternity test if men are concerned about the DNA source of their progeny.
/r/MensRights23/04/24 04:41 AM
1

Using your analogy, men are ovulating every day. Sorry if I gave the impression women don't have any sex drive, it's the proportional difference that is important. Womens sex drive is biologically linked to having a child whereas men's sex drive is unencumbered and linked to maximising the spread of their genetic material. I don't appreciate your attempts at gaslighting and your question doesn't deserve an answer.
/r/MensRights21/04/24 02:51 AM
1

People seem to view the population as either exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual, when that is not the case in reality: there's no problem with men wanting to procreate with women but having a sex drive that is satisfied however it can.
/r/MensRights20/04/24 01:10 AM
1

Society is encouraging women to be ultra-selective about partners they probably couldn't get anyway by following a princess fantasy that is patently unreasonable, when their primary objective is adequate resources and protection to raise a child. The recent choice they were given is choice over sex, but it has also been interpreted as choice to be a princess when that was never the case for most women. Women have been duped into expecting to have it all and to arbitrarily select partners without…
/r/MensRights20/04/24 01:02 AM
1

Whether in a long term relationship or permanently dating, Chads are already taken care of, the problem is in the rest of the population where women are still lusting after a limited number of Chads that are already occupied and probably wouldn't choose them anyway. Consequently those women might try to settle for an average man, but they won't be happy because they are not getting what they want and expect which is a Chad. They have been brought up to think of themselves as all princesses who d…
/r/MensRights20/04/24 12:49 AM
2

I don't think the problem is men finding women they are compatible with, but too many women looking only for Chad and rejecting every other man.
/r/MensRights19/04/24 02:27 PM
1

Isn't turning yourself into a Chad what women wanted all along, so you are not actually doing it for yourself but for them? The problem is that Chads usually don't want to settle down, which just perpetuates the cycle of expectation and disappointment in women and feeds their projected hatred of their situation onto men in general. This is not going to get better until we understand the dynamics of the situation and start applying some reason to a win-win outcome. Are women more interested in ha…
/r/MensRights19/04/24 02:24 PM
1

Sexual orientation according to Kinsey exists on a spectrum from exclusively heterosexual at one end to exclusively homosexual at the other, with a blend of the two inbetween. I'm not sure we can guarantee the statistics for either extreme, which suggests there could be many men who would not be repelled by the idea of sex with men in certain circumstances. History has been replete with men who have sex with men but do not identify as exclusively homosexual. It isn't to do with being gay, that's…
/r/MensRights19/04/24 02:08 PM
1

Love is just a myth then?
/r/MensRights19/04/24 01:53 PM
7

The suffering of men is not a mole-hill, we just don't hear about the mountain because men usually suffer in silence: we have been conditioned to accept male disposability and to sacrifice ourselves on its altar. "Happy wife, happy life" is a terrible indictment of power dynamics and being held hostage to another persons happiness but not having your own autonomous happiness, that has been staring us in the face for years.
/r/MensRights19/04/24 01:51 PM
5

Not being facetious, but what do you actually mean by physical intimacy: sex, sharing an experience with another, something else? I believe men and women have somewhat different needs in this arena: women can be content with just cuddling at times, whereas men are usually only content if there is sex for their own needs (whilst they will also try to accommodate a womans needs). I think sharing sex with another person adds an extra dimension to just orgasm: is that what you mean by physical intim…
/r/MensRights19/04/24 01:43 PM
8

Adult men need to understand the situation and blaze a path to alternatives that our sons can also follow so their own needs are not held hostage to what women want for themselves. There's more than one way to skin a cat, but we don't want to change what has been relatively easy status quo for men for the last millennia or so. That's not to say men can't have relationships with women but they need to be equal with neither having power over the other. I think it could be done if we separate sex a…
/r/MensRights19/04/24 01:25 PM
2

Whilst women vehemently deny it, men have an actual biological sex drive that they don't due to high levels of testosterone, in addition to the common enjoyment of sex as motivation. Women however, have to be choosy about having sex due to the consequences that they alone have to bear. There is only a sinchronicity in sex drive when women want a child as extra motivation, otherwise men's drive for sex normally exceeds womens and they either have to say no or put up with it. I think this is where…
/r/MensRights19/04/24 01:11 PM
6

That's very close to "Fuck you Jack, I'm okay" when there are so many average men looking for real relationships and so many average women only looking for Chad. Has anybody else noticed that society has very quietly gone from falling in love and getting married to just having a relationship with someone who ticks boxes on a checklist? I think falling in love was natures way of ensuring essentially very different and incompatible genders were sufficiently drugged to ignore checklists and inconse…
/r/MensRights19/04/24 12:18 PM
34

Why should men have to fix the damage that feminists have done and are continuing to do? That sounds like more of the usual men rescuing women from adversity and protecting them from themselves: there, there, little girl, daddy will make it all better. Nope, no more. Feminists must face the consequences of their actions themselves whilst men must go their own way to find ways to provide for their own needs that are not dependent on women. The only way to counter a monopoly is to find alternative…
/r/MensRights19/04/24 12:07 PM
1

Firstly, where is the commitment from her when 50% of marriages end in divorce and in college educated couples, women precipitate divorce in 90% of those cases? Secondly, that ring really goes through the man's nose, but it was symbolically shifted to the mans finger because it became too obvious about the intention from the start.
/r/MensRights17/04/24 08:19 AM
5

Only if people continue to gullibly believe that everything they experience remotely is absolute truth, when it is all fake, and open to interpretation, unless it is the genuine article being presented that can be verified.
/r/MensRights17/04/24 06:15 AM
5

There goes all those nude paintings in the National Art Gallery and the future of art. The reality is that every representation is a fake approximation, because it can't be the real thing, so the sooner we start to understand that nothing is absolute truth out there, the sooner we can stop relying on an imaginary authenticity, putting our trust in things that can be easily faked and hold everything questionable. Isn't it time we stopped being concerned about nudity when its one of the most natur…
/r/MensRights17/04/24 06:11 AM
4

I think the majority of people are having relationships whilst not actually being "in love" because a relationship is seen as just a landmark like getting your first car and is more like cohabitation. It takes being in love and drugged by nature to ignore the differences between men and women that normally drive them crazy and apart. Now there is largely a formulaic progression of seeing someone you are attracted to, then dating, then living together, then marriage (common law or religious). Whi…
/r/MensRights17/04/24 05:15 AM
5

You will just have to develop a friendship with a single man who can offer his house as a meeting place of friends or else organise for your female partner to be elsewhere when you want guy time. It becomes more difficult when you organise commercial or public venues, because women have a right to insert themselves into it because of anti-discrimination legislation: that does not apply to personal choice and women can't invite themselves into your home simply because you have excluded them. At l…
/r/MensRights17/04/24 04:52 AM
1

Even if he wasn't crazed, every effect has a cause: only focusing on what he did and calling it misogyny does not explain the reason why he did it. We call people who kill others in religious communities terrorists, but that's only the impact of what they did and doesn't look any further to what caused them to do what they did. Often acts of violence stem from earlier trauma, perhaps caused by the very people the violence is directed at. By only superficially looking at the immediate situation a…
/r/MensRights17/04/24 01:30 AM
2

And when the next mentally unstable person uses a pitchfork to kill the shoppers at a hardware store, there will be calls to remove pitchforks from society. Every home contains items that could be used as lethal weapons, yet we have the sense to understand that it doesn't help banning all potential weapons when its a limited number of people who kill who can use almost anything as a weapon that is the essential feature. Targeting prevention of those relatively few from becoming so out of sync wi…
/r/MensRights16/04/24 02:33 PM
0

Trying to reason with, persuade or coerce women or accept lifelong celibacy in defeat is not the answer either. We haven't canvassed all the possibilities, only rejected outright without any discussion a few of the ones proposed so far.
/r/MensRights16/04/24 01:35 PM
5

The shopping centre would likely not have had a uniform distribution, so without further information as to where specifically this person went and the distribution at those locations, plus how men and women responded at the time, it is simply not possible to say whether there was an actual sex bias in the killings or it was a circumstance of a number of variables. Even if the perpetrator had a sex bias, a single swallow does not a Summer make, certainly not the level of paranoia and hysteria cre…
/r/MensRights16/04/24 08:42 AM
2

Reason moderates emotional responses, in men at least I'm not sure about women, and fear is an emotional response. Paranoia though is heading in the direction of a mental illness.
/r/MensRights16/04/24 08:26 AM
1

Except men can't walk away from sexual manipulation because walking away to live a life of no sex is still manipulation of male sexual expression. It's not dignified walking away at all, but continuing to follow the traditional either/or ultimata women have given men of late: either do what women want or you will be sleeping on the couch, elsewhere or in a jail cell if you refuse, via accusations of assault of one form or another. The only way men retain their dignity and self respect is to expl…
/r/MensRights16/04/24 08:17 AM
16

Who is objectively worse though, the man who believes he has to simp to satisfy his biological sex drive or the woman who controls his sexual expression for her own ends requiring him to simp? With women's choice and increasing selectivity now controlling men's biological sex drive expression, it's no longer a case of leaving and moving ahead, because the pool of women who might choose you has shrunk considerably (unless you are a Chad who has more options due to your genetics and women's choice…
/r/MensRights16/04/24 05:59 AM
15

People can say whatever they like, but it isn't necessarily the truth about what actually happened. Unless we know the gender ratio of people present we can't know for certain whether he was actually targeting women or that women happened to be the most readily to hand, resulting in an outcome of more women murdered due to circumstances. Did more women freeze in the face of danger, expecting to be saved by a man, and thus were more readily to hand? We don't know the circumstances, to form an inf…
/r/MensRights16/04/24 05:42 AM
1

Lets be radical and convert society to more efficient home delivery: parking problems solvered.
/r/MensRights16/04/24 05:11 AM
1

It should be "people with children (including the unborn)" as that would cover all cases and not be sexist.
/r/MensRights16/04/24 05:07 AM
1

I could probably pass as a pregnant person who identifies as a woman.
/r/MensRights16/04/24 05:03 AM
1

The larger bays are for the vans to fit in to better kidnap the women?
/r/MensRights16/04/24 05:01 AM
3

But darling, I identify as a woman, just as you do.
/r/MensRights16/04/24 04:58 AM
2

The defamation case by Bruce Lehrmann failed with a likelihood of balance of probability that he did rape Brittany Higgins through lack of consent, and that he was likely recklessly disinterested in pursuing consent. However it is not truth that Mr. Lehrmann did rape Ms. Higgins beyond reasonable doubt, only on the balance of probability on the evidence presented that it is more likely than not. Much was made of Ms. Higgins inability to give consent through intoxication but Mr. Lehrmann had also…
/r/MensRights16/04/24 03:04 AM
6

This was one man in a population of 25 million, who was mentally ill: how can that possibly be extrapolated to become paranoia about all or even most men hating and terrorising women? It's similar to the UK experience of one policeman raping and murdering a woman and suddenly there is a call for all men to be curfewed because of paranoia that every man on the street at night was just waiting to do the same. It's an extreme overreaction to a situation based only on primitive emotion and paranoia …
/r/MensRights16/04/24 02:26 AM
1

A very fascinating subject. It's profoundly disturbing in that women seem to be prioritising subjective harm minimisation, but it's a race to the bottom of hurt feelings being given priority over objective truths: the trajectory implies being ultimately paralysed about doing anything objective because it might hurt some persons feelings somewhere. Since women are becoming the majority because of over-compensation of past numbers, this will eventually become the majority perspective and objective…
/r/MensRights12/04/24 03:02 PM
2

It's not just religion, families were concerned their sons would not look like their Fathers and be scarred for life (when sons often do not look like their Fathers in other ways as a result of providing only half the genes) and then there are the spurious medical concerns that it is more hygeinic, less prone to certain infections entering via vulnerable tissues and other reasons for taking a prophylactic approach (yet we don't remove the appendices of babies because they are vulnerable to infla…
/r/MensRights09/04/24 04:05 AM
3

Lets bring back the tradition of stoning adulterers or those who wear mixed fibres if we are going to maintain the tradition of circumcision. Wait. What? We have rationally moved on from those traditions, but not circumcision?
/r/MensRights09/04/24 03:52 AM
3

You might be hard pressed to find any 23yo virgins though who are also compatible with you. If you feel disgust over guys having sex with a prospective partner before you, does that also extend to her own masturbation history, kissing other men with those lips, or other non-intercourse mutual masturbation? It also depends on how you define virginity. That you might feel disgust at what other guys before you may have done with a prospective partner that you also wish to do, is cause for concern t…
/r/MensRights03/04/24 11:46 PM
1

Discrimination as personal preference is completely acceptable, unfortunately for those who do not match personal preference, however discrimination expressed as ridicule should not be acceptable; although once again, unfortunately for those being ridiculed, we have the concept of freedom of speech. The problem is not freedom of speech that allows ridicule or that we should ban harsh language or critical words, but the lack of support for training people to develop a thicker skin and providing a…
/r/MensRights22/03/24 01:53 AM
0

This is a mens rights sub where we should be supporting all men, regardless of their sexual orientation and the benefits or disadvantages that come with the territory.
/r/MensRights16/03/24 05:56 AM
1

Unfortunately biology means they are inextricably linked to the risk of conception and responsibility if engaged in with women. If you just want pleasant sensations, you don't even need another person, but if you also want the extra pleasantness from intimacy with another person, then you have to accept the good with the bad and that is, ongoing intimacy with one man is less likely than with one woman (although easier to get serial short term intimacy with many men), however women come with the …
/r/MensRights16/03/24 01:31 AM
0

Which is why men need the right to determine use of their sperm in a similar way to women having the right to determine the use of their body (by a foetus), by consent. If consent is broken, there are consequences. The default position is no consent without notarised consent: you have to fill out an official form and have it witnessed that you give consent to the use of your sperm to create a child for which you will be held equally responsible.
/r/MensRights16/03/24 01:15 AM
1

You don't have to be gay to have sex with men: it's just recreational sex for the sensations which are heightened by intimacy with another person. People conflate sex and procreation when they are different things (one is the desire for pleasant sensations and the other is the desire for a child and a loving relationship). Only a fraction of sex is for procreation.
/r/MensRights16/03/24 12:57 AM
1

Might as well cultivate sex with men then as it gives you more options with 100% no possibility of a child.
/r/MensRights16/03/24 12:51 AM
0

The woman also chose to have sex, and chose to allow her body to conceive: the responsibility for creating children is more on her because men can't conceive. Her body, her choice, her responsibility over bringing a child into the world. Women use birth control because only women can give birth and they have a wide range of options. Men can participate in contraception by reducing the number of sperm able to enter a woman's body, but ultimately her body is her responsibility, not that of a man: …
/r/MensRights16/03/24 12:39 AM
1

Rape is about consent, not the action of sex which is just sex if there was consent. Consequently it should be rape if a woman uses a mans sperm to get pregnant without his consent, because it is about consent, not what physically happens. Men don't have the right of consent, but women do: that's not equality.
/r/MensRights16/03/24 12:25 AM
4

Even sex with a condom carries a risk: condoms are theoretically around 99% effective, but improper use (which is the usual modus operandi) reduces their effectiveness to around 87%.
/r/MensRights16/03/24 12:18 AM
0

I think women are conflicted: their biology attracts them to the bad boys (possibly in the human equivalent of being attracted to the stag with the largest antlers as having desirable genes), but bad boys generally won't settle down and provide for the children women want.
/r/MensRights15/03/24 02:47 AM
1

They should have retained DRE, but converted it into a training exercise to accustom men better with their body's ability for pleasure: men will often accept a professional medical exam whilst being reluctant to self exam due to entrenched homophobia. So many men are missing out on their body's potential for pleasure because of antiquated practices and vested interests in keeping women as a monopoly to control men.
/r/MensRights15/03/24 01:33 AM
8

But the agenda is more openly distributed now with the potential to convince more women they are not being treated as they deserve and that men should only be slaves to women's interests. I wonder whether men still have the power to withold their labour if they are not being treated fairly, or whether government will enforce enslavement without their consent to maintain women in the style to which they desire.
/r/MensRights15/03/24 01:27 AM
2

The whole point is that men assume all the risk: a feminists fantasy. How it helps those already trafficked by removing any form of income, I'm not sure, but it would likely trickle down in reducing further trafficking because it would no longer be profitable with reduced demand; and possibly it would increase sex crimes due to the suppressed demand finding an alternate outlet. Criminalisation of prostitution is not the solution: legalising and regulating it like a normal business is the best wa…
/r/MensRights15/03/24 01:14 AM
7

According to Wikipedia: In practice recruits are not forced to serve, instead only those who are motivated are selected. According to a 2014 article https://www.dw.com/en/norways-military-conscription-becomes-gender-neutral/a-17995882 Despite practicing conscription, Norway does not draft all eligible citizens and has provisions in place for conscientious objectors. Currently 8,000 to 10,000 Norwegian males aged between 19 and 44 are conscripted every year in Norway. They are chosen from an elig…
/r/MensRights14/03/24 11:51 AM
12

We will have to wait and see what happens as this won't be implemented before 2026. Does anyone know whether conscription is nullified by "I think I may be pregnant" or does it require a positive pregnancy test? A pity men don't have the option to claim "I think I may have fired off a live round" or an excuse that their female partner is pregnant and that lets them off the hook.
/r/MensRights14/03/24 10:34 AM
7

the government wanted “full equality between the sexes”. If women who serve are preferentially shunted into logistics, communications and support, then it won't be equality between the sexes.
/r/MensRights14/03/24 10:30 AM
3

It always comes down to interpretation and interpretation is biased by our experiences which are themselves biased by our particular biology.
/r/MensRights14/03/24 12:52 AM
2

The Tiger is never going to understand the Antelope, no matter how many personal anecdotes are shared: they exist in different worlds. Do you understand that men run risk-benefit analyses on everything automatically? The risk of having his emotions used against him is usually greater than the risk of suppressing his emotions. By and large, men would rather become lost and find their way out of it as a challenge than risk the humiliation of asking for directions and revealing a weakness.
/r/MensRights14/03/24 12:40 AM
3

Freedom of emotional expression should not be a demand to be emotional just to be equal to women and make them feel more comfortable. Freedom means being able to be unequal if that is right for you. Equality means shifting one side to be the same as the other: we could achieve equality by requiring men to express emotions as much as women, requiring women express emotions as much as men or by requiring they meet in the middle, with only the former being acceptable. I think society is becoming co…
/r/MensRights14/03/24 12:20 AM
4

What's "healthy" for men? Men and women are very different in their emotional makeup because of biology, so basing health on what is normal for women is way off beam. Men are still required to be competitive in todays society, which means anything that can be used against you has to be suppressed. It's only in situations of absolute trust where there is no conflict of interest, that men can feel safe enough to express how they really feel.
/r/MensRights13/03/24 11:42 PM
324

Wait to see the massive increase in pregnancies amongst eligible women just before conscription goes ahead as women "bring forward" plans to have children.
/r/MensRights13/03/24 11:27 PM
-4

Except John Cena wasn't showing any more on stage than you would see at a beach, in fact less when you take body hugging beachwear into account that shows off "attributes". The "outrage" is a result of showing nakedness on stage in public, but I don't see why the concern. It's time we accepted the naturalness and inherent "decency" of the human body and biology and dropped the Victorian prudery. This situation is unusual only because of the still rampant prudery in society. Remember Janet Jackso…
/r/MensRights12/03/24 05:44 AM
1

Statistics depend on the framing of the questions used to collect the data and the associated definitions of rape, sexual assault and sexual misconduct: without that information, the statistics are quite meaningless as they reflect the personal definition of the person using them which may be completely opposite of the criteria for the data collection. I am concerned at the use of unsubstantiated statistics to accuse men in general of criminal behaviour and thus spreading unnecessary fear, espec…
/r/MensRights10/03/24 06:09 AM
1

I believe it is about supporting a womans right to choose the use of her body on the supply side, but also trying to reduce the exploitation of women's bodies by targeting men on the demand side: basically an expression of "women good, men bad" when it's the same fundamental biology of sexual reproduction in both cases. Whilst ethically, it's appropriate to give both men and women choice over who, when and how they engage in sex, it's also important to recognise that both have a right to express…
/r/MensRights10/03/24 02:17 AM
6

Research and studies are not necessarily based on an unbiased scientific approach.
/r/MensRights09/03/24 01:25 PM
2

The lower the threshold for criminality, the easier to crash the system through overload.
/r/MensRights09/03/24 10:06 AM
9

A bot to provide a different type of comfortable ride?
/r/MensRights09/03/24 09:14 AM
4

Society is gradually expanding the influence of common law by redefining cohabitation. Any relationship with a woman now has the potential for adverse consequences to the man. I understand Islamic laws support a form of marriage that may only last a day, to get around laws banning prostitution. In some locations, there is legal comeback on the man if a one-night-stand or short relationship results in a pregnancy and if his name is put on the birth certificate, even if he isn't the Father. Societ…
/r/MensRights09/03/24 09:13 AM
5

Criminalisation is the wrong approach because it is simply being used as a punishment: it isn't a deterrent because deterrence requires reason, in the moment, and domestic disputes are primarily emotional in nature and reason takes time to catch up with emotion. It's why someone can pour petrol over their family and set them alight and in the next moment kill themselves from remorse: they aren't being rational, it's all driven by primitive emotion. Criminalisation does not create greater rationa…
/r/MensRights09/03/24 09:01 AM
-2

My Mother once told me that she would prefer to be appreciated every day of the year, than receive special acknowledgement on one day of the year and ignored for the rest. Men know their value and its kind of sad that women need a reminder of theirs.
/r/MensRights09/03/24 06:17 AM
3

I don't think they can shut down a group of male acquaintances who choose to meet privately and prefer not to invite women for personal reasons. It could be different if it was a registered group of men. When you book a venue for a wedding, you can exclude people who aren't invited I believe, even though that is acting in a discriminatory fashion, so why should it be so different if men want to book a venue for a particular function that invites men only?
/r/MensRights09/03/24 06:04 AM
5

Men-only groups are discrimination: women-only groups are safe spaces. /s I think we should stop talking about discrimination, because it is something practiced all the time and condoned if it is personal (ie personal preference) but something different if it has commercial or broader societal implications. Use of the term "discrimination" permits obfuscation through differences in interpretation and muddying the waters. I think we should go back to using the old term of "double standards" as it…
/r/MensRights09/03/24 05:57 AM
14

The problem is that women often have an out by complaining they don't feel safe having men around: womens safety seems to trump anti-discrimination.
/r/MensRights09/03/24 05:47 AM
16

That's the result of women becoming monopoly providers of what men want. The only solution is to find alternate sources of what men fundamentally want and force women to compete on a more level playing field. This isn't easy because men have been conditioned to see women as the only source for their needs and one woman being the single basket for all of them; however having all your eggs in one basket is inherently risky when all those baskets have a common flaw.
/r/MensRights09/03/24 05:34 AM
9

As for how men are treated, I believe it is legal to sell sex, but illegal to purchase sex, making men (who would normally be the largest numbers) criminals for seeking paid sex but the women offering paid sex, not. Make of that what you will.
/r/MensRights09/03/24 05:27 AM
1

We need to recognise that human beings are still fundamentally animals based on sexual differentiation that creates attributes particularly suited to the particular roles they play; however we also need to recognise the reality of diversity and not expect people to have certain attributes just because they have others. People will have the attributes they have and it is up to society to best facilitate use of those attributes for the benefit of the individual and society. I personally think we s…
/r/MensRights05/03/24 03:20 AM
-15

The age of sexual consent is usually 16 and above, which means 15yo should not be exploring sexual relationships regardless. However, I don't think the law prevents people of different ages messaging each other unless it is an older person grooming a minor for sex. You might be disappointed that your messager lied about her age, however nothing on social media can be taken as the truth without corroborating evidence, especially in a time of the evolution of deep fakes. This woman did eventually …
/r/MensRights05/03/24 02:54 AM
1

Don't gendered laws already contravene anti-discrimination provisions on the basis of sex? There should be no need for gendered laws: violence against women should already be covered under laws related to violence against people. If those laws aren't strong enough to protect a particular subset, then they need to be strengthened for all, not simply that subset. I think what is happening though, is the drift away from objective harm towards subjective harm and not only raising hurt feelings to th…
/r/MensRights05/03/24 01:27 AM
1

Semen theft (actually use of a man's semen without his consent) or forced fatherhood can not be criminalised without first establishing a man's sovereign right to determine the use of his sperm, as with any other bodily tissues. Society needs a human right to bodily sovereignty including tissues, which extends the current notional right of women to "her body her choice" to men. Once you have a right, laws can be drafted to support that right. It needs to be a non-gendered right for equality and …
/r/MensRights04/03/24 07:08 AM
1

Fraud - wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. A deliberately faked pregnancy could be termed a fraud, but it depends what you want to achieve by using a term other than "deliberately faking a pregnancy", which is accurate and not open to interpretation. I would be careful of accusing someone of deliberately faking a pregnancy, unless you know for sure, as some women unfortunately have multiple miscarriages and if it wasn't a deliberately faked pregnancy…
/r/MensRights03/03/24 11:51 PM
3

Reproductive coercion could be removing a woman's access to contraceptives or termination and then having sex without consent. Faking a pregnancy might come under "reproductive coercion" but it's not the only definition, so using the term "reproductive coercion" is not very meaningful without the context.
/r/MensRights03/03/24 03:57 AM
6

Women and children first is a strategic policy, but it needn't mean men disadvantaged unless we make it that way. Titanic had the provision for enough lifeboats for everyone, but the hubris of a single man saw his own agenda reduce the ability to cater for everyone by not including enough: it was only men expendable as a result of decisions made, not by possibility. Similarly, an intelligent species should not be creating wars, even though men are best designed to wage them, because it reduces b…
/r/MensRights03/03/24 03:17 AM
5

Men are designed to protect and to withstand "aggressions" against that function, facilitated by societal conditioning: there's a reason boys have been encouraged not to express emotion in the past as it doesn't facilitate their ability to fulfill that protection role; it's not functional for a soldier to break down crying with emotion when faced with a protective task. I'm not convinced men are actually disposable or expendable, as they are designed to be resiliant, but their role places them i…
/r/MensRights03/03/24 03:01 AM
1

I think it is important to point out the hypocrisy in putting men and women together and calling it sexual harassment, when the biological imperative is procreation through sex and this game will be played to advantage.
/r/MensRights03/03/24 02:22 AM
4

Achievement of equality usually means the elevation of one group or the reduction of another, so depending on the group and which direction it goes, to achieve equality can feel like oppression/disadvantage or elevation/advantage. Men and women are too different physiologically and psychologically to ever be equal, however they can be complementary and achieve more than the sum of their parts and there are some fundamental outcomes that don't depend on gender where they could achieve equality su…
/r/MensRights03/03/24 02:15 AM
3

Whilst I don't think there is a term for deliberately faking a pregnancy, and we need to be careful about this because genuine phantom pregnancies can occur as well as pregnancies that the body naturally terminates (called a miscarriage I believe) which could be called "fake" pregnancies, if a pregnancy is deliberately faked, it will be for some purpose and there will likely be a term for that purpose, such as extortion, coercive control, fraud, etc.
/r/MensRights03/03/24 02:00 AM
1

Whatever governments call them, they will want to keep relationships under control somehow with rules and laws.
/r/MensRights03/03/24 12:40 AM
6

It's likely people living together will eventually be considered as pseudo-married and subject to the same legal outcomes: it's already happening in some countries. I would not be surprised to find people living together would experience the same issues as those officially married as the problems have the same origin: having a marriage certificate doesn't change those problems.
/r/MensRights02/03/24 02:19 AM
7

I should imagine cohabitation is experiencing a similar trend in a shortening of the relationship duration from the same causes: women losing interest in a man once they get everything they need (ie assets and children), whilst a man's sex drive continues regardless but is no longer serviced as much because it has done its job. The only time men and women are sexually in-sync is during the novelty honeymoon period and whilst trying for children: once that is over, the novelty wears off, it becom…
/r/MensRights02/03/24 02:11 AM
1

How you are now is simply how you are now: it's not a statement about your manliness, worth or future, but the combined influences in your life that have brought you to this point. What happens to us is not solely about our own actions, but largely about external influences over which we have little to no control, so don't despair about the things we have no control over and concentrate on the things we do. It takes a strong person to continue to survive under multiple stressors and I think you …
/r/MensRights02/03/24 01:47 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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