TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

JRutterbush Archive

View 1 posts and 130 comments by JRutterbush on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
58

JRutterbush/r/MensRights31/03/12 06:30 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

#notallwomen
/r/MensRights16/01/18 12:57 AM
1

You have a point, it might be a state thing rather than federal.
/r/MensRights10/05/17 05:48 AM
1

In the US, nudity of a minor is not automatically considered child pornography (or else my mom would be in jail for those baby pictures of me being bathed in a cooking pot), it has to actually be sexually explicit. While it's obvious that these girls were trying to embarrass their victim, it would probably be a lot harder to prove that it was meant for sexual gratification. Though it is hard to see exactly what's happening in the video, so there could be something going on that the authorities c…
/r/MensRights10/05/17 05:20 AM
2

The argument here is one side saying that the only reason a man would give a woman a gift is because he wants sex, while the other is saying that that's not the case. If you pay attention, you might notice that I'm on the second side of that argument, not the first. I wasn't comparing it to sex, I was explaining why some people can't seem to understand that it's not always about sex.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/04/17 01:30 PM
37

People who can't get laid spend most of their time thinking about how to get laid, so they can't imagine that someone would ever do something that isn't about trying to get laid.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/04/17 12:14 PM
5

Not when you're the one who's been accused of doing something. "I was drunk." is never a valid defense against criminal charges. The law sees impairment and unconsciousness as the same with regard to a victim, but not a defendant. If you get drunk and beat the shit out of somebody, you're still going to get charged with assault, even though you were impaired.
/r/PussyPass19/12/15 11:41 AM
-1

I am aware that the law, for the most part, considers sex with a drunk person to be rape. In my opinion, the law is wrong, but the law is not what I was addressing. (Edit: I do want to be clear that I'm not saying that it's okay to have sex with a drunk person when you're sober. Taking advantage of someone is definitely wrong. I'm just saying that it's not rape.) I wasn't talking about the law, or the college's definition of rape. I was responding to someone who said, as a blanket statement, "Is…
/r/PussyPass18/12/15 07:09 PM
-2

You mean according to the same tribunals that just expelled a man for a rape that - according to the accuser's own texts - he very clearly did not commit? I don't think I'll be giving their thoughts on the matter much consideration.
/r/PussyPass18/12/15 12:58 PM
-12

If there's actual evidence to support her claims, then of course I would. If all I have to go on is her accusation, then obviously that's not enough to do anything.
/r/PussyPass18/12/15 12:48 PM
6

My point was that being black-out drunk doesn't prevent someone from raping, I wasn't talking about consent here at all. I was responding specifically to someone who was conflating being unconscious (unable to perform any action) and being blacked out (unable to remember the actions you performed).
/r/PussyPass18/12/15 12:34 PM
-15

Just because he wouldn't be able to remember consenting to it doesn't mean he didn't consent at the time. If you deliberately remove your ability to use sound judgment (which is exactly what getting drunk is), you don't get to claim that your lack of judgment removes your responsibility for your own actions. Even if he was completely black-out drunk, he still could have been completely awake and active, and could even have been a 100% willing participant at the time. I'm not saying he definitely…
/r/PussyPass18/12/15 11:38 AM
-8

Something a lot of people don't seem to realize is that there is a difference between being "blacked out" and being "unconscious". A blackout just means that you won't remember anything the next day, you can still be fully awake and active at the time. I agree that, in this specific case, all the evidence points to this man having done nothing wrong. But it is possible to both be black-out drunk and rape someone (or do just about anything else a drunk person could do), even if that's almost cert…
/r/PussyPass18/12/15 11:35 AM
0

That doesn't mean you should be scared of the state. The state isn't "out to get you", it's completely apathetic at best. Work to change what you can, yes, but fearing the state because it's required to follow the law as it's written is just silly. The state is a huge, dumb beast that lumbers in whatever direction it happens to be pointed... you should have a healthy respect for the damage it can do when it's not being properly guided, but fear should be reserved for something with actual malice…
/r/MensRights05/12/15 06:38 AM
-4

The state was enacting the law as it stands. It's a stupid law, yes, and that law should be changed. But this was not a case of the state arbitrarily ruining someone's life, it's a case of somebody in the past making a law without considering the possible problems it might cause, and the state being obligated to follow that law regardless of its stupidity. You shouldn't be scared of the state, any more than you should be scared of women. You should certainly take steps to fix the bits that need …
/r/MensRights05/12/15 05:25 AM
5

The outrageous part is that a man was in prison when he didn't do anything wrong. She admitted to lying about the rape allegations, and the only reason he still went to prison was because she was underage, which he didn't know. The law says that it doesn't matter if he knew she was underage or not, and that is in itself absolutely outrageous. And while I understand that he's back in prison now because he violated the terms of his parole, he should never have been on parole in the first place, be…
/r/MensRights05/12/15 04:22 AM
1

It wouldn't surprise me, it's just been a very long time since I've looked at the list.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 01:51 AM
5

Yeah, I'm not sure about Florida specifically, but 16 and 17 are the ages of consent in some states. It's just that movies and TV have convinced us that the age of consent is 18 across the board in America, when that's not the case. Part of it's because that's the age of consent in California, so that's the default used in anything out of Hollywood, which is where most of our entertainment comes from.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 01:30 AM
31

And feminist subs are what make women afraid of men. You shouldn't let stories of relatively isolated incidents, horrible as they may be, shape your view of reality. Stuff like this sucks when it happens, but it's a lot more rare than the stories make it seem, just like the stories of rapes and assaults that cause some women to become terrified of men.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 01:28 AM
6

Women have been condiitoned--whether by nature or nurture--that if their feelings are hurt and they regret doing something it's OK to ruin a man's life completely rather than be an adult and admit you made a mistake. This is exactly as true as the radical feminists' concept of men being conditioned to rape. That is to say, not at all. If it's wrong for them to generalize because of a few assholes, it's just as wrong for you to do the same.
/r/MensRights21/10/15 01:05 AM
12

I think the point a lot of people are trying to make with the first graph is that a higher percentage of women are murdered as opposed to dying from accidents and the like. At first glance, that does seem like a problem, even if you ignore the total number of workplace deaths... why are more women's workplace deaths the result of murder than men's? It certainly seems like a problem that could be related to sexism or similar factors. The answer, of course, is because women don't work in dangerous…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:13 PM
8

I think both are true. On the one hand, we have the "macho male" side of society that most definitely does praise men for sexual conquest (and as a side-effect shames men who aren't sexual conquerors, which is a problem all its own) while simultaneously holding up feminine virginity as a holy relic, one that's shameful to lose... but a massive coup for the man that manages to take it. On the other, we have the "men are rapists" side of society that looks to find any excuse to claim that a man ha…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:43 AM
3

I'd say it makes more sense to get them some therapy and try to figure out what's causing them to act the way they are and then fix it... but then I'd be "soft on crime", and we can't have that now can we? If a nation is at the point where they're treating children as adults so they can give them harsher sentences to save themselves the effort of trying to fix the actual problem, I think that nation needs to take a long, hard look at how they handle crime. I'm in America, and I've been saying th…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:35 AM
7

You were making light of assault and murder of a woman in a thread denouncing that woman for making light of assault and torture. Not really a good place to try to make a joke like that. The entire point of the discussion here is that that sort of thing - making jokes about real instances of horror and abuse - is not okay. That doesn't change just because you don't like the person you're making fun of for having been abused and almost killed.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 10:59 PM
1

To answer your question, we throw dick around very casually not so much vagina. It's also not a proper comparison. You shouldn't compare "dick" (vulgar) with "vagina" (formal), you should compare it with "cunt" (vulgar). The only reason Conan compared the two is because the "This part of the joke is true." portion of his joke was referring to a use of the word "vagina", so that comparison was the only way to make the joke. That's also a better comparison than "dick" (an asshole that is male) and…
/r/MensRights25/06/15 02:51 PM
29

In order to be fair, we can only take into account information that we actually know. It's entirely possible that her former boyfriend was violent and controlling, but all we actually know is that she lied about being raped. And even taking into account a violent boyfriend, that still doesn't make it okay to do what she did. It doesn't matter what your situation is, it is never okay to harm innocent people just to save yourself from harm.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/03/15 12:45 AM
1

This part. The part where she had turned away from him and was walking away, and he punched her from behind.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/15 01:51 PM
2

Then things calmed down to just yelling at each other for a bit... and then he escalated back to physical violence. My entire point here has been that past harm to you does not justify doing harm to others now. Violence is only appropriate to prevent harm to oneself or others, not in retaliation for a past slight. He was not defending himself from attack at the time, therefore his use of violence was just as wrong as hers. They were both using violence as a reaction to a situation that did not, …
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/15 01:46 PM
14

Well, it literally takes five seconds to go to their subreddit and check their sidebar... but if you're really that lazy, sure. Here.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/15 12:41 PM
4

Then will we have a group of people who know they can walk all over the others because they think retaliation is bad? As I already said, self-defense and retaliation aren't the same thing. No, people wouldn't "know they can walk all over the others", because the others would defend themselves. The difference is that their defense would come as a direct response to aggressive action... not later, after the aggressive action is already done and over with.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/15 04:49 AM
9

Oh yeah, I don't feel any sympathy for her at all. I'm just saying that he's just as wrong for throwing his punch as she was for throwing hers.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/15 04:09 AM
1

I was talking about self-defense, and for self-defense it definitely is a matter of if she was a danger at the time.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/15 04:07 AM
2

Nothing wrong with retaliation. Well, except that "making the whole world blind" thing. Retaliation is understandable (I've felt that kind of anger before myself), but that doesn't make it okay. I can understand why people do a lot of bad things, but that doesn't mean I condone the bad things that people do.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/15 04:07 AM
17

Actually, now that I watch again, it does look like they were still inside the house. As dark as it is, it looked like that was the front porch the first time I saw it (I did find it odd that there was so much junk piled up on it, but I've seen worse in poor areas). That said, she had still turned and was in the process of leaving. He hit her from behind as she was turning and moving away from him, there isn't really an argument that she was presenting a danger when he hit her.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/15 03:48 AM
43

As long as it's actually defending yourself, and not simply retaliating after the fact. Like that last guy, when the girl had already turned around and was [Edit: on her way] out of the house and he leaned out just to punch her from behind. That's not self-defense, he didn't hit her to stop her from hurting him in some way... he hit her because he was pissed at her. (To be clear, I'm not saying that he was the one in the wrong, just that they were both in the wrong in that case.)
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/15 03:05 AM
8

I think that's mostly because /r/pussypass actually is associated with /r/theredpill (as in, it directly links to them in the sidebar as a "related subreddit"). I'll admit I didn't realize this sub wasn't also linked to it until I checked the sidebar here after seeing your comment, since the two subs are so similar in name and purpose.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/15 02:59 AM
11

We could change the system to have more deterrence against false accusations beyond the slaps on the wrists we give now. The problem is that it's incredibly hard to prove that a false allegation was made. It requires proving intentional dishonesty, and barring a confession (like in this case) it's almost impossible to actually prove that someone lied, as opposed to simply being mistaken. Unfortunately, harsh penalties still wouldn't do much since they wouldn't be used in most of the cases simply…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 07:17 PM
2

I really don't think you have to be a feminist to be angry about this. Even if you ignore the fact that online vigilantes often "discover" the wrong information about who someone really is, even if they didn't get the wrong person, and the woman that they went after really is the woman in that video, this is not the proper response to this situation. Mobs are not, as a rule, very good at the whole "justice" thing. Vengefully ruining someone's life, sure... but that's not justice.
/r/MensRights12/01/15 03:38 PM
4

The one issue I can possibly even see is that they pretty much had to have a sex scene just to make the movie work. In movies with the reverse scenario, the threat of an underage girl (falsely) claiming to have had sex with the protagonist is enough to cause fear and panic. That threat of bringing ruin down on someone's head by claiming statutory rape is always a huge plot point in these kinds of movies. And that's really the only difference between this movie and all the "male teacher, female s…
/r/MensRights12/01/15 12:43 AM
3

Exactly: it's kind of weird, but "being weird" and "molesting children" are two very different things.
/r/MensRights12/01/15 12:12 AM
0

The point they're trying to make is that you don't see the sexual context because you don't expect to see sexual context involving a minor in the first place. I don't agree with them, by the way, I'm just trying to help explain their point. They're wrong because they're seeing something that simply isn't there, not because they suggested thinking about it with a slightly different context. It's a tactic used by the Men's Rights movement fairly often, actually: when you see a comedic picture or v…
/r/MensRights12/01/15 12:10 AM
6

Aha, I see what you mean now. Putting in a separate category for "found not guilty" would be a good idea, I agree.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 06:06 PM
7

While I agree with the majority of this, I will point out that "unreported" in the first infographic almost certainly means "wasn't reported to the police", and the section for "reported" that isn't "faced trial" is for those cases that were reported to the police, but then didn't go to trial for whatever reason. The "unreported" section isn't really entirely conjecture, because it's usually based on informal polls talking to people who claim to have been raped who didn't report to the police. I…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:41 PM
9

It wasn't about who was legally innocent or guilty, but about who was a rapist and who was not. Not going to court doesn't mean somebody's a rapist, which is why it was inconclusive: they had been reported as a rapist, but not proven to be so. They shouldn't be punished, of course, but for the purposes of statistics, it's still important to include data about cases that could still be one or the other.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:35 PM
2

It's entirely possible. Like I said, my knowledges comes from a story in an RPG book: they even use wyf and wo instead of wyf and wer, I had to get the two correct terms from the online search. I didn't even think about the wyf/wife connections, that makes a lot more sense. Yay words!
/r/MensRights29/10/13 09:32 PM
13

The reason you don't have an idea is because you don't have a problem. You're comfortable in your body (gender-identity wise, anyway), so you don't feel anything wrong. It's kinda like wearing comfortable clothes, vs. wearing horribly scratchy, tight-fitting wet clothes. You don't really notice comfortable clothes most of the time: they're comfortable, so they fade into the background noise of your day. Wear some uncomfortable clothes, though, and you'll be very aware of it all damn day. Most tr…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:06 AM
1

That's why I use GSRM. Gender, sexual and romantic minority. Covers everybody, no matter what your initial might be. It got thrown out a while ago, but it hasn't caught on as much as I'd hoped it would. People like their long initializations, I guess.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:03 AM
2

I though wyf was male, and wer was female? Admittedly, my knowledge consists of one Google search after reading a World of Darkness book that used the terms in the introduction story...
/r/MensRights29/10/13 11:01 AM
3

Personally, I don't think that quashing dissent or banning people whose views don't match your own exactly right could be considered "healthy"... but it's their subreddit, and they have the right to run it how they want.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 02:16 PM
1

Transsexual isn't the problem, the word "tranny" is. Transsexual is someone who has actually undergone sex change therapy (either hormones or surgery), while transgender refers to both trans people before undertaking any changes, or to anyone that doesn't fit into the standard "gender binary", including agendered people and genderqueer people. (Apparently some also use "transsexual" to refer to people even before undertaking any therapy. Terminology can vary depending on who you're talking to or…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 01:27 AM
1

In other words: buy some scuba gear.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 06:55 AM
4

Sorry if I gave that impression, I don't hate fathers at all. I try my hardest not to hate anybody, actually. My family life was fine: my mom and grandma were great, and my uncle was definitely a very masculine figure, so I didn't lack for a male role model, even if you don't count a few of my favorite teachers that helped shape who I became. No abuse or anything like that, if that's what you meant. I just think it's important to remember that just "having a father" isn't the necessary part. A b…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 02:19 AM
2

if something horrible happens... for example, like a man who dies at war. Or, as is true in far too many cases, like a man who is absolutely the worst person to have as a role model. There are too many families that would be better off with no father at all, rather than the father they do have. Edit: Sorry if it was unclear, I didn't mean that men are the worst role models to have. I just meant that, for example, a "male role model" that gets drunk and beats his wife and child is not the kind of…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 02:04 AM
25

Children need male role models, but those do not automatically have to be their fathers. I never had my dad around either... but y'know what? I had plenty of other men in my life: teachers, friends of the family, my uncle and older brother, and so on. Things worked out just fine, no fathers involved.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:27 PM
5

Because a person's father is the only male they will ever come into contact with in the whole wide world.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:25 PM
3

Well... for one, this isn't "marketers", it's a feminist Facebook group. They know what their own group likes, yes. As for your following statements... Yes, many feminists like the man-bashing. But it's a little disingenuous to act like there aren't also a lot of men who enjoy making fun of women just as much.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 10:46 PM
2

Your foreskin is not in any way imposing upon your mother's health. You're the only one affected by its existence, which is why you're the only one allowed to make decisions about it. But so long as a fetus is using resources from the mother's body, it's her choice as to whether or not she wants to allow that to happen. I may not like it, and I may not agree with non-medical reasons for abortion... but I can't get past the fact that it's her right to do with her body as she wishes. Including den…
/r/MensRights24/12/12 03:19 AM
1

Honestly, while bad things have happened... the only real problem I have with circumcision is that it's a permanent and almost always unnecessary medical procedure performed on someone who can't consent to it. To me, that's more than enough to want unnecessary circumcisions banned, nobody has to go throwing in all this "it'll ruin your sex life" stuff.
/r/MensRights24/12/12 03:11 AM
1

Less a grammatical issue, and more an emotional one. I'll admit that it's probably a more sensitive issue for many trans people, because objectification and the like are huge problems for them. Saying someone is "a trans" reduces their entire being, their definition, to one thing... and that one thing is usually what has caused them the most trouble in their lives, as well. I realize you didn't mean anything by it, but it can be an issue sometimes, so I figured I'd point it out.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 03:43 AM
5

So, not trying to be snippy or anything, I just wanna point out that "trans" is an adjective, not a noun. There's no such thing as "a trans", just "a trans person". Kind of like how saying "a black" has a different connotation than saying "a black person". Just so you know for future reference. Other than that, spot on.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 04:21 AM
9

On that one, I can see a person getting scared when someone comes out of nowhere and grabs them like that. A bear hug isn't exactly light contact, especially when you're not expecting it, and it comes from behind. And the guy just ran off, apparently. So in this case, I can see the reasoning behind being scared and making a report. Reporting someone asking if they know you, on the other hand, is more than a little silly...
/r/MensRights26/10/12 11:33 AM
1

If I work at a high-end law firm and make tons and tons of money, and you work at McDonald's and make minimum wage... there is a wage gap between us. This isn't because of discrimination, it's not a problem that needs to be fixed. We have a wage gap because we made different choices as to employment.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 06:21 AM
2

If you're trying to argue against what someone is saying, then yes, pointing out that you don't like the way that they said it has little bearing on the actual debate. But when the debate we're having is specifically about presentation, I think pointing out ineffective or harmful ways of presenting an argument is very germane to the discussion. That's like saying that discussing a person's political views while having a debate over politics "...just completely derails it." You can't derail a dis…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 01:58 AM
21

Someone can agree with a message while disagreeing with the way it's presented. It's entirely possible to be factually correct while still being a jackass, and it's kind of disingenuous to complain about being called out on the jackass part. Put forth whatever ideas you want. Just try not to be a jerk about it, that's all.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 07:00 PM
5

Are you "straight", or are you just "normal"? Are you "white", or are you just "normal"? We're humans, we label things, probably way more than is necessary. It's what we do. Deal with it. (Note: I realize that you may well not be straight or white, but I'm trying to make a point.)
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:59 AM
1

Anything can be compared, but you have to be careful not to make a ridiculous comparison. I wouldn't say that comparing two slurs is ridiculous. Nobody's comparing the plight of black slaves in America to women getting insulted. They're just comparing, specifically, slurs. And how it feels to be targeted with a slur. Men used to work in factories and mines for 12+ hours a day. Would you accept someone comparing this to slavery? Comparing it to slavery in general? Probably, as it's horrible condi…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 08:27 AM
0

The only reason it's used against men is to point out how they're feminine, which is in turn saying that there is somehow something wrong with being female. Yes, it is an attempted enforcement of gender roles, but gender roles aren't an aspect of misogyny or misandry. Sexism, sure, but sexism and misogyny are two entirely different concepts.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 02:23 PM
9

"Being forced to be a housewife and not getting to work in coal mines is literally just as bad as being a slave and getting called a nigger". Very valiant, sir! You have thrashed that straw-man quite soundly! There's a rather large difference between equating one thing with another, and comparing one thing to another. While one specific minority may or may not have had a worse time of it than another, that has no bearing on how slurs are taken, and the damage they can do. It is perfectly reasona…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 12:00 PM
1

Relational aggression is basically using your tongue as a weapon, false accusations, rumour spreading, malicious gossip etc, it describes "bitchy" behaviour. That very definition, however, is an indication of the problem. Originally, "bitch" was a negative term for women. Now, you claim it's a term that means "...using your tongue as a weapon, false accusations, rumour spreading, malicious gossip etc..." So, the two have become associated, giving "bitch" a double-whammy effect. Now, not only is …
/r/MensRights29/06/12 11:50 AM
1

I'm not the one that said "You're a feminist if you X", though. All I've been saying is that this specific issue, which is about women getting upset over a woman being raped in an entertainment media, isn't a Mens' Rights issue. I'm not talking about moral monopolies or anything like that. I'm talking about the fact that we're in a forum dedicated to Mens' Rights issues, and this is not a Mens' Rights issue. Therefore, the question must be asked: Why was this posted? I also dislike the inherent …
/r/MensRights16/06/12 10:04 PM
2

And if you want to weigh in on it, fine. But the OP is acting like this is a Mens' Rights issue, and it's not. In no way is any of this, the scene in the game or the outcry about it, impinging on the rights of men. It's not hurting us, so why would it be an issue for this particular subreddit?
/r/MensRights16/06/12 09:36 PM
1

The issue isn't whether rape is bad. Of course it's bad. The issue is whether it's okay to show a simulated attempted rape in a video game.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 05:59 PM
2

That I could see, yeah.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 05:45 PM
3

Part of the issue is that video games still aren't seen as a serious medium. Nobody goes crazy over rape scenes in books and movies. Maybe I just watch too much Extra Credits, but it saddens me that people can't seem to allow video games to be a serious, deep art form. Personally, I think a scene like this can be a big step in that direction.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 07:57 AM
6

I have been with a woman who suffered a rape, and was caught unaware by a rape scene in a movie. Triggering is a real thing, and people who have suffered severe emotional trauma can, and do, suffer greatly when forced to relive it. Especially if it's not in a controlled setting. I admit that it's not a big enough issue to get mad over one rape scene in one game, any more than it's a big enough issue to get mad over rape scenes in books, shows and movies. But there is a real reason people are get…
/r/MensRights16/06/12 07:56 AM
3

Rape is not exclusively a feminist issue. There are male victims of rape and how rape is portrayed in media is also a concern for /mr. But this particular issue isn't about male rape. It's about a woman being raped, and how seeing that might affect women who have been raped. Whether you agree with the people condemning it or not, this specific instance is a strictly feminist issue at heart. Secondly /the feminist Rape Culture and Patriarchy narrative (society condones rape against women, patriar…
/r/MensRights16/06/12 07:51 AM
1

That may be... but this all has nothing to do with any of that. This is a feminist issue, not a men's issue. I just fail to see why a mens' rights forum should care at all if a bunch of feminists get put off by a feminist issue, especially when nothing they're doing or saying has anything to do with men at all.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 03:54 AM
2

..."anti-feminism" is certainly a part of this sub-reddit. That's not the impression I've been given from all the MRA's I've seen outside of here. That's not the impression given by the sidebar. Where do you get the idea that anti-feminism is part of this sub? Which I think is fine, because Feminism is not our ally, it's our enemy. Wait, what? Since when? The two are completely separate. Not being an ally (and that's not even the case for all feminists) does not automatically make one an enemy. …
/r/MensRights16/06/12 01:18 AM
1

Um... I'll admit that I don't come here often. But what does this have to do with Mens' Rights? No men are being oppressed or disadvantaged here. There's no misandry or anything. Sure, some might agree that some feminists seem to take offense at things too easily... but that's something to point out in a feminism or anti-feminism subreddit.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 12:55 AM
1

To be fair, RobotAnna doesn't speak for anybody, much less the entire GSM community. Besides, if we can point to a single instance of someone acting like an ass as proof of something that permeates an entire movement... well, that doesn't bode well for the MRM, does it? The movement as a whole might have an admirable goal, but you can't deny that it has it's share of assholes. For the record, most of us despise the heterophobic and misandric assholes just as much as you do. I wouldn't go to SRS …
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:43 PM
3

My safeword is "Ow!" We don't get very far...
/r/MensRights14/05/12 02:12 AM
1

Well... I'd think it more accurate to replace "is" and "isn't" with "can be" and "can't be". But I get your point.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 08:35 PM
1

Okay, so it's not the idea of gender, but society's interpretation? That's mostly my view as well. I see gender as nothing more than the brain's idea of what sex it's supposed to be. I don't mind people gendering certain objects and activities and the like, so long as they don't try to enforce that on others.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 05:47 PM
1

...I claimed I didn't believe in gender. I'm curious... could you elaborate on this? As in, do you reject societal gender norms specifically, or the entire concept of gender? Personally, I do reject the idea of a gender binary, but not the basic idea of gender itself.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 01:54 AM
5

Personally, I think people are adding gender identifiers to traits that are completely gender-neutral. Neither masculinity nor femininity are inherently good or bad, nor do either have any specific value at all. Especially given that most traits associated with each aren't actually inherent to either. Society views certain traits as either "man-things" or "woman-things"... when in reality, anybody can have any traits, good or bad.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 01:52 AM
2

Hmm... I suppose that works. I figured it'd start with the story about the boy who plugged a leak in the dam with his pinky-finger... "Super-Ultra-Mega-Absorbant!"
/r/MensRights01/04/12 08:33 AM
5

Heh, totally. I'm really looking forward to the new male-focused Tampax ads...
/r/MensRights31/03/12 09:11 PM
1

This comic is a little... disingenuous, to say the least. I'll admit, it has very successfully shown the ignorance of the most common of SRS-style arguments used. That said, SRS are not "real" opponents, they're unknowing self-mockeries. Their arguments, when confronted by even the least rational of non-SRS folk, are easily crushed. This entire comic is a badly constructed strawman, and not at all what I would have expected, considering some of the reasonably intelligent and well-spoken (well-ty…
/r/MensRights31/03/12 06:40 AM
23

While the originals are pretty bad and needed to be called out, I think it's just as important to point out when people attempt to fix their mistakes, as well.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 06:31 AM
3

The thing is, none of the banned subreddits are illegal. Technically, posting non-sexually explicit (which is defined in legal code as showing actual sex acts) pictures of children isn't illegal, even if people are using them to get off. This isn't a matter of banning things that are illegal: actual child porn has always been forbidden on Reddit. This is about perception. Legal or not, posting pictures of children solely to sexualize them is causing a huge scandal. And while Reddit does have a p…
/r/MensRights17/02/12 08:01 AM
3

I'd say that the money he already gave is gone. There's no proof of her not getting the "abortion" that he "paid for" But he can just not pay any more until she proves its his. There's not much else that can be done, I don't think. I'm no lawyer though, so I may be missing something.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 03:16 PM
16

...and even they differentiate between explicit consent and implied consent (which you seemed to ignore). There was no "implied consent". Not physically resisting an attacker is not "consent". She said "no". She said "no" repeatedly. As for "tacit consent", being too scared to fight back isn't consent, tacit or otherwise. And keep in mind that trans women are subject to horrid amounts of violence simply for being who they are. I don't blame her for not wanting to antagonize the OP further, when …
/r/seduction21/12/11 08:26 PM
6

If you're the kinda guy who can just go out and find women (i.e.: already perfect in every way), then yeah, you have a point. But for some guys, it'll take a lot longer than a night or two, now matter how many tricks there are. And in that case, going that long without any kind of sexual release at all will do nothing but make you tense, horny, angry and spastic. That kind of desperation is palpable, and will do nothing but drive the ladies away.
/r/seduction16/11/11 04:56 AM
5

Because being desperate for sex makes you more likely to get laid? I'm much more able to be calm and relaxed around people if I'm satisfied, instead of being tense and horny all the time.
/r/seduction16/11/11 04:18 AM
-1

Just as I'd be honest and open about exactly who and what I am, I expect others to be open with me. That's all. Now spend the next X years of your life hearing about nothing but the assaults, rapes, beatings, murders and suicides of all of the other people just like "who and what you are". Spend those years constantly fearing the same happening to you, or even actually experiencing the same happen to you when people learn "who and what you are". Spend those years wishing that your family and fri…
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:22 PM
2

For the record, she's a trans person, not "a trans". It's an adjective, not a noun.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 08:57 AM
1

If there is a study done showing that 99% of men would absolutely refuse to have sex with a transsexual person... I'd highly doubt the veracity of that study. It's just not true. Further, when you have an unreasonable requirement in a sexual partner (as in, one that has no impact on actual sexual relations: not smoking, not eating meat, cisgender only) then it's your responsibility to make your requirements known before having sex. If you don't, then it's your fault if you happen to sleep with s…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:05 AM
7

If they know you don't want to sleep with someone who smokes or eats meat, then yes, that's deception. But it's your responsibility to let them know that that's a problem, not theirs to tell you everything about themselves, just in case something would keep you from sleeping with them.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:59 PM
1

So, going over this discussion, I realize I forgot to mention something I probably should have. I don't, in any way, advocate any punishment or reprisal for those that don't disclose. I realize some have equated it to rape and other crimes, and advocated criminal punishment; I don't think that's necessary, or even acceptable, really. While I personally believe it's wrong not to disclose when you know most men would want to know, I completely understand why one would choose not to. You have every…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 04:07 AM
1

Except the bit where they aren't obligated to disclose for a simple, quick encounter, such as a one-night-stand. There's not nearly enough of a backlash to the guy in that situation to warrant taking the risk of revealing yourself to someone you know nothing about. Other than that, yeah, agree. Though I'm not sure if you're one of the people who equates it to rape, or another crime, which it's not.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 07:59 PM
1

Not at all, on either count.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 07:51 PM
1

If I say "I like going to the beach" that's a prejudice as well. Ridiculous. Not really, no. I do enjoy going to the beach, based on my previous experiences. I do not, however, assume that I will like any beach I go to just because it's a beach. The problem here isn't that what you're saying isn't prejudiced, it's that the public view of the word is skewed. A prejudice isn't necessarily a bad thing, or a wrong thing to have. I'm arguing purely for the case of using the correct terminology here.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 07:46 PM
1

Read the definition. Here, I'll give it to you again, just to be nice: prejudice (try actually reading it this time.) If you make a blanket statement about a given group, ignoring the fact that individual circumstances may change your view with regard to a specific individual, that's prejudice. If you say "I will never sleep with a man, no matter what.", that is, in face, prejudice. It doesn't take into account that your views may change, or that you may have an emotional connection with someone…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 07:33 PM
1

Now, if you'll answer the question about whether it's prejudiced to not want to sleep with a ladyboy, we can resolve our differences on the second part. For the third bloody time, yes it's wrong. In my last post, I pointed out that my first post said this. Read my post before replying (by the way, I said that in my last post as well). We agree it's wrong for a transgender to trick someone into sleeping with them thinking they are not transgender. Yes, I do agree, though if it's just something li…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 07:20 PM
0

So you think it's prejudiced to not want to have sex with a ladyboy? Yes, though I may be saying this based on confusion over your terminology. I'm less familiar with the "slang" type terms: exactly what do you mean by "ladyboy"? You didn't answer my question. Yes, actually, I did. Read my entire post before replying to it. As I said, I do think it's wrong to trick somebody into a sexual relationship when they may be otherwise opposed to it if they knew a specific piece of information. My specif…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 07:02 PM
0

So you think it's prejudiced to not want to have sex with a ladyboy? Yes, though I may be saying this based on confusion over your terminology. I'm less familiar with the "slang" type terms: exactly what do you mean by "ladyboy"? You didn't answer my question. Yes, actually, I did. Read my entire post before replying to it. As I said, I do think it's wrong to trick somebody into a sexual relationship when they may be otherwise opposed to it if they knew a specific piece of information. My specif…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 07:01 PM
0

I'm not saying that you can't think that way, but it's still prejudice. You're allowed to be prejudiced, just don't act like you're not. What if a transvestite (i.e. a ladyboy) tricks someone into thinking they are a woman, is that ok? It's just a penis and something superficial they have no control over. Obviously, if you don't want to sleep with her, it's not going to go farther than that. It's not like you're going to miss something like that. And for the record, I don't think it's okay to tr…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 06:41 PM
1

I think there was a misunderstanding here. The OP wasn't complaining that the posts were removed; he was pointing out that the posts were removed to SUPPORT the removal of said posts. He was saying, essentially: "We're going to let people say what they want even if it offends others, but we still won't allow people to advocate the murder of (group x). To prove that I'm being sincere, I'm going to point out the two extreme posts that were removed, and the user that was banned for making them."
/r/MensRights09/05/11 06:29 PM
0

Someone wishing to avoid having sex (or avoid unknowingly having sex) with a person who has undergone gender reassignment surgery is prejudice? Well, it is, actually. You're ignoring any connection you may have, and rejecting what could be a wonderful relationship, because of a single aspect of someone that they have no control over. You're basing your actions solely on something superficial, that doesn't matter. That's what prejudice is.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 06:24 PM
1

I'm confident that those motivations would be evident to anyone who has the good fortune to be involved with you, and speaking for myself, I would respond in kind. Well, thanks. Agreed. But it is also stupid and silly for me to be expected to respond to that stupidity and silliness by announcing to all and sundry that I've had a mastectomy. Is that a problem? The mastectomy thing, I mean. I don't know if there are a lot of men who would base a relationship choice on that. It's a matter of who kn…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 06:13 PM
1

So I am responsible for knowing what others believe and want... You know that many people are uncomfortable sleeping with a trans woman. This is common enough that it can be assumed your partner might have this hangup, so yes, it is your responsibility to tell them so they can decide for themselves. Like I said in the other comment, though, this isn't something that should come around until you've had some time to get to know the person anyway. ...and I am responsible for supporting them in thei…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 05:57 PM
2

So I am responsible for knowing what others believe and want... You know that many people are uncomfortable sleeping with a trans woman. This is common enough that it can be assumed your partner might have this hangup, so yes, it is your responsibility to tell them so they can decide for themselves. Like I said in the other comment, though, this isn't something that should come around until you've had some time to get to know the person anyway. ...and I am responsible for supporting them in thei…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 05:54 PM
2

OK - we're getting closer. Here's the thing. I presume this standard - disclosure of medical history - is something that you wouldn't hold a woman who had a mastectomy to? So why am I being held to it? What is it about my situation that demands this higher level of disclosure? My personal reasons for wanting disclosure are entirely based on wanting to know a person, and know about the important things that shaped their lives and who they are today, before entering a serious relationship with the…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 05:30 PM
3

As long as the disclosure comes before the actual sex, I'm not opposed to waiting until you get to know a person. Finding out you were attracted to a trans person is their problem, since that can happen without any involvement from the subject of the attraction at all. Of course you'll need the early part of a relationship to, at the very least, gauge whether or not they might react with physical violence should they react negatively at all. Did I give the impression that I meant you should disc…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 04:43 PM
3

And what yardstick should I use when determining if something is deceitful and dishonest? If someone's decision on whether to be with you would be altered by a piece of information, and you knowingly withhold that information in order to be with that person, then that is deceitful and dishonest. There isn't any ambiguity there. What you are asking me to do, in effect, is to support and uphold incorrect, and even dangerous beliefs... Not at all. I'm asking you to respect that others have the righ…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 04:32 PM
2

I don't see how you're sacrificing your happiness when you've already said that you wouldn't be happy with someone who's transphobic. Just because you don't know that they are doesn't change that fact. Or are you arguing this on behalf of others? If so, then I continue to maintain that if you (continuing to use the general "you" here) value your right to be happy, then you must also value that right in others. You don't have the right to take away their happiness, no matter how silly the thing t…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 04:21 PM
1

You're entitled to a relationship, of course, but it's not right to enter into a relationship with someone that's based on deceit and dishonesty. You've already stated that you'd be unwilling to be in a relationship with a guy who was transphobic, so there's that. And there's the fact that any potential partner has the right to know things that would influence his decisions about a relationship. People have the right to reject a partner for any reason; this sort of thing is too personal, too int…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 03:16 PM
0

I was addressing the one-night stand scenario. Oh, sorry, didn't catch that. There have been a lot of comments advocating secrecy throughout an entire relationship, and that's what I was getting at there. I didn't realize that's not what you were talking about. I continue to have mixed feelings on the one-night-stand scenario, to be honest. They're not something I'm up for, but I realize some people are okay with just going out and having sex with someone they just met. And while I can sympathiz…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 02:16 PM
0

Why, given the evidence, do you not believe that a trans person is really a member of their identified gender? It's good of you to agree to refer to them as such, I suppose, but what exactly keeps you from believing it's true? Do you doubt the recent scientific evidence, or is it something else?
/r/MensRights09/05/11 02:04 PM
0

I'm not arguing about the modern perception, I'm arguing about what I said, and what you said I said. What you said is rooted in the modern perceptions, though. So any argument aimed at your statements must, by nature, involve modern perceptions. And you STILL insist on arguing semantics after I have expressed my displeasure in doing so. I have provided my case in clear, direct words. I have stated why this isn't an argument about semantics, and you're still insisting on arguing a point's validi…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 05:44 AM
0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male "Male (♂) refers to the sex of an organism" You can't counter the argument of "Modern perceptions of 'issue x' are misguided." by simply quoting the current modern perception. The issue that's up for debate cannot be used as evidence toward said issue's legitimacy. Edit: That's akin to the following: Me: The moon is made of cheese! You: No it's not. Me: Yes it is, and I've got a quote to prove it: Me: The moon is made of cheese! Furthermore, I'm not playing stup…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 05:09 AM
6

They were attacking her because of their (incorrect) perception that she was born male. She was, in fact, born with male genitalia, which did not match her female identity. Once again; she is not, nor has she ever been male. This is the main misconception that needs to be addressed here. Also: Shuttlecock: Not only are you completely wrong but you just played the classic feminist tactic of hijacking other marginalized groups to play the victim card and further the causes of middle class white wo…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 05:03 AM
2

Actually, I did not "know damn well". The point I'm trying to make here is that "male" is a gender term, which has nothing to do with sex. It's not semantics, there is an actual, demonstrable difference between the two. If you agree that a trans woman is a woman born with the wrong body, then you need to be aware of the correct terminology and use it, both for clarity and to avoid insulting others. If you don't agree, then you can refer to my earlier comments, and feel free to attempt to counter…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 04:54 AM
3

...they're born male and don't want to be male anymore. Once again: no. They're born female with a body that doesn't match, and they don't want to be seen as male by society anymore. There are many who view this in the same light as someone born with an extreme deformity who undergoes corrective surgery. ...at the end of the day, doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Yes, actually, it does. A person's gender is determined by their sense of self, their identity, which is purely mental. It's (li…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 04:41 AM
4

So, you're saying that since they're men (though once again, trans women are not men, nor were they ever), their issues are Mens's Rights issues? I was under the impression that mens' rights was about stopping hatred and discrimination against men that comes *because they're men**, not because of something completely unrelated, and oh... they happen to be men. Am I wrong on that? This is, by the way, the main reason I dislike "X Rights" movements. I'm for equal rights for everybody. I see no rea…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 04:03 AM
4

the the transperson, she's a woman trying to be identified as a woman. To society, she's a man trying to break his gender role. And, as in many cases, society is wrong. I can't tell if this was what you were trying to say, or agreeing with that sentiment, though. And I see no reason why not. This makes me think you might be agreeing, but I'm not entirely sure. I may just be tired; could you clarify? Feminism didn't have any problem when they copied the idea of "male privilege" from "white privil…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 03:36 AM
2

What we need is a way to differentiate. I agree that labeling every dodgy method to get laid as "rape" is too far. There is a difference between forcing yourself on someone physically, and just having sex with someone too drunk to know better. Taking away one's ability to consent (via date rape drugs, for example) lies in between the two, though somewhat closer to violent rape. But these are all still Not Right things to do, even if they have varying levels of how Not Right they are. For consent…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 03:29 AM
3

It is no more transphobic to wish not to date a transsexual than a straight man being homophobic for denying a relationship with a gay man. Well... it is, actually. Thinking of transexuals as anything but their identified gender is transphobia, since they are, physically and mentally, that gender. Not wanting to date a trans woman because she can't have children is not transphobia, not wanting to date her because she's trans is. There's no appreciable difference between a trans woman and a cis w…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 03:16 AM
11

The suicide rate and discrimination against transwomen is absolutely a mens rights issue because it's men being discriminated against for shunning their role as protect and provider. It is indisputable proof of society depriving men of their choice not to be men. Actually, it's proof of society depriving women of their right to be women. I dunno if you meant this as an insult to trans women, but it is. They're not men who want to be women. They're women who want to be seen as women. ...people he…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 03:08 AM
4

Anyway, you want me to tell you about the worst days of my life as a prelude to telling me that you will never go to bed with me, regardless of any love that might exist between us, regardless of my femininity, regardless of the fact that this all happened before I was born? I can only speak for myself here, but asking for disclosure (for me) has nothing to do with a decision whether or not to sleep with a trans woman. That's not even a decision at all, as far as I'm concerned; it has no impact …
/r/MensRights09/05/11 02:57 AM
10

Most women would be pretty offended if asked, out of the blue, "Uh, hey, did you used to be a guy? No reason, just checkin'..." If a trans girl is worried about possible violent reactions from a potential lover, then chances are she shouldn't be thinking of sleeping with the guy anyway. If you're close enough for sex, you're close enough to reveal such an important part of who you are. At least, that's the way I see it, being the type to require a deeper emotional attachment than "Hey, you're ho…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 08:20 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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