TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Labut Archive

View 0 posts and 88 comments by Labut on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-3

It doesn't change the immoral aspects of this cultural problem. Saying "you have to understand the cultural context" is easily and appeal to emotion and sensitivity for many. Cultural sensitively to the extent of even minimizing it. It's a poor way to word it and some, not all, will be influenced to have empathy over it.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:43 PM
0

bad but you have to understand the cultural context behind this Doesn't change a thing.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:28 PM
1

The issue arises when you seek out Scandanavian women exclusively, Okay but, like before, you never specify WHY it's wrong. she begins to fetishize him instead of seeing him as a person . She doesn't care about the actual human male That's an assumption. Do they sleep with ANY and EVERY male that's latin or just males they like that are latin too? How many people will sleep with anyone and everyone and not, actually, people they actually like on TOP of what they find sexually attractive? The Asi…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 02:57 PM
-3

It's an issue when you only seek out Scandanavian women because you assume that all Scandanavian women are the same, or if you only want one because you assume she'll always wear traditional dress and chop logs and serve you lutefisk . that's where it becomes fetishization, instead of just a personal preference. Even if it that was the case what is wrong with it? Every single person has preferences. Can you explain to me why it's wrong to desire certain people? It doesn't even make sense to me. …
/r/MensRights12/05/13 02:27 PM
11

He catergorizes whole classes of people by talking about how 'chinese' they look. That right there is a red flag for something going on that needs to be addressed. Like what? What about a man who likes tall blondes? Thick brunettes? Australian girls? Why do you think something needs to "be addressed" here? It's HIS sexual preferences. I, myself, prefer Scandinavian women. Probably because I'm of the same background, who knows. Minnesota has the highest population of those with Nordic roots (Nort…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 04:30 AM
-4

"I had to fight the urge to turn around and leave," Lum says in a voiceover, right before she meets the character we know only as "Steven" for the first time. . Why was I feeling sympathetic to Steven, who fetishizes Asian women? . she began making the documentary because she was sick of dealing with men (usually non-Asian) who shared Steven's creepy fascination with Asian women So people have sexual preferences and she's a racist bitch. Wow. Like girls with a certain body type? Eye color? Hair …
/r/MensRights12/05/13 04:20 AM
0

Sorry if you didn't catch it. Not so subtle attempt at trying to reverse the blame for your own error through specific verbiage.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 11:07 AM
1

All the BS really discredits this place to passerby's.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 12:54 PM
7

I can't find anything about this, on google, except for this article itself. I did find an article that talks about how she published a book that: The book ‘Mia - Sanningen om Gömda’ (Mia – The truth about Hidden), written by freelance journalist Monica Antonsson, is all it has promised to be. The real story about Marklund’s story, that shows what a thin line the celebrated and famous journalist has been walking on when she “documented” how Swedish authorities ignored a mother fleeing from an ab…
/r/MensRights30/03/13 10:03 AM
-21

She told him she was using contraception Well it must be true, than. Safe enough to stick your dick, the place where baby batter comes out of, into the place where the batter is "baked" right? Surely a pill can never be forgotten. And what's what? You have to take them on a cycle? Missing a dose or changing the time could result in pregnancy? Just raw dog that shit, bro, and pull out. That's being safe enough. Uh and while you're at it make sure you don't discuss the topic of abortion beforehand…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 12:48 PM
-30

Consent was sticking his dick inside a women who was capable of having a baby. This subreddit really is fucking retarded. That's how reproduction works.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 11:53 AM
1

I'm sure you'll turn on a lot of people to men's rights with that attitude over jokes. They're bound to take you seriously now.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 05:40 AM
2

but none has a dad present in her life. how babby formed
/r/MensRights27/12/12 04:50 AM
1

That's not true, it's child pornography regardless if money is involved or not. You can't be serious...
/r/MensRights17/12/12 11:18 PM
1

I don't agree with that, no, but you have to present what the issue really firstly. As it stands now it's been about if it's child porn or not while the punishment, the sex offender list, has been down the list. I don't think we can have a black and white system in place for who's a sex offender or not. I think it requires a much more in depth review on a case by case basis. One that could result in one 15 year old receiving the title while another not. Depending on the provable, beyond a reason…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 06:29 PM
1

That's not full circle, that's an entirely different debate. Self shots not involving sexual intercourse (which isn't just penile/vaginal intercourse but includes homosexual acts of any nature, oral, anal, etc.) are a different debate. Are they child pornography? If the image is intended to arouse sexual feelings it would be legally since we have the "art" clause basically. One involves just yourself while another involves another child. IE taking pictures/video of yourself Vs. taking pictures/v…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 06:18 PM
-7

It's child pornography... with your logic if a 15 year old murders someone it's stupid to hold them accountable also. Fact is 15 year old teens know the difference between right and wrong. They also know child pornography is wrong and illegal. It's common sense and yes 15 year old teens know this too. They're not stupid, and neither am I so your argument falls short.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 05:40 PM
-12

What child porn even is is common knowledge, even for a 15 year old. He's a victim of absurd laws (listed as #1) but, ultimately, his own stupidity (listed as #2). Read that again. His own stupidity. It is common sense even for a 15 year old. I'd also be interested to hear what state this happened in. Most have laws about what's listed as #1 that gives exceptions to this. Such as the ages being within 36 months of each other etc. That going back to the age of 13 in cases, but it varies.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 03:05 PM
1

You must not be that good of a friend if she'd remain friends with someone who accused you of rape.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 10:41 AM
-2

The same can be said about the posts I referenced that I've made in here. Yet my original post, in here, still goes on to say what you read. Hmm, why? Maybe because what I post, or what the minority post, does not reflect what the majority think and post. Hence why you did not understand what I had said.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:40 PM
-7

What I said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Your head
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:29 PM
-1

To bad the posts in this reddit don't reflect that ideology. I sometimes take the time to point flaws out. Every time I do only a few listen. The masses just get upset and, ironical, keep pushing for unequal rights in the name of making it equal again. Two unequal positions don't make an equal position. That goes for BOTH sides.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:55 PM
1

I've spend hours going over the Zimmerman case. Every last bit of discovery etc. I think he should be found guilty (at this time, pending more evidence which may change my mind) of aggravated manslaughter. In Florida the prosecutor can ask the judge to instruct the jury to consider a manslaughter charge even if they were charged with murder. They can do this during the trial. If the law isn't properly applied to women THAT is the issue. That does not change that what he did is against the law. T…
/r/MensRights22/10/12 12:46 AM
1

I was right, and it is a crime. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.11 Edit: He's also been charged now, according to online sources. Look it up.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 07:26 PM
-2

I totally agree, but legally he had to wait until she tried something again as their was not current risk. That's just how it works. This isn't a men's right problem you have a problem with self defense laws.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 01:06 PM
-1

Those are the law Bitch to your representatives not me. You clearly have an issue with self defense laws, NOT men's rights or me.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 01:04 PM
-2

Most likely due to a union. That's just how unions handle it. Irrelevant really. It IS how it works. You're wrong and I'll continue to post the factual information. You are wrong. Period.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 12:06 AM
-3

I already went through how he could defend himself against a current risk. I'll just quote what I just replied to another person with: It makes sense in the context of the law. It's considered preemptive because there is no current risk anymore. You are not defending yourself at that point. It's called retaliation and not self defense as there is no current risk to 'defend' against. You can attack preemptively (lethally or otherwise) only if there is a reasonable belief of greater bodily harm or…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 12:05 AM
-1

It makes sense in the context of the law. It's considered preemptive because there is no current risk anymore. You are not defending yourself at that point. It's called retaliation and not self defense as there is no current risk to 'defend' against. You can attack preemptively (lethally or otherwise) only if there is a reasonable belief of greater bodily harm or death. (pursuant to your laws) There was no risk anymore. That's the law. See: She had attacked him, yes, but at the time he attacked …
/r/MensRights15/10/12 12:02 AM
-2

Sure thing pal. I'm sure it's all a giant conspiracy that he was fired. The girl did not press charges, according to what I read, but she could have. He can also press charges for what she did. This is just how it works. You don't have to agree with it... but that's how it works.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:55 PM
-4

It sure does have the possibility, and if there was a reasonable risk of greater bodily harm or death (as in it was reasonable to suspect you were going to be attacked again in which greater bodily harm or death could occur) you could preemptively defend yourself against that second blow. There was no reasonable risk yet. She wasn't trying to punch him at the time he attacked and he didn't have a reason to suspect he was in greater bodily harm or death. So he could defend himself if and when she…
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:52 PM
-4

No it was not, I watched the video also. He got up out of his chair, she was standing there like 'what bitch' basically and he punched her. A person could defend themselves against a reasonable risk of great bodily harm or death preemptively, law permitting. But a person (male or female) can't 'defend' themselves preemptively towards a threat that is not there yet even if they were punched and spit on already. What this person did was called retaliation. Stewing for a minute or an hour doesn't m…
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:49 PM
-3

I would get up so I could defend myself and if you attempted to strike another blow at me I would defend myself. I would not get up and punch you as it's not an allowed use of force yet.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:40 PM
-1

Nothing, but if and when the passenger attacks (or is about to) he would have to defend himself in accordance to the state laws on use of force in self defense. You can't preemptively attack unless you have a legally allowed reason under what the use of force describes for self defense.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:38 PM
-4

She should be criminally charged for HER actions. See that part where I said two wrongs don't make a right? This thread is about HIS actions, is it not? What she did and what punishment she should receive is irrelevant. She should be charged and prosecuted. That does not excuse what he did. His actions depend on hers for self defense. So that's why I'm referring to her. Let's just switch the genders. Read everything as if the bus driver was female and the passenger was male. I would say the exac…
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:33 PM
-5

Post where what he did is allowed by law... This is the most illogical thread I've ever seen. Contacting the federal government over state laws? You guys are flying off the handle and don't even understand self defense laws. You're ASSUMING they allow it because you want them to. I agree self defense laws should be expanded but that's irrelevant to this.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:31 PM
-8

The threat has to be reasonable and of greater bodily harm or death and the force you use has to be reasonable. If you said 'I'm going to punch you' to me that would not give me the legal right to punch you preemptively.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:09 PM
-4

Yes, in that case you would have a legal right to defend yourself (law permitting) even if they weren't CURRENTLY stabbing you as that's a risk of greater bodily harm or death. Apples and oranges. I've researched the laws extensively as I have a permit to carry.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:05 PM
-10

If the other person is attacking you at the time you throw a punch it would be different, but it depends on state law also. You could defend yourself against a threat of greater bodily harm or death, also, using reasonable force even if the other person hasn't yet attacked you. Such as if they made verbal threats etc and it was reasonable to suspect they intended to carry them out and you were acting in self defense against that reasonable risk of greater bodily harm or death. You can't just go …
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:03 PM
-21

That's not self defense. We have laws that govern the use of force when defending yourself, and they vary by state. He was punched/spit on but he got up and punched her while she was standing there. Two wrongs don't make a right. It does not matter if the bus driver is male or female. It does not matter if the passenger is a male or female. The sexes of the two involved are irrelevant. What matters is the legal definition of use of force for self defense.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 08:20 PM
0

Thank you, Grammar master lol
/r/MensRights03/10/12 01:32 PM
23

It shows previous domestic violence at 26.2% and no previous* history at 21.4% The rest is unknown and makes up 40.5% I'm not saying either is right but the articles assumption is false, that's for sure. The data would be classified as inconclusive. They're just jumping to conclusions. The data isn't there to support either.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 12:40 PM
1

You keep going back to abortion. Your whole reply can be summed up with "well women have the choice of abortion" and I've explained to you many times how it's a different debate altogether. So let me ask you this. What happens to a women who does not believe in abortion for religious reasons? Or any other reason? Denying her rights, such as child support, is denying her religious freedom which is unconstitutional. This isn't even a case of "well murder is part of my religion" either. It's just f…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 12:21 PM
1

Point 1: I never said that, that's your assumption based on what? What you're doing is changing the subject. You're arguing the point by making ludicrous claims about me or my believes instead of actually addressing the claims at hand. As if me thinking someone was a 'deadbeat' has anything to do with the subject or discredits what I said allowing you to dismisses and ignore it while continuing on your irrelevant rant full of holes. You don't have a legal right to not pay for your child. A mothe…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 01:29 AM
1

Point 1: Legal possibility to what? Be able to impregnate a girl and not have to pay any child support because she can abort it if she doesn't want it? That goes against the majority of peoples beliefs. And we're not talking about the religious right. Everyone opposes that except a small fringe of you. Morally making a women choose to either take on the full financial burden of a child, which was conceived by TWO people, or abort the pregnancy is despicable. That is exactly what you are saying. …
/r/MensRights29/09/12 11:19 PM
1

When you can't defend your stance you can always result to insults. I guess you're done?
/r/MensRights29/09/12 09:46 PM
1

She has the option because it's still a physical option for her. Men can't opt-out when the deed is done. There is no physical way. Women can because they physically still can. Does that suck? Sure. There is nothing that can be changed about it, though. Either you ban abortion to "level the playing field" or you simply take responsibility for your actions. If you have sex and she gets preggo you already made your choice. Her, being physically able to 'opt-out' after the fact doesn't change anyth…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 08:01 PM
1

Being a dick how? This is a double standard. Some expect women to be fully responsible while many femnazis think the same thing only in reverse. If it doesn't make sense when the fems say the same thing, only in reverse, why would it make sense here? This is a double standard.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 07:53 PM
0

You still had 100% control and choice over the whole matter. Biologically a women has another way to choose that men don't. You guys are fucking way out there... going to bed
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:58 PM
-1

Well you keep hoping, bro, for something that will never happen.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:55 PM
-2

That is exactly what you said.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:52 PM
-2

Not at all. Are you able to abort the baby? Is it in you? You physically can't. That doesn't mean you take others rights away. If men were seahorses and had the children I'd support it to.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:51 PM
1

Post sex is just the result of the sex. She's not making some secret decision to get pregnant without you using birth control. The sex is where all the choices are made. You have 100% control from the start. If you fail to excercise that control that was your choice. It was made.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:49 PM
0

The factual truth isn't a copout.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:43 PM
1

Probably because your the mens equivelent of a femnazi yet don't realize how irrational you are. Just like... them
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:42 PM
-2

You think women don't raise and support the kid too? What your saying is its ONLY the womens responsibility. How? If you 'opt-out' that means she either is 100% responsible for all child costs or must have and pay for her own abortion. You want no responsibility and for the women to have full accountability.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:40 PM
1

Why should tax payers pay for dads who want to 'opt-out' of being financially responsible and put the burden on just the mom or, in far too many cases, all tax payers? Women have multiple opt-outs because they can actually have them. Once your sperm is out of your body it's out of your hands. Out of your penis. It's no longer anything you can even 'opt-out' of anymore. The time to opt-out was before you had sex.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:32 PM
1

You have the right to not stick your dick in crazy. What more do you need? You have 100% control of this. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:30 PM
-5

Because it's their body, not yours. However the abortion issue, and male rights, is a completely different subject anyways. One where I agree men should have say in their children's fate but what? There is no easy way to answer this... and it's remained unanswered by others. How? If you both consensually have sex and the baby is KEPT, which this topic is really about, it's your responsibility to help pay to raise that child. Why do you think the states are so tough on finding out who the father …
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:29 PM
0

They had the choice before they even had sex. The child, or society in general, should not suffer because the 'dad' says after the fact "whelp, I don't want it... good luck" That's not reasonable. You had the opportunity to avoid that 100% and didn't already. There should be no 'opt out' after the fact. It's a really irrelevant argument to try to even push since it would never happen. It's counter-productive to society in general. We, as a society, aren't going to just make single moms raise kid…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 12:52 PM
-1

Well sorry to say it was you too. The downvotes always occur though. The point is, though, men have a choice if the pregnancy even occurs in the first place. Once it's occurred it's inside another person's body. They're now harboring the parasite and we're not really involved until it's born. We still had a fair choice in the matter. We still got to choose weather that happened or not. Personally I'm married and have two kids. I also had a vasectomy. It's taking responsibility for my own self to…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 12:45 PM
-1

It's still a choice not an excuse to not be responsible as a man... and I already stated I'm pro-choice.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 12:36 PM
-5

It's continually in this reddit. Also anyone who even DARES suggest it's both parties responsibility, like I did, gets downvoted. Unnecessary? Like I can't see you responding and literately see you downvote what I say then respond like now. Really? lol The laws don't need to be altered. This thread is suggesting they do by either taking responsibility away from the father (so he's simply allowed to say 'nah not paying for it') or do away with abortion. What a terrible argument and counterproduct…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 12:34 PM
-9

You could, sure, that's a whole different subject of debate however and irrelevant to this. This has to do with financially supporting a baby if the girl you stick your penis into decides to keep a baby you guys made together. We all know the risks beforehand and there is no excuse later. What I see is a bunch of double standards in here. It's like the femnazi's... only in reverse it's crazy. Irrational and over the top. Come back down guys! You're better than this.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 12:26 PM
-9

No... not at all. Forcing a person to abort a kid isn't the same thing. Both parties are aware of what happens when a man sticks his penis inside a women. A women should not give up her right to choose or get financial support if she gets pregnant. If you do not wish to pay child support that is your responsibility. You can either take measures to ensure you're shooting blanks, make sure you're using appropriate birth control measures, pick your partner wisely, or avoid sex. No one is forcing yo…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 11:51 AM
-5

Or take responsibility for your own sexual health. Don't ever want kids? Get a vasectomy. Want kids in the future? Always wear a condom and know it's a risk. Pick an appropriate partner that shares in your views BEFORE sticking your dick in her. Common people we tell this shit to trashy girls all the time. This shouldn't be a double standard. It's TWO peoples responsibility.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 11:41 AM
-9

What if you're pro-choice and pro-responsibility for your own actions? You had sex with her... it takes two to tango.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 11:03 AM
-11

Evolutionary reasons... Edit: Downvote the truth, sure, but remember this next time you're crying over not being taken seriously.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 04:42 AM
1

I openly and frequently critize cops. You can look if you want. Try again... but I alrteady gave you the answer. Also look up what catch 22 means that's my opinion.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 04:05 AM
3

This isn't about a dead person. This is about someone (the one in jail) being there because they are innocent of something. In the case of murder the victim is dead... not coming back... etc. Apples and oranges.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 08:41 PM
4

I'm not saying she should NOT be punished, because she should, however potential consequences play a factor on weather women will 'confess' they lied. A women is more likely to confess she lied if the punishment is more lenient. In return that means more women come forward and admit they lied resulting in more free innocent men. So it's a catch-22. Without looking into it this could be why those who admit it, after the fact, don't face any punishment, really, in the US.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 08:11 PM
1

Go do the research yourself! Meanwhile they censor opinions and suggest where to 'research' at.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 02:55 PM
1

I think an Amber alert should have been used immediately, or right now, but the DHS part happened 2 months later.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 07:14 AM
1

The reports/numbers you quoted include rape, yes, but also include ALL sexual victimization claims. The reports/numbers I posted were the rape ONLY ones. The reports that exclude any NON-rape claim. That is the difference. I do not know how simpler to put that to you. I'm afraid if you still don't understand the difference hope is lost for you.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 05:02 AM
1

And those three studies are flawed for your argument and I explained why, yet you have been unable or unwilling to address that fact. Saying those claims are not factually backed up IS the truth. Do you know what a fact is? A fact is 'the quality of being actual' IE what I provided. What you provided was all sexual 'victimization' numbers based on a survey and guesstimate. I provided the rape claim numbers, the substantiated claim numbers, and the ongoing investigation numbers and fairly laid ou…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 10:16 PM
1

Well it's nice to see you're resorting to pure personal attacks since your argument is flawed. What you posted isn't factually backed, to begin with, and I pointed it out. I then posted the RAPE numbers, not all sexual 'victimization' which is very broad yet you keep referring to it as if it was the rape statistics, since you don't seem to know the difference. Either way RAPE isn't common and the numbers prove it despite your inability to understand what the studies conclude and what the studies…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 02:28 PM
1

Those 'independent studies' are the ones NOT basing their 'findings' on factual information instead relying on hearsay and unsubstantiated claims. The results are NOT different. Find me recent results showing actual rape, not 'victimization' of any kind, is any higher than the numbers I posted. Let's see it! I've posted the numbers which are based on facts. What do you have to show that's methodology isn't based on hearsay and unchecked claims?
/r/MensRights03/09/12 06:33 AM
1

Read the bold parts if you want the cliffs. How they define it: Non-consensual sexual acts (inmate-on-inmate) Contact of any person without his or her consent, or of a person who is unable to consent or refuse; and • Contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus including penetration, however slight; or • Contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; or • Penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object. Abusive sexu…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 01:48 AM
1

No because prisons are filled with conman and liars. I believe in what's factual, not simply unsubstantiated claims. 'Victims' in prison often get special treatment as well. With people claiming to be victims on all manner of things. Interviews with randomly selected people IS 'asking around' to come up with the number. That's what they did... asked a bunch of people and did not base the number on FACTUAL evidence. There is also a high rate of mental illness in prisons. The higher numbers are ne…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 07:34 PM
1

Don't be daft, it's unbecoming. You have spewed forth a lot of unsubstantiated numbers not based on FACTUAL verification. It goes on to say, just like I did, inmates 'participated in the survey' yet you mock how I said 'ask around' as if that's not EXACTLY what they did. Every single result with a high occurrence is based on 'asking around' or should I say 'participated in the survey' since you seem to not understand what that could mean. It seems you don't have enough common sense to understand…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 10:51 AM
1

We have to use the actual statistics of reported incidents of rape. The questioning/surveying is in regards to the 13% number. The much lower number is the one based on the records. It clearly states that in what I posted, in regards to the lower number. The 13% number you'd have to look at that study's methodology.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:24 AM
1

Actually I do, the REAL numbers not the 'estimates' which are completly bullshit. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svrca04.pdf According to these official records, slightly more than 8,000 male, female, and juvenile inmates—or 0.005 percent of the total incarcerated population—reported that they had been victims of sexual violence while incarcerated. An even smaller percentage of inmates' claims were substantiated. [2] Thus, although the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) 2003 states tha…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 09:57 PM
1

Look at the actual statistics and not guesses based on inane methods. In 2004, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) examined administrative records from adult and juvenile facilities at State and local levels. According to these official records, slightly more than 8,000 male, female, and juvenile inmates—or 0.005 percent of the total incarcerated population—reported that they had been victims of sexual violence while incarcerated. An even smaller percentage of inmates' claims were substantiat…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 09:41 PM
1

That number is based on 'asking around' and calculating an estimate. That number alone is more than rape victims, in the whole country, in a year. Reported, that is. It's a pretty ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 09:12 PM
0

If it wasn't such a simply google search to a wealth of statistics on the subject I would. Quit being lazy.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 08:59 PM
2

Prison rape really isn't that common, despite what you hear. You can ask person after person who's been to prison and they all confirm that it's largely a Hollywood blown out of proportion 'myth' although it does happen sometimes. I've personally known two people who have been to prison who have said this. Never even heard of rapes happening, one in a federal prison and the other a state. Also I've read it time and time again from people who said they've been to prison. Them saying it's really u…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 03:40 PM
1

Nothing, thankfully, major except minor discrimination. What some would call 'reverse' discrimination in action. I read this subreddit to keep myself educated on the various happenings pertaining to the subject, however, because I know it's a real problem. I do see a lot of comparisons between this place and various feminist groups. Both have valid points but both take it to the extreme in many instances.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 02:47 PM
8

Are you kidding? There are no TV shows in which women are willingly degraded for money? It goes both ways already. I'd have to agree with the first guy.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 06:59 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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