TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

LogicalWhiteKnight Archive

View 2 posts and 165 comments by LogicalWhiteKnight on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I take it from your incoherence and followed by this abuse that you are feminist. Not just a feminist, I'm pretty sure this user is an SRS mod.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 12:19 AM
0

You CAN run from a knife with a fairly good chance of making it out alive. You CAN'T run from a gun. See, as a "yank" who carries a gun daily for personal protection, I think they both suck. If someone is standing in the only door to the classroom, with a knife, and you are unarmed, there is no running. You must face the person to escape. If they have a gun, you are equally screwed. They can charge you and stab you in a second, and they can shoot you in a second. If you have your own gun, that a…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 09:28 PM
3

Remind me again why it matters since all teachers are disarmed in school by law? You can't easily outrun a knife, and if you do you'd be leaving the 18 kindergartners behind to certain death. Without a gun, how do you expect the teacher to stop the knife wielding crazy person? You can try throwing one of those dinky kindergarten chairs, but they are designed to not be very dangerous when kid's throw them (which they do, a lot). And the knife is weak mode. Try a chain, a bucket full of bleach, an…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 08:08 PM
2

No, a suggestion about how to be safer in the future is not victim blame. The rapist is still legally the only one who would be blamed, he is the only one criminally liable, and he doesnt get off scott free just because it was a crime of opportunity.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:24 PM
6

"She was flirting with me all night, she wanted it" is what you might say if the sex was consensual. That is your evidence that the sex was consensual. That is a valid defense against a rape accusation. If she wanted it, it wasnt rape, assuming that she demonstrated that she wanted it(consensual sex) in a way that a reasonable person would interpret to be consent to sex, and she never obviously withdrew that consent while the sex act was in progress.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:19 PM
6

I think you misunderstand, every time a rape victim isnt taken at her word and the accused convicted, she has been blamed. A not guilty verdict or a refusal to prosecute due to lack of evidence is victim blame. Since only a small portion of rape claims lead to a conviction, victim blame is incredibly rampant in our society. /S in case you couldnt tell
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:12 PM
1

Did you miss the part where in my hypothetical a woman impregnates herself? She pays a black market clone lab to create some sperm for her from the skin cells she provides, stolen from you. They give her sperm cloned from those cells, which is your sperm with your dna, and she turkey basters it up there, and hits you with a patrnity lawsuit (with or without false rape claom attached).
/r/MensRights27/11/12 12:27 AM
1

No im talking about a situation where you never have intercorse with her, and she gets your dna from your cells. This thread is talking about a futuristic world where sperm can be artificially created from any of your cells using your dna, even a few skin cells might be enough, and that world is just around the corner. Read up a few comments if you missed the context of my comment.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:28 PM
2

Patent or no patent she can have consensual condom sex with some other guy, turkey baster your sperm up there, and say you raped her.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 04:02 PM
1

Evidence that the accused is not guilty is not proof that the accuser is lying. The accuser could be mistaken, which shouldnt hold the same consequences as a willful deception. Just because we can prove the accused didnt rape the accuser doesnt mean we can prove that the accuser was not raped, or that the accuser lied knowningly.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 03:27 AM
4

Well guess what, shes 23 now. She had 5 years to come forward and tell the truth after she turned 18. She should be punished for those 5 years.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 03:20 PM
3

We'll see, thats what a trial is for.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:02 PM
6

You have to have intent to make them feel fear. If they are just scared of you for no reason its not assault.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:56 PM
2

again, pregnancy is a consequence No, it's not. A woman can use birth control and have as much sex as she wants without pregnancy being a consequence. It can be a consequence of sex, but it isn't always. It can be controlled, therefor it is a choice. Even if you get pregnant, you can take the day after pill, or get an abortion. Pregnancy is a choice in this society, it's time you pro-lifers understand that fact. when b.p. spilled its oil in the gulf, they consented to drilling -- but they obviou…
/r/MensRights12/10/12 03:15 PM
1

My point is just that in a world of birth control, pregnancy IS a choice. You can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy. The republicans want to deny that, because Paul Ryan is anti birth control, and anti-sex for recreation. He thinks sex is only for procreation. Personally, I think we need male abortion, which would be a way to walk away and completely abandon your responsibilities to the child in the case that the pregnancy was not consensual for the man. If the mom ropes the man int…
/r/MensRights12/10/12 02:40 PM
5

What a douchbag :P
/r/MensRights12/10/12 02:13 PM
0

its easy, it is all about concent. They think women have no right to abortion if the sex was consensual, but if it was "legitimate" rape then abortion is akin to using lethal force in self defense to avoid the dangerous act of childbirth. That logic fails on them in the case of consensual sex, because the woman invited the baby into her womb willingly, like inviting someone into your house, you lose the right to assume they are a threat and use lethal force against them. Personally I argue that …
/r/MensRights12/10/12 02:10 PM
2

I don't know, a fire extinguisher is a really good weapon, and a seatbelt implies a car, which is also a very good weapon.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 10:16 PM
0

how gun carries think is irrelavnt because i'm talking about when they DON'T think at all. and don't give me the bullshit that they allways do. I won't give you any of that bullshit, sometimes lawful gun carriers do make mistakes and break laws. It is very rare though: From start-up 10/1/87 - 2/28/94 (over 6 years) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used). Of…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 04:58 PM
1

Either lethal force is justified or the gun should stay hidden. I agree with this, you shouldn't pull the gun out until lethal force is justified, even though in some states you are legally allowed to do so, the standard for brandishing legally is lower than using lethal force in most jurisdictions. However, once you pull the gun out, you do not HAVE to shoot immediately. You must be prepared to shoot immediately if and only if it is absolutely necessary. If the person simply throws up their han…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 04:22 PM
2

Well then we agree. Laws never have direct control over what can and what cannot be done, they merely impose a set of potential consequences. I am a proponent of constitutional carry, like AZ and Vermont, and I favor private sales remaining legal with no background check, so I think it should be legal to buy an unregistered gun with cash and no background check and legally concealed carry that gun, providing you are not a felon or prohibited person. So basically, as long as you can pass a backgr…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 04:16 PM
1

Ya I covered that, I was taking "fight back" to mean using unreasonable force against them in excess of what was necessary for self defense.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 02:49 AM
5

You disagree that our culture is not responsible enough for everyone to carry? I never said that. I disagree that our culture is not responsible enough for anyone who can pass a background check who wants to carry, to carry. Not everyone can pass a background check, and those people shouldn't legally be allowed to carry in my opinion. They might carry anyway, illegally, which is why I carry, and why I support a state with power to punish them for their wrongdoing. I am talking about the core of …
/r/MensRights04/10/12 12:51 AM
6

I respectfully disagree with you, I choose to carry a concealed weapon for personal protection, and value my right to do so.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 10:58 PM
7

realise You are from the UK, aren't you? shooting someone is easy. Not much easier than beating someone to death when you have two people. Also, not all gunshot wounds are fatal, in fact a handgun wound to the chest has comparable lethality to a stab wound to the chest, around 20%. you don't even have time to realise it with a gun. You have plenty of time, you think about it when you put the gun on in the morning, you think about it again when the situation is approaching and you consider reachi…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 09:58 PM
2

that castle doctrine states tend to have much higher rates of gun related death. That says it all right there, "gun related death" is not equal to "gun murders". There are accidents, justifiable homicides, and suicides to consider, the latter being the largest by far in terms of magnitude. Around two thirds of the gun deaths in this country are suicides. When discussing gun crime it is disingenuous to include suicide and justifiable homicide. Accidents can be included if you wish, since conceale…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 09:40 PM
1

Has it occurred to you that there might be alternate reasons why legal gun owners are less likely to commit murder? I think the main reason is that someone who takes the time to get a permit is more likely to know the laws and be careful about following them to the letter, because they know the consequences and how they can lose their rights if they violate the law. This is speculation, but have you correlated the stats on gun ownership with the stats on socio-economic status? How about rural vs…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 08:34 PM
7

As a gun carrier I can definitively tell you that not everyone is more likely to use lethal force when carrying a gun than when not carrying a gun. Carrying a gun doesn't mean you are more likely to unlawfully kill someone than someone who isn't carrying a gun. In fact, statistics in the US show the opposite, licensed gun carriers are much less likely than the population average to commit murder or manslaughter. States that keep statistics on crimes committed by concealed handgun license holders…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:54 PM
2

Your logic implies that people are not capable of killing other people without guns, which is not true. The danger of being killed exists whether or not the other person, or yourself, has a gun. Having a gun doesn't increase your risk, it just mitigates it.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:45 PM
19

So what stopped them from beating him to death with blunt objects or their own hands and feet? The law and risks of consequences, the same thing that would have stopped them from shooting him with a gun if they had one. They didn't kill him despite the ability to do so, so what makes you think having a gun would change the outcome at all? Having a gun doesn't give someone the ability to kill another person, it just makes them able to do it a little easier (not much easier when it's already 2v1 a…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:41 PM
6

It's good that the "good samaritans" didn't use lethal force against the man, which they did have at their disposal. 2 v 1 they could have killed him with their bare hands and feet even if they had no weapons. The fact that they didn't implies to me that they wouldn't have used lethal force if they had a gun either. Just about everyone is capable of lethal force, you don't need to be carrying a gun to kill someone, and carrying a gun doesn't make most people any more likely to use lethal force w…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:38 PM
3

So why doesn't this logic extend to other potentially lethal weapons that these passer by DID have at their disposal? Why didn't they stab him with a knife, hit him with a blunt object, or simply kick or stomp his face in? They are capable of using lethal force without having a gun, and they chose not to, so it makes no logical sense to assume they would have chosen to use lethal force if they had a gun. You are simply making a comment on your disapproval of gun carrying.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:36 PM
12

The "reasonable" part of that is important though. In most jurisdictions, the law is worded such that you can only use lethal force if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent imminent great bodily injury or death, or to prevent a forcible felony. If merely brandishing and ordering the person to leave is sufficient to prevent great bodily injury or the commission of a forcible felony, then that is all you are justified to do. You are not justified to actually shoot them (use lethal forc…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:19 PM
1

You honestly think the people who wrote that sign wouldnt believe the girl who says you raped her when you helped her home at night and she came onto you and you had consensal sex, but then the next day she says you raped her? The people who wrote this sign would say you ARE a rapist, undeniably, no matter what you said. Even if you couldn't be convicted (which you might be), your life could be ruined on one woman's word. She might not even remember, and might not be intentionally ruining your l…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 02:19 PM
1

I would love to see such a poster.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 11:26 PM
1

The problem I have with it is that a lot of the time in this situation, the girl is still conscious and actively seeks sex from the guy who helped her home. The undertext here is that if you do have sex with her, even if it is consensual and she was actively seeking it, you are a rapist. She might regret it, or be blacked out drunk and not remember it, and go to the police station in the morning for a rape kit, and you can be prosecuted and convicted of rape for that, even if it was consensual. …
/r/MensRights01/10/12 10:55 PM
1

The issue with this particular poster arises when the girl you take home is conscious and actively seeks sex with you. If you give in to her demands and have consensual sex, that shouldn't be considered rape. However, in the feminist dominated society we live in, if she doesn't remember that sex, or if she decides she regrets that sex and the next day claims she was raped, you can be successfully prosecuted as a rapist no matter what you say. All she has to do is show up at the police station, s…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 10:46 PM
2

Indeed, but when "people" get drunk but remain conscious, sometimes they do things they otherwise wouldn't have done if they were sober. Generally in this society we still hold people responsible for what they do, no matter how drunk they are. If you get drunk and drive, you will still get a DUI, even if you are so drunk you don't remember it. However, when it comes to rape, especially the case specifically described in this poster, a drunk women is not held responsible for her consent. If this …
/r/MensRights01/10/12 10:37 PM
4

Ah, well then we agree. I misunderstood you.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:37 PM
4

He's lucky she didn't say he raped her. If she wanted to keep her relationship with you she might have, happens far too often. Rape is a great excuse for infidelity...
/r/MensRights21/09/12 02:41 PM
0

Oh yes, my user name is very ironic :) I white knight for men, because they are the ones who are actually being oppressed in our society. Women clearly have more privilege in the USA of today. I don't care that men had it better 60 years ago, today it is a different story.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 02:39 PM
0

What is the "nasty subtext" you refered to in your first post? I thought you were saying that its still wrong to take $10 from someone who gives it to you voluntarily when you ask.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 02:20 PM
17

Yes this is the kind of woman that feminists pretend doesn't exist. One which can be blacked out drunk and still aggressvely (and in this case violently) seeking sex. That is a scary person to be around. If she decided to say you raped her, you could be screwed for life on her word alone.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 02:17 PM
1

You are irrationally afraid of him hitting you, if you have no reason to assume he would. You are basing your fear off prejustice, perhaps he is bigger than you, or otherwise scary looking, but he has given you no reason to think you will be hurt if you don't comply. That's not theft, that's your own issue, inside your own head. It goes double if you know the guy and are still to scared to say no when he asks you for $10, which is often the case with rape, especially date rape. You've just been …
/r/MensRights21/09/12 02:06 PM
32

The point is that many feminists do not believe women actively seek sex. They believe that men are always the sex seekers and initiate sex, not the other way around. They honestly say that an intoxicated women "can't" consent no matter what she says or does, you are supposed to treat her like a child, reject her advances, and avoid a rape charge. That's the only way they can keep their power to call rape whenever they regret sex.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 01:53 PM
2

I never actually watched the clip, so you could be right. I think there is time both to look at their ass and admire their strength, skill, and talent, even in sports with less conventionally attractive women. I'll give you this one, defending NBC isn't something I want to do.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 05:36 AM
14

Why is either one insulting? What the hell is wrong with like hot athletes' bodies? They are putting themselves on high definition TV, they know exactly what will happen, they are consenting to being watched. I appreciate the male and female bodies, and i'm a straight male. The second post is the one I have a problem with, calling out someone for looking at a girl's but is pretty gradeschool behavior. We are all adults, we are sexual beings, those athletes, both male and female, have stunning bo…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 05:01 AM
-2

Because it implies women cannot do anything to avoid getting raped, do not have any responsibility for their own safety, and that it should be a man's responsibility to protect all women and prevent any harm from coming to them. It is condescending to both women and men. And I never saw any of these posters telling women how to avoid getting raped. In any case, they sound like they could contain sound advice, posting telling women how to avoid getting raped is a good idea, especially at places l…
/r/MensRights17/07/12 10:03 PM
5

I didnt find the original funny, I found it offensive. This is a response designed to elicit the same response in the other side.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:01 PM
1

Oh yes of course! I forgot that one, but it goes without saying. In situations of no consent the woman's body is her own to do with as she pleases. But of course this brings up issues about what is the definition of rape, and can a woman just levy a false rape accusation against a man to remove his rights?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 03:03 PM
2

Medical exceptions of course, and exceptions for situations where child protective services takes the kid out of a dangerous environment, but that's pretty much it. Otherwise, if either parents wants to keep the child, both should be forced to take care of it and support it with their time or money. That should be gender neutral, whichever parent does not have custody should have to pay child support, regardless of gender or means. It's about the rights of the child, remember, not about the righ…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 01:37 PM
5

Or make them only an option if both parents consent.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 01:21 PM
5

That was just adjusting for profession, and not adjusting for qualifications, hours worked, or experience. Indeed, if you look at men and women working in the same professions, the pay gap is much smaller (though for most professions, it doesn’t disappear entirely). For computer programmers, for instance, women earn 95 cents for every dollar a man earns. For cashiers it’s 92 cents. For cooks and customer service representatives, it’s 95 cents. Other occupations have more unequal ratios. Women wh…
/r/MensRights22/06/12 10:55 PM
9

Lets try to make this myth less persistent, I just submitted this to /r/politics, please give it a bump if you want people to see it! http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vgiep/barack_obama_ad_says_women_are_paid_77_cents_on/
/r/MensRights22/06/12 10:52 PM
5

It's just a flesh wound
/r/MensRights12/06/12 02:44 PM
1

Sadly that's how it works in my state, WA. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/09/us-military-dc-and-washington-state-now.html I wish they would change that... My girlfriend could really fuck me over. Whenever she wants. Unless I videotape every encounter how can I prove she consented?
/r/MensRights12/05/12 06:31 AM
2

No, I shouldn't have to prove it, did you read my post? I should be questioned, and if I can come up with a reasonable and plausible story that I didn't rape you, the police must show by the preponderance of the evidence (51%) that I most likely committed a crime in order to even arrest and charge me. Once that happens (this is the stage Zimmerman is at right now), if I can show by the preponderance of the evidence (at least 51%) that my story is true, that the sex was consensual or whatever, I …
/r/MensRights12/05/12 05:59 AM
2

The story of the accused is some evidence, and counts as proof in the absence of any contradictory story from them. We may not agree with it, but that's the law in most places. They do need to have a story, at the very least "I didn't do it", in order to be innocent until proven guilty. They have to plead not guilty... The standard I am suggesting is less of a presumption of guilt than our current laws by far. It is the same change we made with respect to self defense laws when moving to stand y…
/r/MensRights12/05/12 05:28 AM
2

Haha yes my username confuses some, I actually made this account after my prior account started getting trolled constantly by SRS posters. It was supposed to be ironic, because there is no such thing as a logical white knight by the SRS definition. But it means so much more than that, I fight for those who cannot or will not fight for themselves, whoever it may be, of any gender or race. In today's society, men need much more help than women do on a huge number of issues.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 05:11 PM
13

There's a problem with setting a sentence for false accusations, and that is that if a women lies, and knows that if she admits to lying and the guy goes free, she will go to prison. She's not going to do it. Exactly that, especially because usually the only way to actually prove a false accusation beyond a reasonable doubt and convict a woman of it is if she confesses. She knows that even if the guy is found not guilty unless she confesses to having lied she will never get convicted. Without th…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 04:46 PM
1

But don't you understand that if the 50+% of the population you are talking about are the women, they have much less than 50% of the power, so they are still oppressed by the patriarchy, and they are still a minority, despite actually being the majority population-wise. /s I hate that fucking logic. Women have more political power than men anymore, because even though most of our politicians are male they cater to women because more women vote than men. Didn't they see the voter turnout inforgra…
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:50 PM
8

If the law doesn't stop them, a sign won't make a difference. No one is that ignorant of the law. And if you want to educate them about the law with respect to rape, there are many finer points you can address, such as when a drunk person can or cannot consent. That is something many people disagree on. Everyone knows rape is bad, the problem is we define it differently. This sign is pointless and counterproductive.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 07:08 AM
3

have you actually read r/srsdiscussion, and tried to enter the discussions? I have, I got banned from there too, for reasonable, rational, logical debate.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 07:02 AM
2

I totally forgot that yesterday, pulled out my gun and walked out with $10,000. I hate it when that happens... If only there were some signs to remind me, society would be safer! Think of all the bank robberies we would prevent!
/r/MensRights09/05/12 06:58 AM
12

Really now... Read the sign again. It's a dude tip, so it is for dudes. Oh, I'm a dude, I'll read it. "If you offer someone a ride," Oh, ok, I sometimes offer people rides, this applies to me. I'll keep reading. "remember not to rape them." WTF? Why would I even think to rape them in the first place? Why the fuck would anyone even bring this up and imply that I need help to remember not to commit a crime? As if I don't know the law by the time I'm attending UCLA... This is incredibly offensive t…
/r/MensRights09/05/12 06:22 AM
1

Ahh I see, ya I missed all that since I've been on a hiatus from mens issues for a while to avoid srs trolls.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 01:58 PM
0

Well I haven't been focusing on mens issues for about 5 months, I switched accounts to get away from srs trolls.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 01:54 PM
3

Actually no, I made this name to be ironic, because there is no such thing as a logical white knight by some definitions of the word. But I am a white knight by the traditional definition of someone who comes to the aid of those who cannot or will not fight for themselves. And I do so with logic, so the name seems to fit. Fear not, I am not troll, I am a long time MRA. I have been with this sub for many years, through several accounts. I felt this was actually worth a look.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 05:37 AM
1

Fuck, my bad, what's the good men project? Never heard of it, I just saw this on r/masculism and was crossposting. I liked the video is all. Thanks for the help!
/r/MensRights05/05/12 05:35 AM
1

You BOTH give MR a bad name, downvotes for everyone!!!
/r/MensRights03/05/12 05:06 PM
3

If you read the article it makes a good case as to the fact the the primary reason circumcision become popular in the secular society of the US, disconnected from religion, was to curb male sexual desire.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:22 AM
2

You are going to have to be more specific, this could be interpreted either way, hence your mix of up and down votes.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 04:09 AM
1

Is there any situation in which a man is abused by a woman that cannot be covered by 'don't stick your dick in crazy?' Yes, random street violence. Also organized group violence by women against random men. Also violence within a family. Any violence that is not between sexual partners. So that includes violence between friends who are not having sex. Actually, I imagine most of the situations of women abusing men cannot be covered by 'don't stick your dick in crazy' How about any situation in w…
/r/MensRights13/04/12 05:45 AM
0

Make that assumption all you want, that doesn't mean it's true. Life doesn't always give you fair warning for the shit it throws at you. I'm well aware of that, but in this case, according to mazzyTuff's other comment, there was good indication in this instance, he just was not in a position to see it and act on it. Most of the time there is some indication, it is just a matter of noticing and properly interpreting it.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 10:02 PM
4

Mebbe because as a child I went through such abuse I didn't know what healthy looked like. All I knew was that I was in love. I totally get that, I was the same way. I had a series of abusive relationships, modelled after my relationship with my abusive mother. But thanks to feminism I know, I only have myself to blame for being so weak to be manipulated. What I really needed to do was man up clearly. Men are monsters who can only abuse. This is totally not true. It is not your fault, but there …
/r/MensRights12/04/12 08:45 PM
1

I am indeed aware of that, and it is a risk. This was intended as a warning that if you have any indication that a particular person is capable of sociopathic actions, you should run as fast as you can, and avoid getting close to them at all costs. There is usually some indication that they may be crazy ahead of time, before they commit serious crimes against you. I merely recommend that people take the small signs seriously, and trust your gut feelings. It is better to be single than to become …
/r/MensRights12/04/12 08:21 PM
-6

I am assuming that someone who would hold you at knifepoint probably has given you some indication that they are not entirely sane before this happened. Is he supposed to zap her with his patriarchal privilege? You disgust me. I automatically hate anyone who mentions the word patriarchy or privilege. I know you are just quoting feminist asshats, but don't do it at me. I am not one of them. In all reality, if a woman had a knife to my throat and threatened to kill me, I would kill her first, with…
/r/MensRights12/04/12 07:58 PM
3

And sometimes it happens with a knife to your throat, and a promise that if you don't give into her demands, she'll slit your throat in your sleep. Jesus, that is when you tell her you will do whatever she wants, and as soon as you have an opportunity, you run the fuck out of there and never look back. Also, how do you get to this point in a relationship with someone this crazy? I would be worried that if I tried to defend myself, she would claim I abused her, and if I left the relationship, she…
/r/MensRights12/04/12 07:00 PM
0

They asked him if he needed to go to the hospital, he said no. She obviously needed to go to the hospital, so that is where they took her, and i'm sure they questioned her there. You can consider that time period the time she was in custody, I'm certain they kept an eye on her and would not have allowed her to immediately leave.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 05:41 AM
0

That was not an "arrest", it was "investigative custody". Technical legal terms. NOW he has been arrested, by the official legal term.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 05:00 AM
3

Exactly, this is how it works when there is a reasonable and plausible self defense claim, just like with zimmerman. They do not arrest the person without pobable cause that their use of force was unlawful. They need evidence that she is lying or otherwise broke the law to arrest and charge her.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 03:01 PM
4

Right, so you get 50% off the cost of raising a child just for being female if you want to be a single parent, while if you are male, not only is that cost not discounted, but you have to pay $40,000 up front. Sounds equal.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 01:46 AM
4

Yeah, I was saying that child support doesn't cover the cost of a child, so it's still a net loss for the mother. This is one of the terrible ways of thinking that lead to the child support system we have today. Having a child is a privilege, not a "net loss". Children cost money, and the parents must pay that. I'm all for child support unless the man is tricked into being a father against his will. In situations of sperm jacking, like with a turkey baster, or birth control sabotage, there is no…
/r/MensRights08/04/12 01:43 AM
3

No one is paying this single dad anything. He can't just go sleep with a woman, possibly sabatoge the birth control, take custody of the child, and get child support payments.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 12:04 AM
9

Na, he was joking. In reality, the cost of the turkey baster is nothing compared with the child support payments. Women get paid to be single mothers.
/r/MensRights07/04/12 08:52 PM
1

This ramp_tram is a real character... Just called me a rapist sympathizer.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 05:34 PM
2

it means the privilage to be able to act the gender you are, and not get descriminated against because you act like the opposite gender. All privilage stems from someone being disadvantaged, and claiming that another group who isn't simmilarly disadvantaged has a comparative privilage. That is why the group with the privilage is typically unaware of the privilage, because it is merely a comparative advantage over a group they hadn't considered.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 01:53 PM
2

That's even the top comment in the r/politics thread about this.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 09:53 PM
25

Well to be fair a lot of people, myself included, enjoy our right to keep and bear arms yet still support the democrats, just because the republicans are such a fucking joke anymore.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 11:22 PM
3

Not if all the feminists have ak-47s and the dude are disarmed...
/r/MensRights25/03/12 11:20 PM
5

But can she really be held responsible for accepting a free drink, I mean, it is hard wired into a woman's psyche to jump on the opportunity to get free stuff. That is basically just coercion. /s
/r/MensRights22/03/12 09:28 PM
6

It's when the party is at an off campus house and tons of people are invited, typically from flyers or online, who the hosts don't even know. They buy a couple kegs and charge $5 at the door to recoup their costs. The ones I went to didn't let girls in free, but I understand the reason why you might want to.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 09:25 PM
3

Inciting someone to violence is a crime. If she knew he was likely to commit violence because of what she said, then she is guilty of inciting him to violence. This is the case even if what she said was true and not a lie, so convicting her of this doesn't even require proof that she lied, just proof that she knew her boyfriend had a quick temper and a violent history.
/r/MensRights02/03/12 01:14 AM
1

To convict her of that they would have to prove that she knew what she said was likely to incite him to violence, or designed to incite him to violence. They would have to show some history of violence in his past or evidence of a short temper that she was aware of. but it's possible.
/r/MensRights02/03/12 01:08 AM
1

If I tell someone something KNOWING that it is likely to incite them to commit an illegal violent act, and they follow through and commit such a violent act, I am at the very least guilty of inciting them to violence, even if what I said wasn't a lie. Check your state laws, but for example, this is the law in Ohio: 2917.01 Inciting to violence. (A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:…
/r/MensRights02/03/12 01:00 AM
3

Alcohol is no excuse for poor judgement. You can get drunk and drive a car, but the jury isn't going to buy your excuse that a reasonable person would have been equally impaired while driving and still would have killed that person. Alcohol never gets you off the hook.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 06:25 PM
1

I like where you are going for the proof of rape, of course there must be proof, but that isn't a litmus test of whether or not it is rape, that is a description of what is required to prove it is rape. Whether or not it is rape is a subjective issue, and is at the core of whether someone defines a specific incident as rape if they have perfect information. The issue is that not everyone uses the same litmus test for whether or not a situation is rape, which is why you can have some people who c…
/r/MensRights28/02/12 05:54 PM
-2

No... jude rape solely on the consent of both parties and the intent of the accused, regardless of sex. The main issue is that the power of women to be believed without evidence in rape accusations doesn't extend to men. It is a female privilege, erroding men's rights, specifically the right to due process. Innocent until proven guilty means there has to be evidence past just sexual activity and the word of the accuser that a rape occured, that there was no consent. If there is no evidence, the …
/r/MensRights11/02/12 03:25 PM
-1

Yep, that's right. That means that any sex a woman regrets she could charge the person with rape, and it would actually be rape under the law regardless of consent or the intent of the man. Horrifying.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 03:20 PM
1

They don't want you to defend yourself. If you do somthing a woman decides she doesn't like, she sould have the power to throw you in jail. That is the world some feminists want. It is a crime to have sex with a woman that she regrets.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 03:18 PM
-2

If she consents without coercion, it's consensual, that is the definiton of consent. What I think your confusion stems from the defnition of coercion. Do you think the situation described in this post involves coercion, in other words, was it rape? Th issue is that for someone to be guilty of a crime they must have mens rea, or a guily mind. If the man has a reasonable belief that the woman consented, and if a reasonable person would have believed she consented in the situation, then he is not g…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 03:10 PM
-5

Are you joking? So you think that a man can have consensual sex with a woman, with no indication that anything is wrong, and she can say she felt raped and that is actually rape in your mind? Wow...
/r/MensRights11/02/12 06:39 AM
3

Fair enough. That is the situation that scares me, that the person I am with could honestly think they are being pressured or coerced into sex, and that despite me thinking that it is consensual and them acting like they consent it may still be considered rape by my partner. By many feminist definitions of rape, that IS rape, they want to take the man's thoughts and beleifs completely out of the equation. For some people, if the woman feels raped she was raped, regardless of consent or intent of…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 08:07 PM
7

Did she ever suffer any investigation into whether or not she was lying? Waste of police resources and falsely bringing someone to criminal trial are serious crimes. If the Judge was convinced that no rape actually occured, wouldn't that be evidence that she is guilty of falsely accusing you of rape? Did you ever consider pursuing legal action against her and pressing charges?
/r/MensRights10/02/12 07:56 PM
5

I hope they mention the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 11:34 PM
-1

If you take images of nude children with sexual intent then you are commiting a crime though, so your thoughts at the time of taking a picture of a nude child are relevant to whether or not you committed a crime.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 04:26 PM
0

Not true at all. You can take photos of completely nude children in a non sexual setting and have that not be child porn. Search google images for nudist and you can find tons of fully nude images of children, and those are not child porn, and you will face no punishment for doing that google search or having those images on your computer.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 06:28 AM
0

The penis is always able to ejaculate after puberty. The breasts are not always producting milk, and require hormones to do so.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 05:25 AM
-2

I was under the impression most high schools had pools. Anyway, I am of the opinion that there really shouldn't be a dress code at all in schools. If someone actually breaks the law with what they are wearing, then fine, but if it is acceptable atire for a public area, even a beach, it should be acceptable in school, and I think that should include topless females. But I know not everyone agrees with me there.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 12:52 AM
6

That is a great law, I read about that. I wish it was like that everywhere, it's just a matter of freedom and personal liberty.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 11:30 PM
8

Very true. Feet also often have a sexual connotation for many people, and yet those are able to be displayed. Females, even in high school, dress provocatively and show off thier features which our society considers sexy, and that is allowed. We just have a strange repressed sexuality in this country.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 11:13 PM
3

My username is meant to be ironic, as it is an oxymoron. Don't call my argument stupid until you have actually read and understood it, which you obviously didn't. I was talking about swiming in the pool, where boys are NOT required to wear shirts, and girls are still required to cover their breasts. That is what I consider to be sexual discrimination.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 11:09 PM
15

Exactly. If boys have the choice to not wear a top, girls should have the same choice. If girls have the choice to wear earing, boys should have the same choice. That is equality.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 10:28 PM
4

Yes, but even if they make it legal for adult women to go topless they will never allow it in a school setting, like high school, so it is still discrimination as far as school is concerned. Not saying it isn't reasonable, obviously there would be all sorts of legal implications in our current society if they allowed girls to go topless in high school, but it is still discrimination.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 10:26 PM
45

Boys are alowed to swim in the pool without a shirt, girls must have something covering their breasts. Discrimination? I think so.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 10:04 PM
1

Its him naked, nsfw, but not child porn, it is a legal, non sexual, artistic image I found on google image search
/r/MensRights14/01/12 04:10 AM
3

How about daniel radcliffe, nude pictures of him are on the internet from when he was 15 or 16, and he lost his virginity (supposedly) to a much older woman at the age of 16, which is the age of consent in the UK. No one seems to have any problem when older women look at this image and consider him sexually attractive, but if it was a female people would be screaming child porn and pedophilia all over the place.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 12:53 AM
2

The other funny part is that the OP didn't specify gender, and is bisexual, attracted to both genders. I would say it is at least possible that the OP is female.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 12:46 AM
3

Fair enough, my bad.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 11:21 PM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights09/01/12 11:04 PM
1

I see, so you havn't run into the type of feminist who will scream at you in public for holding the door open for her. Good for you. That has happened to me.
/r/MensRights09/01/12 10:38 PM
1

However, it also gave me pause...are people actually confused as to why humanity has a very long standard of protecting the women and children? While i'm sure some people are confused, most are not. The issue is that women complain about things such as the wage gap and then ignore the fact that they are treated differently than men in many ways that benefit them. In effect, although I hate to use this word, they are ignoring their privilege, just like they complain that we men ignore our privile…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 09:30 PM
2

We have a comedian in the house!
/r/MensRights09/01/12 09:26 PM
1

Why don't people just work to reduce violence, and not worry about what gender the violence is directed against?
/r/MensRights04/01/12 07:51 PM
1

The OP clearly described her, without so much as a hint of doubt, as being false rape accuser. The OP has absolutely NO justification in this claim at all. You are correct, the OP's title is misleading. It should say "Mike Tyson regarding his rape accuser..." so as to not add in bias. Let Mike Tyson himself do the talking, don't editorialize. You are completely correct about sounding like lunatic fanatics, we need to steer clear of that. At most there is a 50/50 chance he raped her or she falsel…
/r/MensRights01/01/12 07:16 PM
0

Do you have any evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those injuries were caused during a rape, and not perhaps in some other way? Because if you don't then there is no way he should have been convicted.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 07:12 PM
-6

Her injuries were also consistent with consensual sex, especially since they might have been partially self inflicted. Yes, I want a video tape, I think all sexual encounters need to be filmed, otherwise we can never know, and in my opinion cannot and should not convict anyone based on he said she said with no hard evidence and reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 04:32 PM
-2

That doesn't mean she isn't a false rape acuser. We don't know for sure that she is, but according to him she is. Theway I see it, its about a 50/50 chance either way, because both parties have an incentive to lie. There is definitely reasonable doubt that he is guilty, and he shouldn't have gone to jail.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 04:27 PM
1

Men are stigmatized for this primarily because they canot bear childre themselves, so they are seen as less attached to them and less caring about their wellfare. It is exactly the same stigma that she is facing that all men must face.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 05:09 AM
1

What are you talking about? I do not know of any women or atheists who are denied from going on planes due to their names. Are you referring to the no-fly lists which often cause people with Islamic names to be kept off planes because they might match someone on the watch list? That is unfortunate, and I am against racial profiling, but it doesn't change the fact that atheists are more persecuted in this country than women. Muslims are clearly more persecuted than either, and I do fight to oppos…
/r/MensRights19/12/11 07:59 PM
1

It's possible to find that in someone who isn't completely full of themselves and thinks they are the queen of the world. My girlfriend is strong, independent, tough, and feisty, and is still not a stuck up bitch who wants to win all the arguments and have all the power. They are out there.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 04:52 PM
-4

Makes sense because athiests are actually a persecuted group in this country, unlike women.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 03:45 PM
0

You are choosing the wrong girls I think. Pick one with less self esteem, someone who needs you.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 02:10 AM
1

Women only have the power and win all the arguments if you let them. The have the power because we have learned to roll over and play nice. In my relationship, we have equal power, and win our fair share of arguments. There is a way to have a balanced relationship.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 06:25 PM
3

A transcript simply wouldn't have the same effect as watching it.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 11:57 PM
1

www.reddit.com/r/masculism/comments/kpefk/how_does_rmasculism_reconcile_the_value_of/ Lots of people think that circumcision is a solution to the HIV problem in the third world. Unfortunately, that is not true. Fortunately, there is a much more effective solution to HIV infection which doesn't require mutilating someone's genitals without their consent, condoms.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 12:11 AM
4

Condoms can be sabotaged and your sperm can be acquired without your consent, either via drugging and rape or a used condom / masturbation tissue. Vasectomy is the only way to be sure that you will not get a woman pregnant and have to pay child support for 18 years.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 11:44 PM
-9

Why the fuck are people upvoting therealbarackobama!?!?! He is probably having a good laugh at our expense! You realize he is the leader of SRS right?
/r/MensRights13/11/11 02:47 PM
2

Certainly bias is impossible to remove, I guess I was thinking you were implying those exaggerations that I mentioned, when clearly that was not your intent. I just wanted to make it clear I consider FRS to be less biased than many other blogs or online news media.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 06:56 PM
1

So does that mean we should discount everyone's research, that no scientific inquiry is worth mentioning, and that nothing can really be known for certain and no one can be trusted? It must be a lonely and scary world you live in if you take those thoughts through to conclusion.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 06:44 PM
4

But not everyone is biased to the same degree. Some people, like PierceHarlan, try their best to be unbiased.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 06:02 PM
1

I think it is clear that the victim's vagina or anus must be penetrated by any body organ or object, or their mouth must be pentrated by a sex organ. What sex organ do women have that can penetrate a mouth? The only way a woman can rape a man under this definiton is by penetrating his anus with an object or body part. If the victim could be the penetrator, it wouldn't say "of another person".
/r/MensRights06/11/11 03:02 PM
4

Rape is intercourse or simulated intercourse(oral or anal) without consent. That is the only definition we should use. The new definition is bad because it ignores the fact that men can be forced to penetrate someone without their consent, so rape is not just a crime where th victim is pentrated, but also a crime where the victim could be forced to penetrate another person.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 12:23 AM
20

The problem is that this doesn't include forced female on male vaginal intercourse, because the male victm isn't being penetrated, they are doing the penetration. It ignores the fact that a man can be forced to penetrate someone without his consent, which is still rape.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 12:19 AM
9

Of course most children are primarily cared for by women, that may be part of the reason that the majority of child abuse is perpetrated by women, but it doesn't invalidate the statement that "the majority of child abuse is perpetrated by women".
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:16 PM
1

Ya I know, i'm not really that much of a white knight to be honest I picked this name because of the irony.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 04:18 PM
2

Right, it's still murder, it's just murder with some justification. It isn't enough justification to make it so he should serve no prison time, but it should slightly lessen the sentence in my opinion.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 04:15 PM
1

Yes, I don't think anyone here really thinks that it should be considered criminal conduct, just that one shouldn't take the risk because it has the potential to get him convicted of a crime, even if it shouldn't be considered criminal conduct. Thanks for the chat!
/r/MensRights03/11/11 10:01 PM
16

He should have gotten a lighter sentence. I don't think the right course of action is to bring women down to our level of hell with respect to sentencing, but to slightly lessen male sentencing and increase women sentencing to match.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 06:28 PM
2

If it can be shown that they took advantage of the person's intoxication in order to knowingly coerce them into intercourse, then that is rape. If the person is not trying to use the alcohol to coerce the person into consenting, then it is not rape. The intent and the state of mind of the accused is important. It is a very fine line, especially if one person is completely sober. But if both people are intoxicated I think it is more clear that no one is really being taken advantage of.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 06:23 PM
2

If he consented at the time, then there is no way you should be held responsible for rape. In many places if the genders were reversed a man in that position could be convicted of rape, but a woman in that position would be very difficult to convict. Many jurisdictions don't even accept female on male vaginal intercourse to be part of the definition of rape. Many people believe men cannot be vaginally raped because they must have an erection, and some people think that counts as consent. It real…
/r/MensRights03/11/11 06:20 PM
1

She is consenting to having something done to her which by it's very definition is a crime, because by the definition of rape, if she is unable to consent at the time of the sexual intercourse because she is unconscious, then that is rape. In some places courts wouldn't even accept testimony that she consented to it before the fact, because that would be irrelevant to the fact that she was incapable of consent during the act. The state must prove that she did not consent beyond a reasonable doub…
/r/MensRights03/11/11 05:11 PM
1

That is true, but she can claim that she did not consent, and that makes it a crime because you cannot prove that she did. The point is not that you actually committed a crime, but that you can be convicted of a crime because the people charged with convicting you do not have perfect information.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 04:36 PM
1

It is allowable, and morally acceptable, the issue is your legal liability if she decides to change her story.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 04:18 PM
1

The porn industry doesn't drug people and have sex with them while unconscious. Also, it is all on camera, so there is evidence that it was consensual, and there are many witnesses. It would be difficult for an actress to bring a rape charge up for acting in a porn movie. But she can certainly have consensual sex with the boss alone and then claim he raped her and have a decent chance of getting away with it, and at least ruining his life if not get him convicted. The real issue is that you don'…
/r/MensRights03/11/11 02:35 PM
2

Sure, until then we can bring rape cases against women, but we shouldn't do false ones is what i'm saying. If a man honestly felt like he was taken advantage of in a drunken state, then certainly he should bring forward a rape charge. My point is just that no one should be accused of rape if the accuser actually consented to the sex, and men are much less likely to "feel raped" in that situation because they know that they did consent.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 10:03 PM
8

If she didn't want him to hold the door for her she could have phrased it better... And none of what he said justified her attack on him. He had every right to respond in self defence, if the story is true.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 08:32 PM
2

Not legally they are not right. If you are intoxicated (any level of intoxication where you are still active, conscious, and able to speak and react to your surroundings), then you can still legally consent in most jurisdictions, including the US and the UK. Being "too drunk to consent" by legal terms means that you are unable to consent because you are unconscious, unable to articulate your thoughts, or unable to react to your surroundings. There is no grey area, that area is created by feminis…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 07:56 PM
2

While that would point out the hypocrisy, it wouldn't change things, and it isn't the right course of action. Equality doesn't have to be a race to the bottom, it should be a race to the top. It is not helpful to make women suffer for these unjust policies, although the thought of it does make me happy, it will not change things for the better. The answer is that men shouldn't be subjected to these loose definitions of rape, and ease of convictions. We need to make it harder for men to be succes…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 07:51 PM
2

Indeed, that is the case. There are many people who are falsely accused of rape and convicted. However, if she really was drugged, even if she took the drugs willingly, and that is the defendant's story, all she has to do to prove it was rape is claim that she didn't actually consent to what the defendant has already admitted occurred. If he claims there was no intercourse, he cannot prove it, and her story might still be more believable to the jury. It all comes down to the jury in the end, and…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 07:44 PM
3

And even if she doesn't want to press rape charges now, she might change her mind. She has unlimited time to eventually claim it was rape, if he pisses her off next week or next month he could be skrewed.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 06:02 PM
2

How exactly would he be off the hook? If she actually believes it happened, he is in exactly the same state. She can later claim he raped her if she wants. this whole situation all boils down to whether or not she decides to claim it was rape at a later time. If he pisses her off next week, or next month, she can go to police then. By then there will be no physical evidence of the rape, so it is her word against his, and since she will claim he had sex with her while she was drugged and unconsci…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 05:59 PM
1

If she is into rape fantasies, they should try bondage, while conscious, with a safe word. That way she can have the fun of feeling like she is being raped without legal repercussions for him. One fun way to do it is to have her tie herself up, and then he finds her like that and has sex with her. That way she can pretend she was just having some self bondage fun, and someone broke in and raped her.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 05:54 PM
1

I know that guy is just a troll, but he has a point. She is not consenting to a legal act, she is consenting to have a crime committed against her, rape while unconscious with drugs. Of course, the only way he would ever be charged with rape is if SHE brings the charges against him. If she chooses to do so, a video tape of her consenting before hand will do nothing to protect him, because she can claim that she removed her consent after the video but before she lost consciousness. If you film th…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 05:51 PM
2

So you are for states right, I presume, based on this post. Does that mean you are against this legislation, which would limit states rights and prevent them from being able to ban something they consider to be abuse?
/r/MensRights12/07/11 11:36 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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