TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MagicSPA Archive

View 0 posts and 79 comments by MagicSPA 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)
0

"People of good character decide what is acceptable behavior based on their judgment of the rightness or wrongness of the act itself, not by whether they think the act will be protested or not. Of course, complete assholes will be able to delude themselves that blasting their favorite music to the whole neighborhood is most likely a joy to any ear that can hear it." You're getting enormously agitated. And you're getting confused in your logical flow. It's OK, I'll show you where you got muddled …
/r/MensRights15/02/11 07:40 PM
1

Sorry, sorry - would you like a soap-box to stand on while you talk down to people who don't share your uptight world-view? I say again - it's part of reality. Everyone has to understand their own role in how a scene unfolds. I see flirts trying to scrounge drinks as harmless - even beneficial to the chump involved. The experience of a hot chick milking you for a drink is worth more than the drink ever was. Caveat emptor!
/r/MensRights15/02/11 07:30 PM
-1

Sorry - you still don't understand my point. Maybe there is a good reason why it's taking time to trickle through - but I have my suspicions. I DON'T believe in the "exploitation and ill treatment of others if I can get away with it" and don't know why that term even came up. I do, however, see a difference between someone giving you something with all the appearance of contentment, and your taking that something despite their objections and protestations. It is possible that you see more in my …
/r/MensRights15/02/11 07:25 PM
-5

I know. The level of your belief in how much better you are than others is becoming increasingly evident in your posts.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 05:13 PM
-1

And I need to explain to you that there is a difference between "experiencing" something and "suffering from it". Whether it's loud music or drink-scrounging. And I think there is a difference in "asshole" status between someone who does something, and someone who does something despite someone else's protestations. As for everything else, I could tell you exactly what I think of YOU, but frankly, I'm too polite. Let me just summarise it by saying that I'm sure that one day you'll be treated by …
/r/MensRights15/02/11 05:10 PM
0

No, sorry, you're wrong. I have always treated women, in balance, better than women have treated me. However, there are things that men are doing wrong, and things that women expect from men which we routinely don't give them because of bad advice masquerading as social practice. See the flawed and frequently female-trampled concepts of "chivalry" or "metro-sexuality" for more.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 05:05 PM
-1

But that assumes that any refusal by the guy has to lead to confrontation. It doesn't.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 05:02 PM
-1

But that assumes that any refusal by the guy has to lead to confrontation. It doesn't.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 05:01 PM
-1

No - my "brand of immorality" states that there is a difference between getting what you want from someone who seems to cheerfully give it to you, and taking what you want from them despite their obvious objections. If you see these two ideas as different, then you have the same concept of morality as I do. If you see these two ideas as universally the same, then you not only have a different concept of morality, you have the sort of thinking that's not going to get you very far with people.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 04:58 PM
-4

Sorry. You're missing the point. It's as simple as that. You say "Just because someone fails to assert themselves and stop you exploiting them or acting selfishly, doesn't make your behavior acceptable." OK. But, as with the loud music example, how are you supposed to KNOW that your behaviour is unacceptable until they tell you? How are you SUPPOSED to know that your loud music is unfair and inconsiderate until he tells you? For all I know, he might not mind at all, or be hard of hearing, or lis…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 04:54 PM
-1

It is hard to act contrary to social expectations - SOCIAL expectations. But we're talking about one-on-one here. One chick schmoozing a drink off one guy, not a crowd of people going "Go on, Bob! Buy the chick a drink! Ah, go on...!..." You make a good point, but at the end of the day it has to be us guys who unite, stop being saps, stop reading so much in to a chick walking up and immediately assuming she can control us and take whatever she wants whenever she likes. The buck stops with us. So…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 04:43 PM
-2

OK, I see that - but if the guy doesn't have the plain and simple wisdom to ask for his drink back straight away, and to make sure she doesn't just stroll off with it, then she is not the only one at fault. Hell, she's not even the one who needs to change the most. I'd look askance at anyone who just hands their drink over to ANY stranger!
/r/MensRights15/02/11 04:28 PM
-1

It's not theft, as his permission could be safely presumed. After all, if he'd wanted the drink back, he'd simply have had the balls to say so, surely. If he lacks even those cojones, then he was asking for it. Also, I have news for you - if you let a stranger - ANY stranger - take a sip of your drink, you're taking a chance on them spiking it. People have been spiked by things people have slipped into their drink as they pick it up, or as they sip from it. It's not just sappy and undignified, i…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 04:19 PM
-2

But I'm not rationalising away women acting like ass-holes. I never would. Hell, I even said that if the shoe were on the other foot guys would do it - and guess what - it wouldn't make them assholes either. The problem is that you are just reading the ability to schmooze drinks off strangers as "asshole behaviour", but it's not. And it's not the same as ducking a round, which is an unspoken social contract amongst a group of people who are SUPPOSED to be on good enough terms to trust each other…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 03:59 PM
3

It's not stealing, as she's not taking anything that wasn't freely given. It's not lying, as she made no promises. It's not cheating, as the guys get what they deserve. It's not fucking them over, otherwise the guys would feel bad about it and would stop doing it in pretty short order. What would a girl HAVE to do for a drink, in order to make it OK with you? Kiss every guy? Date every guy? Blow or fuck every guy? Face it, if a chick has to do nothing to get a free drink, I say, let her do it! A…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 02:21 PM
-2

I hope no-one looks down on this chick. She's just pointing out a pattern of male behaviour which guys would exploit happily if the shoe were on the other foot. The problem isn't with this chick, it's with the guys she's met over the years. I used to see chicks scrounging drinks in a night-club I worked in as a teenager; some of them INTENTIONALLY went out without any money, for the satisfaction of knowing that they got wasted on the chumps around them. By the time I got to college I was ready f…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 01:24 PM
1

Ooooh - now everything becomes clear! No wonder tomek77 was acting like such a douche! I actually thought at first he was a representative of the site. I know better now. This is what the admins said when I queried the situation: Hi Mods are free to manage their reddits as they see best. So, we can't reverse decisions like this even if we disagree with them. Sorry, but you can start your own reddit and maybe provide a better forum for open discussion. Erik
/r/MensRights02/02/11 12:57 PM
1

Over half are suicides which would've probably occurred regardless." And robberies with guns are three times as likely to result in a death...maybe the guy who died in each case would have just died some other way during the event anyway? "And if we take the very daring step of considering that the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians are people too, while continuing to factor out deaths by suicide, then we're looking at what? 100 years? And that's just Vietnam." I'm not even sure what you mean b…
/r/MensRights02/02/11 10:58 AM
1

Using a shot-gun to solve every problem sounds pretty risky to me. Is it true that as many Americans die from gun-shot wounds every two to three years as were killed in the entire Vietnam war? No governmental system is perfect, but the U.S. has a regrettable back-ground noise of gun-shot homicide which isn't making things any better, and doesn't have that intent. P.S. If your government is so dangerous, what are you effectively doing about it, other than moaning about it and posturing on an Inte…
/r/MensRights02/02/11 10:22 AM
1

Shotguns...is there any problem they can't solve?!
/r/MensRights02/02/11 12:31 AM
2

I agree, call "statutory rape" something else. Nobody is getting grabbed and threatened with a knife here. That's an important distinction. But I think sex with 16 year-olds should still be illegal, regardless of what it's called.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 10:11 PM
0

Yes, but it maps poorly onto the idea of a reasonable approach to teen sexuality. I make my decisions based on full knowledge of all the consequences, and the responsibilities I bear. There is nothing cool, or sassy, or big, or prestigious about going around doing anything with my voice to anyone I please. Compare and contrast this with a teenager who thinks their body-parts are basically like a Christmas present, that they can do with as they please, unaware of the hidden and future prices that…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 10:08 PM
0

Sorry, but there ARE laws against exactly this where I am. I don't know about you, but we have laws that prohibit: breach of the peace, disorderly conduct, threatening behaviour, slander, libel, malicious mischeif and so on. All of these are crimes that I would need to consider before I thought that just because I had a mouth, vocal chords and lungs, that I could therefore do with them as I wished, come what may. Even in the absence of crimes, with my voice I can alienate friends, attempt to pur…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 09:38 PM
1

Sorry, I simply wasn't expecting to have to go into this sort of level of detail. The goal-posts aren't moving. My consistent point has been that a child in mid-to-late High School is in no position to make the sort of decision that an adult can be entrusted to make. An adult is more aware of life's priorities than a child is. There are lots of things that adults are aware of that children are not. There are lots of ways in which adults have a sporting chance to make the correct choice - whether…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 07:26 PM
7

Sorry, it's true. you've been banned from tomek77 sent 4 hours ago you have been banned from posting to Male Studies. And when I asked why, given that it was only my input in this thread that the decision was based on - pretty mild input, I thought, their reply was: from tomek77 sent 2 hours ago If you can't find some empathy for a dude who gets railroaded by a misandrist legal system, then I think you you can leave.. Obviously I stand by their decision, but I guess I'm going to have to watch wh…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 07:17 PM
0

Yes. Yes, because what I'm getting at is that the sexual activity of mid-to-late High School students is exactly equivalent to the conduct of legal contracts or sexual activity of fully mature men and women. Wow. You sure got my number.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 06:40 PM
0

Well, then the consent doesn't really mean much if it's not well-informed, does it?
/r/MensRights01/02/11 06:29 PM
5

Can of worms. I just got banned from Male Studies for saying basically that.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 06:28 PM
1

What an awful plot. I normally like House, but that episode would have left me utterly aghast.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 05:32 PM
0

I disagree, I think that any girl who is so naive that she doesn't know that a vagina cannot 'heal over' has no business being in bed with someone. Whether 'physically' capable of completing the sexual act or not. Suitable sex education is a great thing, I'm all for it. But if kids are left with the idea that sex is a toy, or a game, or something that should be rushed into in order to satisfy their peer group or signals from society or businesses that do not have their interests or safety at hea…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 05:06 PM
2

Fair enough, then that is something else in society that needs to change. No human being of any gender should be striking another in the absence of physical provocation or just because they are angry, regardless of whether it is "human nature" or not.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:27 PM
2

Yes, yes it IS a sad day when we stop making the system as perfect as possible. However, that is one of the first times that enlightened idea has emerged in the thread. Most of my previous posts have involved having to counter accusations of sexism, prudishness, uncoolness, repression and trolling, however, as well as the idea that this is one of those sorts of problems that cannot be solved.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:15 PM
1

Actually, any personal safety expert worth their salt will tell you that in practice, the problem of aggression and violence in society stems much more with men than with women. The occasional man being beaten doesn't change that. Regardless of that, my point was only to show that there are laws against "natural" human urges - and rightly so - for things like violence, and for things like, saaaay...sexual urges.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:11 PM
1

Again, I don't think that's the major factor at play. I think the problem stems from a reluctance to tell younger people what is good and what is bad, and drawing a line. I think the major part of the problem is that society is afraid of putting young people straight, whether it's for their own good or not. And there is also an industry that profits from aligning itself with sexual urges in young people, even people too young to wisely pursue those feelings. In a teen magazine that I flipped thr…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:06 PM
1

Then you expressed yourself poorly. Because you made repeated statements that cast aspersions on whether my stance on the matter was only a result of my being sexually inactive, or prudish, or repressed. Watch out for that in future, won't you.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:56 PM
2

"Damn, in the UK it's old enough to join the army and get sent to Afghanistan within a year." But this is like apples to oranges. If a teenage boy or girl got a year's worth of effective training about how to approach the question of when it was right to have sex, there'd BE no problem! As it is, the teen sex phenomenon is more accurately compared to the military practice of giving an utterly untrained WWII Russian peasant a rifle and telling them told to charge straight into the battlefield wit…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:53 PM
2

OK, but where is sex taboo? I don't think that it's a taboo that's the problem here, I think it's just having the wrong value system in place in society. We used to be too uptight, and now we've gone too far the other way. The impression I get is not that sex is taboo, but that teenage sex is sassy, cool, mature, 'big', prestigious, and glamorous. The impression I get is that it's bad to be uncool at whatever cost, and that it is social death to appear to be prudish or repressed. Like Ronald Rea…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:44 PM
2

Well, the law is at times an ass. No system is perfect., but there has to be a line in the sand. A culture needs a consistent legal standard, ideally based on what is morally right. I think that most of the people charged with this crime will be done so totally fairly. There will always be some exceptions to this that don't fit the bill and get shafted by it, but no system is perfect, and I like the alternative to having a clear law in place that has the interests of children at heart far less.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:39 PM
1

Oh, so there's more to my point than uncoolness, prudishness and repression after all? Fancy that.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:34 PM
1

People are sexual beings in the same way that people are violent beings. It should just be PART of their overall human make-up, capable of emerging WHEN APPROPRIATE. A society that OK'd violent conduct just because it was part of human nature and part of our urges would one riddled with problems. Observe what happens when I adjust your post accordingly: "You can not stop violence. You can stop them people from acting like serial-killers, but not aggression, because the fact of the matter is that…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:32 PM
2

"And laws against grievous bodily harm or battery exist to punish "natural male aggression", I hear you, I hear you." Your reply: "You seem to be turning everything into a sexist or sexual connotation. Repressed much?" ...doesn't make any sense. Although it IS in the same vein as your other statements. So, so far in our exchanges you've suggested that someone who is against the sexualisation of mid-to-late High School kids is uncool, prudish and repressed. Tell me, when it's said like that, are …
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:19 PM
0

I thoroughly disagree. Laws don't stop teens WANTING to have sex, but I have heard teenage girls - and teenage boys and young men - include age as a factor in whether or not they have sex with someone, precisely because it is against the law. Saying that, I think it's a multi-dimensional problem. We need to take teen sexualisation out of the equation. But for as long as abstinence or self-restraint is associated with prudery, uncoolness or repression - read the posts of masgrada in this thread f…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:13 PM
1

Look, this is not about attempting to score cheap points. There is a serious issue at hand. "Sex happens when you're developed and have hormones. Well, maybe not for you..." "You can get all red in the face about it, but nothing you're saying or doing will change human nature." Oh, no...oh, no I'd hate for you to think I have no sex life, or that I'm a prude! Why, let me immediately retract ALL of my statements about teen sex so that I can be cool like you! See, it's this attitude - this labelli…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:05 PM
2

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But you have to understand that "leaving it to the parents" leads to its very own, very basic problem about what constitutes justice, and one of the reasons that we have codified laws, standardised punishments and legal processes in the first place. For everything else - I'm against kids in mid-to-late High School having sex - I felt that way when I was that age, and I'm not unhappy with the young man's punishment.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 02:39 PM
1

You need to understand that the term is "statutory rape". I didn't choose those words to express that concept. There is, however, a difference between "consent" and "fully-informed and wise consent" - in other words, there is a difference between a grown woman giving consent, and a teenager who is still in mid-to-late High School. I'd be happy for the terminology to be different by all means. I know that "rape" isn't exactly the same as "statutory rape", just as a "planet" isn't the same as a "d…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 02:34 PM
0

Sorry, you must be one of the people who thinks that the trend of ubiquitous cultural teen sexuality, teen venereal disease and teen pregnancy are A-OK. Sorry, but if you say that precocious sexuality is not a stain on the Western world - in some countries more than others - then YOU lost all credibility.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 02:28 PM
1

And laws against grievous bodily harm or battery exist to punish "natural male aggression", I hear you, I hear you.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 02:26 PM
2

I don't share that view. That's why there's a difference between "rape" and "statutory rape". In statutory rape, the problem isn't one of consent, the problem is one of "informed and mature" consent - that culture sees 16 year-olds as minors. She will have been brought up in that environment with that assumption in place, it is as simple as that. I think 16 is too young to be having sex even in countries where it IS legal, never mind countries where it is not.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 02:25 PM
1

I agree that something that is illegal doesn't have to be immoral, but I also think that many teenagers look at what is LEGAL and think it's MANDATORY, regardless of the personal and social problems such attitudes result in. I think that someone at that age - still in mid mid-to-late High School - shouldn't be having sex, and that there are far too many teenage mums around, ruining lives for themselves and for their kid. I wouldn't mind it being illegal for 16 year-olds to have sex. It's as simp…
/r/MensRights01/02/11 02:17 PM
0

"Shit like this happens in the US too" - but that doesn't make it any more right. As a matter of fact, precocious sexuality is one of the scourges of Western civilisation. The more young people who hear about this story, the better. They need to learn that having adult body parts doesn't instantly make them capable of fully-informed decisions about sex, their emotional lives, contraception, disease, family planning or the health of themselves or of potential children, and doesn't mean they need …
/r/MensRights01/02/11 01:51 PM
2

I don't understand what you mean.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 01:15 PM
-5

I don't have much sympathy with the guy. In their law, a 16 year-old girl is still a minor. From the article: "The girl being a minor, her consent to sex did not help mitigate the boy's offence. For, law terms sex with a minor, with or without her consent, as rape." We have that law here as well - 'statutory rape'. It's to protect people who are vulnerable or not old enough to know better. No, not much sympathy, I'm afraid.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 11:37 AM
2

Women like that should check their privilege.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 08:25 PM
-1

I'm with the 13 people who have down-voted this thread. Boooo to college rape hoaxes being put to rest, boooo to them!
/r/MensRights01/12/10 08:24 PM
1

Wow. It sounds like us guys need to check our privilege.
/r/MensRights26/11/10 12:17 PM
1

Dawgs - you have no chance to survive make your time. Personally, I think yellowmix = "wench".
/r/MensRights30/10/10 05:02 PM
10

Crybabies?
/r/MensRights30/10/10 04:56 PM
5

That...is...brilliant!
/r/MensRights30/10/10 04:55 PM
3

Probably the best post in the thread, among an abundance of great posts.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 04:53 PM
2

I can't stop laughing at this gem. That, sir, is free comedy, right there.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 04:51 PM
7

Hammer meets nail-head.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 04:45 PM
1

I was thinking that exact same thing. Well said.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 04:40 PM
1

The more Western women who read your post, the happier we'll all be.
/r/MensRights18/10/10 01:59 PM
2

Well, I agree not ALL women are like that. And if it was a pic of the ring that the photographer wanted, then he managed to fit in the couple and some of their environment as well. As for the apology, you're forgiven, so we can move on.
/r/MensRights18/10/10 12:23 PM
2

No, misogyny is not the principle in effect here. But it's OK, I've debated your type before and know better than to expect an apology. The principle in effect is that of an awareness that a great many Western women, thanks to cultural and social pressures, are conditioned to attach an undue amount of significance to the perceived comfort, status and prestige of being married - especially being married in a beautiful wedding, like on TV and in all the magazines. Alarming phrases abound in the le…
/r/MensRights18/10/10 10:04 AM
2

But it's NOT just me. The guy that brought the photo to the world's attention, the poster of this thread, most of the people who spoke about the photo in the link and most of the people who posted about the photo in this thread all think the same thing - not only that it is revealing, but that it is revealing about a very particular thing. The clue's in the thread title, Columbo! Or maybe we're all wrong, and you're right. Yes. Yes, I'm sure that's it.
/r/MensRights17/10/10 09:50 PM
2

Christ. It's like meeting Sheldon from "The Big Bang Theory". So you think someone's thought processes need to be tattooed across their forehead in order for them to be apparent to another person. Amazing. You keep on thinking that. Personally, I'll use the principle that somebody's body language in a situation loaded with context is meaningful, and has an effect on other people whether consciously or unconsciously, and whether intended or unintended. But you go on thinking that it needs to be t…
/r/MensRights17/10/10 09:00 AM
4

She looks happier that she's got a ring than that she's got a fiance.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 07:56 PM
1

There was no need for the situation to be escalated to police level. The superintendent sound like they are just wanting to stifle your criticisms of the way the school is run. I wouldn't push it; if you don't like it, the best thing you can do is find a school for your child that has a more co-operative system in operation.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 12:50 PM
6

That is shameful of the women. Talking of wanting to go first, and then questioning other people's bravery - didn't you say that THEY were the ones who were the first to panic? I hope the right lessons are learned from this farce, and that the people who panicked and now want others to factor in THEIR propensity to panic in future drills are not only ignored, but hang their heads in shame.
/r/MensRights09/10/10 04:32 PM
2

I believe in karma. Wait long enough by the banks of the river, and the body of your enemy will float by. This woman is giving herself the life she deserves, even as I type. I don't know what's happening, but she is screwing herself up somehow. Plus I'm now no longer in a position where I'm accountable to or vulnerable to her, or most other people - that makes me happy.
/r/MensRights07/10/10 10:08 PM
10

Well...OK. The worst one was this - sorry for the length, but it's worth it. Once, working in an admin centre for a famous pensions' company, I was asked to meet a member of the public who'd turned up in the foyer with documentation. Note - it wasn't a public-facing building, it was a large admin centre full of archives, files and workers. It was extremely unusual to meet the public in any capacity in the course of your duties. Anyway, I was chosen to meet them because I was presentable, articul…
/r/MensRights06/10/10 10:29 PM
8

There is more than one way to be 'professional'. Blandly stating your exact intentions and ostentatiously respecting someone's personal space during a technical demonstration is one of them. In a situation involving anticipation and high spirits and enforced bodily contact - with obvious connotations - a light-hearted quip is another one of them. Personally, I think that - if this story is all it appears to be - this chick is just one of those 1 in 100 types who will complain no matter what you …
/r/MensRights06/10/10 08:11 PM
21

Because it's an awkward situation that would need to be disarmed. When I was training for a parachute jump, the senior instructor clearly and plainly told one of the female demonstrators - who was helping him show us how to put on a parachute and harness - "I am going to pass this (clip) between your legs." His slightly weary, slightly wary warning echoes even now. Even with someone he knew, in a situation that was in context, in a room full of other people, he announced his intention clearly so…
/r/MensRights06/10/10 05:01 PM
2

Great article. Explains a Helluva lot.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 10:25 PM
5

Mountains out of molehills. I guess it was a slow news day.
/r/MensRights15/09/10 02:37 PM
7

The reason boys don't get mentioned is because of the problem of selective infanticide - parents selecting against girls is a big, even brutal problem in some countries. The same cannot even nearly be said for selecting against boys.
/r/MensRights06/09/10 09:55 PM
1

It's despicable behaviour, but, then, even women these days tell me that all women are crazy. Think of that - even women say that about women now. Wow.
/r/MensRights26/08/10 08:10 AM
3

It is not fair. I'd write a letter or e-mail asking if the facial hair policy applies to everyone equally. Get their answer in writing. If they say it does, then ASK them what is special about your co-worker lady that means she is exempt. They will no doubt ask what co-worker, and then you can tell them. If they say it is because women are exempt, tell them that is discrimination. If they say it is to protect her feelings, then ask about why they shouldn't protect your own. Turn everything back …
/r/MensRights20/08/10 09:22 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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