TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Maslo59 Archive

View 9 posts and 154 comments by Maslo59 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

No. you made the claim, you support your own arguments. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=us+number+of+illegals Oh yeah, National IDs are such a great thing in those bastions of Freedom and Liberty like North Korea and Communist China. They are such a great thing that most countries in the world have it. Anyway, mandatory ID cards or not, some form of reliable identification should be required for almost everything. Identifying citizens and illegals is one of the most basic functions of government. So, are y…
/r/PussyPassDenied08/05/17 01:03 PM
1

It should be the job of a school to verify identity of its students, and that includes citizenship/immigration status. I know this may come as a surprise to you since you are so locked in into your US centric perspective and have little outside experience, but thats how it works in most of the world. Illegals certainly cannot just go to school in most of the world, because they would be found out. Prove there are ten million illegals in the US. Just google it. Maybe you should be the one to fix …
/r/PussyPassDenied08/05/17 07:18 AM
1

If they were enforced, then there wouldnt be 10 million illegals inside the US and them even being allowed to go to schools (like, what the fuck?). Thats not how a well enforced immigration policy looks like at all.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/05/17 06:18 AM
1

No, it isn't. Millions of illegals caught at the border and turned away while millions more are caught and deported does NOT equal tolerance. It does when millions more are inside and those who are deported cna just try again to get in and most likely will. You saying that controls are "very tight" already shows that you are completely detached from reality. You just want open borders and thats it. So stop hiding behind those accusations of fascism and just say it: I am a far leftist who just wa…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/05/17 07:39 PM
1

10 millions illegals inside the US with their presence widely tolerated is not a policy towards open borders? You are full of shit and you know it. And if you think everyone who wants tigher immigration control is a fascist nazi, then you are a political extremist yourself.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/05/17 06:19 PM
1

If you wanted to change things, change that! I am all for fat fines or criminal prosecution for those who hire illegals. But it is no substitute for well enforced immigration policy either. Both are needed.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/05/17 06:14 PM
1

If it happened a long time in the past, then certainly. There is a time length when what happened in the past becomes stuff for history books with not much practical relevance for the present. This time length is kinda continuous and hard to define exactly, but it absolutely exists.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/05/17 04:15 PM
1

No, those rules should apply universally. Nothing hypocritical about it.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/05/17 03:31 PM
18

Mere 4 years difference is a grey area and probably should be legal.
/r/PussyPass06/05/17 08:45 PM
1

If you cannot afford to pay reasonable wages, then maybe you should go out of business. Id rather have more expensive fruit than tolerating industries which pay so little. It only serves to increase poverty and inequality in the US and puts pressure on poor natives who maybe would like to do these jobs. Anyway, if you really think such cheap labor is good then you should fix the guest worker program, not tolerate illegals.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 07:27 PM
1

It is a safe assumption because we know he is an illegal immigrant and have no indication he is a refugee, and there are far more illegal immigrants than genuine refugees in the US. So I will continue to assume that until you provide solid evidence to the contrary. Is it because he's brown, so it's a safe assumption? Quite the opposite, if he was white, he would be even less likely to be a genuine refugee than now. How long do you think before Trump, or Pence, or some other fascist in power deci…
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 07:15 PM
1

Obviously it is not enough deportations, otherwise you wouldnt have millions still inside. Also, how many of them come right back in? Good for Obama for at least doing something, tho
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 05:51 PM
1

Why are you bringing up refugees tho? Deporting genuine refugees can be unethical, even when they are badly educated / stupid and thus a potential problem for the country. Not so with illegal immigrants.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 05:47 PM
1

If having educated people in the country matters, of course. If having educated people in the country matters, of course, then deporting illegal immigrants that have issues even passing high school should probably be done, too.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 05:26 PM
1

Its not really about whether the illegal dude is to blame or not. It is about an incompetent government that refuses to deport illegal immigrants. So whether he chose it or not doesnt matter at all. I dont believe there is possible death, but even if it is, then the proper channel for that is asylum process, not illegal immigration.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 05:21 PM
1

He has unless he is stateless.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 04:11 PM
5

May I see your papers? Prove to me that you're not here illegally. Works like that in most countries of the world, mandatory IDs are a thing. I always cringe when I read about Americans having this weird irrational fear of reasonable immigration enforcement.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 10:41 AM
0

4 years difference should not be criminal. Fuck puritan US for having insane sex laws.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 10:37 AM
2

lol, generational punishment? What happened hundreds of years ago is irrelevant. What happens in this generation is not.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 10:32 AM
2

Yes it is. He can get an education in his home country.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 10:27 AM
2

There is some power difference between 16 year old and 35 year old. However I think it is too low to be a criminal matter, I would prefer age of consent of 14-15, like in Europe. More importantly, since age of consent laws are all about power difference, there needs to be fat near-age exceptions, because obviously there is little power difference if both parties are of similar ages. And finally, I think the word "rape" should be reserved for forcible rape, and statutory crimes should be called s…
/r/MensRights05/06/16 06:31 AM
1

Where did I say that?
/r/MensRights04/06/16 04:40 PM
-6

The entire reason for age of consent is the power difference between child and adult. So countries that have near age exceptions are the ones doing it correctly. Two children having sex harms noone because there is no great power difference and thus low likelihood of any exploitation or coercion. On the other hand, adult having sex with a child is at the very least a risky activity, if not outright exploitative, because of mental difference. But I agree it should not be called rape if there is n…
/r/MensRights04/06/16 11:26 AM
0

It's really easy to understand if you bother to look at the heaps of psychological evidence that shows that children, yes even 13 and 14 year olds, are not developed enough to make these decisions. There is actually very little evidence that sex with children is harmful as long as there is no coercion or violence involved. Which does seem to be the case here. It has less to do with "psychological evidence" and more to do with moral panic.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 11:06 AM
1

Yeah, she deserves to be fired and maybe get some fine. But treating consensual sex between adults as a crime is ridiculous, no matter the circumstances.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 04:34 AM
8

The law is wrong, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 10:20 AM
2

The difference is not less than 1%, the difference is 1.1363 / 1.0479 = 1.0843 = 8,43% higher rate among black people. It is still not too significant, but certainly enough to disprove this assertion that white people have higher rate of mass shootings. The mother jones article clearly states that they used a criterion of at least 4 dead, to classify it as a mass shooting. And it had to happen in public, by a lone shooter. So no, we are not talking about incidents with a single death and some co…
/r/MensRights17/04/16 08:44 AM
4

But these statistics do show black people as being overrepresented more in mass shootings that white people. Do the math: Black: 15 / 13.2 = 1.1363 White: 65.6 / 62.6 = 1.0479 Black rate is slightly higher than white rate. Things may be different when talking about very effective mass shootings rather than all mass shootings. But honestly, I think it is more of a reflection of white people being statistically more successful and thorough in what they aim to do, including mass shootings, rather t…
/r/MensRights17/04/16 06:48 AM
7

Yes, they are in puberty already. And the same is true for girls. It is not normal to act on it, tough.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 12:41 PM
10

Having sex or doing anything sexual with someone his age will absolutely place him on a list and land him in some form of jail. Which is ridiculous, there should be near age exceptions..
/r/MensRights06/10/15 06:25 PM
14

some people just are too stupid to shut the computer off... Not only that. Most forums and social networks offer very good filtering/blocking features. If you dont want to get abused, is it so hard to stay out of the chans and stick to the more moderated forums?
/r/PussyPass27/09/15 10:40 AM
1

The point is, adult-child sexual relationships have higher chance of exploitation than others, due to mental development difference. Does it mean every such relationship is exploitative or harmful? No. Does it mean relationships without age difference cannot be exploitative? No. Only that the chance of exploitation is higher when there is too much of a difference. This mental age difference is the entire justification behind underage sex laws and thus also why near-age exceptions must naturally …
/r/MensRights25/08/15 09:00 AM
1

You are extremely puritanical if you think kids should be criminally punished for having sex with each other. It is not rape at all when they are of similar ages and consent, and while it can still be objectionable for some people, they merely should be grounded or something.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:29 AM
1

If what you were saying is true, then there could not be any near-age exceptions. This consent paradigm is outdated. The real reason for laws regulating underage sex should be too great mental development difference, which can lead to exploitation. So these laws should only target adults having sex with kids, not kids having sex with each other.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:24 AM
2

Use of force is the same thing as consent. You do not need to use force if the other party consents. There is a reason the law says "informed consent" and not just "consent". Because there is consent. So if it seems to them that an underage guy got "lucky" for sleeping with two of his English teachers, they somehow think that their personal opinion on the matter supersedes the law. No, this is about whether the law itself is just or not. That is a legitimate question, and one you cannot just dis…
/r/MensRights24/08/15 06:46 AM
1

Uninformed consent is not an oxymoron, it is the entire difference between statutory and forcible rapes, the second one is worse. I agree that law should be followed no matter the sex of those involved, but we also should discuss about whether the law is just, and I have to say it is not. If this is a 16 year old who is even bragging about the act, then morally speaking there is no victim and no crime IMHO, no matter what the letter of the law says.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 09:43 PM
1

They should be fired from their teaching jobs for sure, but I dont think it should be a crime.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 05:08 PM
1

Statutory rape is still consensual, but it is not informed consent as required by law. Thats the confusion.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 05:04 PM
1

They are certainly not children either.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 05:01 PM
1

I agree that strict liability is the main problem here, mens rea should be required for every crime, including sexual offenses. However: At 14, the 14 year old cannot consent. No consent. Not possible. Absolutely not. 14 year olds can consent in some countries and some countries also have near age exceptions of up to 5 years which could apply in this case. So it is not absolutely clear that this was rape, morally speaking. Even if Michigan law says it was, morally it is still a bit of a grey are…
/r/MensRights02/08/15 09:02 AM
3

Nah, I dont think so, 3 years difference is not enough to be a concern, especially not enough to get the law involved.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 05:02 PM
4

If you have a problem with mere 3 years age difference, you are in the wrong here the law should have near age exceptions
/r/MensRights01/08/15 04:52 PM
1

What exactly are you going to claim the younger person in a statutory situation gets other than lies about how 'I love you and you're different than the other kids your age' etc? That they get sex they want? Yes, a lot of these cases where the "victim" is only a few years below age of consent is exactly like this. Thats the issue with statutory rape laws, they are defined by a statute, and that does not always correspond to what happens in reality.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 08:07 AM
10

You cant consent when someone has a position of power over you and actually uses it to blackmail you. Thats not always the case in cases like this.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 07:17 PM
73

Statutory "rape" should not be called rape at all, but some kind of sexual molestation instead. And that is true for both boys and girls. It is not really rape if the victim agrees with the act, although it still may be unethical and illegal.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 05:36 PM
2

She's angry about a woman raping her child. Oh, please. The only rape that happened happened on paper, not in reality. She is putting on a show.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/15 06:26 AM
1

It was an range of ages arrived by psychologist, sociologist, and doctors. You'll find that most of the things we do in the United States (especially surrounding children) is done and enacted based on statistical data. That is complete bullshit. It was arrived on by politicians pandering to puritan populace by being tough on sex crimes. Dont even try to pretend US AoC laws are some kind of objective truth.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/15 06:19 AM
1

1 year under the age of consent, and legal in most of the world. No way she deserves 22 years.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/15 06:12 AM
-3

Yeah, pussy pass denied, but this is a ridiculous sentence, no matter what the genders are.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/15 05:31 PM
2

How many times has SRS or tumblr gone on a crusade against somebody and made their life hell just because of a perception of sexism? Well, how many? As much as I dislike SRS and tumblr, I have yet to see any crusade of theirs that would justify criminal action. Stick and stones. These kind of internet nasties just do not need to be regulated by law.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 08:15 PM
1

Fights, drama, crying. I do think you may be overly sex-negative. That was not my experience at all. But anyway: When it comes to financial concerns, I just dont see it as a valid argument at all. We live in a modern society, that is what contraception and abortion is for. It is just not realistic and I would say, not even ethical, to expect poor people not to have sex. The issue is irresponsible procreation, not sex itself, there is nothing wrong with sex no matter what your budget is. Also, bo…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 06:08 PM
0

I do know for a fact your situation was not bad enough to justify any legal repercussions at all, which is the topic of this thread. There is big difference between a relationship gone bad and actual exploitation.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 04:04 PM
6

boys and girls are NOT the same, there ARE differences. Sure, but those differences do not justify unequal treatment under the law.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 01:40 PM
-4

I am pretty sure you were ready enough. Did he rape you? No. Then you were ready as far as law is concerned. Broken heart is not a criminal matter. Immature reason for consent is a valid reason, too. I understand that it is more problematic when there is higher emotional maturity gap between the parties, and it would be better if such relationships didnt happen, or only responsibly. But my point is, it ought to take A LOT of immaturity to make consent void in the eyes of the law, because a crime…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 10:53 AM
1

OK, but the law should be there to protect children from actually being exploited by adults, not to guarantee that you lose your virginity in an ideal way and for all the right reasons. You were certainly knowledgeable enough to consent to sex at 18 and a few years before that, no matter why you did it.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 09:58 AM
3

Teenage brain is not fully developed yet. I dont think you need fully developed brain to consent to sex, its not rocket surgery. Just developed enough. Is it developed enough at 16? I think so.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 09:22 AM
5

Driving responsibly is a complex task, which could even result in a deadly accident if done irresponsibly. Having sex responsibly is a simple task consisting of two rules: 1. wear protection 2. dont do it if you dont want to You absolutely dont need to be financially independent to have sex, if that was true then lets ban all sex between teenagers, because a teen does not need to have sex with an adult to get pregnant, the risk is actually higher if the partner is another teen.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 09:18 AM
2

I think the bar should be set at 15. At that age I knew enough about sex to make that decision. many 18 year olds aren't ready for that Really?
/r/MensRights29/04/15 09:01 AM
1

Why not? Age of consent is 16 or lower in most of the world. 16 year olds are not children anymore.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:38 AM
1

and should definitely be illegal She should be fired but I dont think it should be illegal. I doubt there is any actual harm in these cases, no victim, no crime.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:35 AM
5

Being able to drive If anything, driving takes more mental faculties than consenting to sex. Anyone that is deemed fit to drive is also fit enough to have sex with adults, IMHO.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:31 AM
3

nah, more like: human beings have value because of what they are, not because of what they can become. It is not really wrong to harm a foetus by drinking, but it is wrong to harm a foetus and then allow it to develop into a human being that would be harmed, actually and not just potentially, by this history of drinking. If my mother got an abortion, I wouldnt be pissed off, I would just never exist, the same as if she used a condom. But if my mother drunk during pregnancy and it caused me some …
/r/MensRights27/04/15 05:15 PM
4

Yes. We already use this standard when it comes to death, with brain death being the official criterion of death, even tough many of those bodies could live on life support a long time. It makes sense that the same logic be applied to beginning of human person, too. Even those with serious mental impairments still have functioning higher brain, so they are people. Maybe except for those with profound anecephaly, who are just empty vessels really.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 04:04 PM
2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood#Brain_function_.28brain_birth.29
/r/MensRights27/04/15 02:47 PM
4

Early term abortion is really no different than using a condom, there is no baby yet and never will be, so it is really a victimless act that harms nobody. On the other hand, woman drinking during pregnancy harms a real, existing person, it can lead to a lifetime of issues.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 02:15 PM
1

age of consent laws usually have near age exceptions so that sex among young people themselves is decriminalized similar thing should apply to child porn laws, so that sexting among young people themselves is decriminalized, too
/r/MensRights27/04/15 01:26 PM
4

Technically maybe, but ethically there is nothing wrong with it, you cannot exploit yourself, lol
/r/MensRights27/04/15 01:24 PM
2

you cannot molest or exploit yourself, technically it may be illegal because the law is written in a dumb way but morally there is nothing wrong with it in my opinion near age exceptions should apply to child porn too
/r/MensRights27/04/15 09:51 AM
-1

Sharing your own nude pictures willingly and sharing someone elses pictures without their consent is very different ethically. The first should not be punished at all, the second maybe should, IMHO.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 09:48 AM
3

It is not okay but she should be fired for it, not criminally punished
/r/PussyPass06/04/15 11:38 AM
9

Did you even read my post you are replying to? I dont think it should be legal
/r/PussyPass07/03/15 11:50 AM
5

I dont think it should be legal, but I also dont think it should receive a harsh sentence. Its far less serious than actually abusing a child.
/r/PussyPass07/03/15 09:51 AM
-11

She only had pictures on her computer, she did not even touch any child. The sentence is more than enough. However, it could be a pussy pass in that a man would probably recieve even harsher sentence.
/r/PussyPass07/03/15 09:08 AM
1

No, the law needs to take the circumstances of the act into account. So someone having sex with with a person one year under the age of consent should be a relatively minor offense, but someone having sex with a 10 year old should be judged as a lot more serious. And this is true for both sexes.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 08:28 AM
3

She should also have her children (if any) removed from her custody Not unless it can be proven she has sex with them, too.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 08:23 AM
1

Because you are full into moral panic mode since the crime is of sexual nature, and cannot evaluate the situation objectively. She deserves only a few years in prison.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/15 08:13 AM
7

Any paternity testing without a court order is banned, due to the official desire to "preserve the peace" within French families https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_testing#France
/r/MensRights11/02/15 08:23 PM
3

What is that subreddit about?
/r/MensRights03/02/15 03:59 PM
1

Yes it was. Usually rape victims are not killing themselves or being strongly triggered by everything. And I believe I would prefer to live with PTSD than be murdered, so my point stands.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/01/15 02:37 PM
1

That is not a typical rape experience. Most rape victims, while having a certain trauma, are not strongly triggered by everything or attempt suicide multiple times. If I had to choose, I would surely prefer for me or my loved ones to be raped and deal with the resulting PTSD rather than murdered.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/01/15 02:23 PM
2

While rape is worse than murder dumbest thing I ever read, congrats for the honor
/r/PussyPassDenied22/01/15 09:39 AM
0

The sentence is not deserved anyway, thats like 10 years at most. And that should be true regardless of gender.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/01/15 09:30 AM
2

You are totally right, the woman deserves a few years at most. And the same would be true if the genders were reversed. Maybe this was by the book and the video is indeed dishonestly edited, but in the end the sentence is still not appropriate for the crime.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/01/15 09:25 AM
3

Plea deals are legal extortion really. Its no good either.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/01/15 09:24 AM
2

So edit it?
/r/MensRights21/12/14 01:57 PM
2

Its simply not true: The great campus rape hoax
/r/MensRights20/12/14 09:29 AM
8

I dont think slurred speech and off-balance walking is enough to indicate sufficient mental incapacitation to invalidate consent. I was drunk enough to exhibit both many times, and yet I remembered everything and thought reasonably clearly. No coherent speech and not capable of walking is a better indicator.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:50 PM
1

Or robots.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 09:17 AM
1

http://motls.blogspot.cz/2014/11/you-may-still-buy-matt-taylors-shirt.html
/r/MensRights18/11/14 08:40 AM
3

How does that prove that she lied? If it only shows them leaving the bathroom she could still have been raped, in theory.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 09:37 PM
2

Explain.
/r/MensRights09/11/14 07:00 PM
24

Source? Why would they do that, to encourage racism?
/r/MensRights04/11/14 07:05 PM
-3

Its a little unusual, but kids at that age do some stupid shit.. In any case, its ridiculous to call children who have not yet even gone through puberty "sexual abusers". People are blowing this out of proportion IMHO.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 04:27 PM
3

already proven that sex occurred and the defendant has admitted to willfully engaging in the act. Oh, what a criminal! How dare he admit to engaging in the sex?? lol I’m not denying presumption of innocence. Oh yes you totally are, because you want the defendant to prove that there was consent given which means that you are putting the burden of proof on the defendant instead of prosecution and thus shitting all over the entire presumption of innocence (not to mention that proving it retroactive…
/r/MensRights31/10/14 04:21 PM
5

Even for trespassing cases, burden of proof ought to be on the prosecution. They must prove that consent to enter was not given, not the other way around. Better let 100 criminals free than convict one innocent. I still cant believe people like you even exist, denying presumption of innocence, a basic tenet of every justice system. Are you real or just a troll?
/r/MensRights31/10/14 10:35 AM
0

Indeed. Whether you find this acceptable or not, as long as you apply the same logic to both genders, its a valid opinion.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 08:07 AM
14

The entire concept of charging underage people as adults is pants on head retarded. Want harsher punishments for kids? Then increase punishments for kids. Dont pretend that they magically are something they are not. Not unless you also give 13 year olds the right to vote, serve in army, enter contracts and consent to sex.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 06:22 AM
-3

Indeed. This assault was NOT sexual. OP is a troll or an idiot.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 07:36 AM
1

Both should be left alone.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 06:53 AM
2

Until female sex crimes are viewed and prosecuted with the same revulsion, outrage, and disdain as male sex crimes, work for change needs to continue. Or alternatively, MRM could aim to decrease the moral panic surrounding male sex crimes so it is at the level of female sex crimes. I dont see this kind of "crime" as a big deal, male or female. He was 17 and this is only a minor offense, morally speaking. Now downvote away..
/r/MensRights06/08/14 07:43 AM
3

It was a plea deal, that may also be a factor
/r/PussyPass20/06/14 02:14 PM
2

I agree with this, 30 years is certainly too much for something that is entirely legal in most of the world.
/r/PussyPass14/06/14 06:22 PM
5

Rapes? Really?? He is 17..
/r/MensRights09/06/14 08:14 AM
1

That link talks about statutory rape and similar crimes, not forcible rape. In fact, it also says this: However, when both parties are close in age, identifying whether the sexual activity is abusive is more complex. Ryan (1997) proposed three factors that must be considered in order to evaluate sexual interactions between two or more children: consent, equality and coercion. So we can see that consent is relevant when both actors are underage, i.e. statutory laws dont apply. Similarly, consent …
/r/MensRights07/06/14 06:55 AM
1

Actually you are wrong, as it is in Australia currently the law states that "Consent to sexual intercourse is not a defence" when it comes to unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under x years, not that it doesnt exist. But it is a defense when it comes to (forcible) rape, in fact it is the basis for the definition of rape of both adults and children alike. "minors not being able to give consent" is a superficial, internet understanding of things, law is hardly verbatim like that, and it do…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 09:38 PM
1

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the boy was restrained, but he 'expressed his willingness to have sex', does this now make it not forcible rape? Of course, forcible rape requires absence of consent, if the victim agreed with it then it cannot be forcible rape, no matter the age or other circumstances. Only statutory rape. However, I am not sure jury would believe that explanation in practice, with an underage victim restrained, but if it was the truth (for example, the underage victim …
/r/MensRights06/06/14 07:30 PM
1

Sigh, no, no, no. Please, can you get it through your head that there is no such thing as consent by a minor. Even if he did say he wanted to have sex, it still is no consent! You are mixing up things here that are different. There is no such thing as informed consent relevant to AoC laws by a minor. But there is naive consent, willingness to have sex, and that is what often separates forcible rape from statutory sexual offenses. Moreover, I see nothing about "consent" in the article. All I see …
/r/MensRights06/06/14 03:58 PM
0

That burden lies on evidence of violence and/or restraint. The fact that the child consented does strongly imply that there was no violence or restraint. So if this is what you want to argue, then it is pretty much semantics, you are reading too much into the quote of the judge. Moreover, I dont see any evidence in the article that there was violence or restraint, so the verdict is correct just the same. She never got a jail sentence, she got released on a three year good behavior bond. The two …
/r/MensRights06/06/14 02:57 PM
0

The judge never should've used consent as an argument. You dont understand, from the article it looks like the judge used consent as an argument why she was not convicted of the original charge of rape, but unlawful sexual intercourse instead. Which is correct reasoning. Henry originally was charged with rape but a jury convicted her of unlawful sexual intercourse. Judge Paul Cuthbertson said the verdict suggested the boy either agreed to have sex or Henry failed to realise he did not agree. ...…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 02:22 PM
1

There is no such thing as "statutory rape" in Australia, there is forcible rape and then there is unlawful sexual intercourse (an analogue of statutory rape) for those who did have consent. So she was convicted of statutory rape, they just call it a different term. The verdict was correct.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 01:23 PM
-2

Your source agrees with me. Unlawful sexual intercourse is not the same crime as rape, and the difference is whether the child consented. Thats why she was not convinced of the original charge of rape, but was then convinved of a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. So the post I was responding to is demonstrably incorrect. From the article: Henry originally was charged with rape but a jury convicted her of unlawful sexual intercourse. Moreover, unlawful sexual intercourse does have a m…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 01:17 PM
-3

In cases of statutory rape it doesn't matter because "minors cannot consent". it does matter, it is still illegal but forcible rape and statutory rape are different things, even legally
/r/MensRights06/06/14 12:05 PM
-10

No, sex with a child is always illegal, but it does matter whether the child consented or not. That is the difference between forcible rape and statutory rape, which are often different crimes with different penalties and effects on the victim. Once again mens rights is getting up in arms over nothing.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 12:04 PM
36

Yeah.. and I doubt SRS members would be banned for their vote brigading too.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 09:05 AM
3

From the story it seems like when he was having sex with her, he was not unconscious, and when he was unconscious, he stopped having sex with her (he was the more active participant).
/r/MensRights04/05/14 01:18 PM
-2

There is a few drinks, there is borderline passing out drunk while still being conscious during the act and taking some initiative, and then there is genuinely passed out drunk and lying there unconscious while being fucked. Only the last one is rape, and it doesnt sound like she raped him.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 12:00 PM
19

Can we stop with the radfem bullshit that drunk sex = rape? Even if drunk as fuck, he seems to be the one taking the initiative in this story, so his consent is clear.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 09:03 AM
1

For instance, breaking the speed limit is a strict liability crime: You get a ticket whether or not you knew you were speeding or intended to speed. Thats not a crime, but a lesser offense, tough. Having sex with an underage person is a crime regardless of whether the other person knew they were underage, and even if the other person asked for and received 'proof' that they were not underage. Not in all jurisdictions, and this an exception and an idiotic law, too. Mens rea should be required for…
/r/MensRights29/04/14 02:36 PM
4

Wow.. in civilised countries, crime requires intent or mens rea. How can you commit a crime if you dont know you are commiting a crime?
/r/MensRights29/04/14 10:51 AM
2

Yay moral relativism! Whatever, I was talking about inconsistent laws in the same location, not two different locations with different inconsistent laws.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 04:27 PM
2

There doesn't have to be logic behind these laws But there should be in an ideal world. If your moral standards arent logicaly consistent then something somewhere is wrong with them.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 02:36 PM
0

This doesn’t really have to do with your point, but it’s weird to me that bestiality is considered such a “horrific crime” by most people. We do so much shit to animals without their consent, it’s weird to apply it almost exclusively to sex. Touching a big slimy horse dick with your mouth is disgusting for sure, but I feel like people are overreacting. Why post the photo of her except to attempt to publicly humiliate her, (not to mention potentially outing her as transgender,) and ostracize her …
/r/MensRights28/04/14 09:20 AM
-1

Nope, still a grey area, she should be fired but not prosecuted. I am not very comfortable with having a legal double standard for authority figures.
/r/MensRights07/04/14 09:55 PM
-1

Legally it isnt in that state, but ethicaly it is a grey area. Even when in position of authority.
/r/MensRights07/04/14 09:50 PM
-8

A valid opinion. 15 year old is a grey area, if it was merely statutory. No matter the gender of those involved.
/r/MensRights07/04/14 07:15 PM
3

I dont think anyone here disputes that, srs..
/r/MensRights04/03/14 01:44 PM
12

srs pls go..
/r/MensRights04/03/14 06:22 AM
8

It was a good solution a month ago, and it is a good solution now.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 01:54 PM
4

In reality, his "sex offense" was "Corruption of a minor": he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, who then became pregnant. Let it be noted that in Pennsylvania it is completely legal to have sex with someone who is 16, as that is the age of consent. The "corruption..." charge was a misapplication of the law. But it wasn't brought about by a jilted lover - the couple were still together, but more on that later - nor was it a vendetta held by the parents - they never sought to press charges,…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 09:32 AM
22

The form does not start investigations it is for data collections purposes to determine if the school needs to change things in its handling of rape cases According to the original article, the accusation would result in mandatory visit in the dean's office and lecture about sexual assault. Its not purely for data collection purposes. Its for harrasment.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 04:21 PM
5

In this case (to overload a Soviet Union style anonymous accusations form), mass spamming nonsensical accusations was a right and entirely rational thing to do. If you disagree, do you propose any better alternative how to bring it down? So far, I have not heard any constructive suggestions.. only high-horse criticism.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 03:44 PM
5

The difference is yours is untrue. It was indeed pathetic and cowardly as hell when many MRAs turned 180 and denounced the spamming they formerly supported (according to upvotes before the SRS bridage) just because SRS affiliated subs started screeching about "muh anonymous rape report form being under attack!" and misandric media like gawker joining the bandwagon.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 03:32 PM
8

But at the very least people should have given them the opportunity to recognise the concern before the spamming. That's fair, isn't it? Do you think that would actually happen? I highly doubt they would take the form down after a few concerned emails.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 03:26 PM
15

Soviet Union style anonymous accusations resulting in an actual embarrasing visit to the office? That form deserves to be spammed until they take it down. Nothing toxic like that has a place in an university environment. We need to bring it down. I am sad that some MRAs were scared and decided to backpedal after the SRS screeching started in subredditdrama and offmychest subreddits controlled by them. The rest, keep up the good work!
/r/MensRights19/12/13 02:59 PM
4

Good. There is no place for such a Soviet style anonymous accusation system in a normal university, for any crime. Exposing its idiocy by doing what would eventually happen anyway (people spaming it with trolling and false claims) is a rational thing to do. Hasten its death so we minimize its harm. I am shocked that MRAs here caved in to the SRS screeching and distanced themselves from this activity. I guess its still reddit... At least 4chan is still on the right side.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 06:15 AM
1

Not sole, but a very common one, as evidenced by popularity of ladies nights bars. If you are not going to a bar for that reason, chose a place that has no ladies night. Its that simple.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 09:50 PM
1

Why not? I dont cry about discrimination when my favourite DJ plays at the lesbian oriented club where women pay less than men. If a club aims to please LGBT people by offering discounts for a single gender which they want, I dont see an issue. Similarly, if a club aims to please straight people by offering discounts aimed to achieve 50/50 gender ratio which straight people want, I dont see an issue. Its their right. Do you agree with banning exclusive clubs for LGBT people? Of not, you are not …
/r/MensRights16/12/13 08:41 PM
0

Clubs for gay men can make similar policy to encourage what their customers want (cheaper tickets for men than for women).
/r/MensRights16/12/13 08:22 PM
0

It does IMHO. The reasoning proves that no one is harmed and everyone benefits.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 07:14 PM
-2

When in doubt switch female for white and male for black to see if something is discriminatory. It does not work that way. Blacks dont care about number of whites in a bar (or even dont like them?), so more whites wont benefit them, they get higher price (harm) with no benefit. On the other hand, men care about number of women in a bar, and more women would benefit them, so their higher price is not harm, it is a voluntary payment for better service received. We need different treatment to satis…
/r/MensRights16/12/13 05:07 PM
0

Women are the majority in colleges and universities around the world. Women are in nearly every health club. Women are joining sports teams and womens leagues are popping up everywhere in every sport. Women are the majority of high school populations as well. Women often fill the audience at concerts and plays. Women patronize the arts. Women walk their dogs at the dog park. Women enjoy trivia nights at bars. Women go out after work with friends. Women are at the coffee shop. Women are on the bu…
/r/MensRights16/12/13 04:34 PM
2

Why? Who is harmed? Women, benefit (cheaper tickets), men benefit (more women at the bar). No victim, no crime.. You are looking for harm where there is none. I swear MRA is starting to sound like feminists, arbitrary rules and ideology over proving actual harm. No fun allowed! We just agree in overwhelming numbers that it should be / is illegal to discriminate in this way. Popularity of ladies nights and bars which practice them seems to suggest otherwise. Most people recognise that its a mutua…
/r/MensRights16/12/13 04:18 PM
1

Yes it is because by that rule of quality women should always pay more for all the concentrated men they get access to. Why, if they can get it for free in most bars? Access to women is a problem for men, it rarely tends to be the other way around. If it was, then yes, you would be right.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 04:08 PM
2

So gay men get in for the $60 also? Sweet! I dont think that would be a benefit for straight men, which is what clubs are doing with ladies nights.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 03:34 PM
-1

I dont think it works against civil liberties. The whole point of civil liberties is that you should not be harmed based on your race / gender etc... This is not harm, rather, its a benefit - many men gladly pay more for ladies nights and want them, and those who dont have other clubs to go to. There is no victim, hence no crime. This is equivalent to doctor prescribing you medication that is better suited for your gender, but costs more.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 12:39 PM
-7

This is not an issue of civil liberties. Men dont have increased price for nothing. They pay for better quality.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 11:45 AM
-13

It's not suing for ladies night, its a lawsuit for price discrimination. Its not price discrimination if men actually get higher quality experience for the increased ticket price (higher concentration of women in the club = better quality).
/r/MensRights16/12/13 11:43 AM
1

But this is not discrimination in the sense that it strictly benefits women and harms men. Men get something in return for the increased ticket price - namely increased concentration of women in the club. And many men consider that more valuable than cheap tickets.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 11:40 AM
-2

Direct Democracy is a form of government (and its basically majority using force on the minority). How can it be anarchistic?
/r/MensRights08/12/13 10:51 AM
2

Nope, freedom of speech is a big deal precisely because its aim is to protect against government restrictions or forced and unwarranted restrictions by other people and things like that. It was never about speech in private forums, and speech restrictions in private forums are entirely justifiable and often a good idea if some character of the forum is desired, including no hate speech in case of FB. Stop devaluing the meaning of free speech by applying it to shit like FB pages.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 08:50 PM
4

Facebook is a private site that can ban whatever it wants and hate groups are against their terms and conditions. I totaly agree with you when it comes to government censorship, tough.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 06:19 PM
1

Yeah, I agree that culture can sometimes be intertwined with race (not always), which can make some aspects of cultural supremacy problematic, but that is only through this connection with actual racism or bigotry, not by itself. But strictly on its own, cultural supremacy is all right and even inevitable because culture is nothing more than a collection of attitudes, beliefs and customs all of which are certainly valid and common targets for criticism and judgement.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 07:52 PM
1

I am not talking about the notion that races have inherent cultural characteristics and thus are not equal (racism), just that cultures are not equal (not racism). I can judge cultures as superior/inferior according to my morality.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 07:11 PM
2

I dont think so. Cultural supremacism =/= racial supremacism. Cultures are not equal.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 12:35 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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