TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MissMeggo Archive

View 0 posts and 69 comments by MissMeggo 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)
1

I find that asking 3 out of the box but not awkward questions gets some really good responses (in the sense of opening up and being friendly and welcoming to conversation and not the actual verbal response) from people. My favorites are If you could be any cereal mascot which would you be and why and if you could fight anybody famous past or present who would it be?
/r/seduction04/04/13 10:53 PM
1

If it makes you feel any better, just as many are not this kind of feminist. Personally, if you're going to affront someone, you should expect the same kind of affront back. I don't hit people unless I expect to get hit back; it's common sense.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 03:28 PM
0

Well good on you for taking on the forced tattooing of America's children. You go on fighting the good fight.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 05:19 PM
2

Yeah, I forgot this is a thing that women do and not a thing that this one dumb ass and sadistic woman did. Good going OP for trying to fight the feminist goal to get our children tattooed.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 04:41 PM
2

Are you really arguing for saving our children from a rash of mother's tattooing their children?
/r/MensRights28/01/13 04:40 PM
0

You clearly did not actually look at that article before you screen capped and posted this. Men's Health Article referred to in the post His hair is the last thing they talk about, and it like everything else gets a lovely paragraph which is actually about the fact that his hair is grey which shows that he is wise and experienced. Most of the article is about character traits. And that little demeaning bit? It's a comment, not part of the article, and one presumably (with a name like Marko) made…
/r/MensRights28/01/13 04:35 PM
1

What sexual acts can or cannot be consented to? Anal, Role Playing, Vaginal, Oral, Dirty Talk, Heavy Petting, Manual Stimulation, Mutual Masturbation, Kissing, Groping, Ejaculation in various places and manners, Biting, Licking, Giving Hickies, BDSM (and subsets thereof), Use of Toys, etc. I think rape and sexual assault cover any unwanted touching involving genitals. Therefore, Kissing, biting, licking, hickies (depending on where) are not sex acts that fall under those guidelines. Anything inv…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 07:01 PM
1

The point that men have been conscripted and to this day still are still stands... How does the point still stand if there are women saying we want to go to war and male politicians continue to deny them that request? If its a war it's a self imposed war and one based on the idea that women are fragile. First of all, where did you get the idea that prison rape against male inmates is not committed by women? I forgot a just and didnt imply that women don't commit rape. Also as far as everything I…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 01:11 AM
1

I guess I can condense my argument. Provided you actually consent, I don't think the other person has any responsibility at all to do anything. I thought we were still talking about those gray areas. If both people are intoxicated, I think both are equally responsible if one feels violated. But again were straying into moral arguments, which is too involved to add on top of this. I was agreeing with you, just doing so in a worst manner. I never quite understood this and I'm not sure I believe it…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 01:03 AM
1

I wouldn't consider there to be much wrong with the above scenario (adultery aside). I think you could argue that there's something morally wrong, but that's a different discussion. As I said I don't think it's legally wrong; it's not the governments job to enforce morality. I think you miss understood my second point. If both people are intoxicated and sex happens (doesn't really matter how or if cones want was achieved in this case) and the next day one person feels violated, you're saying its…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 11:22 PM
1

I get the impression we want the same thing then =] I do think rape should be able to not have a perpetrator; it should probably even be put in its own category so as not be confused or aligned with the example in the OP. My point in distinguishing between loopholes and governmental failing is that loopholes don't neccessarily require a legal overhaul and doesn't imply that the base laws in place are wrong. If a significant number of people are being screwed over, it implies that there's somethi…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 11:13 PM
1

Not really. Why do you think it doesn't? I think it does because the way to discuss solving it is different. If it only happens to a handful, then loopholes need to be closed but mostly it's social attitude that needs to be changed. If it happens to a significant amount, then that means the legal system is falling through and that is where the point of change has to come. I'm not arguing that if 2 drunk people have sex they should both be prosecuted. I'm saying that if both are at fault (in havi…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 10:41 PM
1

If you're going to argue with people who are more intelligent than you, then don't resort to being a pathetic sad sack who makes unjust claims of low intelligence based solely on the claim that you are too dumb to actually successfully argue the points your trying to make. I'm sure you're an alcoholic woman beater who's probably taken advantage of several blackout drunk chicks. See, I can make unjust claims (well they're only partially unjust in this case because you very clearly hate women) as …
/r/MensRights28/12/12 10:20 PM
1

Yes but the range of punishment that a person can get is to account for differences in circumstances. Also, I do think there are "rape" and "aggravated rape" laws which does account for a difference, though I could be wrong on that.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 10:07 PM
1

It is disgusting and despicable and reprehensible and nauseating to know that someone hurt someone that way and I think if they're found guilty they should be locked away from the rest of the planet for ever. But just because they are a disgusting human being doesn't mean that you or anyone else has the right to physically disfigure them like they physically disfigured someone else.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 10:04 PM
1

Well, in my mind, "being taken advantage of" means someone has sex with you and you are unable to stop them. I don't agree with that. I think "being taken advantage of" means a person is using, twisting or manipulating outside circumstances to get someone else to agree to something they normally wouldn't. I think if person A is depressed and lonely because their spouse is deployed in the army and person B exploits those feelings to get person A to have sex with them, then they are taking advanta…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 10:01 PM
1

Ahahaha, you have time to sit here and call me dumbfuck and braindead AND to find an outdated article from the UK as proof, but you don't have enough time to find the article or law that actually proves your point?! Yes, I am the brain dead one here. Go back to being pathetic. You guys, this is fun.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 10:00 PM
2

No ad hominem or generalizations here. You're logic is completely valid. I forget that all women are the same and this is clearly not misogyny because your a man and only men can be victims right.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 09:56 PM
2

England is not the US so that link is irrelevant, and the article doesn't even name the law so it can be looked up and only talks about one that was porposed, not a law that was enacted. I don't think you know what you're talking about. You're clearly a dumb, illogical, hateful, immoral, whiny and sad little man child who chooses to attack people who want to start meaningful dialogue because you are a man and clearly all men are the victims.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 09:50 PM
2

Aw this is actually really cute that you don't see your hypocrisy. But I guess only your sarcastic air quotes "arguments" count or something. Have an ad hominem-y day!
/r/MensRights28/12/12 09:06 PM
2

Prove it. Show me the laws.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 09:05 PM
2

You're really pointless to debate with. You're an ass that uses ad hominem attacks instead of actually discussing what's at hand. I hope your poor little American male brain pulls itself out of your ass and you actually learn how to debate, discuss and exchange ideas. And remember, it's not a generalization if I say "American"
/r/MensRights28/12/12 08:43 PM
2

You clearly don't know how this debate thing works. Attacking me just makes you look childish. You haven't actually given proof that men can legally consent to sex when they're intoxicated. this site uses gender neutral language as does this website by stanford which even does a good job of explaining how rape or assault accusations during intoxication should be viewed. You can't even provide any numbers for how frequent this occurrence is. Furthermore, if men who claim they were raped while int…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 08:40 PM
3

I know it's a difficult thing to tell, but I think that's the risk everyone takes in imbibing alcohol--getting taken advantage of or possibly taking advantage of someone else. I also said that I don't think anything should be done legally if both parties are intoxicated (or there's reason to believe both parties were intoxicated, since you can't actually prove via breathalyzer or anything how intoxicated they were). I also said that rapes that occur in this situation should not be punished with …
/r/MensRights28/12/12 08:14 PM
2

ahh, see you're the kind of guy that makes this whole movement pointless: you throw a hissy fit when anyone generalizes anything to all men but it's perfectly legitimate for you to talk about all women and act like I am some how out to get all men because I'm a woman. I haven't said anything that is anti-male. You just want to make the argument about that. Legally (and technically), no one can consent to something while they're intoxicated. Not men or women.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 07:20 PM
1

I'm not talking about the law; i'm talking about what i think the rules should be. And according to the law anyone over the legal limit is not capable of entering into an agreement. DO you have some kind of problem with having a discussion without unnecessarily attacking the person you're debating with? I have not once argued that there should be a gender specific law. Are you even reading what I'm saying or do you just like to hear yourself speak?
/r/MensRights28/12/12 07:18 PM
0

Comments like this are why people don't give any respect to this subreddit. "Women's pain isn't real and even if it was real, they'd be easily dominated." This has nothing to do with men's rights. This is just you being an asshole towards women.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 06:20 PM
2

Just because there are people who feel more violated because they were violently raped does not mean that someone who is taken advantage of while they're intoxicated doesn't feel violated. No one is going to argue that someone who was violently raped is somehow less valid than the one who felt taken advantage of. If you want something to compare it to, would you say that a man who was hurt or upset because his girlfriend slapped him or punched his arm every time he said something she disagreed w…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 06:04 PM
1

No one should be legally required to be castrated.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:56 PM
1

But none of those other examples is an agreement between 2 people to do something. As I said in my initial post, someone drunk can't enter into any kind of agreement--they can't sign a contract, they can't get a tattoo, they can't sign divorce papers, and marriages entered into while one or both parties were drunk are easily and often annulled. Sex is not just a choice because you are entering an agreement with another person. you think only 4 people have ever been accused of rape after drunk se…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:52 PM
1

I'm saying it should be illegal for everyone to have sex with someone who's severely intoxicated. I'm not remotely talking about just men. I don't know why you're randomly hostile, especially when you say your self that you're not entirely clear on what I meant. I said that rape is really difficult to prove and that I don't think non-violent rapes should lead to jail time unless it can be proven without a doubt and that I think non-violent rape should lead to therapy and dialogue between the per…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:44 PM
1

You find the same affect if you bring up any crime though. If you say someone killed someone, you don't think they made a mistake while driving and hit a pedestrian. You react as if they went OJ on someone.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:28 PM
2

Driving is not an agreement with another person. I don't know what gambling constitutes Every single one? I have never, EVER heard of two partners both being prosecuted for rape for a single instance of sex. but how many is that? If every single one that's been prosecuted is a grand total of 4, then it's a completely different argument than if it's 4000.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:27 PM
0

So only the men's sex life matters? Dear /r/mensrights, if you want to see the attitudes that women are rejecting, expecting, and thinking about when they post comments like in the OP, this is the perfect example. Unless of course this is just another misunderstanding.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:18 PM
2

Ohhhh gotcha. I completely redact my initial statement then. And yay for oral all around!
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:14 PM
3

What activists are you referring to? There may be some that think all rapes are equal but certainly not all. I would also disagree that the law treats all rapes equal. Should a drunk teenager be sent to prison for ten years because he had sex with his drunken teenaged girlfriend ? I would like to know how many instances of sex happening when both parties are intoxicated resulted in only one (the male) going to jail. I think things like this are thrown around hypothetically but I've never heard o…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 11:19 AM
1

The point about men being the majority of people killed in war is pretty much nullified when you take into account the fact that men (in the form of our politicians) have been actively preventing women from going to war for ages and that people have been fighting to let women into all branches of the military for decades. Also, there hasn't been a soldier who was conscripted into a war against their will since the 70's. All US soldiers since then have joined the military by choice. And most sold…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 08:46 AM
1

Socially, the denials come from a different place. Women are taught to expect to give men oral and that oral sex for men is standard so women who decline performing it are the exception not the rule; oral sex for women isn't talked about and is not standard so men who do perform it is the exception. Think about it in terms of one night stands: in my experience, oral sex for men is expected or at least not weird to request where as oral sex for women is. Also, a woman who refuses to suck a guys d…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 08:25 AM
1

Edit: Misunderstandings abound. Yay oral! That's a really sad attitude to hear from anyone really. If they can't come, they just need to get over it, but if you were in that same position you'd be unhappy about it. That really is an incredibly selfish mentality: "You just need to get over you not feeling good from what I want to do."
/r/MensRights28/12/12 08:18 AM
8

It's a spectrum. Just as there are different degrees of battery, different degrees of assault, different degrees of harassment, etc. there are different degrees of rape.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 07:57 AM
6

Yes! I really hate in sit coms when someone gets married and the whole episode always seems to be the woman being dumb and controlling everything and giving no one else a say. Why can't the man have a dream wedding too?
/r/MensRights22/12/12 04:02 PM
17

There's also the complete and utter rejection of cutesy romanticism by not just the guy but the crowd and the cameraman. It really turns on its head the notion we teach people--but especially women--that "This is what true romance is! Being dramatically kissed in public by the love of your life in front of millions of people--not to mention on a big screen--surrounded by the traditional American symbol of love!" I mean it's 15-minutes of fame wrapped up in every chick-flick cliche wrapped up in …
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:27 PM
-1

That's just a way for you to dismiss the thoughts of other people. It's got nothing to do with her personal choice; lots of women enjoy beer. Implying that she is being selfish just because she recognizes that beer is in fact not a man's drink but is a "Person who likes beer" drink is just a way to shut down discussion and act like women who reject this notion are being mellow dramatic. His analysis would have been just as amusing if he had used the phrase "His attribute" instead of "man's attri…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:13 PM
1

it would have been included as this is usually how the news works. That is not even true. The newspapers just have to fill up space. They had room for a blurb, and they found something to fit in. They probably didn't even know the details of the case, especially if it's an ongoing investigation. Whether or not he was a skeezball is irrelevant if she consented. And as I've said more than once, you're just assuming consent because the accused is a man, and you're automatically on his side. THere's…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 08:37 PM
1

It also does not say she did not consent. There is no hint of any of the scenarios you have suggested. That is exactly my point. You're jumping to conclusions about scenario that you literally know nothing about simply because a man has been accused. You're assuming he's not a skeezball just because he's a man, laying a verdict on a case that you can't even talk about in more than 3 sentences, and on top of that blaming the woman just because she's a woman. they are skewed towards female child v…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 07:46 PM
-1

If the law is that the age of consent is 16 and she was 15, then it doesn't matter how old he was.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 03:11 AM
-1

I didn't miss anything; I wanted to see what assumptions you were making. Nowhere in the article does it say she was consenting. By law --in fact the law he was arrested for breaking-- she is incapable of consenting as she is a minor. This is not a "females are victims" thing; this is a "people below the age of 16 are victims" thing. Furthermore, you're assuming she was a victim when in fact it doesn't say what her attitude towards any of it was, doesn't say how he got caught, who was pressing c…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 01:49 AM
1

What exactly is the argument in posting this?
/r/MensRights17/12/12 11:21 PM
1

You're really dumb if you think what the media predominantly portrays does not have an affect on the way we view people and our ideals. We are exposed to it literally from birth in this generation.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 03:24 PM
1

The problems don't arise because gender roles exist: everyone can't perform the same roles or else society falls apart. The problems arise when: 1) we continue to hold onto those gender roles when they become obsolete. It is no longer relevant to say that men are expendable or that women need to be nurtured, yet as a society we continue the idea of "we have plenty of men to throw into that war!" and "Protect the womenz, they can't fight!" 2) We make gender roles an all or nothing thing, as oppos…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 01:57 AM
1

It's not that there's a problem with sexy women being used in the media. It's that it is so overwhelmingly predominant, especially in advertising. If the world worked according to advertising agencies, women would be only sex objects and stay at home moms, just like men would only be oafish, sports fanatics, and inept fathers.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 01:23 AM
1

So have you ever wondered why this difference you perceive as "social" came to be in the first place? Surely "society" didn't arbitrarily decide this, based on absolutely nothing? The difference that I perceive to be social IS social because it's not found universally: people all of the world have very different attitudes about women and sports. I can't tell you why the West developed the way it did. That's a lot of history that all builds on itself, as I said. I mean it's unreasonable to think …
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:22 AM
1

Supporting my point of women just being tools. Women are taught to see themselves like that, so yeah some of them don't mind, but that isn't really relevant.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:20 AM
0

The phrase is actually used to describe images that focus on an individual body part, while also keeping the models face and head out of the image, in a way that's not relevant to the product, such as this. You see much more of this done to women in advertising than men. This technique objectifies the subject in several ways: By removing the head and face, it's easier to think of them as not a person. This is the reason why, during surgeries, all of the body is covered up with sheets except for …
/r/MensRights02/12/12 11:18 PM
5

This doesn't seem to prove that there's an innate difference in men and women and their attitude towards sports when every individual they studied have spent their entire lives living in a society that takes a different attitude towards men and women in competitive sports. It doesn't matter if there is an innate difference in men vs women and competitiveness because society is great at overriding and swaying such things--how many gay men, historically, were married their whole lives and had kids…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 10:53 PM
12

I fail to see how this is relevant to men's rights?
/r/MensRights02/12/12 10:23 PM
7

I don't think "women" think they will get away with it. I think "stupid people" think they will get away with it. Trust me, we're not all out there thinking "If he cheats on me, I'm going to go Carrie Underwood on his ass." We're usually reasonable--promise.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 04:26 PM
4

"Women and children first" is a myth anyway. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/31/3554854.htm
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:43 PM
3

That's hard to answer. I think there's a lot of pressure from peers to play with the appropriate toys. I distinctly remember myself and my sister getting picked on at points because we preferred boy toys and games and I think it was worse for boys preferring girls toys. At home, it may not be a big deal, but how often do children have access to toys of the other gender? I have a huge barbie doll collection because all of my family members would get me dolls that I wouldn't open and wouldn't play…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:59 PM
8

I actually feel the opposite: I'm consistently shocked at how strong this tendency is. Have you walked through the toy section of a store lately? There's like the boys section with action figures, guns, dinosaurs, space ships, movie-themed toys, building blocks, then there's a single "gender neutral" section with like nondescript "animal toys" or stuffed animals or whatever, and then boom a huge pink monstrosity that is just row after row after row of Holly Homemaker, doll clothes, dolls, and ki…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:38 PM
4

Best. Father. Ever.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:32 PM
3

I agree. I think that sums up the attitudes towards women: they're weak and need to be taken care of. It's dumb.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:31 PM
4

This doesn't speak to realistic occurrences of these disorders. It speaks to the history of social attitudes towards women vs men and mental health. Historically, women's "abnormal" attitudes, unrest, and unhappiness with society have been brushed off as a mental illness--think about psychoanalysis, Freud, and hysteria which he almost solely diagnosed in women. Look at it like this: if, historically, the status quo was for women to be submissive, quiet, cooperative, etc. and most women did that,…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:27 PM
1

How much you can influence a child IQ is not gender and thus this is irrelevant. Also, to complicate what your video posits: a study that found a strong environmental correlation in poor children and IQ and a strong genetic correlation in rich children and IQ and another article that I cannot, unfortunately, find in full but one which found an environmental link in an extensive study comparing foster children to "own" children and siblings who were separated within the foster care system. The fa…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 05:57 PM
1

You said the gender roles are not a social construct and the image uses terms for sexes, implying that you don't believe it is a social construct for gender roles to be tied to an individuals sex. Femininity and masculinity may be genetically influenced, but the (at least mostly) arbitrary designation of some things as "masculine" and some things as "feminine" and also as things that should be used by only boys or only girls, respectively, is not. There's an argument to be had for an individuals…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 05:43 AM
4

Gender differences are fine when they are not defined by sex which they are not inherently linked to. if you want to learn something about gender differences, then use masculine and feminine and don't link it to the physical body. There's nothing about having a penis that necessitates liking match box cars and not barbies; conversely there's nothing about having a vagina that necessitates a girl liking cooking and not liking war video games. Exercises like these create and reinforce the idea tha…
/r/MensRights04/11/12 02:26 AM
1

I think it's interesting that you posted this specifically in Mensrights when this is really a people's rights thing and it speaks to the same rape culture that feminism fights against: women are taught, not by other women but by society in general, that a man could decide to rape them at any time and in any place, so you have women living in fear and men feeling like they're unjustly being treated like a criminal. Keeping the conversation limited to only the two camps just leaves everyone just …
/r/MensRights31/07/12 08:46 PM
2

While inequalities for men exist, you're just as bad as feminist who deny that if you deny that inequalities for women exist.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 08:18 PM
1

Probably in exactly the same numbers as guys.
/r/seduction29/06/12 03:23 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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