TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

OhhBenjamin Archive

View 0 posts and 90 comments by OhhBenjamin 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

Pretty shit people think more of their gut instinct than they do of science.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 10:26 PM
1

;)
/r/MensRights17/03/19 04:12 PM
1

You don't know what science is. Your comment is not even wrong.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 04:08 PM
1

If you want to be specific then online dating is probably your best bet, where you can have a profile stating who you are and what you like so you know they are on the same page as you before the first date.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 04:00 PM
1

So since that isn't a reply to the quote I guess I'm done here.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 03:57 PM
22

This hospital is a religious organisation, so they'll behave in weird ways.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 03:55 PM
-4

Surely you wouldn't want to attack and oppress Christianity and Christians by denying them religious freedoms? That was sarcasm if it wasn't clear. The religious lack of respect for law and peoples choice will only grow if it isn't pushed back again.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 03:54 PM
0

The studies came first, I don't know why you think they came from gender studies as human behaviour is psychology, we don't get to pick and choose science, is we accept the facts or we admit flat earthers have a valid opinion.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 03:47 PM
-1

I haven't explained anything in a negative manner, and I haven't explained anything that could be described as feminist, these are the results of studies, nothing more.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 03:39 PM
-1

Studies on human behaviour in a small context like conversations are very easy and cheap to do and plenty have been done, the facts aren't in question. If you believe it is inappropriate to have a single word that refers to this you might be right or wrong I can't know the future in regards to this affect, but there is nothing wrong with science, only how science is used.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 03:33 PM
1

At this point there is too much circumstantial evidence about Harvey Weinstein's use of the Black Cube company to say it was all above aboard. Truth is every scenario happened, we just don't know in what ratios.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 03:29 PM
1

Is there more to this than what's in the article because it doesn't say she was getting any heat for her choices?
/r/MensRights17/03/19 03:24 PM
-5

Since mansplaining does not shame gender, and isn't targeted at a specific gender I don't see it analogous. It's referring to a factual phenomena, womanspalining is only in urban dictionary, but I don't think anyone would fail to understand its meaning if it was used.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 03:14 PM
-2

That being said I’m sure there is very very few instances where it’s a legitimate way of describing the situation but I don’t think it needs to be used nearly as much as it is. The difference in the amount and manner in which men explain something to women is measurable, can't comment on your specific case of course as I don't know anything about it, but the term does describe something real. That's not to say that people don't misuse it as a comeback when they really shouldn't. Don't let it rui…
/r/MensRights17/03/19 02:51 PM
1

Where do you live? It helps a lot when discussing law. Just need the country or state no need to be specific. I go from a UK/US point of view by default, as that seems to be the majority of people I talk to. And thanks for the link, I was googling child abandonment laws, and rights of mothers vs fathers after childbirth for years and this never came up, and it is very relevant to my interests.
/r/MensRights17/09/18 01:40 PM
1

"Now that you've made a valid criticism of the Feminist Majority Foundation, let me explain why they're not really feminists..." I'm leaving the word valid in there purely for the purposes of this argument, I didn't appreciate doing your homework for you and I still haven't found what you were referring to. You have the universal and counter example backwards, even if you didn't you still need a generalisation that I made concerning the universal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman j…
/r/MensRights16/09/18 11:20 AM
1

I haven't seen anything myself in law that allows women to do this, googling just brings me to child abandonment laws, anything I can google for?
/r/MensRights16/09/18 10:34 AM
0

Rape by envelopment where this is not yet classed properly. I like this once, while I think there was a good reason for rape been defined as it was that time has passed, and now it causes more confusion than anything else and implies one is worse than the other. Forced to penetrate Forced to penetrate is more tricky though, it probably is a thing under 'forcible rape', but each state/country has its down definition. It does need leeway however, so you cannot have a person rape another and brag a…
/r/MensRights15/09/18 03:39 PM
1

As you've just demonstrated, feminists love the No True Scotsman fallacy above all others. It's your go-to excuse whenever we see a high profile, well-supported feminist organisation or individual behaving badly. "Oh, if they're bad, they're not really feminist. See, it doesn't matter that they identify as feminist and that hundreds of thousands/millions of individual feminists support them. I just have to wave my hand and they become non-feminist, as simple as that!" No one is buying this line …
/r/MensRights15/09/18 03:00 PM
0

They’re some of the most well-funded feminist organizations in the world. Only if you use the defintion of feminism on their website and not the one in dictionaries. Money talks much louder than internet copy. Sure, everyone who donates to the Catholic Church is actively wants child fucking. You’re making excuses for them I’m making excuses for them in regards to what? I said plainly I couldn’t find what they said, that’s your extreme bias interpreting things wrongly. I THINK BOTH ORGANISATIONS …
/r/MensRights15/09/18 12:43 AM
-2

Feminist Majority Foundation According to the 'about' on their website the use of feminism is their own definition of feminism and not the one agreed upon by the people at large. Meaning they aren't feminist except to people who agree to take on their own definition of feminism. The only thing I can find is Bill 668, whoever tried to make it retroactive was either purposely sabotaging it or an absolute nut job. That Bill should never have been a thing. You can't apply laws to cases that have alr…
/r/MensRights14/09/18 07:05 PM
1

But I don't think that we have the numbers to make a difference cause the majority of people don't really care. You could start by finding out the number of cases of sex with a minor and posting the difference between men and women receiving prison sentences within the context of the crime.
/r/MensRights14/09/18 06:39 PM
1

Someone, anyone, tell me that in general things are getting more equal overall, and that these individual stories represent outlying cases rather than the norm? It is, It's never taken more than 10 seconds to find two news articles for every one posted here of female teachers going to jail for sexual activity with male students.
/r/MensRights14/09/18 06:38 PM
1

-Also in the case of Sarah Barton, her sexual assault or rape was referred to as "lesbian romp" and "lesbian fling", by online articles such as The Sun. They used these terms specifically because it will cause outrage, it sells more papers. And in the case of Brooke Lajiness, she said she had shown nude selfies and videos of her performimg sex acts. She said the sex acts she did with the 14 year old "helped" him. Of course she said she helped him she's the defendant, she is going to say anything…
/r/MensRights14/09/18 06:33 PM
5

Well they gave their reasons, show us the design, we can't tell otherwise.
/r/MensRights14/09/18 06:12 PM
1

its not sexism though, its a business choice
/r/MensRights14/09/18 06:04 PM
1

Sexual assault is common in both male and female prisons. It was considered newsworthy because someone with convictions of sexual assault against women was granted a transfer to a women's prison. The stupidity of the decision is newsworthy. As for why sexual assault in prisons doesn't get more attention, sadly the public doesn't react enough to the headlines/articles.
/r/MensRights14/09/18 05:49 PM
1

What's the connection between "72 genders" and feminism?
/r/MensRights14/09/18 05:40 PM
6

The thread is highly supportive of the fact of sex crimes against men by women been as serious as another other sex crime.
/r/MensRights14/09/18 05:37 PM
-2

No she wouldn't.
/r/MensRights14/09/18 05:21 PM
1

Procreation rights are something that interest me a lot, rights come from or are laws and laws are very involved. What law would you pass to make procreation rights equal for both men and women?
/r/MensRights14/09/18 05:18 PM
1

rather than supporting them by fighting legislation meant to curb them I'm interested in this specifically, any groups that have fought this legislation, or if you give the name of legislation I'll go Google for it.
/r/MensRights14/09/18 04:57 PM
2

Were you waiting for this kind of sentencing for men?
/r/MensRights06/09/18 01:15 AM
1

Well, I did read your novel. I just don't simply agree with it all. Most, but not all. We are talking about things which are facts, they are true because they are written down somewhere and enforced. Anyone is free to disagree with a law but it doesn't change whether it is true or not. I completely disagree with this statement, and we aren't going to reach a middle ground. Making a false accusation of rape is much harder than making a false accusation of no consent in my opinion. Making an accus…
/r/MensRights11/05/18 03:41 AM
1

I feel like you haven't read anything I wrote, multiple concerns again about having to prove innocence in court, or prove consent in court, or claiming consent didn't happen been handled differently in court now than before, or false accusations been more likely to be successful than before. If a girl is wanting to make up a false accusation after the fact and claims she didn't give consent, it seems very easy to claim. Even easier than claiming a rape in general. It isn't easier, its just as ea…
/r/MensRights10/05/18 11:02 PM
1

I'm awake and now reading what I wrote I think I did it it quite a horrible way, I'd like to try again starting from the other end of argument this time, I apologise for sounding so accusatory. The wording of the law in Iceland previous to change concerning rape also had some words on what counted as consent. While it probably seemed normal five or so years ago what we know now about how some rapes happen exposed how the wording of the law was very bad. You didn't actually need to get consent as…
/r/MensRights10/05/18 11:14 AM
1

I’m on mobile so I can’t do much until later. Ignoring the parts about rape, consent, and evidence for both, as that will take a minute to do as it’s worse then wrong. Proving a rape didn’t happen as well, worse then just wrong, but to the actual issue. That is what the news article is elaborating on when it says the burden of proof shifts to the accused. But since we know the laws weren’t changed to allow any of these ridiculous things becase we can read for ourselves I’m assuming they didn’t s…
/r/MensRights10/05/18 04:44 AM
1

The point the OP was getting at is that by amending the law, you are shifting the burden of proof to the consent. The burden hasn't shifted. It wasn't particularly clear before about having to have consent, so now its been reworded to make it clear that consent is needed. Laws around whats lawful sex and what isn't have evolved from archaic origins rather than been properly rewritten. So how do you PROVE consent? You don't have to prove consent. No one has to prove they didn't commit a crime the…
/r/MensRights09/05/18 07:52 PM
1

The link is to the law in question which shows the claims in the op post are false. Innocent before guilty isn’t turned on it’s head for rape and/sexual assault cases.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 01:46 AM
1

What does it mean 'doing the moving at the time'? If an individual is drunk that individual might not be able to legally able to sign documents, consent to various things, including sex. If an individual is drunk that won't protect that individual from been considered as breaking the law if they do something contrary to the law. What if both are doing it? Then they both are breaking the law and unable to give their consent to the other. I'm making some massive assumptions here about what you're …
/r/MensRights07/05/18 10:45 AM
-1

What?
/r/MensRights07/05/18 10:24 AM
7

Its almost important to know where information is coming from. The 8% from the FBI is collected from all the various states police departments, I'm not sure if even two states have the same classification rules for sexual assault crimes but they can be very different. The 3% for RAINN, I can't find a 3% conviction rate number but its equally worth been skeptical of finding your own.
/r/MensRights06/05/18 11:41 PM
-2

Sure. In modern feminist parlance its 'whoever is doing the moving at the time'. Been intoxicated/high/out of your mind for some reason might get you out of 'consent' in exactly the same way it might if you signed a contract in that state of mind and then challenged it, but it wouldn't protect a person from breaking the law. So if two people are shit-faced and fucking each other its mostly down to who's on top.
/r/MensRights06/05/18 11:10 PM
-3

Yeah that'll show em. ???
/r/MensRights06/05/18 10:44 PM
1

What parental rights does he have? I guess you could google “what are parental rights” to answer that. The article says the biological father is enjoying all parents right Then the article is lying. while this guy is burdened with financial responsibility. Yes, as he signed the birth certificate agreeing to be the father he has patental responsibilities. The proper question here is what happened legally in court and why, but the dailymail can be relied upon to be short on the relevant facts and …
/r/MensRights28/11/17 07:47 AM
1

You’re right. I guess the answer would accountability cannot come without review and it would be prohibitively expensive to do so.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 07:36 AM
0

Of course it would be ideal to have child support money spent overseen by an independent reviewer, I’m sure however it would be prohibitively expensive. but that wouldn’t allow women to run roughshod over men and live lives of luxury and never have to work Right. Backing away now.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 07:33 AM
4

That isn't the way it works, the parental rights and responsibilities are the names on the birth certificate. As he has parental rights he also has parental responsibilities.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 06:55 PM
-4

Because an 11 year old cannot spend money responsibly.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 06:46 PM
-5

The 'real' point of the law is to protect peoples rights. You put your name on the birth certificate, you have parental rights.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 06:41 PM
1

I asked a question and you answered it fine, I thanked you for it and all is done and fine. Then you suddenly make an analogy that doesn't make any sense or have any relation to the topic and then call me obtuse. Can't we just end it with me thanking you for your reply?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 09:28 PM
1

This sounds like an analogy but I don’t understand it. Has my boss in the marketing department decided focus on the existing bike demographic customer base or are they trying to increase the customer base by enticing people who would bike if biking was better?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 09:03 PM
1

Thank you for responding to my questions.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:57 PM
1

Alright, thank you.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:45 PM
1

That is what meant, it would be profitable but it wouldn’t be as profitable. Thank you.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:45 PM
0

Less products or less quantity of products?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:36 PM
1

I'm assuming this means it would still be profitable to sell, but less profitable, and they want to make every inch of shelf/eye space make as much profit as they can?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:34 PM
1

If you don't see the products in the shelf, it's because the store doesn't think it's profitable to do so. Wouldn't it be profitable, but less profitable?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:33 PM
-3

No sarcasm intended. Wouldn't that mean stocking only 20% of the product quantity, not 20% of the products?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:10 PM
-2

I don't get the implied obvious conclusion after the there ya go. Willing to fill me in?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:05 PM
0

It was compensation, he went to court for it, and he did that while married. Getting abused wouldn't get him any money on its own. In cases where children are involved they almost always find in favour of the parent who has the children the most, this is their policy.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 10:02 PM
2

I'll have to leave it here because it would require me to look up percentages and stuff and I don't have the time. But it was nice to talk to you about this so thanks for that.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 09:59 PM
-2

I don't think it is either optimistic or unrealistic. In this case neither parent are the primary focus of reasons why assets are being split the way they are. To play devil's advocate to your point, whats sacred is the welfare of the children.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 09:42 PM
1

Yes. Its one of those context things that people will always argue about. In this case however the courts first priority is the children, which means for better or worse whether the mother uses the money wisely or not giving more to her then they otherwise would. It would be more to him if he was the one with the children.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 08:04 PM
0

In this case you can argue he doesn't get money for been raped, he gets money for going to court and seeking compensation, which he did while married.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 07:53 PM
-1

The events that led to the money and receiving the money all happened while they were married.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 07:52 PM
2

When you divorce, in most cases all assets are split fifty fifty regardless of whether the asset was worked for, won, or awarded to you for some reason.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 07:44 PM
11

Yes they can unless completely removed, it is rare however. There is too much noise on Google regard circumcision to see whether the same is possible but I don't see why not. That said medical doctors are the bottom of the scientific heap and second and third opinions are never a bad thing to get.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 11:33 PM
1

Who we put in jail is fairly arbitrary, it probably is illegal to take pictures of children if the intention is masturbatry, but thats law not justice. I don't like the comparison to other addicts because they don't tend to involve other people, at least in a legal way, drugs maybe but not necessarily. Whatever we come up with is going to be subjective anyway, I saw someone in this thread mention how bad it was for 14-17 year olds having sex with 20somethings, which felt weird because in my coun…
/r/MensRights02/09/16 01:14 PM
1

Are the engaging in behaviour that is going to move them towards a place of going further into pedophile behaviour or further away? Of course that is individual, but the slippery slope of behaviour is very relevant to people like this, much like a addict needs to avoid or do certain things to make them more likely not to abuse again, so do people sexually attracted to children. I can say this better; pedophiles are like natural addicts, addicted to something (sex) that must be avoided. Like any …
/r/MensRights02/09/16 08:45 AM
1

But a person looking at picture of naked children at a beach hasn't done any harm. That would depend on whether this is a picture innocently taken that somehow made its way onto the internet or whether it was taken by child pornographers or not. I'd agree if it doesn't add to the child exploitation industry then it doesn't do any harm to the child. Whether it eggs the pedophile viewing it further on or helps them take the edge of their desires, that is more individual.
/r/MensRights01/09/16 08:39 PM
5

I put "male victims of domestic abuse into Google and there is a long list of websites and helplines specially for male victims of domestic violence and abuse, if you want to say what general area you live in we can be more specific. If you let us know the state you live in then we can also talk a little bit about the custody process. Don't be part of the 90%+ of cases that don't even try to get custody.
/r/MensRights01/09/16 10:38 AM
7

Unless what they are looking at is a cartoon, or a non sexualised child image then the harm comes from been part of the audience for child porn and therefore giving greater incentive to make child porn. While it is true child porn will be made anyway, been an audience member in anyway shape or form can only increase, not decrease the amount of child porn made. I do not doubt that viewing child porn is not as bad as making it yourself by raping a child but it would not be accurate to say it is wi…
/r/MensRights01/09/16 10:22 AM
0

I see where you are coming from with that, but I still don't see it as a false equivalency, its still two sides of the same injustice coin.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 05:04 PM
-2

I don't see how, people do not get treated fairly by other people, and that includes those people who were convicted of rape getting sympathetic media treatment and very light sentencing. I haven't seen anything to indicate its very uneven on one side of that.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 04:05 PM
2

The article says 5.9% Are there different lisak papers? That seems a reasonable figure considering the difficulty in determining if a 'he said, she said' event took place.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 03:55 PM
2

Well theres no accounting for crazy I suppose.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 03:53 PM
2

Didn't know that, thanks.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 03:51 PM
1

The two paragraphs below that seem to cast doubt on a lot of those stats. Police officers personal judgement is certainly not good enough to classify a person as lying. We need cases like this one, where someone was proved to be false reporting. They can't just say she doesn't look roughed up enough so its false, or you're too fat to have had your knickers taken off, or the victim didn't act victim like enough so the police made a judgement call. We don't even know which places counted retracted…
/r/MensRights19/08/16 03:45 PM
1

this is the extremely rare circumstance (the first ive ever heard of) where a false claimant was actually persecuted. People are prosecuted all the time. I agree with you though, if a reported crime can't be shown to be true or false it shouldn't be counted as either as it literally can't be determined to be true or false.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 03:23 PM
2

All cases of wasting police time have to go through her? That sounds dubious as they are so many that a single person wouldn't have the time. She can't stop the police taking someone to court, and if you're on CCTV (and not an American cop) its a slam dunk case.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 03:18 PM
2

Are you saying that the indeterminate should be counted as false?
/r/MensRights19/08/16 03:11 PM
-1

People also keep their jobs and get promotions when they've been convicted of rape or sexual assault, this injustice in the way people get treated by other people swings both ways.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 03:09 PM
2

Why would they not charge her?
/r/MensRights19/08/16 03:07 PM
0

Why would there be outrage?
/r/MensRights19/08/16 03:04 PM
2

Can you show the 20% report I'd like to read that.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 02:54 PM
-1

It surely can't be guilty until proven innocent? You still have to prove your case in court.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 02:53 PM
5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape Two to ten percent?
/r/MensRights19/08/16 02:19 PM
2

Like over 50%, under 50%, where is this information?
/r/MensRights19/08/16 01:53 PM
16

Whats the stats?
/r/MensRights19/08/16 12:46 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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