TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

PeterPorky Archive

View 0 posts and 498 comments by PeterPorky 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

And I'm curious why the report from 20 years ago is apparently being shared around in Men's Rights circles. Looking at the report itself it appears that reported rape is dramatically increasing- and I know that rape cases and accountability for rape has increased drastically over the past few years. I would imagine there would be a similar report from 2017, or even this century?
/r/MensRights12/03/18 02:50 PM
1

Rape has four times the "unfounded" rate of all index crimes (murder, assault, robbery, theft, etc...) Is that someone falsely accusing a specific person, or like that one woman on the news three days ago who claimed that three men abducted and raped her, without giving any specific names or anything?
/r/MensRights12/03/18 02:40 PM
1

What I am saying is calling an accuser a rape victim is assuming guilt I agree. We shouldn't assume they are lying or telling the truth, but investigate and see if we can find out what happened. I agree, but the default among Men's Rights seems to be assuming they are lying. And that's too far.
/r/MensRights12/03/18 11:29 AM
1

And this subreddit is presupposing every accuser is a liar.
/r/MensRights12/03/18 06:45 AM
1

Did you read what i wrote at all. I explicitly stated they arent proven true or proven false. Then I'd like to see where you get your statistics from, because that's nothing like I've seen.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 04:18 PM
1

No one believes accusers are liars by default. This subreddit appears to. To put it more succinctly, 3% of rape accusations are proven true. 8% are proven false. 89% of rape accusations are never proven true or false. Something not proved to be true beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law doesn't automatically prove the accuser to be a liar.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 02:42 PM
1

You're just being facetious now.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 02:32 PM
1

um ok
/r/MensRights11/03/18 01:21 PM
1

There's a difference between a real rape accusation and one that's obviously used to troll someone on Twitter. The guy's reaction is a little oversensitive, but it's not hypocritical. This sub has gone from "People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty" to "All rape victims are liars and screw everyone who supports them"
/r/MensRights11/03/18 12:44 PM
1

There is a space in between. You should trust but verify. Innocent until proven guilty is true for both sexual assault and false accusations. People are going too far when they think people accusing someone of rape should be viewed as liars upon default, instead of being viewed as unverified.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 12:36 PM
1

Believing rape victims imply you forgo the concept of innocent until proven guilty That would be accusers, not victims. And believing rape victims are making else accusations is forgoing the concept of innocent until proven guilty, too. It works both ways.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 12:33 PM
1

Wow, you guys really hate guys who believe rape victims.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 09:12 AM
1

Watch the scene again.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/10/17 11:04 PM
2

ok they ignored almost all of the other rape in the show
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 06:26 PM
2

When I said "individual scene" it was in response to you saying people got mad at her getting raped over months and months. Not true. They were outraged at the graphic nature of individual scene, not the idea of her getting repeatedly raped. And my point is that the scene you're bringing up got more attention because of the "they consented part of the way through" defense and that's the same argument people are using for the Gendry scene.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 05:59 PM
2

People were outraged at both. What got them a lot of attention for Jaime raping Cersei was the idea that it was rape at first, but Cersei "consented" part of the way through, according to the directors.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 05:53 PM
3

It really wasn't.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 05:50 PM
3

People were outraged at an individual scene in which Sansa was raped and ignored all of the other rape in the show.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 05:42 PM
1

Lustful boob grab = consent He consented part of the way through? Is that what you're saying?
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 05:42 PM
9

Or you can watch it on HBO Go in S3E8 but you can't directly link to that.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 03:15 PM
6

target of radicalization. Aside from ISIS recruiters I don't think people are targetted in the way that you mean. I think extremist types seek out people like the article says, rather than being targetted by other extremist types. Taking over and filling a subreddit with alt-right propaganda didn't work and they realized it quickly.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 03:10 PM
18

http://www.xvideos.com/video4659549/carice_van_houten_melisandre_sex_scene_game_of_thrones_2013 Watch this scene and tell me if you still think it was consensual.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 03:04 PM
8

so Vox is about as far left as Breitbart is far right. You can gain as much information from that article as you can from an article from Breitbart saying the origins of Antifa or the extremist that shot Republican congressmen came from feminist websites and forums from people searching for like-minded ideas on socio-political issues. It's just trying to box everyone on far sides of the spectrum into people closer to the middle and it's goofy.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 03:02 PM
15

vox
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 02:35 PM
3

better than the Neo-Nazi subreddit /r/pussypass was for a month or so there.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 02:21 PM
289

remember when Melisandre raped Gendry and no one cared but when Sansa got raped there was an outrage and people stopped watching the show?
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 01:10 PM
1

The only reason that argument applied for abortions was because there are legitimate medical reasons for doing it. There are religious reasons for doing it, which is enough that thousands of people who are very Christian, traditionally Jewish, or traditionally Muslim will do it outside of the law. Education has little to do with it. Near-100% of scientists know evolution is real and 50% of the US doesn't believe in it because they believe that the world and human beings were created 6,000 years …
/r/MensRights03/07/17 09:51 PM
0

And making circumcision illegal will result in untrained, unlicensed professionals doing the task which will end up killing even more children.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 05:41 PM
-1

No, babies who get circumsized normally aren't on the verge of bleeding out. This is from a botched circumcision or a picture out of context.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 01:14 AM
-8

Devil's advocate, they will claim that this is extremely unusual and rare case That's because it is.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 06:44 PM
1

: / that sucks, it really does. I hope they get better or at the very least come to terms with it; stage IV colon cancer has a survival rate of 10%.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 03:48 AM
2

I admit I was a little hasty and only read the tagline and assumed it just meant in general. I think worldwide more women die of breast cancer than prostate cancer but you're absolutely right, more Australian men die from prostate cancer than women from breast cancer. https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/what-cancer/cancer-australia-statistics I'm curious why that is.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 03:42 AM
14

EDIT: I'm wrong. US has significantly more breast cancer deaths than prostate cancer but Australia has 10% more prostate cancer deaths than breast cancer. Breast cancer is ranked #3 in deaths from cancer and is 3rd only to lung cancer and colon/rectal cancer. Prostate cancer ranks #5. Prostate cancer kills 75% as many as breast cancer and receives 5% of attention as breast cancer. That alone is atrocious and something worth focusing on; we don't need to spread lies in this subreddit to get peopl…
/r/MensRights05/04/17 12:34 AM
1

Setting the bar pretty high there.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 03:07 PM
1

Okay so what type of thing would you consider to be life ruining?
/r/MensRights22/03/17 02:25 PM
1

That is actually textbook strawman. You reduced my argument to an overly simplistic exaggeration to claim rightness of position. No I didn't. I asked you what would qualify as bad enough to count as "life ruining" since losing your sight and becoming disfigured isn't enough for you. I'm genuinely trying to get a better grasp on what you believe- what type of thing would you consider "life ruining" or at least worthy of depression/suicide?
/r/MensRights22/03/17 12:34 PM
2

That's not what a straw man is. Suggesting that people should feel horrible isn't going to help people in this position. Invalidating someone's depression and suicide doesn't help either. We're not talking to a disabled person about how they should feel. We're talking to each other. You feel that being left blind and disfigured is something you can just walk off and get over fairly easily. If it's so easy, what do you consider to be so far worse that this is not so bad by comparison? Or do you t…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 10:04 AM
11

I'm curious what you think is an actual valid form of depression and suicide if not being left blind and disfigured.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 09:57 AM
6

I don't see anyone disagreeing with the op here. Not in this thread, but in a lot of other threads. I find the whole "if I was disabled tomorrow, I'd want to die/my life would be ruined" pity party detestable and offensive to actual disabled people. How does it benefit them to hear that people who have all their faculties would consider their lives practically not worth living if they lost one thing? There's a difference between being disabled your whole life and having nothing better and then g…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 09:45 AM
3

The Americas had a lot of more matriarchal societies iirc. If you're trying to say that societies led by women can be just as violent as ones led by men, then okay- if you're trying to imply primitive matriarchal societies were any more brutal than patriarchal ones, that's a little unfair.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 09:41 AM
0

Reema Devadia is a woman possessed, claims her husband Sudhakar He told the police she had a psychological problem and often got violent for no reason. Children weren't spared According to Sudhakar's statement, Reema lost her temper often and beat up the children over trivial issues Poor family. This woman is literally mentally ill. I have a similar but much lesser thing, waking dysomnia- sometimes when I wake up I have a paranoid feeling like someone is out to get me (usually whoever is closest…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 09:35 AM
11

I'm so happy that mods allow such incredible dissent in this subreddit. Seeing comments like this remind me that this subreddit is a great place for free speech. In any other social justice or gender/minority right subreddit he'd be banned straight up. I love how top comments here can be rational people disagreeing with the OP, and how in every thread there's someone ridiculous like this guy.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 09:22 AM
1

Wow, that's atrocious. In America he'd be protected by the first amendment.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 02:25 AM
1

Does anyone have a similar case involving a male that you can use for comparison?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 08:44 PM
–

Agreeing to an interview for a News show isn't working. He's not getting paid for it.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 03:49 PM
1

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2153368713486488 Here's a study from 2013 EDIT: here's one from 2016 https://polisen.se/Global/www%20och%20Intrapolis/%C3%96vriga%20rapporter/Lagesbild%20over%20sexuella%20ofredanden.pdf
/r/PussyPass08/03/17 05:46 AM
-6

Nice Gish Gallop you have there but I'm looking for a source saying that Sweden stopped recording rape statistics
/r/PussyPass07/03/17 08:58 PM
-11

[citation needed] EDIT: Lmao keep downvoting me, here's the 2016 report including immigration status/ethnicity when it comes to sexual assault https://polisen.se/Global/www%20och%20Intrapolis/%C3%96vriga%20rapporter/Lagesbild%20over%20sexuella%20ofredanden.pdf
/r/PussyPass07/03/17 06:07 PM
1

There may very well be a gap in intelligence but to say that an entire continent is mentally retarded is beyond common sense. If there's a gap it's been greatly exaggerated. In addition, the math doesn't work out if the average global IQ is somewhere around 80 or 90. By definition, the average IQ should be 100 because 100 is the baseline all intelligences are compared to. There are other studies of IQ that say that there is no gap or a negligible gap. For instance there is no IQ gap between blac…
/r/PussyPass02/03/17 10:11 PM
1

Also if it is culturally biased why does china have the highest IQ? Did Europeans write a test that was culturally biased for the Chinese? Languages are different. For example, In Chinese/Japanese they don't have seperate numbers for eleven, twelve, thirteen, etc. eleven is one-one, twelve is one-two, which is slightly easier to process and can award a higher score on IQ tests. In some African languages, there are only two words for numbers "One", and "Many". In other African languages different…
/r/PussyPass02/03/17 02:09 PM
1

Easier to commit crime in a city than on a farm.
/r/PussyPass02/03/17 12:52 PM
1

"Non-western civilizations didn't contribute to western civilization. Checkmate cucks"
/r/PussyPass02/03/17 12:47 PM
6

The mods hijacked the subreddit and it's now /r/altright since /r/altright was banned.
/r/PussyPass02/03/17 12:39 PM
0

The methodology for these IQ tests has been widely criticized as being culturally biased- translations for the questions and linguistics weren't taken into account. Some methodology for the lowest scores for some studies simply was never released. Do people seriously believe an entire continent is mentally disabled? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence
/r/PussyPass02/03/17 12:34 PM
7

Oh shit this is the new /r/altright subreddit? Byyyyyyye
/r/PussyPass02/03/17 12:32 PM
1

Lol?
/r/PussyPass26/02/17 02:55 AM
1

someone's cultural relativism. It is if you think the idea that things aren't morally okay based on what time or place you happen to be. And yes, I was or you wouldn't see 13-14 year olds banging their teachers. No, just because you're sexually functional doesn't mean you are fully sexually developed. It's a process, not a switch.
/r/PussyPass26/02/17 02:10 AM
1

But the thing is, lots of countries age of consent are in the hebephilic range. That doesn't make it okay. Countries have a lot of things that are considered immoral elsewhere. That's what I am saying. And he's right: when I was 13-14, I wanted to have sex with everything that moves. Isn't that why girls and boys from the West are having sex at 10-11-12-13-14 Doesn't matter, you're not fully developed emotionally and sexually, you've only begun to develop.
/r/PussyPass25/02/17 11:19 PM
1

Yes there are a lot of gays everywhere. Saudi Arabia's age of consent is 9 and two adult men consensually have sex are supposed to be executed. Their morals are not comparable.
/r/PussyPass25/02/17 09:43 AM
1

Most countries legal age is okay with hebephilia. Most aren't okay with the age of 13. 16 in many places like Europe, which is pushing it. Lower than that, you're moving away from Western morals. Western ideals aren't universal. You're right, this type of thing might be okay in Saudi Arabia if it was between an older man and a younger girl. In places without western ideals, sexual abuse is significantly more common. There are many places where 13 year olds are treated as property. Yeah, shitty p…
/r/PussyPass25/02/17 12:57 AM
1

He isn't justifying pedophilia. He came out and said that this has been out for over a year and a half but suddenly this becomes relevant. It's because he makes the distinction between hebephilia and pedophilia. Fine he's not technically defending pedophilia, to be 100% correct he's defending hebephilia.
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 07:03 PM
1

He's talking from personal experience in order to justify pedophilia in general. That is not what victim blaming is.
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 06:34 PM
1

in doing so he's condoning everything else done to other victims
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 06:31 AM
0

And what I'm saying is that we should put his words in the context of the conversation he was having. Which was about him. It was about him and his experience being molested. He was adding his personal experience as evidence but it was clear he was talking about children in general. Yes, I'm aware that he generalized his experience to others but what I'm saying is that I believe that was just an instance of him misspeaking and failing to articulate himself You don't think that's a bit of a stret…
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 03:41 AM
0

Nope, I read it. You think he was talking solely about himself. He very clearly was making the argument that other boys besides himself were capable of consenting to sex with older men.
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 03:07 AM
0

He extended it to talk about boys other than himself.
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 02:55 AM
1

He says things he actually believes, too. Did you actually watch the thing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azC1nm85btY Joe Rogan: So you were a kid and fucked all kinds of older men? Milo: No, not a kid, I was a sexually promiscuous 13-14 year old, perfectly able to give consent, unlike something like an 8-year-old. Other guy on Stream: If I heard someone my age having sex with a 13-year-old, I'd be creeped out. Milo: How old are you? Other guy: 35 Milo: Oh well I'm talking about 28-year olds. …
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 02:54 AM
0

Nuance? He was defending relationships between older men and boys for 10 minutes straight.
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 01:17 AM
1

Yea, you're right. Technically, the words he chose to use imply that he was condoning sex with 13 year olds but that seems like an uneccesarily malicious interpretation given the context. He was vigorously defending the practice.
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 01:16 AM
1

I'm trying to make the distinction because I can't fathom people saying "He wasn't supporting pedophilia". So I'm like "Okay, technically he was defending hebephilia, but that's still pretty bad." but people are like "Nah he was just joking the whole time lol that wasn't a real debate."
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 01:16 AM
1

You don't think he holds any of those views? That debate he had with 3 people for 10 minutes was just a big joke? Those are some incredible mental gymnastics.
/r/PussyPass24/02/17 01:14 AM
0

I get that the joke about his priest teaching him how to give good head was sarcastic, but you genuinely think his whole 10 minute spiel defending hebephilia was being sarcastic?
/r/PussyPass23/02/17 07:37 PM
–

But do you really think that's what he meant? From the context it was very clear that he meant that. It's painfully obvious. He made a different joke in a different context and people are trying to combine them together as if they're the same thing. He was arguing with people who were like "Pedophilia is bad, you are defending child molestation". He tried to justify it by saying that 13-year olds are sexually mature and that it was distinctly different from having sex with children younger than …
/r/PussyPass23/02/17 05:16 PM
42

The priest that molested me as a child me taught me sooo much about my sexuality and taught me how to give good head Can be interpreted as humor for a coping mechanism ACTUALLY, sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and older men can be healthy and aid in the sexual and emotional development of young boys Is a defense of relationships between 13-year-old boys and older men. Plain and simple. It's astounding the mental gymnastics people are going through to defend him. They're both pieces…
/r/PussyPass23/02/17 03:38 PM
1

Maybe if the left would've learned to shut the fuck up about race, those divides would not be as they are now. As it is the last 8 yrs of incessant Oppression Olympics have rolled race relations back to the 1970's. Nah, race will always be an issue. I believe they/we have equal opportunity to succeed. There may be barriers to success, but that is true for every ethnicity, and generally, but not exclusively, those barriers are financial, and not racial. But there's still a financial gap, yeah? Sh…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 08:36 PM
1

Further, I would prefer just people, rather than black people, because the incessant focus on these paltry differences between us continues to divide us. Unfortunately there are still racial divides in several aspects of society. In order to close those divides, we need to distinguish between those of a certain race. The problems come in by trying to keep those communities separate from the greater American community. If you are a citizen of the United States then we all have one common descript…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 05:44 PM
1

There is......People...or if that doesn't work for you, black people. I don't get why you're ok with "Black people" but not "African Americans". Deserve? You mean like you are doing these poor folks a favor by naming them whatever you think is appropriate? No I mean like if I'm trying to address problems within a community of a certain race I shouldn't describe them simply as "Americans", because that's confusing. Similarly, I don't describe my chin and my forehead as "Part of my face" because t…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 05:10 PM
1

The term "African" in general is unnecessarily verbose Surely there's a necessary term to describe black people. How about we just refer to Americans as Americans? What's the matter...too much solidarity and not enough Oppression Olympics? Because certain groups deserve different labels to make things easier to talk about.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 04:03 PM
1

Neither do "African Americans." That's kind of my point. Africa is not a country either. I explained the distinction. The vast majority were from west African nations. Point is, why identify with the entirety of a very huge and diverse continent when most slaves came from one tiny section? Because West African is unnecessarily verbose and they don't know exactly where they're from, and may as well have came from non-West-African nations even if it's unlikely. Most people don't know which nation …
/r/MensRights20/02/17 03:23 PM
1

European Americans...I hear that one quite a bit. Come to think of it, no, not really. European Americans don't have a unified culture and hence don't identify that way. I have some friends who born and live in between countries in the EU who identify as "European", and that in itself is a growing culture and identification. Europeans in the US can identify as Irish-Americans or Italian Americans or German-Americans, etc based on what country/culture they identify with. African Americans, in a v…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 02:19 PM
1

Sorry, Africa is a continent which has more than just blacks, and most black slaves came from West African countries like Sierra Leone. So, Africa? *ironically negro is now considered a slur, unless you say it as part of the United Negro College Fund. Why don't you go tell them to change their name to United African American College Fund....since to say negro is obviously racist. It has a history to it. Same thing with the NAACP.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 01:55 AM
1

No, we still refer to black people born in America as African Americans.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 09:25 PM
11

shitpost No. They wouldn't. If you actually want to ask, use /r/AskFeminists
/r/MensRights17/02/17 12:58 PM
1

The video series has an equal amount of men and women doing this to their boyfriend/girlfriend. The idea that it's a double standard is bullshit. You should remove this post, it's embarassing the subreddit.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 12:46 PM
11

This is why people think this subreddit is a joke. There's some quality posts in here, but then there's these red pill DAE nice guys finish last? posts.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 07:42 PM
22

You know this is fake and scripted, right?
/r/MensRights16/02/17 07:28 PM
12

So if they are censoring people with politics they don't like its fair to assume there is some sort of reason they haven't suspended criminal accounts. Y'all are speculating why the account was suspended. They don't suspend accounts just for having disagreeable political views. They suspend them for violating terms of service.
/r/MensRights08/02/17 07:07 PM
2

Oh my bad /u/Mon_arch said 11 months. I agree 11 weeks is too little, even for a plea bargain. I thought a suspended sentence just means it's moved to a certain amount of time depending on circumstances? e.g. to perform 200 hours community service.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 07:03 PM
-9

If she took a plea bargain I don't see it to be much less than those who are convicted of rape. 99% of crimes end in plea bargains and a strong majority of those end little-to-no jail time. She was given 11 months.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 06:55 PM
2

Disgusting.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 07:37 PM
2

Source?
/r/MensRights14/12/16 06:40 AM
3

I think the way he was saying it was in the way that one is bad but one is worse. "You thought World War I was bad? Wait 'til you get a load of World War II"
/r/MensRights14/11/16 11:05 AM
1

You're insane.
/r/MensRights28/10/16 09:10 PM
1

I'm of the opinion that "resisting arrest" shouldn't be it's own crime, because it's natural to not want to be caged You are allowed to resist arrest if you are being unjustly detained. You better be able to prove that good and well in court later tho.
/r/MensRights27/10/16 10:55 AM
2

You're right, it's perfectly reasonable to literally murder them then.
/r/MensRights26/10/16 02:29 PM
5

The cops responding to a 911 call had absolutely nothing to do with a judge's ruling. Responding to things by killing people unrelated to the problem is stupid, and this is why people look this subreddit like we're full of psychos. "If I was unjustly forced to pay child support, I would murder cops" - 96 upvotes.
/r/MensRights26/10/16 06:16 AM
–

I'd be having a showdown against the cops if they tried to pull that shit with me. This lack of justice in this situation is absurd, but that's a bit much
/r/MensRights26/10/16 03:08 AM
1

;)
/r/MensRights26/07/16 04:31 AM
1

The pronoun he distinguishes between one subject and another. So does the word they. Their grammatically equivalent.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 01:02 AM
1

That's not what I'm doing. I made a comparison. The exact argument you made against the pronoun they can be made against the pronoun "he".
/r/MensRights26/07/16 12:49 AM
0

I literally just told you a problem with it. Yeah, but there's no legitimate reason to have a problem with it any more than gendered pronouns.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:45 PM
1

I had to read it a few times before it made any goddamn sense. This is the a problem with singular "they". Read's just as easy as he's not transitioning the kid, just using hormones to delay puberty until he's old enough to really go through with it so they can transition a lot easier. Ambiguity can be mitigated out by referring to proper names, and as writers of the article they shouldn't leave any ambguity, but the singular they is simply part of grammar. There's no real reason to have a probl…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:25 AM
1

Be careful with that generalization. Homosexuals have a high suicide rate. Is it because being attracted to the same sex is inherently linked to depression with no societal factors? No, homosexuals being bullied and treated as second-class human beings leads to depression. This is especially true for transgendered people. After transition, you're in a heap of debt, obviously have some identity/body issues to get used to, having a good percentage of your friends and family be utterly disgusted wi…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:17 AM
1

It is a societal problem because it is not isolated to this woman. This is costing a lot of money and resources that could go into investigating real crimes. Mental delusions/illnesses are not a recurring theme in false rape accusations.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 09:07 PM
0

Woman is clearly mentally disturbed. This is not representative of a deep societal problem. I feel sorry for everyone she's inconvenienced, to the police officers to the women whose rape claims are taken less seriously because of this person, to the woman herself.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 08:17 PM
2

Leftover sperm from a previous ejaculation can be found in precum and you absolutely can get pregnant from it.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 05:04 PM
1

Others might not feel the same way. Surely you can empathize with that?
/r/MensRights21/04/16 05:02 PM
2

They are turning this into a friggen game and having administrators analyze every distinct interaction during the course sexual intercourse. I'd need more information on the initial penetration. If they were foreplaying enough that a little precum got inside her in the initial poke, she could've become pregnant, which is a big deal. If someone came up to you and briefly put their finger in your butthole in the shower, you wouldn't diminish it to nothing. At the same time, though I hook up with m…
/r/MensRights21/04/16 10:59 AM
1

Smh.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 04:39 PM
0

Ugh that single person who runs both Gawker and Jezebel is such a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 09:11 PM
1

I'm not sure if OP worded it poorly, but that's how it works (and how it should work) as long as we're talking about accusations rather than convictions. When someone is accused of something, the government believes it initially via probable cause (an accusation = probable cause). After the accusation, you must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You arrest people upon accusation, and you convict them upon being proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You trust the accusation, but verif…
/r/MensRights16/02/16 11:06 AM
1

I'm happy they have this sorted out. Its clearly an inequality problem; more believable than 200% longer sentences
/r/MensRights15/01/16 11:42 PM
8

Good set of statistics. I'd crop out the average jail sentence though. Men commit more/worse crimes than women. To compare all prison sentences is like comparing all full time wages. You're going to have a lot of noise that screws up the comparison. A better thing to look at would be the average sentence for the first time an individual type of crime was committed.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 02:29 PM
1

We're not talking about a court case here. We're talking about public opinion. Person A accused person B of rape; we should view person B as innocent until proven guilty. Person B accused person A of a false accusation; we should view person A as innocent until proven guilty. What has happened here, was that someone who was accused of rape has been viewed as innocent until proven guilty, the case has been dropped because the accused was not able to prove guilt. The system worked correctly here. …
/r/MensRights26/12/15 07:05 PM
1

We're not talking about a court case here. We're talking about public opinion. Person A accused person B of rape; we should view person B as innocent until proven guilty. Person B accused person A of a false accusation; we should view person A as innocent until proven guilty. What has happened here, was that someone who was accused of rape has been viewed as innocent until proven guilty, the case has been dropped because the accused was not able to prove guilt. The system worked correctly here. …
/r/MensRights26/12/15 07:05 PM
1

We're not talking about a court case here. We're talking about public opinion. Person A accused person B of rape; we should view person B as innocent until proven guilty. Person B accused person A of a false accusation; we should view person A as innocent until proven guilty. What has happened here, was that someone who was accused of rape has been viewed as innocent until proven guilty, the case has been dropped because the accused was not able to prove guilt, and the OP is immediately assuming…
/r/MensRights26/12/15 07:05 PM
1

Yes! If it's bad to assume someone is guilty of rape upon accusation it's also bad to assume someone falsely accused someone up on accusation. Two wrongs don't make a right. To think that since some innocents are falsely accused that we should immediately assume guilt on all invalidated accusations is tu quoque.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 01:20 PM
1

Charges being dropped doesn't necessarily mean it's a false accusation. It can mean they don't have enough evidence to convict. Saying that she's a criminal on no evidence is comparable to assuming someone is a rapist upon accusation.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 01:26 AM
-7

Everything we do is sexist? So be it. Get in the kitchen, bitch. Pot roast don't cook itself. And none of your back-talk, cuz my pimp-slappin' arm is strong. Yes, that is a great mature way to fix the problem. EDIT: Yeah downvote me upvote him and then complain later that Men's Rights isn't taken seriously. This subreddit really fell apart.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 08:47 AM
2

It doesn't say "exploited by women only", it says "exploited by women", which can carry the meaning "multiple men/boys have been exploited by a single woman a single time" This is incredibly misleading. If you're an average male sex worker and have you sex 4 times a night for a month, and you are approached a single time, then 99% of your exploiters are men. And that's at the extremity of assuming the average sex worker has only been working one month. For more than half of the average male sex …
/r/MensRights12/12/15 07:27 PM
1

I don't know, but I am assuming that she consented, either explicitly or implicitly, to being slapped. If you have other information, please let us know. She claimed not to have been. Otherwise it wouldn't be a problem. At that point, by consenting to act in a porno, your consent to have sexual intercourse is implied. If that's not what you are willing to do in a film, you have to say so. She's not disputing sexual intercourse. She was hit in the face while having sexual intercourse. Consenting …
/r/MensRights11/12/15 04:04 PM
2

The person who accused him of hitting him with a closed fist, which we now hear was actually an open hand, is an actress who frequently acts in BDSM porn. Was the genre the scene was being acted in BDSM? It's all about consent. You can consent to being "raped" and having the shit kicked out of you for one scene, but if something comparably minor is done without your consent it's an entirely different story. I wouldn't assume that she did not consent to being slapped. She may have, she may have n…
/r/MensRights11/12/15 09:13 AM
2

Proportional to the court cases they are tried, they have a higher rate of conviction. And yeah, there's a million variables that plays into it.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 06:05 PM
2

I see slapping often in vanilla guy on girl stuff.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 05:03 PM
4

In certain circles, you're right. In court- and for a majority of people, minorities are convicted at a much higher rate, especially for things like interracial rape.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 04:33 PM
1

Haven't you ever seen an interview with the participants? Honestly never seen one. Do we know whether or not she consented to it? If she did I don't see why she'd be upset about it.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 03:40 PM
-2

Is the difference between hitting someone with an open or closed fist without their consent while you're inside them significant? Like yeah, it wasn't a closed fist but he still hit her. Slapping and hitting people is normal in porn, but it's a different story to do it in retaliation to being called a bitch as opposed to discussing it prior to the scene.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 03:10 PM
8

Minorities accused of rape have a much harder time than white guys.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 03:06 PM
0

How so?
/r/MensRights10/12/15 07:55 AM
0

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv14.pdf Found it. Here, page 8. Rape is significantly less likely to be reported than most other crimes at a glance. It might be all other crimes. EDIT: Yeah, literally all other crimes have it reported more often than not.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 07:50 PM
1

Is that what the survey says? I anticipate they'd have numbers for every type of crime, not just a blanket percentage for all crimes.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 07:45 PM
0

I think that's childish and disrespectful. Oh come on we don't need name calling. That's unproductive.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 06:31 PM
1

I do, I just think it's goofy and not a very strong argument against the study.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 06:22 PM
3

That's unrelated.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 06:19 PM
0

You're really grasping for straws here. That study is the cream of the crop when it comes to statistics. It's a reliable source.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 06:18 PM
3

That's not the reasoning being used. He's comparing all rapes to all sex, as if some sort of ratio should determine the frequency of rape. That's nonsense.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 06:06 PM
-2

Any assumption is basically based on bullshit, unless you have a scientific study that found out how many rapes occur. But such a study does not exist, at least not a really scientific one. US department of Justice has done a statistical study and have arrived at that conclusion. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245 http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5176 1) Sample size was 90,000 2) You're wrong. You don't throw out surveys with a 90,000 sample size if a single person does…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:45 PM
-6

US Justice department makes estimates of unreported crime. They determined the that about 2/3 rapes go unreported. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245 EDIT: Sorry facts disagree with your beliefs : \ . If we want Men's Rights to be taken more seriously it would be better if y'all actually looked at the facts instead of downvoting them because they don't fit your narrative. This hides information from others and makes everyone else just a little more ignorant.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:40 PM
-7

Make sure you don't oversimplify. There are way more variables that play into how much rape happens than than just the amount of rape reported. Only 1/3 rapes are reported.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:30 PM
30

how many times they have sex and the number of rapes The amount of times you consent to sex does not diminish how likely you are to be raped. The frequency a woman has consensual sex doesn't make rape less likely for that individual. That's horrible statistical analysis. Consensual sex and rape are completely seperate; they shouldn't be compared with a ratio. "Well she had consensual sex 1,000 times and was only raped once, so really only .1% of her sex was rape so it's not that bad." Really?
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:24 PM
2

I didn't know it was that high. I think most would agree that two parents is better than one, but I've heard many stories from parents who "stayed together for the kids" who would rather have had them separate.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 07:46 PM
-12

And how do you define fatherless? Most people have fathers...
/r/MensRights23/11/15 06:42 PM
2

Yep. Can we please stop upvoting these shitposts?
/r/MensRights11/11/15 09:04 AM
-3

And people refuse service to others of PCs all the time, but just blame the damn tie instead. That's such shit. Not hiring someone because of the color of their tie is just as stupid/arbitrary as not hiring someone because of the color of their skin. But it's not necessarily a problem with a solution.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 07:01 AM
5

iirc individuals reserve the right not to serve someone as long as they aren't a protected class, i.e. I can refuse to serve you because I don't like the color of your tie, but I can't refuse to serve you because you're black.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 03:07 AM
4

Also interested to know. When it comes to things like slavery, girls typically go to sex-related things while men to go to labor-related things. There's some overlap on both sides, but it typically follows that trend.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 05:46 PM
-5

Hold on, you gotta calm down. The OP didn't say "Less money is allocated to men than dogs when it comes to domestic violence", it said "Men are worth less then dogs". That latter is more reasonable, but still wrong. Yes, there are mixed-gender shelters and women's-only shelters, but that's because women are substantially more likely to suffer from domestic violence than men are. There are many services for men who suffer from domestic violence in australia. Domestic violence shelters exist that …
/r/MensRights06/07/15 02:52 AM
-4

Again, please tell us exactly how it's false. You can't say "again" when you haven't even asked me once. In Australia men receive zero funding for domestic violence shelters, while pets receive $100,000. You need to be incredibly thick to believe that Australia has 0 shelters that accommodate men. Believe it or not: animal shelters exist, too. Just because a government or organization decides to pay for something that isn't human and isn't for the male sex doesn't mean that men are worth less th…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 12:08 AM
-11

In Australia men are now worth less than dogs. Hold on there, that's a pretty bold statement.
/r/MensRights05/07/15 10:35 PM
4

8th grade != 8 years old.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 04:41 AM
4

Oh my God. We don't even have shitty sources anymore. We literally have memes in this subreddit and people are taking it as fact. My head is going to explode.
/r/PussyPass24/05/15 04:58 AM
5

It's the other way around according to the article. 50% have been proven to be genuine, the other remaining 50% can possibly be genuine, or possibly be lies. Since rape cases are often a his word vs. hers, there's often times not enough evidence to prosecute (despite with the many cases we see on this subreddit with where men are viewed as guilty until proven innocent). Many rape cases are also a gray area, it's unfair to definitively say that 50% of rape cases are fake, a more correct statement…
/r/MensRights23/05/15 02:27 PM
1

But they are. They can and do maliciously destroy people's lives with false accusations. You are misunderstanding the context. You don't keep your kid away from a false accuser the same way you keep them away from a pedophile/rapist. This is common sense. A false accuser isn't one to be kept away from hospitals and day cares because they don't sexually assault the vulnerable. That is what the sex offender registry is for, to protect the innocent from sexual assault.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 10:57 PM
1

I wouldn't want to date a false rape accuser any more than I'd want my kid taught my a kiddie porn addict I'm sure if you had to choose, you'd choose to keep the kiddie porn addict away from your kid instead of the false accuser. That's just common sense. False accusers aren't a threat to your kids and shouldn't be on a list that designates them as a threat.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 10:32 PM
1

The sexual offender register is for those that commit crimes that involve a sexual nature. A false accusation is not a sexual nature. Would you feel unsafe having a false accuser around children, the mentally handicapped, etc. because of their tendency to falsely accuse people the same way you would feel about a rapist because of their tendency to sexually assault the vulnerable? Absolutely not. They aren't a threat to those vulnerable to sexual assault and shouldn't be on the list that is inten…
/r/MensRights19/05/15 10:30 PM
1

Or how about people who took dick/tit pics at 16 and others like them that did no real harm not even be on the list of sex offenders, If there were a change it'd have to be worded carefully to not allow for production of child pornography. There's a reason I suggested it be on the same tier as urinating in an alleyway.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 05:49 PM
0

Question: would you find fair for there to be a separate registry, the false accusers registry as opposed to the sex offender registry that is specific for false accusers? If not, why?
/r/MensRights19/05/15 04:17 PM
-3

Kidnapping puts you on the sex offender registry. Yes I would absolutely agree with you. Might want to try a different example. There are reasons we have laws such as reckless endangerment for this type of thing. The reason kidnappers are put on the sex offender registry is because they can be an immediate threat to those vulnerable that are around them; this is not true of false accusations, and there is no need to put them on a sex offender registry to protect them from such.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 04:05 PM
0

They should because they used sex as a weapon No, they used a false accusation. Using sex as a weapon is rape/sexual assault and those who commit rape or sexual assault deserve to be put on a registry to warn others of their tendency to use sex as a weapon, and prevent them from getting jobs around those vulnerable to a sexual assault. This is not the same list that should include false accusers, as a false accusation isn't a threat to those around them because they are not a threat to those vul…
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:57 PM
-1

Pro-tip: if your goal is to win people over to your way of thinking, which I can tell you tried to do with some of your post, insulting them isn't the way to do it. If you're more polite to people you disagree with, they are more likely to change their view your way. The way you're acting is just making people more likely to keep their views : \
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:40 PM
0

But if they're looking to inflict damage and sexual damage is done, that's exactly where they belong. No, it's not. That isn't what the purpose of the sex offender registry is for. If someone falsely accuses a person of disturbing the peace, they get placed in jail for the night, and get raped in the process, then that person should be placed on the sex offender list? How is that person an immediate rape threat to those around them? That's nonsense.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:38 PM
-5

Have you noticed that every time you open your bigoted mouth you get downvoted? No need for namecalling. Yeah I don't care about downvotes that come from irrational people. If I cared about downvotes I would delete my posts and salvage my precious karma. You're defending a group of girls who actually got together and planed out a way to destroy his life. The group of girls absolutely needs to be punished, and given a harsh sentence that would be equivalent to ruining the kid's life. They shouldn…
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:35 PM
-12

to my mind (albeit a non-legal one), you are also a sexual offender if you enable, facilitate, or otherwise conspire to have someone sexually assaulted. So they should be put on a list where they are kept away from children, mental patients, and others immediately vulnerable to sexual assault for this reason? Sex offender registries serve a purpose to protect those from immediate danger. Having someone on a sex offender registry for something other than protecting from immediate danger would be …
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:20 PM
-4

Then why does using the false accusation of forced sex not make you a sexual predator. Because a sexual predator is someone who sexually preys on someone. That is: sexual assault. If you falsely accuse someone, you're a liar and a cheat, and a despicable person, but you are not a threat to someone's sexual well-being. Sex offender registries exist so that people can protect themselves and their children from sexual predators. This is why a background check wouldn't get a sex offender a job at a …
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:17 PM
4

Yeah, there should be different levels of sex offenses. Peeing in an alley or taking a dick pic when you're 16 and stupid should be one, having sex with someone just under the age of consent or a gray area case involving alcohol should be another, having sex with a child or holding someone down while they are repeatedly saying no and/or trying to push you off should be at the top tier. Putting them all into the same category is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 11:47 AM
-13

It's crazy to label people as sex offenders that didn't commit any sex offenses.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 11:43 AM
-27

That doesn't make any sense at all. People are supposed to register as sex offenders if they are a threat to sexually assaulting someone, not if they wrongly put others in jail.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 11:39 AM
-40

Falsely accusing someone doesn't make you a sexual predator, that doesn't make any sense.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 11:08 AM
-1

No, getting put in prison is not being set free.
/r/PussyPass13/05/15 06:45 PM
-1

Title: sets free Article: Judge sentences mom for incest.
/r/PussyPass13/05/15 04:07 AM
0

Many of my feminist friends are very opposed to Hillary Clinton becoming president because of women's issues. I'm sure it can go either way, but she's not necessarily the candidate for all feminists.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 10:37 PM
0

And do they have anything on the table when it comes to politics either? Honestly, if voting won't impact policy at all based on the selection of candidates, "Getting men out to vote" isn't really a top priority when it comes to Men's Rights then.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 12:15 AM
12

Are any MRA issues even on the table when it comes to politics? Like I've honestly never heard anybody's platform say anything about Men's Rights one way or another.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 11:14 PM
0

Sounds more like a women's issue...?
/r/MensRights09/05/15 04:25 AM
13

It's almost like gender disparity by definition affects both genders.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 06:50 PM
6

Seems like everyone is missing the point. The case is whether or not sex occurred ( he testified that he did not), no one is claiming that sex with a mentally ill woman whose Alzheimer's are so bad she doesn't remember who it is isn't rape. I can kinda see how this type of situation could create a gray area, depending on the degree of how ill someone is, but this case is black and white. He didn't testify that sex that he had was legal, he testified that it didn't happen. If investigators found …
/r/MensRights23/04/15 12:33 PM
5

This is pretty discernable as incredibly fake though. This is the type of shit that makes me upset. People create these things either to make people rage or to further a distorted view of other people, and based on the comments a significant amount of people actually believe its real. It's creating an imaginary enemy, which is useless.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 10:42 AM
1

It's too JPEG'd to be real.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 10:38 AM
3

Guest spot
/r/MensRights09/04/15 05:17 AM
1

Defamation?
/r/MensRights24/03/15 09:19 AM
1

I explicitly stressed that I want damaged and had gained from the experience. You explicitly stated that it made your life, hell. You really shouldn't put stock in the judgement of a girl who would take empty handed blackmail and have the nonsense of giving up actual blackmail material. Girls being coerced into sex or sending nude photos are often given the choice between two evils.
/r/PussyPass12/03/15 06:15 PM
1

Threat of something actually damaging should be illegal. You admitted it could be very damaging. It can obviously damaging. Girls in high school kill themselves over this sort of thing. If it wasn't damaging it wouldn't be a threat; if it wasn't damaging she wouldn't have sent nude photos to prevent the damage. I've got no mental issues. Except for your lack of empathy.
/r/PussyPass12/03/15 12:20 PM
1

Rumors go both ways, and anyone who believes them should be written off. You can't simply "write them off"; rumors like this cause bullying and serious mental issues for a girl her age. So should threatening someone to send nude photos be legal or no?
/r/PussyPass12/03/15 08:58 AM
1

She doesn't have to deal with court or middle school kids. The boy would because her words will easily carry far more influence given modern society's bias for females. That's now how high school rumors work. "Did you hear that Jenny had sex with Kevin!?!?!?" "I refuse to believe this due to lack of evidence." Come the fuck on, that doesn't happen. That isn't the mindset of high school and middle school kids when it comes to rumors. I can tell there's some sense of reason in you, that you truly …
/r/PussyPass12/03/15 07:50 AM
1

Blackmail works with evidence. This is not blackmail. You're not saying it how it is. You're simply painting a pretty picture that fits your idea of life. No, blackmail is extorting a personal gain from someone through a threat. If you want to dodge the question with semantics then fine: Do you honestly think threatening someone to get them to send nude photos to you should be legal? You know what a 15 year old girl can say about a guy trying to claim they had sex? Probably the same thing the co…
/r/PussyPass11/03/15 09:44 PM
0

You can't ever stop people from saying things. So blackmailing people is just a-ok for you? Would you listen to yourself? You think coercing people into sending nude photos should be 100% legal?
/r/PussyPass11/03/15 08:13 PM
-4

This sub is seriously turning into a misogynist circlejerk.
/r/PussyPass11/03/15 08:02 PM
0

Yeah, well you're telling this to a guy who had most of his high school life wrecked by a girl that claimed I "tackled her and told her to give me a blowjob." So you feel no sympathy for the girl who would have also had her high school life wrecked?
/r/PussyPass11/03/15 07:50 PM
1

thanks
/r/PussyPass11/03/15 03:06 PM
-2

Rumors in high school don't work that way, sorry.
/r/PussyPass11/03/15 12:30 PM
-2

Being threatened to do something is being forced to do something herp derp. This is true in every legal sense. If someone forced you to do something through a threat it is the responsibility of the threatener, not the threatened. "Blaming her for not having a backbone to stand up to a threat " is by very definition victim blaming and its disgusting that you place all of the blame on her for giving into the threat and none of it on the kid who coerced her into sending nude photos. Victim blaming …
/r/PussyPass11/03/15 06:29 AM
-3

This is in no way victim blaming. Victim blaming is telling the rape victim that it's her fault because of what she wore. Blaming a 13 year old girl for sending nude photos because she was threatened to do so is also victim blaming. You are blaming her for giving in to a threat, which is ridiculous. This is blaming someone who simply could have moved on with their life and is a "victim" of a crime that they also committed. And actually it is her fault for falling for coercion, have a back bone a…
/r/PussyPass10/03/15 11:12 PM
-2

thank you.
/r/PussyPass10/03/15 10:52 PM
-8

Yes, you can say no to threats, obviously. Your response is textbook blaming the victim. It's not her fault for being coerced by a threat, it's his fault for threatening her. Threatening a 13-year-old girl and forcing her to take nude photos of themselves is still a crime. You seriously think there should be no repercussions for that because she could've not responded to a threat? You really need to reevaluate your logic on this. A 13-year-old girl's response to a threat of slandering her name w…
/r/PussyPass10/03/15 10:39 PM
-6

She was coerced into making and distributing child pornography. This is hardcore blaming the victim. If she voluntarily sent nude photos, okay, you are correct. If she sent them in response to a threat, which she did, if you read the article, then that's a completely different story.
/r/PussyPass10/03/15 10:28 PM
-6

No, threatening to tell her friends that they had sex inhibits her ability to say no. Did anyone even read the article?
/r/PussyPass10/03/15 10:18 PM
-49

He coerced her into sending him nude photos of herself. That's hardly a voluntary act. EDIT: Read the article before downvoting me, thanks.
/r/PussyPass10/03/15 05:13 PM
1

I don't think that's true, otherwise tabloid magazines would be off the market
/r/MensRights04/02/15 02:45 PM
15

It's not that simple. You need to prove that the media knowingly spread lies about a person, spreading unvalidated information doesn't count, it's just shite journalism
/r/MensRights04/02/15 03:50 AM
3

I wouldn't want to apply if I wasn't wanted for the job. Gender can be important for personal interactions.
/r/MensRights29/12/14 02:51 AM
10

Sounds like a reasonable solution.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 05:54 PM
4

That's what I expected. Are there any for service workers? I.e. different gendered masseuses, doctors, social workers, day care workers, etc. In case a client may be uncomfortable with one or the other? As a psych minor I often get e-mail job opportunities acting as an assistant/handler for autistic or otherwise mentally handicapped kids. They almost always specify gender as a requirement.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 05:54 PM
9

I understand. Some jobs clearly have gender requirements, yeah?
/r/MensRights28/12/14 05:45 PM
16

That's stupid. Part of the entertainment of the place is the sex appeal of the waitresses. There are some professions that have certain gender expectations. Or race expectations even, I wouldn't expect any reasonable person to cast a white person as someone like Martin Luther King Jr.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 05:43 PM
26

Pretty sure there are exceptions. I.e. I can't get a job at Hooter's as a waiter, and can't get a job at a strip club if the intended clientele are heterosexual men.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 04:37 PM
1

That's some pretty blatant cherry picking. It's ridiculous to compare a single athlete to another individual athlete to categorize an entire gender. Everyone knows there is plenty of shit that athletes and celebrities get away with regardless of their gender.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 01:47 AM
1

With new views come new words. I agree they're getting a little ridiculous, but if we are going to treat trans peoples as the gender they identify with then it's necessary to distinguish them from people who identify with the gender that they were born with. It's far better than others I've seen. There was a person in my university's newspaper that identified as "Undocuqueer". You might, upon reading it assume that it is a sexual orientation combining being an undocumented citizen and being homo…
/r/MensRights12/11/14 02:47 PM
2

I've mostly heard the phrase "Cis white males" to describe "the oppressors".
/r/MensRights12/11/14 02:23 PM
1

I remember seeing a commercial similar to this a decade ago. Wasn't a commercial for an actual game, but in hindsight was pretty sick... I remember a nutcracker being one of the torture devices (used for obvious reasons). The tone of the commercial was very playful, too.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 02:22 PM
8

Or how about OP doesn't lie and just tells the truth about the teacher having an offensive magnet? It's another deceitful and immoral step to claim that she's falsifying grades.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 08:25 AM
9

Complain that you feel like she is intentionally lowering your grades and raising the females grades above the males for less quality work. That is a pretty blatant lie. /u/MrWoofles has no information about the teacher besides the picture and it's irrational to assume that just because she has a sexist magnet that she is intentionally lowering people's grades. But to be fair, a person with racist/sexist ideologies can subconsciously lower/raise grades based on their predilection towards a certa…
/r/MensRights12/11/14 08:24 AM
12

He literally made the post, dude.
/r/MensRights25/10/14 03:58 AM
-11

Is this really the top post in this sub?
/r/MensRights17/10/14 03:34 AM
1

Another factor that may be considered is the methods that men and women go for when it comes to suicide. Men are more likely to use more effective methods, like guns, whereas women are more likely to use things like sleeping pills, often interpreted as a "cry for help".
/r/MensRights10/10/14 06:48 PM
1

Another interpretation might be that her military service shows her strength and ability to assault a male. I've seem comparable headlines with something like "Marine assaults girlfriend" or "Professional boxer assaults girlfriend" A beating from a marine or a boxer would be worse than the average man, being choked by a girl that is a former marine would be worse than being choked by the average girl. I do think the detail on her history in Iraq was a little OD, but if I saw a similar article ab…
/r/MensRights22/09/14 05:03 AM
9

Making fun of a man because he was raped automatically makes them feminists...? Tumblr users aren't automatically feminists. This is stupid.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 04:48 AM
29

"Make sure you put a Native American in there, too. Once we've covered all races, this poster will definitely stop rape." My head is going to explode.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 02:16 AM
1

Do you realize how crazy you sound?
/r/MensRights11/02/14 04:31 PM
1

Yes, but wild animals are a problem. As are foster parents.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 09:38 PM
1

You realize that the reason that this is a problem is because foster parents are a problem, right? If foster parents were good parents, a system placing them with foster parents wouldn't be a problem.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 07:40 PM
0

Ahh. I'm studying abroad at Oxford right now, I forget that Google automatically directs me to UK sites instead of American ones. You are correct, the numbers are unrelated. Though I'm very sure there was a change in America as well.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 07:20 PM
3

A layman cannot spontaneously generate knowledge from where a source was cited from herp derp.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 07:13 PM
4

FOUND IT. There's 1999 for comparison: http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm99/table3b.htm Mothers performed 45% of the abuse compared to 38% they did now, whereas fathers performed 19% compared to 16%. So motherly abuse decreased and fatherly abuse increased. The 1999 numbers doesn't distinguish between blood parents/foster parents/step parents, so that may also skew it. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/aug/04/mothers-breadwinners-in-family-report-says From 1999 to 2014 mothers ha…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 03:20 PM
2

From what I've heard, foster parents are the worst types of parents. I wouldn't say that they are generally better than a boyfriend chosen by a divorced mother, because they are "selected" by the state.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 03:13 PM
3

I tried to googled it and didn't find it. The CDC isn't mentioned in the picture, laymen have no way of knowing where it came from.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 03:10 PM
3

Yes, I meant to say that.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 03:09 PM
1

According to the study, it has decreased, but what I think is really crucial is the gender committing it, which it doesn't show. Think there's a source for that? And of course correlation does not equal causation.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 03:09 PM
3

I see the numbers are very split. If it was females in general, it should be true across the board for all foster parents, relatives, strangers, friends of the family, etc. though it appears that the different relationships have far more impact than gender on whether or not they are abused by them. My hypothesis revolves more around the amount of breadwinners in the family. IIRC, breadwinners being female has increased drastically in the most recent years. It would be interesting to compare abus…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 02:46 PM
5

Ooh, typo. I meant that they would be exposed less than a mother would. Also, who downvoted this guy for pointing out that I was wrong?
/r/MensRights10/02/14 02:42 PM
-8

If you look at stepfathers, male relatives and foster male relatives, they abuse the child much more than their female counterparts. The title is technically correct, but misleading in saying that it is committed a majority by women. It's committed by a plurality of women who are mothers, but other relationships that have less of a distribution are split unevenly across genders. Also, you should take into account that men are more likely to be the breadwinners in the family, and therefore expose…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 12:53 PM
5

We can consider the combinations of mother and father and mother and other to make up a majority. I'd also like to see a source.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 12:50 PM
0

Nope, it says that 50 million is the number of lifetime rapes for women. Says it right on the table. I see what you're doing, you're comparing "Forced penetration" to "Completed rape", disregarding all attempted rape, rape via intoxication, and coercion, in which case you're throwing out all of the information that you wouldn't take into account because it doesn't fit with your beliefs.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 02:16 PM
0

Lol, what do you think the tables say? Women clearly have stronger numbers.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 02:03 PM
0

Can't tell if you're trolling, or you're just that ignorant.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 01:42 PM
0

Looking right at the tables broskeeter. You are wrong.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 01:33 PM
0

Nope, I'm speaking just of the ones categorized as "Rape", in addition to forcible envelopment, since it appears agreed-upon that such also qualifies as rape.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 03:33 AM
0

hhehehehe
/r/MensRights09/02/14 03:32 AM
1

Thx babe.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 03:32 AM
5

You're attacking a straw man.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 03:31 AM
1

Where in the table does it say 50 million women were raped? It doesn't. On the table under the category of rape, lol.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 03:29 AM
0

Haven't manipulated any facts, I've simply cited them. Please point out the fact which you think I have misconstrued, and what it is in actuality. Please provide the source, and a citation from the source which makes the fact that I have "manipulated" to be misleading or untrue.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 03:28 AM
0

You can't quote a table. It's on page 28/29, or 18/19. Look at the numbers of lifetime rape, and forcible envelopment for each side. Add up the numbers. There's not much else I can do for you.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 03:25 AM
1

The Daily Mail article is biased against women, since it manipulates the facts. So we have an article citing another article from The Daily Mail, which is biased against men and boys, which is citing an article which is biased against women and girls. I would call this a very secondhand, unreliable source, wouldn't you?
/r/MensRights09/02/14 03:25 AM
1

A biased author cited by something cited by The Daily Mail. Not a very good combination.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 03:19 AM
2

Like, I've linked to a source, the numbers are there. I don't know how to go through to you.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 03:18 AM
1

No, lifetime comparisons are 8.7M compared to 50M
/r/MensRights08/02/14 03:40 PM
1

I would think the numbers are insignificant or the original source doesn't mention them, or there is bias in the author.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 03:40 PM
4

According to the CDC it's about 50/50. In the 12 months previous to their study ~1.2 million men were "forced to penetrate" compared to ~1.2 million women who were rape. If you define rape as "sex without consent" then it's 50/50. Add in to this an unknown (but potentially high) number of rapes that occur in prison and you get the US as being potentially the first country where men are indeed raped more than women. Where does it say that? On the tables on page 28/29 (or 18/19) it clearly shows t…
/r/MensRights08/02/14 10:44 AM
1

So it would appear that you also agree with me when it suits you. No, there are statistics that support my claim, rather than a feeling. You are now guilty of the same sin that you are accusing the Daily Mail of, namely, conflating sexual assault statistics with cases of rape. Completely unrelated to what I said. I was objecting to your unsubstantiated claim that the title "More men in the US are raped than women" is untrue. I was not objecting to the valid point you were making about the mislea…
/r/MensRights08/02/14 10:41 AM
0

My bad, 18/19 if you're going by the page numbers, 28/29 if you're going by the PDF's scrolling numbers. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf The title is clearly wrong and clearly shows poor statistical analysis, supporting this Daily Mail bullshit is what's wrong with the MRM.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 10:38 AM
0

No, it refers to sexual assault in prison, that is what you are misunderstanding.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 10:35 AM
0

NOT what I was saying (though reasonable to assume that's what I meant), I meant it as woman on male forced TO penetrate is more common than male on woman forced TO penetrate. Oh, well that makes perfect sense. Also to be fair, in today's world, women and men are actually pretty 'equal' in ability to force themselves on the other I believe I wouldn't say equal, I'd say more equal in todays world than yesterday's world, but a big part of rape is being more powerful than the other person. Intoxica…
/r/MensRights07/02/14 10:17 PM
1

Both ARE possible, one is FAR less likely to happen in practice (I believe that woman on male forced penetration is more likely than man on woman forced to penetrate because of how the power situation and society sorta gears our beliefs on sex and all) than the other (here I'm talking if you lined up 100 male rapists and 100 female rapists you'd probably see a higher percentage of the females using forced to penetrate then the percentage of the men). I believe the opposite. Men are generally mor…
/r/MensRights07/02/14 09:59 PM
2

What Daya did was seduce Pornstache into having sex with her, with the intention of accusing him of rape. It was a dirty move, regardless of legal consequences. If we're going by the legal definition, yeah, it was rape. If we're going by the common sense definition, she bamboozled him.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 08:16 PM
0

No, I was simply distinguishing between a definition. The "act of penetration" can be forced by a man raping a woman, or a woman raping a man, which would fit this definition. I'm aware it's legally at contention, but if I was a lawyer or a grammarian I could argue that it is ambiguous enough to work both ways.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 08:12 PM
-1

I made no claim regarding differences in self-reporting of sexual assault between male and female inmates but it would not surprise me in the least if men were less likely to identify as victims. I merely pointed out that potential differences in self-reporting behaviour between men and women are as relevant to the interpretation of the statistics as the fact that US males are incarcerated in greater numbers, more often and for longer Do you have any reason to believe that the potential differen…
/r/MensRights07/02/14 08:10 PM
-1

Additionally, "Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration" accounts for another 781,000 female "rape" victims, so you may have a point. Don't deal in absolutes. Not all drunk sex is rape, but not all drunk sex is consensual either. Alcohol is the number one date rape drug. Having said that, I also found the following two items of interest under "Limitations": If you have a source for the limitations that would explain the gender gap between sexual assault in men and women, and how drasticall…
/r/MensRights07/02/14 08:05 PM
0

Okay...?
/r/MensRights07/02/14 07:52 PM
0

Right, good catch. Didn't see that. It's interesting they didn't provide numbers for that one, though.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 07:51 PM
-1

Sexual assault in general disregard's a person consent, but there are definitely some acts worse than others.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 07:48 PM
3

Right, ooh, thought of more. It's the plot of point of a few Law and Order: SVU episodes. From what I've seen, my feminist friends love that show, maybe that's where she's getting it from.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 04:12 PM
2

Differences in self-reporting behaviour between men ad women is another issue relevant to the validity of raw statistics garnered from a survey of male and female inmates who self-identify as victims of sexual assault. Do you have a source that states that men are substantially less likely to put down that they were sexually assaulted on an anonymous survey? If not, we can't assume this simply because it will redeem these otherwise bullshit statistics. QUOTE: "Made to penetrate" can work both wa…
/r/MensRights07/02/14 04:10 PM
-1

Also, US male victims of "made to penetrate" + "rape" > US female victims of "made to penetrate" + "rape" == More men are raped in the US than women; provided that you consider "made to penetrate" to be a form of rape i.e. that you are a reasonable person. No, those numbers simply don't add up. Here, look at these statistics that take into account forcible envelopment under sexual assault, adding forcible envelopment to the other form of penetrative rape still leads a wide gap between genders in…
/r/MensRights07/02/14 04:06 PM
-2

That's your ersonal preference. If a woman enveloped me I would feel violated and defiled. I would too, but I would feel worse if I was anally penetrated, don't you think? There should at least be a distinction between the two. They are very different acts.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 03:56 PM
6

The only thing that comes to mind is To Kill A Mockingbird, but that has undertones of racism, rather than revolving around women being false accusers. EDIT: Also that's a major plot point in Orange is the New Black. EDIT: Also that was a plot point in an episode of SVU.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 03:54 PM
2

It will come as no surprise to regular browsers of this subreddit that males are incarcerated for longer durations and in greater frequency than (otherwise equivalent) females. This is to say nothing of the potential differences in self-reporting behaviour between men and women. Why is this relevant to self-reporting behaviour? Having said that, your willingness to conflate the numbers of men who are "made to penetrate" women and number of women who are "made to penetrate" men, shows you to be n…
/r/MensRights07/02/14 03:52 PM
-1

Well, it's granted that the mechanics are different. I would be much more uncomfortable if my anus was penetrated rather than my penis was forcibly enveloped. I'd still consider it rape, but there is definitely a distinction. In any case, this is unrelated to comparing a "Sexual assault" statistic to a "rape statistic". If we were given two rape statistics to compare, then we could easily multiply it by 4 due to 4.8% of sexual assault considered to be rape. However, prison sexual assault will ra…
/r/MensRights07/02/14 03:40 PM
2

Ahh, I see. I think you're misreading it. On the table, made to penetrate would mean something along the lines of "My penis was forcibly enveloped against my will." It makes sense. As with men, 4.8% of sexual violence was them being forced to penetrate someone, as with women, unless someone is trying to forcibly penetrate themselves with some part of the woman, there would be no occurrence of the statistic, and it reasonably blank. There's also the asterisk, stating that without enough reports, …
/r/MensRights07/02/14 03:29 PM
2

which table are you looking at? Can't seem to find it. EDIT: Lol okay downvotes for asking for a source.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 03:03 PM
4

Factoring in the 'Made to penetrate' (come on, how is that not rape?) statistics, it shows men are raped more, does it not? Regardless of Prison statistics. "Made to penetrate" can work both ways. A man can be made to penetrate a woman. A woman can be made to penetrate by a man. The statistics do not suggest that men are raped more at all. It is a survey by men who consider themselves sexually assaulted, not raped, not made to penetrate by legal standards. A survey based on a man's opinion of wh…
/r/MensRights07/02/14 02:44 PM
12

The title is incorrect. It makes a broad generalization about all rape, and doesn't distinguish between rape and sexual assault. If the title was "More men are sexually assaulted in prison than women", then that would be correct, however, it wouldn't be appropriate because men outnumber women in prison 20:1. An appropriate title would be "Women are proportionally sexually assaulted in prison 4 times as often as men are." to be factual and not completely misleading.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 02:29 PM
86

EDIT: Please don't downvote simply for citing facts. If you have a problem with my analysis, I invite you to discuss it with me, don't simply downvote because statistics don't necessarily fit with your beliefs. Oversimplified. Misleading, and wrong. Rape != sexual assault. Completely different legal terms. Comparing them will lead to skewed numbers as rape is much less common than the broader term "sexual assault". It's estimated that only 16% rape cases are reported by women, so this will skew …
/r/MensRights07/02/14 02:18 PM
1

Wow.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 08:15 PM
1

OP, how attractive are you? I feel this is important and we'd all like to know. I know you're going anonymous and won't post a picture or anything, but if you have time, go to http://www.anaface.com/ and tell us your rating.
/r/seduction07/01/14 06:40 AM
-1

"Comeback"
/r/MensRights01/01/14 05:59 PM
1

Yes, not all feminists are like that. All feminists aren't a single entity that all hold the exact same belief as this individual radical feminist.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 02:29 PM
2

Like all other feminists, since that's core to feminism. That's a very broad generalization. A logical fallacy is not the core of anything. And confirmation bias has nothing to do with liking one word over another.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 02:19 PM
0

Just here to remind you: One radical feminist != all feminists.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 02:36 AM
3

Oi, there isn't bias in the tests, but there is the psychological self-fulfilling prophecy that girls aren't as good at math/engineering as boys. I remember studying this in AP Psych in high school. There was an experiment done where girls that were told prior to the test "This test has been adjusted so that it is not biased towards women" score a lot higher than they usually would, with scores a lot closer to boys scores. When girls have the "I'm not as good as math as boys" in the back of thei…
/r/MensRights24/12/13 01:26 PM
23

oi, reminds me of a study I saw where girls got generally higher grades, but boys scored generally higher on standardized tests.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 10:08 AM
-7

This has nothing to do with Men's Rights. It's a case of assault. Gender has no role here.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 08:31 AM
17

Can I have some citations for these? Preferably not in meme form.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 06:32 AM
1

Got kinda confused. HSC to me as an American is Hampden-Sydney College, an all-boys school.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 05:23 AM
1

Also many of these men and women are killed as residents of their own countries and not as foreign journalists. So they are killed for speaking out against their own governments or for speaking out against other political groups. Ahh. That puts it more into perspective. I'd think most less-civilized countries where journalists are killed by governments women don't have the opportunity to become journalists, and are mostly home makers. Anyone know the ratio of female to male journalists across th…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 01:30 AM
0

Really?
/r/MensRights13/10/13 05:40 AM
1

This really doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Sure it's a little stereotypical, but I wouldn't break up with someone over that. Saying "haha" at the end definitely implies that it's a joke.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 05:38 AM
1

I know they have a similar policy at West Point. There's two equivalents of RA's in charge of a group of students, and it's always one male, one female. At West point there's something like 15 guys for every girls but the leadership positions are still split 50/50. Giving girls a much greater chance at it solely for being female. Kinda BS if you ask me.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 07:07 PM
0

Please tell me that you are joking. Are you honestly claiming that every man who served in Vietnam or WWII actually wanted to be there? No. But they aren't forced their at gunpoint. We don't execute people who refuse to serve in the military herp derp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Conscientious_objectors_2 Do you have even the remotest understanding of the draft system which allocated those guys as cannon fodder? You clearly have a poor understanding of the draf…
/r/MensRights03/09/13 06:41 PM
1

You're holding feminism to a pretty concrete definition. You're still treating feminism like it's a concrete belief- it is not. Your math makes no sense because you're not solving an equation for X or Y, you're solving an equation for "equality" without defining a variable for it. I explained using an analogy. I agree the term should be egalitarian, but I see no problem with the particular labels. The labels of MRA or feminist show that some issues to that person are more important than others.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 06:54 PM
0

Hold up there. That's not what I said. I didn't say "allowed". That implies a choice. I said demanded. Where are the women who demanded they receive equal treatment to men by being forced into military service at gunpoint? Men aren't forced into military service at gunpoint. Did you read anything I said? Anything? Anything at all? Ah, so all the business hiring males only went bust. There's plenty of historical evidence for that, right? Yes. Open your 7th grade history book, if you still have it…
/r/MensRights01/09/13 03:22 PM
0

So I assume you have evidence that women who campaigned for the right to vote also demanded the right to be drafted? Women who are not allowed to enter combat cannot be drafted. That's utter nonsense. There have been plenty of women that have pushed for women to be allowed to enter combat. Expecting someone to campaign to be drafted before they are even allowed to enter combat is like expecting a former slave to campaign for the right to run for office before he can even vote. Ah, well those com…
/r/MensRights01/09/13 03:07 PM
0

because feminism has already made the claim that masculinity needs to change fundamentally in order to not be patriarchal You're treating feminism like it is a single person making a claim. It is not. And you can't use the words "equal" or "egalitarian", because you're using a gender-based name, so you're NOT advocating gender-neutral equality. Not necessarily. If x = 3, and y = 2, and I want equality for y, then I'm simply pushing for equality in both by doing so, without mentioning x.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 02:56 PM
-1

No. I'd say some forms of it are toxic, and some aren't.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 02:28 PM
0

The right to vote: Women gained the vote without incurring the cost of being subject to the draft like men were. Rights without responsibilities - a net decrease in equality. Nope. I'd say the women being able to vote and not having to apply for the draft is more equal than women who aren't allowed in combat not having the apply for the draft and not being able to vote while men could both vote and be allowed in combat, wouldn't you? And since women weren't allowed in combat until recently, ther…
/r/MensRights01/09/13 07:52 AM
1

OP
/r/MensRights01/09/13 06:07 AM
-1

Where exactly is the point at which femininity becomes toxic? The same point where all movements do- when a movement for equality becomes a movement for inequality. When women go for extra advantages as opposed to equal advantages for men, it'll be toxic. Some take it farther than equality, and some don't, just like in any movement.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 05:38 AM
-3

Every time I tell feminists that I believe in equality but I don't believe in upholding women's traditional social role of victim--aka. women are worse off than men--they tell me that I cannot be a feminist. Here: I am a feminist. And you can do that, and be a feminist. Remember, not all feminists hold all of the exact same beliefs. : )
/r/MensRights01/09/13 05:28 AM
-1

No I'm not. It's called a "Not a true Scotsman" fallacy and you clearly have a poor understanding of it. OP is committing the fallacy by saying that "All true feminists can't be MRA's."
/r/MensRights01/09/13 04:56 AM
-2

Downvoting doesn't make the questions go away. Can you provide a single example of where feminists have actually produced a result that resulted in greater equality for either sex? Yes. Movements for the right to vote. Movements for equal pay, sex discrimination, etc. in the workplace. Movements for desegragation/acceptance at colleges, workplaces, and academic societies. Movements for the right to divorce under the same circumstances men are allowed to divorce under. Movements to be treated as …
/r/MensRights01/09/13 04:45 AM
0

The bottom line here, is if you're a feminist who also happens to be an MRA, you don't need to flaunt that fact, it'll be obvious from your actions. I disagree. Without explicitly stating both, an MRA with the mindset of the OP will take "I am a feminist" as "I am an enemy" and vice versa, a feminist will take "I am an MRA" as "I am an enemy." It needs to be explicitly stated for someone like the OP who thinks the two are completely different, and are inherently antagonistic towards each other.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 04:32 AM
–

Because in order to identify as a feminist you have to believe in the concept of "patriarchy" - the idea that all men oppress all women all the time. No, you don't. Feminism, like Men's Rights is a spectrum, not a concrete belief. No two feminists have the exact same belief. Feminists advocating for true gender equality should be both MRA's as well. This is so stupid. Half of this subreddit is complaining about feminists instead of Men's Rights. Stop this petty infighting. Being antagonistic tow…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 03:50 PM
1

Men raping is accepted more while a woman raping is a taboo and thus punished more often No one is this stupid. I'm calling bullshit.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 10:55 AM
0

I'm always happy to see a breath-of-fresh-air comment upvoted in posts like these. It reminds me that only some people in this subreddit are stupid.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 11:18 PM
9

No, for paying to be pretty.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 06:55 PM
1

Well I wouldn't define a man hating a man as a misandrist, I'd define them as a self-hating male.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:34 PM
2

Think he may have been pointing out the comment on the picture that has 190 likes saying "All rapists should be put to death"
/r/MensRights06/08/13 04:15 AM
3

That's probably only the tip of the iceburg of abuse. If 4 officers got pregnant there's probably a dozen more who used appropriate birth control methods.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 08:14 AM
7

I don't think this is a Men's Rights issue... Just a terrible, terrible event... poor kid...
/r/MensRights31/07/13 07:47 AM
6

Really think you're sending the wrong message OP, I would've at least put quotations around chattel if you're trying to imply that feminist belief that women were slaves to men hundreds of years ago.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 02:59 PM
9

His main motivation for wanting to see Taylor Swift, as I recall from the thread, was to smell her hair. This is very creepy, you shouldn't treat him like a Men's Rights martyr. A middle-aged woman who wanted to smell a teenager's hair would be just as creepy. If it was something innocent like wanting to meet an artist who made your favorite songs, while being fat and bearded, that'd be fine. But he wanted to see her for incredibly creepy reasons, and 4chan voted for him with the goal of trollin…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 05:59 AM
2

If I recall right, MensRights got a shout out to the front page a while back as the subreddit of the day, and it really boosted the numbers, yeah? And the fact that /r/feminism bans you for almost anything doesn't help their numbers. And /r/egalitarianism clocks it at 2k readers and is all but abandoned, because most people want equality for themselves, not equality for all; most people want to be more equal than others.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 06:14 AM
3

Probably not a lot. If I wanted my kids more than I wanted to bother with a trial, I'd probably go for it. One not wanting to bother with something so important seems like one wouldn't want their children very much in the first place. I'd try even if the odds were against me.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 05:45 AM
1

Would've chosen a font besides impact, too reminiscent of memes... And I've heard from feminists that men win custody trials about half the time, it's just that they don't fight for custody as often as women- is that true? Other than that- good stats.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 11:08 PM
0

Oh, my bad. Read the first source wrong. The overall tone of it is that female circumcision should not have an effect on HIV and that the correlation does not equal causation. "Increased years of sexual activity were associated with HIV-2 seropositivity, while a history of excision and BCG vaccinations decreased the risk of HIV-2 infection." Oh, so excision means circumcision? How can someone have a "history" of it? It makes it sound like it's happened more than once. And if they're comparing ex…
/r/MensRights30/06/13 05:18 AM
0

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677 Did you read this source? It says female circumcision does not protect against HIV. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755 Circumcision isn't mentioned at all. http://myvestibulitis.blogspot.com/2010/08/clitoral-adhesions.html Yes, if you have a disease on your clitoris then cutting it off will remove it. Amputating your arm if you get a scratch on it will remove it too. This is what I meant by "vaginal cancer". If a disease …
/r/MensRights30/06/13 03:41 AM
0

There are no benefits to female circumcision short of having vagina cancer. You're just making stuff up now. Funny, because the source I linked above, from a anti-FGM organisation says otherwise. Can you provide a source based on first-hand accounts like mine? In my case the presented table was based on data extracted from Hanny Lightfoot-Klein's work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_circumcision#Male_circumcision_in_the_Greco-Roman_world Anti-FGM organizations are obviously biased. Ther…
/r/MensRights30/06/13 03:16 AM
0

Corrections: rarely traumatic effects. Circumcision is rarely performed on day 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Adverse_effects
/r/MensRights30/06/13 01:34 AM
-1

Genital mutilation is a spectrum. What they have in common is their cultural and non-therapeutic nature'. There is simply no point where genital mutilation becomes something else except in the circumstances where it is a therapeutic procedure such as when a boy is born with a congenital malformation that leaves him unable to urinate or a woman suffers from VVS. Nope, there are therapeutic benefits to male circumcision, don't kid yourself. The justifucations for FGM are more or less exactly the s…
/r/MensRights30/06/13 01:20 AM
1

Repeatedly telling someone they're wrong and offering no proof as to why will get you nowhere.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 01:09 AM
0

There are several studies done on it, many of them showing benefits. Dismissing the consensus of doctors on it is nonsense.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 12:59 AM
0

No, you said two other links were "Not GA sites" and then abandoned the conversation, you've said nothing of this one.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 12:49 AM
0

I did. Not a big deal. No need for anger.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 12:38 AM
0

Absolutely. I wouldn't like to be forced to keep my hair short, and I wouldn't like if other people kept their hair short. However, would I subscribe to a newsletter about it? Would I donate to a foundation for the rights of boys to have their hair long? No, because that's not a big deal.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:49 PM
-2

Does WHO ever refer to male circumcision as "genital mutilation"? After a quick search on the website, the phrase "male genital mutilation" is never used. And that's a little unfair, female circumcision can be anywhere from cutting off a clitoris to trimming a millimeter of skin from the labia. I'd say operations done deliberately to remove pleasure are more worthy of the term "mutilation" than operations done for health benefits. If I had a 5 pound cancerous tumor removed, it's a lot of tissue,…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:39 PM
0

Now you're just name calling. People can figure out if they're circumcized, but they're told that it's "mutilated", statistically people prefer the aesthetics of a circumcized penis.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:28 PM
1

I'm not wrong. Circumcision is performed worldwide. It's just more common in some places as compared to others. 300 people are not representative of the entire world. You keep saying "Good day/evening" as if you're leaving, but you just keep coming back.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:15 PM
0

No, you didn't. You simplied replied that it is unacceptable. Please explain why it is unacceptable.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:05 PM
-2

blah blah blah - do you even listen to yourself? You're acting like a child. There are no health benefits. There are health benefits, though it can be argued that they are negligible. If you truly think that there are no benefits, you are grossly misinformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Effects It's just a savage, barbaric custom and nobody can be bothered to reform it because hey, it's just men. The words savage and barbaric historically have tended to mean "Not me".
/r/MensRights29/06/13 07:55 PM
-2

No, the goal of each is entirely different. People don't get circumcized to remove pleasure, they do it for health benefits. There's a reason why female circumcision is illegal in most places and male circumcision isn't.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 07:45 PM
-2

It's been used to refer to limbs getting cut off, rarely fingers getting cut off, and seldom(only on this subreddit and in intactivism) as amputation. I wouldn't refer to someone getting their earlobe getting cut off as amputation, or their tip of their nose, or the extra skin on the elbow as amputation, and neither is a foreskin. Now, when it comes to mutilation, it has a connotation of disfigurement, while the dictionary definition is accurate when it comes to circumcision. If someone loses so…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 06:52 PM
0

Really? Tell me your story when you looked at your penis and realized "Oh man, you know what? My penis looks ugly. Not just that- it has been mutiliated. That's how bad it is."
/r/MensRights29/06/13 06:16 PM
1

They don't disagree with me. They allow it to happen, they simply don't recommend it, because it's not a big deal. There was one place that called for an outright ban.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 05:36 PM
1

You see, you can't just say "Oh that's unacceptable". You have to say why it's unacceptable. Logic 101.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 05:14 PM
0

Erectile disfunction is a problem for all men across the world. Not American men. You would need a poll for every country since erectile disfunction happens to every population of men across the world. Just because it happens less-often in some places doesn't make them exempt. 300 people is simply not enough. Got it?
/r/MensRights29/06/13 04:57 PM
-2

Female circumcision is vastly different from male circumcision. Male circumcision is done for health benefits(negligible or not) while female circumcision is done with the purpose of removing pleasure from females.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 04:47 PM
-1

I specifically said the opposite, so that's handy isn't it? Your entire argument is semantic, it hinges upon the word "accident". What you don't take into account, is the REALITY of the situations you are proposing. Saying that someone choking to death on a ball point pen, is the same as the complications that can arise when an infant boy is tied down and has part of his penis removed with a scalpel, is one of the most bizarre ideas I have heard in my ENTIRE life. No you didn't. You emphasized t…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 04:37 PM
-1

I'm not. He claimed that men circumcized men are 4 times more likely to use viagra. I asked for a source. I cannot provide a source proving that wrong. He must provide a source proving that right. Otherwise I could say "Aliens helped build the pyramids" and not provide a source, and you would have to provide a source to prove me wrong. You cannot prove a negative. You must provide a source for a positive. This is logic 101. If you're referring to claims I've made towards other comments, I have p…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 04:15 PM
-1

I feel genuine sympathy for people that have problems resulting from circumcision, though the problems resulting from circumcision are rare. That being said, it's not a big deal. The thing is, there are many people who are not circumcized and have no idea what it's like, read a bunch of articles on the intactivist website, and think it's equivalent to amputation, and it's not. It's far too sensationalized.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:23 AM
-5

"Oh, well most are fine with it! So that means, if you aren't, you are a big complainer and making a big deal out of it" Putting words in my mouth. So the fact that most circumcised men are fine with it.... means that those who aren't are "making a big deal out of it" as you say? I don't think it's a big deal because of the amount of people that are fine with it, I think it's not a big deal because of the effects it has.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:20 AM
1

I'm not disputing 19 others, I'm simply providing a citation for my claim herp derp.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:19 AM
0

The effect size needs to be applicable to every circumsized man in the world, so I assure you, 300 people is not enough.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:18 AM
2

No I don't. I didn't make a claim. I'm asking for a source for his claim.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:17 AM
0

Why aren't they acceptable? It's not a hyperbole, I clearly outlined which were repeats, and it was well over half of them.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:16 AM
0

There are risks, and consequences, that we can prevent. Being struck by lightning is something that creates its own situation. We create the situation of circumcision. Honestly, its a false analogy. And not to mention, the amount of incompetent doctors and in many cases, religious clerics (!!!!) who are practising this procedure. Such malpractice I don't think could be described as "deliberate" (at least in the sense you are conveying) as that would involve some sense of self-aware malicious int…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:15 AM
2

You've provided no citations. Thus, you get none in return. I provided two citations in the comment you replied to herp derp. Redundancy isn't an issue. Again, the scientific process calls for it. Have you even had any college statistics and research courses? It appears not. Yes it is. He posted a plethura of links, a shock and awe bombardment of links that wouldn't be timely to refute when half of them are restating each other. Redundancy is an issue.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:03 AM
2

Lol? That's horrible logic. That's South Park History Channel episode satire level logic. "If you can't prove it's not true, then it must be true." If he says the pyramids were built by aliens, he needs a source to support it, I don't need a source disproving it.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:01 AM
0

Oh my bad, it's 1,000, which is still 3 times less than 300.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:00 AM
1

Circumcized and circumcised are both fine. I know in the U.S. circumcized tends to be used and circumcised. The -ized/-ised ending ambiguity goes for most words. You don't need to provide a citation with every claim, you only need to provide it when asked. My claim is mostly implicit, the people here I tend to see talking about it are more often cut than uncut by far, but here's a source: https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/poll
/r/MensRights29/06/13 09:58 AM
-2

http://www.statisticbrain.com/fun-facts/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Adverse_effects Let's look at all the links, I'll mark them with letters to show redundancy Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity A Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties Circumcision linked to alexithymia The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission B Circumcision/HIV claims are based on insufficient evidence B There is no case for the widespread implementatio…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 09:47 AM
1

Asking for a citation the pot calling the kettle black?
/r/MensRights29/06/13 09:19 AM
0

It isn't really. From what I learned in AP Psychology to get accurate results you need ~10,000. Correlation does not equal causation.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 09:08 AM
-7

Those are what we call accidents. Of course things like that happen. You can't compare these things to a deliberate non medically necessary procedure. You're not comparing like with like. Oh, so you think deaths from circumcision are intentional, not what we call accidents? What? Those are links to published scientific articles in respected journals. You can't call "anything of quantity" gish gallop. Gish gallop would be if all of those links were lies and deceptions, which they clearly aren't. …
/r/MensRights29/06/13 09:07 AM
-2

Viagra is not mentioned at all It says "Keep the findings in perspective, though. This was only a survey, so some of the men could be fibbing. And there are numerous other factors that contribute to ED."
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:59 AM
-1

Citation needed. EDIT: Yes, downvote me for asking for a source.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:44 AM
-4

Citation needed.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:42 AM
-9

Ah. And here you betray your ignorance. What you mean is.. "whereas people who actually had it happen who were lucky enough not to be victim to any of the potential complications or risks, don't really care at all." It's as much a matter of luck as it is a matter of luck someone doesn't get struck by lightning when they go outside. Complications are rare. And that's fine, if someone is circumcised and they are fine with it, good for them. But what of the men that suffered trauma? What of the men…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:41 AM
-11

A lot are actually told it's a big deal, but then they realize "Actually, when I have sex it feels great, and I can reach an orgasm with no problem". And first-hand experience is a lot more reliable than an uncircumcized person regurgitating something they read on Reddit or an anti-circumcision newsletter.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:30 AM
-8

Mhm. Should've qualified it. It's wrong to make an absolute statement. Most circumcized people tend not to care about it. There, that's better.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:27 AM
-9

Should've qualified it- Most circumcized people don't care about it.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:26 AM
-7

: )
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:17 AM
-8

Over-inflated? Not to most of us who have a foreskin. Yes, it seems a little odd to me that people who have a foreskin care more about circumcision than people who have had such a terrible-amputation-atrocity actually done to them, whereas people who actually had it happen to them don't really care at all.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:14 AM
-9

You're point wasn't proven, but go ahead and pretend it was. Your*. My point that was that some MRA's think it is equivalent to amputation. You think it is equivalent to amputation. You proved my point. As someone who was circumcised as an adult, I can tell you - yes, it is indeed similar to amputation. Oh, did you also lose an arm and a leg?
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:13 AM
-6

Uh, yeah it is. Yeah, thanks for proving my point. Ask a kid with one arm and a circumcized penis which they'd rather have. Circumcision is not as big of a deal as some MRA's make it out to be. There's websites, Wikipedia-mimicing sites, and hour-long documentaries about it. Really over-inflated.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 07:25 AM
-15

My husband is completely against this and says that our son will be laughed at, will be terrible at sex, unwanted by women, bullied by guys, etc. -_- He's seriously misinformed. Never seen anyone bullied or laughed at for having a foreskin. Some women care about it, though it's not a big deal, and I don't think it has any effect on performance(unless it's one of those painful foreskins considered a disease). Though ultimately it's not a big deal either way. This subreddit sensationalizes it so t…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 06:26 AM
37

Let's not blame the victim here... and if you read the half-paragraph article it says she drugged him and tied him to a bed, he didn't sleep with her.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 01:28 AM
1

I don't see why anyone would want to work on a fishing boat. From what I see on deadliest catch it's hell. Working 20 hours a day in constant danger. Takes some really tough guys to do it. Women with genetically weaker strength would make it even harder for them in general. It's one of the few cases where gender actually matters in an employee. Though I feel if there's a girl tough enough to work on it, an employer wouldn't have any reason not to hire them, unless of course the whole traditional…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 11:12 PM
-7

okay?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 11:02 PM
8

She's a schoolteacher? Jesus Christ fire that scumbag I wouldn't want her anywhere near kids.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 11:01 PM
-1

Not a great picture to have with the quote... and it generalizes "women" as saying that a man always has to say yes. I think it trivializes the issue, I don't like it.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 10:59 PM
1

It's from Failbook... possibly fake. And considering there's someone who added them on Facebook(which usually means you know them) and there's someone with the audacity to write something like that on someone's wall, I'd say that is probably fake. Why is this on the front page?
/r/MensRights21/06/13 07:24 AM
1

I think I want to punch just about everyone in the comments on that article in the face...
/r/MensRights15/06/13 11:44 AM
3

Well, I wouldn't say that's present in this video. Though I often hear people saying that they're getting raped in video games, or are raping other people. It's become more of a slang synonymous with "owning" people.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 06:52 AM
2

That's such bullshit. I can't believe someone actually typed that out without thinking how stupid it is.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 05:26 AM
2

Top 2 comments are against feminism. Guys. Are you MRA's or anti-feminists? Jesus Christ, there should be a discussion about the rape problem in India, not why feminists are hypocrites. Feminists arguing against MRA's and MRA's arguing against feminism gets us nowhere.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 01:20 AM
1

Influence from an employer is a lot less effective an self-interest. I'd be a lot less likely to ask "Would you like fries with that?" if I benefited directly from it as opposed to my employer.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 08:41 PM
6

Well the thing is it's a double-edged sword. From an MRA and justice-based point of view, it should be an eye for an eye, the girl should get a sentence equivalent to whatever the men would've gotten had they been convicted. From a feminist point of view, a harsher sentence for falsley accusing someone of rape would lead to even less women coming forward with rape charges, and more rapists getting away with it. Though really, if it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was a unfounded accusat…
/r/MensRights07/06/13 06:29 PM
1

Well obviously the hospitals get paid for it, but do the individual doctors get paid for it? It's important because the individual doctors may recommend otherwise unecessary procedures to get a little extra money, comparable to a waiter recommending dessert to get a little extra tip.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 05:57 PM
4

What about America, though? The link in the lower-right shows it's origin is American. I would think if doctors get paid by procedure, there should be call for reform in the entire realm of medicine, not just circumcision, that form of payment could lead to a lot of unnecessary procedures and turn healthcare more into a market.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 07:52 AM
3

Do doctors receive money directly from performing the procedure? Or is it just the hospital that gets it?
/r/MensRights07/06/13 05:09 AM
1

OP can mean original poster or original post. Your original post is missing the point and you yourself are also missing the point.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 04:22 AM
2

Agreed. 99.99% of people would call this rape, though you're missing the point, and the OP titling it "Some call it rape" is missing it as well.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 10:12 PM
1

Virtually everyone calls it rape. It's fallacious to make an absolute statement about an opinion.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 09:04 PM
-4

You're misquoting it. It said "Many call it a rape". They can't concretely describe it as rape since that would be an opinion stated as fact, though it clearly is rape and any reasonable person would call it rape. The title of the post is misleading.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 04:40 AM
6

Ridiculous*
/r/MensRights03/06/13 06:38 AM
1

I'm pretty sure they do.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 07:36 PM
6

Very misleading. Men have halfway houses, too. Does this count as fake? Can the mods remove it?
/r/MensRights01/06/13 06:00 AM
6

What does this have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights01/06/13 05:56 AM
1

Well yeah, like he said and like I said I agreed with it, men are guilty until proven innocent in rape cases, but there still exist laws against false accusations.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 01:51 AM
2

I agree with it for the most part- but didn't that post about the Taxi driver press charges against a false rape accusation? And I've seen several other posts with women being falsely accusing people of rape get jailtime (though it was a very light sentence in comparison)
/r/MensRights26/05/13 01:05 AM
7

Are there any statistics for the average salary of the same job for the same amount of time? The article mentions 2/3 of minimum wage workers are women- that's obviously going to skew it.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 03:14 PM
1

They are claiming to have knowledge of every group of pediatricians in the world, without a citation.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 08:55 PM
1

I really don't care about proving it to your satisfaction, if you think an absolute statement can be right in the first place and something out of date can be right currently then it's kind of a dead end arguing with you in the first place.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 07:02 AM
1

-_-. A whiny mess? The date doesn't matter. If it's out of date, then it's wrong. If it isn't, it's still wrong.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 05:11 PM
1

If it's on a bulletin board in April 2013 it has most likely been put their recently. Bullitin boards don't remain static for very long. You seem to be misunderstanding the parallel- it is wrong. It doesn't matter when it was made, and if it was right when it was made. It is currently wrong.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 04:29 PM
2

Oops. I saw another link that just linked to twitter, went back to try and find it, found yours instead, and then commented what I was going to originally comment on the picture from twitter. Upvotes ensued, I apologize.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 04:26 PM
19

If you click on the hashtag it brings you to a bunch of tweets of women saying violence against men is wrong as well. Don't worry, the popular consensus is that the hashtag is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 03:08 PM
1

It was posted April 2013. OP found it recently. It doesn't matter when it was made, it would still be wrong. By that logic, I could claim that the earth is flat because it was scientific consensus at one point in time.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 03:48 PM
1

Does the position being taken in 2012 make it any different?
/r/MensRights22/04/13 03:05 AM
1

The one that recommends it in sub-Saharan Africa recommends it in sub-Saharan Africa.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 08:44 PM
16

OP, mind screenshotting the replies? With of course censored names etc., I'd like to see what other UC Berkeley kids have to say... And I know plenty of minorities that do ROTC to get tuition paid for when they can't because of their economical status. Her argument would kinda sorta maybe little bit make sense if it was based on economical status, but it's based solely on race and gender. And Asian minorities make more than white people.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 05:26 PM
1

That's ridiculous. The statement is either true or it is not, citations can prove the truth or but they do not define it. Exactly. That's why an absolute statement is fallacious. If I was to say "All war is based on competition for struggles for territory or resources", it would be a fallacious absolute statement because I would need to cite every war ever had to make it true.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 04:23 PM
1

I already cited it and I linked to the source Wikipedia used to cite it. You just stated reasons as to why the citation didn't matter. Infant circumcision was recommended, for certain people, under certain circumstances. It was recommended nonetheless. If we're going by logical rules. To make this absolute statement valid, the back of the card should have a bibliography citing every single health organization in the world and their opinion on infant circumcision to make their claim valid. This i…
/r/MensRights20/04/13 07:58 AM
1

No.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 07:47 AM
1

I've cited it already -_-. Absolute statements are seldom right. I can declare myself a medical organization and say that I recommend it and prove it wrong because of a single exception.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 07:34 PM
1

Exactly. To prove an absolute statement true for this case you'd have to go to every single medical organization in the world and find a case that will prove it true. Absolute statements are bad to make.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 05:51 PM
1

But would you say this is usually the case, or particularly often the case? When it's being stimulated for too long or too directly. Yes. As towards "often the case", I don't have intercourse often and I don't overstimulate myself often because I know it will feel uncomfortable. I don't see what you're trying to say. This is an erroneous conflation. You are conflating nerve ending/density with degree of sensitivity. While they are correlated, it is not evidence for causation. In this case what r…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 01:21 PM
1

Well if you're that cynical to not accept the citation then I won't be able to convince you. My original objection is not irrelevant. Absolute statements are bad to make in general.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 01:02 PM
1

And nothing can be known, not even this. If we're arguing we have to give some things inherent merit, otherwise we'll get nowhere.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 05:53 AM
1

Hmm. Well this is quite a shock to me. The head of my penis is particular very sensitive, even too sensitive at points. In comparing it to my heel... it just doesn't make any sense. I can certainly recall situations where I'd have to ask girls to stop because my head was being overstimulated. Looking it up on Wikipedia it's defined as having an abundance of nerve endings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glans_penis I also know that it's homologous to the clitoris which is very often too sensitive f…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 08:56 PM
1

Again, it's not a drastic form of action, and I wouldn't do it to my child, and I don't have one.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 04:33 PM
1

Cutting off a half inch of skin is hardly analagous to cutting off one's testicles. You are an individual, not an entire population, the problems are significantly common.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 03:25 PM
1

Well all citations eventually cite sources that can't be accessed or read. All papers are citations of citations of citations of citations of primary sources.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 03:13 PM
1

Dammit. I can barely understand what it's saying literally every three words is something I'd have to look up the definition of. It says that it provides pleasure yes, but it doesn't provide any extremity in comparison to the head : | And if the conclusions and facts are "hazy" it just furthers my concerns that what we really know about the foreskin isn't very hard in terms of fact.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 02:35 PM
0

People tend to pretend to be trolls after their arguments fall through and they really have nothing to stand on. And I lol'd at "A foreskin is the size of a post card". I've had just as much fun, don't worry. I won't respond to anything more, say what you want. I have more important things to respond to, and it gets to the point where I need to wait 8 minutes to respond.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 02:25 PM
0

Straw man. No, cutting off all of your skin is not a medically accredited way to prevent getting a flesh eating virus. That is a drastic action. A half inch of skin is not as drastic an action as all of your skin. You're getting a little ridiculous now.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 03:59 PM
0

A half inch of skin != an arm or a leg. It is not the right word to use. Words like "amputate" and "genital mutilation" are sensationalist. A snip of a half inch of skin is hardly an "amputation" or "mutilation". It's in the same sense taking the skin off of a finger tip is a mutilation or amputation.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 03:49 PM
1

STI's, cancer, and UTI's are not infrequent. I'm sorry to say. And no, cutting off your testicles provides a significantly worse outcome when it comes to sex. That's a poor comparison.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 03:39 PM
0

I believe the link I provided was adequate proof. I could say a few more things about it, yes, but that would just be nit-picking. 100 Deaths a year is misleading, 100 people choke to death on ballpoint pens a year, which would make circumcision as dangerous as using a ballpoint pen, death seldom occurs.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 01:09 PM
0

Actually name calling is the weakest of arguments.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 12:58 PM
1

No it's just mythological comes from the root word mythology. A the fact disputed may or may not be a myth. It is not a mythological story that provides the audience with a positive moral lesson at the end. It just gives off an inaccurate connotation. It's the wrong word to use, fictitious or "a myth" would be better. And I'd like to commend you for being one of the only people I'm arguing with to actually cite a source. Good on you : ). The 40,000 number is a number I keep seeing(mostly I belie…
/r/MensRights16/04/13 06:43 AM
1

Amputate is the wrong word to use. A half inch of skin is not comparable to an arm or leg. It gives off an inaccurate connotation. You clearly don't understand how risk reduction works. You cannot pick and choose which people will be affected and then use a preventative measure against them. A preventative measure reduces the risk for the individual who may possibly get it, regardless of which 1 out of the 20 they are.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 05:13 AM
0

Malaria has a cure. Does that mean I should sleep outside in Africa every night without a mosquito net? Common diseases have cures. Does that mean I should never wash my hands? No. Preventative measures aren't moot just because there is a cure for something. A little snip snip is not a drastic action. And name calling.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 05:03 AM
0

Allow me to ask for a 5th time: Can you cite a source or reason as to why it isn't credible?
/r/MensRights16/04/13 04:52 AM
0

Having a cleaner penis is not the justification used for circumcision. It's major benefits are in preventing cancer, STI's, and UTI's. The cleanliness issue was raised by you
/r/MensRights16/04/13 04:42 AM
1

May I see a link to these studies? Conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt or not, evidence is evidence and I'd like to see it.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 04:32 AM
1

There are justifiable reasons as to why someone may get circumcized: -Decreased UTI risk -Decreased STI risk -Decreased cancer risk Are these not more justifiable than having fun at the pool? The reason for a circumcision is not "neglect" it's for the health benefit of the child. Stop referring to it as a "genital mutilation" It's a simple snip of foreskin that many find it more ascetically pleasing. It's as much a "mutilation" as it getting an ear pierced or tonsoles taken out. Calling it a "mu…
/r/MensRights16/04/13 04:22 AM
1

There is a health organization that recommends it. Organizations tend to come to a consensus on something before recommending it.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 04:11 AM
0

You're just name calling now. http://i.imgur.com/OGt9y.jpg
/r/MensRights15/04/13 08:37 PM
-1

People die unfortunately all the time. If I take my kid to the public pool, and my kid unfortunately drowns in the pool, am I at fault my child's death? They died because they were subjected to something that would not have killed them if they hadn't been. It has nothing to do with neglect, it's solely to do with unfortunate events that occur.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 08:26 PM
0

Your logic that the procedure being unnecessary for 95% of cases is flawed. 5% of the world has HIV/AIDS. Therefore, by your logic, it's only necessary for 95% of the world to practice safe sex. This is simply fallacious and wrong. Preventative measures can be taken for everyone for every illness. Everyone is at risk for UTI's. Everyone is at risk for HIV/AIDS. Everyone should take proper precaution. "Life-threatening risks" of circumcision are just as risky as using a ballpoint pen. 100 people …
/r/MensRights15/04/13 08:13 PM
1

Statements are rarely true and absolute. That may have been true when it was written but it's wrong now, thus making the absolutist statement false. Your last part doesn't make grammatical sense in the first sentence, so I'm kind of confused. Whether what is true or not? What are we citing? o_o
/r/MensRights15/04/13 08:03 PM
0

Please read your own source. "I'm right because so and so says so" is a valid argument if so and so is a credible source. It can be a very valid argument. It is only fallacious sometimes when the authority appealed to is poor and uncredible. If you have a reason as to why my authority is uncredible. If you believe appealing to authority is inherently fallacious, you are simply wrong, as proven by your own source. So since this is the fourth post or so arguing back and fourth, I assume that you w…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:51 PM
0

I think something occuring in 1 in 20 people is significant. Don't you? And reducing the chances of something by over 200% is obviously significant. Remember when the "TIL That ejaculating 2-3 times a week reduces prostate cancer by 10%" or something like that was so significant that it made the first page? This is 200%. It is very significant.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:41 PM
1

No. I'm obviously stating that the pleasure comes from the head, not the skin. I've yet to see a source for that, though I've heard a lot of hearsay about it on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:31 PM
1

Wikipedia is a perfectly fine source, don't have anyone tell you different. It's more accurate than the average obscure article you can find on the internet and is perpetually revised for accuracy. I rarely come across falsehoods on Wikipeda. The article you linked to said it was introduced in the 19th century, far away from the 60's and stated nothing about a false claim of cleanliness, and suggested that the reason was solely to stop masturbation. This does not support your claim. Do you have …
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:21 PM
1

Mytholical is the wrong word to use. It implies that it comes from mythology rather than a "myth" I've yet to see a source from an unbiased website citing a superfluous amount of nerve endings on a foreskin as compared to the rest of the skin it's attached to. If you could provide one I'd invite you to do so. The AAP say no difference has been found. In a public poll I saw some people enjoyed a circumcized penis more than an uncircumcized one which makes it seem to be a matter of preference. The…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:11 PM
0

Cleanliness is more than just washing your dick. If circumcized and uncircumcized penises were the same cleanliness, it wouldn't be brought up.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:00 PM
0

Wikipedia? What? Recent positions are usually more accurate. The post cards are posted recently. If not they are out of date.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:58 PM
0

It is a special case. But it is still a case. I'm not denying that there are organizations who are against circumcision outweigh those who support it, I'm just arguing from a logic perspective that making an absolute statement that it isn't recommended for anyone is fallacious.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:49 PM
0

Just because something is biased doesn't mean it's wrong. Bias can very well mean untruth, or skewed truth. If it was from a medical professional as opposed to anti-circumcision website, it would be a more reliable source. The reasons why even one death is one too many is the fact that circumcision is medically necessary. Every single baby that dies from being circumcised dies needlessly. And that is also the difference in the accidental deaths in your example above. I don't see any difference. …
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:48 PM
-1

I'm not entirely sure. I've seen a lot of sources on both sides that make it worth it, or not worth it. I really wish there was a consensus on it, but doctors don't seem to agree. I'll link to what I posted to another post regarding a cost-benefit analysis. This is of course assuming that sexual sensitivity isn't taken into account, and only the risk of death vs. risk of disease prevention is weighed, and assuming that circumcision has legitimate health benefits in preventing STI's and cancer: 1…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:28 PM
1

I never said it was relevant to anyone else. I simply stated that they recommended it to sub-Saharan Africans : |
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:25 PM
-1

I'd like to see a source for your claims. EDIT: Asks for a source, gets downvoted. Really?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:21 PM
0

Which post? Forgive me, like you say I have gotten into a lot of arguments and all of these branching off my comment has become a clusterfuck. Please post the link to your post and I'll reply to it. That's a very bad comparison. It's more like saying that doctors who recommend circumcision to people in sub-Saharan Africa recommend that all people should be given it. They don't. they recommend it in sub-Saharan Africa. The AAP say the benefits outweigh the risk, though they don't explicitly recom…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:18 PM
0

I already answered your questions. Loss of sexual sensitivity isn't a hard fact and the AAP denies that sexual sensitivity is lost. UTI's are decently prevalent, occuring in 5% of infants aged two months to two years. 100 babies die every year from botched circumcisions. I cannot cite cite the specific source you are requesting regarding the rate, can you? If neither of us can cite a source, then you cannot use it as a point. The sources from the AAP saying that it decreases the risk of UTI's by…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:11 PM
-1

5% of infants get a UTI before they turn two, as I've re-iterated before. It's a significant prevalence. Getting circumcized lowers is by more than 200%. It is very significant.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:04 PM
-1

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy when you use a poor authority. I am using the AAP, a group of pediatricians. A group of pediatricians are a valid authority when it comes to pediatrics. Appeal to Authority becomes a logical fallacy when the authority I'm appealing to are not an expert on the subject. If you could provide a source as to why the AAP is not an expert on the subject, then it will become a logical fallacy. Please provide a source from your claim. I know what it is. You seem t…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:03 PM
-3

Or the "40,000" or so nerve endings are a myth, and are no more sexually stimulating than the rest of the skin on the body. Doctors argue on it either way, I wish they'd come to a consensus.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 07:00 PM
-1

A simple snip of a foreskin is hardly a surgery. The AAP say the benefits outweigh the risks. According to the other source I linked to infantile UTI's are fairly prevalent, occuring in 5% of infants between the ages of 2 months and 2 years. 100 babies die from circumcisions every year, according to the source this image is linked to. Though when I google "100 deaths a year for circumcision" it all comes from anti-circumcision websites, so I'd argue that it's very biased, considering the studies…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 05:44 PM
0

I saw your context. You stated that it couldn't be regenerated. I then linked to a source proving you wrong, and later denied that you said it couldn't be regenerated. No. We shouldn't chop it off now and regrow it later, that would be contradictory. I'm not a medical professional nor the parents of a child and I can't make any recommendation. If there are legitimate benefits of having circumcision, then it would be logical to have a circumcision and keep it permanent. If there aren't legitimate…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 05:19 PM
-1

You can have more than one treatment for something. Treating an illnesses is different than prevention. Circumcision isn't a treatment for UTI's it's a preventative measure for UTI's, among other things. It doesn't make them immune but reduces their chances by over 200%, which is very significant.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 05:16 PM
-1

I didn't say it couldn't be regenerated The UTIs can be easily fixed with the right antibiotics. The foreskin however cannot regenerate once it's been removed. Yes, you did.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 04:37 PM
-2

I know what it is. You use a source from an expert on the subject, someone whose opinion is given credit. The AAP is a group of doctors. That is my authority. Apparently they are lead by a Jew who had a biased goal to find health benefits for circumcision. I would like to see a source for that last part. Much of what I hear about circumcision on this subreddit is hearsay.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 04:35 PM
-2

UTI's. I've re-iterated this several times. Circumcision is not invasive. It is on the surface. Circumcision is very safe. Accidents in surgery happen very rarely.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 04:33 PM
-2

No. Not necessarily. You are just stating a falsehood in saying that it cannot be regenerated. STI prevalance is obviously more complicated than what percentage of the population gets circumcized.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 02:17 PM
-2

May I see a source for that? Could you provide an unbiased source for your claim?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 02:15 PM
-2

Do you have a source for that number or did you just assume 99%? Here is a source: http://life.familyeducation.com/baby/infections/40608.html The number is 5%. A significant number. The AAP believes the benefits to outweigh the risks. Are you a medical professional or do you have a source from a medical professional that would support your claim that the risk outweigh the benefits?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 02:08 PM
-2

I believe there are foreskin regeneration procedures. And assuming doctors are right in there being no difference in sexual stimuli, then it really doesn't make a difference to me. Sure there's some pain, but that comes with all surgeries. the AAP says that the benefits outweigh the risks. I would say a group of pediatrician's opinions on the subject is reliable.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 02:00 PM
-3

Being circumcized for longer gives you the benefits of circumcision for a longer time. In infants it reduces the risk of UTI's by over 200%. It also reduces the risk of cancer and STI's when kids are growing up and getting into their teens.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 01:54 PM
-1

STI's can be treated. Cancer can be treated. That doesn't mean you shouldn't not use condoms or smoke. All illnesses can be treated, that doesn't make preventing them a bad idea.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 01:52 PM
-2

I haven't seen anything about female circumcision being healthy. The religious reasons for it are to prevent female pleasure and promiscuity. I'd like to see a source for your claims. Here is the Wikipedia page for reasons for female circumcision, none of your claims are there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision#Reasons_for_the_practice Health benefits are good reasons to believe in a medical practice.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 01:51 PM
-2

Well it'd be a matter of opinion for each person. Some people would think an overall more healthy infant would be worth having some pain for the surgery. There is evidence of benefits from circumcision.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 01:46 PM
-3

Circumcision offers benefits earlier in life as well, i.e. infantile UTI prevention.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 01:45 PM
-2

Of course, I'm just talking about how convoluted whether or not it's good or bad. People can't really seem to come to a consensus on it.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:54 AM
-3

I never said it was a surgery that would save your life. There are health related benefits that reduce the chance of cancer, UTI's, and STI's. I personally am not pissed about it.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:53 AM
-8

Sorry, you need to understand there are many "myths" on both sides and I'm not sure what to believe. The Wikipedia page says: Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction.[18] The Royal Dutch Medical Association's 2010 Viewpoint mentions that "complications in the area of sexuality" have been reported So it's kind of contradiction. Which one's the myth? How am I supposed to know?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:32 AM
0

Infant circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa is still infant circumcision.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:28 AM
-2

Well that doesn't offer any benefits, even supposedly. It's goal is to eliminate pleasure from females, right? Then obviously I'm against it. The goal of circumcision(myth or not) is for the health benefits.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:26 AM
-2

You need to use the word literally literally instead of figuratively. It helps prevention. Granted it's not as good as condoms, but it still helps.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:23 AM
-2

It's extra protection nonetheless.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:22 AM
-5

I'm aware, but we've already been over this- infant boys get the full benefits of circumcision at their infancy when they aren't able to make that decision.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:22 AM
0

Why is it a special case? Just because it's recommended for certain parts of Africa doesn't mean it's not recommended :o. Here's the source provided by Wikipedia: Bolnick (2012), ch. 1, Current Circumcision Trends and Guidelines, pp. 3-8
/r/MensRights14/04/13 03:36 AM
0

Oh right, routine infant circumcision; I'll continue my search~ EDIT: Ehh, quote from Wikipedia under circumcision No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa)
/r/MensRights14/04/13 03:22 AM
-3

I never seen or heard anyone use circumcision as an excuse to not to use a condom. I haven't been educated or heard anything otherwise. I would say considering solely circumcision as adequate protection against STI's would be reckless, but I haven't heard of anyone believing that and I don't think very many people do.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 03:16 AM
-1

That's true. But I'm sure there's at least one that recommends it. Found one
/r/MensRights14/04/13 03:13 AM
4

Yes, having one exception prevents an absolute statement, that's why it's bad to make absolute statements. It's a logic thing.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 03:04 AM
-9

Whether or not it is "long term damage" is still a matter of discussion. I've seen too many sources either way to considered it "damage", and considering it's referred to as an aesthetic improvement, I wouldn't call it a "mutilation" either. By definition it is a mutilation but the connotation of the word is a hyperbole, and even a contradiction. I do not agree that it is a "long term damage or mutilation", so my other examples suffice, assuming there are health benefits towards it. Yes safe sex…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 03:00 AM
-14

Alright well, getting shots as a kid then? I don't want to go to a doctor and be poked with a needle as a kid, but my parents force me to because it's good for my health. I would've opposed it as an infant but wouldn't have opposed it grown up. Is that better? And getting circumcized benefits the individual, and society as a whole, preventing the spread of STI's, so I don't see why you're dismissing it as irrelevant. The benefits are better for circumcision when getting it at a younger age. If y…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 02:51 AM
-11

I'm aware- but getting circumcized as an adult doesn't give the benefits that would be had, were you circumcized as a child. And of course there's the whole tradition thing of being circumcized as an infant. I'm circumcized, and assuming the facts are true of it being healthy and the sexual stimuli being a matter of preference, I'm happy I was circucized when I was an infant to achieve the full benefits and that I don't remember. Assuming the facts are false of it being healthy and it severely l…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 02:46 AM
-20

Not necessarily. Some things are good for people who would oppose them. i.e. when I was a kid I hated going to school, and if it were my choice I would definitely not go, but my parents forced my to go. Now that I'm grown up it was definitely worth it to go to school. And the infantile age when circumcision is done(and has benefits for things such as infantile UTI prevention), I have no way to weigh the pros and cons, being an infant. I am unable to make my decision, and it's left up to the pare…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 02:37 AM
-3

I've just heard a lot of mixed stuff about circumcision in general. Here on the MRA subreddit is seems like it's torture, from other sources I've heard that it's actually very clean and healthy. I've even heard that the foreskin isn't as sexually sensitive as it's made out to be. Which really makes sense to me, none of my skin gives me sexual pleasure, rubbing my skin over and under my head is what gives me pleasure. I've seen public opinion polls where some people enjoyed their penis post-circu…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 01:54 AM
20

I heard that the FDA recommended it? EDIT: The AAP does Making such a broad and absolute statement such as "No organization in the entire world" is just begging to be pointed out as wrong. Absolute statements are rarely true, and definitely not in this case. EDIT EDIT: And can you guys please stop downvoting me? If you disagree with my view, I invite your to argue with me, offer your view, and prove me wrong. But downvoting me just censors my opinions and hides it from view.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 12:55 AM
1

You're making too much of a blanket statement about feminism. Feminism can have a wide range of views. Some can be outright hate mongering, and some can simply be moving towards equality. Making a generalization about an entire people is... well part of the problem true feminists and true MRA's are working against.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:36 PM
0

Woah... buddy... *Stay away from for-profit colleges. If you see a commercial or an ad about it- STAY AWAY. They provide a shitty education for a lot more money compared to any other college. I don't think I've ever seen a scholarship that goes by religion, however. I think you're wrong on that point. Though I recommend if you want to study game design go to a state college. There are plenty of colleges cheaper than that have decent Game Design programs. If you could specify your state I might b…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 04:42 PM
4

Feminism and being "Bounty Hunters" is a dangerous combination... looking at their website... they put too big of an emphasis on being women. It's not different than a group of white supremacist trying to be bounty hunters, or racist white cops being in the deep south. It's just a recipe for disaster. Another thing, they describe him as "A little guy, 5'7", 170 pounds" and then go on to describe him as dangerous and bad ass that needed rough apprehension. EDIT: Jesus Christ, they have pink handc…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:01 AM
9

He knows about it, but he says he's not happy in a celibate relationship. That's an implied threat to leave me, and I consider it coercive. I think he knows that he raped me. Everything I've ever thought about the man is now in question. I thought he was such a good feminist ally. I GUESS NOT! It's hard to be a feminist ally and a rapist at the same time! Yeah definitely a troll... or some anti-feminist with a fucked up ideology who thinks creating imaginary feminists with fucked up ideologies w…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:38 PM
1

Psst. Look at his username.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 01:06 PM
7

The part at the very end? "If firearms were the answer, the military would be the safest place for women, and it's not" TIL having a firearm means you're in the army.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 02:11 PM
3

That's a textbook case of blaming the victim -_-...
/r/MensRights08/02/13 09:53 AM
1

Of course it's profit driven, but people aren't farmed. People aren't given healthcare advice that would keep them in hospitals, they're given advice to keep them out of hospitals.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 03:00 AM
-3

If this were true that would translate to other things that currently happen; i.e. doctors encouraging people to get fatter so that they can harvest body fat for the production of soap, or killing people so that they can harvest and sell their organs. People aren't farmed for their fat or organs any more than they will be for their foreskins.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:51 PM
-4

I doubt it. Doctors are supposed to do what's best for the patient, not produce a profit.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 04:43 PM
-7

I don't think it's such a big deal... It's not like people are being farmed for foreskins, they're simply using foreskins that would've been thrown away. Circumcision won't increase just because facial cream is being made out of foreskins.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 11:44 AM
38

It seems like they're killing innocent people though, short of the rapist (Unless you consider winking at them sufficient for getting killed). Even so, being tortured to death isn't a fair punishment for rape. It's not Girls against rapists, it's Girls against boys -_- It's not some sort of vigilantic justice, it's a misandrist revenge fantasy.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 04:17 PM
55

I don't get it... so a girl is raped by a guy, so they start torturing and killing innocent guys?
/r/MensRights21/01/13 03:41 PM
7

I think it depends on the situation. Someone can like two people at the same time, and be legitimately attracted to both of them. With our social structure of monogamy the person is forced to choose, leaving the one they liked less in the dust. Just because someone comes up to you as a backup doesn't mean they aren't legitimately attracted to you.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 04:02 PM
4

Oi, if people came up to me and tried to mug me, but failed. I'd still describe it as being mugged. o_o
/r/MensRights14/01/13 12:43 PM
0

Not sure about the physical differences at that age, but girls in general are weaker than boys when it comes to sports, making her a bigger deal than him. However, due to girls maturing faster than boys it may be the other way around. I've played peewee and high school football, and I would purposely go easy on the girls, because it was polite I guess. Felt weird hitting a girl... plus to block them correctly I'd have to put my hands on their bewbs, as taught by my coaches.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:33 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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