TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

S11008 Archive

View 0 posts and 41 comments by S11008 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)
4

That, and our... eccentric moderator.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 12:32 AM
-11

False analogy. It should be easy to prove (or at least shift the burden of proof), if it isn't, that a particular thing isn't a misogynistic idea.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 12:30 AM
7

Damn straight.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 10:26 PM
6

I think you meant to go to /wr or rights4men-- this is a board for Mens' Rights, not misogyny.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 06:58 PM
2

I, irrationally, had a fear after the penis-in-disposal ordeal, that my SO might hurt me. She was angry and the whole thing had me on edge. I felt unsafe, and had to ask her if she'd actually do anything to hurt me. I felt a bit stupid and irrational, considering I knew intellectually there was no reason to feel this way. After my hospitalization at a mental ward, I had, and have, an aversion to certain people as a trigger. I'm afraid of seeing their faces or remembering things I did with them, …
/r/MensRights12/08/11 06:35 PM
10

you feminists Er, MRA my man. Are you serious?
/r/MensRights12/08/11 07:14 AM
7

We must tell the (skinny) people.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 03:12 AM
4

trapped in the time-rape continuum. I lost it. This needs to be a band.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 03:02 AM
15

This is different than the "MRAs are neckbearded foreveralone types" how? Not necessary.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 02:40 AM
2

Wouldn't sit be appropriate if sitting through Glenn Beck videos were a continuous habit? "I play poker", "I sit through Glenn Beck videos", "I type for a living"?
/r/MensRights12/08/11 01:39 AM
2

I think that's fucked up, but fantasizing about being the victim is a far cry from fantasizing about being the abuser. the responsibility 14 year olds The legal view is laughable, in this instance. That said, I'm unsure of how to approach the age of consent issue. It clearly isn't 14 or 15, but at 16 and 17 things get fuzzier. That's curious.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 10:36 PM
48

That is the stupidest, by far the stupidest, video I have ever seen. And I sit through Glenn Beck videos. Jesus. I guess it's not rape if she comes, right? Seriously...
/r/MensRights11/08/11 10:17 PM
3

Yes, I do believe it is wrong to fantasize about raping somebody. That we can try 14 year olds as adults is a testament to the fallibility of our justice system, not a justification for lowering the age of consent.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 10:12 PM
5

You should when it involves situations involving rape, statutory rape, pedophilia, or a host of other harmful and morally wrong situations. Appealing to naturalism won't save you from the moral bankruptcy of saying a 14 year old is fair game.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 09:48 PM
4

There is nothing wrong with being mistaken, of course, but there is something wrong when you wouldn't care if you were and would still consider that person "fair game", even if they were underage.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 09:36 PM
15

She claims to have acted in self defense, and the victim denied it happened, then asked that his wife not be charged. Feel bad for the guy, with his mental illness.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 09:25 PM
8

There are plenty of things which aren't in the code that aren't regarding morality, and plenty of immoral behavior is not illegal (adultery, thinking about 14 year old girls with sex in mind, for example). Ultimately, the only person talking law, rather than ethics, is you. Thoughts and fantasies can't be immoral? There's no reason to believe this is true.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 09:02 PM
14

Nobody is talking about thoughtcrime except for you. What we're talking about, is the reprehensible thought that was expressed. It is too difficult to tell the age of an individual from their image. This wasn't the expressed thought, the expressed thought was that it didn't matter and regardless of her age, she was "fair game". 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, it didn't matter, all of this was up for hittin'.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 08:55 PM
17

A 14 year old being fair game to be sexualized really does not help this case. If she is being sexualized, she is being seen as a sexual being-- open for sexual encounters. How is this not implying that she is fair game to be raped (in the statutory sense), if she is fair game to older men? The kind of mental contortions you have to do to even suggest this wasn't approval of statutory rape is amazing.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 08:26 PM
-4

He did leap pretty quickly to assuming it was a "man-hating woman instructor." I'm not 100% sure what to expect from the course but I have a suspicion it may be a man-hating woman instructor. We're learning all sorts of fun facts about the OP!
/r/MensRights11/08/11 07:10 PM
27

The post you're referencing referenced another post, saying I don't care if she's 14, if she dresses like that she's fair game. No one's suggesting checking ID's, only that statements like the above do defend statutory rape.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 06:47 PM
37

You probably shouldn't look at little girls with sex in mind.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 06:25 PM
2

The reaction of ~5-10 people in the Pat Stewart thread are under some sort of victim complex. There's no denying this. I cannot, and will not, speculate on the community's reaction. Aerik is one of /r/mr's biggest critics and completely batshit. The radfem bloggers I've seen are either transphobic, misandrist, or otherwise similarly batty. Could I produce a list at the drop of the hat? No, I'm referencing from memory, and I see no reason to rely on anything more for this justification. I can get…
/r/MensRights11/08/11 08:54 AM
2

You don't understand how I could form this opinion? They take the lowest common denominator (which, unfortunately includes the mod of this reddit), usually posts that are downvoted into oblivion, and dishonestly project it to the subreddit which has downvoted these posts. Obviously, I'm not denying there are grains of shit in this diamond (hell, chunks), as we see here, or on the Patrick Stewart thread. In the same vein that Aerik, or radfem bloggers, or the people at /r/againstmensrights don't …
/r/MensRights11/08/11 08:24 AM
2

No, /r/againstmensrights is filled almost entirely with skewed, misinterpreted, or nonsensical content.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 08:10 AM
1

The two are connected. If he wasn't of the legal age of consent, then no, it's not considered consensual sex. It's taking advantage of a kid.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 08:09 AM
2

I'm going through the AMR file and looking at whatever "dirt" they have on /r/mr. A lot of it is skewed, misinterpreted, or otherwise complete nonsense, but once in awhile you find the occasional MRA acting like an idiot. It almost feels like a personal goal to make it clear that isn't what Men's Rights is ( or should) be about. Just for an explanation of where I'm coming from. :P
/r/MensRights11/08/11 07:53 AM
2

Downvoted the both of you. He shouldn't use homophobic slurs, and you shouldn't apply his immaturity to the entire MRM.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 07:13 AM
2

Thinking back to when I was 14, this would've been great and I wouldn't have cared if it were rape, because I would feel I was giving consent. Objectively looking at it, however, it is reprehensible and taking advantage. That doesn't mean I should deny how I might feel in that situation-- these are two different perspectives.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 06:49 AM
2

This was the most unintentionally hilarious post in this whole thread.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 06:45 AM
1

He was 14, so no.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 06:43 AM
3

The best type of communism!
/r/MensRights11/08/11 05:16 AM
1

Might be she meant "naturalist fallacy".
/r/MensRights08/08/11 04:33 AM
14

Bullshit. I love the transpeople in my life and I've done nothing but.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 04:16 AM
1

Men under the thumb of feminism-- every quack is a rape accusation
/r/MensRights06/08/11 07:39 AM
2

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Better to just ignore it, then, or take a laugh.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 01:47 PM
2

You could argue that it's misandry (and misogyny for the other end) to be homophobic, as it's forcing an oppressive gender role on those gay men who wish to serve (edit: and broadly, men and women both). Gay's rights are MR, the only proof you need is the instant reaction many people go for towards behavior outside of a certain gender role: faggot.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 06:30 PM
8

Did they seriously take out the downvote button? This is laughable. I like /r/mensrights half and half and barely post here, but this AMR group is pitiful.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 03:12 AM
5

Pretty sure "Pam" is a troll, and "she" succeeded. Most of the comments seem pretty damn horrified, or taking it (as you might joke about the tar hamburger of a teenaged driver) in dark humor.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 09:01 PM
13

I didn't really mind what she said, what I mind is blowing it out of proportion to "potential assault". She just said "Yo, it's kind of weird to proposition me here... please don't do it." That's fine. What's not fine is going further than that.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 08:06 AM
6

I saw that. The first half of the actual article caught me by surprise when she asked "how", not "if", but it was the second half that just completely blew me away, as well as the comments. The claim is that the blog doesn't hate men, just masculinity and men sucked into masculine gender roles, but that doesn't seem to be the case, for the blogger or the comments. This is... wow. I really have never seen anything like this before. I'm rather hopeful they will go nowhere, and that I can keep myse…
/r/MensRights20/04/11 06:03 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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