TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Sandra_is_here_2 Archive

View 0 posts and 132 comments by Sandra_is_here_2 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)
2

You are absolutely right.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 02:54 AM
-8

Seems about right since men have already received more than their fair share of advantages from medical science. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/30/fda-clinical-trials-gender-gap-epa-nih-institute-of-medicine-cardiovascular-disease
/r/MensRights10/02/18 04:39 PM
1

Thank you for the example of the kind of verbal abuse that women must endure for having the temerity to disagree with a male of our species. I know that it was intended to degrade me and make me seem less worthwhile to myself and potential readers. Sorry for your loss but that kind of attitude and male reaction no longer works. We will no longer allow it to work. Your disapproval is mute.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 05:17 PM
1

There are all kinds of ways to benefit women. Bringing attention to the myriad of small but degrading slights that wear women down and convince them of their low self worth over a life time is also a a good and needed contribution. Stopping child marriage and sexual abuse is very important. It is equally important that there is a fair and just world for those who escape such foul treatment available for them to participate in. If there is no such world awaiting them, why bother?
/r/MensRights29/01/18 03:56 AM
1

The ones who stayed home were the ones even the army didn't want. Then, if you could stand upright and breath, the army wanted you.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 08:40 AM
-21

Funny, society didn't collapse when the boys went off to fight WWII. Women just went int the factories and on the farms and did their jobs while they were gone. Guess you never heard of Rosie the Riveter. We already tried it without able bodied men and did just fine.
/r/MensRights09/07/17 04:44 PM
-1

Wrong. They are clearly defective females. They suffer from a very common malady called, "Testosterone Poisoning".
/r/MensRights29/12/15 04:22 PM
0

It gives him nothing. He's dead. Nothing will ever be given to him again.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 12:39 AM
2

Because sometimes murder would be so much more satisfying.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 10:27 PM
1

Yes! It is spousal abuse that I am against.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 01:45 PM
-4

Well, that's a tough one. I guess we can't make it a law to allow women to kill their abusers. But, in a perfect world, we could sell the matches to light the burning bed at a discount with a get out of jail free coupon on the back of the receipt.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 10:24 AM
-5

So, why did you go back and have sex with her over and over again in the following weeks?
/r/MensRights13/12/13 02:44 AM
-1

She is entitled to some of it. She suffered, too.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 10:36 AM
1

So, it isn't just her but her friends harassing you. I don't know if you can make a case against her and everyone else she may sic on you. Do you even know the names of the other people? How do you know that it isn't a whole gang of them subscribing you to things? So, that's a fine kettle of fish you got yourself into by shooting off your mouth to the wrong person. You may just have to go to another school at least for one semester. I am not sure you can resolve this situation until they get tir…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 05:56 PM
13

Of course men are lonely. They have been turned into irrelevant cast offs. They have been kicked out of the family while former wives ran off with their children. A man is only a part of the family at the forbearance of a woman. Unless he just caves and lets her run things, sometimes if he does, he finds his reputation besmirched and himself kicked to the curb while his children are turned against him and he is impoverished. Suicide? What else do you expect from people who are unneeded and unwan…
/r/MensRights31/05/13 01:59 PM
1

So, you think the children of a marriage should be sold to the highest bidder. That is total rubbish.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 02:38 AM
-2

Here is a news flash. You don't BUY visitation. While your kids are minors, they have every right to benefit from the wealth of their father. You are lucky. You can pay that much and still enjoy what most of us would consider the "life of Riley" so quit your bitchin' about the money. We po' folk have no sympathy. As to the visitation, if you didn't care enough to spend half your time with your kids when you had less money and it was harder to do, why should you enjoy that privilege now? Plenty o…
/r/MensRights18/05/13 02:06 PM
-2

I'm sorry that they are no longer interested in that arrangement. I wish they would follow through with it. But, they won't. Such is life. Perhaps, in time, they will come around if things don't get too heated right now. I think your best and only hope is the good will of the grandparents. Given that the child is an American citizen by birth, I don't think he will be leaving this country. Perhaps, instead of sharing custody, which they will be soundly against, you could just move to St. Louis an…
/r/MensRights18/05/13 12:54 PM
0

Ah youth. No one ever thinks bad things can happen when they are young. I think it takes some living to get the message. I hope from this, you have at least bought life insurance by now. Have you sat down and really figured out the cost of raising a child? Have you even priced day care where you live? Have you worked out a real life potential budget for circumstances where you might have a child? And, what about time? I understand studying medicine is pretty all consuming. If you attend medical …
/r/MensRights18/05/13 12:04 PM
0

How would you even care for a child soon to be an active toddler if you got him? All we know is that you are still a student and can't even afford a plane ticket. You are not established with a steady job. When you get a job, what kind of arrangements would you have for your child while you are at work? Children cost a fortune. And, when you move forward with your life, how do you know that any woman you marry will love your first born as you do after she has children of her own? Since you are C…
/r/MensRights18/05/13 11:13 AM
4

Female service members told me that some women invite problems which lead men on and then result in advances the woman can’t turn off. What the hell does that mean? If she can't turn an advance off when she wants to, it is against her will and it is an assault. Sounds like blame the victim to me. Unsubstantiated accusations remain a significant problem, Well yeah...Unwanted assaults don't usually happen in front of witnesses. Just because an assault is "Unsubstantiated" does not mean that a woma…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 02:01 AM
0

Phooey. You just want your guy to get the job instead of the woman. If you want fairness you would promote the ones who are still behind due to know fault of their own until everyone has an equal playing field.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 04:24 AM
0

You must be against all kinds of quotas. I guess you think that there was no need to insist that colleges enroll black students or employers hire women. I guess you wouldn't have supported school busing for integration. I guess you think everything would have just worked out on its own. Or, you think we have already achieved justice and fair play and that everyone gets treated according to their merits. Oh, very darned well, you are entitled to that opinion no matter how wrong headed it might be…
/r/MensRights24/04/13 04:13 AM
0

Seems kind of fair to me. Let the woman have the job. If that is punishing him for being male, I am perfectly OK with that. It is darned time that the pendulum swung even a little bit. It isn't as if that one job will make a huge impact on he fact the women still do not have economic equality. But, every little bit helps.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 04:03 AM
0

No more than women have been and still are being punished for being women. Give me and other women everything that we should have had as equal members of this society and then I will be willing to extend the same consideration to men. You can start by giving women equal Social Security benefits to those of men since they were denied the opportunity to earn as much as men their entire lives.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 03:53 AM
-1

He is simply a representative of a group. I am another representative of a group. I live on Social Security and I am STILL being punished for being a woman. I receive roughly half the Social Security benefits of my first husband because I was denied equal opportunity for education. He got trigonometry and pre-calc in high school. I got four fucking years of Home Economics. How well do you think I was prepared to become an engineer in college? Who would have hired me to do anything except bring t…
/r/MensRights24/04/13 03:43 AM
-1

How old are his mother and father? If they are older than 50, I highly doubt that his mother was the primary earner for the majority of their married life even if she has been recently. If not having a fair chance at equal economic opportunity is punishing someone, why have women been punished for so long? Why do they continue to be punished? You don't by any stretch of the imagination believe all is peachy keen and rosy now and that women have already achieved economic equality, do you?
/r/MensRights24/04/13 03:32 AM
-1

Well, they sure reaped the benefits of their fathers doing it. If men sit down, shut up and take the left overs for a while, it won't hurt my feelings any. I had to do it enough in my lifetime. And, while you are dictating how I should feel about this, try to remember that the women who had to endure unconscionable sexism in their own lifetime aren't even dead yet!
/r/MensRights24/04/13 03:17 AM
-1

As a woman growing up the only real professions open to women were secretary, nurse, bank teller, waitress, shop girl and teacher. Almost all other professions were for men only. Even the help wanted sections were listed as "Jobs for women" and "Jobs for men". Don't even start to tell me not to feel pretty damned good about giving a bit of what men thought was OK to do to women right back at them.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 02:14 AM
-11

Ha! As a woman, all I can say is welcome to our world! It will take a long damned time before this happens to men enough to even begin to make things even.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 04:21 PM
1

Well...I would add that the non-custodial parent has not only the right but an absolute legal obligation to spend time with the child. The custodial parent can't cop out on spending time with their child or just be in their life on whims. The non-custodial parent should not be able to shrug off their responsibilities to their children, either. Also, I would only ask for financial accounting if the support is over a certain minimum such as $300 a month which is piddly in the over all cost of a ch…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 02:32 PM
1

Yes they produce different problems. I think false allegations of rape can be handled in civil court just like and other slanderous or libelous false accusations. Then, the court can determine what if any real damage has been done to the victim.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:33 AM
1

If your family and friends, who know you best, would actually believe that about you, you have some fence mending to do.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 11:08 PM
1

Neither are those accused of rape. Only those found guilty of rape are placed on public lists to be eternally stigmatized. If friends and family don't believe in the innocence of a person who has been accused, well, they probably have their reasons. Here is a news flash, Numbnuts, rape victims have to live with what happened to them for their entire lives. They are never the same again. They don't "get over it". Many require years of psychiatric support. That is why rape is such an awful crime. …
/r/MensRights01/04/13 10:05 PM
1

If lying is perversion, then all are perverts because all are liars at some point in time. Lying is not nice but it is certainly normal human behavior and no perversion.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 09:52 PM
1

Yeah, right. Rape victims just "get over it". You, Sir, are an idiot.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 09:32 PM
1

Being accused of rape is more damaging to someone than actually being raped?? Are you nuts?
/r/MensRights01/04/13 09:21 PM
1

Fine. They should be sued for slander and libel. Then their victim should be awarded damages which they should be forced to pay like child support. This can be handled in civil court and that would be better for the victim.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 04:01 PM
3

No. Furthermore, that list needs to be completely tossed out. Most of the people on it should not be. How is it right for a 50 year old man to be on it for having a relationship with one teen girl who was in love with him in his 20s? How is it right for a man who thought he was alone and took a pee behind a tree near the golf course to be on it? That list does not even come close to revealing people who are a danger to children (and others). It is for the most part a list of people with bad judg…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 03:48 PM
0

Well, I think one way to greatly undermine groups such as the Taliban might be to have our women go out and kick their butts. It might give their own women some pretty good ideas as well.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:51 PM
-3

I have done the critical thinking and I have also gotten the information. Politicians do NOT reflect what the majority of voters want. They reflect which candidate got the most money. "Over the last decade, we've seen that in the vast majority of congressional races, those who raised the most money emerged victorious. In 2004, Senate candidates who raised the most money won 88% of the time and House candidates who raised the most money won an astonishing 97.8% of the time. " http://www.cnn.com/2…
/r/MensRights12/01/13 08:19 PM
-10

Please, show the reference where you found the information that when women run for office they're more likely to be elected. Women are NOT choosing not to run. It is all about the money. Running for office takes money. Much of it comes from male dominated corporations. There does not seem to be much corporate funding for women candidates from the "good old boys". So, since you presumably want equality for yourself and everyone else, I presume you are willing to be paid the same as a woman and ov…
/r/MensRights12/01/13 06:43 PM
-5

Helping people get elected starts at the grass roots level. You can try to get qualified female candidates on the ticket.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 06:23 PM
-12

Bullshit! Men didn't give up their advantages. They still have advantages. Those they lost they did not give up. Women took what always should have been rightfully theirs. And, guess what, boys, we are going to keep taking them until we have our rightful place in this culture. Men need to stop trying to be the top dog and prepare to give up half the power as is right and just. (See the US Congress for an example an unbalanced society. Also, look at lists of the country's wealthiest people and se…
/r/MensRights12/01/13 04:59 PM
1

Yes. There comes a time when a male child becomes a man. A man does not allow himself to be hit. If he loves the offender and desires to maintain the relationship, he may need to break the offender of the bad behavior through kindly but firm training. If the mother is hitting her 18 year old son, she certainly needs to be trained not to do that. And, unfortunately, it will fall on her son to do it. If he cannot stop her behavior, he will eventually be forced to break off the relationship. Traini…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 05:57 AM
1

Nope I am dead right. You are an irresponsible man who brought two or more children into the world with a woman of low character, who does not provide well for them and who lies and steals their support money. You put defenseless, innocent human children into the tender mercies of the monster you chose. You made this mistake not just once but twice or more. You engaged in the procreative act that gave them life. You are responsible for their very existence and for the mother they have.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 11:25 PM
0

If it escalates to the point of badgering a person into compliance, it is.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 11:09 PM
-2

If you made an active decision that you did want to have sex with him, you changed your mind and communicated that change of mind to him. That would not be rape. If he pressured you into it, it was rape whether you take offense to it or not.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 07:14 PM
-1

If a person says alright get it over with because they are under pressure to have sex when they don't want to, they have been raped. Rape is having sex with a person who does not want to have sex with you.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 07:12 PM
-1

No I have not changed my position. Pressure anywhere at any time that results in sex with a person who has expressed unwillingness is rape. However, if a person is able to leave, they certainly should do that rather than continue to submit to being pressured.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 07:08 PM
1

I have not used circular reasoning. I would ask you to sit down and diagram the circle you think my reasoning has gone in but, really, it isn't worth the effort for you to do or for me to debunk. On the other hand, maybe you should to have a better understanding of circular reasoning for yourself. Here is a clue. Restating a point is not circular reasoning. It is simply repetition.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 04:32 PM
1

I am not responding to you personally. I rarely read the user name when I read the comments and remember who made which comment even less. I am just not good with names. Instead, I respond to the content of the comment. Here is where I totally disagree with you. Using any pressure what so ever to obtain sex is putting the other person under duress. If pressure must be used to get a person to have sex with you, the sex is non-consensual and it is therefore rape. It isn't very complicated at all. …
/r/MensRights30/12/12 04:27 PM
0

What? You think I said she is always capable of walking away? Obviously, that is not true and I would not have said it. I did say she should walk away if she can. I am not sure what you are talking about.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 04:06 PM
0

If she is having sex to please him, she is willing. Willingness is independent of the reason for being willing. Compliance obtained by duress is not willingness.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 04:03 PM
1

? What exactly is it that you think you are on to?
/r/MensRights30/12/12 04:01 PM
1

Good grief. Another deep thinker heard from.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:59 PM
0

I have thought about it and if clarifying your meaning does not lead to anything of substance for you, then you are certainly a hard one to have any reasonable discussion with.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:58 PM
-2

How on earth do you have the strange notion that a woman is always in a position to walk away or to even call for help? All to often that is simply not the case.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:56 PM
-1

Here is a big fat clue for you. If a woman has changed her mind, she will initiate by saying, "I have changed my mind".
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:53 PM
-6

These one night stands you refer to where the woman has allegedly changed her mind the next day would almost never happen if the man had simply asked, "Do you want to do this" and gotten "yes" for a reply. In fact, I think they would be so rare as to not be worthy of discussion. Usually the so called consent that has been withdrawn in retrospect was obtained by coercion and she has been raped. A woman who is actually willing has no regrets the next day.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:45 PM
0

Mature, intelligent adults of either sex can be forced to do things against their free will by being put under sufficient duress. Sex obtained by any means other than consent willingly given is rape.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:36 PM
1

Sex obtained through coercion is rape. Sex obtained by any means other than willing consent is rape.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:32 PM
1

I don't think it is a man/woman thing. Men can be raped, too. If you have placed a person under duress to cause them to have sex with you, you are a rapist. That is true whether you are a man or a woman. Sex without consent freely given is rape.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:30 PM
-1

That is exactly what rape is.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:27 PM
-1

We are both equals. It is never OK for any person to use any form of pressure to obtain sex from someone who is unwilling whether they are married or not. "No" means "no".
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:27 PM
1

The word "sir" was used for emphasis.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:23 PM
0

Wrong. Refusing to take no for an answer is the problem. That has nothing what so ever to do with patriarchy. It has to do with one person using duress to force their will on another to obtain sex which is never OK no matter what gender you are.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:20 PM
-2

Of course, she should walk away if she can. Leaving the scene is way too frequently not a choice. Generally, it is the man who is driving. Usually buses don't run at night. She may not have access to a phone to call a cab without his agreement or even know the address where she is. She may be in high heels and have inadequate outerwear for the weather. Walking away may not be an option. I think if a woman goes anywhere with a man, she should follow in her own car and meet him there. Unfortunatel…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:15 PM
-3

Of course women are sexual agents. That is not being disputed. What is under discussion is that "no" means "no". Browbeating, harassment, badgering, nagging, whining, cajoling or any kind of persistence after you have been given "no" as an answer may eventually enable you to perform the sexual act without violence as a result of putting the woman under duress but you have not gotten consent unless she actually is willing to have sex with you and she says so. If you have pressured a woman into do…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 03:04 PM
-1

Words mean things. To make our meaning clear is why we have definitions. One word that should be perfectly understood by everyone is the word "no". One sentence that should be perfectly clear is, "I don't want to". If you hear either of these at any point in the exchange, the will of the other party is clear. Back off. Cease. Desist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 02:54 PM
-7

I think we have discovered why men sometimes think she just felt bad about giving consent and changed her mind later. From this conversation, it seems clear to me that some men think it is only rape if she is physically forced. Anything else to get her to “put out” is fair game. In their opinion, men may nag, badger, harass, beg, intimidate, lie or use any non-violent means to get their way and it is not rape if she gives in. To them, “no” means she just hasn't come under enough pressure to give…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 02:45 PM
1

It is rape by definition. rape the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. If you have asked 1000 times, you have clearly placed a person under duress. du·ress 1.Threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 02:12 PM
-4

Then you are capable of telling him in plain English which is, I assume, your language, that you have changed your mind and you now want to. If you are harassed until you change your stance, you have been raped. Yes, husbands can rape, too.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 02:09 PM
-2

No. If they had to be pressured, it was clearly against their will to have sex and therefore clearly rape. If ever you have sex with a person who does not wish to have sex with you, you are committing rape. That's what rape is. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. edited to add definition.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 09:17 AM
-3

I have zero problem with courtship. What we are talking about is when one person does not accept no as an answer when he or she requests sex. Instead, they harass, pressure and bully the desired person into it and kid themselves into thinking that it was consensual when in fact it was clearly against the person's will. Such people have committed rape.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 09:13 AM
-7

Persistence when you have been told no is harassment and bullying. Once she knows of your interest, should she change her mind, she can come to you and tell you that she has rethought the matter. If a person does not wish to have sex with you, do not use any means what so ever to cause them to do it. If you do, you are a rapist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 09:08 AM
1

It is not a given that they are able to leave. If they can, of course, they should. Repeatedly asking is coercion, harassment and bullying. Any so called consent obtained that way is not consent because doing the act is clearly against the woman's wishes. Having sex against a woman's wishes is rape, plain and simple. If a person does not wish to have sex with you, do not use any means what so ever to cause them to do it. If you do, you are a rapist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 09:04 AM
-9

If a woman has told you that she doesn't want to once, she has articulated her refusal. If you persist after that you are a cad and a bully. If you then do have sex with her, you are also a rapist. "Yes, I want to," is consent. Anything else is no. You obtain consent by asking, "Do you want to" and receiving a "yes" as an answer. This is a very simple concept. If a person does not wish to have sex with you, do not use any means what so ever to cause them to do it. If you do, you are a rapist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:57 AM
-4

No, sir, they did not say yes of their own accord. Had it been of their own accord, you would not have felt the need to pressure them because they would have said yes in the first place. If a person does not wish to have sex with you, do not use any means what so ever to cause them to do it. If you do, you are a rapist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:46 AM
-1

co·erce To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel. In this case use of pressure would apply. Verbal pressure is pressure whether you like to think so or not.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:43 AM
-1

co·erce To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel. In this case use of pressure would apply. Verbal pressure is pressure whether you like to think so or not.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:43 AM
-9

If a person says they don't want to have sex with you, take no for an answer the first time, sweetie. If a person does not wish to have sex with you, do not use any means what so ever to cause them to do it. If you do, you are a rapist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:38 AM
1

The best thing is to always ask and if the answer is anything other than a straightforward and honest yes, do not have sex. I think very few women who have said out loud in a mutually shared language that they wish to have sex would deny they gave consent the next day. I do not understand why anyone cannot grasp this simple concept. Problems generally arise when a man has pushed or forced himself on a reluctant woman. He may think she was persuaded but she was in fact raped because she did not w…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:35 AM
-2

Yes, I must give my consent each and every time and so must he. If there is any reluctance on either part the sexual act should not take place. It is a violation of the other person to force the issue. "Do you want to," is not such a hard question to ask is it? If a person does not wish to have sex with you, do not use any means what so ever to cause them to do it. If you do, you are a rapist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:25 AM
-2

If any means what so ever are used to cause a person who does not wish to have sex with you to do it, that is rape. If a person does not wish to have sex with you, do not use any means what so ever to cause them to do it. If you do, you are a rapist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:16 AM
-4

If you use any means what so ever to coerce or force a person who does not want to into having sex with you it is rape plain and simple. Making a person who does not wish to have sex with you do it despite their desire not to is rape. If a person does not wish to have sex with you, do not use any means what so ever to cause them to do it. If you do, you are a rapist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:14 AM
-5

If you are doing something reluctantly or resentfully, it is against your will. In other words, if you had your will, you would not be doing it. Having sex with a person who does not want to have sex with you is rape plain and simple. If a person does not wish to have sex with you, do not use any means what so ever to cause them to do it. If you do, you are a rapist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:10 AM
0

You're kind of dumb, aren't you? When did three generations only take 30 years? It takes longer than that in even the most inbred families. Point of information, I had my first child in 1965. Maybe, that will help you figure it out. If not, do try to get your GED.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 07:14 AM
-2

No a woman may not always be able to walk away and cut him off especially if he is driving which is usually the case. Sex that comes after sexual harassment is rape. If she were willing, she would not need to be harassed into compliance.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 07:10 AM
-2

If you must pressure a person to have sex, it is implied that they have already said no. If they were willing, they would have said yes.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 07:08 AM
-6

If you have pressured a woman into doing something sexually that she does not want to do you are a rapist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 07:06 AM
-7

I'm sorry but you are dead wrong.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 07:04 AM
-2

I found my deceased husband just fine. When the right time came, he said, "I would like to make love to you. May I?" What's so hard about that?
/r/MensRights30/12/12 07:03 AM
-8

There are many ways of forcing your will on someone. Pressuring a person who has said no until they give in is forcing your will on them. That, sir, is rape.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 07:00 AM
-8

Any consent obtained from any means other than the free will and desire of the woman is not consent. Begrudging consent is not consent she is doing something against her will.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 06:55 AM
-4

No it isn't different from rape. It IS rape. Any words other than, "Yes, I want to," means NO! Any resistance means NO! If you persist, you are a rapist.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 06:53 AM
3

Maybe they have free will and maybe they don't. How much free will do you have in a car, perhaps in an area unknown to you, with little cash in the dark of night wearing high heels and maybe not much of a coat? Aren't you sort of at the will of the person driving the car? Under such circumstances, it can be pretty hard to withstand pressure from an insistent man who is bigger than you are. And, you can just bet men know how trapped they often have a woman. And, you can bet they really lay the pr…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 06:44 AM
-10

If I were to guess, I would bet a whole lot more women get pressured into having sex against their will than women who make false rape accusations. The problem is that men think if they pressure a woman so much that she finally caves and gives in, it was consensual. It wasn't. It was rape.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 02:46 AM
-14

Just because a woman finally caves and gives in doesn't mean it was consensual.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 02:42 AM
1

It is indeed your fault for choosing such a despicable person to bear and nurture your children. Having one child with her may imply that you were simply stupid and fooled about her true nature. Having a second child with her makes you an irresponsible and unfit father since you had more than adequate time to know and understand her true character before impregnating her a second time. The truth is that you placed two or more innocent children into the care of a person who you now claim has no c…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 01:54 AM
2

I think you handled it well. If a woman hits you and you are large enough, just restrain her wrists until she stops fighting. Tell her you will let go when she agrees to stop hitting you. If she does have bruises afterward, it will be hard for her to explain that you were beating her only on the wrists when you tell the judge that you were simply stopping her from hitting you. She is smart enough to know how dumb she will sound with only restraint bruises on her wrists. No one has to stand there…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 04:25 AM
-1

Nonsense. Food stamps are very easy to convert. A person, usually a relative, just gives a shopping list to the card holder and later gives them cash for the food. What could be easier? People who want to use their resources for pot, booze, cigs or even other expenses can always find a way. You aren't going to make rues to stop it. So, what is your excuse for impregnating such a horrid person? You did, after all, get her pregnant, apparently twice. She did not impregnate herself. What kind of fa…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 03:51 AM
-1

Why not? If their own money has been sent to pay the child's share of the utilities, I see absolutely no reason not to reimburse them with the card. Their should be no food stamps. Needy families should be given a cash grant to use as needed. It is ridiculous to send $800 for food when what they may need is tooth paste or toilet paper. That's why so many convert their "food" to cash, often at a loss. They may need gas to get to work or go put in required job applications instead. So what if the …
/r/MensRights29/12/12 03:14 AM
-1

The problem is that the child should benefit from the parent's wealth or vise versa. The child of a successful doctor should not be forced to live on skid row and forced to attend substandard schools because of the mother's (or father's) poverty. Nor should a child's placement be determined by the income of the parent but rather by the parent's parenting skills and willingness to care for the child. Said successful doctor may be too devoted to his/her practice to attend to the child or even have…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 11:46 PM
-1

When you are able to keep the household bills separate and have the rent, utilities and other costs come in a separate bill for the child, then that will be reasonable.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 11:29 PM
0

Are you so certain that you want none of the child support spent on the mother? What if the income of the child far exceeds that of the mother? How do you deal with rent? The mother can only afford her share of a $400 a month apartment but the child's income would entitle it to live in an $800 a month apartment. Assuming that both pay half the rent, where does one rent an apartment that rents for $200 a month on one side and $400 a month on the other side? Should both live in the $400 a month ap…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 03:09 AM
0

Good grief.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 01:59 AM
0

I bet they do have enough nasty people's diseases.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 01:33 AM
0

LOL!! Well, if you weren't so much larger, we could stab you in the front instead of the back when you get abusive, fiddle with the neighbors kiddies or bring home nasty people's diseases. I don't personally stab anyone in the back, though. I leave that up to others. I sort of have a liking for the burning bed technique, myself.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 01:31 AM
0

I think the courts have pretty much figured out how much is reasonable to keep a child in the manner their parents would normally be expected to provide. Besides, assuming that a custodial parent has some income that belongs to them alone, it is only reasonable that they should be able to spend that on any legal product that they choose. It is one of those prerogatives that come with being an adult. Just because a custodial parent buys cigarettes or booze does not imply that they have misused ch…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 01:14 AM
-1

What I am saying is that there is no special money. It is all money. As long as the child is provided for in a manner befitting the incomes of its parents, the right money is being spent on the child whether it comes off that card or comes from some other source. It makes no difference if the card is used for alcohol, on item adults are allowed to buy, so long as the person in charge of the finances has met their obligations toward the child. If you cannot follow this logic, which I think I have…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 01:07 AM
0

What nonsense. Do you not think part of the support should pay for the rent? Do you want the child to live in the dog house? Or, do you presume that the custodial parent would NOT find a smaller place or get a room mate if they were not providing for the child? What about utilities? Do you really want children taking cold baths? How about car maintenance and insurance? Do you propose that the child just bike themselves down to the emergency room when needed? And, I guess as a teen little Bobby o…
/r/MensRights27/12/12 10:21 PM
5

I'm pretty sure that the holders of the cards put all the family resources in one big pot. They don't think this dollar is for me and this dollar is for the kids. They, no doubt, pay what ever costs of living are incurred by the home where the child resides with whatever financial resource is handy. Do you think that they divvy up the utility bill and pay part of it with a check from their bank account and part of it with a child support card? How about the rent, the car insurance and so forth? …
/r/MensRights27/12/12 09:42 PM
-1

Head in the sand only makes you feel better until there is a flood.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:19 PM
-1

Nonsense
/r/MensRights19/12/12 07:20 PM
-1

Exactly right.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 06:20 PM
-1

People who are smart enough to foresee that during their lifetime, there will be social, economic and natural disasters and prepare for those eventualities are not nut bags. They are intelligent. Name even one generation that has not had to deal with disaster of some kind. What makes you think the people currently alive will be spared? They won't be. It is people who do not assume the personal responsibility to prepare to be able to take care of themselves and those who depend on them during dis…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 06:18 PM
-1

If you are prepping, you ARE living with hope. You are living with the hope and belief that if you take personal responsibility for your own safety and well being, you will survive and come through whatever social and economic challenges come your way.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 06:11 PM
-1

She reportedly was a prepper. I think in this day and age, anyone who is not preparing to survive economic and natural disasters is simply irresponsible. Either they are irresponsible or just plain stupid.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 06:07 PM
0

Yep, I'm sorry. My bad.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:31 PM
-2

Yep, that would have been better. But, I think some men might agree that if a woman gets wet she is asking for it.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 08:56 PM
-1

I know.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 08:55 PM
-14

So, you are saying that men have no control. I guess when they see a woman who can't help looking good or who can't help walking home alone from the bus stop after dark and they rape her, that isn't their fault, either. After all, she was "asking for it" by looking good and being alone. And, you know men can't control their sexual responses. Well, OK then. Glad we got that all cleared up.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 03:23 PM
1

Anyone who has been forced, pressured or coerced into sex has been raped regardless of their gender. No means no.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 03:16 PM
8

If a male has an erection, that is clear evidence that he was "asking for it".
/r/MensRights29/10/12 03:10 PM
16

I heard that when a man really doesn't want to have sex, his body has a way of shutting down that thing. If he gets it up, it must be legitimate sex.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 02:55 PM
7

DNA testing SHOULD be mandatory. Screw the rights of the parents. Children have a right to know who their biological parents are beyond any question or doubt. The rights of the child come first.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 12:35 AM
1

That is the whine of the outsmarted. Workers always consider their bosses and overseers manipulative and lazy.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 03:17 PM
-1

Why should we? We have suckered you into doing that.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 03:09 PM
-4

Of course women have always been smarter. Who would be stupid enough not to know that?
/r/MensRights10/09/12 08:46 PM
1

Making a pass at you" is not sufficient grounds to feel disturbed because the vast majority of men and women (homosexual or heterosexual or otherwise) will leave you alone after getting the no. It isn't the vast majority that worries anyone. It is the ones who are not a part of that vast majority who may not be identifiable until they have already begun to hurt you.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 11:40 AM
1

Offensive? No. That is what is called an uncomfortable truth.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 11:31 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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