TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Thegg11 Archive

View 3 posts and 42 comments by Thegg11 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)
0

GeneralThegg11/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:19 PM
0

Social IssuesThegg11/r/MensRights13/02/19 04:40 PM
0

DiscussionThegg11/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/18 09:36 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-1

You act like that doesnt already happen.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 10:27 PM
1

If there is no condom trap, there is evidence to suggest sex did not happen.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 09:19 PM
-3

Nothing I said was wrong though.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 07:59 PM
-1

He wont be charged if it is an accident. The woman would charge instead if he tried to rape her.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 07:03 PM
-3

Because the only reason for him to get it stuck (that is plausible) is that he tried to rape her. Innocent until proven guilty is only true in situations where there isnt evidence to demonstrate guilt. Having an anti rape condom is clear evidence of guilt. It is on the guy then to show that he was assaulted by the woman.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 07:01 PM
-3

But you should believe in the idea of innocent before proven guilty. If we assume the woman is innocent, this would then mean the only reason for the condom to be on the man is if he assaulted her.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 06:57 PM
1

As you guys always say, innocent before guilty. You should therefore believe that the woman was assaulted instead of believing she purposely tried to set the guy up.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 05:40 PM
1

Regarding your last paragraph, it would be on the onus of the mane to prove that the woman was weponizing the anti rape condom, as you guys like to say, you have to assume that the woman is innocent before proven guilty. The anti rape condom would provide ample evidence that a rape occured and it would therefore shift the burden of proof onto the man to show that he was "assaulted" by the device wrongfully.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 05:04 PM
-2

But it makes it immediately obvious if a rape occurs. This helps women prosecute rapists and protects men from false rape accusations.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 05:01 PM
1

It wouldnt necessarily stop the rape entirely, but it would at the very least immobilize the rapist earlier and provide much stronger evidence that rape occurred.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 04:54 PM
1

Seems understandable. But what about wearing it only in higher risk situations like before consuming alcohol or at parties? Most sexual assaults happen between people you know after all.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 04:46 PM
1

Just ensure the man asks her to remove it before intercourse, its another way to ensure consent occurs. I do not see a problem here.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 04:45 PM
0

It gives women clear proof rape took place. People should assume that women are innocent unless evidence comes up which suggest that the woman did misuse this. Isn't that what MRAs have been arguing for?
/r/MensRights13/06/18 11:39 PM
-1

Why is that? It does everything Feminists and MRAs would want, provides concrete evidence unwanted sexual assault occurred.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 09:54 PM
0

But they will allow women to prove that someone actually raped them and make false accusations much more difficult if it becomes common for these condoms to be used.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 10:40 PM
0

Placing the device inside of yourself is akin to placing up an electric fence. The fence shows you do not consent to anyone going onto your property unless you allow them to, or face being harmed. The anti-rape condom works the exact same way, wearing it suggests that you do not consent to sex unless you remove the device and can be punished if you misuse the device (like you would if you were to trick someone into touching you fence by claiming it wasn't on). This suggests that the man has to t…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 08:28 PM
-1

So you assume that a man is innocent of rape, yet assume a woman is guilty of maliciously using this device on a man? Seems like a double standard to me.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:56 PM
0

Sex Occurred The device is attached to the man's penis. That there was no consent The woman wearing the device inherently implies that she was not consenting towards sex. If she was willing to consent, she would remove the device before engaging in sex. There. The only defense a man would have is that the woman is lying about not giving consent, but that would accuse the woman of a crime and the man would then have to prove she consented.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:53 PM
1

Because the defense of the man is "there was consent," which would accuse the woman of a crime. If one cannot provide sufficient evidence that the woman gave consent, than it would suggest that there was no consent at all. Its a he said/she said situation, except for the fact that the woman now has evidence that sexual assault occurred.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:48 PM
0

It would be pretty easy to prove if it was just her hand considering that the device should be covered in DNA if its inside of a woman (you could probably determine what type of cells are there as well). lack of consent I disagree. Consent needs to be proven if you were to accuse a woman of malicious intent with the device (as suggesting there was consent would be inherently accuse the woman of committing a crime). If the man cannot provide sufficient evidence that consent was given, it should b…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:46 PM
0

And you are an MRA who assumes the man is innocent even when there is evidence he placed his penis in a place he should not have. You also forget that lying about consent with this device would be a crime too, so the woman would have to go on trial too. The condom being on the man is clear evidence he placed it some where he should not have and without evidence suggesting there was malicious intent, the only rational explanation is that he raped her. Like I said, the woman in this scenario has e…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:41 PM
-4

Because its a double standard. When a woman is sexually assaulted under normal conditions, he assumes the man is innocent. When a woman is sexually assaulted with the anti-rape condom, he assumes the woman is guilty of malicious intent, rather than seeing it as evidence of the man assaulting her.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:37 PM
0

Wrong. Because the woman has evidence that unwanted sex occurred and the man has no evidence that the woman consented.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:33 PM
0

The man is accusing the woman of lying in this scenario. In the situation above, I would believe the woman because she has clear evidence that the man placed his penis in a place he was not allowed. Its not automatically believing the "accuser," its believing the person who has better evidence. The man needs to provide evidence of his accusation that the woman did provide consent.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:32 PM
1

The device is invisible from the outside, the rapist wouldn't know it is actually in there.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:30 PM
0

Except that the doctors would be required to take DNA samples from the device to prove that it was actually inside of her. If the woman just attaches the device herself, it would be evident that she just did that (not to mention how difficult it would be to actually try to do that against someone who resisted).
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:29 PM
-1

Assuming innocent before proven guilty only works before evidence is presented to suggest ones guilt. There is clear evidence the man is guilty of sexual assault/rape if the device is attached to his penis. In contrast, there is no evidence suggesting the woman misled the man about consent. This clearly places the onus on the man to provide evidence that sex occurred with consent. Does this not solve the exact issues MRAs have been discussing for years?
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:28 PM
0

The device only attaches itself once the man attempts to remove his penis from the woman. The device is able to come out (but not back in) of the woman. The man however will need to be sent to a hospital, where DNA can be collected from the device and the man arrested for rape. Like I said, there are no downsides to the device. It allows women to prove that unwanted sex occurs and eliminate the threat of false accusations. I thought that is what the MRAs wanted. It places the onus on men to prov…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:26 PM
1

If the woman is raped, then the device attaches onto the mans penis and has to be removed by a doctor. The device being on the man's penis is physical evidence that unwanted sex occurred.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:14 PM
0

The man is the one who has to place his penis inside the woman for the device to activate. Evidence points towards the man doing something wrong here. Therefore, it is up for the man to prove the woman is guilty of lying about consent as the woman already provided evidence that rape occurred. Remember, we assume the woman is innocent before proven guilty.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:13 PM
0

The woman until proven otherwise, the device is clear evidence that the man placed his penis into a place he did not have permission to place it. Unless the man provides proof that he was tricked, we should not assume that the woman did anything wrong. Innocent until proven guilty, and the device being attached strongly implies the man is not innocent.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:04 PM
0

It solves the false accusation problem by ensuring there is physical evidence that unwanted sex occurred. Ideally, someone should always wear the device and only remove it before consensual sex; doing so will act as a deterrence to rape and provide physical evidence that rape occurred.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:01 PM
-1

Unless the man provides physical evidence that the women used this device wrongfully, then we can't assume that the women did so maliciously. As you said, we cannot rely on a he said/she said situation, but we can clearly get physical evidence that unwanted sex occurred if the device is attached. With this device, the man needs to present evidence that sex was done with consent. An unclear device would defeat the entire purpose of it, as a rapist could simply force the device out if it is visibl…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:57 PM
0

This device allows for women to easily provide physical evidence.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:47 PM
-1

Why assume that the women is automatically guilty? MRAs staunchly believe that people are innocent until proven guilty, should we not consider the women who present physical evidence that a rape occurred (a man having the anti-rape condom on his penis) innocent of falsely accusing/framing the guy?
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:45 PM
1

Except for things like removing child support even though single mothers already pay more for a child than the man not raising the child. There is also their resentment of feminism and them believing that people who want equal rights for women are evil.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/18 10:15 PM
1

Was his vegetarianism the reason he slaughtered people? No, it was his hatred towards certain groups of people. Elliott's Rodger's hatred of women stemmed from his MRA beliefs. Your analogy is inaccurate.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/18 10:13 PM
1

Pretty sure MRAs see equality as "making men have more rights over women" as opposed to genuine equality. This is an end result of that belief that some MRAs genuinely follow. Maybe MRA should disavow their extremists instead of pretending they don't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/18 10:09 PM
1

He despised women and believed that they should be placed in concentration camps just as one example. Pretty similar to the views I see some MRAs/Red Pills hold. Its disgusting.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/18 10:04 PM
1

It explains it in the article.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/18 09:46 PM
1

Read this article for context. Ill add it to the OP.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/18 09:43 PM
1

A lot of MRAs don't actually engage in real activism, but they still call themselves MRAs. I am talking about the views he held.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/18 09:40 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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