TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Toparov Archive

View 0 posts and 93 comments by Toparov 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

Actually no I didn't I pointed out several ways in which that study heavily leans it's results (and that the results with the highest findings for women are from countries with the highest MOE) but hey man I am fine with that, if you clarify this data is enormously weighted to Africa, extreme poverty and necessity and that the reverse is true in the first world (where the vast majority of us live) then fine. Men kill more kids in the first world, women kill more kids in dire poverty and in place…
/r/MensRights24/12/18 02:14 PM
2

I’m not saying you necessarily should explain away Male/female homicide ratios by male physical strength. I’m simply pointing out your double standard in using your list of excuses for women murdering more children, but not being willing to take that view of Male homicides of women. I am perfectly willing to take it, I definitely accept strength plays a part in that well over triple the domestic murder rate though I don't believe it explains the whole amount, apply the same logic however to your…
/r/MensRights24/12/18 02:04 PM
1

I don't agree that is what the thread is about, OP never mentions family in his original post he merely compares male to female. That conversation may be happening in other parts of the thread but I was replying to the claim in the OP as in male vs female, family relationship irrelevant.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 01:43 PM
1

OP is just raw about children, it does not specify a familial requirement so I am not sure why that data would be relevant. Seems to me only child homicide by gender is relevant to the OP. Maybe I am misunderstanding your question though.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 01:30 PM
1

About 94% of your cases reported the difference between perp and victim, what exactly about the non reporting is it that you think makes the data useless and why is it ok if the data is 5.5% or 44% if you think either introduces a variable that makes the data suspect then it makes both sets of data worthless, after all a 5.5% discrepancy would be huge it could completely reverse the findings of your study if it turned out all those had been say committed by men. So either the data is unreliable …
/r/MensRights24/12/18 01:17 PM
1

Holy double standard batman. Make a post exclusively about the murders of children (apparently exclusively murders not in the first world because in the first world it's in majority done by men) then refuse to engage an argument on homicide when you raise domestic violence. Could you be more of a hypocrite if you tried? If men being stronger means them committing more than 3 times more murders of their partners is explained then surely the tiny barely above margin of error association you find i…
/r/MensRights24/12/18 01:05 PM
1

The study defines it's terms, "young children" refers to 0-5, middle is 6-11 etc.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 12:53 PM
1

In any event, in my link in Europe it’s noted 60% of women are committing child homicides. Is that also a “minuscule” difference? Because that’s the agreed male/female domestic violence ratio by almost all measures, and feminists scream about that like it’s an epidemic of male violence. Across the first world women are the minority (44%) so yes it's a less than insignificant difference. As for the domestic homicide disparity your own source contradicts you: "More than twothirds of intimate partn…
/r/MensRights24/12/18 12:35 PM
1

So a 5 year, much, much larger sample? His study also refers to difficulty in methodology, it being impossible to find statistics that are reliable or complete for a ton of poorer countries, neonatal stats in many countries etc. methodology issues are always inevitable in studies like this. Plenty of sources from different periods find the same for example: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf Finds men are responsible for 61.9% of murders of their offspring.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 11:34 AM
1

Except that is firstly a different question and secondly false. Children being more likely to be killed by their mother than their father does not mean women are more likely to kill children than men are (what the OP says) secondly several other studies find quite the opposite for example: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf Finds men are responsible for 61.9% of murders of their children: (Table 3.2) so y'know... facts.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 11:23 AM
1

Nobody is using the melodramatic word “conspiracy”, but I am suggesting a crime agency is going to be less used to controlling for cultural biases than scholars in an academic study. They are literally the crime stats unless you are suggesting murders aren't being counted then yes an accusation of bias is ridiculous. The report is quite clear it’s referring to newborns being murdered in cold blood. Which as far as I know isn’t legal anywhere, and is fully accepted as homicide, but do correct me …
/r/MensRights24/12/18 11:02 AM
1

All of those count in homicide statistics. To make the equivalent argument of "teach women not to murder" it would help you guys look less like the absolute jokes you are if it wasn't based on a complete lie when in fact the opposite is true and men commit more murders of children, family and otherwise. If it was bait well it worked, I am baited and you guys are either idiots or liars given it was by your own admission "bait" it seems like liars. If your argument is based on a lie or being incre…
/r/MensRights24/12/18 09:53 AM
1

This is insane. What I said is exactly above your comment, that the OP is a crap lie that claims women are more likely to murder kids. That is exactly what I said, anything else you read into it is your own issue and entirely in your head. If you somehow got that as "female abusers shouldn't be punished" you need professional help, my comment says nothing of the sort.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 09:42 AM
1

Firstly you haven't even given a source in your op, you hosted some Images. Secondly yes suggesting the FBI is biased in a conspiracy against men is flat out retarded (yes the vastly male organisation is out to be biased against men for sure). Thirdly yes actual criminal data is more valuable. The biggest metastudy of worldwide data did conclude women killed significantly more children incidentally Please cite and quote where it says that? Going to continue this in edits because of the comment w…
/r/MensRights24/12/18 09:31 AM
1

I know this is going to make you guys mad but the evidence is actually of the exact opposite. Men kill more children than women do by a pretty significant margin, it's just that men commit many more murders in general which make murders of children by women stand out statistically, that is simply because in the US mothers spend more time with children than fathers. "male perpetrators somewhat outnumber female perpetrators (58 percent and 42 percent, respectively) in homicides of young children, …
/r/MensRights24/12/18 09:08 AM
1

I know this is going to make you guys mad but the evidence is actually of the exact opposite. Men kill more children than women do by a pretty significant margin, it's just that men commit many more murders in general which make murders of children by women stand out statistically, that is simply because in the US mothers spend more time with children than fathers. "male perpetrators somewhat outnumber female perpetrators (58 percent and 42 percent, respectively) in homicides of young children, …
/r/MensRights24/12/18 08:58 AM
1

Again that isn't how civil suits work for anything, if getting some information is too big a breach of privacy or affects a third party that refuses then the case proceeds on it's available evidence, 100% certainty is not required.
/r/MensRights18/07/18 10:54 PM
1

Right, okay, so now you're moving the goalpost. We were discussing the need for mandatory paternity testing to avoid EXACTLY this kind of gaming the system by "preponderance of evidence" (namely her testimony) or a male getting trapped by a woman into being responsible for a child that isn't his. You've shifted the goalpost so hard your transmission just fell out. Lol, we were discussing that it's a total violation of privacy rights to do paternity tests all over the place like you want to, you …
/r/MensRights18/07/18 10:18 PM
1

Riiiight, we're gonna slip right on past your horrible understanding of the law and move right along here Mate you were simply wrong. and how are you going to enforce mandatory child support without proving paternity which, according to you, requires all party consent? Firstly a genetic paternity test is not required to determine paternity, as with most civil issues paternity is established on balance of evidence if disputed (were they sexually active at the time of conception etc. etc.), in bot…
/r/MensRights18/07/18 09:45 PM
1

The plaintiff is the mother, not the infant. Simply factually legally wrong. Government enforcement of Child support is done on behalf of the child. Even if it were the infant, paternity by your own requirement must be consented to. Ergo, you cannot compel the suspected father to undergo a paternity test either. It's funny that you radically shift your opinion the second you're aware the female has to be held to the same standard. Quite so, there is no mandatory paternity test, just mandatory ch…
/r/MensRights18/07/18 09:06 PM
–

You can maintain your right to privacy in this scenario. You just rescind, rightly, any legal obligation the supposed father has. If you wish for the father to be obligated it should be required to prove he IS the father with a paternity test. Otherwise, sure, keep your privacy. In this way it is completely optional. If the father doesn't consent to that same paternity test, oh well. Guess you shouldn't have sex with people you don't trust and carry an infant to term who won't have both parents.…
/r/MensRights18/07/18 08:44 AM
0

It's a question based on the right of a man to know if a child is truly his, before he invests a massive amount of resources into that child. This seems incredibly obvious to me. All rights have to be balanced against the rights of others. The man's right to know if a child is biologically his should obviously precede the child's right to (effectively) deceive the man into raising a child he falsely believes is biologically his. There isn't a right to another person's private information, especi…
/r/MensRights18/07/18 08:39 AM
0

You are talking nonsense. Paternity testing is done by selectively looking for specific markers, not by sequencing the entire genome. Irrelevant, DNA privacy is for entire thing. If any man is expected to pay for the child this miniscule amount of information is something he should have a right to. There isn't a right to violate a person's privacy . Youn cant be sued for damages while the court refuses to tell you by whom because they want to protect that persons right to privacy. There is a rig…
/r/MensRights18/07/18 08:33 AM
–

No it maintains a right to privacy and consent. It's not only family protection but it's a question of based on what right? I presume based on it's name that this sub cares about rights. So the first question is then do people have a right to their DNA and privacy on it? In almost all of the EU the answer is yes, you can be DNA tested without your consent only with a warrant and there are very strict rules on what can be done with that DNA and it has to be destroyed after, this includes children…
/r/MensRights18/07/18 04:35 AM
-2

It's not only family protection but it's a question of based on what right? I presume based on it's name that this sub cares about rights. So the first question is then do people have a right to their DNA and privacy on it? In almost all of the EU the answer is yes, you can be DNA tested without your consent only with a warrant and there are very strict rules on what can be done with that DNA and it has to be destroyed after, this includes children. (DNA privacy is important without it companies…
/r/MensRights18/07/18 04:32 AM
1

Contraception is a method of preventing pregnancy, abortion is a method of terminating a pregnancy. Consult your dictionary. "contraception noun the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse." Lol no, it's far from unremarkable it's a constant political battle, it's also an incredibly heavy decision for most people who make it. Lol I already made clear ages ago that the right to bodily integrity is inviolable. Abortion is…
/r/MensRights03/03/17 03:38 PM
1

Lol you still don't grasp this. Both parties should choose not to have sex in a way that can lead to pregnancy if they don't want kids, if you do as a man you know there is a chance it could lead to children and that most people will not get an abortion. Therefore it's your action and your consequence simple as that. Abortion is not a method of contraception, if you are using it as a security against having a child you are outright stupid and there is zero right to decide you don't like the cons…
/r/MensRights03/03/17 02:40 PM
1

Not at all, women have a right to an abortion because they carry a child inside them, men cannot have this right and it's thus total nonsense to point to it as some sort of imbalance that one gender gets and the other does not for which we must compensate. If men also carried a child they would also have a right to an abortion, both have equal responsibilities to care for the child once born. Not true, as we have already established most people will not have abortion due to ethical or religious …
/r/MensRights03/03/17 01:16 PM
1

No, we have been over that, the presumption of using an abortion is ridiculous, anytime anyone has sex in a manner that can lead to pregnancy they are knowingly taking a risk that this can lead to a child being born, weren't you all about choices having consequences?
/r/MensRights03/03/17 06:54 AM
1

Lol no, the point of the pro choice argument is giving people the right to choose, the fact that most people will choose not to does not mean they should not have the choice that is utterly retarded. As is expecting that someone will choose to have one. It's like same sex marriage, most people will never get such a marriage but everyone should be allowed to.
/r/MensRights03/03/17 05:21 AM
1

Sex can lead to pregnancy and many, probably most women will not be ok with getting an abortion, it's an easily foreseeable risk. An abortion is a deeply traumatic and difficult thing for most women, using it is a backup you expect will be used is stupid beyond words and utterly laughable as an argument. Yeah if there is proof of intentional deceit then yes, changing your mind however is not intentional deceit and the possibility that someone might change their mind about an abortion is part of …
/r/MensRights03/03/17 03:47 AM
1

You completely failed to answer the points as you don't have a response. Having sex in a way that can lead to kids when you cannot afford them is not irresponsible but not having an abortion is? that is complete bullshit, both actions have consequences. Now if your argument is in cases where the man had his sperm stolen then he should not have a parental monetary obligation and we should establish a tax fund to pay for the well being of the child in that rare scenario then yes I completely agree…
/r/MensRights03/03/17 02:48 AM
0

Lol, not wanting to have an abortion is not selfish or entitled, neither is expecting someone to do their share of caring for their child, either by custody or child support. What is entitled is putting your wallet before the well being of a kid you brought into the world. You have not experienced the adoption system, you have no idea what you are talking about, while there are plenty of people "interested" in adoption, there are far insufficient people who pass the requirements to become adopte…
/r/MensRights03/03/17 02:00 AM
0

You should respect the body of the kid... Unless it depends entirely on using someone else's organs without their consent. There are different levels of responsibility and different rights they inflict. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental protected right, financial autonomy is not, that is no one can be forced to have their body meddled with unless they have sacrificed their rights through a grievous crime but when it's a societal benefit people can have their financial autonomy impacted by say tax…
/r/MensRights03/03/17 01:49 AM
0

Lol The child is completely separate of consent, it shares zero responsibility and thus consequence. And the same thing as above, the child has no interest or stake in the consent to being born, it's life should not be damaged by that nonsense or by the cruel avarice of trying to screw your own kid out of a decent childhood (I mean seriously how crappy a person can you be, this is as low as it gets). Lol, I am an atheist but your nu atheist "I am smart because I am an atheist" idiocy is utterly …
/r/MensRights02/03/17 04:08 PM
1

Man and woman have to pay child support if they have a child. There is a moral imperative and societal benefit. Nope, it has never happened anywhere and won't, I forgot to mention in addition to the other issues, the foster system is far too stretched already, no one wants to increase the load. Yep, it's a child's right to be supported by his parents if either chooses to do so. Women who do what are often excellent mothers, or indeed fathers whom do the same, they do however need the other partn…
/r/MensRights02/03/17 02:17 PM
0

Bodily autonomy does not give you the right to use someone else's body without consent. Hence the supreme court decision on this. The point is the well being of the child and it utterly supersedes the importance of protecting your wallet.
/r/MensRights02/03/17 02:14 PM
0

Body and wallet, there is the key issue, there is no right to your wallet, taxes, child support etc. these things exist. No it never will, feminists will oppose it rightly, the left will oppose it and everyone anti abortion will oppose it since it encourages abortion, there is zero hope. Having been through foster care that is not how that works at all. Again the priority here is the well being of the child, maybe you could try placing it's well being above your wallet for once in your twisted m…
/r/MensRights02/03/17 01:31 PM
0

Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right and constitutional right as per our Supreme Court, I am sorry it means nothing to you but it's laughable to imagine that other people will ignore it. There is no right not to pay for your child, it doesn't exist, not to mention there should never and will never be a punishment for someone choosing not to have a medical procedure done (especially one with deep ethical implications). There is a fundamental right to protect, beyond that it's all equal, a…
/r/MensRights02/03/17 12:46 PM
1

No different to when born i.e. no obligation to give them use of your organs.
/r/MensRights02/03/17 08:46 AM
-1

No I just made clear that they are different arguments, bodily autonomy is a right, both sides have equal financial obligations. If men were obliged by law to give an organ to their kids I would object to that too.
/r/MensRights02/03/17 08:44 AM
–

That violates basic bodily autonomy. Also I gotta tell you society benefit from abortions in reduced crime rates etc. if it did ham society this might be a different conversation. There are financial consequences for women to getting pregnant, they pay for abortions and if they don't have an abortion they have an equal financial responsibility.
/r/MensRights02/03/17 07:09 AM
1

MLK was super militant too, he rejected violence sure but it's not like there are tons of feminist terrorists out there either but he embraced all methods non violent including breaking the law. It is just fringe extremists, speak to everyday feminists and you won't see these opinions you will see sensible views based on real experiences.
/r/MensRights02/03/17 05:57 AM
–

Lol, no, the point here isn't the mother it's the child, the child's well being is the whole point of child support, abortion isn't a "get out of child support free" card. If you have a kid it's your joint responsibility, simple as that, it's the greater good to society as a whole not to have kids without support.
/r/MensRights02/03/17 05:50 AM
–

Sort of, in the same sense you are I hope, in that we are both rational human beings that know most feminists don't want to remove the right to fair trial and most men's rights activists don't want to remove female suffrage, it's stupid to strawman them as such. All groups rights need a dedicated and motivated section, there were plenty of egalitarians around during the civil rights movement but progress would not have been achieved without the black rights movement leading it and being it's voc…
/r/MensRights02/03/17 03:58 AM
–

The simple biological facts of parenthood do mean that women always know about pregnancy when men sometimes don't, it's illegal to give up a child if you know how the other parent is and don't check with them. There is no right disparity here. Women can be held financially liable for a child they don't want, they do have the option of abortion (which they have to pay for) but again that is a consequence of simple biology, you can't force someone to get an abortion in their body. That simply isn'…
/r/MensRights02/03/17 12:42 AM
–

Not at all, you can't force someone to have an abortion, you also have a parental responsibility for the good of the child. Neither of those things are incompatible. The duty you have isn't to her, it's to your child.
/r/MensRights02/03/17 12:33 AM
1

I didn't realise we were talking about Switzerland, having looked it up in Switzerland it's a crime for either party though it is worth noting that not using the pill and not using a condom and lying about it both have serious consequences but the latter is potentially far more serious.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 11:30 PM
–

Neither party has the right to that, criminal convictions aside both parties have the right to take on parenthood and demand child support from the other. A man has as much right to lie about being on birth support as a woman. They are presented with zero proof, they are basically a list of insults, there is nothing to prove wrong. It's a movement that gave women the right to vote, work, to have recourse against being raped by their partner, to serve in the armed forces etc. it's thus a great mo…
/r/MensRights01/03/17 04:25 PM
–

You are really misrepresenting that poll 53% of British people said there was still a need for feminism, 56% said women face serious disadvantages in the workplace. People in Britain just don't like being labelled feminists. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/11/09/still-need-feminism-dont-call-us-feminism/
/r/MensRights01/03/17 04:13 PM
–

Your interpretation of child laws is wrong, men have just as much right to adoption request as women, obviously abortion occurs within a woman's body so they have to have autonomy on that. It's an argument against a movement by making utterly unjustified claims.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 04:08 PM
-1

There is no case being made here to refute it's just an opinion. A feminist would merely say no, that isn't it at all with just as much evidence.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 04:04 PM
–

You probably don't actually want an explanation but it's quite simple: Being drunk does not excuse you of your duty to follow the law (like drunk driving) but it can impair you beyond ability to consent (if you are insensate) therefore if you are drunk and the other person is drunk (and insensate) and you initiate sex you are committing rape, by the exact same standard if the man is drunk insensate and the woman initiates sex she is committing rape, it's the initiating and the insensate parts th…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 04:22 PM
3

Watch out guys it's a badass.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 04:17 PM
1

I think it's about making fun of some men for crying over inane shit on a reality TV show, it certainly doesn't say real men don't cry though it might imply real men don't cry over bullshit on a reality tv show.
/r/MensRights13/12/16 02:07 AM
1

Alternating variables here, being tall isn't the same as being muscular, women like men who are in shape but you don't need testosterone excess to be in shape, women do not necessarily like bulk muscle at all which is the testosterone traditionally masculine associated appearance. Height is a separate function, women do find height attractive. If you take a guy who is in decent shape of the same height and social status etc. and put him up against a jacked dude then opinions will vary from woman…
/r/MensRights13/12/16 02:04 AM
1

This is incredibly variable, you have sex symbols like Johnny Depp, Di Caprio, George Clooney, Kurt Kobain, Elvis etc. who don't carry muscle mass in any significant fashion, women like men prefer people who are in shape but not not high level testosterone associated muscle. You know what is a good indicator of testosterone and is not part of the attraction zeitgeist? Body hair, men who have it often shave it or wax it for this reason.
/r/MensRights13/12/16 01:05 AM
0

Lol super triggered. I think I'll stay. No that is your poisoned perspective based on resenting the fact that you aren't getting laid and trying to find someone to blame for it. The truth is 95%+ of men and women are decent people, the reason they are getting laid is because they are attractive or interesting or funny or outgoing etc. they aren't assholes you just resent them. "studs" (whatever that means in your twisted mind) aren't bad people they aren't different tot eh guys in the corner cal…
/r/MensRights13/12/16 12:50 AM
5

None of these are studies, they are just anecdotal and from my own anecdotal evidence, my relationships have been strengthened by vulnerability and highly emotional less traditionally masculine types (like poetry majors) always seemed to get laid plenty in my experience. Basically yes people have different tastes and they vary widely but I would much rather have a relationship of the type I am in rather than the one you seem to believe is the norm so it seems to me the rational choice is to purs…
/r/MensRights13/12/16 12:46 AM
1

It shows a preference for neutral faces i.e. less masculine faces overall, certainly it puts a lie to the "biological universal" narrative since different cultures like different amounts of masculinity. That is immediately a non falsifiable premise because to be a sex symbol you have to be famous and therefore apparently a sex symbol because famous. It's total nonsense btw, all the anguished poets and emos were getting laid in uni way more than I was and they were all emotional and waif thin. Ye…
/r/MensRights13/12/16 12:41 AM
-1

Except that is nonsense, some of the most attractive archetypes exist completely outside of both social ladders and masculinity, you should see how hard the male poetry major were getting laid, that is all about emotional vulnerability and honesty. It's important because firstly men think women find it attractive and secondly because men judge each other on it very harshly. Quit it with the nice guy memes dude the dating assholes thing is a stupid generalisation made by men who can't get laid an…
/r/MensRights13/12/16 12:33 AM
-1

No it doesn't. Context matters, the first instance was specifically referring to depression a perfectly valid and understandable reason for crying, reality TV on the other hand...
/r/MensRights13/12/16 12:06 AM
2

You will need to back up that opinion right? We are both just shooting around opinions, studies on this are going to be very limited. I am aware of this study that shows that typically masculine appearance is not desirable to women and that women prefer males with lower testosterone levels: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/40/14388.full Also I would suggest looking around at male sex symbols of the modern day and seeing how many are openly emotional through their art and not stereo-typically masc…
/r/MensRights13/12/16 12:03 AM
–

Dude I am in a relationship like this, one of the cementing moments in it when I realised this was a for life thing is when seven years back I had some heavy shit happen at work (I worked in an Emergency room a the time) came home and had a panic attack and cried for a couple of hours and was supported and cared for by my now wife, it turned a casual relationship into an enduring thing, people find honesty and trust attractive. Obviously you can be too emotional, both men and women can but in th…
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:57 PM
1

Whether traditional masculinity is important is a personal decision and irrelevant to the discussion (I find it irritating and cringe-worthy outside of very specific contexts) but ultimately the point is most women don't care about it as much as many people on this thread think they do.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:49 PM
1

It's a regularly used expression here in Aus among men, women tell each other to "put your big girl panties on" too tbf but I have never had a woman make a comment on anything like that or seen them do it to another man.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:42 PM
-1

The truth is women just don't care about it as much, the concepts of traditional masculinity are way more important to men than thay are to women.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:37 PM
-2

I love this bullshit. You guys whine about feels before reals but then get super triggered when a professor points out a statistical reality?
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:28 PM
-2

When women make up the majority of positions of power (executives, politicians, judges etc.) as it is that is in the vast majority men.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:26 PM
-5

I thought people were allowed to have personal sexual preferences and that wasn't sexism/racism/whateverism but now mensrights tells me that is not the case! Pretty serious double standards. Crying is contextual like all emotions, crying about shit on a reality TV show might well be unattractive, crying because of grief, mental illness etc. on the other hand is something only a super shitty person would judge you for. For what it's worth the ONLY people I have ever been shamed by for expressing …
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:23 PM
2

Bullshit, that is a victim complex in your own mind since we are all shooting anecdotal shit here I have never had a relationship like that nor did my parents.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:18 PM
2

What kind of relationship did you have if it could be broken by being vulnerable? A shitty toxic one which you are better off without.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:16 PM
–

Isn't the point in the article that they are crying about a reality tv show experience rather than something that matters? There is nothing wrong with crying but doing so at inane shit is a different issue, emotions are appropriate or inappropriate in their set context.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:13 PM
1

Well that might be the source of the issue if you can't have or don't want relationships with women that aren't sexual you will attract people who similarly are only interested in sex and sexual relationships.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 11:09 PM
–

Yeah but only from men.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 10:55 PM
–

Shit high school kids say. If you are in a long term relationship where you can't cry in front of your partner and confide in them you are in a shitty relationship or dating a shitty person it isn't the norm or healthy.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 10:54 PM
3

Lyudmila Pavlichenko (I am not confident on the spelling) who has more confirmed sniper kills than any US soldier in history.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 08:02 AM
-3

Who in the whole fucking country hasn't heard about veterans killing themselves? it's been a hot topic of conversation since Vietnam! You guys have the most pathetic victim complex, one article dealing with it from the perspective of female veterans and "waah we are so oppressed, no one cares about us". Furthermore the vast vast majority of you aren't doing a damn thing about it, are you concerned about suicides, cool, I volunteer weekends at Lifeline (if you live in Australia volunteer from her…
/r/MensRights10/01/16 08:00 AM
-1

Attempts or success? Because if it's success it's a daft measure, it just comes down to the method used, men are more likely to use a gun or jump (these are very effective but messy methods, also more men own guns) women are more likely to use tidier methods which as a consequence are less effective.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 07:51 AM
-1

That little "1" next to the "1 in 6" means it relates to the reference prefaced by a "1". And that is most certainly not the study referenced by the quote you made earlier. facepalm Isn't it weird that they have the exact same definition... My god the level of obstinate stupidity has full on left the scale.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/01/16 03:37 PM
-1

Are you actually retarded, it absolutely is the same study you complete moron. 1) National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey. 1998. Now look at the title of the study I posted... "Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey" (1998) How do you think I found it and why so you think it has the exact same figures?... I …
/r/PussyPassDenied09/01/16 02:30 PM
-1

No that would be the study having a bad definition of rape but one that can't be criticized from the direction the douche-bag above is criticizing it from, that is he said the criteria was too expansive when actually it is too narrow.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/01/16 08:50 AM
0

No you: "Using a definition of rape that includes forced vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse, the survey found that rape is a crime committed primarily against youth: 18 percent of women surveyed said they experienced a completed or attempted rape at some time in their life." https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf Directly quoted from the study, apparently apart from being a rape trivializing shit-stain you also can't read or google. Feel free to admit it any time.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/01/16 08:44 AM
-2

The section talking about pregnancy is referring to the statistics used to take the survey (hence why it was extrapolated to the pregnancy calculation). You are a massive piece of shit trivializing rape.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/01/16 06:39 AM
-3

"Rape, as defined by the NCVS, is forced sexual intercourse. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by offender(s)." You really are a piece of shit.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/01/16 03:27 PM
4

Literally every crime has false reports, the most commonly falsely reported crime is theft (for insurance) but when was the last time people were talking about theft and there were tons of highly upvoted comments about how theft allegations are false? Fucking never, that's when.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/01/16 03:17 PM
-4

Oh I see you are a conspiracy theorist, should have known better than to argue with an idiot didn't realize just how dumb you were. You are right, it's all a big worldwide SJW conspiracy, a conspiracy that is also supported by women all over the first world who report similar statistics, you are so smart to see through it! Well done, carry on genius.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/01/16 03:01 PM
-4

Do you realize how dumb that is as a statement? #1 Because people often don't talk about being raped #2 because the statistic is one in six women in America not "one in six women u/Suckitadmins knows".
/r/PussyPassDenied08/01/16 02:54 PM
-4

No, you are really dumb though, why exactly do you think that every rape is committed by a different person? that is not the case, 1 in every six women is the victim of rape, about 20% of those rapes are gang rapes. https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States
/r/PussyPassDenied08/01/16 02:52 PM
0

No, no rape culture... definitely not...
/r/PussyPassDenied08/01/16 02:47 PM
7

You are completely missing the point, no one is denying that false reports occur (of any crime) but no one brings up false report if the conversation is about assault or fraud or whatever, but talk about rape and you will have dozens of upvoted comments on it. Just going to look through this thread which isn't even really about a rape which rules out 2 of the 4 examples let's see if we can find the other two: Rape "Joke"? well she can't refuse you know, because of the implication. She's out ther…
/r/PussyPassDenied08/01/16 01:18 PM
8

Do you actually seriously believe that? Talk to any mod on a sub that deals with rape or even mods from places like r/nottheonion. I was going to post an example I saw fairly recently but, well you can see for yourself: https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/3w89t7/i_fell_and_penetrated_her_by_accident_millionaire/
/r/PussyPassDenied08/01/16 12:03 PM
45

Gonna get down-voted but whatever, this is bullshit. If you post a message about a mother throwing a child in a dumpster you won't get tons of people asking what the baby was wearing, accusing the baby of lying about being thrown in the dumpster or implying the baby deserved it or making jokes about it. Rape on the other hand...
/r/PussyPassDenied08/01/16 11:15 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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