TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Traditional_Two_1377 Archive

View 0 posts and 35 comments by Traditional_Two_1377 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

Help a woman: get charged with murder Don't: don't get charged with murder
/r/MensRights18/10/22 03:00 PM
12

Norah Vincent - Self-made man A book written by a woman who tried living as a man for 18 months.
/r/MensRights05/10/22 08:57 PM
8

True. Because I am not dumb enough to put myself into such a situation. And, as you can see ON THIS VERY ARTICLE, putting yourself intonsuch a position can lead to big ass trouble for the guys.
/r/MensRights02/10/22 03:51 PM
4

Yup. Because, as you can see, if we do, we're just endangering ourselves.
/r/MensRights02/10/22 10:44 AM
1

Di you ever consider that two things can be true simultaneously?
/r/MensRights10/09/22 12:37 PM
1

Having link in bio and directly sending you the link is not the same. Furthermore, telling you to join one's onlyfans certainly qualifies. If it was JUST a person who has in linked in their link tree but isn't messaging random people to tell them to join, I'd be with you. But that's now what we're discussing here. Are you wilfully ignorant?
/r/MensRights23/08/22 02:58 PM
1

Okay just for the sake of it: Sexual harassment, Cambridge definition: Unwanted or offensive sexual attention, suggestions, or talk, especially from an employer or other person in a position of power. Certainly qualifies as unwanted sexual attention and suggestion.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 02:26 PM
3

Harassment as defined in the Cambridge dictionary: Behavior that annoys or upsets someone The legal definition according to Cambridge dictionary: illegal behaviour towards a person that causes mental or emotional suffering, which includes repeated unwanted contacts without a reasonable purpose, insults, threats, touching, or offensive language Therefore, it very much IS harassment.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 01:55 PM
4

"you're right, I don't"
/r/MensRights26/07/22 12:47 AM
1

Yes. It does. The main reason for abortion this late is quite frankly that they didn't realize that they are pregnant any earlier. THAT is the most common reason for late term abortions. Not "life threatening situation" or anything like that. In such cases, doctors would induce labour early.
/r/MensRights14/07/22 07:47 PM
1

A medical emergency at 38 weeks would mean we induce birth you idiot. The most common reason for late term abortions is quite simple: they didn't know they were pregnant earlier on. And regarding your other commenr: no, it does not take 2 to decide. Abortion is 100% the woman's decision to murder. And that's fucked up.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:11 PM
2

Because the majority of voters are women and women, in general, tend to be more self-centered imdividuals than men. So if the legislators were to do something about it, they'd lose the votes.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 10:23 AM
1

A) you're fucking dishonest right now. Men don't have a choice anyway. We're forced to pay up, even if we're victims of sexual assault. And if we don't, we face jail time. Shall we now allow fathers to force abortion on mothers if they decide they don't want to be a father? You say it takes two to get pregnant. No shit Sherlock. So it takes both to decide to be parents then? Or nah? My point is: she chose to have sex. She knew she may end up pregnant. Killing that human because she doesn't want …
/r/MensRights06/07/22 01:22 PM
8

You're right, it isn't. One is mutilating a body of an unwilling participant for no damn reason, and the other is the killing of a human, because women don't want to deal with the known possible result of having a bunch of sex. Both however have one thing in common. Harming another individual for no reason. It isn't like someone casting a spell and suddenly she's pregnant. It is mostly a result of one's own actions.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 11:18 PM
9

It's a completely unnecessary practice, and it poses a serious risk. There is no reason ever to do a male circumcision UNLESS the foreskin is so tight around the head that it prevents peeing. And that is a VERY rare case. The most common reasons for circumcision are "I am circumcised and want my son to look like me" and "it's more pleasurable for women" But given your proposal, and the reasons given, allow FGM for the same reason? Allow cutting off arms?
/r/MensRights05/07/22 11:08 PM
15

Laughs in foreskin
/r/MensRights05/07/22 10:51 PM
7

None of those are legal rights tho.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 10:50 PM
1

🤣
/r/MensRights27/06/22 12:04 PM
25

Maybe those women should keep their legs closed then. You know, the same thing they always say men shall do if they don't want to be responsible for a child.
/r/MensRights26/06/22 10:36 PM
2

Indeed. And I don't support that. Two wrongs don't make a right. That being said, the death penalty has a better hold, simply because that individual has shown that they do not care about other humans and are willing to kill them. And locking them up eats tax money that can be used for better causes.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 08:22 PM
1

Rape: yeah unreasonable Incest: why would that be a tolerable exception in itself?
/r/MensRights25/06/22 08:16 PM
3

Oh great. Quoting something and not thinking about it for one damn second. Let's take Utah as an example. Need to file a police report? Fuck YES. what's the alternative? Women just walking into a gyn office and going "I was raped. Abort it. Now."? Multiple Bans on abortion? What does that mean? There are multiple conditions that, if met, make abortion at that point, illegal. And any state that doesn't allow abortion right up until birth is considered to have Bans. So that entire text of yours is…
/r/MensRights25/06/22 04:17 PM
5

Read the laws. They do.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:47 PM
0

Again, you failed to even come close to answering my questions which just shows your lack of critical thinking skills. Have a good one.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:43 PM
1

Just your first two sentences: First one: so what? Second one: that's a blatant lie. Yes, yes I would. I'd cut contact. Straight up. I don't give a damn about the Bible. I'm atheist. And to add insult to injury: you completely ignored my argumentative structure and failed to provide an answer to the immediate question that follows from your statement.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:35 PM
5

You do realize that rape exceptions exist in literally all states, right?
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:25 PM
2

Oh so abortion right up until birth? How is a baby born at 24 weeks more of a human than a baby at 38 weeks that's still in the womb?
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:24 PM
-2

This means that a fetus is not human. If that is to be the case, there has to be a point at which we can say that it becomes a human. When is that point. And what is the significant difference to right before that point in time? And how would we measure that. Take a pile of sand. Remove a single grain. Keep doing that until you have only one grain left. At what point is it not a pile of sand anymore? That's the same question.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:21 PM
-1

That's murder though.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:16 PM
4

Same choice applies to her. By not having sex.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 02:39 PM
7

Let me rephrase that: Men should use a contraceptive. (agree) If the contraceptive fails, tough luck. It is not reasonable to expect a woman to carry a baby for 9 months because that infringes on her right of bodily autonomy, but it very well IS reasonable to then infringe on the man's rights of bodily autonomy for at least 18 years. Forced to pay CS = forced to make money = forced to work = forced to use his body against his will. That's okay. Did I get that right? And regarding the snip snip, …
/r/MensRights25/06/22 02:39 PM
1

Not under Indian law
/r/MensRights02/02/22 10:20 AM
0

because under Indian law you have to be a man to be able to rape.
/r/MensRights02/02/22 10:20 AM
1

Yes, because under Indian law you have to be a man to be able to rape. As an Indian you should know that.
/r/MensRights02/02/22 10:20 AM
10

I mean, removing a condom without consent is now considered rape. So there MIGHT be a shot, given that you only consented under the circumstance that she takes the pill. But courts also heavily favor women.
/r/MensRights02/02/22 04:22 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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