TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

arstin Archive

View 0 posts and 106 comments by arstin 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)
0

You lay it all out - there is no inconsistency because both of these policies enforce what's best for society. It's best for society that individuals have rights over their own body. It's best for society that the cost of raising a child be born by the people that created that child when possible. Your argument is: It's best for me if I can knock up women with no emotional or financial consequences. Which actually means the woman, child, and society bearing those consequences for you.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/10/20 02:23 PM
0

it's an incredibly unfair situation The problem is there are all sorts of unfair situations between the genders re reproduction, and about 98% of the burden lies on women, so it's really hard to complain about this without sounding petty and selfish. It's not fair - so wear a condom or get a vasectomy and be go back to being able to ignore the whole reproductive mess.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/10/20 02:13 PM
1

Biologists write terrible porn.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 03:23 PM
7

So if a guy tied you up and made you ejaculate, you would consider yourself part-gay and not a rape victim? I suppose that it's also not rape if you can make a girl have an organism? I don't have a particularly progressive definition of consent, but I am very confident that it is distinct from and not required for response to sexual stimulus.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 06:56 PM
10

If a man is raped by a woman however, he has to have an erection and eventually ejaculate. From a biological perspective, this is typically only possible if they're enjoying it. Oh, wow. Congratulations on coming out of that 60 year coma.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 06:31 PM
-1

You still have the obvious incongruity of false accusations having a 60% error margin but true accusations having a 3% error margin. DUN DUN DUN!!!!!
/r/MensRights08/01/13 09:20 PM
96

I have. It's how my (oh so classy) sister refers to the men that fathered all of her children.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 04:28 AM
3

For some things, this is true, but it's absolute horseshit for the example at hand. Obama decided to assassinate a US citizen without due process. Nothing that Bush did put him under any obligation to do that.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 02:39 AM
103

Subscribing to /MensRights and /Running has never been so confusing.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 02:35 PM
-2

MRA shine the light on a lot of good stuff, but it's bullshit like this that will keep me from ever associating with the movement. For a man to wade into the abortion debate and completely dismiss the primary contention between rights of the woman and legal status of the fetus and take a stance entirely centered around what protects him the best is pathological.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 01:29 AM
14

I would be really surprised if feminists are any more likely to support this lady than MRAs are to support making a fetus a "marital asset". so it's really not worth worrying about. I agree, and it's probably best forgotten. I can't imagine that any discussion on gender issues would be elevated by pointing out this deranged opinion of one lady from Surrey.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:16 PM
0

| I see you conveniently ignored the rest of my post. I just checked it again, what did I miss. You're post basically said "women would be pissed if the roles were reversed, so I'm pissed". I said it's bullshit from whichever gender it comes from. | It's about masculinity being under attack, and men taking notice and saying "no, fuck you." So are you a real progressive? Do you worry about how magazine covers, song lyrics and indifferent remarks destroy the self esteem and opportunities of men, w…
/r/MensRights05/08/12 10:20 PM
-1

Here, on the men's rights subreddit of all places? Sorry, I don't think anyone has the right to not be offended. All the Tippercrats and thought police from all sides need to crawl back into their holes and let the rest of us get on with fixing real problems. Watching this video doesn't turn girls into man killers any more than playing Doom turns boys into school shooters or listening to metal turns kids into satanic killers.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 07:01 PM
2

I'm hesitant to judge the rituals of consenting couples. But a women that wants you to mollify her by grabbing her and forcing a kiss is bad news bears. That's just not a healthy method of resolving arguments by Western standards.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 11:47 PM
9

I grabber her wrist (lightly, might I add) ... so she started yelling, "ouch you're hurting me." Life Lesson: If you hit, push, grab, etc. someone it is always up to them whether or not you used too much force. Plan accordingly and if you have any doubt, don't put your hands on someone.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 12:57 AM
4

Did you read the article? The comment about being removed from parental obligation is tacked on to the end of pro-life article arguing that the father should have a say in physical abortions.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 11:55 PM
0

Shit like this is why MRA can't have nice things. Advocating for father's rights is one thing. Sticking your thumb in a woman's right to chose is only going to clear the room.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 09:38 PM
-4

Oh, spoil me and let me know specifically which part you're alluding to. I've been through the thought exercises, and I think humanity's capacity for finding offense exceeds it's capacity for political correctness. I'm not sure why you or the feminists you've based yourself on want to turn life into an Italian football match were drawing fouls is the only way to win, but I'm going with building real self-esteem that doesn't evaporate at the first sign of a church joke.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 06:41 AM
-6

Anytime something like this comes up I check the constitution to see which comes first - freedom of speech or freedom of not being incidentally insulted.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 03:41 AM
5

You believe that differentiating the symbolic nicking of the clitoral hood and removing the clitoris is "nitpicking"? I'm against circumcising children of any gender and don't see how acknowledging the differences between techniques weakens that position.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 04:46 AM
5

It must be frustrating when mangina's resort to childish name-calling.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 10:49 PM
1

:fistbump: or whatever the kids do these days.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 06:17 AM
2

I refuse to believe there is a man that was going to be a good father until he saw this onesie at Wal-Mart. Even allowing for an accumulating effect, and erring on the side of caution, the contribution is insignificant. I really don't mean to be insensitive, but if we accept this as a serious issue and then afford the same sensitivity to all groups and people, society will grind to a halt of butthurt.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 05:23 AM
5

Because if there is anything this world needs more of, it's people training themselves to be hypersensitive to innocuous or at most inadvertently offensive content.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 02:58 AM
2

I see this a judgement call in each situation. The world is full of trolls. Stubborn men and women with no interest or listening, comprehending, or learning. They have some tired old talking points on evolution, feminism, MRA, etc... and they will gladly wear you down to nothing. There are also people that like to make decisions based on evidence. Unwilling to buy that noble ends justify any means, they ask questions. Sometimes these questions go much deeper than the understanding of a rank-n-fi…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 04:13 AM
1

It would be nice if it were heavier, but it touches on some great points. Most importantly of all, it's one of very few articles that seems sincere about addressing problems regardless of gender. A refreshing change from the call for an extended "cold war" from both sides of gender activism.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 05:27 PM
3

Thank you for taking the time to reply rather than just downvoting. If you are mugged 3 times by young black men, you will have validated opinions on young black men. And exactly what opinions on young black men would that validate? If a woman was raped by three men of your race, what would that tell her about you? Guess what? You don't get to know a person just by knowing their sex and race. I understand the brain's desire to categorize and how convenient it would be if it people did work that …
/r/MensRights04/04/12 10:31 PM
3

Generalisations are not invalid; but they are generalisations. By their nature, they do not apply to each specific instance ... That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for clarifying. In this subreddit, there is a lot of support for applying generalizations to specific women ( check peter_venkman's highly upvoted reply to my post), so I wasn't sure how to interpret your post.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 10:01 PM
-40

My opinion on women will depend on what women do. I can't tell if it's unfortunate phrasing, or if we actually went from "not having to be a woman to judge the actions of a woman" to old-fashioned stereotyping and prejudice in two posts.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 05:03 PM
7

Since when has stupidity kept activists away from a slogan?
/r/MensRights25/03/12 02:58 PM
0

When receiving medical care, I would like someone to acknowledge my sex (and gender if it's an episode of House). In courtship, sex or gender (depending on personal taste) are important. Beyond that, I can't think of much good that can come from acknowledging the sex or gender of a person before interacting with them. Frankly, I can't think of any case where acknowledgment of the sex or gender of an individual isn't about prejudging. Even in health care and and dating.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 03:58 PM
6

At 15, this would have been a dream come true. A lot of 15 year old girls would give anything to blow that glitter-vampire. These are the reasons we have statutory rape laws. In that dimension the sexual appetites of a 15 year old boy should be as ignored as those of a 15 year old girl.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 07:45 PM
1

A person isn't their sex. Walk the line between sociology and prejudice. How does acknowledging differences (real or imagined) relate to equality? I can acknowledge the differences between a slave and king or scientist and potato.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 07:42 PM
2

What are you looking for - it sounds like the relationship is over. If you're looking for absolution for hitting a person during an argument, you sure as fuck aren't going to get it from me.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 12:37 AM
5

trying too hard.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:03 PM
0

What period of history did you have in mind, and what region? You can start working your way through all the times and regions that had forced marriage under any of the three Abrahamic religions. Or the religious texts of the same. The essay supports my view. No. The essay supports that both men and women have been used throughout history by culture. It doesn't say anything about the equality of their oppression under Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Heck, Judaism started by taking a collection …
/r/MensRights13/02/12 06:58 PM
0

even clarifying what you meant by women being property traded from father to husband. What is there to clarify? Is There Anything Good About Men? I've read it. It's a nice essay. I completely missed the part where he explained how religion has been more oppressive towards men than women.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 12:23 AM
-1

I wasn't sure if you were ignorant or an ass. Now I know your ignorance is willful and in pursuit of maintaining your absolute belief in male advocacy (i.e. an ass). I look forward to reading your groundbreaking, peer-reviewed publication, on the misandry that Judaism unleashed on the world. Good luck with that!
/r/MensRights12/02/12 09:35 PM
-6

Hooray, you can poorly rationalize your preconceived notion. Although feminists would be proud of the way you absolve your oppressive husband, because he himself is oppressed by his boss.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 08:05 PM
0

We're talking about the whole of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - their religious texts, teachings and effects on countries around the world since their inception. The suggestion that men have been oppressed as much or more than women under these religions is extremely radical and onus is on the holder of such a position to provide references before anyone should bother taking them seriously. Circumcision is a valid issue, but I wouldn't waste a second considering trading my right to vote, or …
/r/MensRights12/02/12 07:53 PM
-4

Oh gee. I don't know. How about being property traded from father to husband with no say on their own life or the direction of society for starters? For a more specific example, The New Testament removes the requirement for circumcision but still tells women to shut up and listen to their man.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 07:22 PM
3

I'm a circumcised man against circumcision, but you're either tragically ignorant about thousands of years of oppressing women in the name of Abrahamic religions or a self-centered ass.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 01:28 PM
0

MRA and Feminism are each a mirror to the other. No one is happy with what they see and most still manage to entirely blame the other side.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 04:22 PM
4

I'm too busy laughing to rage. And the dude was as laughable as the ladies.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 06:36 PM
-2

Christ, do you guys like to get your panties in a bunch. If you're offended because I referred to this anecdote as a joke, does that mean you think it actually has some intellectual merit as a counter to feminism?
/r/MensRights27/01/12 04:42 AM
-1

Just what I need - another factoid that is only funny to sarcastic ass holes.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 03:03 AM
-1

Good question. To phrase it politically, I'm mra but not MRA. There's too much bitterness and advocacy and too little equality for me to embrace the movement when I consider the good and bad. I am a man though, and I'm bothered by inequality and the erosion of justice and honesty that has occurred under the name of Feminism. I refuse to champion the further erosion of either to my own benefit though.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 03:46 PM
1

If you're fighting to right the ship you are in, then I can understand why you wouldn't want to abandon it. Unfortunately, with your model, I don't think there is a way to prioritize across MRA and Feminist. It's unrealistic to expect most people to be able to remove their bias and compare a problem that doesn't effect them directly at all and one that does. Furthermore many problems first brought forth by Feminism aren't actually specific to women, and suffer from being addressed separately (e.…
/r/MensRights26/01/12 03:38 PM
2

Any issue that is identified as a feminist issue or (currently to a lesser extent) an MRA issue gains certain political clout and becomes taboo to attack in many circles. As long as Feminism and MRA allow ideas under their umbrella to share the benefit then they share responsibility for the issue. If there is an aspect of feminism/MRA that you strongly disagree with, then renounce it. I do it all the time. Every idea needs to be challenged critically - a friendly crowd should do the first round.…
/r/MensRights26/01/12 02:15 AM
3

Hindsight and all, but you should have called the police immediately or ran downstairs and said "Mr A and Mr B are molesting her upstairs". Both in a 'molestation/attempted rape/rape is a crime and the criminals should be punished' sense and in a "cover your own ass because there aren't any witnesses and guys capable of molesting an unconscious woman might also be capable of lying to cover their ass" sense. but I'm angry that those two douchebags would do that to me. I understand your concern ab…
/r/MensRights18/01/12 02:39 AM
1

Where in the history of mankind has an oppressed group of people been spared being used as cannon fodder? By all means, explain to me how I've misunderstood this.
/r/MensRights18/01/12 01:09 AM
1

True or not, it's irrelevant. Don't look at me - the OP is the one that decided to speak in terms of universal laws of society rather than the current situation. If you believe it's possible to oppress a group of people without subjecting them to military conscription, then you disagree with the OP's logic, even if you agree with him that women enjoy more privilege in our current society.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 11:58 PM
2

Nine times out of ten, anyone using the word 'patriarchy' is saying something stupid (many times intentionally so for sarcasm). Unfortunately, this is part of the nine. You need to go back and rethink this. Where in the history of mankind has an oppressed group of people been spared being used as cannon fodder? Most children born in a civilized society? We protect them from just about everything while curtailing their freedom hundreds of times a day. A society that treated grown women the same w…
/r/MensRights17/01/12 07:13 AM
1

Adoption. I haven't been able to find anything saying that adoption is a right. On the contrary, when executed properly, the law generally allows the father to deny putting the baby up for adoption and claim custody and support from the mother.
/r/MensRights09/01/12 06:34 PM
2

Me too. But logic is often not the driving factor (or even a factor) in the decision not to have an abortion. That doesn't entitle us to discard logic or tradition ourselves when advocating legal change. That never works out well.
/r/MensRights09/01/12 04:02 PM
1

My understanding of constitutional law and Roe vs. Wade isn't savvy enough to dispute or agree with what you say. I don't feel too bad, since the supreme court hedged its bet as well in Roe v Wade: This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decisi…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 03:59 PM
0

I compared a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy to a man's ability to similarly terminate his parental rights. Your comparison is based on a complete misrepresentation of the legal basis for a woman's right to abortion - the conflation I mentioned in my last post of the right to control what happens in your body and a (non-existent) right to not have parental responsibility. I compared a woman's right to financially/socially terminate her parental rights to a man's ability to similarly ter…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 02:35 AM
1

Saying life isn't unfair, and men are then ones that have to suck it up is sexist and yet another example of "tough it out", "be a man" etc in another form. You seriously think that life is sexist because women are the ones that get pregnant, carry and deliver babies? You reduce the entire process, with all its complexity, to the mother's right to terminate a pregnancy - then conflate it with a mother's right to not have to pay for the child and demand a compensatory right. The exact same argume…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 12:25 AM
1

Everyone intrinsically understands that life isn't fair, but it's still natural to feel slighted when we end up on the unfair side. Abortion is entirely an issue for women, it is not applicable to men (beyond the right we share, in a purely academic sense, to not be forced to provide life support to another human through our body) and we are not entitled to some compensatory right any more than the state is entitled to execute the father of a child when the mother dies during childbirth. Giving …
/r/MensRights08/01/12 08:10 PM
2

The lesson from that is that you have to fight feminist activism with humanism rather than men's rights. Because it's effectively impossible for a special-interest group to realize when it's crossed over from fighting for equality to oppression. A few issues are sex specific, but the vast majority should apply equally to everyone anyway.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 07:25 PM
0

downvote all the uncomfortable facts!
/r/MensRights08/01/12 06:43 PM
1

You're clearly anti-choice. And no, the wishes of the father are not an effective challenge to the pillars of the pro-choice movement. One of the biggest problems with feminism identified by MRAs is that any activist can throw their extreme, radical, or crackpot pro-woman ideas out under the umbrella and political clout of feminism. Most of us have had that painful discussion with a moderate feminist over a radical feminist idea - where they might hate the idea but feel obliged to defend it from…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 04:24 PM
-2

If a parent dies, the government forces all the taxpayers to pay. And suicide is a method of financial abortion.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 03:58 PM
1

Wow, this thread is a giant clusterfuck of division of assets, alimony, and child support. They really need to be three separate discussions.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 03:37 AM
4

Sorry, you'll need to wait until 3rd-wave MRA for that to fly.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 07:27 AM
1

This is what (outside of the internet) is known as agreeing. ;)
/r/MensRights20/12/11 12:02 AM
0

No protection? I'm not sure hyperbole gets us anything. While I don't spend my free time reading corporate policies, I would be surprised if most sexual harassment sections weren't written to be gender neutral. Getting those policies to be enforced seriously is the problem. And I posit that the best way to do that is through unified action rather separate, gender-based, efforts.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 09:24 PM
0

Read my posts more carefully.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 09:18 PM
1

People and gender are inextricably intertwined. I'm not sure I disagree with that statement. But can you put it back into context by giving an example of how the gender of either party in an interaction at work determines whether or not it is sexual harassment? I'm willing to rethink my stance, but I can't think of any situation where it wouldn't be abhorrent to look at a complaint and say "That's not sexual harassment because you are a (male|female|man|woman|other)"
/r/MensRights19/12/11 09:02 PM
-1

I've managed to call down a united feminist and MRA downvote avalanche against me by suggesting that all people deserve the same protection from sexual harassment in the work place. Just, wow.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 08:39 PM
-2

Right, but there are things that aren't seen as equally inapproriate. That's the point. I'd say it's the problem rather than the point. And my previous posts offer the solution. Corporate policy and public opinion on sexual harassment should not be a gender issue. Dueling men's and women's advocacy groups arguing over who's the bigger victim is not the answer.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 08:29 PM
-9

Because sexual harassment is an issue affecting people, not genders. If some behavior is inappropriate then it's inappropriate for M->F, F->M, M->M, F->F, M->T, F->T, T->T, T->M, and T->F. It's one problem that should be fought with one movement, and any victory won should be enjoyed by all. If he get's smacked down for daring to set physical boundaries with a woman, he'll have someplace to turn to for support. Wouldn't support be more wisely sought among those with experience in relation to his…
/r/MensRights19/12/11 06:59 PM
-14

I apologize for the insensitivity, but this is not an MRA issue. This is a question of appropriate behavior between people in the workplace. It would be insane for men to take up a parallel, but separate and 50 years behind fight against this. You need to open your search for advice on this to women's groups that have specialized in it. Unfortunately, you'll most likely find that company has a policy that clearly and unequivocally protects you from this behavior and an unofficial policy that mak…
/r/MensRights19/12/11 06:15 PM
1

That this subreddit (and MRAs beyond this community) has members and content whose female analogy falls on the feminist side of that graphic.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 03:35 PM
0

I agree that it's an important distinction, but if those are the names you are going to go with, then a good chuck of what goes on here needs to move to r/Masculinism. Would be a great thing for both communities.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 08:58 AM
3

If you believe that people are a delicate flower, and that every thoughtless quip forever removes a petal of humanity, then the radical feminists have already won.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 04:27 PM
1

Two asses got into a shouting match and fight - basing a movement on shitty anecdotes won't work out any better for men than it did for women.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 11:04 PM
4

The government and big pharma are already in collusion, with the FDA and CDC ensuring that dangerous drugs and vaccines stay on the market. Government scientists would be no better. The regulative power of the government has been significantly subverted in the US, but the solution is to fix the government, not get your medical information from youtube videos and conspiracy sites. The truth is that most "doctors" like Jadis are just in it for the money and don't give a fuck about the facts. I don…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 10:47 PM
8

If you're going to be a pharmacist, surely you understand that vaccination is a powerful tool, but each vaccine must be judged on it's own - risk vs benefit as well as cost vs benefit. You're also aware that some vaccines do have unintended side effects that aren't found until after they are released (rotovirus, '76 flu, chicken pox and resulting increase in shingles). You're probably also aware of how frequently drug companies are investigated and fined for flaunting regulation for profit. Fina…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 08:21 PM
8

This doesn't seem like the type of thing people are entitled to an opinion on. There either are side effects or there aren't. You can earn an opinion on whether or not government and pharmaceuticals have a reasonable plan in place for detecting side effects, but you're going to have to work for it.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 06:37 PM
-2

That would be a fine defense of a "quotas are bad" news piece. But this is "Fire is in ur house burning ur kids while pansie quota firewomen cant open teh door" sensationalist crap. If my family's safety actually depends on every person on a fire truck being able to break open a door or carry me on their back, then it seems logical to start with the biggest cause for people not meeting that threshold.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 04:49 PM
8

Well that reeks of sensationalist crap. Go round up all the firefighters physically unfit for the job so we can see how many are actually puny young women and how many are fat old men.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 01:24 AM
1

You've been painful, and clearly misunderstand some basic underpinnings of our legal system. But I've been able to piece together that you believe plausible deniability is all that is required to legally bang a minor, that minors can consent through deception and that you aren't concerned about the resulting consequences for society. That's a belief I'm comfortable walking away from. Toodles.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 04:41 PM
1

Since you seem to like jargon, read up on legibility - basically if you reduce a complex problem to a simple model and then solve that model, you usually don't get a solution to the complex problem.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 03:53 PM
1

SR does not require mens rea. That's the point of this entire thread and why everything you have said has been gibberish. Changing the law to remove strict liability is fundamentally and practically different than raising the standard of evidence and will remain so despite your best efforts to barf stupid all over the discussion.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 03:44 PM
1

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, huh? And you see no need for 12-17 year old girls to be protected from their own bad decisions? You think existing prostitution laws are severe enough for a John that frequents a house full of 13 year old immigrants "18, yes sir!"?
/r/MensRights04/10/11 02:43 PM
1

You really need to stop throwing that around until you understand what it means. Anyway, as best as I can tell you're advocating "Don't Ask Don't Tell" for statutory rape. Unless you're a pimp or teen diddler, you should take a moment to think about the consequences of that - it would be the same as ending the age of consent.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 02:27 AM
1

No, they are completely different. Blackstone's Formulation is useless without a definition for 'guilty statutory rapist', and it's that definition that is under debate. Right now the definition is something like 'having sex with an underage person', and you seem to want to advocate something more like 'knowingly having sex with an underage person'. My question is what would you expand the definition of innocent to?
/r/MensRights04/10/11 01:39 AM
1

I don't see how that applies here. We're not talking about threshold of evidence needed to be found guilty, but rather what actions are considered guilty.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 09:24 PM
2

So how do you fix this "problem" in a way that doesn't open a loophole for adult men to retain plausible dependability while banging underage girls? The reason we have statutory rape is because underage girls can't consent to sex, even through deception. Until someone gets around that problem, I'm binning this as "unfair, but for the best". Similar to the tough job women have proving date rape beyond reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 04:54 PM
3

Bingo! No need to circle the MRA wagons, it's just an unfortunate anecdote of a relationship growing apart.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 01:02 AM
28

ERROR: Issue too complex for analogy. If you want to talk about sexuality and consent, talk about sexuality and consent.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 02:55 PM
1

I agree with you completely on the creep/flirt distinction. Not so much on "slut", men and women use the term with different connotations, many of which are not particularly fair or rational. And it's fine for me to bang 50 girls a month, and call a girl that sleeps with two guys a slut. I can refuse to date her or be her friend, as long as I don't hold it against her in any non-personal capacity (i.e. job application, health care, housing, etc...).
/r/MensRights09/07/11 05:54 PM
0

Looks like a bunch of old MR spinsters have their boxer briefs in a bunch. You're just as fucked up as the feminists and Victorian prudes that think there is no room for sexuality in public. Actually, you are even worse, because the argument from women is at least historically valid in that they had to fight their way out of being seen purely as sex objects. The end goal isn't a sexless society, but one where 1) the flirtee can rebuke the advance without repercussion 2) people don't flirt across…
/r/MensRights09/07/11 05:33 PM
38

I read the article and....that makes one of us. You have a feminist that is firmly dutch, and a guy whose nuts have shriveled out of guilt making some extremely weak (and offensive even) excuses for men still paying and finally the feminist agrees that the man can offer just to put the schmuck out of his misery. Next time just skip the link and go with a "DAE hate feminists that expect you to pay for dates?"
/r/MensRights03/07/11 11:48 PM
0

If you feel that men are held more responsible for their actions than women - then, please, for the sake of us all, demand more responsibility from women rather than less from men.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 05:13 AM
-1

The answer is less unwanted children, not less financial support for unwanted children. Get a vasectomy, carry your own condoms, or only have sex with someone you trust.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 05:00 AM
1

No, that's a lie. Men who were forced to have sex... And those have what to do with the topic at hand? Those are both good examples of what I consider a problem with the law, and neither are consensual sex. Post birth the woman can adopt the child out but the man has no such choice. It is not just about physically carrying the child. Female privilege continues past birth. Yeah. I listed father's rights as a serious concern.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 04:49 AM
-4

The sentence is imposed by the state and in the interest of the child. You're also looking at 22+ years with college. You also have plenty of choice - condoms, a vasectomy, the classic not sticking your dick in crazy. There are important issues to be fought for in mens rights - father's rights, decline in education, incarceration, and quotas. Getting out of child support because you didn't use birth control is not one of them. If you (edit: figurative you) disagree, you should join forces with t…
/r/MensRights16/06/11 03:51 AM
-4

It's frustrating, but the right to abortion is the right to not support a developing fetus, not the right to not be a mother. There is no analogous right in men to claim an inequality. Now after the crotch fruit drops, then you get all sorts of inequalities. That's where the battle should be fought.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 03:19 AM
22

The whole system was different - it was sexist. That's what sexism is - telling people what do based on their sex. You're a man, so go off to war, and you're a woman so stay home and keep things running and then give up your career when the surviving men come home. It oppressed the rights of men and women that didn't want to live a gender role. It also happened in the context of a World War and before society was really thinking about separating the person from their gender, so I don't see the v…
/r/MensRights03/04/11 04:59 PM
-1

I know it's not the fairness you were looking for - but Bolshevik has outlined the solution. The battle to give men the right to "abort" their fatherhood is a non-starter. Fairness will come when and if Fathers are on equal footing in custody and child support disputes. And if this thread is any indication, we're a long way off since most here see conception as a prison sentence to try to escape from. "Your honor - I want her to have an abortion, and barring that I want to abort my rights as a f…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 10:38 PM
-4

Do you really believe that the only legal system that takes the interests of children to heart is one where children are taken from their parents and assigned to more wealthy couples? Really? Like all things in life, it's a balancing act - and one in which no two people are looking at it from the same angle so that it's impossible to make everyone happy. So what are we balancing? In you first example, it's balancing the benefit to a child of being able to extract child support from the donor vs …
/r/MensRights28/03/11 10:25 PM
-3

There are many interesting situations where a father being forced to support his child is clearly or arguable unethical ( statutory rape of a minor male, sperm donor, etc...). Getting your girlfriend pregnant is just not one of them. The rights of the child to prosper outweigh your right to not have to get a vasectomy before sticking your dick in women.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:43 PM
-7

Thanks for reminding me why it's called the battle of the sexes. Your post is infantile whining without the slightest pretense of building a society that attempts to bridge the needs of both genders. I'll bet a nut that you've trotted out the "biological differences" between male and female to serve your point of view in the past, but when presented with the mother of all counter-examples, you want to bury the biological reality with politically correct laws to create an artificial and absurd "e…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:38 PM
-12

It may not be fair, but (1) it's not a double standard and (2) life isn't fair. Women don't have a right to avoid the consequences of having sex - they have a right not to host another life in their body. Men have that same right, so no double standard. Yes, that's a ludicrous statement, just like it's ludicrous to try to justify any sort of analogous right for men. Once the kid is born, the court's priority is the child's well being and they are correct to be unfair to the mother or father in m…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:00 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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