TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

atxsuckscox Archive

View 0 posts and 105 comments by atxsuckscox 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

You've missed the entire point I was trying to make, which is that the patriarchy is not strictly oppressive to women.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 01:56 AM
1

it rests on the objectively TRUE supposition that men are better at waging war than women. Only if you misrepresent my phrase "war effort" as strictly referring to combat roles, which if you wold read my post, I specifically differentiated.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 06:42 PM
2

Are you seriously trying to say that using women the same way as men would have made no significant difference to an army? No, specifically, I never said anything even approximating that. Please find the thing I said that can be interpreted by a reasonable person to be taken that way. What I asked was how is this patriarchal? It's patriarchal, as I said, because it says men's contribution to the war effort is significant, but women's is not.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 06:39 PM
4

Define capitalism succinctly in a comment on Reddit, on your downtime between support tickets. Pretty tough, right? It's very hard to come to this subreddit and attempt to have any sort of dissenting viewpoint. Nearly every word I've said here has been picked apart in a comment or PM, and then I'm lambasted for not walking my points to every logical conclusion, or not providing exhaustive, comprehensive answers. A lot of people here are willing to have frank and educational discussions. I've got…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 04:54 PM
2

I never said it was exclusively related to that, and the fact that you assumed ill intent in everything I said leads me to believe you're not interested in having any sort of real discussion.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 04:44 PM
1

While I'm often told I look older than I am, unfortunately the birth of gender norms evolved long before I was around to observe, so any answer I give would be speculation. Your question has an interesting effect of sidestepping the issue though. The fact that they have evolved and are harmful isn't at all dependent on the reason why they evolved. As you acknowledge, it's possible for a thing to come into existence that isn't beneficial to the people it affects.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 04:25 PM
1

I can't think of a more key indicator of quality of life than life expectancy itself, can you? I think there are several key indicators, but I'd put a heavy weight on life expectancy. Part of the reason for their greater mortality is the fact that they commit suicide 3 times more often than women[2] , so notably they seem to find life less worth living overall than women do. Suicide is an issue that's very close to me, as I've lost a few very good friends and close family members to suicide. Wit…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:38 PM
4

Are you suggesting that every social norm or construct that has evolved is beneficial to everyone involved?
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:20 PM
2

I think that is an element of patriarchy, but it is not the sole element, nor is it exclusive to patriarchy.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:18 PM
2

You're creating a false dichotomy. Something can be practical and historically about survival and still be patriarchal and damaging. And even then, in this case it's simply not true. There are, and always have been, ways for women to meaningfully contribute to the war effort.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:16 PM
2

For the same reason thermodynamics is also relevant when you're working on refrigeration, a name is not the totality of a concept. Feminism started as a women's movement to a dress women's issues, but it has grown significantly beyond that. Marxism, as a philosophy, deals with a lot of things that were never pontificated on by Marx, but it doesn't prioritize things that Marx adressed over modern ideas.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:09 PM
6

I don't think it does anyone any good to catalog and rank injuries due to patriarchal gender norms. Personally, I don't think women are worse off then men, but that's probably because I don't think many people account for the negative consequences the patriarchy has on men. I've certainly observed plenty of feminists who believe women "are worse off." That isn't a common sentiment with the feminists I know, though. Perhaps naively, I believe most people don't want their fellow humans to have a s…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 09:06 AM
9

As a feminist, there are plenty of women who enforce gender norms as well. I'd also argue that gender norms are harmful to both men and women.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 08:01 AM
4

For a definition, grab the already provided Wikipedia definition. Feminist theory defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women. It often includes any social mechanism that evokes male dominance over women. Selective Service registration only applying to men is an example of patriarchy. The supposition is that men are more valuable to the war effort. This is bad. This is bad for men and women. One way this is bad for men is that …
/r/MensRights09/11/15 07:38 AM
–

It's not even more likely to have an accident, because the last time I looked at an actuarial table, men were involved in fewer accidents. It's that men are involved in more high-dollar accidents. That could be because most men won't file a claim for a scrape or a dent, or that men are, for whatever reason, more likely to be involved in a total loss.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 11:19 PM
1

In effect, there'd be a pretty decent warning, as they'd have to enact a draft through an act of congress, allow a petition period for conscientious objectors, and then do the lottery. The practical chance of it is all pretty slim, due in part to it being a political death sentence, as well as all the resistance from the military that generally doesn't want the headache of an influx of people who don't want to be there.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 08:25 PM
1

I would make a properly titles petition, but I don't want to be accused of doing so simply to siphon away signatures.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 08:22 PM
2

I can title my post whatever I want, it's the petition that pooched the title.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 12:44 AM
10

No, I don't. Edit to add: Can someone please explain why I'm being downvoted? It's got Reddit enforcing a 10-minute break between posts, which makes it very difficult to have a conversation around here. I'm not breaking reddiquette, I'm not being a jerk, I'm not sure what the point is.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 06:29 PM
22

The headline is inaccurate, on its face. Compulsory conscription is a real thing that a lot of countries have, like Norway. The difference is real and meaningful, I'm not splitting hairs here. Even serious petitions are often disregarded by the Whitehouse, and this one doesn't really invite them to take it seriously when it leads with an error.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 06:10 PM
7

I'll be that feminist if someone remakes it so it's correct. The US does not have forced conscription, like Norway does. We have compulsory Selective Service registration, the differences are rather significant.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 06:00 PM
1

This video has frontpaged on Reddit multiple times. This isn't even the original post on Youtube and it has 6 million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FR5nlkecCU Here are some others: http://joeforamerica.com/2014/12/woman-caught-cheating-boyfriend-sitting-next-game/ http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhwi7pj2e1ezLQ2pZ7 Sure, there are people celebrating/defending the mutilation of someone caught cheating, but they're sick fucks. There were people defending Chris Brown, t…
/r/MensRights14/01/15 09:22 PM
-1

Look, I'm not arguing, in any way shape or form, that women can't rape men. I know men who have been raped by women. I'm just saying this case isn't particularly unclear. There are a handful of small changes that could be made to make it ambiguous, but as it's written, it's relatively straightforward.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 07:55 PM
0

and they made no mention of who initiated (Mary?) or who took whose clothes off. mary could very well have stripped naked the moment they walked in the door, and undressed john as well. but, she didn't say "yes", and he's a male, so, expel him, according to oklahoma. http://i.imgur.com/VWVRsqL.png
/r/MensRights12/12/14 07:53 PM
-13

Well, the question makes it clear that she is incapacitated. If she took of his clothes, that would be evidence she was not incapacitated, which would be a very significant difference from the situation presented. If they both mutually undressed eachother, or each took their own clothes off, it would start nearing a grey area. As it stands now, one person did nothing to consent.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 06:49 PM
-23

All things being equal, it really doesn't. Even if they were comparably intoxicated and every other fact remained the same, he undressed her and had sex with her without receiving consent.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 04:44 PM
1

I said nobody was arguing the wearer of the shirt hates women. That's different from saying the shirt is a symptom of misogyny. I have to believe that you're being deliberately obtuse on this, because it's not that abstract of a concept, but here's another example. A judge sentences a man to prison for shoving his wife. It was wrong, and he admits it, but it wasn't violent, and hell, it may have been in self defense. He is sentenced to 5 years because of the minimum sentencing guidelines. The se…
/r/MensRights24/11/14 08:41 PM
1

If I was raised by my parents to think that women were evil succubi who drained the life force from men, and I carried that fear with me in everyday life, actions I take could be a symptom of the misogyny I was raised in despite the fact that I was not misogynistic. Also, arguing based on a dictionary definition is literally the weakest rhetorical strategy ever, because it elides the fact that words are steeped in meaning based on context and culture.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 07:52 PM
1

Misogyny means "hates women" in the same way that hydrophilic means "loves water" Misogyny means "hates women" in the same way that hydrophilic means "loves water"
/r/MensRights24/11/14 05:03 PM
0

Misogyny means "hates women" in the same way that hydrophilic means "loves water"
/r/MensRights24/11/14 05:03 PM
-1

How the fuck does wearing a shirt let everyone of these women know that this man literally hates women? Nobody is saying the shirt communicates that the wearer hates women, and it defies credulity that you could be even tangentially aware of the subject at hand and come to that conclusion.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 07:36 PM
1

There is a difference between a woman at a bar and a woman on the street, though. Even if that woman is walking to a bar. Some people are calling shenanigans on the video because some of the things said aren't what they consider overt harassment. They say it's an innocuous greeting, or harmless flirting. The point of the video isn't that everybody should just ignore everybody else on the street. The point is that people have a right to exist neutrally in public. There are places where it's under…
/r/MensRights30/10/14 09:25 PM
1

We can paint any movement in an absurd light if we base it solely on the quotes of a single crackpot.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 03:56 AM
-5

Feminists claim that male success is proof of female oppression, but female success is proof of female superiority. This isn't true. Feminism's stated goal is equality among all genders. Anyone who would point to female superiority tips their hand and reveals some agenda other than feminism.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 08:06 PM
-2

While I agree it's an overblown fear, you have to admit there are irrational actors out there who may do something like that. There are documented cases of guys going to lengths of using reverse fish-eye lenses to record through hotel peepholes. To say it's not something to be concerned about because it's impractical is maybe a little shortsighted. I think there's legitimate concerns about privacy and remote operated cameras, whether they be on a plane, quadcopter, or balloon. My fear is less al…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:32 AM
6

That guy is a shill trying to stir the pot to make people here look like they support overzealous crackpots. Don't feed the troll. Downvote and move on.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:25 AM
1

Note the first words of your source. It may or may not even be relevant to the jurisdiction at hand.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 08:24 AM
2

It's worth noting that 4 of them are not exclusively serving at the pleasure of the First Lady. And it's not terribly surprising they're all woman, given how much of the work personal staff will do ends up being in personal quarters.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 07:55 AM
2

You're off by an order of magnitude.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 07:50 AM
0

There are obvious semantic differences between "not having sex" and "withholding sex". Think of the difference between not being able to give your kid lunch money and deliberately withholding lunch money, perhaps as a disciplinary measure. Has any male ever filed for divorce using a case of "alienation of affection" ? Yes. It's hard to find data on that, because most states don't record (and some don't even consider) cause/justification, but I believe it's second only to infidelity.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 03:21 PM
-4

He's riffing on the claims the gunman made that women should be sent to concentration camps to be killed en masse. When the gunman posted claims to certain Men's Rights groups, it was met with tepid support or indifference.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 02:49 PM
1

Don't start out like that... Sincere apologies. It was an attempt at levity in a subject otherwise given to inflamed passions. I didn't mean to slight you. My friends and I call each other dudebro, it legitimately didn't occur to me that it's kind of a fraught word in this context. You do raise valid concerns about some of the questions, especially the one about being plied with alcohol. However, you are grossly oversimplifying the questions. In the question "Have you had sex play (fondling, kis…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 02:28 AM
1

Enhance your calm, dudebro, you're reading something into what I said that just isn't there. I appreciate your thoughtful response, but it's not what I'm getting at. What I was saying is a fairly nuanced thing, so I probably shouldn't have been so terse. I probably don't have the time to do it justice, so I'll just do a kind of synposis. 1) The original Koss study did some valid research. It did not simply ask "have you had sex when you didn't want to?". Koss, for all her strengths and weaknesse…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 07:35 PM
1

The "one in four" stat is a can of worms unto itself. It's seriously damaged some otherwise very well done studies.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 06:14 PM
4

Not all civility is derived from political corectness. It's intellectual sportsmanship.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 05:44 AM
5

While there are a lot of probelms with tracking that stat in an highly precise way, it's not hard to get an overall feel. "reported" is operationally defined in most of those studies as "reported to law enforcement." Information about unreported rapes can come from sources like battered woman shelters, rape crisis centers/hotlines, and sexual wellness clinics.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 05:36 AM
3

No. Ignoring some problems with the pervasive "one in 4" stat, the study you are referencing very clear only deals with violence where the perpetrator and victim were in a serious intimate relationship. it does not track statistics of family members, strangers, casual acquaintances, etc.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 05:27 AM
1

If a man, especially a young man, is sent to prison, he is raped; this is a fact. For some values of "fact". because she is directly responsible for that man being beaten and raped where "directly" is defined as meaning the opposite of what it generally means.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 07:15 PM
1

I'd heard that "stole my card" thing from other betters for a while, but never from a dealer. I wonder if they did that just to shake you up? I could see them saying telling someone who they thought was counting they were "betting wrong" to see if they changed their strategy.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 05:54 PM
1

A man after my own heart, it seems. A good night of smart betting on craps is cheaper than drinking at a bar. And it's also pretty social. I like playing blackjack, but I generally don't like the people I find at the table. I've had some good times playing craps and jawing on with total strangers.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 04:27 PM
2

Learn craps, and just make bets that pay out at even odds. You'll probably just churn chips for a while.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 11:33 PM
1

I don't disagree. However there were a lot of posts here telling OP to raise hell to the publisher and professor and so on. Its clearly not the book's agenda, but an issue with the law that it objectively discusses.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 03:24 AM
2

Exactly. It was a really poorly written law. It even potentially made it illegal for 2 underage kids to hug each other in a potentially provocative way. Just asinine. The law was updated 3 years later, but I'm not overly familiar with the specifics of the changes.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 09:34 AM
50

From this book. It looks like it's merely detailing the enumerations of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, rather than advancing the idea that women cannot be rapists. Regrettably, the act of rape in some legislation, such as this, is limited in scope to penile penetration of the anus, mouth, or vagina, which would preclude any female-committed rape, as well as male object or digital (as in finger) rape.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 09:23 AM
12

Right after "Female sterilization procedures" it says "See Preventative Services for additional information," so it doesn't seem that far fetched.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 09:05 AM
0

Having never been a victim of rape I don't think I have a very informed opinion on it. That said, I would find it plausible that any rape situation could be just as traumatizing as any other, as there are millions of factors at play. I think I'm a pretty empathetic dude, but I realize there are limits to empathy in extreme situations. I don't know that any conjecture on my part would be valid at all. Truthfully, I've always considered rape a pretty binary thing; either there was bona fide consen…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:00 PM
1

What is you actual issue?
/r/MensRights26/10/13 06:27 AM
0

I don't disagree with anything your saying. However, currently, only the woman in this encounter is alleging rape, which is why I'm framing my discussion that way. I don't know how much more clear I can be about my belief that men can be raped, and women can rape. I do not know what is hypocritical about that? Do you actually know what that word means?
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:53 AM
0

I'm not artificially limiting the scope of the discussion. I'm not saying it's impossible that she raped him, or that nobody was raped. I'm strictly discussing the implications that are related to the current allegations. No. You and I were framing a discussion around the faulty reasoning that you're presenting in regards to your arguments with the others on what the article was about. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:32 AM
-2

If he claimed rape following the incident, I would structure attempts to discuss what that means in terms of rape, consent, etc. in that way, yes. I think it's a gross misstatement to say that as it stands now I'm assuming he raped her. While I've framed a number of comments in context of man-raping-woman, that's only because it's easier to discuss it that way than to qualify everything as a hypothetical that is almost like this situation but we know x, y, or z for a fact.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:29 AM
-1

Wow, that's really mature of you.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:15 AM
-1

The /r/austin subreddit has an infamous user named "atxsucks". My last name is "Cox". It's a joke. if you'd like to engage in something at a more cerebral level than ad hominem attacks, go right ahead. Others have done just fine.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:10 AM
1

I compared them in a sense as they are both things people have done, the same way I would compare a horse and a rocketship as things people have ridden on. If you want to have a more meaningful reaction than jerking your knee, feel free.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:08 AM
-1

Yet you keep talking only about her ability to give consent. Because she is the one that has alleged rape. I figured we were obviously framing this discussion around what the article was about.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:07 AM
-3

implying she had no control. I never did any such thing.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 04:13 AM
-1

Was it hard? It never said it was hard. The fact that he could tell they were "very, very drunk" rather than "drunk" or "tipsy" means it was probably pretty easy.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 04:11 AM
-3

Blanc told The Post "It was obvious that both the man and the woman were very, very drunk." I'm not sure what you mean by Anyway, why was it hard for the passersby?
/r/MensRights26/10/13 04:00 AM
-1

That's not strictly true. Rape is sex without consent. There doesn't need to be force.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 03:57 AM
-7

Helpless doesn't figure into it. You don't have to be helpless to be raped.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 03:54 AM
0

You're right to call me out on the enjoyment/arousal distinction, that was careless of me. I'd contest that the manifestation of one can be indistinguishable from the other. which is tantamount to consent. Unless their judgment is significantly impaired by alcohol
/r/MensRights26/10/13 03:52 AM
0

The baby:bathwater ratio is a little high for that kind of measure.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 03:38 AM
-6

Very true. I think in the case of a guy going down a girl, it's clear who is in control of the situation, but were it reversed, my position on inebriation and consent would be no different.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 03:36 AM
-4

I'm glad we're having a productive discussion.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 03:35 AM
-1

"it" referring to the physical act of sex, as the basic English grammar should convey.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 03:34 AM
-6

how I am supposed to know I'm not raping someone who is smiling, enjoying herself, participating and happily poses for photographs afterwards, and then goes home with me. Well, it was apparent to strangers passing by that she was "very, very drunk" so it shouldn't be particularly hard.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 03:33 AM
-6

A giant chunk of the human population used to own slaves until it wasn't acceptable anymore. Neither of these are relevant.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 03:32 AM
-1

I'm having a very hard time parsing what you're trying to say.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:48 AM
-8

That's such a copout. We don't give drunks that excuse when they get behind the wheel of a car, so why should we give them that excuse when they get behind the haunches of their lover?
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:46 AM
-11

I don't. My whole point is that we don't know anything about the consent given, or even her ability to consent.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:45 AM
0

Thanks for the link. It was good reading. It touches on some salient points, but it's kinda frustrating for how it glides right by some really important considerations. One: It doesn't actually provide any info on how much more healthcare women are consuming. It paints with some broad brustrokes on why there are reasons for women to seek healthcare more often, but doesn't give it a fair treatment, and sidles around some pertinent parts of those. Childbirths, sure, men don't go to the doctor for …
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:44 AM
-18

Whether or not she's enjoying it is irrelevant. Victims of rape may enjoy it, because sex is biologically pleasing. that is a bit at odds with other claims the two were posing for pictures and went home together, so I am not sure what to make of it. There are many conflicting aspects of accounts of this story. It's been reported that both people involved were very clearly extremely drunk. If that's that case, it doesn't matter if she enjoyed it, or gave signs of consent, because her intoxicated …
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:15 AM
-4

if drunk people can truly give this many signs of decision making ability and consent, It's never been a question of whether drunk people can give signs of decision making ability or consent. It's only ever been a question over whether drunk consent is valid consent, and it's been a resounding "no" for some time. It was obvious that both the man and the woman were very, very drunk. So whether or not she had consented may have been ambiguous to onlookers, but it was very clear she was drunk. Very…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:10 AM
-6

Apologies for my misunderstanding. When I first heard of the story, it was described as happening at a party on Court St, not Court St. itself. I don't profess to a level of omniscience that allows me to know why they were calling him a jerk, or why they decided to beat him. It would seem awfully perplexing if they beat him "for what he did to her", when "what he did to her" is have sex in an inappropriate location. But again, I don't have a magical ability to know why or why not. I don't see ho…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:54 AM
0

So you choose to see young men paying more as a side effect. I actually don't see it that way. I see that the ACA went out of it's way to make sure that women are not paying more even though they take more out of the pool. Can you give me some reading on where that's the case? I haven't read anything that would guide me to that conclusion.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:40 AM
-14

First of all, where is the basis that the people at the party weren't drunk? Second of all, obviously there was some dissent, Blanc says two men attacked the man for what he did to the woman, leaving him beaten and bloodied. Third, it's not on the bystanders to determine it, it's on the people involved in the fuckin'.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:37 AM
-6

Where does the video show freely given, uninhibited consent? Other than that, some good points.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:28 AM
-7

if so many people can get it wrong, why do we think a date who may also be intoxicated can get it right? The obvious failsafe is to not fuck while drunk. If you're too drunk to discern consent, you're too drunk for it to matter.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:22 AM
1

Definitely. When it comes to talking to cops, I'd 100% advise people to shut up quick and shut up completely. But just because you have said something doesn't mean you need to start singing, regardless of what the cops tell you.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:16 AM
2

It doesn't require a demographic to pay more than it utilizes. It requires the entire participant pool to pay more than it utilizes; there's is absolutely no necessity that it be split neatly along demographic lines, and the fact that you default to seeing it that way is a symptom of the "us vs. them" mentality that drives me batty around here. Unemployment disproportionately affects men. I think the Affordable Care Act is a step towards helping rectify that. It helps put a damper on the growing…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:13 AM
5

That's not accurate. You can answer some questions and not others. However: 1) You must explicitly state when your silence is motivated by your 5th amendment rights, not simply refuse to answer. 2) If you have previously waived your 5th amendment rights and given testimony, future silence may be used as evidence against you. In these cases, you can't be forced to answer, but conjecture about your non-answer is valid. Edit to add: I don't mean to pick on you, because for all I know you were simpl…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 09:20 PM
1

Having worked at Toyota and a Ford/Mazda office, it's just as much of a factor there. However, the "women in tech thing" is about selling higher education, which isn't required for most of the skilled labor in the automotive mechanics industry.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 04:28 AM
9

Watch out, the last time I tried to point out that unemployment affects men disproportionately I was called a liar and a shill.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 03:06 AM
15

I think it's important to remember here that nobody did complain, and nobody did go to HR, and that sexual harassment in the workplace laws aren't really that bad. The bad reaction comes from workplaces being so afraid of a situation developing that they'll dismiss an employee if a situation arises. Per the EEOC, " the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious"
/r/MensRights27/06/13 11:42 PM
32

In most states, it's a conditional gift, and is yours if the engagement is cancelled. A few states require that she be the one to break it off for it to return to your ownership, and a few of them require the break up to not be your fault. But, odds are in your favor. The one potential wrench in the gears is if you gave her the ring during a time in which the exchange of gifts is common. Engagement rings given on holidays often lose status as a conditional gift. It's also a little tricky because…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 05:37 AM
-7

Yeah, conning people into affordable healthcare, what a scam.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 05:22 AM
2

What do you mean by a woman "objectifying herself"?
/r/MensRights24/06/13 04:30 AM
1

It does not say you need continual verbal affirmation. It says consent is verbal, continual, etc. This is basic semantics; there is a difference between a great, white shark and a great white shark.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 11:41 PM
1

"Run" constitutes a verb, but is not verbal.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 10:28 PM
1

"Continually" just means that consent isn't a floodgate; that once given, it can be withdrawn.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 10:27 PM
2

If you can't use a condom perfectly then you shouldn't be having sex.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:32 PM
1

That's the "typical effectiveness" which, and this is a humdinger, includes times when someone who usually uses a condom didn't bother with one.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 11:37 PM
1

which are not highly effective means of birth control lolwut. They're 98% effective.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 11:09 PM
1

My mistake on the link there. I'd just been looking into it for my uncle, and I'd found something from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that lead me to believe it was an ACA mandate. I can't currently find whatever I found then, so I may be full of shit. From a sheer numbers perspective, it would seem asinine to not cover it. It's a <$100 test that prevents multiple thousands in later treatment.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 06:44 PM
3

The Affordable Care Act also covers prostate exams. http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/65-older/medicare-preventive-services/
/r/MensRights07/06/13 06:16 PM
4

I've had tremendous success with the BBB the 3 occasions that I've gone that route. One was a substantial photo order from a big-box stores photo department. One was a large home supply store, and the other time was a branch of a large bank. Every single time, contacting the BBB helped escalate the issue to the people who could actually resolve my complaint after I was dismissed by people who couldn't or wouldn't help. As with most things, you get out of it what you put in. If it's a large corpo…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:33 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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