TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

bad_keisatsu Archive

View 0 posts and 219 comments by bad_keisatsu 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)
3

What constitutes a "reported rape and assault" in this study? (you start out by saying rape and assault and switch to rape later on. Is a boob grab an assault?) Also, how far does the report have to go before it is considered a rape? I can tell you as a police officer that over 50% (not 10%) of the rape calls generated are false. This does not mean a specific person was necessarily accused of rape, but that a woman claims she was raped when she was not.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 03:53 PM
-2

God forbid something effective is done to counteract the AIDS epedemic.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 01:53 AM
-3

Warning: courthousenews is not news, it is a press release website for lawyers preparing to sue or settle for cash.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 10:26 PM
3

So his anecdotal evidence has less value than the anecdotal evidence of a guy who allegedly once heard a cop say something and then later quoted it on a website
/r/MensRights31/08/11 07:39 PM
6

I think that the above poster actually meant the latter of the two choices; that after the fact she regretted having sex and therefore decided that it was rape. There is a large precedence for this in the United States. I am a police officer and when I interview some of these women it makes me sick (actually, it makes me sick either way -- the real rapists or the false rape accusations).
/r/MensRights30/08/11 08:32 PM
2

Not to mention the cost of paying for someone else's child is exceptionally high.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 04:33 AM
2

Doing a quick google search I see that it is available for $79 online. Presumably the actual cost of the test is less than that, and economies of scale would bring the price down more. That seems pretty inexpensive to me already. In other words, I don't believe the cost of the test is what holds back by default paternity testing.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 03:05 PM
3

Don't forget Zenobia of Palmyra.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 03:09 PM
2

She has backed hers up with some research. So you admit that it is a major factor but not the only factor. What research? She has backed up her statement with a postulation. "Male birth control pill does not exist ergo men must not want it." You admit that yours is just a gut-feeling. There are surveys that show men would use a male birth control, the author references them. She merely discounts them because men don't know what they want, obviously. Why are you afraid to even consider that she m…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 12:33 AM
2

My follow up would be, have you ever used a condom?
/r/MensRights09/08/11 12:25 AM
11

Too much he said / she said. Could have been either way, but not enough evidence to prove he did it. The only thing we do know is that she cheated on him.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 11:41 PM
2

Quite the opposite, it is necessary for the author to prove this is not the case. She assumes that drug companies haven't developed the male pill because it is not profitable. Perhaps she also feels the same way about curing breast cancer or AIDS? The facts remain that it is difficult to reliably stop male reproductivity with a pill because there are millions of sperm. Not that many of those bad boys have to get through to get a woman pregnant. We know that is a major factor keeping drug compani…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 11:22 PM
2

It is not a "small decrease in sensation". The decrease is rather large. FTR, are you a man or a woman? If you are a woman, how would you like it if I commented on how it isn't a big deal for women to take the pill because the effects on their hormonal balance is insignificant? If she cared to protect herself she should take the pill and use a female condom when not in a steady relationship.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 11:19 PM
3

Well, I personally know one man whose girlfriend got pregnant on purpose (confirmed) to lock him into the relationship. I feel like it happens more than you (therealbarackobama) would assume, given that reddit is not my source for my understanding of the problem. Your source for the understanding of the problem seems to be to position yourself opposite the mensrights subreddit, and since the mensrights subreddit thinks it is common you think it is not that common. Perhaps, though, we have differ…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 11:10 PM
1

Not a pill - it is sort of a temporary, removable "vasectomy" blocking the tubes.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:01 PM
5

I don't think the movement is about trapping men, but they don't want to admit that it happens all the time. By supporting creating a solution they are admitting that there is a problem. It's like Christians who are against birth control. They don't have to teach their kids about the dangers of pregnancy / STDs because their kids don't have premarital sex. Fingers in ears, lalalalalalallalalalalalala.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:59 PM
1

I know that is what the author is claiming -- I'm pointing out that the number one thing postponing development of the male pill is that it is not easy to do.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:55 PM
1

The reason a male pill hasn't come out is because it is significantly more difficult to suppress millions of sperm than it is to suppress one or two eggs a month. If the drug companies could get past the technical difficulties, we all know that a male pill would be highly successful and profitable world-wide.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 04:16 PM
12

The post is about whether it is acceptable for women to objectify men while simultaneously deriding the way men objectify women. She seems to think yes, and part of her justification is that "women have suffered for a long time." Try taking it in the context of the entire conversation.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 02:02 PM
19

lol. I love it when people claim to have suffered for things that happened before they were born. hint: the longest a human can possibly live is around 120 years, but the average lifespan is much lower.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 06:35 AM
43

After a few millenia of sexual oppression, we’ve kind of earned the right to say “I would have sex with that man.” Yeah, it must have been really hard for her to suffer the objectification of men for the last few thousand years. On a side note, that bitch must look really good for her age for men to still be looking at her as body parts.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 06:17 AM
3

And those shelters allow single fathers to stay there? Doesn't appear so.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:37 PM
1

Once again, you are cherry picking athletes who have a very high muscle mass. These people are the exception, not the rule. I am not arguing that all thin people are active (where did I say that?), only that someone being fat is a general indicator that they are not active. If you honestly believe that someone's weight has absolutely nothing to do with how active they have been in their life up to that point, you are fooling yourself.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 05:12 AM
2

Those people are overweight or obese because the definition is based solely on BMI which only takes into account height and weight. Therefore, your typical fat person that you are defending looks the same to the study as a very muscular person. Fat people are not active in general and your examples do not prove otherwise. Either you are trolling or trying to defend your own self image.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:53 PM
14

It is a big deal for me. If I were 18, things would be different, but I have no interest in being in a relationship with someone who cannot hold their own in the real world. Primarily, they need to have a career. I do not look down on someone for living with a roommate or family or not having a car because those might be financially savvy personal choices. I do not want to be in a relationship with someone who is not my equal, and I do not want to support a woman who wants to get married and not…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 06:34 PM
7

Don't confuse Italians with Jersey Shore Americans. There are douchebags in every culture.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 05:01 AM
6

The problem the above poster is pointing out is that driving record is weighted less than gender in many cases, I think.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:47 PM
1

It's about perception and the evolving definitions of words. If a word has a historically sexist meaning, that does not mean you can not update its meaning or usage. Many words have been updated. E.g. Policeman to police officer.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 01:45 PM
15

I am floored that something came of this! Her apology was nearly as offensive as the original commentary. She didn't really apologize, only said that "she didn't mean to offend anyone." Well no shit, that's amazing. On top of that she was laughing about it. It seemed like she only felt bad because she got in trouble, like a child.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 04:53 PM
2

They certainly played down how much all the hosts (except, perhaps, the girl from Roseanne) were laughing. Hopefully readers will watch the clip to get an idea for themselves how vehement they are.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 11:25 PM
1

Ah I see.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 04:15 PM
1

While there is a sentencing disparity, DUI is not a good example. Getting multiple DUIs with no prison time is normal.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 02:23 AM
3

It didn't sound like it, but ok. There are definitely a lot of people (including white males) that will only vote for their own kind. How do you counteract it? By voting for the best candidate. Also, point out what a ridiculous policy that is to your friends / family members / acquaintances when they tell you they intend to do so.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 12:46 AM
6

That's a stupid way of looking at things. Many people of any group will vote for someone just because of their sex / skin color. You have proved you are just the same as her.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 12:40 AM
4

You are correct, the parents wishes are irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Charges should be filed.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 05:46 PM
1

You forgot that crimes are against the state. Nobody has to "press charges," especially since there is video of the incident and, therefore, no need for the victim to testify.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 05:44 PM
1

Your speculation and known facts are the same thing. You speculate that the bail was set higher because of sexism. The proof? The bail was set higher for the man. Ergo, it was sexism. That's called circular logic. Second speculation, he makes more than her. Well, we know that a bond was posted for him but we don't know how much either of them make. Perhaps she was unwilling to waste money on a bail bondsman. Perhaps his family posted for him. We don't know. Its all speculation. In short, you sho…
/r/MensRights23/06/11 07:52 PM
1

No! My speculation is CLEARLY superior to yours!!!1111 :/
/r/MensRights23/06/11 07:44 PM
1

Neither of those are for the same charge. We also don't know his criminal history, nor do we necessarily know her full criminal history. We can only speculate why their bail was different.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 06:30 PM
1

Read the rest of my comments please. I am clearly speculating in my post. You have no basis for your comment either. No need to be an ass.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 06:27 PM
2

Don't worry about it, he's just a child troll.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 11:13 PM
3

It's amusing that these types of comments usually come from posters who have an extensive posting history in /r/trees and in discussing video games.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 11:10 PM
9

The article has very little information, and the journalist doesn't have access to the reasons bail was set at that level. Keep your blood pressure down there cowboy, I apologize for attempting to educate your ignorant ass on the workings of the criminal justice system.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 11:07 PM
22

I'm a police officer. Bail, in my state at least, is automatically set based on the crime. Many crimes have a higher bail for repeat offenders. If you don't like it, don't believe me. I'm not going to do a bunch of research on the internet every time someone posts one of these articles on mensrights to find the exact law in the lawbooks.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 08:28 PM
4

From the article we do not know why the man received a higher bail amount, but it is likely because he has some kind of prior arrests, perhaps for lewd and lascivious acts.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 07:24 PM
2

But her expectation is that men are nice to women, not that strangers are nice to each other. Does she expect a woman to stand up from her subway seat when a man gets on the train? No. This is not a tit-for-tat trade, it is the expectation that some farm animals are more equal than others.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 06:00 PM
3

So will this hypothetical woman do nice things for the anonymous man who has to stand on the train while she sits even though he was there first? Will she make a sandwich for him later? What is the act that she will reciprocate?
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:49 PM
4

It's only obvious -- if a culture is full of violent criminals, it is not only the men driving that but the women as well.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 02:37 PM
2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ7HZATMKBY
/r/MensRights20/06/11 02:36 PM
3

I remember that case. For the black night it would have to be free / cheap entrance and drinks for black people, regular for others. Of course it sounds preposterous.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:41 PM
2

How do we know the ladies' drinks were stronger? We only know they were strong.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 01:50 PM
15

That may be how you feel, sir. Your position is consistet. But it remains that the bar cannot have whitey night. Since both gender and race are protected under the law, it is a short step to realize that this should be illegal if the US government had interest in equal application of the law.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 01:49 PM
3

This is not true at all unless you are talking about stranger rape, which makes up a vanishingly small percentage of rapes. Acting responsibly and keeping in control of yourself will prevent a rape. Date and party rapes don't happen in the lights of the bar.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 08:58 PM
17

Funny how men got the custody of children in a split-up back when the patriarchy was in full swing.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 12:44 AM
3

I should have used better language. I know the jury only found reasonable doubt (as is the case in almost all jury trials), but the assumption is still that they are guilty of rape. This is the exact same attitude that some feminists have in regards to all men accused of rape. Therefore, my point still stands.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 01:17 PM
-6

Fuck you. Your assumption is that the cops were guilty of rape even though a jury cleared them. You sound just like a feminist yourself saying that all men accused of rape are guilty of rape.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 01:43 AM
1

Good for him! It would be great to see a gay, married man in the California legislature.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 12:12 AM
2

So when does she get expelled from school? Last I recalled, you can get expelled from school for being accused of rape, even if you are cleared. Why not for false accusations?
/r/MensRights05/05/11 06:06 AM
12

Reading comprehension: Your synopsis of the study and the above posted text claim two different things. In first source, the above claims women were injured more seriously, while your synopsis says that women were more likely to commit any domestic violence (mild or serious). Those are two different claims that do not necessarily contradict themselves. In second source, the above claims that women were more seriously injured. If you look at the synopsis, it says that 98% of men and 92% of women …
/r/MensRights14/04/11 06:26 PM
4

<feminist hat> No! That is clearly a misogynist posing as a woman in order to discredit the feminist movement! </feminist hat>
/r/MensRights26/03/11 01:53 PM
9

This is ridiculous. I do not know New York State law, but it is normal that the victim's name in the case of domestic violence is kept anonymous while the attacker's name is published.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 06:43 AM
6

You're right, it's not funny. It's also not sexist or related to MR in any way.
/r/MensRights14/02/11 04:47 PM
1

How is re45623 ad hominem attacking you? You assume that the store would not take a complaint against a female employee, but you do not know this. It is not sex discrimination by the store when a customer complains about the OP. It sucks, it is discrimination by society, but not by the store.
/r/MensRights07/02/11 09:35 AM
2

It's not gender discrimination by the store, though. It is also not, ostensibly, gender discrimination by the woman reporting -- you could not prove it in court.
/r/MensRights07/02/11 09:33 AM
1

So you are telling me that you can't see an objective difference in the way you treated the subject of a rape victim being forced to pay child support and the thought of a rapist being forced to get an abortion?
/r/MensRights05/02/11 02:14 AM
5

A woman does not have to be held down to be raped, she can be cowed into having sex when she did not "want to" and it is still considered rape. How is this any different for a man?
/r/MensRights04/02/11 04:57 PM
1

I was arguing primarily against the idea that the woman should be forced by the victim to carry the child in addition to whatever other sentence she received, as I find that abhorrent. That is because you empathize more strongly with the rapist woman than the victim boy. Look at the language you use: boy gets raped and then forced to be pay child support for the rapist's baby: "I certainly can't see the morality" in that. Woman gets pregnant while raping teen boy and the teen boy decides he want…
/r/MensRights04/02/11 04:55 PM
6

While I see your point, I appreciate that the mall is making a positive effort to be inclusive here. Until such a time when fathers are not second-class parents, it is helpful to specifically include them.
/r/MensRights30/01/11 04:06 PM
3

Don't think that is possible. If you are worried about future earnings, don't get married. Just make sure to get a prenup about not having a ridiculous alimony.
/r/MensRights16/01/11 04:05 AM
0

No true scotsman.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 06:38 PM
1

Yes, that was sarcasm... I thought it would be obvious based on my comment that it should be first degree murder (not manslaughter), but I guess it isn't.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 10:00 PM
-7

"After a dinner party at their Canberra flat, she sedated him with Rohypnol, injected him with heroin and watched as he vomited blood and died in their bed. She served four years for Mr Cinque's manslaughter." How is that not first degree murder? He must have been abusing her. EDIT: Hello people, sarcasm here.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 04:38 PM
-1

Yeah, because when a woman traps a man by going off birth control to have a baby, almost invariably ending in divorce which requires the man to pay child support, that is worse than the wife having ANOTHER child (not just a first one). // sarcasm
/r/MensRights29/11/10 09:50 PM
7

I agree that it is not right, but going off birth control is, hands down, far worse because it results in an 18 year long commitment. edit: wrong use of negative
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:19 AM
1

To deny the premise would not be answering the "question." Enjoy your day.
/r/MensRights20/11/10 09:42 PM
1

I agree with you, but the law (which is probably a city ordinance, of which every large city in America has many) could have been written to address any number of problems. Unfortunately, do nothing drunks, drug addicts and gang members tend to congregate at and dominate parks. This city ordinance gives the police a legal reason to kick them out of the area so that kids can actually use the playground. The OP's article focuses so much on the fact that the men were playing chess, but we are liste…
/r/MensRights20/11/10 03:28 PM
1

The park ranger is not in charge of the area, the city is. That is why they created an ordinance against adults congregating in the playground and posted a sign about it there. If the park ranger told them it was okay for them to be there and nothing would happen to them (and that is a big if), then that is his bad.
/r/MensRights20/11/10 03:21 PM
1

I cannot answer your "question" since it is really a statement (an insult) reworded as a rhetorical question. For me to answer it would validate your assertion, which I reject.
/r/MensRights20/11/10 03:19 PM
1

You are thinking about this way too hard. One cop (the park ranger) decided not to cite them, another one did. There is no revenue stream, there are no plans from the higher ups. The moral of the story is: if you are in violation of a law, no matter how small, you risk getting in trouble for it.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 01:18 AM
1

How does it feel being an Internet vigilante, feeling superior while spreading your freedom kool aid across the Internet?
/r/MensRights19/11/10 01:15 AM
1

Even if a park ranger told them he wouldn't cite them, the law is quite clear and the men were in violation of it. If one cop told you it was ok to jaywalk and the next day another cop gave you a jaywalking ticket, would you be surprised? They were risking getting a ticket every day they spent there. It finally caught up with them.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 01:14 AM
-1

You should go to that country where there are no laws, I can't recall it's name...
/r/MensRights19/11/10 01:01 AM
2

Keep working on your reading skills. 7 people were cited. The number of cops is not stated in the article.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 01:00 AM
2

If there had been any physical altercation, the article would have mentioned it. The article says that the person cited felt like he was treated like a drug dealer. I guess he imagines that drug dealers are given tickets. I am a cop.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 12:56 AM
10

Or, in other words (once reading the article and taking out the sensationalism): Police officers give men tickets for not complying with posted signs at a park. This is one of the worst examples of police sensationalism I have ever seen. It is bad even for reddit. Do all police officers wear bulletproof vests? Yes. Was anybody taken to jail? No. Were they in violation of the posted signs? By their own admission, yes. Did the police that issued them the tickets use any untoward or rude language? …
/r/MensRights18/11/10 01:59 PM
1

I would focus on some of the statistics. For instance, girls do better in all grades of school. More girls graduate from high school. More girls graduate from college. Look into programs that are designed to improve the performance of girls in school. Then point out that since girls are doing better, they shouldn't be the ones with special programs.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 10:13 PM
5

Not really. A false rape accusation is he said / she said, there doesn't have to be any physical proof. In this case, the pictures are either on the cell phone or they aren't.
/r/MensRights14/11/10 05:59 PM
1

I would reply to your drivel, but I see you are the troll king.
/r/MensRights06/11/10 05:05 PM
1

Yes, they do have the legal right to abandon their children. They can either abort the child, or they can give it up for adoption. The double standard does not have to have equal situations. You are too quick to point out that men and women are different when it suits your purpose. A man has NO rights involved in birth, he is held hostage by the law. And don't say, "if he doesn't want a kid he shouldn't have sex." Bullshit. You could use the same argument against abortion. If she doesn't want to…
/r/MensRights06/11/10 05:03 PM
3

You know what he means -- what is the charge. Instead of it being forceful oral copulation (or whatever the charge is in West Virginia), she was charged with domestic assault and brandishing, much lighter charges.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:23 AM
3

According to the law, just her getting drunk makes it legally rape - according to the idea that she could not consent due to being under the influence, even if she'd been eager & willing. Not true. It is only legally rape if Becky was too drunk to give consent -- the line is not clear.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:17 AM
1

Asking questions and supporting your friend are not mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:15 AM
9

You are creating a double standard. Whether the woman must carry the pregnancy to term is based on the woman's right to her body. Whether the man must then provide for the child is based on the child's right to support by both parents. Where does a man's rights come in? I propose that a man has the right to legally opt out of being the father upon finding out that the woman is pregnant. If the woman does not want to raise a child on her own then she has the option to abort the child. If the woma…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:13 AM
2

What a horrible bitch. I hope that she actually gets a chance to spend a little time in jail and doesn't just get domestic violence counseling.
/r/MensRights23/10/10 02:37 AM
1

I doubt that. The OP said he told his girlfriend in a joking manner. If you were with a couple that were friends discussing DV and the girl said that if he ever hit her she would knock him the fuck out, you'd laugh along with everyone else. That is, unless you are a humorless sandbag.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 05:18 AM
1

Your comment is kind of douchey, but what is more interesting are the replies -- people are all over you for threatening violence on your girlfriend to reciprocate her possible future violence. Just shows you how domestic violence is viewed in the legal world and in actuality.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 01:09 AM
1

I'll think about it. It would definitely be a lightning rod!
/r/MensRights28/09/10 12:47 AM
6

I'm saying that your understanding of the law is about as great as that of a used napkin. It's great to be emotional and spout vitriol on the internet, but at the end of the day understanding the current law and the best ways to change it are a lot more help the MR movement. And fuck you too. I don't know what you do, but after perusing your reddit commentary I'm pretty sure you're a loser. Have a nice life while the adults keep the world working.
/r/MensRights27/09/10 01:25 AM
8

Re: policies promote the primary aggressor theory It might depend on state, but it is usually law, not policy, that promotes the primary aggressor theory. Re: almost exclusively male Not true. I can say as a police officer that it is much more often the male, but not "almost exclusively." This is also due to the fact that men usually don't call the police when they are the victim of DV.
/r/MensRights27/09/10 01:14 AM
2

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I'd have to go ask one of the juvenile detectives at work about the specifics on ages, but there are more lines in the sand than just over 18 / under 18.
/r/MensRights26/09/10 11:59 PM
6

This isn't really true. Domestic violence, for instance, can have two suspects and two victims (i.e. both partners are suspect in two separate reports). Edit: Reddit hivemind strikes again. You don't have to like it, but it's true. I'm a police officer. I have arrested both partners on a number of occasions.
/r/MensRights26/09/10 11:58 PM
17

Disclaimer: this is still bullshit, but here is the legal reason: The law looks at the age range of 15-17 differently than 14 and below.
/r/MensRights26/09/10 08:58 PM
1

Wow, that was one of the silliest debates I have ever seen... Silly even for the Internet.
/r/MensRights02/09/10 06:11 AM
7

Epic fail on your title. If you read the article, circumcision does reduce transmission to men. It does not reduce the transmission rate from men to women. No duh.
/r/MensRights29/08/10 09:42 PM
2

Try reading your own link to the strawman fallacy again. My post directly attacks the main point of your argument: that having sex with your sister is fine because birth control is perfect and there is no risk of children. Birth control fails all the time.
/r/MensRights28/08/10 02:00 PM
7

It's elementary. Boy gets put on sex offender list at age 16, sister is not put on sex offender list.
/r/MensRights28/08/10 01:52 PM
11

Yes, the awesome birth control of the 21st century has completely ended unwanted pregnancy! It's so much better now that there are no more accidental pregnancies, isn't it?
/r/MensRights28/08/10 01:49 PM
1

This article doesn't indicate that the convicted man was placed on a sex offender list.
/r/MensRights22/08/10 04:28 AM
3

This is a stupid and sensationalist article. In California, at least, it is not illegal to be naked per se, it is only illegal to expose onself in a sexual manner. The nakedness is not illegal. I do not know Texas law. It appears that, based on her conviction, it is illegal just to be naked. However, I would like to see examples of men being put on the sex offender list for merely walking naked in public. Those on sex offender lists (and I am against these, to be sure) are there for lewd exposur…
/r/MensRights18/08/10 04:59 AM
4

Women who allege sex crimes of which no conviction is ever made deserve money why? Sounds like a brilliant idea. Let's hand over a bunch of cash automatically to each woman who claims she was raped by a police officer.
/r/MensRights10/08/10 09:52 PM
3

Actually, women and men die at exactly the same rate. I think what the above poster meant is that "women are killed less, work in less dangerous situations, and are protected and not the protectors. Since always." What's sad is that you really think you are so smart and educated, but you are not. You look at the world through some thick and bitter glasses.
/r/MensRights10/08/10 02:57 AM
4

Get a life. You obviously won't do anything that great since you obviously spend most of your time posting to reddits you disagree with. If XY or XX is so meaningless, quit obsessing over it so much.
/r/MensRights10/08/10 02:47 AM
2

Women invented things too, but this is a post celebrating the things that men invented you troll. If you are as pro-equality as you claim to be, can you just this once not be a wet blanket? How would you feel if a post about things women invented included a bunch of replies about men? ...oh, that doesn't seem to be possible for you.
/r/MensRights09/08/10 01:58 PM
3

Except there are bathrooms for men and for women. In this case there is only a stage for women. Furthermore, exposing genitalia general calls for gender privacy, dancing is almost always men and women.
/r/MensRights08/08/10 02:09 PM
7

"it expels toxic mercury." This is done by the Jenny McCarthy crowd.
/r/MensRights08/08/10 02:02 PM
3

There are two questions I really would like to know your opinion on. How do you feel about informing the parents of an underage girl when she gets an abortion? What reason do you base your opinion on, that the woman has a right to know if the man performs a paternity test? I stated the reason a man has a right to perform the test without the knowledge of the woman. You simply deny that without explanation. I don't know about "evil misandrist monster," but I would say you don't think a man should…
/r/MensRights02/08/10 02:44 AM
4

The first half of your argument is correct, but it does not contradict the statements of helleborus in any way. I'm pretty sure we are all aware that only people who think there is a high probability of paternity fraud will perform the paternity test. | You could also look at the reverse statistic: 70% of men who are certain they are the victim of paternity fraud are wrong. Is very wrong. This is a logical fallacy. If I am in Austin, I am in Texas, but the reverse is not true. Men performing a p…
/r/MensRights01/08/10 06:18 AM
3

So basically, you oppose a man's right to know whether the child born to his wife is actually his without starting a huge fight with her. Brilliant idea. How do you feel about parents being informed in the case of non-adults having abortions? FTR, I disagree with you completely.
/r/MensRights01/08/10 06:13 AM
5

Good article.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 04:48 PM
9

Took the words out of my mouth, and then completely missed the point. Why aren't men allowed in shelters for DV victims?
/r/MensRights16/07/10 06:41 AM
2

I can't really give you a percentage because this is just for my area of my city and the cases that I personally deal with (I am not a detective that deals with sex crimes). I can just say that over half are obviously lies and many of the rest are highly questionable. You can break false rape reports into a few categories: Crazy lady who has not even been raped or had sex with anyone making absurd claims Prostitute who did not get paid by the John Woman who gets caught cheating on husband / boyf…
/r/MensRights16/07/10 06:25 AM
5

My point was that one can equally well say that a man who rapes a woman is mentally unwell because only a mentally unwell person would do something like that. I have not worked on a case like this (since I am street level), but I have seen many women accuse men of rape when it was obviously a lie. Mental health of the accuser does not get taken into account by the prosecution, that is something that may be presented by the defense. In those cases, the prosecution must counter claims that the acc…
/r/MensRights15/07/10 04:22 PM
6

Of course she seems mentally unwell, but no more mentally unwell than those who commit rape.
/r/MensRights15/07/10 03:17 PM
1

I feel for you, man. I'm a cop and I am doing my best to present all evidence in rape accusations. This type of occurrence is, sadly, common in my experience (not the evidence issue, but the women making blatantly false accusations issue).
/r/MensRights13/07/10 01:09 AM
1

Wow, is that the best you can do?
/r/MensRights12/07/10 03:55 PM
6

A story change can indicate lying about a rape. It is a piece of evidence that must be taken into consideration. I know quite a few things better than you, including, apparently, the law. Thanks for the offer, but you should stick to auto-fellatio. I won't be sucking your dick anytime soon. You still need to get over yourself. Why don't you point out where I said you are a woman? It is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights12/07/10 04:13 AM
4

Sure it's possible to prove. For instance, if the accuser changes their story multiple times, the evidence that exists contradicts the accuser's story, or the accused has a solid alibi. Some of the most difficult crimes to convict are those that involve intent. How does one prove intent? However, lying about a rape is a lie no matter what the intent is. It is actually less difficult to prove than you believe. And, for the record, get over yourself. A woman is VERY RARELY guilty in the eyes of th…
/r/MensRights12/07/10 03:53 AM
6

What a load of crap. You can't punish a woman for falsely accusing a man of rape because we have to help those poor men who are being falsely accused! Just once I would like to see a woman unequivocally denounce those who make false rape accusations. No hedging.
/r/MensRights12/07/10 03:50 AM
1

You can have evidence that the "suspect" was not present when the "victim" claims to have been raped. For instance, if there is video from an ATM and ATM receipts of one of the suspects when he is supposedly raping a stripper.
/r/MensRights12/07/10 03:45 AM
1

This utterance is neither hearsay nor sexual history. How "murky" the case is has nothing to do with it. If you suppress any evidence in favor of the accused, of course the case will seem murky. It is for the jury to sort out the strength of each piece of evidence and testimony. Why is it impossible for you to want a man to have his fair day in court? You claim to be against false rape accusations, but your commentary says that you think the cards should be stacked against the accused. What happ…
/r/MensRights09/07/10 03:02 PM
1

You are missing my point, which is: The statements by the man and his wife should be admitted as evidence. They have just as much weight behind them as the woman saying she was raped. Each piece of evidence must be weighed on its own merits by the jury. What makes you so sure the woman didn't say it? Even if there was solid evidence against the man, even if he did rape her, she still may have said it. We don't know if he raped her or not, but we do know that he deserves a fair trial.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 04:17 AM
2

It is true that a woman can up and destroy a man's life with nothing but words. That's what a false rape claim does. The man doesn't have to get sent to prison for a rape claim to have terrible effects. In many jurisdictions, including my own, a woman can easily have a man arrested and put in jail until he makes bail based ONLY on her words, no further evidence necessary.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 04:14 AM
1

You're welcome.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 02:16 AM
8

It's just the words of the accused? You mean, kind of like the rape claim is just the words of the "victim"?
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:02 PM
3

Ooooh, 50 hours community service!
/r/MensRights06/07/10 04:32 PM
4

I agree with you with the exception of the idea that women are the more disadvantaged group. It can be demonstrated by numerous statistics that men and boys are more disadvantaged than women and girls today. This attitude does the feminist movement a great disservice. It creates an us-vs-them to say that you are more disadvantaged. It tells men, just like society has been telling us, that our problems are insignificant and we should deal with them, while womens' problems are important and requir…
/r/MensRights06/07/10 01:24 AM
5

I am a supporter of equal rights for men and women. I think that the "ideal" definition of feminism, how feminism is practiced and the root meaning of the word are three different things. The ideal definition, or what some feminists say they believe in, is what you say above: equal rights for men and women. However, the word "feminism" belies that definition. A feminist, by looking at the root of the word, is a proponent for women. If you truly believe in equal rights for men and women then you …
/r/MensRights05/07/10 07:13 AM
4

You could say the same thing about any crime, and many crimes are less violent then attempting to have a man put in prison who didn't do anything. For instance, burglary. Should we not arrest burglars? For fucks sake, clearly you don't want those who make false accusations to go to prison is because you are incapable of admitting that one of the tenets of your religion is sexist and deplorable.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 11:56 PM
8

You are living in a feminist fantasy world if you honestly believe that only 2% of reported sexual assaults are fabricated.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 11:41 PM
2

First, existing sex offender laws need to be changed. They're ridiculous right now and end up in otherwise innocent interactions being prosecuted. While I agree with you, this is not the first and foremost issue. Third, if the false accusation resulted in jail time spent by the one accused then the accuser ought to spend at least half that time in jail if its shown that she deliberately and maliciously framed the accused Why only half the time? She should spend the full sentence of what the accu…
/r/MensRights30/06/10 11:39 PM
1

Just because your insurance agent fudges the numbers for you doesn't mean it is not part of the insurance equation.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 11:16 PM
9

Yes, but distance driven is taken into account separately when figuring out insurance cost.
/r/MensRights29/06/10 05:56 AM
0

Go ahead and ignore the argument since you have no leg to stand on, troll.
/r/MensRights26/06/10 09:50 PM
6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sex_characteristic Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristics as they do not deal directly with reproduction. If you look at the wikipedia article (or any other non-feminist article on the topic), you will see that women's breasts and men's muscles are listed as prime examples of secondary sex characteristics. Please stop being a hypocrite. The double-standard presented in the article is obvious; the position is indefensible. Either it is okay for both …
/r/MensRights26/06/10 01:48 PM
5

By that standard, I guess you don't mind men making comments about a woman's ass or legs? Muscle's (the same as breasts) are a secondary sexual characteristic. A man's large muscles are sexual in nature. They show the man's ability to protect a woman from danger, hunt for food, and to compete amongst other men in the group. In other words, they show the man to be a more fit partner.
/r/MensRights26/06/10 07:51 AM
2

You are incorrect. The juvenile justice system is not punitive.
/r/MensRights16/06/10 03:05 PM
0

It's still ridiculous no matter what kind of POS this guy is. Punching woman in the face !> attempting to have your spouse murdered.
/r/MensRights16/06/10 03:04 PM
2

I stand corrected.
/r/MensRights08/06/10 05:18 PM
34

You won't hear me say this often, but he should sue the school. That is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights08/06/10 03:31 PM
2

Mom could have just picked up her daughter's cell phone when she was home for the weekend, forwarded the pictures to herself and then on to the school board. Nothing illegal, just another nosey parent that took it a few steps further.
/r/MensRights08/06/10 03:31 PM
2

It wasn't necessarily wiretapping. I doubt the mother is some sort of computer expert.
/r/MensRights08/06/10 03:30 PM
48

"women’s organizations warned that it would lead to a situation where women would be afraid to charge men with rape." Same excuse they use every time.
/r/MensRights01/06/10 06:17 AM
10

It's not illegal for a woman to do that yet.
/r/MensRights01/06/10 06:17 AM
5

Does a MR activist end up getting most of a woman's money at the end of a relationship? Can a MR activist call the police, make unsubstantiated claims that he was a victim of domestic violence and get his partner thrown in jail? Can a MR activist start a DV incident, but then have his partner end up in jail simply because she defended herself and then was deemed the "dominant aggressor"? Would a MR activist automatically be given custody of children by virtue of having a penis?
/r/MensRights19/04/10 06:45 AM
12

The question is would a feminist date me?
/r/MensRights17/04/10 09:21 PM
-3

I thought only women had periods?
/r/MensRights16/04/10 12:00 AM
1

Yes, I'm aware of criminal transmission of HIV but it is extremely difficult to prove. I have had a couple of cases of homosexual couples where one partner was not aware that the other was HIV positive, but I haven't had enough information to pursue a charge either time.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:46 AM
1

Yes, there are rules and limitations for checkpoints. One cannot just set up a checkpoint at will for anything they please. And, yes, the police need a legal reason to stop vehicles. However, just because there were multiple people pulled over on the side of the road does not mean it is a checkpoint; the police probably saw multiple violations and flagged the other cars over. Was there a cone pattern? BTW, I don't mind that you asked since we are having a legal discussion, but it is extremely ir…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:41 AM
1

Got to go to bed for work tomorrow, but I will enjoy replying tomorrow.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:40 AM
2

Ah, I see. I like those three rules. As a police officer and not a lawyer, I feel at a slight disadvantage in regards to complex legal issues, but I enjoy the discussion nonetheless and it is always advantageous to increase ones' knowledge.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:13 AM
3

Are you saying I did not interpret the law, that I only quoted it? That is certainly not the case.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:04 AM
0

Beat me to it... only because I took too long to research my reply, though ;)
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:03 AM
1

The issue is very complex and I think there needs to be a lot of work to reach a good balance between protection of rape victims and protection of peoples' rights. The reality is that a lot of the balance in rape law comes not with the definition, but with the ability to prosecute rape. It is very easy for a woman to claim she was raped. In my experience, the majority of rape claims have turned out to be bogus. At the same time, it is very difficult to prove rape, especially in scenarios such as…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:02 AM
3

That is an interesting discussion. I agree that fraud exists. The question, to me, is: what is an "essential characteristic of the act?" I do not believe wearing a condom to be an essential characteristic of the act of sex. The essential characteristics are penile to vaginal penetration. However, I did some google searching and cannot find a satisfactory definition. Do you have any better links to discussions of this topic? As for STDs, that discussion has no relation to whether rape occurred or…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 03:55 AM
2

You should take a look at my post above where I actually quote the law.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 12:05 AM
45

EDIT2: This gets more interesting as I delve into the rabbit hole. When reading the penal code, consent is only mentioned in the sense that a mentally disabled person is incapable of granting consent. It appears that lack of consent must be accompanied with "means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of bodily injury." Presumably, a man would have to use force, violence, duress, menace or fear of bodily injury if the woman did not grant consent. (for instance, a woman could say she doesn'…
/r/MensRights06/04/10 11:07 PM
2

I think the article has a good argument, but there are many trends that lead to less rapes occurring. Sexual freedom and DNA testing, to name two others.
/r/MensRights02/04/10 10:37 PM
5

Why does there have to be another conference for women to match the conference for men? There are plenty of topics for women only where there is no matching one for men.
/r/MensRights24/03/10 04:21 AM
1

That is not what the quote says. It says that only 10-25% are expelled as a result of a "sexual assault." Why should expulsion be the automatic result? There are other possible consequences. If the sexual assault does not amount to a felony crime, why should the student summarily and necessarily be expelled? Would you like all students who get a DUI to be expelled? How about all students found to be in possession of marijuana? There is not definition of what sexual assault is here, the term is s…
/r/MensRights05/03/10 04:18 PM
19

I like it how the spokesman for another dv group tried to play it down by saying they weren't a well known anti-dv group.
/r/MensRights04/03/10 12:49 AM
12

Makes since, since the boyfriend / step-dad is far more likely to molest your child than a parent.
/r/MensRights03/03/10 07:37 PM
9

Don't forget she has 50 hours of community service to complete. That changes everything.
/r/MensRights27/02/10 05:29 PM
1

How about men get one lavatory to themselves, and women can share the other three on a plane?
/r/MensRights26/02/10 05:36 PM
24

I'm sick and tired of women leaving the toilet seat down! I, for one, do not like touching the seat after a woman has pee-splashed all over the top of the seat and pee water has reflected onto the bottom of the seat. I really don't like touching the seat after this, it's gross! I think we should have women only AND men only toilets in the plane -- this can only benefit men, as we take less time in the can and will result in less lines for the men only toilets.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 05:38 PM
3

I doubt they were four women that you would want to stick your peter in.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 06:02 AM
3

The man served 4 years and the woman was SENTENCED to 3 years. She will not serve 3 years in prison, maybe 1.5 years. This is a travesty of justice, but it's a start.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 05:58 AM
3

Did you read the article? The suspect physical held the woman down, choked her and forcibly performed oral sex on her. This is very different from groping. Apparently, drunk plays no part in rape for the man, only for the woman. For instance, if two drunk people have sex, the woman was too drunk to make an informed decision about the sex and was raped. What about the man? Too bad. In this case, you are partially excusing the suspect's behavior because she was drunk. We have learned from feminist…
/r/MensRights24/02/10 02:05 AM
3

We could keep repeating ourselves all night, but I tire of it.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 02:50 AM
2

And the comment you quote was in response to her not being charged with filing a false police report. Please be productive at work and good night.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 02:49 AM
3

I'm not saying we shouldn't take into account raps, I'm saying that women are sentenced more leniently and convicted more seldomly, don't draw conclusions from things I didn't say. You didn't read the book either. I'm glad we could have this debate where you present a single study by a feminist to combat the well established fact that, statistically, men are sentenced more harshly than women for the same crimes. I'm glad you're fighting for equality out there. Good luck in life.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 02:35 AM
2

Even looking at the page your link to of the book you haven't read, I can see a flaw in the study in that one of her primary methods of determining that the men should have been sentenced more harshly is a prior record. Well, if the system is not prosecuting or sentencing women to begin with, it stands to reason that men will have a longer rap sheet. Take the example of domestic violence. Although it is now recognized that both men and women commit domestic violence in approximately equal amount…
/r/MensRights19/02/10 02:08 AM
5

Once again, you fail in your details. Not only did he not murder his parents (he attacked them with a butcher knife), he didn't not murder five of them systematically by drowning them in the bathtub. It's not as if men aren't sentenced to mental hospitals, but this whole debate is funny for two reasons. First, there is, absolutely, a sentencing bias against men. Why don't you want to recognize this? Do you believe that women deserve to be sentenced more leniently? Second, because the whole debat…
/r/MensRights19/02/10 01:56 AM
4

I guess you agree that discrepancy in pay for women is a bogus issue, then? ADDITIONAL: Looking at your quote, it says that statistics show that women are sentenced more leniently, but then the author took 40 hand-picked examples and compared them to justify her opinion that sentencing is the same for the same crime (even though it is different). The proof is in the pudding. Color me incredulous that the author of your study you cite as proof, a study you did not read, is a self-proclaimed femin…
/r/MensRights19/02/10 12:51 AM
5

Wow, that's screwed up. Oh wait, that's in Austria.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 12:50 AM
5

Yeah, or like Andrea Yates who is in a low-security mental hospital. Oh wait, neither of those women got the death penalty for premeditated murder of their own children.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 11:53 PM
8

Much of the time they are sent to therapy because they have post-partum depression. A man would be sent to prison. But you miss the point since you have a one-track mind. She destroyed the lives of the Duke lacross players.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 10:11 PM
7

He may make more, but paying that bitch $1700/month is an even bigger joke. I hope he pays as little as possible.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 10:00 PM
0

It's not a matter of trust. I might trust my partner completely, it's beside the point. A woman can break the man's trust and decide to have the baby on her own. I'm just noting that it's a problem, you seem to think it's not a problem. How does a beater not carry as much burden as a woman getting pregnant? A woman who purposefully takes herself off of birth control to get pregnant wants to have a baby, there is no burden on her. A person who beats their significant other goes to jail. The analo…
/r/MensRights17/02/10 12:07 AM
0

Do you have a problem with a male contraceptive jab? The whole point of my original comment is that women can and do pretend that they are properly taking their birth control pills when they are not. That's great for your friend, but it doesn't meet point 4: he has to trust her to take the pill. This puts the power of deciding to have a baby into her hands. The male has absolutely no choice in the matter. As to having sex with a woman when you don't trust her to take the pill, in a perfect world…
/r/MensRights16/02/10 07:54 PM
1

Not a problem for me, but I have a friend who was trapped into a relationship by a girl he was dating who was supposedly on the pill. I am convinced she allowed herself to get pregnant on purpose by not properly using the contraception, although I won't get into the details here. A male jab puts the power in the hands of the man, assuming it works and doesn't have horrible side effects. Your silly scenario presumes that 1. you live with your girlfriend 2. you are together every morning 3. you wa…
/r/MensRights16/02/10 02:41 PM
5

This is incredible if this product comes to market. Of course, I am thinking the same thing that every other single man reading this article is thinking: no more worries of, "I'm late!" even though your girlfriend is on the pill.
/r/MensRights15/02/10 02:33 PM
6

I don't think this will fly since she is already recorded making statements that there were intruders and they shot her husband. Of course, she will say that she was still scared at the time and that is why she made up the lie, but I think prosecutors will go for a first degree murder charge. An abusive husband story would also need to be backed up by injuries at the time of the murder. It is unlikely that she could have wrested the gun away from her husband, intent on killing her, without a scr…
/r/MensRights14/02/10 08:17 PM
10

This kind of crap goes on all the time... not really a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights13/02/10 03:14 AM
-4

Feminists claim that men initiate more violence. They also support women gaining primary custody of a child in divorce proceedings. Therefore, they believe that women are better at raising children.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 02:08 AM
-1

Yes you did. In your agument, you say "it is fallacious to say that my argument is more important than yours, so I will ignore yours." MRAs are aware that rape is a problem, it is despicable and that rapists should be punished severely. The opposite is not true. Feminists barely acknowledge that false rape claims exist, and many of them propose that women should not be punished for false rape claims because that will make it more difficult for real rape victims to come forward. It is very clear …
/r/MensRights05/02/10 04:20 PM
7

Men's rights advocates are not arguing that men should not be punished for rape, but feminists are arguing that women should not be punished for false rape claims. What is the logical fallacy called when you give both sides of an argument equal standing, even though both sides do not have an equal argument?
/r/MensRights05/02/10 06:13 AM
2

I want to see more of this.
/r/MensRights27/01/10 05:35 AM
5

The two examples you give don't involve killing your domestic partner. That, for one thing, makes it different.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 03:21 AM
5

Wow, can we link this to the EXACT SAME STORY IN NEW ZEALAND? How is this justified? I guess a woman can claim extreme domestic violence in any scenario, whether she weighs twice as much as her baby-daddy or not.
/r/MensRights22/01/10 08:06 PM
8

That's because it is irrelevant. If he abused her, she should leave him. Murder of either the father or the child is inexcusable. The point of the headline is that, were the roles reversed (including "prolonged domestic violence"), the man would be serving a lengthy prison sentence for the crime of murder (against the child) and attempted murder (against the parent).
/r/MensRights22/01/10 06:40 PM
2

No, in reality no rape occurred. The accuser fabricated the story, ripped her own clothing and then called the police. It is very common for women to make false rape claims. Their motives are self serving. Some are married and their husbands suspect them of cheating so they invent a rape. Some were fooling around with a guy and regretted it later so then they claim they were raped. Some are just plain crazy.
/r/MensRights18/01/10 09:05 PM
4

Well that's certainly not the approach that feminists take, even the kind that aren't advocating that women are "more equal" than men. And I am talking about a specific time statement oft repeated by feminists, that "we cannot prosecute women who come forward with false rape claims because it will make it more difficult for women with legitimate claims to come forward." Bullshit. If a man is sentenced to prison for raping a woman that he did not rape, that is more damaging than being raped. As h…
/r/MensRights18/01/10 08:59 PM
16

Excellent results. The feminist lobby in the US is too powerful. Why can't we have the same thing happen here? No more protection for women who make false rape claims! It does not reduce the ability of women who were actually raped to come forward.
/r/MensRights18/01/10 04:44 PM
6

Additional: I don't know MA law, but there may be a law against harassing phone calls. I'm sure there is a law against stalking. If she is stalking you, emailing you, calling repeatedly, coming to your house and vandalising your property, that is grounds for a stalking arrest.
/r/MensRights15/01/10 05:32 PM
17

Why don't you call the police when she is beating your door down with a maglite? That is grounds for "fear for your safety" and a restraining order. Who cares if she files a restraing order against you? You don't want to see her anyway. Get mutual restraining orders. She will be the one to break the order and you call the police again. They will arrest her because she is at your house.
/r/MensRights15/01/10 05:31 PM
0

And like we tell you, if it's a mensrights issue, make a thread about it in mensrights. Don't post about it in every other thread in the mensrights subreddit.
/r/MensRights15/01/10 04:00 PM
-3

Based on that argument, any post about any country that has circumcised men could really be a thread where we discuss the evils of circumcision instead. Oh, joy! I could make a tenuous link to circumcision in EVERY thread in reddit. I think this calls for a new law a la Godwin's Law. Let's call it Eatspam's Law. Any post in reddit.mensrights will eventually degrade into an argument about circumcision. After all, every post in mensrights is about MEN, and since men can be circumcised, it is a rel…
/r/MensRights15/01/10 03:33 PM
-2

Condoms are equally necessary as tampons to any responsible person. Are you arguing that women deserve a tax break because they need to buy tampons? I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
/r/MensRights15/01/10 03:25 PM
-1

And it has absolutely nothing to do with a man-tax. Please stop posting about it in every thread.
/r/MensRights15/01/10 03:19 PM
1

I'm sorry, I didn't realize it cost money to bleed. Buying feminine care products are as much a choice as buying condoms. You won't die if you don't have them, but you need them.
/r/MensRights15/01/10 06:35 AM
1

Yeah, well men have to buy condoms and take girls out. That's way more expensive than "female sanitary products."
/r/MensRights15/01/10 06:05 AM
-9

Geez, could you anti-circumcision psychos please stop posting it all over the place in unrelated threads? Thx.
/r/MensRights15/01/10 06:03 AM
2

Electrocution should indeed be charged with attempted murder, but this is not electrocution. In order to electrocute the man he would have to be stuck on to the source of electricity for some time. This happens to plumbers sometimes while they are working in a confined space. A power tool, on the other hand, would cause a shock to the man. With the facts we were given, I do not see a charge of attempted murder coming out. There is no intent to kill, and the for a good murder charge, there often …
/r/MensRights14/01/10 05:01 PM
16

She was not merely released, she was released on her own recognizance -- translation, she still has to appear in court. It is still not right, there should have been a bail required commensurate with the crime of ADW. I do not think that a murder charge will be filed. It should be ADW, but they will probably make it domestic battery and give her counseling. We will see. For a man, I predict that it would be ADW with a < 1 year jail sentence.
/r/MensRights13/01/10 05:14 PM
3

Because women ALWAYS tell you they are going to be like that in a disclosure the second you meet them. Oh, wait! These women are emotionally manipulative and the law actually supports a woman's right to act like this!
/r/MensRights06/01/10 04:30 PM
8

Even less for the women who kill their newborns and dump them in garbage cans. Double standard yadda yadda yadda...
/r/MensRights01/01/10 02:33 AM
1

No I don't. You should read the article you posted. It is based on a sample of boys aged 11 to 16 years. Of course I would remember getting my foreskin chopped off at age 15. Since I was a tiny baby (as, likely, were you if you were circumcised), I don't remember anything. Nor does it bother me.
/r/MensRights27/12/09 05:34 PM
5

I like how she points out that if Isaacs hit her back, he would be the one to get in trouble. How true.
/r/MensRights26/12/09 04:11 PM
2

Sorry, I don't remember. Really I don't. Neither do you.
/r/MensRights25/12/09 02:10 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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