TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

bobbage Archive

View 18 posts and 455 comments by bobbage 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)
892

Unconfirmedbobbage/r/MensRights01/02/16 09:34 AM
722

Social Issuesbobbage/r/MensRights21/03/16 08:01 AM
289

Unconfirmedbobbage/r/MensRights01/07/15 11:20 AM
151

Generalbobbage/r/MensRights28/01/16 05:14 PM
130

Discriminationbobbage/r/MensRights17/02/16 05:37 AM
103

Intactivismbobbage/r/MensRights13/07/15 10:10 AM
75

Feminismbobbage/r/MensRights23/03/16 03:54 PM
72

Edu./Occu.bobbage/r/MensRights21/06/15 07:46 AM
54

bobbage/r/MensRights01/05/16 08:55 AM
31

False Accusationbobbage/r/MensRights29/09/15 08:38 PM
27

Discriminationbobbage/r/MensRights07/06/15 06:19 PM
14

Anti-MRMbobbage/r/MensRights19/04/19 08:28 AM
11

Discriminationbobbage/r/MensRights26/02/16 11:36 AM
7

Social Issuesbobbage/r/MensRights04/05/15 10:12 AM
5

Discriminationbobbage/r/MensRights31/05/15 09:24 AM
2

Feminismbobbage/r/MensRights14/09/15 08:06 AM
2

False Accusationbobbage/r/MensRights16/12/15 05:09 AM
1

False Accusationbobbage/r/MensRights16/12/15 04:36 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

No, obviously not, it was a false accusation Because woman We went over this
/r/MensRights11/08/17 03:15 AM
-12

She's a woman so obviously any accusation is false That's what women do, make false accusations from morning till night There was a third party witness to the assault but she was also female and so her testimony can be dismissed Depp is a man and therefore is the only party we can trust in this Never mind that he never actually completely denied it happened but only that there was no "intent" to physically harm her
/r/MensRights10/08/17 04:51 PM
-15

She's a woman
/r/MensRights10/08/17 04:23 PM
7

That and the blowjobs
/r/MensRights10/08/17 04:22 PM
1

Yes and the Canadian census has lets count them 1, 2, 3 full questions on whether the person is an Anglophone or Francophone and has ZERO questions about "race" at all but rather asks 1 are/are not aboriginal and 2 about ethnic origin https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2016/ref/questionnaires/questions-eng.cfm Race and ethnicity do not have firm boundaries as concepts so they don't use the term "race" up there but Francophones if anything are a more distinct ethnic minority than Hispanics down …
/r/MensRights13/11/16 06:20 PM
0

No, they are not "broken out as a separate race" as they are NOT a separate race but an ethnicity IT says it right on the fucking census form, "Hispanic origins are not races", it's an entirely different and SEPARATE fucking question Hispanic is NOT a racial distinction, the US census is quite clear on this Yes, "they are broken out into a separate group" So are women Are women a race now? U.S. federal government agencies must adhere to standards issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OM…
/r/MensRights13/11/16 07:48 AM
1

Not talking about Lena Dunham, just highlighting your really quite bizarre position that by your definition people from a Spanish speaking background inherently are not "white" and are "other" while people currently speaking French are "white" and not "other" There's absolutely no logic to this position, but you espouse it as it is what you "feel" is reality Just trying to get you to understand your innate cognitive biases here which if it comes down to it seems to be a most peculiar bias about …
/r/MensRights13/11/16 06:49 AM
1

That's correct yes the US has extremely high corporate taxation, the highest in the world But you were mentioning GST and other stuff not just income tax Ultimately though ALL taxation falls on people, you can shuffle it around but higher corporate taxation = lower profits = less income coming out of the business to the owners, corporate taxation is ultimately paid by the people who own the business
/r/MensRights13/11/16 03:53 AM
1

Yeah they're white... like white Hispanics are white (and most of them in the US are) Canadian Francophones are the equivalent minority to Hispanics in the US, you can't argue that Hispanics in the US are somehow more of a minority, more of a distinct population, while Canadian Francophones aren't, unless your argument for what a minority is is that we discriminate against ours better If Hispanics aren't "white" (they are) then I don't see what definition of "white" you could have that excludes …
/r/MensRights13/11/16 03:47 AM
1

If you look at the census it has always been extremely clear that Hispanic is not a race, that it simply means origin from a Spanish speaking country Hispanics are white, black, Asian, native and any mixture thereof just like Anglophones are Because all it means is from somewhere Spanish speaking They get broken out like this in the US simply because they are the largest linguistic/cultural minority But if you don't think Francophones are considered a minority in Canada I really don't know what …
/r/MensRights12/11/16 07:11 PM
0

Yeah they're white the same as white Hispanics are white If anything they are much more distinct, they actually still speak French, it has official status, etc and they would have seceded already were it not for the fact that Anglophones also live in Quebec and vote to stay part of Canada There's no serious attempt for Hispanics to actually secede from the US As for "founding people" you know most of the parts of the US Hispanics are a majority used be part of Mexico, right? This is a completely…
/r/MensRights12/11/16 06:42 PM
1

Justin Bieber is pretty cool Also David Duchovny and Keanu Reeves And Ted Cruz
/r/MensRights12/11/16 06:10 PM
1

Yeah Celine Dion is great
/r/MensRights12/11/16 06:10 PM
2

You could be a millionaire living tax-free in the states, but get a chronic illness and you're fucked, regardless of your insurance situation. It's true, but honestly Canada is more expensive to live in No one questions they have better healthcare
/r/MensRights12/11/16 06:07 PM
1

Australia actually has lower taxes overall than the US does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
/r/MensRights12/11/16 06:05 PM
1

It depends how you define minority, French Canadians alone are they largest minority at 23% of the population
/r/MensRights12/11/16 06:02 PM
1

Hispanics are the largest minority in the US at 17% French Canadians make up 23% of Canada
/r/MensRights12/11/16 06:00 PM
1

Are you counting Canadian Francophones as white? Canada is down to around 50% white if you are only counting white Anglophones or white people from an English speaking background
/r/MensRights12/11/16 05:58 PM
2

If he's going to count white people of Spanish origin separately 23% of the population of Canada is French speaking, he'd need to count them separately as well
/r/MensRights12/11/16 05:54 PM
3

If you're going to count white Hispanics separately, you would need to count white Francophone Quebecois separately as well, and that's 23% of Canada's population English is the first language of 79% of Americans English is the first language of only 58% of Canadians Canada is also packed full of Asians and First Nations More than one way to skin a cat, by most measures Canada is actually more diverse than the US is It only isn't if your definition of diversity and minorities is "black ppl" Yes …
/r/MensRights12/11/16 05:52 PM
-4

You can't just mix up fuckboys, fuckbois (actually an entirely different thing!), Chads, chads (small c!), and players, these are all very different things and it is important to understand the subtle but vital differences and be careful with your nomenclature
/r/MensRights01/07/16 05:06 PM
6

Yeah it's a bit confused all round
/r/MensRights01/05/16 09:15 AM
5

Article here http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/mesa/does-dress-code-cartoon-at-desert-ridge-high-school-in-mesa-send-wrong-message-to-students Gender stereotypes abound This is actually the exact same argument conservative Islamic countries make for covering women in a sack from head to toe, because men can't control themselves Except this is Arizona
/r/MensRights01/05/16 08:56 AM
1

Syphilis is trivially curable with simple antibiotics Herpes is medically inconsequential Hepatitis B there is a vaccine for (and C is very rare and requires blood contact, it's not really a STD, there are zero suspected cases of sexual transfer between heterosexuals)
/r/MensRights22/04/16 04:08 AM
-1

I'll avoid it more, after reading sentences like this. Call me conservative about getting diseases. Because, for many cases, you have no way out after getting infected. The vast, vast majority of STDs are either vaccinatable against (HPV, hepatitis B), medically inconsequential (herpes) or trivially curable (syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea). HIV is the exception, and that is easily prevented by using condoms and is incredibly rare in any case for heterosexuals and very very difficult to transmit …
/r/MensRights22/04/16 04:02 AM
1

I think modern American youth seems just a little too worked up about it If your sexual partner is washing your butt and finger ends up there really is that such a big deal? Do you need signed and notarized statements of consent for everything that ever happens in an established sexual relationship? It's ridiculous Obviously if the other person said cut it out you'd expect it to be cut out but this isn't a stranger on the subway
/r/MensRights21/04/16 05:09 PM
1

You should probably read up a bit about STD transmission Most young Americans seems to be utterly paranoid about them simply as the religious right has been bashing the message that sex is evil for so long Even if the guy did stick his fingers down there he wouldn't be at risk of a STD They are actually relatively difficult to transmit, particularly the one you need be most concerned about (HIV) and other than that are in any case either trivial or trivially curable The absolute hysteria about t…
/r/MensRights21/04/16 04:38 PM
1

If someone came up to you and briefly put their finger in your butthole in the shower, you wouldn't diminish it to nothing. I've had that happen In the context of showering with someone I was having sex with I didn't find it particularly unusual or objectionable
/r/MensRights21/04/16 04:23 PM
1

Never say can't it's unlikely but certainly not impossible
/r/MensRights21/04/16 04:21 PM
1

It used be possible to get a divorce on the basis of impotence and I believe a "defense by demonstation" was one of the possibilities
/r/MensRights21/04/16 04:20 PM
-4

They are represented within the group, they are the dominant subgroup within the group. This is about not having a specific rep for them dealing with intra-group discrimination, because intra-group discrimination isn't a problem. They still have plenty of other representation as they are the dominant constituents of the overall group. It's like complaining that the US government doesn't represent white straight men because it has a specific government department dealing with Native Americans but…
/r/MensRights23/03/16 07:11 AM
0

It's not a tangent, that's the actual reason they gave if you look up the source rather than just go off reason.com's spin on it, reason.com is far right libertarian and the article is very biased. From Pink News: “The reps system exists to ensure that societies committees can always have a reserved place for groups which disproportionately face oppression within the LGBT+ community. “Gay men do not face oppression as gay men within the LGBT+ community and do not need a reserved place on society…
/r/MensRights23/03/16 07:08 AM
-4

I think that's the point, though, the whole group is for LGBT people the "default" of which is gay men So the question is do gay men need a specific representative in the group looking out for intra-group discrimination against them To which the answer probably is, no, they don't, because they don't experience a significant amount of discrimination within the community.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 05:26 AM
-2

LGBT+ spaces in this case means the LGBT community, not wider society. So while a gay man may face more discrimination in wider society than a bi man, for example, the bi man may face more discrimination in the LGBT community (and they do).
/r/MensRights23/03/16 03:32 AM
10

It sort of does matter as the laws are still used to harass, gay people are arrested and charged with a crime for being gay and then the charges thrown out in court. http://www.advocate.com/crime/2015/02/22/louisiana-men-arrested-under-unconstitutional-sodomy-law
/r/MensRights23/03/16 02:52 AM
0

At birth, it's a literal part of the parent organism until that happens
/r/MensRights15/03/16 06:09 AM
0

Well, some of us believe the child is a living human being prior to birth. That's a religious misconception that is not scientifically accurate though
/r/MensRights15/03/16 05:53 AM
-2

I mean except in cases where a man is raped, or maybe if a woman lies about birth control, it's not like a succubus comes in the night to steal his sperm Spermjacking is a thing and more common than you think And what about if a man is raped and this is proven in a court and the woman gets sent to jail gets off with a slap on the wrist Should he still be forced to have the kid come into being? Still be forced to pay child support? Because that happens all the time as well, women rape men and the…
/r/MensRights15/03/16 05:48 AM
3

It's irrelevant if she was raped or not, Sony didn't rape her. She had a contract with Sony that she is trying to get out of and even if she was raped in her private life that's her own problem, not Sony's. Imagine you are raped in your own home... that sucks, but you can't then go to your landlord and say "I was raped, I don't have to pay my tent anymore". The two are completely different issues and completely different areas of law. Typical feminist logic.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 07:28 AM
15

And this is the core of the matter, it really doesn't matter whether he raped her or not. That's a private criminal matter between her and him (which she is notably not pressing). If it did happen, that's for her to press criminal charges against him. But Sony didn't rape her, so even if it did happen that is not a good argument for her to break her contract. As the judge said, it would make a mockery of contract law in this country. Why should Sony be negatively impacted by something that happe…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 01:04 AM
-1

That worked out well for the guy in this story, didn't it
/r/MensRights17/02/16 01:02 PM
1

This is ridiculous gender blind politically correct bullshit, women simply aren't suited for war and all experience and studies have shown they only distract men from carrying out their mission. Women will not be allowed to serve on the front line because military commanders believe it might stop soldiers following orders in the heat of battle, the Government announced yesterday. Officials said that women might not react in the same way as men in the heat of battle. Their presence might make the…
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:15 AM
1

Assault doesn't even require physical contact, it's just making someone afraid of you
/r/MensRights31/01/16 08:46 AM
0

That's because your out of touch, old man, the generation growing up today knows exactly all about google and the internet and what it means an all, it's what they grew up with and what they know
/r/MensRights31/01/16 08:43 AM
1

defending the feminist, not surprising for a Clinton supporter,
/r/MensRights31/01/16 08:35 AM
-1

She's making $$$ compared to a working male, I can tell you that. You are so out of touch, man, you are living in you're little liberal bubble, silver spoon in your mouth, no idea how tough it is on the streets. And photojournalists like this hero put their lives on the line for a pittance, they are one of the most dangerous jobs and are frequently killed... On the front line. How often are feminist media professors killed? They're not. They take none of the risk, just the $$$ (out of my tax dol…
/r/MensRights31/01/16 07:03 AM
0

She's a convicted felon FFS, she assaulted the guy and called for her associates to come rough him up. I suppose you think a Mafia don who just sits there and orders hits from behind a big leather bound desk while smoking a cigar and stroking a cat shouldn't be prosecuted, eh? Because he didn't DO nuffin, he just ordered his cronies to make the hits. Right boss. It was all my idea, no one asked me to. Bullshit! Hitler, sitting in his Nazi leadership pod, phones his henchmen, hey guys, could you …
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:52 AM
1

I'm pointing out that the male working class worker is disposable, while the privileged 1% female media professor is protected, even when she brutally assaulted someone. You think as a lower class male you won't get fired with an assault conviction? View must be nice up there in your ivory tower,bud.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:26 AM
6

If you were male and working as a pizza delivery driver and delivering your pizza to the campus you found this photographer and started pushing him around and calling for him to be beaten up and his free speech to be stopped and all and there was a furore what do you think would happen? Do you think Dominos wouldn't fire you? What about Pizza Hut? Papa John's? You'd be out the door before the first news article and any journalist calling would get a terse "we have terminated the employee in ques…
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:12 AM
5

She didn't, she resigned from some bullshit honorary unpaid position in the school of Journalism but she remains an assistant professor of communications in the university, making $$$ while she shuts down free speech all over campus.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:01 AM
3

She needs to be fired. But fat chance of that happening as she's female, the whole university is circling the wagons around her.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 05:57 AM
3

Thus cowardly avoiding being fired. They need to hire her back so they can fire her and that goes on her permanent record. Else what's to stop her doing this again, she'll only be hired by a new liberal university and start assaulting freedom of speech all over again. This woman is a menace to the Constitution and should be taken out permanently.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 05:50 AM
2

You didn't provide any source stating that these women were actually severely physically harmed. You provided a source saying that these poor ladies didn't get the quality of afternoon tea they were accustomed to.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 06:12 AM
2

Yea, people discount Canada but its the only country that successfully mounted a land invasion and occupied Washington, they have prior experience. They also got a ton of deserters from Vietnam who probably spilled top US military secrets, I wouldn't misunderestimate Canada, they know more than they let on.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 05:17 AM
0

the look of terror which came into the faces of all the women prisoners when Mr. Whittaker stepped near them the suffrage prisoners were deliberately terrorized when they entered Occoquan and were treated with great brutality by the men guards, who handled them and knocked them about with the fury of thugs She was dragged from the room with curses and with Mr. Whittaker shaking his fist in her face and threatening her with a gag and a strait-jacket Mr Whittaker at once appeared and said he would…
/r/MensRights30/01/16 02:52 AM
3

If a coalition of China, Russia and France surprise nuked all the major cities in the US and then Canada invaded, you don't think there would be a draft?
/r/MensRights30/01/16 02:31 AM
1

gender studies supposed to be scientific
/r/MensRights29/01/16 02:29 AM
1

that's not justice, if you make someone an example you are admitting you are overly punishing them as a deterrent to others. Deterrence is a key part of justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(legal) would you accept being punished extra for a crime you did but settled with the victim as a deterent for all other men? Yes, I would, because I am a man and as a man I have honor. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime no you fucking wouldn't, justice is justice Do you want to encour…
/r/MensRights28/01/16 12:54 PM
5

She's a woman, got to make an example out of her or they will all start thinking they can get away with it and there will be a marauding feminist crime wave that will bring our civilisation to its knees
/r/MensRights28/01/16 12:13 PM
2

Probably the biggest recent film out of China (Ip Man 3) co-stars Mike Tyson. www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/hongkong/?yr=2016&wk=4&currency=us&sort=sumgross&order=DESC&p=.htm
/r/MensRights28/01/16 12:03 PM
2

Watson is a feminist
/r/MensRights28/01/16 08:45 AM
6

A short prison sentence and for her to be prohibited from practicing medicine, she has shown herself to behave very inappropriately in stressful situations. And realistic compensation to the driver that will actually make her think, $100,000 would be appropriate given she is filthy rich.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 08:40 AM
6

I think a couple of months in prison, court ordered rehabilitation, barred from drinking alcohol, losing her job and being disbarred from practicing medicine would be appropriate. Also compensation to the Uber driver for pain, suffering and emotional damage, $100,000 would be enough I think.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 08:37 AM
0

So you are saying she lied to him by claiming to be "16 or 17"? Not a specific number?
/r/MensRights06/12/15 03:33 AM
0

An 18 year old sleeping with a 14 year old is a crime in Florida, that is the law. The part you have just cited only says he is 18, what difference does that make exactly? Yes he was 18. And she was 14. And an 18 year old sleeping with a 14 year old is illegal, which is what he was ultimately charged with and convicted of.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 08:51 AM
1

Because that's the law in Florida. A 23+ year old sleeping with an under 18 year old is a crime. An 18 year old sleeping with a 16 year old is not a crime. An 18 year old sleeping with a 14 year old IS a crime, and that's exactly what happened and what he was convicted of. How was he "misled into sex" exactly? She didn't lie about her age, he just presumed she was older.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 08:25 AM
6

She didn't lie about her age, it's clear from the article he just presumed she was older. Unless you are saying he asked her and she said she was "16 or 17".
/r/MensRights05/12/15 08:21 AM
10

There is no suggestion she lied about her age in the article. He just presumed she was "16 or 17".
/r/MensRights05/12/15 08:20 AM
7

The fact that the article states he believed her to be "16 or 17 years old" is a pretty clear indication he didn't ask her and she didn't lie, as if she had given him a number it would presumably have been a specific one.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 08:12 AM
0

Romeo and Juliet laws are close in age exemptions. They mean that, in Florida, although the general age of consent is 18, that if an 18 year old sleeps with a 16 year old that is not a crime, but if a 23+ year old does it is. Note here that anyone sleeping with a 14 year old is a crime. They have absolutely nothing to do with strict liability, which is the doctrine that ignorance of your partner's age is no excuse. Some states do allow an ignorance defence (although it is often unsuccessful) but…
/r/MensRights05/12/15 08:08 AM
-2

Florida statutory rape law is violated when a person has consensual sexual intercourse with an individual under Age 18. Close in age exemptions exist, allowing minors aged 16 or 17 to engage in sexual intercourse with a partner no older than age 23. She was 14. In any case Romeo and Juliet laws have absolutely nothing to do with your belief as to the age of victim, which simply doesn't matter with a strict liability offence. They are close in age exemptions. Yes he wouldn't have been charged if …
/r/MensRights05/12/15 07:57 AM
3

that you're guilty even if ignorant. That's the law, yes, it's a strict liability offence, you can't get out of it by claiming you thought she was older.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 04:07 AM
5

It's an incredible poorly worded title, yes. It also wasn't a false conviction as she was 14, he admitted having sex with her and was charged with statutory rape where consent is irrelevant. He was absolutely guilty of what he was convicted of.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 03:57 AM
17

Of course none of that would have happened if she didn't lie about the rape to start with. If she had accused him of having consensual sex with her he would have been prosecuted with exactly the same charge he was ultimately charged and convicted under.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 03:21 AM
2

That doesn't matter in Florida, as in many states it's a strict liability offence.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 03:17 AM
5

No, he wasn't allowed to leave the county. He probably was meant to inform his probation officer in advance that he had an interview outside the county and request permission to attend it, but didn't do this. What you can and can't do are specific to individual cases, there isn't some general rule as to what is and isn't allowed on probation.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 03:02 AM
-2

She was 14, though.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 03:00 AM
13

If you don't avoid women entirely when you "settle down for the rest of [your] life" you think you might end up having sex with 14 year olds and getting in trouble for that? I think it's reasonable to have a discussion around Romeo and Juliet type situations and to have leeway there but the average adult man from their twenties upwards is not going to accidentally end up sleeping with a 14 year old.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 02:57 AM
37

It is what he was charged with, they dropped the rape charge and replaced it with statutory. His original charge of Sexual Battery was later changed to Lewd Lascivious Battery on a Child Age 12-15.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 02:45 AM
208

She was 14. This was a crime no matter whether it happened in the back seat of the car or in her bedroom, no matter whether force was involved or not, no matter whether it was "consensual" or not. The original charge of Sexual Battery was dropped, he was never charged with that. He was charged and convicted of Lewd Lascivious Battery on a Child Age 12-15, this was not a "false conviction", he admitted having sex with her himself, he was guilty of that.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 02:44 AM
2

There's an equivalent charge for women with exactly the same penalties, it just has a different name. In most of the United States no one can be charged with "rape" because it's not a crime in the first place.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 05:09 PM
-2

Well what exactly do you think the appropriate sentence for what is depicted would be? Why would community service and a fine not be appropriate? Was this really so egregious that you think they should go to jail over it?
/r/MensRights11/11/15 02:34 PM
1

AN 89-YEAR-OLD paedophile is facing jail after being found guilty of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl. Church-going Dennis Perry, from Bewbush, held his victim down on a bed, kissing and groping her for about 15 minutes. The child was told the frightening attack would be "our little secret". Her ordeal only ended when another adult arrived at the house where the assault took place. Perry, who is partially deaf and had to use a walking stick to get in and out of court, was convicted by a ju…
/r/MensRights11/11/15 01:42 PM
-2

Here's a case of a 48 year old male babysitter who pulled down the trousers of the six year old boy and sexually molested him for ten minutes. No jail. http://m.bristolpost.co.uk/prison-term-babysitter-molested-year-old-boy/story-11230391-detail/story.html You can find more, just Google.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 11:51 AM
-4

You are really stretching here to find them non comparable. What was reported in the case with the 18 year old babysitter was that she: rubbed the boy's thigh kissed him on the mouth put his hand down her pyjamas All on one time only, one specific evening. There was no mention of her touching his genitals. Two year suspended sentence, sex offender registry for 10 years I think this is very comparable if not less bad than the case of the 51 year old bishop who committed sexual abuse on his flock …
/r/MensRights11/11/15 11:24 AM
-12

What should they get? Thrown in prison? Seems excessive. How many people do you have in prison again? Two million? Three million? They're black as well so might as well I guess, go to jail, do not pass go.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 10:08 AM
0

You're aware that Pao was the one standing up for free speech against the Reddit board and it was Reddit founder Steve Huffman who was the one actually calling for "cleaning house" and banning/quarantining the hate subs? So, yes, Pao got pushed out and then that's exactly what they did. It was never "her policy", she actually opposed it as long as she was in the CEO spot.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 10:03 AM
-2

Sure, I posted them above, but here you go, here's three: www.scotsman.com/news/cult-leader-avoids-jail-despite-sexual-assault-1-3804007 www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/chairman-blyth-rowing-club-avoids-10080524 www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/perth-kinross/shopkeeper-who-sexually-assaulted-teenagers-avoids-jail-term-1.908819 Note these men were all in their fifties and sixties which if anything is worse than this case which involved an 18 year old offender. Just Google "sexual assa…
/r/MensRights11/11/15 09:47 AM
-2

Mooney, from Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, was also made the subject of a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order, banning her from unsupervised contact with boys under the age of 16, and has been placed on the Sex Offenders' Register for 10 years.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 09:40 AM
0

That she was at least a teenager herself, there was only five years between them. Men in their fifties and sixties have been convicted of similar assaults with teenage girls and received the same punishment she got (no jail). Don't get me wrong, this was wrong, she was wrong, she's a sex offender, but it's about the mildest possible case of sexual assault you can imagine and prison wouldn't be expected for it. This isn't a gender bias issue.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 09:33 AM
-1

This will dissuade other abused boys from coming forward with the consequence of keeping the sexual abuse statistics by female pedofiles very low How does it keep the stats low exactly? She was convicted. She is one of the stats now. A man wouldn't have received any different punishment.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 09:29 AM
-2

It was a mild sexual assault involving kissing and inappropriate touching, there was no "rape". A custodial sentence would not be expected for a man in a similar case either.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 09:28 AM
-3

A sentence not available to males either I assume. Why would you assume that? A male first time offender committing a relatively mild sexual assault (kissing and inappropriate touching) wouldn't typically get jailed in the UK either. Lots of men get convicted of exactly the same sort of crime in the UK and they don't get sent to prison either.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 09:25 AM
-2

Should we also be appealing the sentences of all the men who do this and don't get jail time? There are hundreds of them, it could take some time, but to get you started: www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/chairman-blyth-rowing-club-avoids-10080524 www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/perth-kinross/shopkeeper-who-sexually-assaulted-teenagers-avoids-jail-term-1.908819 www.scotsman.com/news/cult-leader-avoids-jail-despite-sexual-assault-1-3804007
/r/MensRights11/11/15 09:16 AM
-1

Like this case with a 69 year old man and a 13 year old girl? www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/chairman-blyth-rowing-club-avoids-10080524 Or this case involving a 69 year old man and 14 and 16 year old girls? www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/perth-kinross/shopkeeper-who-sexually-assaulted-teenagers-avoids-jail-term-1.908819 Or this case involving a 51 year old man who repeatedly assaulted a schoolgirl between the ages of 13 and 15 including kissing her and sticking his hand down her k…
/r/MensRights11/11/15 09:11 AM
0

It said convicted, it didn't say anything about jail time. She was also convicted, she just had her sentence suspended. I'd be very surprised if the family member got jail over it either.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 08:55 AM
1

I think this isn't a men's rights issue, unless you are suggesting that middle class white men who cause injury through DUI are not granted bail. Here's another recent case, exact same part of the country, where the white male involved killed two people and was released on bail. www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Alleged-UI-driver-crashes-into-Livermore-6238984.php
/r/MensRights07/11/15 09:02 AM
1

Also, here's an example of a men only clinic in South Africa, not for gay men specifically: www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/land-and-people/2813-clinics Honestly I am MSM myself and I get my testing and doctors visits from a male only clinic, they are very common. There are no female only ones, only male only ones, because here more men have it. I think it makes perfect sense to have them too, whether to target MSM because of the higher risk in most places or to encourage men to seek testing and tr…
/r/MensRights29/09/15 10:29 PM
1

There are programmes targeted at gay men specifically.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 10:25 PM
20

Now this guy is one asshole racist with a strong dash of terp, no question, but this was what he said to her: Please girl you know you'd like a real man not these white knight bitches. I'd throw you on the bed and ravage you and you'd fucking love it. But you're not my type. You know feminist and all. Shitty thing to say but hardly a rape threat.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 08:44 PM
1

Well they're not in Africa, heterosexual women are; it's primarily a heterosexual epidemic there and the infection rate is higher among women than men because the transmission rate is twice as high male-female compared with female-male. In the West though gay men are the largest infected group and there is a LOT of HIV funding that targets men and not women. Where I am, for example, there are specific men only clinics for testing and treating men that don't deal with women. And this makes sense …
/r/MensRights29/09/15 05:06 AM
1

This is just ONE programme, there are other programmes including ones that target men specifically. Which you seem to be OK with. It's ridiculous to suggest that we shouldn't look at women with HIV at all, shouldn't concern ourselves at all with reducing mother-child transmission and should put 100% of the effort into something else entirely. We can do both, they aren't mutually exclusive. I note that you are OK with programmes dedicated to men, your objection is only to programmes dedicated to …
/r/MensRights28/09/15 10:00 PM
1

This particular programme targets females. There are other programmes that target males, often gay males in particular. Do you object to HIV programmes that target gay males but not lesbians?
/r/MensRights28/09/15 07:14 PM
1

prevention rather than treatment You can do both, do you think funding cancer treatments is a "stupid approach"? What about diabetes, should we be funding that or is it stupid? The meds used by most HIV+ patients in the developing world cost under $1/day, this really isn't a lot of money except in the absolute poorest countries (and in many of those the government pays for them).
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:00 PM
1

That's pretty standard, the minimum age for porn is 18 but the age of consent is usually lower.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:36 PM
3

It's the implication. The girl was also charged as an adult and threatened with the same charges, she just got the plea deal sorted out sooner.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:31 PM
1

This is true but the epidemic in Africa is primarily heterosexual and more women have it than men. It's the other way around in the West.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:24 PM
1

You're aware that this is just one programme and there are other programmes that target men specifically?
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:22 PM
1

You know this isn't the only AIDS programme funded by the US government? They have other programmes that target only men (gay men in particular).
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:02 PM
2

It has in fact been massively reduced in the West and a lot of headway is being made in developing countries as well.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 02:01 PM
0

HIV did come from monkeys, but it was from eating them rather than fucking them. Possibly blood contact while butchering them. Also, it's not like this is the only AIDS programme in the world, plenty exist that target gay men and not lesbians.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 01:55 PM
2

You'd object to any HIV programme that targets gay men specifically, then?
/r/MensRights28/09/15 01:54 PM
2

You would presumably object to any HIV/AIDS funding that targets gay men specifically?
/r/MensRights28/09/15 01:52 PM
1

The meds aren't expensive.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 01:51 PM
1

You can attack the epidemic from more than one angle simultaneously, you know.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 01:50 PM
1

"After the previous ten false allegations, Judge Hope felt that it was the final straw and had no choice but to sentence her to 16 months in prison." He added: "The evidence in the case was so conclusive as the CCTV images were so clear. I imagine that with the previous allegations the evidence hasn't been there." This is the whole point, it is incredibly difficult to actually get conclusive evidence of a false accusation; most of the time it is a case of he said she said and they can suspect an…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 09:11 PM
1

If there is no evidence that any rape occurred its pretty easy to call it a false allegation. No, this is your fundamental problem. There can be absolutely ZERO evidence (other than the woman's testimony) that a rape occurred but that doesn't make it a false allegation. To take another hypothetical, imagine a situation where John forces himself on Mary, she says no but he goes ahead and rapes her. She's scared and doesn't fight back because he's bigger and she reckons this is the best way to get…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 05:15 PM
1

No, I'm saying there are only a handful of cases in which a false allegation is made where you can actually prove it's a false allegation. Most you can't. The presumption of innocence and requirement for proof beyond all reasonable doubt applies to people accused of making false allegations as much as it does people actually accused of rape. You can't just think a woman is making it up, you can't even be pretty sure that a woman is making it up, you have to be able to prove she is making it up b…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:42 PM
1

The issue is that it is very hard to prove that an allegation is false. Hypothetical: Mary sleeps with John, is expecting a relationship but next morning John skips out, for him it was just sex. Mary is hurt and decides to accuse John of rape. There's no physical evidence of force, no injuries, no real evidence whatsoever other than a he said she said, so the police decide not to proceed with a prosecution. Now this is a false accusation, but how on earth would you go about proving that? The poi…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:21 PM
1

and it was proven she wasn't raped This is the thing, this almost never actually happens. What happens is that the evidence is insufficient to prove that a rape occurred. But this is NOT the same thing as proving that a rape didn't occur. You can't charge a woman with making a false allegation simply because there isn't any evidence that she was raped, there has to be positive evidence that she wasn't, and is making up the allegation, and that is substantially more difficult to find than the evi…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 12:23 PM
-1

and she wasn't raped And how do you prove that, exactly? In most cases you can't, it's only the most egregious of false claims that you can establish that a rape definitely didn't occur. Lack of evidence that a rape did occur, which can lead to a prosecution not going ahead or an acquittal, is not proof that the allegation is false. The point, anyway, is that the UK actually prosecutes false allegations far more than any other country does, which it clearly states in the article you linked. A US…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 09:47 AM
0

A US law professor, who will be speaking at the Commons, said the UK’s stance on false allegations is more aggressive than in countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia. Prof Lisa Avalos, of the University of Arkansas, said false allegations in the US were dealt with as a misdemeanour offence, not a felony – and most women were not jailed if found guilty. “In the course of my research I have not found any country that pursues these cases against women rape complainants in the way …
/r/MensRights25/09/15 09:40 AM
-2

"Only" around 100? How often do you think it happens in other countries? The problem with false rape allegations is that you have to have firm evidence that the allegation was deliberately fabricated and that is very very difficult to obtain. So yes most false allegations go unprosecuted, just as most rapes go unprosecuted. But where there IS clear evidence of an allegation being deliberately fabricated, the UK will prosecute, which doesn't tend to happen in other countries. That article you lin…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 08:48 AM
4

Bollox! Plenty of 50+ women who paved the way with public breastfeeding Absolutely! And bully for them. But not this one, apparently.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 09:43 PM
7

50+year old woman There's your answer, disregard, will be dead not so far out.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:23 PM
5

They're not public property but they are public places. Do you honestly think you could open a shop but put up a sign saying "no niggers, no kikes, no irish"? That simply isn't allowed in most civilised societies.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:03 PM
3

Yeah sure, as long as you aren't harassing them, there are limits there too like the guy who was trying to film upskirts that was posted recently. Generally there is this thing called "common sense" and "human decency" that we use to work these things out without being humongous assholes.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 05:10 PM
11

No, you do not have the legal right to feed where you want. That's private property, you're a guest. You have the same right to kick a breastfeeding mother out of your shop as you do to put up a sign saying "No niggers". In other words, you don't. Women in the UK DO have an explicit legal right to breastfeed in any public place. The Equality Act 2010 has made it illegal for anyone to ask a breastfeeding woman to leave a public place, such as a cafe, shop or public transport. www.nhs.uk/condition…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:29 PM
6

The UK actually prosecutes people about false allegations all the time, it's particularly aggressive about it. False rape allegations can result in years of jail time for the women making the allegations.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:22 PM
1

Police testimony of statements made by a defendant isn't hearsay whatever way you shake it.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 04:44 AM
2

It's semantics to say it's not hearsay? It's not. People often have a completely misguided account as to what actually counts as hearsay but stuff a defendant says to the police most certainly isn't it, that would be just ridiculous.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 12:09 PM
1

It's not hearsay and it's not inadmissible. Hearsay applies to third party statements where the person who allegedly made the statement is not in court and can't be cross examined. So if a witness says to police "John said he did it" and then subsequently disappears, the police officer can't repeat that evidence in court as it is hearsay. This is absolutely not the case here as it is reporting of a statement made by the defendant to police who is taking part in the trial and can absolutely be cr…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 11:20 AM
4

What the fuck does this comment have to do with anything? I know this place can be a circlejerk, but this is the top comment? WTF? DAE feminazis? Upmisandries to the left.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 10:49 AM
2

It's not hearsay to the press, it was testimony in the trial that the press then reported on.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 10:47 AM
10

The wife was obviously trying to blackmail the husband over custody with this but it says pretty clearly in the article that the husband admitted to his superior downloading the child porn, his argument was that he downloaded it by mistake, that he was searching for adult women. The whole ding up is whether this is true and whether the wife erased the search history or was truthful about what she supposedly saw of his search terms. “I could tell by looking at him he was quite upset,” he said. “H…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 10:36 AM
3

The interview in question: www.radfemcollective.org/news/2015/9/7/an-interview-with-julie-bindel
/r/MensRights14/09/15 06:21 PM
3

That's a remarkably stupid thing for him to have said, in fairness.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 06:13 PM
1

Looks pretty violent and threatening to me: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-violence/femen-activism-and-the-coming-violence/
/r/MensRights14/09/15 04:05 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Kuwait_mosque_bombing FEMEN is an international terrorist group that has been involved in the kidnapping of clergy so it is hardly too much of a stretch to imagine they might extend to more violence. And I do not know wether they where armed OK, so you admit they might have been armed with lethal weapons and presented a possible threat. which means it's only self-defense if they take out their weapons Plastic explosives, guns and knives are illegal in France an…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 03:30 PM
1

They had to neutralise the threat as quickly as possible which they did. And how do you know they weren't armed exactly? Muslim congregations often suffer suicide attacks, so their reaction in the heat of the moment is understandable.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 02:21 PM
0

Do you not think a naked man jumping around the stage at a family religious event would have received the same treatment? If a naked man was waving around his dong in front of your five year old daughter at church you wouldn't give him a punch? What if they were armed, for all security knew they could have been planning on killing the speakers, they had to act fast and subdue these illegal protesters for everybody else's safety. If you would give a man a slap in this situation and you believe in…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 12:30 PM
2

No, you go to prison, although jail is a common synonym.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:46 AM
2

Well they arrested her on suspicion of abduction, what exactly do you think would have happened if it was a man? Exactly the same thing I would imagine.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 04:06 PM
5

I'd say having your penis cut off entirely is a bit more serious than the typical circumcision.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 04:04 PM
2

I think he was downvoted because it simply isn't very relevant that he got a free circumcision for medical reasons, nobody is complaining about medically necessary circumcisions so why bring that up? It has an air of a diversionary tactic. You don't get circumcision free on the NHS either, unless there is an actual medical need for it.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 07:13 PM
2

It's called phimosis, it's where the foreskin can't retract. No one complains about circumcision to correct a medical condition, though, the complaint is against routine circumcision of infants without any medical indication for it (which is common in the US).
/r/MensRights24/08/15 05:35 PM
18

and beach volleyball
/r/MensRights11/08/15 09:07 AM
4

------E
/r/MensRights11/08/15 07:47 AM
1

Coontown didn't think the same though, they were well aware they were on thin ice.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 11:34 AM
-5

Being opposed to flagrant racism is "a SJW agenda" now?
/r/MensRights06/08/15 11:27 AM
-5

TIL not supporting racism and the sexualisation of children makes someone "extreme left".
/r/MensRights06/08/15 11:21 AM
123

It's not going to be banned. /r/Coontown was vile, yes it was offensive to SRS/SJW types but it was also offensive to absolutely anyone else who wasn't a flaming racist. If you are a supporter of equality, which the typical poster on MensRights is, then you can hardly see any possible connection. There is nothing comparable on this sub which only discusses legitimate issues faced by 50% of the world's population. If any manosphere sub goes, the first will be /r/TheRedPill which frankly is highly…
/r/MensRights06/08/15 05:10 AM
3

Doxxing also almost always involves collating and connecting information from publicly available sources but it is the #1 cardinal sin on Reddit. You can often find Facebook or other profiles simply by doing a ten second search on Google but posting that is absolutely forbidden.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 08:00 AM
2

I got on this list for this comment in which I pointed out that contrary to popular opinion male teacher sex offenders also often get light sentences and that looked at statistically rather than anecdotally female teachers don't get off any easier. lol
/r/MensRights30/07/15 07:50 AM
1

I appreciate the feedback. I guess my point is that it's not like these asshole VIPs are all women, if anything there are more men.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 06:07 PM
1

Gay is a protected class in Oregon.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 04:59 PM
1

The point is though that it is up to the country of the diplomat in question to remove them, and that depends on the case, the local police can't do much and have to stand back. Those Israelis were ultimately removed but by their own government. If you were in an altercation with a diplomat you knew to be a diplomat and she slapped you like in the video, what would you do?
/r/MensRights18/07/15 04:56 PM
1

Not quite true, they can't refuse service to someone based on their membership of a protected class. But "meninst" is not a protected class, it's a political ideology and no political ideologies are protected.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 11:32 AM
2

Silly [white/male/straight/Christian], legal protection is only for "oppressed" groups! You are protected against discrimination on the basis of being white/male/straight/Christian just the same as you would be protected if you were black/female/gay/Muslim. You are not however protected on the basis of your political beliefs, you would have no more a right to not be discriminated against for identifying as a feminist as a MRA. You can flat out fire someone for supporting the Democrats or saying …
/r/MensRights18/07/15 11:29 AM
2

They are, but political beliefs and ideologies are not a protected class, it is very narrowly restricted to religious beliefs only. The MRA movement is not a religion.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 11:26 AM
3

Do you have any training on how to deal with foreign diplomats if that's who is doing the swinging at you? Because that's what this women was, she was from the Turkish embassy. Male diplomats do this sort of thing all the time and the police simply have to let them go, they can't be arrested or prosecuted. Example: www.jpost.com/International/Report-Three-Israeli-diplomats-beat-up-Indian-immigration-officer-in-Delhi-347758 Another case, where a US diplomat shoved police in Vietnam, and the US lo…
/r/MensRights18/07/15 10:10 AM
3

She was a Turkish diplomat and it was a very light slap. Police don't tend to batter foreign diplomats to a pulp regardless of their gender. You can't arrest diplomats even if they do whack a police officer. Here's a case where three male Israeli diplomats physically assaulted an Indian immigration officer at Delhi airport because he was delaying them. One slapped him and then two others beat him up. The whole thing was captured on CCTV and corroborated the assault but there were no arrests and …
/r/MensRights18/07/15 10:02 AM
1

He is allowed sleep with other women.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 09:12 AM
1

Red wine
/r/MensRights18/07/15 09:11 AM
20

It's actually quite common for male teachers in this situation to get no jail time and no sex offender registration as well. In Texas, for example, which has the highest incidence of teacher-student sex in the nation: ABC-13 examined nearly 50 cases since 2008 of teachers having sex with students in school districts across the Houston region. Some had sex with younger students in middle school. Others had kids with students. Many shared naked photos with students in the run-up to the relationshi…
/r/MensRights18/07/15 08:50 AM
2

You would think given he was the one actually being tutored he would have known anyway if the allegations seemed true or not.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 07:40 AM
3

Read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and get back to me. It specifically bars discrimination on the basis of religion, not general/political beliefs. You can absolutely be fired or refused service for your political beliefs. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/26/can-company-fire-you-for-way-you-vote www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/can-your-boss-threaten-to-fire-you-if-you-dont-vote-for-romney/263709/ www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/07/can_your_boss…
/r/MensRights18/07/15 07:25 AM
5

the mental sexual orientation isn't It is in Oregon.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 07:15 AM
9

You are correct that sexual orientation is not a federally protected class or indeed protected in many states but it IS a protected class under Oregon state law.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 07:14 AM
8

Honestly this is a lot more to do with those societies just not viewing female sexuality as relevant, this honestly isn't a men's rights issue. I'm completely bisexual and have had sex with other guys all over the planet including in some of those red countries. It's not like women are somehow privileged in those places.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 04:06 PM
5

There were times when you could've as well said "Don't discuss if slavery should be legal or not, it doesn't matter, because it is" - but if we all had that kind of attitude, humanity would never improve. This is a thread about toilets in a cafe FFS
/r/MensRights16/07/15 01:24 PM
2

You clearly haven't been paying attention to what's been going down here. According to Yishan Wong (former Reddit CEO) the pressure to ban "offensive" subreddits has been coming entirely from the board and founders of the site, and Ellen Pao was actually the only person stopping it from happening, on free speech grounds and because she knew there would be a massive community backlash. Which is entirely plausible given that the minute Pao is out we have an announcement from the new CEO (and Reddi…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 12:03 PM
1

There are plenty of other sources in that article for female actresses being paid less, including Forbes and the Sony hack.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 10:10 AM
4

If Ellen Pao was still running things I wouldn't have been shocked to see this sub banned eventually (like in a year or so) after further rounds of banning subs to improve Reddit's public image or whatever. If you were paying attention, allegedly Reddit's board of directors including the founders has been itching to ban all the "hate" subs for some time and even asked Pao to do so more than once, but she resisted on free speech grounds and because she knew how the community would react. From Yis…
/r/MensRights15/07/15 09:59 AM
1

It's down to as low as 9% of newborns in 2005, possibly even lower now. Instrumental in this is the Canadian Paediatric Society recommending since the 70s that it is medically unnecessary and since the 90s that it is medically detrimental. It is was also removed from provincial insurance programmes starting in the 90s so parents now have to pay out of pocket for it in every province. It is so low now that Newfoundland and Labrador even had zero circumcisions performed in the entire province in 2…
/r/MensRights14/07/15 04:55 AM
1

Most families would not be OK with a guy refusing to pay child support either, though. Particularly not the girl's family. I honestly can't see the benefit in doing something like this which will have zero legal weight anyway and potentially come off putting the male in a bad light as someone who doesn't want to live up to his parental responsibilities before the child is even born and before the relationship is dissolved. If anything I could only see it hastening the end of the relationship and…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:58 PM
2

It's lower than that now even there, it's down to 77% in infancy in 2010 and 81% of all current 15-49 year olds. But the US is a peculiar case, outside it, the Muslim world and Africa, hardly anyone circumcises. No developed country does except South Korea and Israel. Globally only one third of males are circumcised, 70% of them being Muslims.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:50 PM
2

Oh fair enough, I took you up wrong so, he explicitly said in both the original post and the thread he didn't want to do it so I don't think it's exactly that out there for people to telling him to refuse. I've been thinking that too and I keep telling her I dont Want to do it, but she just shakes her head at me and basically ends the conversation there. As to what to call him, he's a 14 year old kid, though, it can be difficult standing up to your parents cultural beliefs in that sort of situat…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:43 PM
1

maybe get a mutual agreement witnessed by family members from both sides In many jurisdictions its impossible to sign away child support obligations unless the kid is put up for adoption, as the child support is owed to the kid, not the mother. So often even if the mother does sign something saying she won't look for child support, the courts will not enforce such an agreement.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:37 PM
2

It's been posted already, but with a terrible title you wouldn't find in the search. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3d1424/double_standards_xpost_from_rnewsoftheweird/
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:18 PM
8

WTF? Just because he's of Filipino heritage (he's Filipino American) doesn't mean he should be a slave to his mom's wishes over his own penis and be circumcised at 14 if he doesn't want it. It's his cock, not his mother's. It is all obvious that he have to chew the bitter pill and deal with it like all 'real men' do. Don't know why he is bothered much. The vast majority of men aren't circumcised in the first place. What on earth is this "real men" bullshit? Why shouldn't he stand up to his paren…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 03:09 PM
-3

I saw it too, rushed here to post it for the cheap karma grab, but you beat me to it. Damn you, /u/tcgunner90
/r/MensRights11/07/15 12:29 PM
17

Was it the boy?
/r/MensRights11/07/15 10:35 AM
2

Violence is violence, if it is right to shoot a Muslim insurgent threatening you with a bomb it must surely be equally acceptable to shoot a two year old that slaps you, or indeed drop a few bombs on their house. Toddlers only do this sort of shit because they know they can get away with it, if more of them started getting shot their behavior would improve.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 09:34 AM
-10

Yeah, there is absolutely no difference between a war zone and women slapping you.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 04:38 PM
1

My experience isn't limited to the Western middle classes, I have spent a lot of time (several years) in developing countries including some of the poorest in the world and most people are genuine nice people. Even the drug addicts and hos, as you put it. Maybe it's an American thing, maybe they are just all dickheads, but most people in the world are genuinely nice.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 04:21 PM
-7

Yeah, could have had a micro nuke in it for all we know. A bag! A woman had a bag, clearly she was up to something.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:37 PM
1

I've had LTRs longer than five years which were absolutely monogamous and with women I absolutely respect to this day and still consider close friends. They didn't work out, but that happens, I'm not looking to throw blame around.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:36 PM
1

I don't see it as fake, I honestly in my experience of the world I believe that most people in it are genuinely good people, whether I happen to be fucking them or not. Thinking most people are good, decent people isn't a "fake, phony, nice guy" thing, and your seeing it as such really indicates you are the one with the issues. Most people ARE nice and good people, and if you keep meeting assholes, guess what? I don't just fuck women either, incidentally. But whether male, female, or in between …
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:33 PM
-3

Maybe it's just me, but I absolutely don't celebrate disproportionate and unnecessary escalation of force in self defense and it is not a gender issue, most of these sorts of situations involve two men and I don't think it is any more right there. Self defense is fine but actually celebrating people being physically attacked when it was questionably necessary I find really distasteful.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:25 PM
-1

Gawker was actually the original source for this story which I linked elsewhere in the thread and all the sources copied. They are usually about as bad but in this case they were the actual original source the video was sent to.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:19 PM
0

I'm older than you are and have slept with substantially more women, as well as having substantial and meaningful long term relationships. I'm also on good terms with absolutely all my exes. I'm not the one obsessing over a one night stand from 15 fucking years ago or calling girls "skanks" because they were good enough to sleep with me. No one owes you anything. This isn't a gender issue.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 01:29 PM
1

You have such high standards when you yourself are utterly toxic in your attitudes. Why are you such a catch? And then you complain about being single. Women don't owe you anything, if a "nice girl" doesn't want to settle down with you maybe you should look at yourself as to why that is rather than lashing out at half of humanity. I'd note that even your "bar skank" seemed to settle down and get married... She just didn't want to do so with you. For some reason.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 01:09 PM
3

In your description of the whole situation there is absolutely nothing to suggest she was "stringing you along". You have a serious problem with how you view women and sexuality and I'm not surprised it is keeping you single.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 12:43 PM
0

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/7-year-old-plastic-surgery_n_849156.html Nothing illegal about that, just needs parental consent. Jews are not going to be banned from circumcision in the US, it works absolutely been seen as an assault on their religious freedom.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 12:40 PM
2

You're the one repeatedly calling people skanks. If you don't want one night stands then fine for you, don't have them. But there is no need to judge people who DO have them and don't want a relationship.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 12:29 PM
3

I'm not "blaming" anyone, there is no need to blame anyone because two people have consensual sex and one of them wants a relationship but the other one doesn't... It's just sex. I'm saying there is no need to refer to someone who deigns to have sex with you as "just some bar skank" because she didn't want a long term relationship with you. It comes across as completely bitter, twisted and entitled, she didn't owe you anything.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 12:27 PM
-9

There was a weapon now? Interesting, I missed that bit from the article.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 12:06 PM
3

One way or the other referring to previous hookups as "just some bar skank" is sort of illustrative of how you perceive women... And might have something to do with the reason you aren't with anyone. You come across as one of these crazy misogynist "incel" types. I'd work on changing that to be honest, it's not an attractive look to women (or anyone else).
/r/MensRights10/07/15 12:05 PM
7

This was a mentally unstable stalker. There is absolutely no suggestion she led him on or encouraged him in any way, he "found her photos online" and next minute was on a plane to China. She didn't even tell him her name FFS. I honestly can't imagine anyone except horny teenagers having sympathy for this bozo.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 11:08 AM
3

Because he's a mentally unstable stalker, FFS.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 11:03 AM
3

The guy was a stalker FFS. He "found her photos online" and didn't even know the girl's name. This is no different from the crazed fan who shows up unannounced on a celebrity's doorstep and declares their undying love. Do you think that should be reciprocated?
/r/MensRights10/07/15 11:00 AM
-7

This is /r/MensRights last time I checked, not /r/LetsPunchWomen.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 10:57 AM
3

There is no indication that she led him on in any way whatsoever. Authorities in China say an 18-year-old Ohio boy, known only as Pratt, fell in love with a Chinese girl after first finding her photos online. He told police that he didn’t know her real name, the Daily Mail reported. The boy promised the girl he would visit her but she may not have taken him seriously until he suddenly turned up in Jiangshan, according to police. The Daily Mail reported that detectives confirmed the teen tried to…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 10:54 AM
-14

Was he to wait for an eye to be clawed out, get spit on, get stabbed? Did any of that happen, or are you just straw manning?
/r/MensRights10/07/15 10:45 AM
-4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States It's not just the US, either, the United Nations has defended it on freedom of religion grounds. http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/UN-official-says-circumcision-protected-by-freedom-of-religion-345359 I'm all for dissuading people from it, medical associations recommending against it and parents who want it done having to pay for it out of their own pocket as an unnecessary medical procedure, but stopping Jewish and…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 10:44 AM
7

I'm not sure the manager really handled that in the best way possible, to be honest. Panera seem to agree given that they fired him over it. The articles about it also report that he had previously physically thrown the woman down a flight of stairs, he seems far from innocent here. She didn't seem to be posing much of a threat to him but he really belted her. From the guy taking the video: You might wanna say she hit him first, but really he had FULL CONTROL over her the entire time, was throwi…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 10:26 AM
8

Takes two to tango, you were doing the exact same. Nothing wrong with meaningless sex, but there's no need to slut shame someone just because they were willing to have sex with you.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 10:05 AM
1

They're called downvote trolls and are a very definite thing. Reddit actually capped the display of negative comment karma at -100 to dissuade them. One of the most famous ones had managed to get his comment karma down to almost -50,000 by that point. Their whole schtick is to paste against the circlejerk in specific subs to acquire negative karma. http://www.dailydot.com/news/reddit-negative-comment-karma-trolls/ https://www.reddit.com/user/FabulousFerd
/r/MensRights10/07/15 09:59 AM
12

It's not coming from anywhere. From his description it seems to be just one or two people downvoting everything. That is obnoxious of them, and they are probably against Men's Rights, but it isn't a "brigade" either. A brigade is when someone posts a link to a sub on another sub with a subscriber base that leans the other way and everyone from there goes and skews the vote ratios. It's very obvious, there are even bots that will post in the linked thread to notify users it had been linked from e…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 09:53 AM
1

Smoking as a habit only became really widespread in the 20th century, mass production of cigarettes only began at the very end of the nineteenth century and peaked in the US between the late 1940s and early 1960s. I don't see why you think the rest of the world is irrelevant (a typical American trait however) as females have longer life expectancy than males all over the world, not just the developed one.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 02:47 PM
1

Theft is not the same general thing as murder, so your analogy fails. It would be more like you were discussing theft of papayas and I pointed out that theft of apples was far more common.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 02:42 PM
1

99%+ > <1% Hard to argue with the objectivity of that.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 01:31 PM
1

From a quick Google male teachers sleeping with girls 16 or over seem to usually avoid jail as well, so I'm not sure there is a gender disparity. Honestly, in all the cases I can find of teachers sleeping with pupils in the UK, they avoid jail if the student is over 15. The gender of the teacher doesn't seem to matter. Two male teacher cases, note in the first one the teacher was 44 and the girl 16: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11344673/Teacher-groomed-by-pupil-he-had-sex-with-is-spared…
/r/MensRights07/07/15 01:28 PM
1

It is a more important issue when it comes to men's rights, yes, and that's an objective fact. It's worth reminding people of the relative scale of the problem as "trafficking" has become conflated with "sex trafficking" in much of the West due to our moral Puritanism and the efforts of feminism to paint trafficking as exclusively a women's issue.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 12:23 PM
1

Is the thing that makes up 99%+ of male trafficking or the thing that makes up under 1% of male trafficking the bigger issue? Note that this doesn't mean that the smaller issue isn't important or shouldn't be dealt with, it should, but it is not the"bigger issue".
/r/MensRights07/07/15 11:44 AM
1

Any one of you can make a labor trafficking thread and it would be inappropriate for me to go into those and say that sex trafficking is the bigger issue It would be inappropriate because it would be wrong, yes.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 10:21 AM
2

It's illegal for a teacher to have sex with a minor (under 18) pupil in the UK. I agree the sentence was grossly disproportionate though.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 10:15 AM
1

That isn't really a sound argument given that most of the United States doesn't have a crime of rape on the books in the first place but the term "rape" is still used in the media in those states to describe sex without consent even if the actual criminal charge is sexual assault or sexual abuse. Common usage is a different thing to legal terminologies.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 10:12 AM
2

Smoking never reached 50% of women even in most Western countries, where it was relatively acceptable, even when it was near ubiquitous for men. It was seen as distinctly unladylike in many societies even before there was widespread knowledge of the health issues. Both genders used to smoke more, yes, but men have always smoked more than women, usually substantially so. Worldwide, currently, men are estimated by WHO to smoke five times as much as women. Some countries have even starker ratios. I…
/r/MensRights07/07/15 10:04 AM
2

Trafficking is 45% men globally from ILO's figures, so 41% in the UK could be right. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of sex vs labour trafficking in many Western countries was a bit higher for sex compared with the global average, which could explain the discrepancy.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 01:24 AM
3

The point is the vast vast majority of male human trafficking victims, over 99% of them, are not trafficked for sex but labour. It's important to be aware of the scale of the problem and I am just pointing that out. Not suggesting sex trafficking is not worth tackling. There is however far too much emphasis on sex in human trafficking and this is to the detriment of the actual substantive reality of male trafficking, which gets next to no attention. Even if you do a search here, on this sub, for…
/r/MensRights05/07/15 06:32 PM
2

I just think it's important to put male human trafficking into context, because so many people when they hear about "trafficking" only think "sex trafficking" when that is not representative of the overall picture for male trafficking. I specifically said this doesn't mean ignore cases of male sex trafficking, just putting it into context in the broader picture. It really seems to be you that has the attitude that we can't talk about labour trafficking while talking about sex trafficking from yo…
/r/MensRights05/07/15 04:16 PM
4

Sex trafficking is almost all women and girls, men and boys are only a tiny minority of it (2%). It happens, but it's almost always females because frankly that's where the market is. What is not often realised however is that sex trafficking only makes up about 20% of overall human trafficking. 80% of human trafficking is not about sex but forced labour. Men and boys are indeed trafficked but they are mostly trafficked for their labour, not sex. It isn't any better for not being about sex, thes…
/r/MensRights05/07/15 03:36 PM
3

Nice to see justice served. Absolutely right that if a thirty years old man had consensual sex with three 17 year old girls we would watch him get dog piled. Equal rights and equal responsibilities under the law. Yeah, what if it was a man? Here's a 36 year old male teacher who had sex with his 17 year old student. Verdict? Not guilty. As the judge said: "It's gross, it's awful, but it ain't illegal." http://m.ajc.com/news/news/local/its-gross-but-it-aint-illegal-judge-says-teacher-n/nQZqb/ In t…
/r/MensRights05/07/15 10:03 AM
2

Inappropriate feelings would be a good reason for a transfer, as inappropriate feelings are not a crime. If anything had actually happened you would expect an actual prosecution. There was absolutely no suggestion that anything actually happened, this was brought up to illustrate she had a specific interest in teenage boys.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 01:28 AM
1

Nice to see justice served. Absolutely right that if a thirty years old man had consensual sex with three 17 year old girls we would watch him get dog piled. In most places that would be perfectly legal, unless of course the man was their teacher.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 01:06 AM
3

It would have been a crime almost anywhere, as almost everywhere criminalizes sex between teachers and students up to at least 18, even if the age of consent is lower. 22 years is excessive though.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 01:00 AM
0

Also it's worth noting that this isn't the first offence for her; she also had a record of impropriety with an 8th grader at her former school and was transferred. From what I can gather there was no impropriety, she just had inappropriate feelings for him that she admitted to a colleague.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 12:59 AM
9

That's the general age of consent but sexual relations between teachers and students are also prohibited even if the student is older.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 12:54 AM
1

The more I read about the variety of criminal acts that can occur... the more I think Canada has the right idea. They don't have a crime called "rape", and instead have different categories and different severities of the crime called "sexual assault". It's the same in most of the US, most states don't have a crime of rape either but use degrees of sexual assault or other terms.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 01:30 AM
1

She got charged but I would be surprised if she actually saw prison time over it. It's not a gender issue though.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:41 AM
10

Absolutely not, you can literally get away with murder in Thailand if you have enough money. There is barely even the pretence of an equal justice system. This is the case in many developing countries, incidentally, it's not unique to Thailand.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 02:47 PM
6

Yeah, I was thinking of that case. Good article on it from the New Yorker here: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-red-bull-heir-and-inequality-in-thailand Honestly, this has nothing to do with gender.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 02:39 PM
1

Because murder has a much stronger and precise connotation in this case. IPV or domestic violence doesn't usually imply that someone was killed. It world be absolutely no different if the genders were reversed, the words used would be "murdered" or "killed", not "IPV" or "domestic violence". From yesterday for example: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-44032/Man-kills-wife-children--shoots-himself.html
/r/MensRights23/06/15 08:49 AM
6

If the female politician was strongly opposed to freedom of the press had a history of throwing journalists into jail who criticised her, yes, I could see it.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 08:41 AM
4

This guy: he has been accused of authoritarianism, nepotism, attacking dissidents and curtailing freedom of speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Correa And criticise him a bit too much in the press, and this is what happens to you: "We are not only suing the editorial writer, but also the newspaper El Universo’s directors,” said Correa, in a radio interview on Ecuadorinmediato, quoted by El Universo. "Ecuador’s autocrat cracks down on media freedom." According to an editorial published b…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 08:20 AM
2

Sarkeseesian isn't semi-dictator of a Latin American country who uses their position of power to bully and harass anyone who criticises them. It's in no way equivalent. Seriously, comparing Anita Sarkeseesian's position to Rafael Correa's is laughable, it makes this place look like a complete joke if this is the sort of thing you are whining about.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 08:03 AM
-9

She's almost certainly out money on this, everybody seems to be forgetting lawyers don't work for free.
/r/PussyPass23/06/15 05:40 AM
2

Why would it not be "appropriate"? It was good science, men and women are different, it's a fallacy to think they are exactly the same in every way. It was published in the British Medical Journal which is one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. www.bmj.com/content/335/7633/1320 Also published here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3284262/ There's a difference between a lame joke about a stereotype and actually studying gender differences in detail.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 05:31 AM
2

It depends on the jurisdiction but in most sexual relations between a parent and adopted child is indeed incest. Not in Idaho though, where this happened (it would still be rape however).
/r/MensRights22/06/15 10:40 AM
1

I think that suggests that rape should be charged where there was actual force, in his original link there were several examples of people prosecuted over the lesser "sexual activity with a child" charge and getting months to a year or two where penetration was involved and there was no claim that they thought the victim was over the age of consent. As far as I can make out there was no suggestion of force in this case either, it was rape in the sense of statutory rape where consent is irrelevan…
/r/MensRights22/06/15 10:23 AM
2

You know who else was opposed to feminism and strongly advocated for distinct gender roles? The Nazis. Should we group ourselves with them too? Group TRP with the Nazis all you like but keep the MRM out of it, thanks. Mens Rights is about equality, which the likes of TRP absolutely doesn't care about or for at all. They are completely different things. Historians have paid special attention to the efforts by Nazi Germany to reverse the gains women made before 1933, especially in the liberal Weim…
/r/MensRights21/06/15 07:59 AM
14

There is absolutely NO way this would have happened if it was a female scientist making a lame joke about male stereotypes.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 07:49 AM
2

Links to other subreddits must use NP format ("np" in place of "www"). Evidence of such brigading? /r/MensRights does not brigade, that is a feminist smear. I note /r/AgainstMensRights has no such rule in their sidebar.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 07:18 AM
1

If you read the full response most of it is concerned about the child suffering "serious abuse" and she suggests they call CPS on the parents over it. She's not primarily concerned here with female cliches, she just mentions that as a throwaway, she's mainly concerned about the effect on the kid of such a "bizarre social experiment".
/r/MensRights12/06/15 07:10 AM
2

It wasn't consistent as they took it down for being "tabloid news" but the newspaper it was in was not tabloid news and they have other articles from it still up.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 04:14 AM
-2

The problem is that Reddit as a private company is not obliged to honor the First Amendment. Reddit is the first page of the internet and personally I think the first page of the internet is simply too important to remain in the private control of Conde Nast or Advance Publications or whatever it is. If Reddit were nationalized, it would be necessary for it to start actually respecting the Constitution and free speech. I have started a petition on change.org to be proactive about this rather tha…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 02:45 PM
2

I have started a petition on change.org to be proactive about this rather than just sitting on my ass complaining on the internet. Please lend your support: https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-bernie-sanders-nationalize-reddit
/r/MensRights11/06/15 02:40 PM
1

I have started a petition on change.org to be proactive about this rather than just sitting on my ass complaining on the internet. Please lend your support: https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-bernie-sanders-nationalize-reddit
/r/MensRights11/06/15 02:34 PM
1

The government has no say in telling a business how to run. There exists such a thing as regulation, you know. I am writing to Bernie Sanders to see if he would consider nationalizing Reddit when he becomes President. If Reddit were government owned this would make Reddit subject to First Amendment protections and force Pao to unban /r/fatpeoplehate and actually adhere to freedom of speech. I have started a petition on change.org to be proactive about this rather than just sitting on my ass comp…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 02:32 PM
1

And now I'm banned for this You aren't banned.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 01:15 PM
4

How can you make a business owner leave their own company Pao is not the owner of Reddit.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 01:13 PM
2

We will see.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 12:07 PM
1

I really don't know how anyone can think that MR (a group fighting for a vision of equality) could ever be compared to FPH (an active and confessed hate group). MRA's have often been accused of being hate groups towards feminists and/or women. It's not true, obviously, but that is what a lot of people believe.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 12:00 PM
3

KotakuInAction That one's next.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 11:58 AM
0

You sit back and do nothing and watch this site be taken over by SJW feminists then, I'm actually doing something about it.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 11:56 AM
0

The reason is because we consider ourselves not just a company running a website where one can post links and discuss them, but the government of a new type of community. The role and responsibility of a government differs from that of a private corporation, in that it exercises restraint in the usage of its powers. -- Yishan Wong They have said they consider themselves a government, companies can't just make statements and then not abide by them. I think this should probably be legally tested b…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 11:38 AM
-1

It's an analogy. I already explicitly said I didn't consider Reddit quite as bad as the Nazis, but they are an illustration of where this is headed.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 11:25 AM
-3

The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you: ' ... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbo…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 11:22 AM
3

highlighting inequality Highlighting inequality to point out it is wrong and to promote equality, yes.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 11:17 AM
0

That's not the point, no MRA's are almost all honorouble people and commited to egalitarians. They are not subbed to those odious places which are promoting discrimination and I don't agree with what goes on there but they should not be CENSORED, it is about FEMDOM OF SPEECH. "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -- Benjamin Franklin The Nazis were against Christianity, as any rational supporter of science should be, but I would defend to the d…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 11:16 AM
0

First they came for /r/jailbait - and I did not speak out because I was not a pedophile. Then they came for /r/niggers - and I did not speak out because I was not a racist. Then they came for /r/MensRights - and there was no one left to speak for me. Seriously, this is exactly what the Nazis did in the 1930s- they didn't just take over all at once, they gradually eased their way into power and then only gradually ramped up the persecution. I think it is clear with the recent announcement from Re…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 10:39 AM
2

you're going to get gilded by the SRS brigade just to spite you Which is harassment, but will SRS get banned for it? I doubt it. I could see every sub on this site get banned before that place.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 10:19 AM
1

Up until recently, 15 year olds were fit to be head of state That's utter nonsense unless you are talking about monarchies, and in that case if a child became King there would also be a Regent who would do the actual ruling. I can't think of a single case where a 15 year old could be elected to the position of head of state of any country, and in fact the trend has been in the opposite direction, lowering the age of candidacy, not raising it. But it is at least 18 everywhere that I'm aware of, a…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 01:33 PM
1

It's a very common debate tactic from pedophiles who want to bang kids to try to frame the argument in terms of "child rights" which is exactly what you are doing now. I'm honestly not interested in continuing this discussion, if you think this is OK you should get help, it is not.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 06:58 AM
1

What's so shocking about that? They still prosecute rapes, it's just usually called something else (most commonly "sexual assault", although there are other terms) in the actual law. At the state level, there is no uniform legal definition of rape ; instead, each state has their own laws. These definitions can vary considerably, but many of them do not use the term rape anymore, instead using sexual assault, criminal sexual conduct, sexual abuse, sexual battery, etc. You might be even more shock…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 06:52 AM
1

It completely depends on the jurisdiction, Canada for example doesn't have any statute of limitations in the first place.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:27 AM
1

It is pedantic, because the UK has an exactly equivalent charge for women, with exactly the same penalties, as "rape", it's just called something different. In most of the United States there is NO criminal charge of "rape" in the first place, this doesn't mean rape doesn't happen there, it is just called something else on the books (usually "sexual assault").
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:23 AM
1

I didn't downvote you, indeed you were at +8 when I made my comment and you are at +12 now, so I don't know where you got that idea...
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:20 AM
1

It's highly unlikely that these men will be charged with anything either. The problem with prosecuting false allegations is that it is next to impossible to prove they are false. A failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape occurred does not necessarily mean it was a false accusation, it means the accusation was not proven.
/r/MensRights08/06/15 10:41 AM
1

Statutes of limitations generally don't apply to serious crimes, at least in Anglophone jurisdictions. Just look at the celebrity child abuse scandal in the UK. The US varies, but many states have no statute of limitations for rape, while others have extremely long ones (several decades).
/r/MensRights08/06/15 10:23 AM
3

It only becomes news when it's a woman. It's certainly more unusual that it happens to a woman, if only because women are less likely to be prosecuted and convicted in the first place, but I frequently read about female false accusers in the media. And not just from being linked in this sub either. It does make the news when it's a man falsely accused as well.
/r/MensRights08/06/15 10:15 AM
1

I'm all for asking for a source but not when you could verify it in five seconds yourself by searching on Google. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=India+child+sexual+abuse&l=1 while 48% of boys reported having been abused,the prevalence rate among girls was 39%. ... The Indian government backed a survey of 125000 children in Thirteen states. Of the children interviewed, more than half (53%) said that they had been subjected to one or more forms of sexual abuse. Over 20% of those interviewed said they were s…
/r/MensRights08/06/15 10:03 AM
3

Look, I'm all for the idea that criminalising "manspreading" is ridiculous but the idea that a male cannot sit with their legs together without falling over, and risks infertility if they try to do so is just utter, utter nonsense.
/r/MensRights08/06/15 09:54 AM
1

Children can't consent. Period. It doesn't matter "what they want", they can't consent to it.
/r/MensRights08/06/15 09:50 AM
1

That entirely depends on the jurisdiction. Under the US federal definition it would indeed be rape. This is really unnecessary pedantry. “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
/r/MensRights08/06/15 09:43 AM
1

Some of the stuff they publish is genuine, (I recognise some of the stories that I've read from more legitimate sources) but I don't think all of it is.
/r/MensRights08/06/15 09:25 AM
2

The whole point with statutory rape is that the "consent" of the victim is absolutely irrelevant, because they are not legally able to consent. You are absolutely saying that statutory rape should be done away with, if we concerned ourselves with the victims feelings about the whole thing it wouldn't be statutory rape, it would just be plain old regular rape. "Sex with someone under the age of consent is OK, if the child is OK with it." What's that if not legalising statutory rape? You are propo…
/r/MensRights08/06/15 09:14 AM
0

You are actually arguing that statutory rape should be legalised? Seriously?
/r/MensRights08/06/15 08:35 AM
1

3 million jews killed Oh lord
/r/MensRights08/06/15 01:50 AM
2

This is for sound scientific reasons, on a cost benefit analysis it simply isn't worth the cost of the vaccine (it is a very expensive vaccine) to give it to every male. The main reason for the vaccine is to prevent cervical cancer which men simply can't get, the equivalent cancer it may prevent in heterosexual men (penile cancer) is simply extremely rare by comparison. It MAY help against other sexually transmitted cancers including throat cancer but as of now there is no firm evidence of this.…
/r/MensRights07/06/15 08:34 PM
0

Obviously it's not just the Jews but it was mostly the Jews. Yes gays and gypsies were also penalised but AT LEAST half the population killed in the Holocaust were actually Jewish, more than any other indivual group. Do you deny that? I can't believe you are defending Nazis who indiscrimately murdered an entire people, this is reallly, really, bad stuff. Stormtroopers = heroes? Fuck that.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 05:29 PM
1

Personally I would prefer that people aping a regime that murdered millions of Jews don't get airtime, yes. You understand that films like Star Wars USE this trope because of the Nazis, right? That's OK, but glorifying it outside the context of the film is EGRERIOUS.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 05:15 PM
1

Jeez I meant serious, this guy was pretty obviously a threat to the local community. Would you be comfortable with a stormtrooper with a gun marching up and down in front of your child's school? Is that what we've come to?
/r/MensRights07/06/15 04:48 PM
1

So he was arrested and charged... So you think that is what the police do in situations they don't are think are series?
/r/MensRights07/06/15 04:30 PM
1

Yes that, I don't think the UK has a false accusation rate massively above the norm, they just prosecute them aggressively. Some think too aggressively.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 03:31 PM
2

Are you Mike Buchanan? There has been a shitload of shitposting from his blog recently. Link the article, thanks.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 03:04 PM
1

It is purely and explicitly a SUGGESTION and a perfectly reasonable one at that and is likely fully explained by the likelihood that two different people wrote the two different pages. There are other pages on the NHS site that make the same recommendation to females seeking sterilisation to discuss it with their partner: Tubal Occlusion is an operation that blocks, seals or cuts the fallopian tubes ... If you have a partner you should discuss and agree together which option suits you Seriously,…
/r/MensRights07/06/15 02:35 PM
0

The website is not being "anti-male", that's ridiculous. If anything it is pro-male, as it actually gives a man a more realistic expectation of what to expect. If a childless woman under 30 read the page about female sterilisation she might be under the impression that a doctor was obliged to provide the service on request, where the reality is that it is next to impossible for a young woman to get a sterilisation on the NHS (or indeed, at all) while it is much easier for a young man. As to the …
/r/MensRights07/06/15 02:05 PM
1

It's simply just that two different people wrote the two articles, it doesn't in any way reflect a difference actual NHS policy. The page about vasectomy is just better written, that's all. I don't see a problem with suggesting you discuss it with a partner, that is just common sense. The article makes clear that at the end of the day the partner has no legal say in the matter. A commenter on the page even points out that when his niece and her partner sought out sterilisation they categorically…
/r/MensRights07/06/15 12:49 PM
7

This is a reasonable point when you consider that the female fashion industry is simply much larger and much more profitable than the male one. Men simply don't buy as much clothes and accessories as women do so if you are arguing from a performance point of view, female models should make more. http://marketrealist.com/2015/02/macys-revenues-dominated-female-apparel-products/
/r/MensRights07/06/15 12:16 PM
-2

Get with the circlejerk. They was stunned, proper stunned m8.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 12:09 PM
2

Sick comeback m7
/r/MensRights07/06/15 11:59 AM
3

So... But this wouldn't constitute statutory rape in many western nations You are wrong, it would, and it is a crime in all the example Western nations you provided (plus in Japan and South Korea, although they aren't Western nations). You are a child rape apologist. Imagine if this was a 15 year old girl and a teacher twice her age! Would you say "Huh, it's not that bad" then? But because it's a boy and your stereotypes of male sexuality (they all want it, all the time) it's just not that serio…
/r/MensRights07/06/15 11:55 AM
1

They are legally a minor. They are not a child. And you didn't ask me for a country where this would not be statutory rape, you asked me for a country where a teacher can legally sleep with a student. Those are two different things. Well, there's Austria, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Spain, France, Greece, Iceland, Sweden, Poland, Romania, South Korea and Japan. This would be illegal in every European country you listed, regardless of their age of consent, because all of the European countries you l…
/r/MensRights07/06/15 11:35 AM
2

This is blogspam, why not link the actual Telegraph article? www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/fatherhood/11647915/Are-divorced-dads-really-treated-fairly-by-the-family-courts.html
/r/MensRights07/06/15 11:05 AM
2

A person under the age of 18 is legally a child in any "Western" country I'm aware of. Again, give me an example of one country where this would not be statutory rape. I've repeatedly asked you to justify that claim, but you can't. Raping children is not legal anywhere in the West.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 11:01 AM
1

You said: But this wouldn't constitute statutory rape in many western nations I am asking you to substantiate this because to the best of my knowledge it WOULD be statutory rape in absolutely every Western nation. You seem unable to actually do this. Name one country this would not be statutory rape please. Anyone under 18 is a CHILD and you should not be RAPING them.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 10:51 AM
1

Again, give me an example of these many "Western nations" where a teacher sleeping with a 15 year old student is not illegal. Hint: you won't be able to, because it is illegal. Everyone under 18 is legally a child in every Western nation, and for a teacher to sleep with them is RAPE.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 10:44 AM
2

They did know each other, and indeed only made their accusations after talking to Sulkowicz. One of the accusers was I believe a very close friend of Sulkowicz, while others were involved in the campaign to get him kicked out before they made their accusations (all of which he was exonerated of).
/r/MensRights07/06/15 10:36 AM
7

No you wouldn't.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 10:25 AM
2

If it was a man he would have been arrested and charged already. Throw away the key.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 10:17 AM
1

But it's not an inalienable right to dress like a stormtrooper? First Amendment precedes the Second.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 09:44 AM
1

But would a woman dressed as Princess Leia be arrested, that's the point here.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 09:41 AM
1

Really? I wonder what the police thought about the matter when they arrived and saw the man with a "gun". Em, well they arrested him so it seems they took it seriously. I mean did you even read the title?
/r/MensRights07/06/15 09:40 AM
3

There is no gender bias in the UK on this, women can and are denied sterilisation routinely. It is next to impossible for a childless woman under 30 to get the procedure done in either the US or UK.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 09:16 AM
7

Women absolutely can be refused sterilisation on the NHS, there is no discrimination here. Whoever wrote the page for men was just being more informative. Holly Brockwell is an example who is campaigning on the issue, she is a 29 year old woman who has been rejected for the procedure four times now: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/28/why-wont-nhs-let-me-be-sterilised In fact given that female regret rates are five times that of males, I suspect women actually have a harder time of bei…
/r/MensRights07/06/15 09:07 AM
0

Find me an example of a "Western nation" where a teacher having sex with a 15 year old student is legal. You won't be able to. The boy is a child, he cannot consent, it is rape. If I were the judge I would have given her life, the child will likely be scarred forever, his life ruined at the tender age of 15. She deserves far worse than what she got IMO.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 08:42 AM
17

They actually prosecute false rape accusations in the UK routinely, there are hundreds of cases. It's very common that it is prosecuted.
/r/MensRights05/06/15 10:44 PM
7

Also if you look at these cases who were the women shooting at? That's right, men. A gun doesn't care whether it is being held by a man or a woman, it's going to do the same damage either way. If you look at the murder statistics, women are 4 times more likely to kill a man than they are another woman. Police not taking these situations seriously are putting innocent men's lives at risk, they need to take the gun if not the girl seriously and start shooting more women dead. From the article on t…
/r/MensRights01/06/15 10:03 AM
2

For the Fortune 500 (the 500 largest companies in the US) it's 4.8% women, 95.2% men. http://fortune.com/2014/06/03/number-of-fortune-500-women-ceos-reaches-historic-high/
/r/MensRights01/06/15 09:40 AM
3

Agree 100%, and most developed countries do this already.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 01:04 PM
4

I know it's his money yada yada but this wouldn't fly if the genders were reversed. It would also be flat out illegal in many other circumstances (employment, provision of services).
/r/MensRights31/05/15 11:40 AM
2

Singapore also has mandatory paid maternity (and paternity) leave, payment of which is shared between the employer and the government.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 10:30 AM
-2

So you think women should be penalised financially for taking maternity leave? They are the only ones that can actually have kids, so there is an argument that they shouldn't be. The United States is one of only three countries in the world, and the only developed one, that doesn't have mandatory paid maternity.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 09:53 AM
-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation
/r/MensRights31/05/15 09:43 AM
-2

When you're in the wilderness and there's no signal? Very rare that this happens, almost everywhere in Earth now has cell signal. And even if it didn't, offline maps are a thing and GPS works everywhere, no signal needed.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 01:07 PM
2

OK, but you would presumably give the girl the credit that she wouldn't think the kid was his if they hadn't actually had sex. The paternity thing isn't really the direct issue here, the more important question is whether they had sex or not. Which I don't know the answer to frankly, there isn't enough evidence to say he did it but there isn't enough evidence to say she is making a false accusation either. In which case the only thing you can do is prosecute neither of them and hold them both in…
/r/MensRights26/05/15 09:46 PM
2

I never said it happens in any way frequently in the US, I just said it is theoretically possible, that is what we were discussing here as it mentioned there were no charges in the article and people have suggested she should have been charged. It actually does happen regularly enough in the United Kingdom, and offenders are often jailed, for up to several years, even in cases where the accusation was not against an identifiable individual. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-pr…
/r/MensRights26/05/15 07:42 PM
1

There are criminal statutes for false reports, it's even specifically mentioned in the article and that was what I was discussing: “She tried to destroy my client’s life, and she should be punished for it,” Kenniff, railed about Riabenkova, who will not face false-report charges. Yes a civil case has only a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof but frankly there isn't enough evidence to prove a false report there either.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 06:54 PM
18

If you look through the New Jersey code "he" is used in lots of places, if it wasn't meant to be taken as gender neutral a woman could never be found guilty of half the crimes in that state. 2C:12-3. Terroristic threats. a. A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to commit any crime of violence with the purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building... 2C:12-1. Assault. a. Simple assault. A person is guilty of assault if he: (1)Attempts to cause or pu…
/r/MensRights26/05/15 05:41 PM
-1

She could not have KNOWN with 100% certainty, no, but she could have had a reasonable belief that that is where the kid came from. If she believed what she was claiming she was not lying.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 05:00 PM
1

IF she had unprotected sex with the photographer but used a condom every other time it would not be an unreasonable belief for her to think it most likely that the pregnancy came from the rape.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 04:21 PM
-3

She could have reasonably believed the pregnancy to be due to the rape, if it happened. I hardly think that is beyond the bounds of plausibility. People all over this thread are saying she insisted to the prosecutor that she could not have become pregnant in any other way, but that isn't actually in the article, it just says she attributed the pregnancy to the rape. So who is lying here exactly?
/r/MensRights26/05/15 04:14 PM
-1

The investigators didn't find enough evidence of a rape, and the case of conflicting stories led them to believe that it was not worth prosecuting. This in itself is not a full acquittal, but it goes a long way to show she was falsifying her report. This is in no way proof of a false report. It's a he said she said situation. You are basically saying that any case where there isn't enough evidence to convict the accuser should be charged with making a false accusation. She turned up pregnant, an…
/r/MensRights26/05/15 03:36 PM
-2

She says it couldn't be anyone's baby but the "rapist". No, that isn't in the article, sorry. Please find me where it says that because it doesn't. She only claimed that she got pregnant from the rape, which obviously she didn't, but it is a perfectly plausible scenario that she could have thought she did. Then, in January 2015, Riabenkova made a shocking claim — telling prosecutors she was impregnated during the alleged rape and wanted an abortion.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 03:19 PM
-2

Honestly, this sub can be a complete and utter circlejerk at times. She's a woman, of course she lied, if a rape allegation isn't proven it is automatically a false accusation, that's how it goes here.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 03:14 PM
5

Completely, what I am saying is there are still subs on this site that are infinitely worse (from any reasonable point of view, but certainly a feminist one) than /r/MensRights. It's paranoia.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 01:25 PM
6

I agree with you it is very unlikely they would shut this sub down. There are so many other subs that are still here that would go first (cough, TRP) even if there was a genuine feminazi takeover. But there isn't. Honestly, OP's post is typical of the paranoia and victim complex displayed by so many posters here.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 01:16 PM
-3

Again, there is no proof she was lying about anything. Where is the proof? I'm not saying the guy did it but it's entirely a he said - she said situation. That this particular foetus wasn't his doesn't mean he didn't have sex with her. I'm not saying this isn't a false accusation. Maybe it is. But there is no proof, and just as you need proof to convict someone of rape you need proof to convict someone of making a false accusation. lying.... Both times. This is my point, disregarding the pregnan…
/r/MensRights26/05/15 12:44 PM
-4

And how would she have known that? It is something that it is simply impossible for a woman to know. She could very well have believed it was his. I'm not saying I think it happened, it is entirely right that the case against the photographer was thrown out but there is simply nowhere near the evidence required here to prove a false accusation.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 12:21 PM
-9

How exactly would a woman KNOW that a particular man impregnated her if she had sex with more than one man in a short period of time? Take a hypothetical- guy 1 rapes her without using a condom. She then has sex with guy 2 later in the week but using a condom. Unbeknownst to her the condom fails. It's perfectly reasonable in this situation that she would believe the pregnancy to have been caused by guy 1. Entirely right that the case against the photographer was thrown out for lack of evidence. …
/r/MensRights26/05/15 10:37 AM
0

Sure, and that is why the case was thrown out. It's not however proof of a false accusation.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 10:24 AM
-12

I think describing it as a lie is unreasonable. She would have known there would be a genetic test to determine paternity, I honestly can't see why she would bring up the pregnancy unless she actually believed it was his. All this establishes is that she had sex with someone else around the same time period, not that she made a false accusation. The case was thrown out against the photographer as it should be and he should be regarded as innocent but there isn't enough evidence here to prove she…
/r/MensRights26/05/15 09:32 AM
-6

and that she couldn't have been made pregnant by anyone else around that time I didn't anywhere that this was claimed.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 09:28 AM
7

Because this only proves that she had sex with someone else around the same time period, not that she never had sex with the photographer and made a false accusation. The case was thrown out against the guy as it should have been but there simply isn't enough evidence there to charge her with making a false accusation.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 09:24 AM
-4

It's very very hard to prove an accusation was false. There are a handful of cases where it is, where the accuser's story is egregiously and demonstrably false, but most of them come down to he said she said and it is usually even more difficult to prove a false accusation than a rape in the first place. Insufficient evidence to prosecute or convict doesn't necessarily mean the accuser is lying. This case, for example, doesn't prove a false accusation. It doesn't prove the guy didn't rape her, i…
/r/MensRights26/05/15 09:21 AM
1

The point is the director's intention absolutely influences how "people in general" actually react to a film. In this film the women are being portrayed as the villains and the man the victim and any reasonable person will take it that way. It absolutely could have been directed with a similar narrative as a revenge fantasy, where you root for the women, but it clearly hasn't been. The female-male violence could have been portrayed as a subject of comedy, something we are meant to laugh at. But …
/r/MensRights23/05/15 08:49 AM
1

Uh, yes? Why? That changes nothing. Why are you bringing up the director's intention? That doesn't make a difference in how people react to it. That is ridiculous, of course it makes difference. A film isn't simply a neutral recording of events like a surveillance camera. The whole art involves manipulating people's emotions, to tell a story from a particular viewpoint, to get them to react to it in a certain way. If you react to this particular film by sympathising with the women, you are not n…
/r/MensRights23/05/15 08:38 AM
1

Have you watched the trailer? If people are laughing at the female on male violence in that they are psychopaths. It's clearly not the director's intention that the viewer sympathises with the women in this and frankly I don't see that happening. Yes there are ways in which such violence could be presented so that we sympathise with the women here but this film is not it. It's a horror film from the guy who directed Hostel, not a comedy.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 08:11 AM
7

That's nonsense, there are plenty of horror films that feature men raping and torturing women. It's actually unusual in this scenario that it is reversed. The man is clearly the victim in this one, the girls are in no way being portrayed sympathetically.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 10:00 PM
2

I get that the /s means xNOM doesn't subscribe to that point of view himself. However he's implying that other people do. That's the point of it, he's implying that other people will see what happens to Reeves's character as justifiable, deserved.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:50 PM
3

So what. Jesus dies in the Bible, did I spoil it for you? There's quite the twist after that happens, mind.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:46 PM
21

I honestly don't know how you could watch that trailer and think the director's intention was you sympathise with the women over the man (Reeves) in that scenario. It's a psychological thriller in which the man is clearly being portrayed as the victim. Look up the tags on IMDB, femme fatale, torture, female villain, female criminal, female psychopath, sinister couple (i.e. the two girls). You are really stretching here for victim status.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:38 PM
1

No, when your particular friends do it maybe but that is not what it means. "When [most] people talk in England" in general, it means Indian.
/r/TheRedPill22/05/15 09:27 PM
1

That's likely due to American influence, but it simply isn't what it normally means in the UK. If you look at any British newspaper, when they say "Asian" they mean "Indian". If they mean Chinese on the other hand, they'll say Chinese. You can't just say Wikipedia is wrong, the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong, the BBC is wrong, all British newspapers are wrong, because my friends use it differently, that is what it normally means.
/r/TheRedPill22/05/15 09:04 AM
1

The UK did not join the EU in the last decade. You are simply wrong on this, in Britain "Asian" primarily references people from the Indian subcontinent. In Britain Asian is generally used to refer to people who come from (or whose parents came from) India, Pakistan, or elsewhere in South Asia, while in North America it refers to people from China, Japan, and other countries of East Asia. www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Asian www.bbc.co.uk/asiannetwork - what's this all about, oh i…
/r/TheRedPill22/05/15 07:05 AM
1

I am a former resident of the UK myself (London, specifically) and unless things have changed dramatically in the last decade, "Asian" in British English usually means "Indian".
/r/TheRedPill21/05/15 06:39 PM
1

You could not be more wrong on this. British Asians (also referred as South Asians in the United Kingdom, Asian British people or Asian Britons), are persons of Asian descent who resides in the United Kingdom. In British English usage, the term Asians usually includes British originating only from South Asia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Asian Honestly "Asian" (Indian) and "Chinese" were completely separate ethnicities before the most recent census.
/r/TheRedPill21/05/15 04:31 PM
1

Asian in the UK means Indians. In the US it means East Asians. Indians also do extremely well in the US but the UK has a lot more of them due to colonisation.
/r/TheRedPill21/05/15 03:49 PM
0

Good point, as the EPA was totally founded before the United States industrialised and the American public were ultra concerned with the environment through the 19th and 20th centuries.
/r/TheRedPill21/05/15 03:34 PM
2

You are, yes, it's not a pejorative. It's used in discussion of trans issues because it is useful to have a short term for people who are not trans. You can certainly argue it is being used in a context of discrimination here, or in a phrase like "white cis male scum" but it's not a pejorative any more than "white" or "male" is in that sentence.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:54 PM
1

Unfortunately as you say that's because they kill or selectively abort females in the two most populous countries in the world, they do it in India as well. It would be the other way around if left to nature.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:50 PM
1

It gets very messy trying to discuss trans issues unless you have a term to signify non-trans people. Trans men ARE "men", trans women ARE "women", so if you just use the term "man" or "woman" are you referring to men and women in general (which would include trans people) or do you mean to refer to, well, cis people. It's utterly fine and useful in this context. I agree it doesn't have to be inserted into everything, but if you aren't specifically discussing a trans issue I don't see why you'd …
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:47 PM
2

It's not a slur, it's a perfectly neutral prefix to use to discuss people who identify with their biological sex and is useful to have when discussing trans issues. I'm a cis man and have no issues with being referred to as such.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:42 PM
1

I'm pretty sure the Civil Rights Act didn't extend to Australia.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:39 PM
1

Yes, presuming they were born male (there are obviously homosexual trans men who would not be cis).
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:37 PM
2

Victim complex much?
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:35 PM
1

It's not adjusting anything, trans people are still called trans. "Cis" is used to refer to non-trans people, usually in the context of discussing trans issues. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it as a prefix.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:34 PM
2

That's nonsense, you pulled that out of your ass. You can say fuck on TV in Canada, no one was fined.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 10:05 PM
2

Thousands of cannabis users wonder the same thing. Once the precedent was set that an employer could monitor what you ingest off the clock with blood, urine, and hair samples - any thing becomes fair game. That's actually not legal in Canada any more, random drug/alcohol testing was challenged a couple of years ago and the Supreme Court shot it down as a violation of the right to privacy.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 11:48 AM
2

In North America, maybe, the rest of the world is a little less sensitive. And the guy who got fired didn't work for the TV station, he was just a random guy in the background, so I don't see how that is relevant.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 11:24 AM
5

Nah, I'm a serial killer and I use this one all the time. Build up a few bodies in my living room and then call in an anonymous tip that someone is dealing drugs out of my apartment. Cops come with a warrant to search for the drugs but only find rotting human corpses! Nothing they can do because the warrant was for drugs. Oh, you cheeky scamp, you got us again, Bobbage!
/r/MensRights07/05/15 06:55 AM
10

Eh, I doubt it. You can usually get away with doing a lot using a car as a weapon in the US that you wouldn't if it was anything other than a car. There have been several cases of this in the US, and most get lesser charges/sentences: 60 days in jail in Arizona in a case where the guy on the hood was killed: At some point, Troy got on top of the vehicle and Laura drove away, swerving back and forth in an attempt to shake him off the truck. The Mohave County Sheriff's Office reported that Troy he…
/r/MensRights30/04/15 08:22 PM
34

Note that excuse wasn't accepted, she was jailed for over four years. That's actually a very long sentence for assault in the UK. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/9315437/Woman-jailed-after-being-caught-on-CCTV-driving-with-man-stuck-on-car-bonnet.html
/r/MensRights30/04/15 06:12 PM
3

There need to be Jack & Jill amendments/exceptions to most laws forbidding sexual activity with or among minors. There are. They aren't being prosecuted over the sex, which was legal. They are being prosecuted over images of the girl. Read the article.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 11:30 AM
4

Anything I don't like is SRS. Wake up sheeple, illuminati, and so on and so forth.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 11:28 AM
2

The age gap isn't the issue, it's having sexually explicit images of an under 18 year old. That's not allowed even if you are under 18 yourself, indeed you could be younger than the subject in the pictures and it would still be illegal.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 11:27 AM
11

15 and 19 is completely legal in Minnesota. They aren't being prosecuted over the sex, they are being prosecuted for having sexually explicit images of the girl (pictures under 18 = illegal).
/r/MensRights21/02/15 11:24 AM
1

I'm not talking about the doctor dismissing his concerns. I've already said multiple times that was problematic, if it happened as he described. I'm only talking about his perception of the reaction to his request for a same sex doctor, which is a completely over the top paranoid fantasy.
/r/MensRights26/07/14 06:08 AM
1

I don't mention statistics once, that is ridiculous. I just point out that if you pay close attention to the language he uses it is clear that OP never actually describes witnessing any objective negative reaction to his request to switch doctors whatsoever. He describes his embarrassment in asking the question and then his imagined reaction to it from the staff. There is no indication whatsoever in the language that he used that the entire clinic was actually gossiping about him, it's actually …
/r/MensRights26/07/14 06:01 AM
1

It has nothing to do with him being a man, that's ridiculous. If the genders were reversed and it was a male doctor and a female patient imagining the entire male staff of the clinic gossiping about her after she asked to see a female doctor I'd say the exact same thing, that it didn't seem like the reality of the situation but her blowing it all up out of proportion in her head. Completely not a gendered issue at all.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 09:32 PM
1

Again, this same person trying to explain away possibly reality with theoretical statistics. I'm not sure I could come up with a worse form of logic. I don't get your meaning here at all. Who is the same person? Me? The guy I replied to? The bald guy in the other thread? What theoretical statistics?
/r/MensRights25/07/14 09:31 PM
2

I'm just adressing here his perception of the reaction to his asking to see a male doctor, it honestly seems completely over the top and unbelievable. If the original female doc was completely dismissive of treatment for male pattern baldness, sure that is an issue, but I'm not sure it is a particularly gendered one. It means she personally was a bad doctor.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 12:36 PM
1

Uhm no. If you're on beard growing medicine they would probably discontinune it but for the other things, doctors don't do shit about that. Got a beard? Shave it. That's not the case, hirsutism in women is generally a hormonal imbalance and there are tests and medications that specifically identify the issue and treat it. A good doctor will absolutely not just say "shave it", although they may indeed suggest that while investigating further- there is a misconception that shaving causes the hair …
/r/MensRights25/07/14 11:18 AM
9

The thing is, asking to see a same gender doctor is entirely routine and accepted and would not likely stir up any particular reaction. General bitching about patients who do this (among the entire female staff of the clinic, no less) would be utterly unprofessional and just seems incredibly implausible. If you actually read what he said carefully, he makes absolutely no objective statement of any adverse reaction, he starts by saying he was embarrassed to ask to swap doctors and then the rest i…
/r/MensRights25/07/14 11:05 AM
2

It's your right to request a same gendered doctor and anyone who ridicules or resists isn't being a professional or ethical. As you say requesting a same gender doctor is completely routine, normal and accepted. That makes me very sceptical that he actually got this terrible reaction. If you actually read what he wrote carefully, it does seem to be very much his own subjective perception rather than something that objectively happened. He starts out saying he was embarrassed to ask this and then…
/r/MensRights25/07/14 10:55 AM
7

I honestly think he was imagining this bit. The whole female staff of the clinic giving him dirty looks and making nasty remarks about him, that just doesn't seem likely, frankly. He seems to have a bit of a persecution complex. He doesn't actually give any evidence that his request to see a male doctor was problematic at all, everything he says about that is coming from his own feelings on it, inside his head, he found it embarrassing to ask and then he has a "feeling" the whole clinic is gossi…
/r/MensRights25/07/14 10:32 AM
3

It depends on the jurisdiction and the context in which the photos were taken, but if you took the photo, you hold the copyright on it and in general you don't need the consent or permission of the subject to share it. As I say a few jurisdictions have passed specific laws to deal with "revenge porn" type scenarios but this is all very new and in those that haven't it has gone both ways. Some subjects have prevailed on privacy grounds but in other cases judges have ruled that the photographer ha…
/r/MensRights19/07/14 02:07 PM
2

That depends on the jurisdiction and what the specific laws are. Some places have passed specific laws to deal with nude photos after a relationship breakup, for example, but in other places as long as the photos were legally acquired, you don't need permission from the subject to show them to other people. In the absence of a specific law different courts have ruled in different directions over this.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 12:40 PM
1

This source estimates only 22% of forced labour is sexual exploitation, most are "victims of forced labour exploitation in economic activities, such as agriculture, construction, domestic work or manufacturing." http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_181961/lang--en/index.htm Wikipedia on human trafficking, only a small minority is sex trafficking: In the same year, a study classified 12.3 million individuals worldwide as “forced laborers, bonded laborers or sex-trafficking v…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 09:59 AM
1

I'm saying she wasn't charged with that. You can look up the arrest record yourself, she was charged with assault.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 09:49 AM
2

Thanks for the correction, I also saw that somewhere. Truly a bizarre person, amazing that such a man can get to the point of obtaining a professorship (note most university lecturers in Australia are NOT professors, it is a mark of particular distinction.)
/r/MensRights09/06/14 09:46 AM
2

in most states it is illegal to record someone without their knowledge Only in 12 out of 50, actually.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 08:42 AM
-2

She was charged with assault and breach of the peace, not battery.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 07:41 AM
2

That's because the narrow definition is "was penetrated" which is quite rare for male victims of sexual assault. The wider definition includes "made to penetrate" which is far more common.
/r/MensRights08/06/14 07:21 AM
1

Pretty sure I said exactly that, avoid, comply or run in that order but if you end up stuck go straight for the balls
/r/MensRights07/06/14 07:41 PM
0

I'm still confident she was smaller. She was pretty huge, but still smaller, slightly. In the ballpark though
/r/MensRights07/06/14 07:34 PM
-4

OK, so they disappeared it but then the outrage from the MRM movement got so great that they had to put it back. That's a win for us but it is important to stay vigilant.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 07:30 PM
0

Honestly, if I had actually come across so many larger members my ass would remember it. I'm still not pooping right from the last time I had a really big one up there. What I am saying with the swordplay is that if two guys face each other with erect penises, unless they are the same size one will impact the body of the other and one won't. I tended to own the penis of impact. This is basic swordplay.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 07:25 PM
0

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swordplay
/r/MensRights07/06/14 07:05 PM
0

It's anecdotal, but I've probably seen more erect cocks than most researchers engaged in clinical measurement studies. Honestly, I have seen an extremely large number of the things. How many have you seen? Your wife? So in the absence of a better data point...
/r/MensRights07/06/14 06:42 PM
1

I'm not for a minute suggesting it is easy. I'm just suggesting that in an actual fight for your life situation you aren't going to follow Queensbury rules. The best option in most situations you are challenged is to comply or run. And this is only if you fail to avoid the situation in the first place. I'm just saying that if you end up in an unavoidable fight, eye gouging and ball kicking is to be recommended.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 06:33 PM
-2

Only because people mirrored it. The powers that be attempted a disappearance.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 06:29 PM
-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_disappearance
/r/MensRights07/06/14 06:14 PM
1

I'm looking at my cock and the other cock simultaneously, I mean we sometimes do that poke against each other thing or the joint cock masturbation and I have always been bigger. It's not exactly difficult to notice. Surveys of penis size ARE generally wrong, I already citied a source on self certification. Compared to clinically measured studies I am larger than average (I'd also believe this from the reaction of my sex partners, who often do comment on the size.) Honestly until you have success…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 06:05 PM
1

I know what size my own penis is, I'm working off that. I fit entirely comfortably into a 52-54mm condom and I have honestly never seen a cock larger than mine (maybe one in my sex life, in porn sure they exist.) And Lord knows I have seen a hell of a lot of cocks. Probably more than you.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 05:32 PM
9

Effective self defence in a actual combat situation throws out all the rules. You do what you need to do, it's you or them. This isn't a gendered issue, any male who actually cares about surviving an attack will do whatever it takes, if they don't they are an idiot. There is absolutely nothing wrong with ball kicking and eye gouging in an actual combat situation. For example, in Krav Maga: Targeting attacks to the body's most vulnerable points, such as: the eyes, neck or throat, face, solar plex…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 04:35 PM
0

The point is that most victims of rape are men but this is swept under the carpet. In guessing you probably didn't know that before today? It is impossible to obtain actual accurate stats on rape due to feminism and the rape industry.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 03:55 PM
2

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-american-rape-victims/
/r/MensRights07/06/14 03:31 PM
2

I completely accept using the correct condom size matters, I have said that repeatedly. So I am not surprised there are studies on that. What I do not believe is that 10% of Americans have a penis too large for a 58mm condom. That is complete bullshit, it is a "Reddit fact". I have seen hundreds of erect penises up close personally (two in the last hour) and I have never seen one anywhere close to that size. Incidentally I looked at the penis size survey you quote. self-reported erect penile len…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 03:14 PM
1

Most human trafficking does not involve sex workers. Trafficking for non-sex labour such as farm or factory work is far more common. Trafficking for sex work gets all the attention because it is more scandalous to the puritan morality of the West. The vast, vast majority of prostitutes are NOT trafficked and are doing it voluntarily but charities and NGOs flat out lie and make up numbers that make it seem otherwise... Because that keeps the money flowing. And as these numbers are just repeated a…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 11:46 AM
2

Point out that rape isn't a gendered issue. Most victims of rape are men, and further men are far less likely to report it because of the greater stigma around male rape.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 11:37 AM
0

Australia is the only developed country outside North America where this barbaric practice is common. And it's on the rise, partially due to this guy's efforts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
/r/MensRights07/06/14 11:31 AM
-1

2% is accurate. You only get to the 20-25% figure if you include false accusations, drunken sex that was regretted in the morning and so on. Most victims of rape are actually male.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 11:18 AM
-3

Who said he was a feminist? The issue is not whether he personally identifies as a feminist. The point is that feminism has infected our cultural narrative to such an extent that only women are perceived by most in society as potential rape victims. Which is particularly disgusting as most rape victims are actually men.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 11:09 AM
-3

Your girlfriend is a rapist. I'd consider that a red flag in any relationship.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 11:03 AM
8

It is disgusting. Most victims of rape are male, this ad perpetuates the myth that only women get raped. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-american-rape-victims/
/r/MensRights07/06/14 10:58 AM
2

Can you imagine... A former school canteen manager, described by a judge as a lonely single father, has avoided going to jail for having sex with a girl of 15. Nope.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 10:45 AM
2

http://www.dailypaul.com/318988/wikileaks-boko-haram-is-a-cia-covert-operation http://www.globalresearch.ca/covert-ops-in-nigeria-fertile-ground-for-us-sponsored-balkanization/30259 Even Feminists agree on this one... http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/naomi-wolf-suggests-boko-haram-is-a-cia-conspiracy/
/r/MensRights07/06/14 10:42 AM
2

Men have a higher conviction rate, higher imprisonment rate, lower access to education, now earn less than women, paternity leave is still rare, by default lose child custody cases, false rape accusations automatically believed, spermjacking resulting in automatic payments for the rest of your life, lower life expectancy and a lack of funding for male health problems, higher suicide rate, more often men are crime victims, most rape victims are men, demonisation in the media, domestic violence (m…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 10:29 AM
9

All men are rapists ™
/r/MensRights07/06/14 10:14 AM
3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal
/r/MensRights07/06/14 10:12 AM
1

It went against the constructed "reality", the established narrative. Of course it had to be "disappeared". These are the same tactics used by the Soviet Union, China, North Korea... If the truth is inconvenient just airbrush it out and as far as the masses are concerned it is like it never happened. Welcome to modern feminism, gentlemen.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 09:59 AM
21

"When it comes to non-reciprocal violence between intimate partners, women are more often the perpetrators." Of course they are. You can't hit a woman. Defend yourself and you become the sole abuser.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 09:56 AM
2

I don't think anyone would argue that women don't have issues too, of course they do, and these need to be addressed on a case by case basis. It's just that if you look at the big picture, women have been agitating for change for hundreds of years now, and they've got it. The pendulum has swung too far now in the opposite direction. Men were privileged, two hundred years ago, now we are oppressed. And only recently is there anyone to speak up for us with the MRM movement. The difference between …
/r/MensRights07/06/14 09:38 AM
2

no white man between the ages of 17 and 20 has ever said anything of value. ... A male in their 20s? Run in the opposite direction. This is hate speech. And I'm pretty sure Alexander the Great, who conquered half of Asia in his twenties would disagree.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 09:14 AM
5

Interesting to see the gender balance in their staff, it really is quite extraordinary. Their "commitment to diversity" only applies to race, it would seem. http://www.activeminds.org/about/leadership/staff
/r/MensRights07/06/14 09:02 AM
1

I'd like a study that 10% of men are too big for the largest (58mm) condoms in the American market to the point they break them. That is a "Reddit fact" that has absolutely no basis in reality.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 05:12 AM
2

Again, source please, from an actual reputable study. I simply cannot believe that if literally millions of men in America were tearing their Trojan Magnum XL 58mm condoms due to having simply humongous cocks absolutely nobody would have noticed this or done a study on it. I mean this could be Nobel Prize level stuff if it were actually true... So simple, no health researcher ever noticed, the US HIV epidemic cut in half overnight by changes in condom size regulation. But it's not, it is complet…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 05:07 AM
1

For about 10% of men there are no suitable options on the market OK, this is bullshit. You haven't even tried a larger condom than the standard 52mm but every condom on the US market up to 58mm is too small for your humongous cock and we need to review FDA regulations. For your cock. There are other reasons for condom failure. In my own experience nails are a huge one, particularly if you let the girl do it. It's not all about your humongous cock. You are claiming that the FDA needs to authorise…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:45 PM
1

There is already standardised sizing. The important dimension is nominal width which refers to width at the base and again, is always stated. I have never seen a condom box without it, in maybe 30 countries. You are under a range of misconceptions about condoms that have little basis in reality. The solution is educating yourself, not demanding changes in FDA regulations. This doesn't need a movement, it just needs a comprehension that "size matters" (like my local STD clinic does with their rul…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:21 PM
0

To reply to your edits: Size is usually on the back. I can't find an image of the back of a Trojan box but here's Durex: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5fskmj6aG8Y/SbkcHVH3eaI/AAAAAAAAIrI/_-SA7YNIjC8/s1600-h/love3.jpg Note it says nominal width 52.5mm. I have never failed to find this on any condom box, and I have bought condoms in innumerable different countries. It is on the back of the three different boxes I have to hand right now. I look for it particularly as the standard size here in Asia can …
/r/MensRights06/06/14 03:33 PM
1

You won't find a source because it is complete bullshit. It was cooked up in Reddit, Google "condoms too small 10%" and the first link you get is Reddit where a poster on /r/sex decided this was so. Condom sizing is an issue and "standard" condoms are indeed not ideal for a minority of people (maybe as many as 30%) but the claim here is that fully 10% of American men are too big for the largest condom that can legally be sold in the US. That is utter nonsense, and both OP and yourself by repeati…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 03:10 PM
2

OK, I misread you on the effectiveness stats, sorry about that. You do however say that condoms are an "orders of magnitude" worse than the pill, which is not correct and was one of the things that led me to misread you. From Wikipedia the combined pill has an annual failure rate (perfect/typical use) of 0.3% / 9% while condoms are 2% / 15%. That is not an order of magnitude difference (order of magnitude = 10x greater). Honestly I just can't believe you are presumably at least late twenties / e…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 01:40 PM
4

Terrorism? Is everything terrorism now? This is not terrorism unless "anything I dislike" is terrorism.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 12:38 PM
5

If you don't think this was illegal defamation why bring up illegal defamation in the first place? It's not relevant. I even gave you an out several comments up where I said if you were using the term figuratively, that was fine, and you didn't say, yes, I meant figuratively, of course its not illegal, you continued to say it was illegal "in some places". This wouldn't be illegal anywhere. It is not defamation, except in a figurative sense.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 12:06 PM
6

You implied it was illegal defamation. It's OK, you could just admit you are wrong. Libel is illegal in many places. Freedom of speech is fine, pure defamation isn't.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 11:41 AM
7

So in what specific jurisdiction would this Urban Dictionary entry be illegal defamation?
/r/MensRights06/06/14 11:31 AM
5

it's illegal in some places Where?
/r/MensRights06/06/14 11:20 AM
6

You suggested this was illegal defamation. It isn't. Libel is illegal in many places. Freedom of speech is fine, pure defamation isn't.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 11:11 AM
4

That could refer to one of things. One, some jurisdictions (but certainly NOT the United States) prohibit hate speech and have a number of protected classes that it may be illegal to spead falsehoods about, often religious groups (this is sometimes linked to blasphemy law, which is related- effectively defamation against God). So in these jurisdictions it may be illegal to say that Jews eat babies, or that Jesus was a grade A asshole. But neither of these things is illegal to say in the United S…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 10:34 AM
7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation I'll edit my post. You're correct in saying it isn't slander. It's not defamation either. You can't defame an unincorporated "movement". Who would be the plaintiff exactly?
/r/MensRights06/06/14 09:51 AM
10

The "MRA movement" isn't a person. It's not libellous any more than it is libellous to say "Feminists eat babies". If you were referring to a specific person, maybe, depending on the context but I can assure you with 100% certainty this is not libel, slander or defamation.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 09:25 AM
2

Taboos about menstruation are almost universal in human societies and have been throughout recorded history. It's generally seen as unclean and it isn't limited to the Abrahamic religions either, it is also present in Hinduism and de facto among many Buddhists despite the Buddha specifically speaking against it, stating that it was nothing more than a natural process. (Despite this in some places menstruating women are not allowed enter Buddhist temples.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_t…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 09:17 AM
4

She's talking about doing this before the foreskin naturally retracts, which can be well after puberty. After, sure, yes you have to. Before, you don't.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 09:07 AM
2

Haha yes thank you for the correction. Either way his figures massively underestimate how successful condoms are; your figure of 85% efficacy in actual use is a lot higher than his 1 in 6 (16%). Condoms work extraordinarily well if you just actually use them, and use them correctly (which is not difficult).
/r/MensRights06/06/14 08:58 AM
1

10% of the men in the US don't fall into the 49-58mm range allowable by the FDA. Do you have a citation for that, (I Googled it but only got Reddit posts in /r/sex and /r/BigDickProblems) as I am extremely sceptical it is the case, particularly if you are suggesting most of that 10% are too big for a 58mm condom. I wasn't aware the FDA put a range limit on condom sizes but sure that could be relaxed. I suspect part of the issue though is that men tend to overestimate the size of their wang and i…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 08:54 AM
1

I found one here: http://www.khou.com/news/local/Katy-ISD-teacher-basketball-coach-arrested-for-improper-relationship-with-student-261917291.html But yes, it does seem to mostly be women the last few days: https://www.google.com/search?q=teacher+charged+sex+with+student&tbm=nws
/r/MensRights06/06/14 07:03 AM
0

I'm using minor in the sense of "under the age of consent" here. Yes it is an arbitrary line that is set differently in different jurisdictions but that doesn't make the concept worthless. It's common sense that two minors engaged in sex should be treated differently, and I'm also all for close in age exemptions (an 18 year old should be able to sleep with a 17 year old even if the age of consent is 18).
/r/MensRights06/06/14 06:52 AM
3

California is retarded, if two 17 year olds have consensual sex they can both be charged with statutory rape. They have no close in age exemption.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 06:43 AM
2

There are usually exceptions made for close in age where the two parties are different sides of the line. This teacher was 34, over double his age. Doesn't apply here.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 06:40 AM
0

Rape is sex where one of the parties does not consent. Minors cannot consent. It's rape. In most jurisdictions the law doesn't treat all rape equally, however, there are general several different legal categories (aggravated rape is for example worse than simple rape). Washington DC, for another example, doesn't recognise rape at all but divides "sexual assault" into four categories of increasing severity. Statutory rape is seen as "different" in most jurisdictions but it is still "rape". Most s…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 06:36 AM
2

Age 16 / 18 = 1 state (population 4.5 million) has 18 for anal intercourse, 16 for other sex. I'm surprised that is legal, it is de facto discriminatory.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 06:29 AM
29

Did you read the fucking article? She is the one being charged with rape, not the boy. This is her legal defence to try to get out of it. No one is charging the kid.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 06:26 AM
5

This is true. His number on failure with perfect use is also incorrect, it is more like 98% 2% than 50%. And note that is per year, not per use. I have had sex thousands of times over two decades with hundreds of different partners and in all that time I have had two failures. One was with a condom that was too small for me, during vigorous anal sex, while at least somewhat tipsy (there wasn't a pregnancy risk in that case anyway.) The other was with a very thin condom that I nicked at the base …
/r/MensRights06/06/14 06:08 AM
16

The opposite has been found in Western studies, there circumcision has been found to have no reduction in transmission risk for heterosexual men. A benefit to gay men has however been demonstrated, but this is a small percentage of the overall population. It is not even clear that routine infant circumcision prevents more HIV infections among Western gay men than the number of babies it kills. And HIV, while terrible, is no longer a death sentence; purely from a public health view routine infant…
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:31 AM
1

putting innocent men in prison for something that did not happen You'll really need to cite that, as there is absolutely nothing in the article claiming that a single innocent man was imprisoned. Citation please for an actual innocent man who has been imprisoned for underage sex in Cambodia. Innocent, now, mind you. Yes, Somaly Mam embellishes her life story, a lot of which probably didn't happen, and yes charities there hugely dramatise the problem beyond reality to get funds, Steven Morrish's …
/r/MensRights05/06/14 04:10 PM
1

There is a legitimate place for anger, and even violence. I mean the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were wars started mostly over anger. They were necessary, there were no more terrorist attacks. And I don't think anyone would criticise the operation to kill Bin Laden. We are not at the point where violence is necessary in the MRA movement, and I unequivocally condemn any, but I would remind you Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by most Western countries for decades. In fact he was actuall…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 03:40 PM
2

Honestly, and I'm being quite serious, I would happily donate to get a media consultant or PR person in at AVfM. Honestly, the man knows what he's doing, he isn't trying to be politically correct or palatable to the mainstream media. His style is entirely deliberate, he knows by stirring shit up and being antagonistic and aggressive he is going to goad people and get more coverage for AVFM. I certainly don't agree with him 100% but there is a place for his anger, which is a highly motivating emo…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 02:48 PM
-1

It was theft, there is no possible way you can characterise this as "rape", no sex whatsoever was involved. It's not a men's rights issue either. He was a gullible idiot. They are thieving whores. People are shit. The end.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 01:24 PM
1

It's a scam, they are thieves. It's a common one with prostitutes which I would wager they almost certainly were. Not sure how this is a men's rights issue. If you are going to get yourself into these sort of situations you need to have a bit of common sense and protect yourself. This is not victim blaming, it's the same as advising someone maybe shouldn't walk through a dangerous neighbourhood whistling with your wallet hanging out. What they did was wrong of course, as I say they are thieves, …
/r/MensRights05/06/14 01:21 PM
37

What's your source for this graphic? Without a source why bother posting it here? Looks more like /r/TumblrInAction material to be honest, teenage girl stupidity as you say... Not really worth spending our time on to react to.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 12:55 PM
3

This 82-year old guy got three years in prison after his dog killed... a cat. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-11-15/news/fl-dog-owner-sentenced-20121115_1_fatal-attack-dog-owner-surveillance-camera
/r/MensRights05/06/14 12:28 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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