TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

equilshift Archive

View 1 posts and 151 comments by equilshift on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
18

It was a little more than that though. I believe she herself compared her actions to those of a rapist or at least molester. She paid her sister candy to let her french kiss her. I mean... that sounds pretty molest-ey to me.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 04:32 PM
1

Murray and Cantwell are both women
/r/MensRights22/01/14 03:50 PM
3

That line was actually in reference to the female employee who was late to work.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 10:53 PM
2

If this journalistic article is accurate, this is the most important thing to happen to the MRM... ever? I don't know, but it is huge.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 04:19 PM
2

He won't know what it is like to not be circumcised. You can't ask him his opinion, because he didn't have a choice. There are no medically sound reasons to circumcise an infant. Also, you are comparing the trauma of FGM with circumcision. Well of course the trauma of a cliterodectomy is different from a circumcision. Try comparing a removal of the foreskin with a removal of the clitoral hood. Equally bad. Removal of the glans with removal of the clitoris. Equally bad. Yes, when you compare appl…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:06 PM
1

The city with the men. Why? Because they make the only choice they can make, kill the other cities' one man, and then marry and procreate with their women. The sad truth about thought experiments like this is they generally ignore the repeated experiment condition. Life does not simply stop happening after one iteration of the game. If too many men die, there is no one to hunt, protect, or do heavy labor, which leaves society vulnerable while all those women are pregnant or have babies attached …
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:54 PM
1

BUUUURRRRNNNNNNNNNNNN
/r/MensRights02/10/13 06:17 PM
1

Actually, /u/blueoak9 was in the military, and defended our (and possibly your) country. Your statement is factually wrong. And implying that one person being less masculine than another means they are less valuable, or less successful as a person shows you are a complete asshat.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 06:16 PM
11

TIL eating green beans = cosmetic surgery. The more you know...
/r/MensRights16/08/13 01:42 PM
1

Ahhh, yes, Mississippi, the friendliest place in the country, as long as you look, act, and think like me, and god help you (haha, get it?) if you don't go to church.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 06:19 PM
93

They're one big jimmy, just waiting to be rustled
/r/MensRights02/08/13 05:39 AM
2

(we splurged and got the delux models) I think you mean we used a tiny fraction of our wage gap earnings to pay for them, and the rest was spent on oppression gold coins to swim in.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:37 PM
12

To clarify: Where "rights for gay men" overlap with "gay rights" e.g. the right to express yourself however you choose, we absolutely include that as part of the focus. MHRM is about equal rights, equal responsibility, full stop.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 02:20 PM
0

Hate to tell you, but the French borrowed it from Italian as well. Same rules apply.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 07:51 PM
2

Yes, really. Bravo/a is actually an adjective, and comes from a language which matches adjectives' genders to that of the subject which they are identifying. So when someone does something great, and you think it was brave (definition of bravo), if they are a woman, you say brava.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 06:04 PM
1

That would be brava, since the author is a woman.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 05:58 PM
1

Yeah, my judgement is independent of the gender of the person convicted. But then again, I follow the Scandinavian mentality of support, reform, and reduce recidivism, rather than the US's "you were naughty so you go to time out because you are a bad, bad person" style of prison/justice system.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 02:47 PM
1

Based on what I have read, if she was interrupted just a little while later, it would have been child rape. This was pretty clearly an attempted rape. Still, a life sentence is pretty crazy. She will likely be in jail for 10 years, which seems... harsh, but not outside the bounds of reasonable. It's the fact that she will have the Nevada justice system involved with her for the rest of her life that is the tough part. Then again, what she did will affect the boy for the rest of his life, I know …
/r/MensRights18/07/13 02:25 PM
1

So sex is a robbery? I didn't realize that people regularly consent to being stolen from by someone with a gun, but it is considered the safe thing to do to require that the person puts the safety on, because you never know if the gun is loaded or not.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 04:36 PM
3

Or a virgin. Or someone who had a couple drinks. It doesn't matter how stupid someone might be, we need laws to protect them too. "Oh, you got raped? Well, since you are totally stupid, we don't care". Yeah, that'll go over well.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 03:18 PM
1

But easily demonstrable in court afterwards. If the person didn't have an STI, they weren't exposing the other person to an STI, so that justification doesn't stick.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 02:49 PM
4

So if you lie and tell her the condom has been on the whole time, then it's her fault? Don't laugh, how many women you knew would have noticed whether or not the condom was on during their first time? Dark room, inexperienced, etc. etc.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 01:43 PM
3

Colon King?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 01:31 PM
-6

Which isn't actually a concern if neither person has an STI. They don't show up out of nowhere.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 01:30 PM
5

No, virgin is a gender specific insult. Women are not shamed for being virgins. Quite the opposite, really. So if that term is used as an insult, or as a dismissal of an argument, it is directed at someone who is perceived to be a man. The insulting portion is very much tied in with his gender identity.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:31 PM
1

It is true of at least a few Nordic countries. I'm sure if you ask /u/tamen to help you out, he might have a pretty good idea.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:15 PM
4

Well, I think the thought was that the standards were lowered, because the women couldn't meet them (and there can be major legal trouble for not having an appropriate workplace gender ratio in Sweden), thus allowing women into the Fire Station that couldn't perform the job. I don't believe that breaking a fire door is part of the application process, but it would be a culmination of a lot of things e.g. training, strength, determination, etc. Ultimately, there are lots of fire doors that might …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:55 PM
2

I'm not so sure about the firefighters bit. A study was done on firefighters (I believe in Sweden), where it took male firefighters an average of 1 minute to break down a fire door, but the same task took an average of 10 minutes for female firefighters.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:37 PM
0

Anyone can give their child up for adoption. All you gotta do is put it in front of a fire station and walk away.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:32 PM
1

Uhh... it helps if you're there for the baby's birth and signing of the birth certificate, which you should be. Yeah, if the woman tells you she is pregnant, or when she is going to give birth, or where. You don't have any right to be there, you are only allowed in based on her say so. If my girlfriend... Yeah... unless she goes to a different town or state without telling you or using credit cards. Or when you are out of town on a business trip, or visiting your family without her, or any time …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:31 PM
2

So you're saying that I (the taxpayer) should pay for other people's children - even in situations where the parents are financially capable of paying for them? Seriously? You already do that. It's called state run/supported adoption agencies and foster homes. All I am looking for is equal protection under the law. Equal protection on paper and in practice. Howabout instead... we have neither? So no ability of women to give children up for adoption? Or to run away from their families without pay…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:21 PM
-1

Yeah, with your name on the birth certificate, you would have better luck. But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping a woman from not putting the father's name on the birth certificate, and then giving the baby up for adoption. Good luck in that scenario. You would not have large legal hurdles to clear to get your child back. You would certainly have trouble, though. And society (and police and courts are part of that) react differently to when the mother does something to when a father…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:00 PM
-2

HA! The child would retain all rights to life liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. etc. They would even retain the "right" to a place of domicile, food, education through high school, etc. etc. The only thing that would change is that the man who donated biological seed material would not be obligated to take care of those needs. Instead, of course, the mother, or the state would be so obligated. So, in fact, the rights of the child are not effected whatsoever by this. Any man can get up and leav…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 02:57 PM
1

You can't pre-emptively sign away a child's rights just because you did the signing before they were born... that's a bit absurd and completely illogical. How is that different from abortion? In that, you pre-emptively "sign away" a child's right to, well, everything before they are born. Please explain the difference. I'm pretty sure my girlfriend could NOT take our 6 month-old to the firestation station and drop him off against my wishes without consequence - at least in most states/countries.…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 02:11 PM
2

Right, I just want to make sure that people understand that the right to legally be able to access something isn't the same thing as the right to access it. In many places in our country, there is no access to abortion, even if they legally have the right.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 02:09 PM
0

They have legal access. The current tactic of anti-abortion people is to de-fund places that offer abortions. Currently, Mississippi has only one licensed abortion clinic in the entire state.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 01:52 PM
4

It is, for men. Edit: Not that it should be, of course.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 01:45 PM
1

There are no rights of a child to consider when the woman is still pregnant. Additionally, we allow any woman, at any time, to give up her child for adoption at any local fire department of police station by leaving it in front of the door. Not sure how this is different.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 01:45 PM
3

Adoption? Abortion? Bueller... Bueller?
/r/MensRights03/07/13 01:43 PM
2

1st: I have taken a gender studies course. It dealt with both men and women, and how the identification (or not) of such as such changed and evolved throughout time, and what it meant for those who were such labeled. You might learn something if you got your head out of the "women's studies" sand, and looked around for some legit academic work, rather than this kind of femiganda. 2nd: I like how the first link, and most of the 2nd link don't actually have any statistics. 3rd: Of the statistics t…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 01:39 PM
12

You have no accurate sources for those statistics, because there aren't any. No one knows what those numbers are. So please don't parade them around, they become woozles. Unless you don't care about that.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 10:23 PM
-1

Depends on where you are. In many states, it only requires consent of one of the parties to be videoed. This one isn't like the legal drinking age, which is a fairly standard 21, this is all over the map.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 10:11 PM
8

I'm sorry, but that makes me very angry at your friend. If she was semitic, then I could maaaaaybe understand, but it is still not her penis. Why should she decide what happens to it? Especially when she doesn't own a penis herself, and couldn't possibly understand what it might mean to a man to be or not be circumcised. With all that said, OP, it isn't normal to get your son circumcised. It just isn't. In this country, it started becoming popular as a way to discourage sexual activity with boys…
/r/MensRights02/07/13 06:00 PM
5

Whaaaa...? You are expecting a writer to be able to know good words and stuff to make everyone understand good? Mysygynyst!
/r/MensRights06/06/13 01:15 PM
1

I checked around, and it isn't an exhaustive search, but I couldn't find anything, so I will have to concede that I probably made it up. I guess that is a good thing in a way, but you were right, it is apparently bs.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 03:49 AM
0

Replying to save this comment. My quick search hasn't turned up anything, so I might have made that up, but I am still convinced I have seen news reports on it, so I will keep looking. It'll likely be after I get off work, so it'll be a few hours.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 04:55 PM
7

Well, men who sabotage birth control have been convicted of rape, so legally speaking, if the shoe fits...
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:01 PM
20

Sock puppets are out in force today. They are probably disappointed because they feel like they want to have children someday, in the future, and they were investing time with you with the understanding that the (read: any, not your specific) relationship worth investing in would include children at some point. They might feel like they have wasted their time. Note to all of the dipwads on here claiming it is because the woman wants to trap you with a baby, etc. etc.: GO BACK TO SRS, YOU HARPIES
/r/MensRights30/05/13 05:12 PM
1

Re: your last paragraph There is no law that will stop people from being absolute turds. People warring with their ex by proxy through the children is child abuse, but unfortunately a very difficult form of abuse to prove. And often a two-way street...
/r/MensRights23/05/13 08:09 PM
3

Mostly the reliance on FBI statistics. As I understand it, the FBI/DOJ statistics are on crimes brought to trial (convictions, maybe?), rather than a best estimate on crimes committed. I think we should use a best estimate on crimes committed, since there are a lot of factors that go into the rate at which a crime is reported, investigated, and brought to charges. Obviously, people will then go on to say something like "90 million percent of rapes are never reported, and of those that are report…
/r/MensRights23/05/13 04:47 PM
4

I agree, this is great, since everything is sourced. There are a couple things I don't like, but over all, it would be great to be able to just link to this at will.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 01:37 PM
1

I see school is no longer in session. It sure is cancer in here, summerfag
/r/MensRights23/05/13 04:07 AM
3

Ding ding ding. If you weren't privileged enough to afford a totally economicly useless degree, you would have done something STEM, or at least rare, like a language (expat and become a real estate agent, for example).
/r/MensRights23/05/13 04:06 AM
1

Plan B does not abort a fertilized egg. It prevents the egg from becoming fertilized in the first place. Unless you have a strange definition of abortion, you are confused about what Plan B does.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 02:44 PM
2

Once again, you are misunderstanding. There is no legal resposibility to support your child commensurate to your ability. As long as you aren't abusing them, everything is hunky dory, as far as the government is concerned. It isn't until you get divorced that the government becomes concerned with how much you spend "on your kids". It is possible? Possible? I just gave you one example after 3 seconds of googling. It isn't possible, it already happened. Finally, both people had sex. The woman has …
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:20 AM
1

Well, it would be the law. If a man goes alone to give up a child for adoption, they will find the mother, give her the child, and he will be on the hook for child support. In the inverse scenario, the father might be found, or maybe the mother just didn't put his name on the birth certificate, and then it won't matter where he is. She drops off the child, washes her hands, and moves on with her life.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:00 AM
3

No no, you are mistaken how courts work. Courts make a decision, and that is binding, unless it is overturned by a higher court. So therefore, if the court ignores the huge precedent, as well as the law on the books, custodial parents can be forced to pay child support. Why do I say that? BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. And you can bet your bottom dollar it didn't just happen to this guy. And like I said, you would have never heard about it if he didn't have the money to get it overturned. What you are say…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 09:51 PM
1

As for the adoption thing, that is exactly the point, it is available to women. When a woman tries to give a baby up for adoption, they will attempt (sometimes) to contact the father. If he wants the baby, he can take it, but no help from mom. On the flip side, I would like to see what happens to a man who tries to give a baby up for adoption without the mom around. He will most assuredly be on the hook for child support. So how about a level playing field? Give men the right to a paper abortion…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 09:13 PM
3

Since child support is calculated according to earnings Which speaks to my point. If it really was an obligation to a child, would that obligation shrink just because you had a smaller paycheck? No, it would remain the same, regardless of how much you made. The money goes straight to the mother, not to the child. A matter of practicality. My work will provide compensation for travel expenses, because it is not in my job description to pay for my own travel, so when I do, it is the company's resp…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 08:52 PM
5

As I and many others have said 100 times in this thread, there in fact is a way for people to circumvent their parental responsibilities, post birth. It is called adoption. I would also concede your point re: child support if it wasn't a de facto mommy support. But it is, for a few reasons: 1) The money goes straight to the mother, not to the child. It does not go to a guardian ad litem who can monitor what it gets spent on. It is money that is sent to the mother, no strings attached, with no ov…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 07:49 PM
2

And why do you assume that the law would be structured so as to allow "paper abortions" after the birth of the child? If the father went through the necessary steps pre-birth (that is, assuming he even knew about the pregnancy, and the possibility it was his), then the paper abortion happened before birth, and according to your own logic, should be completely acceptable. And you do not shunt responsibility for parenthood onto the woman, she maintains the ability to give the child up for adoption…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 06:48 PM
5

This stupid ass post is getting upvoted by SRS to make it appear like this subreddit is anti-woman, instead of vaguely, generally anti-feminism. ...although, women do influence 80% of consumer spending in the USA... although I think the number is the same of similar for men. So maybe bitches and assholes be shoppin'? I dunno, I'm kinda reaching here.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:38 PM
3

Dang.... I was hoping it was fjortis. Seems like the kind of thing a fjortis would say, right? I guess that says something about the typical US male.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 04:12 AM
13

Part of the problem is that this dude is Swedish, and so the chick is likely Swedish too, and grew up in the country which tries harder than any other to be gender neutral and fair (they really do, a lot of times they go too far, but they really do try to be neutral). Why is that a problem? Well, as we know, it is the women least affected by misogynists who are the most fervent in spotting misogynists everywhere and feeling threatened.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 09:58 PM
7

Upvote this man, as it is painfully obvious. SRS troll
/r/MensRights15/05/13 01:46 PM
4

Woah. Well, let's hope she lives a long life. Alone. Wondering why no one ever calls or visits. Why no one loves her. And let's hope that you make your father proud, and you can see what real parental love is. Good luck.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 05:29 AM
1

1) Gorillas may be polygynous, but the females are promiscuous, they search out young, non-silver back males for mating sessions during their peak fertility. This is what I was referring to. Silverbacks will mate guard in an attempt to prevent this. 2) Humans are pair bonders under the right circumstances. However, under other circumstances (like, say, a high enough surplus of food, and a high population density), they become promiscuous. Civilization does not cause disordered behavior, it chang…
/r/MensRights13/05/13 05:17 AM
1

Typically, any male in a troop is able to mate with any female. That is promiscuous sexual behavior. As with Gorillas, where females actively seek out a wide range of breeding partners. Both these species exhibit mate guarding. Mate does not mean long term partner, it means possible vessel of gene propagation. Mate guarding, in my understanding, occurs within animals that have non-monogamous mating patterns and a high density. It would not occur within the Ursidae family, since there is little s…
/r/MensRights13/05/13 04:34 AM
4

Maybe not every single species (inset bonobo reference here), but it is a broad trait in non-monogamous mammalian species. For one example, including how valuable it is to the particular species, see this paper.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 06:03 PM
13

Preparing for downvotes here, but this article isn't (all) wrong. Mate guarding is a well established male behavior in species in which the females are promiscuous. However, this is not a case of mate guarding. This is a case of 3 sick, twisted individuals doing what is one of the most reprehensible crimes possible to commit.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 03:49 PM
2

"This girl is really great" followed by "I can't marry of have children with someone that's abusive..." Do you not see the contradiction there? I believe it is possible that an abuser can still be a good person, if they try and rectify their behavior, among other things. But she hasn't, and she won't, and even threatened you with a false rape claim, so leave. Formulate an exit strategy. Stick to it. Break up with her in your head and heart now, and execute the strategy ASAP.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:22 PM
2

Women only prefer circumcised men in the USA, and Semitic (Arab/Jewish) worlds. Women in Europe, Non-USA America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia (excluding middle east) and South Pacific all prefer uncircumcised men, on average.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:25 PM
8

This is a very good point. That reaction is a small example of male disposability. Men don't get to see their kids; are forced to pay "child" support - even to their rapist, or even to a non-custodial parent, in the rare case that the man has custody; visitation orders are essentially unenforceable; and the first thing that this person thinks is, "oh, god, women are expected to take care of kids?!"
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:23 PM
-5

Why are you trying so hard to justify white knighting "innocent widdle baby gwirls" while allowing the identical behavior to slide when it happens to men? That doesn't have anything to do with us, and everything to do with you (collectively).
/r/MensRights26/04/13 09:49 PM
3

And of the issues regarding the "evidence" that this even works in the first place
/r/MensRights26/04/13 04:42 PM
1

I'm just relaying a criticism of the original CDC call for inoculation of girls that I heard from public health experts. I myself am not an expert on that topic, so I tend to rely on those who are. It essentially boiled down to two things: 1) Men are as likely to be infected as women, 2) that men could infect girls under the age of inoculation, even without considering sexual contact. I did confuse the age at which they recommended the vaccination, though, which would explain at least part of yo…
/r/MensRights24/04/13 06:30 PM
1

Of course, what they don't tell you is that HPV is actually more damaging to male children than female, and that all babies should get the vaccine, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 03:47 PM
1

I get the feeling it wasn't a she, despite OP's description
/r/MensRights24/04/13 03:02 PM
2

HSV can still spread even when you are not suffering an outbreak. The chances are lower, of course, but that is why they want every female child to get the HPV (very similar virus) vaccine, because they can get it from having their diaper changed by someone who has the virus under their fingernails.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 02:58 PM
2

werewolf
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:39 PM
2

Fish is no longer a scientifically defined word, either, so it doesn't really mean anything specific.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:38 PM
5

That was the case when there were separate schools, separate teachers, separate budgets, etc. etc. In this case, the only thing you are separating is time.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 09:11 PM
1

And in the process of claiming that they are "helping protect them from exploitation by the evil, patriarchal men", they are, in fact, infantalizing and oppressing those very same women. Just like free speech comes with KKK rallies on MLK day, freedom of sexual expression comes with women who are going to be supersluts<sup>TM</sup> when instead they could be carrying torches and pitchforks on their way to the local Patriarchy Palace<sup>TM</sup>. This is more of the US's puritan roots showing th…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:05 PM
11

Excuse me, just a side question, but are living in the Milky Way? In the Orion-Cygnus arm? In the Solar System? On Earth? Because if you are... wow, you are living in an alternate reality to think that women who are accused of rape are convicted in the court of public opinion. Typical reactions include: "He had a hard-on, he wanted it", "He should shut the fuck up and be happy he got some pussy", "man up and deal with it" "Hahahahahaha" Please give one example of a woman raping a man using her v…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 02:15 PM
1

The only way we can: the way we already have. Unfortunately, in protecting forms of free speech that we find legitimate, we must also protect forms of free speech that are disgusting and destructive.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 02:38 PM
2

I was thinking that as well. If she hadn't named specific dates, those claims would have been much harder to refute.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 02:35 PM
1

Which highlights the feminist error of thinking that all men are like this guy: able to afford a lawyer to protect themselves from false allegations. I assume he is rich enough to benefit from all the "male privileges" feminists constantly cry about.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 02:34 PM
1

whatisthisidonteven.jpg I'm reading that, thinking, "there has got to be some kind of brain structure that is the hypocrite detector, that these women are missing, right? Right???"
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:11 PM
1

You know, I think you are right. Everything religious is banned in public school in France. I think kids can get into trouble for a necklace with a cross on it as well. Definitely the hijab, though.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 01:39 PM
5

Actually, as a resident of Houston, I can confirm that at least one morning program on a local radio station had one of the guys on today to tell his story. Of course, as soon as he was off, it devolved into a discussion of how much pussy he was going to be getting in the very near future. They went from celebrating the man who handled something in a very manly way to reinforcing the painful gender binary in about 3 seconds flat.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 08:27 PM
5

Not the hijab. The Niqab. If you can see their face, it is legal.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 08:23 PM
1

Actually, pedophilia, like necrophilia or hemophilia, falls under the general umbrella of paraphilias. It is a necessary condition to be considered a paraphilia (i.e. the -phil part), that whatever your paraphilia is, that is the only way to fulfill your sexual desires is through that paraphilia. If you are turned on by the idea of having sex with dead bodies, but that is only one facet of your sexuality, that isn't necrophilia, strictly speaking. At that point, it's just referred to as a kink (…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:07 PM
1

Understandable. They have so little influence in the job market it isn't worth going after them. Also, you will get family restaurants that only want to employ people of chinese/mexican/indian or whatever ethnicity.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:20 PM
1

Don't delete, we can all learn from this discussion.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:16 PM
1

CrossHook actually has a comment that has been upvoted here? Neverthoughtidseetheday.jpg
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:12 PM
1

But we don't care about people who suffer from pedophilia. Pedophilia, strictly speaking has nothing to do with having sex with children, it is about 1) being sexually attracted to children and 2) Only to children. We care about pederasty, which is the act of having sex with a child, since that is the illegal thing, and the thing which damages the child. Note that pederasty (probably) requires 1), but not 2). I am asking if you have any evidence of men making up the majority of pederasts? I tend…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:10 PM
1

See, now it isn't just speculation, because you actually provided some relevant sources. But we aren't necessarily worried about pedophilia. We are more concerned with pederasty, do you have any sources for that?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:28 PM
2

Which is also speculation, and likely comes from a deep seated misandristic idea that boys who are raped by older women "got lucky" and that the woman was "showing them the ropes" not being a pedophile/pederast.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:03 PM
1

That is likely because you have never been raped. If you had, you would understand that a lot of the situation is emotional, not physical.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 04:50 PM
0

Ok, I was under the impression that MPC is basically a "close approximation" of the laws of most territories that are based on British Common Law. I suppose I should say that if, in any given jurisdiction, the law defines rape as something that only a man can do to a woman, or gives addenda that only affect the case of man on woman, then that is a men's rights issue, specifically relating to what we in the US call the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. (As in, if it is defined as rap…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 04:12 PM
0

Does the MPC really specify female at 4? If so, that is a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 03:01 PM
1

Can't speak for anyone else, but when I say blackout, I mean this. I walk, talk, make jokes, am obviously intoxicated, but often do not appear to be nearly as drunk as I really am. As in, bars would not run afoul of dram laws if they served me more drinks. In fact, this usually happens to me about 4-5 drinks before I would pass out (lack of consciousness). I didn't mean to say that a reasonable person would assume I was consenting, I should have been more precise. What I meant was that a reasona…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 01:33 PM
2

Yes, I am a wimp. I'll stick with my \Latex, thanks
/r/MensRights05/04/13 05:09 AM
3

Thank you, I appreciate that. I recognize that my argument isn't very popular here on Reddit, but popularity is never a reason to not argue a point. I don't even feel as strongly about this as I am arguing here, I just want this to be something people think and talk about.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 05:01 AM
1

First, 2 quick things: 1) I am not OP, so in case anyone was wondering, I don't now, have never, and will never purposefully give someone a drug to try to increase my chances of sleeping with them. My pride isn't so weak as to be unable to take no for an answer. 2) I am most certainly not arguing that because she consents to taking a drug with OP, SIL is consenting to sex. I am arguing that we have to assume she understands the ramifications of taking that drug, which in this case essentially bo…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 04:59 AM
1

Right, this is absolutely true. I think our debate hinges on what exactly constitutes 1).
/r/MensRights05/04/13 04:30 AM
0

One point, though. If SIL consents to taking the drugs, she consents to having her decision making process, including her "capacity to consent" would be altered. And when you say: her consent at that time did not reflect her best interests or her actual wishes. This would be an extremely damaging standard to apply to rape laws. If every sex act needed to be in the best interest of all the participants, I suspect most people would be in jail. Ever have sex with someone on the rebound? Jail. Ever …
/r/MensRights05/04/13 04:23 AM
0

Since most of what you linked is relating to the defendant who has been charged with a crime, does that at all relate to the ability to give consent as a victim/participant? A big question here would be what is the relationship between "legally insane" due to intoxication (as a legal defense against conviction) and "obviously intoxicated" (which is involved in the dram laws you linked)? Which standard is used when determining if consent to sex is unable to be given? I clearly believe it is the "…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 04:01 AM
3

"A good satire is indistinguishable from the real thing" - some smart/famous person in history
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:45 PM
2

Here is my counter argument: Offering her drugs with the intent to lower her inhibitions certainly satisfies the mens rea requirement. However, rape is a crime in which sex occurs without the freely given consent of one or more of the individuals. The issue here would be whether the consent is considered freely given. If it is, then whether or not the OP has a mens rea would be irrelevant, since no crime would have occurred. So my argument is that an adult that freely consents to taking drugs wh…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:13 PM
-8

I think everything you are saying is absolutely correct. Shitty behavior, but not illegal, due to the exact point that you pointed out in your 3rd paragraph. Arguments from emotion, such as your first sentence, are fallacious, and have no place in law. Unfortunately, the SJW of reddit are intent on perpetuating the idea that "feelings being hurt = law broken", which is absolutely untrue.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 02:13 PM
-2

I posted this as an opportunity to educate reddit, thereby influencing popular perceptions about consent and rape, and mitigating the threat men face from this kind of situation. No need to be a brigade or anything like that. For clarification, I don't agree with what this guy wants to do, but I doubly disagree with what most commenters are saying.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 01:21 PM
8

OP needs to brace for the false rape claim headed his way. I believe if a woman would lie about being on birth control to try and trap you into a relationship, she would be just the type of shitty person who would lie about sexual/domestic violence. Assuming it would be a lie, of course.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 02:31 PM
34

My favorite line was slightly earlier: "As feminists have been pointing out for some time, expanding opportunities for women without expanding responsibilities for men leaves us with a lot of anxious and exhausted female over-achievers" I will now use text speak: OMGWTFBBQ ROFLCOPTER LMAO HAHAHAHA YGTBKM FFS UIOHWQIUQWD So apparently, women get more opportunities, and it is the job of men to make sure that they are happy while exploring those opportunities? You have got to be fucking kidding me.…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 05:23 PM
4

Brofist!
/r/MensRights21/03/13 07:11 PM
1

It was not public. It was a private event that you needed to pay to enter. I don't know if that changes the legal aspect of it (e.g. they were not in their hotel room), but it certainly was not a public place.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 07:47 PM
5

How about being treated as walking hard ons? Fundamentally un-rapeable, due to uninterrupted implied consent, and worse, as if they are walking rape-grenades, ready to explode all over some innocent little girl classmate.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 10:20 PM
1

Its not even the government, though. Its a subsection of the government, the elite circles in arts and culture, in business, etc etc. They're all nepotists, and it's not like they have regular "fuck the little guy" meetups, they just all see the same thing. There are 995 of us for every 5 of them. Simple math, really.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 06:15 AM
6

Much less of a chance than it does now, that's for sure. It might be a problem the way meth is a problem for white people nowadays, bad, but not pandemic in poor neighborhoods. I will say this, though, I heard, about 4th hand (take with many, many grains of salt) that J. Edgar hoover once said, "I don't want any niggers in my bureau". That dude was a bad person, and I wouldn't put anything past him.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:17 PM
15

It was something so much bigger and more powerful than feminism that eroded the position of men in the black community. I know this is gonna sound crazy here for a second, but who (completely non-violently, I might add) killed the black panthers? How did crack end up in the ghettos? How about MLK and Malcom X? Who gives financial incentives to women, especially women of color, to lose their man like a bad habit? I know, I know, I'll head off to /r/conspiracy
/r/MensRights25/02/13 09:52 PM
6

YESSSSSSSSSs, thank you. Just hope for a healthy baby, and teach them how to be a good person as they grow up. Every life has suffering, it's inescapable, so hoping for one kind of baby over the other is kind of fucked up, if you let it affect how you treat that baby after its born.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 05:37 AM
2

You want to lecture someone else about ad hominems and then go on a name calling rampage? Dude, shut your fucking mouth. This place is men's RIGHTS, not bitch about women time. Seriously, save it for your bros at the bar. I don't honestly give a shit about what percentage of women you think are worth your time. I give a shit about my time. And when you try to turn /r/mensrights into a fucking bitch fest, so you can complain loudly about how all women everywhere aren't good enough for you, you wa…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 05:21 AM
1

Yes, and the degree to which you are a twisted asshole directly corresponds to the degree to which you hope your child is one gender or the other. People like /u/MY_BALLS_ON_UR_FACE are extremely twisted assholes. Guarantee you if we flip the genders, and he was a woman who aborted or adopted out a baby boy because it was a boy, everyone here would be royally pissed, and for good reason. If you are just hoping that your child is one gender or the other, but its not big enough of a deal to influe…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 05:49 PM
2

I feel sorry for you because you are a stunted human being. You aren't going to ever see how wonderful your daughter could have been if you had of had the emotional development to raise her the right way, to be a respectful human who doesn't feel entitled to whatever she wants. Instead, you doomed her to being raised by one parent, and possibly never knowing love from a father. I can only hope your ex finds a better man than you.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 05:45 PM
17

You probably don't care, but I feel sorry for you, man.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 12:10 AM
6

True, and he later goes on to call himself a prince. In my understanding, if he was a trans girl, he would have insisted that he was a princess.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 11:50 PM
7

That is neither a nature or nurture argument. It is obviously a mix of both, just a question of to what degree. Psychologists have known that for a while. The only people who claim it is 100% one way or the other have a political axe to grind. (For the record, the same debate goes on w/ regards to race vs. crime rates, gender vs. violence, etc. etc. This is not a unique debate).
/r/MensRights22/02/13 11:48 PM
11

If you were ever involved in making a child, I think you would reconsider that part about the baby girl. The only thing you want is a healthy child, unless you are some twisted asshole (like the author). Even that level of assholishness is forgivable, as long as you let go of it when the baby comes. But seriously, health is the only thing non-troglodyte parents are concerned about.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 11:44 PM
2

Or that he wasn't actually fired, but "stepped down".
/r/MensRights21/02/13 05:53 PM
8

Now they just need to test that hypothesis. I think you are right.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 02:12 PM
5

Hurrdy hurr hurr. My response was less about what you said they turn into (obviously, a lot of old women are like that), but to say that they all turn into bitter old crones is just a) factually wrong, b) pathetic, c) a cry for attention, and d) has nothing to do with men's rights
/r/MensRights20/02/13 08:26 PM
2

upvoted for truth
/r/MensRights19/02/13 03:08 PM
4

All women? Really?
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:58 PM
2

You aren't even hearing what I am saying. It's fine, bro. Good luck with your lawsuits and whatnot
/r/MensRights15/02/13 09:54 PM
1

I didn't say it was true, I said if it was, we need to accept that and move on. The truth is the truth, no matter what it is. Legislating that people can't put out "false" statistics will inevitably be used to stop people from reporting unpopular, but true statistics
/r/MensRights15/02/13 09:27 PM
1

You can't get a court order against stupidity. You also can't get a court order against lying. But most importantly, you can't get a court order against the truth. If it is true that only 2% of claims are false, we need to deal with that and accept it for what it is.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 07:58 PM
0

Absolutely. The entitlement in the original article definitely stems from the vilification of the choice that the man made as misogynistic. Hello Marcotte, she might have had fish stank pussy that he didn't want to put his face next to. Does that make him a woman hater? Or a fish stank hater?
/r/MensRights15/02/13 07:41 PM
2

Of course, you enter the slippery slope on the other side of the hill when you don't allow for someone to say "My needs aren't being met, and if they continue to not be met, I am going to have to leave this relationship"
/r/MensRights14/02/13 06:03 PM
2

Mens rea is a complicated topic, and somewhat controversial. For example, should it be applied to assault? Assault being defined as making someone fear for their physical safety. If you require mens rea, then you are basically saying it has to be intentional, and making it harder to prove. If you don't, basically anyone walking down the street could be accused of assault if someone was scared of them. But in the end, I think we need to remember that rape and violation are not the same thing. Vio…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:53 PM
2

Hopefully all that shit is sorted out now. Good luck
/r/MensRights13/02/13 07:55 PM
3

It's not about did you do what you wanted or didn't want. It's about whether or not you consented, and whether or not that consent was coerced out of you. Did she threaten you, or did you have a reasonable belief that there was a threat if you declined her? Did you indicate that you did not consent? Verbally or not, either way. If the answers are no, in many jurisdictions she did not rape you. Rape in many jurisdictions requires mens rea, which means guilty mind. If she didn't know that you were…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 07:50 PM
8

I think that you wouldn't have the same view if circumcision wasn't so prevalent in your culture. If circumcision was as rare as removing the clitoral hood, then you would probably agree that it was mutilation. I totally understand what you are saying, though. It is the same problem with the rape-hysteria machine telling rape victims they are irreparably damaged, and that they are tainted for life. If I am not wrong, I think I saw a paper linked somewhere on /r/mensrights that showed that that b…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:42 AM
4

Look, I'm not going to judge your preferences for a mate/partner. Well, I am, but I'm not going to say what I think about them. Instead, I will ask why you think this is the appropriate place to try and pick up women? This is called r/mensrights, not r/sandwhichesandbjs
/r/MensRights06/02/13 10:26 PM
1

hmm, I prefer a little more junk in the trunk, but I see your point
/r/MensRights06/02/13 08:31 PM
15

I was actually talking about what you were saying, as in, I would pay money to take a college course from you. But yes, it is sad that people pay money to take "gender studies" courses that are so full of shoddy academic work. I don't know if you will find someone who is more pro-education or pro-college than me. Whenever I heard about left-wing indoctrination at the university level I laughed it off. I figured people were just butt-hurt that they were (to the limits of our knowledge) wrong. The…
/r/MensRights05/02/13 05:01 PM
1

Or you are gay, which in that case you get a pass
/r/MensRights05/02/13 04:25 PM
1

If you can't take of your MRM glasses to enjoy Anna Silk's fine ass, I don't want to know you
/r/MensRights05/02/13 04:24 PM
31

So the whole debate can be summed up as: ILB: "You are misinformed about feminism. Some of the modern feminists don't <em>just</em> think men are privileged and women are opressed, they also look at how white men hold black people down, how rich men hold poor people down, and how able-bodied (read: attractive) men hold "normies" down. GWW: Actually, allow me to inform you about your own movement. Info that you would pay good money to learn in a college course follows ILB: You just said you are a…
/r/MensRights04/02/13 07:07 PM
0

How about a NSFW tag on that one, jack-ass
/r/MensRights04/02/13 06:35 PM
16

Typical, really. Being fat de-feminizes women, and they lose their female privilege. The privilege of always having someone care about what you are doing/thinking/feeling, etc. She is just begging for someone to treat her like a piece of garbage, because that means she is at least worth the attention. My response is, welcome to a man's world.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 09:50 PM
1

Sword of Damocles, indeed. I love my wife, but I sometimes wonder if I wouldn't be better off if we just kept dating, and had never gotten married. Except the whole green card thing. And apparently this. Looks like this is actually an incentive for men who are dating foreigners to get married/get the green card.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 08:12 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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