TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

eyenot Archive

View 0 posts and 52 comments by eyenot on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

It seems like a better comparison would be if your wife could get her tubes tied without your consent. Do you know if that's the case? (And for the record, I'm of the opinion that neither of you should need the other's consent to get vasectomy/tubes tied)
/r/MensRights10/02/19 02:48 AM
8

Sign up for Selective Service.
/r/MensRights09/07/17 06:25 PM
7

Nonetheless, the state has financial incentive to make child support as high as possible.
/r/MensRights15/08/15 06:56 PM
1

I see your point, but you're approaching this with the assumption that abortion is something that benefits women and only women. Think about how many men would be fathers today, against their wishes, if the women they impregnated weren't able to get abortions. There should be an app to track how much child support abortion has saved men from...
/r/MensRights14/05/15 04:31 PM
3

Just to play devil's advocate: Suppose a man isn't a pedophile, but instead has a fetish for chatting with undercover cops who are pretending to be children online, tricking the undercover cops into thinking he's a pedo, and then meeting them in person and getting "caught". If no children were involved in any way, and he clearly had no intention of ever involving children, what crime should he be charged with?
/r/MensRights22/04/15 03:39 PM
1

Wow, I have to say, I wasn't expecting this response. So, kudos for being accepting of my feedback. If you're looking for an LTR and you don't want marriage/children (or even co-habitation), it's critical that you lay that out there early on, before things get too serious. I understand your fear, and there will be a lot of women who won't date you as a result. But, if you lie about it, you're just signing yourself (and her) up for a lot of heartache, resentment, etc. down the road. Sometimes, ev…
/r/MensRights19/02/15 01:00 AM
1

First off, lying is hugely different from not living up to assumptions/prejudices. I disagree that this is a case of simply "not living up to assumptions/prejudices". OP even claims that she would likely leave him if she found out the truth about his stance on marriage, and he's willfully keeping it from her as long as possible, either by omission or outright lying to her (OP doesn't give enough detail). Either way, though, it doesn't matter. He's actively deceiving her. Secondly, even if you wa…
/r/MensRights18/02/15 08:49 AM
3

So yeah here I am at 32... met a great woman that wants to live with me and one day get married. Do I tell this woman there's no fucking way that's happening??? No I don't. I like her too much and I want to keep her around, knowing that she'd probably leave if she found out I don't want marriage. Then you're no better than a woman who lies about being on birth control and "accidentally" gets pregnant to snag 18 years of child support from a guy. If this woman is dating you long term, and you kno…
/r/MensRights18/02/15 06:54 AM
2

Also, 18 doesn't reflect the ages that we set for other elective cosmetic surgeries such as rhinoplasty, where young people under the age of 18 can have the procedure done with parental consent. Yeah, but we're not talking about rhinoplasty, where there's an obvious benefit enjoyed by the recipient of the surgery, without severely affecting the basic function of the body part the surgery is being performed on. How about an apples-to-apples comparison: Could a 13 year old Muslim girl get her clit…
/r/MensRights29/12/14 04:30 AM
6

Why shouldn't potential trauma be a benchmark for measuring the tradition's ritual? For the same reason we don't use it as a benchmark when we decide that rape is wrong. We don't say, "Well, if she's passed out and incapacitated, likely won't remember the experience, nor be traumatized by it, then it's probably okay". It's wrong, period. It's the same concept here. Whether or not someone is traumatized by the experience should have zero impact on answering the question of, "Is it okay to permane…
/r/MensRights28/12/14 07:29 AM
3

One idea I haven't yet seen suggested (by anyone but myself) is that circumcision should take place only when a boy reaches the age of 13...I wonder how other members of the MRM would view this proposition. More than one of us in this thread have suggested the notion of waiting til they're an adult (i.e. 18) and then deciding for themselves. I don't think you'll find a single person in here who would be against an adult deciding to get himself circumcised for any reason he wants to. Will 5 more …
/r/MensRights27/12/14 11:00 PM
6

However, I will say that - as a Jew - what I hear is that Jews are traumatizing their children. That's difficult for me to accept. I doubt that the vast majority of circumcised men feel traumatized. But I think that's mostly due to the fact that the vast majority of men are not fully aware of what has been taken away from them by having it done. However, whether or not someone might be traumatized by an experience should not be the benchmark by which we measure whether or not it is okay to viola…
/r/MensRights27/12/14 08:41 AM
5

The reasoning behind that position is because of the incredible harms and horror stories we hear (e.g. young girls dying during the operation). So, you hear some horror stories, and that's enough for you when it comes to FGM. But in a comment below, when /u/mikesteane suggests that MGM contributes to an increased rate in erectile dysfunction: You're gonna get the same request I give everyone - point me to the research? Double standards much? Suppose the FGM being performed was the kind where the…
/r/MensRights27/12/14 04:50 AM
14

She hasn't hit me too often Listen to yourself. Imagine the reaction of people if you were a woman and said, "He hasn't hit me too often". If she's hit you more than zero times, that's too often.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 06:03 AM
1

But you're assuming (incorrectly) that I'm OK with the celeb-mag style of privacy invasion, and I'm not. And you're assuming that I'm assuming :) - I don't believe I've made any assumptions about you personally. I do think that the issue of consent with pictures taken in public venues is much murkier than the clear-cut lack of consent when pictures taken in private venues are stolen, but everybody has to go outside, and France probably has the right idea when it comes to curtailing paparazzi. Ag…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 04:49 PM
2

What utter horseshit. Stop trying to excuse the unexcuseable. What exactly am I trying trying to excuse? Please point out where I condoned any of the actions of anyone involved. I am merely pointing out the double standard in play here: that using non-consensual pictures/recordings of celebrities is completely okay for entertainment and gossip purposes, so long as men aren't masturbating to them. I say, whether obtained legally or illegally really shouldn't make a difference, it's all non-consen…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 05:00 AM
1

It requires a complete lack of empathy for the victims of this crime to be able to use these pictures for gratification. And what difference does the method of gratification make - be it masturbation or deriving some pleasure from reading a gossip column about the cellulite on someone's thigh, with an untouched photo? This is stalking. Everybody LOOKING at the pictures isn't a stalker, obviously - they're just approving, enabling and encouraging the stalkers. Not one's finest hour. Right. And th…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 12:05 AM
1

If the random person were masturbating to images published in People or US weekly that weren't nudes and, while not technically illegally obtained, certainly didn't have the consent of the celebrity in the picture, would that change the level of disgustingness? Is masturbating to non-consensual images a different kind of violation than publishing the pictures in a magazine and talking about the areas of their body that need work?
/r/MensRights01/09/14 11:24 PM
4

So much this. I also don't recall these feminists rushing to the defense of Donald Sterling or Mel Gibson when surreptitious recordings of them were publicized. The truth is, they don't give a shit about the privacy violation. They just can't stand the thought that men might actually derive some pleasure from it.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 07:06 PM
1

I noticed this, too. The CDC website (presumably a source for this data) shows that in 2010 (the last year for which data was available), 40,996 women and 439 men in the United States died from breast cancer., which adds up to 41,435 - very close to the 41,374 in the graphic. However, the CDC also shows that in 2010 (also the last year for which data was available), 28,560 men in the United States died from prostate cancer. - About 35% more than the 21,176 shown in the graphic...
/r/MensRights28/08/14 02:15 AM
9

So I had sex with this single mom who has a six month old that I met on tinder. Well there's red flag #1 right there. Single mom who had a kid 6 months ago...So, she's already demonstrated what she'll do when a (presumably) unwanted pregnancy occurs. That right there should have been your cue to say, "Next!". But let's continue. While we are having sex she is on top of me and pulls of the condom and sticks my dick inside of her I tell her to get off saying I was about to cum but she keeps on rid…
/r/MensRights06/07/14 06:29 PM
3

All but the last of the concerns raised are not anything unique to legal paternal surrender. They apply just as equally to a mother/father giving up their child for adoption, which is already legal/practiced. So, in each scenario, just replace "father who exercised paternal surrender" with "mother who gave up her baby for adoption". Then whatever answer we have for that scenario today is what we'd have for a father who exercised paternal surrender in the same scenario.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 10:41 PM
7

Because states receive a kickback for every dollar of child support they collect. Thus, states have an incentive to collect as much child support as they possibly can.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 01:38 AM
1

Yes, I still have the email. I'll post it here, as others may find it useful too. This was sent nearly 4 years ago, so I'm not sure if all of the links are still the same. Hey - Here are some links with info on circumcision: This site http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/ has a lot of good info. A summary of what is removed in a routine circumcision: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/lost.html On circumcising so he looks like dad: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/Like-Son.htm I believe this site h…
/r/MensRights22/04/14 05:47 AM
4

I was in your position about 4 years ago. A few months before my sister was due, when we were both visiting my mom (we all live in different parts of the country), I took advantage of a moment when nobody else was around and asked if they were planning to circumcise. She said, "Absolutely" as if it would be crazy not to. I don't remember what all I said, but I indicated I thought she shouldn't. And I probably reacted with a little more emotion than I had planned. She said "But (her husband's nam…
/r/MensRights22/04/14 04:06 AM
6

She states in the first chapter: In order to disguise the identities of those involved, I have changed the names of every character, place of business and institution, and purposely omitted all specific references to location. So while I conducted my experiment in five separate states, in three different regions of the United States, I have avoided naming those states or regions. So the bowling alley could easily have taken place outside of New York. Edit: formatting
/r/MensRights25/03/14 07:12 AM
5

Show her this video (nothing gory/SFW): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ&list=FLkqGLxvNwTpOemNFhWrwRuw&feature=mh_lolz Then ask her if she'd be okay with circumcising a daughter with any of the types that rank below Type IV male circumcision, and are thus less severe. Chances are she'll say no. Then challenge her to provide a single argument in favor of male circumcision that she wouldn't simultaneously find appalling if it were used as an argument in favor of any of those forms of fem…
/r/MensRights29/08/13 06:16 AM
1

I'm not suggesting people sit and do nothing - I'd certainly suggest not patronizing any venue that practices such discrimination (which, I guess to be fair, "sit and do nothing" accomplishes).
/r/MensRights22/08/13 05:40 AM
1

My point was that this place is bankrolled up the wazoo and has plenty of money to fight it. Chances are even if they were to lose, it's unlikely they would change their practice. They would probably lose more money by changing their practice rather than keeping it the same and paying any fines. Something similar to this happened in Minnesota a couple years back, and if I remember correctly, the equal rights commission did rule it discriminatory, but the practice went on as the law wasn't enforc…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 05:12 AM
2

In my mind, they probably don't have enough money to litigate, and will settle or immediately change the practice. LOL
/r/MensRights22/08/13 04:46 AM
17

In short, because states get a kickback of federal funding for every dollar of child support they collect. Thus they have an interest in collecting as much as possible.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 02:50 AM
3

This is an excellent video that sums it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ
/r/MensRights30/03/13 02:26 AM
22

I hate this argument so much. It makes it sound like whether an injustice happened or not is dependent on the severity of injustices everywhere. "Oh, somebody shot you in the leg? Well guess what, people in Africa are getting shot in the face. Quit complaining and walk it off". A parent who cuts off their baby's hand is abusing their child. I don't think anyone would argue that a parent who only cut off their baby's finger isn't also committing abuse just because it wasn't as bad as cutting off …
/r/MensRights30/03/13 02:23 AM
11

And let me guess, you're not using condoms because - hey - she's already pregnant, so you don't need them. Right? Many years ago, a good friend of mine was in a relationship with a woman who claimed to have gotten pregnant just to get him to stop using condoms and actually get her pregnant. And her appointment isn't for another 3 weeks ?! Let's see, unprotected sex every day or every other day for 3 weeks...Yeah, she's bound to be fertile in there somewhere... I obviously can't say that that's w…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 04:08 PM
5

Hmm...Among first world nations, the U.S. has the highest rate of circumcision...and the highest rate of HIV. So yeah, makes perfect sense that circumcision must prevent HIV...
/r/MensRights26/09/12 05:35 AM
2

There is no difference in sex/performance/etc. The procedure itself is pretty quick and easy, and mostly painless, albeit for the few seconds where they inject the numbing agent. It's more psychological than anything, given the area they're working on. I had mild/dull (hardly noticeable) pain for a couple of days afterward, but it was quite tolerable. Even though vasectomies can be reversed, you should treat it as a permanent sterilization if you're going to get one - i.e. don't do it and count …
/r/MensRights11/09/12 05:53 AM
2

7 whole days? LOL.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 03:59 PM
2

Human resources cost a lot of money. If there is a wage gap as large as some would claim, I wonder why companies don't just hire only women for 23% less than men for the same productivity. They'd cut their overhead by such a substantial amount, they would surely be able to put their competition out of business...
/r/MensRights16/08/12 04:18 AM
1

If the man decides to absolve himself of all responsibility, then I will give you that he should have to pay her 50% of the cost of an abortion. I will even go so far as to say he should pay her this even if she ultimately decides to keep the child. After that point, though, she is fully responsible for her decisions and he should have no further obligation. On the other hand, if the man wants the child, and is willing to support that child, and the woman does not, then she should be 100% respon…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 01:02 AM
2

I meant that men should have greater rights than they currently do, specifically rights involved with deciding whether or not to keep a fetus. I don't believe it is possible to give men any more rights in the decision to keep a fetus without simultaneously reducing women's right to decide what is best for their body. I think what you are arguing is that men should be allowed to have a paper abortion (that is, absolve themselves of all parental rights/responsibility within a certain time frame af…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 06:58 AM
1

Wait. You say: For example, I believe men should have greater rights when it comes to a woman deciding whether or not she wants to keep a fetus. and then I also believe that if a fetus is brought to term, that men should be required to responsibility and adequate help provide for the benefit of their child. If the fetus is brought to term, and the man is required to be responsible as you say in the second part, then you obviously don't believe that men should have greater rights. Or are you sayi…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 06:32 AM
3

Edit: I had a feeling after I posted this that adoption/safe haven would be the trumping argument. The only way I could argue any further would be to get into an abortion debate, and this certainly isn't the venue for that. So, you acknowledge that women have the option of absolving themselves of all parental responsibility, even without abortion and the pregnancy is carried to term. I don't see that as being the only further argument to make would be to get into an abortion debate, when abortio…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 06:08 AM
4

With adoption and safe haven it then becomes everyone else's financial burden. So then are you arguing that women should not be legally allowed to abandon or put up their child for adoption? In other words, are you arguing that rather than give men a choice, we take the choice away from women to make them more equal? And you're forgetting the physical burden that the woman is faced with, for nine months potentially. I didn't forget it - as I said, nobody should be able to force her to carry it t…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 05:07 AM
5

Why should they have to pay a thing if they don't want? When a pregnancy occurs, a woman has many choices: She can abort. She can have the baby. If she decides to have it and doesn't want it, she can put it up for adoption (even without the father's consent) or legally abandon it (all states have safe haven laws) with no legal consequences. Why should a woman get to legally absolve themselves of all parental responsibility when men can't? Now, I'm not arguing that a woman should be forced to abo…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 04:56 AM
5

By William Bennett And that's where I stopped reading...
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:23 AM
7

You forgot the part where you take her out for an Egg McMuffin right after the abortion...
/r/MensRights26/12/11 05:45 PM
3

Men are also less religious than ever before. According to Gallup polling, 39% of men reported attending church regularly in 2010, compared to 47% of women. Funny, I never thought of not being delusional as a bad thing...
/r/MensRights04/10/11 08:21 PM
20

there is no reason for a defenceless child to be subjected to what I am going through. There is also no reason for you to be subjected to what you're going through. This is not some punishment you deserve. I dated a young woman with BPD for about 4 months a while back - and it was the worst 10 months of my life (It took another 6 months to cut her out of my life completely). Let me guess - being around her is like walking on egg shells all the time, right? She'll be fine one minute, and then you…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 03:05 PM
2

Thanks for the backup, but this guy's a troll - don't waste your time.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 11:11 PM
8

Vasectomies only work 2/3rds of the time. 2/3rds of the time? Bullshit. Citation needed. According to Wikipedia (NSFW link), the failure rate is about 1 in 2000, or 99.95% effective. Edit: All intelligent men are desperately waiting for a reliable male pill. Actually, some of us didn't bother waiting; we simply banked some sperm, and got ourselves snipped.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 01:48 PM
10

The difference here is that it was your choice to get it done. The vast majority of us who are circumcised were not given a choice in the matter. I doubt most of us in the anti-circumcision crowd have any problem with adult men choosing to get circumcised themselves. It's when people want to make that choice for others who are too young to consent that we have a problem with it.
/r/MensRights16/08/10 05:03 PM
12

I'm really looking for arguments for not circumcising your kids. This is the problem. Circumcision should not be the default choice that you need arguments against in order to not do. Leaving your son intact should be the default, just as it is for girls. The question should not be "Why not circumcise?" - it should be "Why circumcise?" It boggles my mind how so many people think that the first thing they should do to their newborn son is have him strapped to a board and mutilate the most sensiti…
/r/MensRights16/08/10 04:57 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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