TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

justpickaname Archive

View 2 posts and 271 comments by justpickaname 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)
-24

All of Trump's actions are rooted in insecurity. That's what narcissism is. You act like you are amazing and the best, because you can't face or confront the insecurities inside. I'm not sure I disagree with your larger point, that these insults are often used in different ways, but that is exactly why Trump does, what he does and why those insults make sense with him on a psychological level. (That doesn't mean they're good or a good idea.)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/02/26 01:52 PM
9

There are definitely people like that, and they should be appreciated, and we as men should seek them out and move away from those who have no empathy for us, but they are rare and difficult for us to come across.
/r/MensRights19/12/25 09:13 AM
3

If you read the facts, there's no room to give him the benefit of the doubt. Why did he silence his phone after emergency services got a hold of him? And then only call them back 3 hours later when it was too late?
/r/MensRights06/12/25 01:14 PM
6

This guy worked hard to avoid help. The more I read the details, the more this is just straight up intentional homicide. He silenced his phone after they had been stranded for hours and emergency services finally got a hold of him? I agree with your general view of women having agency and responsibility, but this is not the case for that.
/r/MensRights06/12/25 01:09 PM
16

Yeah, putting his phone on silent really sounds to me like the goal was her death. This is a gross story - I agree with the sentiment that women are responsible for themselves as adults, but that narrative doesn't fit the facts here at all.
/r/MensRights06/12/25 01:04 PM
10

It's also the combination of the primary process and social media which awards, karma and views and therefore funding to the people who most appeal to the most extreme.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 01:34 PM
-37

This would be a pretty valid point if it weren't Stephen Miller. Some things are more important than body shaming. He is one of the prime architects of the destruction of our democracy. I will fight against male body shaming in other venues. If it works here, good for AOC.
/r/MensRights07/10/25 03:27 AM
5

Can you explain what Pareto betterments are? I know the Pareto principle is at 80% of people do 20% of the work and vice versa, but I have never heard of this.
/r/MensRights04/09/25 05:51 PM
2

I hope our laws get more equal for men. They were certainly unfair to me in my divorce. But the comments about this particular story are nuts. She is working hard in life to provide for their kid, he's gotten one raise in 13 years and makes 30k as an adult in his '40s. Yes, lots of women have just leeched off of men and never contributed - that's not what men should aspire to, rather we should hope humans will be more like this woman and less like this man, and try to do the best I can in life. …
/r/MensRights30/05/25 01:10 PM
1

Interesting points! I hadn't heard the income shifts for older single men over single women.
/r/MensRights26/03/25 04:49 PM
10

Is that still likely to be true now that single women out-earn single men? I am not saying it's not, I don't know if it will be in 20-30 years when these people reach retirement age.
/r/MensRights23/03/25 08:37 PM
16

Fascinating link! And your general idea is accurate, but it seems like their exact finding is that women are influenced by opposite sex earnings 1,000 times more than men are, not that there's a 1,000x increase in interest. Points the same way, very strongly, just some minor nuance.
/r/MensRights06/07/24 06:28 PM
7

Any chance you'd be able to find that study? Sounds interesting and depressing.
/r/MensRights23/05/24 07:18 PM
3

If you like how Biden is handling the Palestinians, you'll love seeing how Trump does it!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/04/24 09:13 PM
4

That channel has so much insight.
/r/MensRights29/02/24 08:13 PM
3

Maybe it's possible not to alienate either, but if we have to choose, I'd have to agree.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/02/24 02:31 PM
25

Because progressives care more about virtue signaling than making real progress for the groups they claim to represent. Then wonder why they lose. It's so frustrating, being on the left.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/02/24 06:46 PM
3

No, men's ideal is 1.2 *fewer* than their average - so it sounds like they (men) have 8.8 partners on average.
/r/MensRights29/01/24 09:38 PM
2

This is an interesting perspective rooted in a kind outlook. I don't personally believe ENM is a good approach for people to take (I'm just sharing my perspective, not trying to convince you), but I am not certain my view is correct. So I just wanted to acknowledge that your care for others is really noble and awesome, here, if I can do that while (perhaps incorrectly) disagreeing generally (and not trying to convince anyone I'm right). Thanks for your comment and for being a kind and caring per…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/01/24 06:59 PM
5

This is a very insightful comment. It seems like people are very afraid to criticize it out of fear of appearing regressive, but they don't realize the regressive society it will lead to.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/01/24 01:21 AM
2

Yeah, I think online dating is a huge piece of it. Sexual "liberation" where women don't wait for a relationship sex and digital "shopping" for the best men makes this outcome where the men who are 10s just date all the 7+ women, sleep with them, have tons of variety and no reason to commit. Women don't realize what the deal is, don't understand what these men are like, and assume they'll get one to settle down but most never will. Everyone loses except 10% of men, courtesy of feminism.
/r/MensRights09/11/23 04:05 AM
15

It's super-sad. I would go so far as to say feminism was the biggest win for men against women (though only the ones at the top). Not original feminism, but the modern version of it.
/r/MensRights07/11/23 09:14 PM
4

Great comment, but wanted to let you know the saying is walking on egg shells, not egg shelves. =)
/r/MensRights24/09/23 03:56 PM
1

No worries - not sure why people are downvoting you here. =\ I used to follow them both a fair amount years ago, but have sure been disappointed with the Ivermectin and all the unnecessary death it almost certainly lead to.
/r/MensRights24/08/22 02:15 PM
14

That's his brother, Brett.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 04:33 PM
2

Holy crap, that's impressively terrible. Thanks for bringing me up to speed. =\
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/03/22 12:18 AM
1

What did they do with the new LOTR series? I guess I live under a rock, but I haven't heard the details, just saw one trailer before it came out.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/22 10:41 PM
2

I know what a larper is in terms of "live action role play" - are you using it here to say, "Women pretending to be men", or something more like, "People opposed to male causes pretending to be advocates", or something else entirely?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/10/21 03:05 PM
11

Thank you for sharing this, and for trying to help people see reason. Very well written arguments!
/r/MensRights17/07/21 03:18 PM
3

Yeah, I'm pretty aware of that, being a man. I wouldn't rate that as the uncomfortable part of keeping my legs together, generally, however. It feels more like a hip/bone thing, but I'd never heard that before.
/r/MensRights01/03/21 05:50 AM
2

Thanks a lot!
/r/MensRights01/03/21 05:49 AM
8

Are they? Anywhere I can read about this? I would love to start disabusing the notion of manspreading.
/r/MensRights01/03/21 01:36 AM
9

Didn't they find out things had turned around for her in the last month or two, or did he get more bad news? =(
/r/MensRights23/10/19 11:32 PM
5

Your link (to a site I've never heard of) does not say what you said, that he was a member of antifa.
/r/MensRights05/08/19 08:02 PM
-8

No one thinks it's her first time? Ugh. Bring the downvotes, because it could easily be her first time. Your comment would've been great without your last line, but we have no evidence either way, and no reason to assume she's done it before. She may have, of course, but there's no basis to assume this isn't her first time.
/r/MensRights17/11/18 01:02 AM
3

Let's be clear, we're disagreeing over numbers here. I know false accusations happen, and you know rape happens, I just think rape happens a lot more than you do, and you think false accusations happen a lot more than I do. They both happen too much, whoever is right. So while I'm about to disagree, and then you'll disagree back, we do agree on some things. That said, your line of thinking, and others here, really concerns me. Motivations for false accusations, according to you, include being an…
/r/MensRights09/10/17 11:55 PM
0

Because rape is very difficult to prove. Why would you assume similarly? Especially when our legal system is (thankfully) biased toward protecting the innocent even if some guilty men go free (beyond a reasonable doubt, etc).
/r/MensRights09/10/17 11:41 PM
2

And that's both silly and unreasonable. Rape has quite a few motivating factors, and you can find countless women who have had it happen to them. Yes, numerically, a large number of guys have been lied about in that regard, but you wouldn't find remotely similar percentages of the population.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 07:43 PM
-5

Sorry! Didn't mean to assume there. But you did say that could be the case, and I think that's a pretty huge reach with something as hard to prove as rape. It's FAR more reasonable to acknowledge these cases are difficult, than assume rape is so rare.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 07:41 PM
-1

Except why would there be? That assumes a rampant rate of random rape allegations, and that rape is pretty rare comparatively. It requires a lot of assumptions to think they could be equivalent.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 07:39 PM
-2

If it happened, it's "founded". That's not related to whether we find it to be true in court.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 07:35 PM
26

Not proven =/= unfounded. You undermine your otherwise good argument when you imply that anything not leading to prosecution or conviction could not have happened. Rape is often he said/she said, and won't be proveable, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'd like to think I'm misreading, and perhaps I am, but the guy replying saying, "False claims happen just as much as rape?" with 8 upvotes as I write this shows others are reading it that way. Which then reinforces the idea that Mensrights…
/r/MensRights09/10/17 02:05 PM
13

"To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted." Titus 1:15, NIV. http://biblehub.com/titus/1-15.htm
/r/MensRights24/08/14 01:40 PM
1

Ah, thanks, I didn't see that.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 03:25 AM
2

Nope, not at all what I'm saying. But it is a big detail to skip.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 09:27 PM
12

I'm amazed this hasn't been asked multiple times, and answered already. Unrelated to the case, but it's a pretty huge, stand-out detail of the story that isn't addressed.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 10:24 PM
-1

Sure. But so has been law enforcement's non-response to rape. That's lead to an unjust reaction. These laws are just a symptom of that. Fix the rape issue, and you'll be able to fix the laws. Ignore the rape issue, and you'll keep getting more dumb, unjust, "just do SOMETHING" laws.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 02:45 PM
-1

Nope, I don't like the laws, you're putting words in my mouth. However, the problem isn't the laws, those are a symptom of the rape issue. When that issue is addressed, there won't be a mass outcry leading to stupid laws like this.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 02:44 PM
-2

And that banning one is an emotional response to a real problem that will do nothing to address the actual problem, and in fact only serves to make it appear like elected officials are taking this seriously. Precisely. Nailclippers is also a good example. What needs to be done is address the issue that has the public crying for politicians to "just do SOMETHING". Once that issue isn't so problematic, dumb laws like these can be rolled back/new ones won't be passed. But complaining as the OP did …
/r/MensRights19/03/13 02:33 PM
0

Nope. You've misunderstood me entirely. I think the laws are dumb. The laws are laws because rape has been overlooked/unenforced/etc. I'm against the laws, I'm just explaining the laws are a result of the rape problem. I'm not saying those provisions will solve the problem, either, I'm simply saying huge public outcry over an un-addressed problem leads to stupid laws. Address the problem, and the laws can be fixed (and new stupid laws can be prevented).
/r/MensRights19/03/13 02:31 PM
-6

But the laws are in response to outcry about rape. Fix the rape/justice problem, and you can fix the laws. Doesn't mean you have to end all rape, but once law enforcement does a better job with that, the populace won't be calling for laws like this. It's just an action/reaction thing, unfortunately.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 01:47 PM
-1

Right, that's why I'm sticking around - the title is depressing, but the comments are nuanced and intelligent. I was just explaining what the parent might have been thinking, I wasn't the one who said I was done with the subreddit.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 01:45 PM
0

Hmm, based on all the replies, I haven't communicated too well. These laws don't sound good, at all. I'm just saying the whiny tone of the headline is pretty repulsive, when taken in context of the problems in India. They sound ripe for abuse, but they were put in place because the system wasn't protecting women. I'm sorry if I came across as anti-Indian, I didn't mean what I said that way at all, I was basically just trying to say this is an out-of-balance response to a huge problem, and if/whe…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 01:43 PM
-2

Maybe because lots of Indian women are being raped, usually without legal consequences, and when India tries to respond, we complain about these misandrist laws? They're not the best laws, but the situation in India is such that this is a definite step forward. And it's not time to complain about misandry there. The way to avoid laws like this is by not, I don't know, raping women on buses. I don't like the laws, if they're as the OP describes, but I'm so glad the comments so far have been reaso…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 12:49 PM
4

Show us the suits and fedoras!
/r/MensRights31/05/12 04:44 PM
4

Yeah, I came here to say "not enough evidence to convict" doesn't mean you're "innocent", just that you're (supposed to be) assumed to be. But, it sounds like in this case, he actually was and the title didn't overstate.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 04:41 PM
1

That sounds much more reasonable than the death penalty. Agreed.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:44 PM
1

I made that post when the parent had 10 upvotes, didn't pay any attention until I saw your reply, and now the parent is at +18. Mensrights used to be a great subreddit about men's rights, but seeing madmartian upvoted so much, and my mere question of his vengeful comment downvoted so much, makes me think MR is really drifting toward the crazy.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:39 PM
-8

How is this being upvoted? This act is one of the cruellest I've ever heard of, but how is it just to kill someone for not killing someone? Justice looks more like "an eye for an eye" than it does "a life for a penis".
/r/MensRights13/07/11 12:45 AM
1

Ahem. *entitled* Carry on.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:23 PM
1

Fair points.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 11:51 PM
3

That's a problem, but so is teacher's having sex with their 15 year old students. That shouldn't happen because of a) age of consent (although what the age should be can certainly be debated) and even more b) power teachers have as authority figures over students.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 07:26 PM
1

but the real question is why are we restricting 5 or 6? i propose that there is no substantiative reason The substantive reason I would suggest is that I'm pro-life (but I get what you're saying about anti-choice), and while I'm against all abortion, I see a big difference between killing a fetus the day before delivery, and killing an embryo the day after conception. That difference grows and develops just as the fetus does. At some arbitrary point, I'm in favor of saying, "Enough is enough. If…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 07:10 PM
1

Anything between "conception" and "birth" is an arbitrary number. Those are the only non-arbitrary numbers. Don't discredit yourself by calling people "anti-choice", it just makes you look silly, unless your audience is pro-choice 15 year olds. six months is a more appropriate number if you look at the science. Which is behind fetal viability, and will be increasingly so as medical technology advances. You didn't at all address my question: can't a person decide whether or not to abort a fetus i…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 05:11 PM
-1

state rules say you cant end the pregnancy Of course, you've had five months to do so. Can't we agree that, if you're going to choose abortion, you can choose it in, say, the first four months? What's wrong with that?
/r/MensRights03/04/11 06:33 AM
4

Man... just, dang. Not really a very cool thing to be telling women about their millionaire handyman prince charming.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 10:39 PM
11

who occasionally bangs married women You shouldn't do that. Plenty of unmarried fish in the sea...
/r/MensRights25/02/11 08:48 PM
1

provided emotional support for someone for 14 years FTFY. It discredits your case to make up your own numbers.
/r/MensRights06/02/11 06:57 AM
-1

I want to go with you on this one. I'm certainly very skeptical of the story. But (at work so I can't watch the video) I don't see any debunking going on in that article. So far, I'm somewhat agnostic about these "trafficked children" claims, just because I can't imagine how they would know. Any good reason for being an atheist?
/r/MensRights02/02/11 12:06 AM
2

I'm going to go ahead and just say you seem nuts. With both of those things, I would be much more hesitant to convict because of the things we hear about here, but you still have a job as a juror. On the other hand, I could go farther with the idea of nullification on domestic violence, because VAWA is so obviously sexist, as are many precincts arrest policies.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 11:49 PM
2

Convicting a man for rape would fly in the face of justice. If I take that statement to mean what you say, you could watch a guy rape a woman, while she was fighting/screaming, see him be arrested, see his rights denied (I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here, I have a couple guesses, but tell me, ok?), and you would vote to accuse him, and say you're serving justice? Do you stand by "There is no way I am convicting a guy who has been denied his constitutional rights." in that case? …
/r/MensRights01/02/11 10:18 PM
3

It is better to let 10 rapists go free than to send 1 innocent man to jail. The quote just sounds better if you leave it in general terms. But whatever. Also, it never had anything to do with jury nullification. But, if it's true the way that you're arguing it, then we ought always to vote to acquit, for all crimes, because "it is better to let 10 murderers go free than to send 1 innocent man to jail". If you try to accomplish that through jury nullification, in willful defiance of the reasoned …
/r/MensRights01/02/11 09:55 PM
2

Ok, so if you want to nullify everything, because DA's often withhold exculpatory evidence, that's fine, and completely different. "Nullify all rape cases!" is a horrible miscarriage of justice.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 07:09 PM
7

What? Holy... No. You vote not guilty if you have reasonable doubt, you don't just rape justice for any woman, and any rapist, if you think the justice system screws men over (which it definitely does). I'm someone who completely supports jury nullification for over-expansions of government power or completely unjust laws. This is some 1950's Emmit Till anti-civil rights level stuff you're talking about, and... wow. I'm glad you understand that false rape accusations ruin men's lives and should …
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:48 AM
3

The problem, though, while this is fair to men, is that it's unfair to children, the one group of people who has nothing to do with the child's existence. They get screwed over, when they didn't do any screwing.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 10:53 PM
7

Yeah, if you chose to do it yourself, and had an actual medical reason, that's like... double-fine. Doing it because "foreskins are weird"... that's not so fine. I'm circumcised too, and for me it's not any kind of deal, big or small. But my son isn't, because we didn't have any reason to do that to him.
/r/MensRights19/01/11 03:21 AM
1

Before you do that, though, know whether you live in a one or two party consent state...
/r/MensRights01/12/10 11:51 PM
6

No, I was not slapping in self defense. It was to get her the fuck off me. I would argue that's self defense. It's not only self defense when your life is at stake. No one, male or female, should be assaulted in their own home.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 09:02 PM
0

I'm all for that, but I still don't know that a 13 year old is going to have a full grasp of what it could mean to get aids, or have a baby their freshman year of school. But, since they're having sex with people there age anyway, I'm completely with you on that part.
/r/MensRights15/10/10 06:43 PM
0

Ok, I'm all for Romeo and Juliet laws, so that teens aren't going to jail for sleeping with similarly-aged teens. But if you honestly think there's no problem with a 26 year old seducing a 13 year old, who has little understanding of the (potential) consequences of sex, and certainly isn't on the same playing field mentally... Well, in the courtroom of my mind, I'm judging you pretty harshly right now.
/r/MensRights15/10/10 05:37 PM
4

Statutory rape needs to exist (seriously - you can't see that?), but it needs a name change or something to clarify that it isn't necessarily holding someone down and raping them. Also, if someone was statutorily raped, as well as forcibly raped, they need charges for both.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 09:59 PM
2

More money is spent marketing Breast Cancer Awareness than research for breast cancer. Give me a citation, and I'll post that for every one of my facebook friends, and post it on every comment I see about that. Ridiculous! Edit: Just saw the links below by the submitter, will check those out.
/r/MensRights12/10/10 11:33 PM
2

Seriously? I'm with you on elderly, but you can't see the point of children or pregnant women first? Makes me sad if that's not self-evident to anyone.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 06:19 AM
0

I'm not saying she should get a special privileges, I'm saying we could have a general privilege where we as a society say it's not okay to lie to get sex, in ways that violate consent. Saying you make $60,000 a year to impress a girl, when you really make $55,000? I don't think any court would have a problem discerning that that's not really an issue. Saying you don't have HIV, you're Jewish, or you're not married when you are are things that can legitimately cause significant distress to someo…
/r/MensRights01/10/10 08:41 PM
1

The physical consequences aren't tremendous. Similarly, there's no tremendous consequences if I slap a Muslim with bacon. But to them, it's a really big deal, and it's not at all unreasonable for the law to recognize that, at least civilly. Also, you're the only person in this whole discussion who keeps referring to it as rape. The article never does.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 07:20 PM
2

I don't think Hobbes was advocating for life to be short, brutish and cruel, just stating that it is. I don't think he'd have any objection to stating there is a moral "ought" or "should" to telling the truth.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 07:15 PM
0

Wow.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 07:14 PM
0

Obviously, it is a lie, but what I mean to say is it's not merely an ordinary lie, it had tremendous consequences for her. It's not just a lie.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 06:54 PM
1

I don't know, but it is a civil proceding, so it seems that she's just suing him for it, not accusing him of "rape" before the state.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 05:58 PM
-2

I disagree, but perhaps we're using different meanings for duty. I'm not saying we should criminalize lying, just that we should all strive to be honest, unless there's some "greater good" or compelling reason not to.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 05:53 PM
0

It's only being called rape here in the submission headline.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 05:50 PM
6

It's not being pursued criminally. She's suing him. The headline is misleading.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 05:50 PM
1

I agree with your first two examples, if you take out the word rapist/rape (which the article doesn't use). We can all agree that those people are doing something wrong. This woman is pursuing a civil matter, because something wrong was done to her.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 05:49 PM
3

So should he be criminally responsible for his actions? Maybe. But should it be classified as 'rape'? Fuck no. Change the maybe to a yes, the criminally to a civil, and I completely agree. Can't we infer, by the fact that this is a civil proceeding, the use of the word "rape" isn't justified? Time out. I went back and checked. The paper never uses the term rape, except talking about the Israeli case and a gang-raped girl. The only reason we're talking about this as "rape" is the incorrect headli…
/r/MensRights01/10/10 05:46 PM
-6

He was under no duty to be honest to you. What a great society that would be...
/r/MensRights01/10/10 05:43 PM
4

Ok, it's not rape, but for some people (her? who knows...), adultery is one of the worst things they can do, morally (within reason, ie excluding the holocaust, murder - stuff normal people do NOT do). I hold to that view. If someone deceived me about being married and I slept with them, it sure as hell wouldn't just be "a lie". I agree that it's not rape, because words and definitions are important, but the consequences of being deceived into something you find absolutely morally repugnant are …
/r/MensRights01/10/10 05:36 PM
1

How can men tell you from your evil counterparts, though? Could you help us come up with a standardized, multiple-choice test? Because that would be helpful.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 08:22 PM
5

I don't know why exactly I was circumcised... I should ask my mom about that. I've heard one of the common reasons is because people want their babies to look like daddy. I'm circumcised, and don't see it as quite the big deal that some of Men's rights does, but I was shocked, discussing the option of circumcision with an OB, that they said, "You might want him to look like dad." No, that'd be a contemptuously ridiculous reason for that kind of procedure. Who thinks like that? If you have a reli…
/r/MensRights01/09/10 07:38 PM
1

Ha! I don't think that'd get you there with google, but you made me laugh. It would be a pretty sweet job.
/r/MensRights16/08/10 03:00 PM
1

thousands of child sex slaves hundreds, and there's no basis at all for saying they were children (that I've ever heard). No need to overstate your point. one of the most prolific child rapists I guess that's saying the same thing as before, but the way you say it, your crazy is showing.
/r/MensRights27/07/10 08:28 PM
1

I think maybe I just have a more refined sense of the worth of things This. I know this isn't the popular view in this particular instance, but people should not have sex taken from them, through force or fraud. I'd certainly agree that holding someone down to do it is a greater crime, but there's no way this isn't a crime.
/r/MensRights21/07/10 08:00 PM
2

If you understand that self-defense sends you to jail, it's still very easy to be afraid in your own home.
/r/MensRights16/07/10 07:44 PM
3

The view of the authors is that most intimate partner violence should not be equated with severe battering. This would be a huge step forward, if someone didn't automatically go to jail for any physical contact.
/r/MensRights16/07/10 07:43 PM
1

I see your reasoning, but what I'm saying is [citation needed], as far as your statement that "prenups actually help marriages last". I completely agree that there shouldn't be a "cash out" to divorce, but I think we need legal changes there; I'd have to see statistics on divorce odds relative to prenups to encourage them, because I also find DankJemo's reasoning quite sound.
/r/MensRights12/07/10 07:49 PM
9

Isn't it a bit less "walking wallet" ish once they're 18? No child support? I'm not sure, and that's why I'm asking. But that's what it would seem like.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 11:34 PM
2

Have a wikipedia for that, Mr. Brown?
/r/MensRights08/07/10 07:15 PM
2

True. Once it was introduced (particularly in the wake of OJ), there was no way it wouldn't pass. I suppose anyone who voted against it, on any grounds, would have it used against them to great effect at election time.
/r/MensRights24/06/10 05:52 AM
8

How could anyone expect equality from an act that specifically is about violence against women? I don't know how something like that could even pass, with that as the title.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 10:12 PM
3

Perhaps; I'm not familiar enough with actual cases. I was assuming that the women who get that much money, plus the house, etc, are the ones who both a) stayed home, enabling him to make money (at least in theory, whether she worked at home or watched soaps), and b) gave up years of her own career advancement which she otherwise would have had. This guy has b) but not a), as far as I can tell (because they both were at home). But, again, I don't know.
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:17 AM
3

From how I read it, it sounded as though they both stayed at home - she didn't get her wealth from being off working somewhere. So not exactly like a stay at home mom. Generally, I agree, though, that lifetime alimony is bad no matter which side it falls on.
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:08 AM
2

Great idea there - it's kind of like the "cut the baby in half" story - he wants his son to live, that should tell us something or be taken into account somehow.
/r/MensRights14/06/10 10:09 PM
2

Seems to me that it's a bit broader than that - every parent should have a say, regardless of any legal rulings (or by legal default) to have their say on their minor child receiving a DNR. This is the kind of thing that, if carried out (as in, he dies and no attempt is made), I would fully understand someone going postal over.
/r/MensRights14/06/10 10:08 PM
12

And, unfortunately, I've heard of at least one case where the hospital took the infant for a "blood test" and he came back circumcised. Holy crap. I'm very mildly against circumcision, but that is sickening. They will not circumcise him in front of you or your wife; the screaming tends to disturb the parents and other patients. I've heard for some hospitals it is the opposite of this. I have some friends who circumcised, were present for it, and my understanding was that they had to be. But perh…
/r/MensRights18/05/10 06:29 PM
1

To be clear, I'm all for adjusting the age of consent to something that reflects a degree of normal practice. 14, perhaps? I do think there should be a line, which is why I say 14, and not 11 - I'm sure there are 11 year olds having consensual sex, but I think we need to keep the ideas that some people can't completely understand the risks and ramifications, as well as saying something for parental rights. But, it needs to be a realistic age, and 18 or even 16 criminalizes too many young people,…
/r/MensRights14/05/10 05:47 PM
1

Ah, so you mean rape and statutory rape? I'm fine with that.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 01:13 AM
3

Yes, you can - we'll take as many of those feminists, who want more equality all around and fairness for both genders - anytime. It's the trolls we'd rather avoid.
/r/MensRights12/05/10 11:54 PM
2

Um, and child molestation? Yeah, let's have that on there, too. But, I completely agree with your general premise.
/r/MensRights12/05/10 11:51 PM
14

They think men aren't people...
/r/MensRights04/05/10 08:59 PM
1

Ah, yes, that's pretty well established, not so well known.
/r/MensRights19/04/10 05:14 PM
4

70%? I've never heard anything significantly over 50. Where'd you get that? Your point works, in either case, but is that some new number I hadn't heard?
/r/MensRights18/04/10 05:14 AM
4

The stated goal by the crafters of divorce law is: transfer wealth from men to women Obviously that's the case, just looking at the laws. But, you say it's stated. Do you have a citation? Because that would be a tremendously useful thing to point out to people who don't see the problem.
/r/MensRights14/04/10 04:53 AM
2

I would just like to note my objection to the study she links claiming that all men watch porn, because I'm a man, and I, uh, don't watch porn. Just sayin'.
/r/MensRights02/04/10 06:30 PM
4

Yes, and not yes. That's true if you're just seeking something, but if you come across something (say, Twilight - or bondage porn) because all the people around you are telling you how awesome it is, then not yes. Still, you raise a good point that we must consider cart AND horse.
/r/MensRights02/04/10 06:25 PM
5

We'll never know how I feel because you just asked me. Well said. It's frustrating when they ask things that lead to a certain response, whether or not that response is accurate.
/r/MensRights24/03/10 10:44 PM
2

This is why a nipple on broadcast television is a big deal, and porn on the internet isn't. One gets broadcast to you, one you type in an address for.
/r/MensRights22/03/10 07:03 PM
2

Good point. Whatever you do, come up with something natural that you can say, that wouldn't be suspicious.
/r/MensRights18/03/10 05:06 PM
9

One thing you need to know is that she has filled your mind with BS that is not true. Any lie you hear again and again, you will start to believe. That's why you believe the ridiculous things she says and think you're weak to be afraid of her. She is the one who is a wimp for treating another human this way; you've gotten where you are by being the bigger man and just choosing to turn the other cheek. It's very noble (and I'm not at ALL suggesting you return violence), but while not retaliating,…
/r/MensRights16/03/10 08:39 PM
1

Your edit would probably be the case, but I assume if no "rape" of any kind is involved, a good lawyer could get you out on the basis of discrimination, perhaps.
/r/MensRights16/03/10 06:11 PM
3

I agree with you, yet I don't. Maybe I'm just feeling disagreeable. There's no way that you can produce child porn of yourself, and be exploited by it; prosecuting kids for sexting is BS. At the same time, once that girl sends her boyfriend a picture, I don't think she has any control over it. It's not licensed. She can't make him delete it if they break up, so why is it illegal for him to do what he wants with it it (as opposed to just being a legal a-hole)? I think I'd like it to be illegal, b…
/r/MensRights16/03/10 05:44 PM
1

I don't disagree with you, except I do. Well, I think the age of consent should be younger. That said, how do you propose determining when they have the right to control their own bodies, and when they don't? I assume you'd be against sex at age 10, for example. My method boils down to "At what age are lots of teens probably having sex? We should make normal behavior legal, because we don't want everyone being criminals." I don't know that that's the best method, though, either.
/r/MensRights16/03/10 05:41 PM
5

So would she, at least.
/r/MensRights16/03/10 05:39 PM
1

It would definitely be interesting to read the paper... wish I could tell you what specifically to search for.
/r/MensRights13/03/10 12:07 AM
3

Yeah, I'm not sure who or why, but it was on reddit about 2 months ago. Can't find it, unfortunately. I'm not sure what the search terms should be.
/r/MensRights12/03/10 10:41 PM
8

Research has shown that, up to 40% of skin showing, we gain (generally) more interest as more is shown. Past 40%, men tend to dismiss women as being easy or sleezy (or, for some other reason, interest diminishes from where it had peaked.
/r/MensRights12/03/10 08:44 PM
8

If it were up to me I'd have them executed. No offense, but that isn't a good thing, either. We need punishments that fit the crime (which is horrendous, obviously) but not punishments that up the ante.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 08:32 PM
1

:-( That absolutely sucks. No one should have to worry about getting punched by someone they live with in their own home. It would have been great if she'd been arrested, to learn that her abuse is a serious crime, but at least they didn't believe her attempt to blame you.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 08:19 PM
1

Just out of curiosity, had you pushed her? I think pushing is a pretty common thing in relationships (assuming it isn't "They shoved me into ____"); punching (particularly in the face) would be a pretty big escalation, imho.
/r/MensRights09/03/10 11:10 PM
3

<deleted for misunderstanding> Edit: I saw below that you're a Christian (good!) and believe in life starting at conception (excellent, so do I!). That leaves me a little confused... oh! Were you saying that she shouldn't be able to get an abortion without the man's approval, as well? See, people argue on reddit every so often that men should be able to have "financial abortions" and not support the child. I thought you were going further than that, but you're actually saying she shouldn't be ab…
/r/MensRights08/03/10 08:25 PM
1

so he wouldn't leave mom And I can go along with a little bit of that reasoning... it's not actually good to leave your wife after 15 years for some hot young thing, and have your kids with no father in their lives. Having said that, we all know that's a tiny minority of cases. But, in that tiny minority, I think it'd be ok to have higher child support than when the woman leaves, and possibly have some alimony (certainly not when she leaves). Aside from the fact that the system is drastically un…
/r/MensRights03/03/10 10:48 PM
0

Nice caption underneath the girl's photo: Who is the man who killed Kyra. I didn't click it, or read the full article, because I've just read too much bad news today.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 11:11 PM
1

Glad to help. I encourage leaning against it, but I wouldn't freak out if one of my friends did it or way considering it. I'd tell them why I'm against it, and that I don't really see any pluses to weigh against those factors.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 10:33 PM
2

I'm pretty sure I agree with you, but you definitely have it thought out well. I've heard people argue that marriage isn't a contract, but I've never heard their reasoning. If it's just "No one really means their vows", well F that, I certainly did, and I hope my wife did, too. Society should expect that of people, and support their efforts. If it's something like "You can't bring rules or logic to something like love, marriage and family", the rest of humanity has done it, at least at times, wi…
/r/MensRights25/02/10 05:29 PM
5

I like what you're saying, I just wish my wife and I hadn't put the things we wanted for our wedding on credit cards, and had just gone with what could be paid for. Or at least tried to do that. Fortunately, our wedding was pretty conservative, but still... What you're saying is great if people understand and are following a budget; for most Americans, they aren't - hence the "I deserve" list is dictated by their credit limit and the staff at David's Bridal.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 04:09 PM
1

you don't have an "agreement" to stay together, you have a "promise" Considering you made the list at the top of this thread, and in light of that statement, I'd like to ask what you think it would be like if we treated marriage like a real, legal contract, and not just some emotional fling. Legally, I mean. If people were expected to stick around barring fault, and were seen as at fault for violating their promise to forsake all others, do you think that would be better or worse?
/r/MensRights25/02/10 04:06 PM
3

that's just an argument to make sure you know who you marry. I would just add in here an argument to work hard to maintain your marriage. If it's all based on feelings and you don't work at it, the good things generally last 2-3 years. But it doesn't have to be that way, and sociologists know all about how to keep it working well.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 04:04 PM
2

While I agree with your conclusion, the argument of your premise is always best answered by, "We're also the only nation to go to the MOON, should we re-write our history just to be like everyone else?"
/r/MensRights25/02/10 03:53 PM
1

So, if you don't cut the cord the placenta is delivered 30-60 minutes later (well, it is either way), and the cord would still fall off, just like the little remainder of it does when the cord is cut. You'd just have to deal with a baby AND a no-longer-functioning placenta for a week or two.
/r/MensRights25/02/10 03:48 PM
1

Are you seeking answers as to whether you... oh. There's a guy on here named Lord Voldemort who's super-anti-circumcision. I read your username as his. I have an 18 month old son. I'll give you every pro and con I can think of or heard when we were considering it. Ultimately, we decided not to, but I don't think it's that big of a deal. I'd discourage you moderately. Here's the list: The CDC is beginning to say (based on studies in Africa, but I guess there have been enough now that it's startin…
/r/MensRights25/02/10 03:41 PM
9

No, this stuff won't get into "verifiable news" until it's gone way too far. Obviously, it's already gone way too far, but if we ignore it, it will be even longer before anyone notices.
/r/MensRights24/02/10 11:33 PM
7

Yeah, just make a picture of him holding his cat, or claim his cat was injured.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 10:22 PM
8

They're not your personal army... unless it involves a cat.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 07:55 PM
4

No. You don't remedy injustice or hypocrisy that way.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 01:20 AM
2

That's certainly a huge part of it. Huge. But the stuff she said about men sounded accurate to me, too.
/r/MensRights13/02/10 06:16 PM
1

Very funny joke, but there is a recorded and significant difference (although I don't think it's huge) between single men and married men.
/r/MensRights13/02/10 12:57 AM
1

I was actually much more impressed with the older lady (Erin Pizzy). Great video, all around.
/r/MensRights13/02/10 12:48 AM
7

Um, that's weird. It's okay to hate sex offenders, as a category. It's okay to ban them from certain places (effectively, entire cities). There have been people killing sex offenders in an attempt at vigilante justice, some of whom were innocuous things like sex with a girl a year or two younger. Black people had to deal with all kinds of unjust crap, and to a large but lesser degree still do. But now, at least America thinks hatred of black people is a bad thing. Sex offenders aren't there yet …
/r/MensRights11/02/10 09:47 PM
7

This seems pretty silly to me. I'm completely against infidelity, but it seems like when you're being... infidelitous, well, I wouldn't think the other party has obligations to treat you like a spouse. Thoughts?
/r/MensRights11/02/10 06:32 PM
9

I'll go ahead and say it. I'm up for being seen as a sex-offender apologist. Sex offenders are the new black people (and it's not like we've even straightened out all the problems of racism...) - people look down on them, don't want them in their neighborhoods, and judge them in (usually) completely unfair ways. I don't want all the idiotic assumptions that will go along with being a sex-offender-defender, but it's important that their rights are respected (and alleged terrorists) to protect the…
/r/MensRights11/02/10 06:13 PM
3

That may be, but you also organized and responded with a ton of facts and actual ways men concretely were discriminated against. And took the downvoted side in a lot of interesting discussions - probably made a ton of people think.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 09:34 PM
4

Ah, I suspected... glad to know you're still around. You did a lot of good work in getting this set up.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 08:11 PM
-2

Ok, but something that still isn't answered - to what degree does "being ugly" mean you won't get contacted/hear back? I would bet that number is higher the other way. Perhaps not, though, or perhaps only if you have a high income? Still, this is a huge finding about how judgmental they are.
/r/MensRights21/01/10 05:39 AM
2

Came here to pos... dang.
/r/MensRights13/01/10 09:49 PM
5

I'm totally with you on sentencing discounts in general, but the husband here didn't die, right? I think that justifies a somewhat different approach. Having said that, he should file a TRO if he hasn't.
/r/MensRights13/01/10 08:43 PM
4

After I asked, it occurred to me that there may not be any because our culture tends so much to be anti-male. But, if anyone comes up with any, I'd love to hear them.
/r/MensRights06/01/10 09:52 PM
2

I'm going to disagree too, if this person is your life partner. If it's just someone you're dating for a couple years, then I'm with you.
/r/MensRights06/01/10 07:27 PM
2

Great list!
/r/MensRights06/01/10 07:25 PM
1

This is a good list, and I would wager most people accept at least a few of these misconceptions. It'd be good, though, to see an accompanying list for men - misconceptions that I wouldn't realize because they're in my favor. (not like the feminist view, just the reasonable flipside)
/r/MensRights06/01/10 07:25 PM
1

I suppose that I feel the second we believe that casualties are acceptable is the second that we stop trying to improve upon and maintain equality in the law. I like that a lot; very well said.
/r/MensRights30/12/09 06:24 AM
1

Do you think it's possible to have a system of laws that results in no false convictions, ever - but also deals with any degree of crime in society? I just think it's unfeasible; I like what you're saying, just can't imagine how it can be achieved (although it's pretty easy to imagine vast improvement on what we have now).
/r/MensRights30/12/09 04:06 AM
3

I'm very much for that quote, Ben Franklin, and not running around worried about being "safe" all the time. But I don't think Franklin would advocate a justice system that doesn't concern itself with justice. Yes, it's more important to not convict the innocent than it is to convict the guilty, but if you're not convicting any guilty by fear of convicting the innocent, your justice system won't work any better than the system we have now. I'm just pointing out that 10 to 1 is an important safegu…
/r/MensRights29/12/09 11:01 PM
0

Thanks for the correction. I'm all for the principle, and I think MRA's see where we need it more than most people (because it's being ignored) - I just think it can be overdone, and 100 guilty to 1 innocent, IMO, is over-correcting.
/r/MensRights29/12/09 09:31 PM
2

better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent face imprisonment No. That ratio is off, and doesn't result in justice. If we're aiming for justice, we're occasionally going to convict the innocent, and you're right that we should try very hard not to do so. But we can't be idiots about it, either. The original quote is 10 to 1, and I think that (or even 20 to 1) is both more reasonable and realistic. You'll never get to zero, but there are diminishing returns on how many innocent victims you …
/r/MensRights29/12/09 08:44 PM
3

So I guess we're all pro-life now, right? At least starting at 30 weeks? This does have huge implications for circumcision, though - thanks for pointing it out.
/r/MensRights24/12/09 07:59 PM
1

I agree with everything you said. As for covenant marriage, I don't suppose it's good to trap people in marriages, but I do think a waiting period + counseling could solve a lot of the problems that lead to divorce. Either of those work sometimes - some marriage problems go away with time, if the couple sticks it out, and some with counseling. Unfortunately, when a partner wants out, they usually just want out. They don't want to see if working on the problems can help, and they don't want to tr…
/r/MensRights23/12/09 06:20 PM
1

I think she's sick. Am I nuts for sayiing that? Good question! But I think that self-reflection indicates you aren't nuts. I heard once, when I had some serious past relationship issues, that crazy people never wonder if they are (because they're sure they aren't). I think that's probably true, or at least true most of the time. Edit: Two questions for you, unrelated to this post. What state are you in? And the rape/entrapment thing - was that before or after she had alleged abuse?
/r/MensRights22/12/09 06:03 PM
1

I know Louisiana is one... I suppose you could google Louisiana covenant marriage, but since I'm going to type this out, maybe I might as well do that too... A couple links: http://marriage.about.com/cs/covenantmarriage/a/covenant.htm http://www.covenantmarriage.com/article_lou.php It seems to me like a decent law, and now exists in Louisiana, Arizona and Arkansas. Problem is, you can get a regular divorce in any other state under their normal laws. But it's a useful start!
/r/MensRights22/12/09 06:01 PM
1

To me, what it comes down to is this: Time out. Whenever I say that (it comes down to this:), thinking about some argument against circumcision (in this case, that its $ costs are not insignificant and it serves no purpose), I think of several other, additional reasons to lean against it, with nothing weighing the other way. Consent, pain, risk, etc. Hospitals selling foreskin, and you can't get a dime. None of them by themselves would be ironclad, particularly if there were reasons for circumci…
/r/MensRights14/12/09 11:50 PM
1

Actually, I haven't read those - not sure how I missed them. I've seen two "statements" from late circumcised men on reddit, and both were saying it didn't significantly affect sex. I guess results vary, at least somewhat.
/r/MensRights14/12/09 05:39 PM
3

Ok, I'm completely on your side as far as being against circumcision. I think it's pointless, and the best possible scenario is that it has no effect. It can be far worse. But, this atomicparrot's brother's opinion is likely the most useful one we will ever encounter (or at least the most useful kind of opinion we will encounter). Since most of us get/got circumcised as babies, everything about how it affects the enjoyment of sex is theory. Because, at least I didn't have sex as a baby. No one c…
/r/MensRights13/12/09 06:58 AM
1

Can that possibly be real? I suppose it possibly can... anyone know if it is? Edit: I don't think it is. Here she's selling the car for $9 in some Domino's endorsement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOYhU5qhLM
/r/MensRights10/12/09 01:23 AM
2

Thanks!
/r/MensRights08/11/09 10:27 PM
3

Well, I don't know - I should probably stay skeptical, but in my mind, that all is pretty cool, and certainly makes me want to read about prenatal memories. Thanks for sharing, it's pretty awesome.
/r/MensRights08/11/09 06:44 AM
2

Well, you've made me a lot more curious today than you have any other time, if you want to take that as a victory (although I've been moderately against it for a while)...
/r/MensRights08/11/09 06:33 AM
3

I'd love to see a citation about that - if it's true, it's absolutely fascinating. Do you have one, or an idea of where you heard/read it? Edit: I think I saw your citation down a ways, if not, I'd love to see it, but I'll check out what you linked there.
/r/MensRights08/11/09 05:41 AM
6

Hold on. He has memories from the final months prior to birth? What? Is that even heard of, medically speaking? What sort of things does he remember?
/r/MensRights08/11/09 05:37 AM
1

Anyone who thinks babies don't feel pain should have to attend another baby's circumcision prior to approving it for their child.
/r/MensRights07/11/09 08:52 PM
1

But, to completely contradict your ending parenthesis, one of those is a tremendous problem (female) and one is not really a big deal. I didn't circumcise my son, I'd encourage others not to either, but I'm circumcised and everything works great. There just isn't significant harm in it. Sure, it's better not to, and I think it will continue to decline. But we're biased against one because it's shockingly harmful mutilation, and not the other because it makes little difference. Edit: And I've see…
/r/MensRights06/11/09 06:28 PM
1

Maybe I have unusually good friends who are willing to call me on BS? Hard to say since we're both just looking at anecdotal, personal stuff.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 08:33 PM
0

Hmm... I know a woman who does this stuff all the time. Well, not all the time, but frequently - maybe every few months or so.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 08:32 PM
9

In my experience, (to make a huge stereotype that isn't always true) women receive support from their friends and family with little questions, and certainly without anyone saying (most of the time), "No, what you are doing is wrong, you need to go home and settle this like an adult." People take in women (and I would probably do the same), and I think it has something to do with our subconscious and psychology - it somehow stops us from being reasonable when a woman says, "I need help." (Edit: …
/r/MensRights26/10/09 06:11 PM
4

Or she might have felt like everything would just be easy if she doesn't allow him to contact her - there can be lots of reasons for that besides fear.
/r/MensRights26/10/09 06:08 PM
7

This would work in theory, except I've never heard anything so idiotic. "knowing that the woman could drop a dime on him at any time should his deportment should fail to live up to her standards " With great power, comes... oops, wrong quote. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
/r/MensRights09/10/09 05:07 PM
1

Pn6, perhaps?
/r/MensRights28/09/09 06:33 PM
0

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying you need to curb your enthusiasm. Yeah, the reason we started doing it in the US in the 1800's was to get kids to stop masturbating (at least that was the theory). Yes, generally, if you wash it decently, you won't have any problems. I don't propose it should be done for hygienic, health, or religious reasons. I'm all for it not being done. But when you say it eliminates most of the feeling... I don't know, maybe the brain finds a way to make due with wha…
/r/MensRights12/09/09 03:47 PM
2

Feminazi! A true American changes their name, no matter WHAT!!!
/r/MensRights11/09/09 07:21 PM
-2

most of the feeling in our sexual organs No it doesn't. I'm all for reducing/stopping it, but you're being overly dramatic.
/r/MensRights11/09/09 07:18 PM
1

I don't believe both perpetrators are acting from the same psychology, and I think the two cases should be treated differently. I agree, just didn't know if that was the kind of thing you were thinking, or something else. Thanks for fleshing it out! Look, I know it makes it difficult, because we tend to be pretty black and white about crime :-( It seems like, in most crime related things, the difficult route is the correct one. And Americans (of which I'm one) will keep voting again and again fo…
/r/MensRights10/09/09 12:30 AM
3

While all rape is a crime But I think rape happens for a number of reasons, ranging from power to desperation.... What reasons would make it not a crime? Uncertainty about consent, (he thought it was there, she didn't really want to) or something else?
/r/MensRights09/09/09 05:38 PM
4

You just confused me about one thing. Polygraphs are inadmissable in court, aren't they? So how is it "take a polygraph or go to prison"? Are they allowed to say in court that you refused to take a polygraph, or how are they involved? Also, Pierce, were you falsely accused at some point, or have you just realized how much this issue is unfairly used to hurt men? I'm curious where you get your drive to work so hard & well on the issue.
/r/MensRights09/09/09 05:36 PM
2

Ok, I see what you're saying, and I agree, that's not equal. I'm pro-life, though, so I'm not going to be encouraging them to just get an abortion. My understanding with adoption law is that they need to go through the father first (but, again, there's an inequal loophole in that she can just say she doesn't know who the father is, and they'll skip it). I absolutely agree that women have options men don't, and that is unfair, but note that I am against the woman's unilateral option - abortion. T…
/r/MensRights03/09/09 08:33 PM
1

That women have more rights than men with regards to children? I don't think that's solved by taking more rights away from the child. If you have a different point that I'm missing, you'll have to spell it out, I guess.
/r/MensRights03/09/09 01:33 AM
0

No, I'm not against adoption, as long as both parents agree to it. I don't think women should be able to just adopt out their kids either, unless the father is okay with it (or he should have first dibs on it, anyway). But just walking away from your child, without providing means for it to be taken care of? That's cold and uncivilized.
/r/MensRights02/09/09 11:53 PM
1

And they feel sorry for you because they can't imagine what having it feels like. It's really not that big of a deal, I encourage people not to, didn't with my son, but my parents did for me and (while I may not know what I'm missing) sex is pretty awesome.
/r/MensRights31/08/09 04:53 PM
2

Wow. Thanks for that reply; it was really good. I'm pretty sure I still disagree with you, but responding at length would take me more time than I have right now. I'll let it bounce around my head for a while, and we'll see what I think next time this comes up. Thanks for taking the time to explain your view so well, and for the link. I generally don't use personal responsibility to absolve society of things, like it talked about, but in this case I think it's closer to justified. Like I said, I…
/r/MensRights29/08/09 02:02 AM
1

Less than 1%. True. The person never intended to create it... I don't see why that makes a difference with regard to personal responsibility. You took that 1% risk (in ordinary, consensual cases). This happens because of something you did that you could have chosen not to do if the risk was still too high for you. They were deceived about lack of intent That's a really serious issue, and I'm all for a) ranting about it here and b) using a condom if you don't want kids. Don't assume she's on the …
/r/MensRights29/08/09 12:08 AM
1

I know, that's pretty horrible. Much of the system is. Not really what I was referring to, but I'll add in the word "consent".
/r/MensRights28/08/09 11:49 PM
-4

I'm not at all interested in punishing people for sex. A few people are, but very few, anywhere that I know of. Whether a PERSON consents to sex, is, or should be, irrelevant to whether they should be compelled, against their will, to provide service or labor to raise a child. That all sounds really good, but when you consent to sex, you are taking the risks that lead to pregnancy, and without intervention, birth. I don't understand any good reason you should be free from providing for the child…
/r/MensRights28/08/09 10:34 PM
-7

If I can just start out with the most unpopular comment, which really is my view (not trolling): Men have the choice to not have children just as much as women. It's only the timing that's different. If you don't want to risk having children, don't consent to having sex. Edit: Put in consent to clarify I'm not talking about rape or turkey-basters.
/r/MensRights28/08/09 09:28 PM
1

"I can only hope that no licensed lawyer in this province would have advised the father that the fastest way to get custody and exclusive possession of the family home was to report the mother's transgressions to the police," Pugsley said in his ruling. While Epstein says false or trumped-up allegations are rare, and domestic abuse remains a "very, very serious and real issue," they can unfairly cripple an accused legally and financially because Ontario's court system is so slow and overburdened…
/r/MensRights28/08/09 06:52 PM
4

This is good. However... Reading the article, it seems to me that the case that started this discussion, and made them want to change it, was that the estranged husband said he felt "threatened" by her saying (in an e-mail) she could solve her problems with a gun if she could get one. I don't doubt that she was joking. I do doubt that if a man joked like that, was jailed and restraining-ordered, anyone would see a problem. This has happened countless times to men before, and it's when the law ge…
/r/MensRights28/08/09 06:50 PM
6

Well, this is all pretty hard to quantify, so in a sense, my statement is indefensible. But, I think marriage is greater than dating, if you've found a great person, because my investment is greater. So the returns are of a similar nature, but they're more meaningful and significant because I am fully invested.
/r/MensRights21/08/09 09:09 PM
2

She has no control over her level of desire. That simply isn't true. Perhaps it's not obvious to her how she can affect her desire, perhaps her husband is a fat, smelly slob who needs to be told to make changes, but there are many ways she could approach this proactively, rather than just giving up when the hormones fade. The rest of your post is fine.
/r/MensRights21/08/09 08:45 PM
8

I'm married and I think it's great. I wouldn't encourage men to avoid it; just to know that the system is set up entirely against them, and so be careful to marry someone who wouldn't use that system against them even if things go wrong.
/r/MensRights21/08/09 08:40 PM
6

There was someone in an IAmA post who said they were raped, and that was their definition - no coercion, just that they eventually gave in to unwanted sex.
/r/MensRights19/08/09 09:17 PM
1

I remember that story. Good point.
/r/MensRights13/08/09 07:11 PM
1

I can't be very helpful here, but I seem to remember, when working on a paper in college, that Andrea Dworkin had a fair amount to say about how men would be rapists, generally, if they could. I wouldn't, and hope the claim is ridiculous in general, but you might look at some of her stuff.
/r/MensRights13/07/09 06:52 PM
13

"Fischer uses a practice rare outside strict Orthodox groups where he uses his mouth to draw blood after cutting the foreskin." Every rabbi who operates this way should be prosecuted for child molestation. AFAIK, there is no religious basis or reasoning for this, certainly not in the Old Testament. I'm horrified to learn about this.
/r/MensRights12/07/09 04:41 PM
0

I'm pro-life. But I'm pretty much with you here. Yeah, fair would mean allowing the father to terminate his responsibilities. But, that's not fair to the kid. So, essentially, we have to balance the unfairness to the dad against the unfairness to the kid. There is no entirely good solution. I like fairness, so I say, she can either be entitled to child support or abortion. But since we don't live in a pro-life country, and the other option is pretty unfair to the innocent kid...
/r/MensRights08/07/09 09:52 PM
7

Just don't fight too hard, is my main advice. It's important for your sons to see you relate well to their mother. Since gender isn't socially constructed, it's not going to ruin your boys if she buys them dolls or whatever, but the main thing is to set a good example of mature masculinity, rather than duking it out with your wife over every feminist idea she puts out.
/r/MensRights08/07/09 07:44 PM
7

Um, dirty feeling? No. Sometimes I feel like it's a little high on the crazy, but other times I come away with a better understanding of other people's views. In my mind, time in equality has two huge benefits: First, I can figure out what ideas of mine are actually rather silly, and what have merit, and second, where else do you find people who aren't on the Mensrights bandwagon that are open to discussing that kind of stuff?
/r/MensRights24/06/09 05:11 PM
7

You shouldn't have to "ask" to be unbanned. It'd be good to see you there, but I understand why you don't.
/r/MensRights24/06/09 05:09 PM
1

True, everything she thinks about is what works for her.
/r/MensRights20/06/09 07:55 PM
1

I am too. Ron Paul is my hero... but until he gets elected, or someone like him, the best we can do is pick what kind of ineffective government intervention we're going to have. Maybe people would see the light quicker if the government were just doing bad stuff, but I'm for them (since they're stealing from people already) trying to help Americans, rather than taxing us to blow up people in 3rd world countries.
/r/MensRights20/06/09 07:53 PM
2

she was never out of that mode to begin with Very good observation. You see more of that when she's talking about how much the kids love the divorce later on (my words, not hers).
/r/MensRights19/06/09 06:16 PM
1

She has a priority problem. Instead of neglecting her marriage, she ought to consider neglecting other, less important things.
/r/MensRights19/06/09 06:14 PM
2

Oh, I didn't mean at all that the girl is not responsible, just that both parties are - the boy is not (should not be, anyway) exempted (but neither is the girl).
/r/MensRights18/06/09 07:59 PM
1

Upvoted you for dissent, which I think makes discussions better. The only solution would be for the state to assume the burden of the boy's responsibility. This requires tax dollars so extensive lobbying would be needed to implement such a solution. I agree here, but the government spends money it doesn't have all the time. Also, nice edit.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 05:48 PM
4

Hmm... Logically, this is a perfect point - if you legally cannot consent, it's supposed to be no different from rape, and so it's OBVIOUS they should not have to be responsible. Ethically, I might suggest otherwise, depending on the facts of the situation (because I think statutory rape law is somewhat silly). At the least, I would say if you have two underage kids statutorily raping each other, he's responsible. Having said all that, it's particularly egregious that the legal system doesn't re…
/r/MensRights18/06/09 05:20 PM
4

I don't know about this policy, but I am in favor of society encouraging women to again be responsible for not getting pregnant. They should have incentives to avoid pregnancy, but usually society is trying to decrease their expenses (or place the expenses on the man). This seems like the wrong way to do it, but at least it's something of a right idea - it's good for you, as a single, underage woman, to take precautions against pregnancy.
/r/MensRights17/06/09 07:36 PM
2

Thanks for summarizing. I upvoted Annarchist for every post, but I came late. I think it was excellent of you to point out what happened on Oprah, and lay out a similar counter-example. I've had some good discussions with Ginger, but I think all of that was completely uncalled for (the banning, and the "he goes or I go"). It'd be great to see you in there, but I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to ask to be let back.
/r/MensRights11/06/09 09:37 PM
1

Having said that, under what circumstances do you think we should prosecute false accusers? I like the idea, if we can be sure it really was a false accusation, because that's pretty freaking horrible.
/r/MensRights11/06/09 09:35 PM
2

Well, my impression is that he was banned for making a "threat". I didn't see the original thread, but read all about it the next day... I like Gingerroot, personally, but it seems more like it was something that offended her, then she said, "He goes, or I go" and so they banned him, kinda for saying something "threatening" but kind of because Ginger is more well liked there. Having said all that, BSC also said he probably wouldn't want to go back, which I can understand. But I don't think they'…
/r/MensRights11/06/09 05:27 AM
2

I agree. And maybe if that happens, the equality mods will be a little more hesitant to ban, too, and there'll be more man-friendly discussion there as well.
/r/MensRights11/06/09 12:03 AM
3

I agree that he seems like a really great guy.
/r/MensRights10/06/09 10:43 PM
5

If you really watch Maury, how often does he do a show that isn't a paternity test? I watched him probably 15 years ago, and thought he was fairly decent, now it just seems to be that.
/r/MensRights10/06/09 08:19 PM
1

One difference, it was a mother who's daughter had been raped. Just FYI.
/r/MensRights10/06/09 08:10 PM
1

FTA: Ali claimed he was provoked after Yasmine had laughed at him about the time he had spent in prison on remand after she made an allegation of rape against him which was later withdrawn. That would be infuriating. Bad enough to be jailed, powerless, when innocent. Worse to be laughed at about it. But, a couple points - she was 22, he was 29. I'm 29, and while I probably could date a college senior, that's a little on the weird side. Only a little, but still, weird. His actions were completely…
/r/MensRights10/06/09 08:09 PM
3

I hadn't heard of this enough to know what it was. Seriously, what the heck? If that's the next stage of human evolution, why are all the traits (except for OLD WISE EYES) bad? Anyone who believes that is delusional. Nice post.
/r/MensRights30/05/09 04:37 PM
2

Isn't Pravda Russian for "truth"? How could you possibly question it, then?
/r/MensRights27/05/09 10:39 PM
10

Or your husband is abusive... I totally agree with you in either case, but it sometimes seems that in the US, wives can claim abuse, and get away with it. I don't want him to get away with it (especially for verabl abuse, even though that hurts), but I don't want women getting away either.
/r/MensRights25/05/09 09:27 PM
5

Further, she only claims "mental abuse". But, from the article: Jeffress remained in the Euless City Jail on Monday on suspicion of murder. So at least they don't seem to be taking her word for it... yet. A jury might.
/r/MensRights18/05/09 07:29 PM
1

Ok, looking at the two paragraphs where I explained my thoughts, how would they be substantively different if I were pro-choice? The first paragraph wouldn't be any different unless you wanted to take the woman's choice out of it, and the second, I'm basically accepting that we have a pro-choice system, and putting what I think is fair in that context. Am I missing something?
/r/MensRights13/05/09 07:13 AM
4

I'm completely with AnnArchist about how it should be. If you don't want to be on the hook, don't have sex. On the other hand, considering that women can get an abortion with or without your consent or input, or take your money for 18 years without your input, I do think there ought to be some kind of legal way for men to walk away or mitigate their responsibility the same way we let women. Edit: I'm pretty pro-life, btw, which maybe plays into a person's views on this.
/r/MensRights12/05/09 06:26 PM
2

No, I think you can do something wrong, without there being the slightest basis for criminal charges. The 3-7 second delay shouldn't matter at all in a legal sense, I'm just saying he should be quicker to respond to someone's withdrawal of consent. I liked AnnArchist's comment about 5th degree sexual assualt or whatever; it's far less serious than rape. And, I am mostly ignoring the girl, because I mostly agree with you there. However, she was 10 - yeah, she should have told the truth right away…
/r/MensRights10/05/09 05:26 AM
0

I'd agree completely with this, except that I don't think we need a law for it. I think it's more about (in cases like this) being ethical and honorable. But if there were a law, that'd be a good one.
/r/MensRights08/05/09 09:37 PM
1

Maybe my sense of time is off during sex. To me (not during sex) a second is a consistently longer than I usually think it is. 5 seconds, I would think, is enough time to stop, or it's enough time to get one or two more thrusts in. If she's on top, your consent is violated (I don't think you could rape someone who's already consented to sex, no matter what our laws say) if you say stop and she keeps going. If it takes her a bit to get off of you, that's obviously different.
/r/MensRights08/05/09 09:21 PM
2

No, I'm not a woman, and I've not "never had sex" either. I'm not saying you'll stop instantaneously, but when you're having sex with someone, you need to stop as soon as they tell you to stop. Maybe it takes a couple seconds to "get out", but (here I'm presuming) there's still a huge difference between immediately beginning to stop, and "Ok, I'll stop, just give me 5 more seconds". Also, the charge was that it was 5-10 seconds. I know you'd rather not stop, I know your body is not listening at …
/r/MensRights08/05/09 09:18 PM
-3

I think all men should be able to stop in under 5 seconds. It would be hard, you'd probably want to keep going while you argue, but you need to stop immediately, if the other person tells you to. That doesn't mean it should be charged criminally. Agree with you about the double standard at the end of your comment.
/r/MensRights08/05/09 08:11 PM
-1

Just curious, was Dershowitz falsely accused? Either way, that's a good quote. I do think if someone tells you, "Stop having sex with me" you need to stop right away, not 5 seconds later. That's a really bad thing. I don't think it should be a criminal thing. Reading back, that story about the 8 & 9 year olds was horrible. Thanks for sharing it. /end random things to say to PH
/r/MensRights08/05/09 08:08 PM
3

She's making a great point here, although it took me a little thinking to understand what the title was saying. Why is violence equal, but murder isn't? Because, perhaps, we're overlooking a lot of murders by the woman, or not prosecuting them. That would just make sense. The only other thing I can think of that would make sense is that women initiate about 2/3rds of divorces, so perhaps they're more likely than men to leave rather than murder? I wish she were a social scientist.
/r/MensRights06/05/09 05:02 PM
3

I admire him for not hitting back or responding with (frankly deserved) violence. That would have ruined people's ability to see him as a victim. But I'm amazed that he never went to the police, or never got up and left, or never responded in any other way. I wonder if he's suffered past abuse that somehow conditioned him to accept it?
/r/MensRights05/05/09 06:06 PM
2

This is a great article. I wish it weren't in the Sun, but I'm glad they have video - kind of proves they aren't making it all up.
/r/MensRights05/05/09 05:43 PM
1

On divorce affecting lifespans, it does (negatively) affect the men a lot more than women. Wish I could remember where I saw that, but I'm absolutely certain there was a good study that demonstrated it.
/r/MensRights01/05/09 06:05 PM
2

We're not close friends, but I'm delighted to be married. Been married two years, sometimes it's hell, but on average, it's great. Wouldn't ever change it. On a side note, if your friends are planning to stay in it, John Gottman is the king of research on marriage and what makes it happy or rotten. He's got lots of down-to-earth books; they could pick one up and possibly improve things. Seriously, everyone who researches relationships or marriage in any scientific sense of research cites him. Pa…
/r/MensRights01/05/09 06:02 PM
1

Some of us (a minority on reddit) believe in God, and believe he wants us to get married if we want the whole "committed relationship including sex" thing. Btw, I think there's good reasons for that, but some people have really messed it up. Also, she could have the same motive - she loves you, but believes God doesn't want her with you unless you're married. Heck, almost everyone used to believe that - so I don't think you can assume that her motives aren't respectable. Having said all that, fo…
/r/MensRights01/05/09 05:57 PM
3

I got married, and I'm really glad I did. Marriage is really good for people, men included. It's the nasty divorces & child support that need to be fixed. I have no doubt that my son is mine, but even so, I think it would be great if the government mandated paternity tests in all cases. Because if I did have slight doubts, I know it would start an argument if I even asked (understandably, if you're with someone trustworthy that you trust). But if it were the government requiring it, who could ar…
/r/MensRights01/05/09 05:55 PM
15

Other than prior ex-husbands, how do you tell if a woman would do that? They'd all say they wouldn't (and probably most think they wouldn't) but for some of them, divorce and bitterness would change them.
/r/MensRights01/05/09 03:08 AM
3

Read yesterday on Glenn Sacks that this isn't really what the law is saying. He says it's saying you can't be fired for causes related to the domestic violence.
/r/MensRights28/04/09 07:02 PM
19

"I want us to plan what is a fair separation while we still love each other." That's so insightful I can't even express it. To think either party can be fair in a nasty divorce is insane. I can understand why women might be put off by a pre-nup, but any woman who comes up with something like that on her own is a sure keeper! As for not getting one, well, I think you're right that there's a connection between getting one and having an easier "out". Might weaken the commitment. And, if you plan on…
/r/MensRights24/04/09 04:58 PM
5

Much of this is true. But, it also assumes that laws are fair, which is as far from truth as you can get. As long as our laws are set up to "protect women" and not be truly equal, marriage is a HUGE risk for men and a tiny one for women. That's why, in spite of the good points she has, people get pre-nups. Made me sad to read some of her assumptions...
/r/MensRights24/04/09 04:55 PM
3

Lots of good thoughts here. Do we want equality, or just equality for women? If the latter, it can't be equality.
/r/MensRights23/04/09 07:51 PM
9

Wow, she had a espenses paid, woman-only lunch and manicures, and she is a company VICE PRESIDENT. I figured she was some little management flunky who hadn't paid attention in training. That's outrageous. Oh, and she told the women who were invited to LIE to the men if they asked where they were going. Tell them you have an off-site meeting!
/r/MensRights21/04/09 06:18 PM
28

Time "to dismantle the zealous overprotections for men accused of this crime" What protections for men is she thinking of? The woman gets all the benefit of the doubt. As far as I can tell, her goal, for whatever reason, is to give women absolute power over men they are in relationships with? She wants the sole determination of whether there was a rape to be the woman's later thoughts about it. Rape ought to be about force, power, coercion, or drugs. I mean, for something to be rape, the man HAS…
/r/MensRights17/04/09 09:00 PM
2

I just want to say, in the Mary Winkler case - any time a woman says "He asked me to do degrading things" we should say, "Exactly what did he ask (or demand if that's what she claims)". Because all Mary Winkle talked about was the high heels, and the jurors assumed it was the tip of the horrendous iceberg. Perhaps. But I suspect, if her freedom was at stake for life, she'd want to say EVERYTHING. Nasty hooker fantasies are no excuse for "snapping" and killing your husband. That's all.
/r/MensRights16/04/09 09:01 PM
1

No, I actually completely agree, I'm just quibbling over the number of guilty men. Perhaps I don't completely agree. I agree that we should bias our legal system toward presuming innocence (which we don't actually do right now). I want the overwhelming majority of mistakes to be guilty people going free, not innocent people going to jail. I'm just saying, there will always be mistakes, and so there needs to be some kind of balance. And I think that balance should be somewhere closer to 10 free g…
/r/MensRights15/04/09 12:06 AM
1

Great post, I just wanted to quibble with one line. The person who first said the quote about the guilty going free said it's better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man hang. Since we can't do it perfectly, I think we'll always risk convicting an innocent person, and never get all the guilty people. Society is WAY too far on the side of convicting the innocent, but we could overreact to the point that we aren't getting any of the guilty, either. Our priority must be (and currently isn…
/r/MensRights14/04/09 05:18 PM
5

I don't like the stereotype that sex offender = male, but part of the reason our society has it is because so many people think it'd be awesome to have sex with their teacher, as long as she's hot. I don't agree with that, and think we should take these stories seriously. I don't think high school boys are in the best position to know whether it's smart to sleep with their teacher or not.
/r/MensRights13/04/09 07:54 PM
3

I'd be okay with this if it were a wife or girlfriend, and they had talked about having kids, etc. But there's no woman anywhere in the picture - if you're kid talked about being an astronaut, but died in 8th grade, would you send their ashes into space? This would make even less sense.
/r/MensRights08/04/09 09:09 PM
4

Good point, my bad. Seriously, though, I'm alright with alimony lower in the social scale, when she's home with the kids, not working, if those things are true or she put him through school or something like that. But I assume, in cases like this, if they had kids, they had a full-time nanny, expensive private school, etc, and they probably have multiple maids. So, unfortunately, the setup here seems to be trading sex or the appearance of a beautiful wife for her being able to enjoy a lavish lif…
/r/MensRights01/04/09 08:17 PM
9

I think from seeing this before, too, he worked his way up at his company for 30 years, so he's not just some overpaid ceo. A lot of that money is wealth he built.
/r/MensRights01/04/09 07:28 PM
13

Even with 53k a week, that's 19 years of high living. If you marry a rich guy, then leave, do you deserve to live like him your whole life, or isn't 19 years enough? I understand somewhat if they'd married each other poor, and she put him through school, etc, but that's not the case.
/r/MensRights01/04/09 07:26 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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