TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mechesh Archive

View 4 posts and 203 comments by mechesh 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)
1

It is actually like that in many states. I think in most of them the parent has to be present.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/02/21 03:00 PM
6

Pretty much yeah. Some states held out for awhile, I think texas and alaska because oil money, but eventually they all caved.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/02/21 01:27 PM
16

It's not a federal law. It is state law. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to create a drinking age. In 1984 the fed passed a law reducing federal highway funding for any state that didnt raise the age to 21, so eventually all states did.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/02/21 12:40 PM
176

Well, it is bashing Christian's, so you know...upvotes. that's the way things work round here.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/01/21 11:49 AM
1

And that is an acceptable life view to have. If you have been hurt numerous times, and don't want to expose yourself again, dont. Go seek happiness in other ways! You can do it. I will tell you, before my wife I got burned bad a couple times. So it wasn't all good for me. Oje flaee rape accuaation. One serial cheater, thar one took a long tike to get past. But I made my choice, you make yours. I am not trying to convince anyone otherwise. That doesn't have to equate to active hate of women.
/r/MGTOW30/08/18 04:57 PM
2

I can only speak anecdotally here, but I am a pretty average guy looks wise. And I married up. I was barely financially stable as well. We were in our mid 20s (40s now) Certainly not wealthy. I look at most of my current friends and peers. Some of their marriages have failed, more have stayed together. Some of those that failed the guy got screwed, others were about even and in one case he got the majority and she paid him alimony for 5 years. For those that are still together, the majority, the…
/r/MGTOW30/08/18 03:56 PM
1

Thank you. I had never been to this sub before. Awhile ago I read some about mgtow and it made sense and I agreed it was good for some bit didn't look much more into it. Now, looming through the hot posts, and the top last month it is clear there is so much just hate here. I had assumed this was a subreddit of support for men who want to go their own way, not an echo chamber of woman hate. I believe you judge a community not by their radicals, but by how the community reacts to them. Moderate Fe…
/r/MGTOW30/08/18 03:39 PM
3

I personally am not a mgtow. I have a great wife, family and home that brings me much joy. I totally support those who do though, and I thought I understood why they did it. I will support men and a movement who want a happy life without the need for women because they don't see the benifit out ways the risk. Great, live your life. But I don't like to see a movement like this turn into just women hate.
/r/MGTOW30/08/18 02:46 PM
24

This is not at all what I understood MGTOW to be about. I have defended it in the past, but if this is how you see yoursevles, I can't defend that. I thought it was about the risk/reward imbalance because family law heavily favors the woman in divorce and custody.
/r/MGTOW30/08/18 11:27 AM
2

No. Everyone knows, or should know that even protected sex is not 100% foolproof. If a person is having sex, they are accepting that pregnancy might occure, and be prepared for the possible consequences. But, we like sex, and we as a society don't want to admit that it can result on consequences, because that makes us uncomfortable and is kinda like slut shaming.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 02:11 PM
2

So, what happens if the guy who is told he is the father and opts in, but after birth finds out he isn't the father after all?
/r/MensRights11/02/18 01:41 PM
0

That is good logic. If you stay inside you are very unlikely to due in a car crash, and if you ride in cars, you are accepting the possibility that you might get in a car crash.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 01:39 PM
1

they get so mad of course they do. You are literally mansplaining to them about what mansplaining means LOL!!!
/r/MensRights21/09/17 07:33 PM
1

he said + she said + no corroborating evidence = 50%, so I'm not as concerned about the burden of proof. Your math is wrong, you left out a variable. he said + she said + no corroborating evidence -believe the victim =49% it didn't happen 51% it did happen. We know have "more likely than not" and he is guilty.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 07:08 PM
5

That's like feminism 101 Unfortunately we are in 400 level classes now, and the curriculum has changed.
/r/MensRights04/09/17 10:33 AM
1

under the influence of a drug inducing sleep And then you asked me about "spiking the drink" THAT question was already answered, right here, that is what I am talking about. What if I buy her a drink after she is already sloshed? 2 drinks? 10 drinks? As long as she doesn't pass out, I'm in the clear? Is she actively participating...then yes you are probably in the clear. Is she barely able to sit upright, or if you lift her arm does it fall back down due to a lack of motor control and is only mu…
/r/MensRights22/08/17 03:40 PM
1

I think it is because you have been told the same information by several people and keep asking pretty much the same questions over and over again. It is a big issue for MRAs, but I think you misunderstood what the issue actually is. As I said, this type of rape "charge" is prevalent on college campuses, but not in the real world law enforcement.
/r/MensRights22/08/17 02:56 PM
1

People keep telling you the same thing, and you keep trying to dig deeper looking for a different answer. So I could be stone cold sober and have sex with a girl who was visibly drunk (slurring her speech, stumbling around a public place, exhibiting poor short term memory) with no legal repercussions? Most likely, yes you will likely not be charged or convicted of rape or sexual assault because she is drunk. It is not impossible, but it is unlikely. I am not telling you to go take advantage of d…
/r/MensRights22/08/17 02:40 PM
2

I thought this was a big point of controversy in the MRA world, that law enforcement had the capacity to convict on sexual assault simply because the woman was drunk. I think I see where you confusion is. Law enforcement does not (normally?) have this capacity, but many colleges and universities do have this policy. there are many many cases where a university "convicts" a man of rape for having drunken sex, and kicks them out, but no actual charges are ever brought by law enforcement.
/r/MensRights21/08/17 09:50 PM
1

You know what blows my mind? Under the PPACA (Obamacare) 18 forms of female birth control are required to be covered. Vasectomies are not required to be covered. It makes me think a lot about the motivations of the people who drafted the PPACA.
/r/MensRights19/07/17 09:16 PM
1

Wanting that is not wrong, but that doesn't mean it should be free.
/r/MensRights19/07/17 07:50 PM
3

Whenever I hear a call for a "right to BC/abortions" what I really hear is a call for consequence free sex. That is the real issue. I am not a "abstinence only" believer or anything like that, but abstinence is a free and effective birth control that everyone has the right to. But people don't want to be abstinent, they want to have sex, without pregnancy.
/r/MensRights18/07/17 04:56 PM
4

Why not both: Have a change of heart and freely admit that you lied, get a slap on the wrist. If you continue in the lie up until a judge declares it a false accusation, several years in jail. Someone who is willing to send an innocent person to jail for their own selfish reasons has broken their contract with society.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/07/17 07:17 PM
5

I think your thoughts here are reading why too much into the "how can we frame this in the best possible light for the teacher." I don't think difficulty in making the transition back is a good argument for never letting the boys play with their favorite toy.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 09:36 PM
25

and the boys can try again tomorrow This is a big difference between you and the OP. You were giving a specific punishment to a specific behavior for a set period of time. The teacher said she would allow the boys to play with legos "when hell freezes over" because she didn't want the boys to play with them.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 07:16 PM
3

under the conditions set forth in the scope of the grant again, I will ask, where are you getting this information on the scope of this particular grant. You claim to know a lot about it.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 07:13 PM
16

I have not seen any source that states the local community wasn't upset by the practice. Care to share a source? you replying to same thing to pretty much every comment in this thread does not make it a fact.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 07:12 PM
8

I think your statement did that for itself. You implied that lack of permanent injury make sexist practices OK, or did I misunderstand your statement.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 07:10 PM
12

There's a reason parents in the community were not outraged and the teacher is still liked and employed in the school district. Well yeah, it could be she is an otherwise great teacher who made a BIG mistake, so she was given a warning as long as she ended the practice. Which is fine. Not everyone has to be fired over every mistake.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 07:08 PM
3

Where did you pull the Education Community Starter Kit name from It was in the original article. She bought 3 of the kits with the grant money.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 07:04 PM
14

No boys were permanently injured by not playing with Lego blocks for under 2 months, correct. That is an interesting standard for equality...well, as long as nobody actually gets hurt, we don't have to actually treat different people equally. To take it to the extreme, making a sandwich doesn't permanently injure anyone, so all women should be required to make sandwiches every day for men. (note, I don't actually think or endorse this idea)
/r/MensRights18/04/17 07:00 PM
15

The STEM grant funded the Lego purchase specifically to encourage girls in engineering Where are you getting this information? It was a Classroom Enrichment Grant, not a STEM specific grant according to the article. Unless the CEG is a STEM specific grant, but I doubt it, and is it a grant specifically for women in STEM and not everyone in STEM? The quotes from the teacher in OP's article might be offense if true, but that's a separate issue from the scope of the grant. ARE offensive, not might …
/r/MensRights18/04/17 06:57 PM
7

HEAR HEAR!!!
/r/MensRights18/04/17 06:34 PM
21

The article says a grants was used to buy the legos, not that it was a "2 month grant funded project" “I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head,” she said. “I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad.” That is not what someone says if they are trying an experimental project, "When Hell freezes over"...this was not a planned temporary thing. It is possible that the practice ended due to backlash fr…
/r/MensRights18/04/17 06:15 PM
1

I created it many years ago /r/mrmemes
/r/MensRights15/02/17 05:11 PM
1

Why is "pregnancy" the standard of being expected to be allowed to change your mind after the fact? Impending parenthood would be the gender neutral standard, as it applies to both parties. How do you account for the man consenting to sex under the understanding that she would have an abortion if pregnancy resulted, and then she changes her mind? Hasn't she now solicited sexual consent under false pretenses? Some places call that rape.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/01/17 07:49 PM
1

Also, I feel like it's the woman's right to change her mind after the fact. Are you saying that A woman, on the sole basis of being a woman, has a right that a man doesn't and shouldn't, because she is a woman?
/r/PussyPassDenied26/01/17 12:06 PM
5

Exactly, but women are giving an "opt out at a later date" option and men are not.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/01/17 12:05 PM
4

relevant xkcd guy singing relevant xkcd Happy new year
/r/MensRights01/01/17 12:04 PM
15

Underwater basket weaving is more effective.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 02:51 AM
6

who cares if a girl wants to abort 5 kids People who honestly believe that a fetus is a life deserving of rights prior to birth. That is who. I am not trying to argue if they are right or wrong. Just answering your question.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/11/16 05:38 PM
7

It says right in the article don't destroy the documents if a complaint is reasonably anticipated, so I would assume that is the thresh hold.
/r/MensRights17/08/16 01:40 PM
7

eh...don't care.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 01:59 PM
15

Yes, he was correct in his assessment of the problem and IIRC not in it's entirety. He thought it was a hoax. His actions though were very inappropriate. He caused what is comparable to an oil spill or similar natural disaster. If there was an oil storage tank that required a running pump to keep the oil from spilling out, that is unsafe. The solution is not "turning off the pump" without first safely removing the oil and ensuring no environmental damage.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 01:30 PM
8

ummm. 6 weeks is mid August.
/r/MensRights04/07/16 11:51 PM
7

He gave permission for the interview, she did not.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 09:57 PM
1

Have you ever considered that saying any of these things is just as sexist to men than it is to women? If you don't live up to physical standards, have emotions, or complain about anything you are insulted for not meeting the "normal standard" that you should, because you are a man.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 09:06 PM
2

Do you have any statistics on the percentage of of rape claims where an automatic assumption of lying is made?
/r/MensRights07/02/16 08:57 PM
9

The comparison is that A vasectomy prevents the fertilization of an egg. An abortion destroyed an already fertilized egg. Some people believe (strongly) that the fertilized egg is a life. The reason why it is better to compare a vasectomy to tubal ligation is that nobody is forming picket lines to prevent tubal ligation, or IUD, or the pill...
/r/MensRights07/02/16 08:51 PM
22

White, property owning men have always had the right to vote The majority of men did not own property though...just saying.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 08:47 PM
2

are you aware that the majority of men could not vote until 160ish years ago in the US when the property ownership requirement was removed. In the UK, most of the men who were drafted to fight in WWI did not have the right to vote. You needed to own property to vote. They gained the right to vote at the same time women did.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 08:44 PM
11

the "25 minute" not guilty verdict is kinda telling. The jury didn't even have to think about it.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 10:00 PM
2

I firmly object to arresting anyone for political speech. OK, sure, reasonable. Do you object to people being arrested for hate speech? In the UK The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states: (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disor…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 01:27 PM
3

The defense argued there was a gun to her head. That doesn't mean there actually was.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/15 11:46 AM
1

I am not saying that I am OK with the situation. You are making an assumption on "she got off on having sex with someone she had power over". Which, also, has nothing to do with ephebophilia. The question is, did the regularly have sex with people in their 20's? Did she have sex with this young man because he was attractive, and they had some "connection"?
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/15 01:53 PM
1

whoops, my bad. The point remains though that this woman is not a pedophile or ephebophile.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/15 12:39 PM
1

ephebophilia (would be 15-19 btw) isn't correct here either. Simply having sex with someone in that age range doesn't make one an ephebophile. That would be a primary preference for someone of that age. Biologically and evolutionary finding a physically developed person of 15 sexually attractive is perfectly normal and not a disorder. It is a modern cultural taboo and against modern US law. That is all There are places in the world where you are considered an adult at 15.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/15 12:25 PM
1

no, it really isn't.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/15 12:08 PM
9

no it is not. It is wrong, yes, but not pedophilia. A pedophile has zero interest in a 15 year old.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/03/15 08:48 PM
20

I am not saying sex with a minor is wrong, only that it is far different than pedophilia. One could argue that pedophiles are genuinely mentally ill. Having sex with someone with the body of an adult, but below our societal age limit is not mental illness.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/03/15 08:47 PM
19

yes, legally a 15yo cannot "consent" to sex in the United States. In reality they absolutely can consent, the court just does not recognize that consent. Committing statutory rape with a 15 year old is not pedophilia. Does that make my statement better?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/03/15 07:52 PM
21

Having consensual sex with a 15 year old is not pedophilia!!!
/r/PussyPassDenied20/03/15 07:19 PM
2

You misunderstand, I get the concept of jury nullification. But the UK has a different legal system than the US. Did a jury hear this case? (I may have missed that part in the article) or was it just judges?
/r/MensRights17/03/15 02:52 PM
3

Does Jury Nullification occur in the UK?
/r/MensRights17/03/15 01:57 PM
1

sure they do. Is it reasonable to conclude that a Harvard Law Professor lied in an editorial for the Harvard Law Review? She would have little to gain and much to loose if she did. It is not even the cornerstone of the article, just one example 2/3 of the way down. Why lie to support a case you have already made? I don't think it is a reasonable conclusion that she is lying in this case.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 01:03 PM
2

I am skeptical because of the lack of specific details as well, but then other factors need to be considered. The author is a Harvard Law Professor who claims to personally worked on the case. Being a professor at Harvard Law gives huge credibility. She has not much to gain, and far to fall from a lie. This example is not the cornerstone of the article. It is like 2/3 of the way down. She gives plenty of other examples of title 9 abuse. Why add a lie? The case was made without it. Privacy here i…
/r/MensRights10/03/15 11:40 AM
2

Do you realize you are calling an editorial in the Harvard Law Review Forum (a companion to the printed Law Review) written by a Harvard Law School Professor "click bait/spam" It doesn't get much more credible of a source.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 11:07 AM
1

The article was written by a Harvard Law School professor who had personal experience with the case. She assisted the student...how much more credibility do you want?
/r/MensRights10/03/15 11:03 AM
2

The Forum post (you call it a blog, but it is a companion forum to the printed Harvard Law Review and held to the same editorial standards) is the source material. It was written by the lawyer who worked on the case. She is a professor at Harvard Law. As far as reputable sources on Reddit go, she is about as good as it gets. Why is it being questioned???
/r/MensRights10/03/15 11:00 AM
57

But, we all know women have always been the primary victims of war.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 12:38 AM
-1

Well, TIL and Virginia is one of the few states with criminal defamation laws...however, with only 16 cases ending in convictions in 40 years...I would say it is very hard to get a conviction for. Since there is not defamation against an individual, and only the fraternity, since the individual is made up, it would be very hard to prosecute. The link I have posted here somewhere talks about it.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 10:58 PM
1

I am not pulling hairs. You didn't read the article I posted did you. I know you didn't, because the pedophile example you gave is answered in the article. Also, it is not a crime to point a finger at someone and accuse them of something. There is no jail sentence for this. Lying is not a crime either. "filing a false police report" is a crime, but she didn't do that. What she did is not a criminal matter, only a civil one. There is no jail sentence for civil suits.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 09:42 PM
0

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music), or using profanity. -Lying in a magazine interview does not meet this criteria. "A person is guilty of inciting to riot when one urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create pu…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 09:34 PM
4

wait...are you talking about Lena Dunham, a student from Oberlin college? She is different than "Jackie" isn't she?
/r/MensRights18/12/14 09:18 PM
2

No, I am not. I am very serious. Defamation is a civil violation, not criminal. here is a great article on the chances of a Libel suit being filed.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 09:15 PM
0

Hey, I found a great WP article about this topic I think it is worth a read.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 09:12 PM
-1

I have not read anything about someone on campus being accused of being "Drew the republican" If there was such a person, wouldn't that be the reporter's fault for not saying it was an alias? "Jackie" told Rolling Stone the guy's name was Haven. Haven seems to have never existed. Oh, and it seems this is untrue as the the story labels him as someone “whom we’ll call Drew.” Isn't this indicating "Drew" is not his real name?
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:56 PM
0

No, I am not saying any of that. Find me a law she broke. Jail is for people who break a law. She didn't. As far as I know she never filed a police report (filing a false report would be illegal) Telling lies about a fraternity is defamation. Defamation is not criminal. If you find me a law she broke, you will change my view. Short of that, I am firm that she shouldn't go to jail.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:49 PM
-2

some trouble, yes...jail time...no. I don't know any criminal law regarding defamation.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:44 PM
1

I am not saying she didn't do anything wrong, or doesn't deserve some punishment. She did, and she does. But jail time, no, I don't agree. If she had said Joe Snuffy was the guy in charge of the gang rape, and Joe Snuffy was an actual student at UVA then yeah, jail time IMHO. But he wasn't. Haven isn't real.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:36 PM
0

Who did she ruin? "Drew" or "Haven" seems to not have actually existed. So who's life did she ruin?
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:12 PM
-1

Normally for false rape accusations I would agree, but she didn't actually accuse anyone of rape. She made up a story. All the characters are fictional. She didn't file a police report and lying to a journalist is not a crime.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 07:58 PM
1

here is the translation Taken to the hospital for the first tests, the doctors riscontrarono a state of shock with a prognosis of three days but no sign of violence
/r/MensRights14/11/14 11:08 AM
-1

Find the links to the Italian articles in the thread. Medical exam provided no proof of rape. Also the "attitude" or "manner" with which she exited the bathroom with the accused did not suggest violence.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 09:52 PM
2

So, I found an italian article Here is a translation (google translate, which seems to have mixed up the genders saying he instead of she) of the relevant paragraphs But the images recorded by the cameras of the room, viewed by the police, would disprove his story. The video would show the girl and the man who'd raped and taken out of the bath, "an attitude incompatible with aggression," as he wrote the Ansa news agency. Taken to the hospital for the first tests, the doctors riscontrarono a stat…
/r/MensRights13/11/14 09:48 PM
2

Most likely yes this will happen...but it requires the defendant to spend time and money to get the suit dismissed.
/r/MensRights25/10/14 12:15 PM
3

you are under arrest for pushing this girl off the balcony Ummm, but he wasn't. He was charged with "charging him with sexual contact with a minor and contributing to the delinquency of a minor" His charges have nothing to do with her fall/injury.
/r/MensRights01/08/14 02:53 PM
20

In your research did you find a list of which states did or did not require it?
/r/MensRights10/06/14 03:30 PM
10

It was a plea bargain. She got offered a great deal by the DA and took it. Most likely they would have a hard time proving Murder 1 in court, and possibly murder 2. It sounds like it was crime of passion, not premeditated. The sentence could have been longer, but it was a plea deal...never saw a court room. She knew she was going to prison, so she made a deal to save the DA time and got a lighter sentence.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 06:44 PM
23

For a college paper, wikipedia is not a source. For a casual discussion on the internet, it is.
/r/MensRights07/04/14 10:47 AM
8

Well, if there are so many men abusing women, than wouldn't being widowed be a good thing?
/r/MensRights22/03/14 10:12 AM
20

It is the "I am a part of history" effect. (don't know if that is an actual thing, but that is what I call it.) People wanted to vote for the first black president. it makes them feel good to be a part of history. Now, those same people might have the opportunity to vote for the first black president and the first woman president.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 10:10 AM
3

there is always /r/mrmemes
/r/MensRights18/02/14 05:54 PM
2

he was charged with a different crime than she was. Also, she might have been offered the same deal, but didn't take it. we don't know.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 08:01 PM
13

There is nothing to rationalize. If you read the article it is all right there. He took a plea deal. He never got a trial. The DA said plead guilty and you will only get 13 months. Go to trial, you could get 5 years (or whatever the max sentence is). The BF MADE A CHOICE to accept 13 months in jail.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 04:33 PM
7

By this one cannot claim that plea deals were the cause of the sentencing disparity either Yes you absolutely can. At the time the plea deal was made neither the prosecution or the defense knew what the resulting sentence of a trial would be. If the BF knew she would only get probation, he would never have accepted prison time as a plea deal. Also if the DA had known she would only get probation, he would probably have offered that to the BF as well. The BF, and his lawyer made a bad deal.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 04:30 PM
1

He took a plea deal. If he had not, perhaps his sentence would have been probation. We will never no. He made a choice to have a 13 month sentence rather than go to trial.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 04:27 PM
6

No judge wasn't involved with "this guy". He took a plea deal. His lawyer should have negotiated better.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 04:25 PM
3

Is it really that hard a concept to grasp? Next time you have an undergrad who doesn't get it, feel free to tell them "I knew this guy online mid 30's WHO DIDN'T EVEN GO TO COLLEGE that had a better grasp on this stuff than you."
/r/MensRights23/01/14 09:34 PM
6

If you are trying to confirm a number of 1 in 5, and the first three schools you look at are 1 in 188...do you keep looking? To average that out you are going to need schools with a 1 in 2, and lots of them.
/r/MensRights23/01/14 08:04 PM
6

Wow. Good luck man. Stay on the DA until you get an answer!
/r/MensRights08/01/14 07:28 PM
5

Just out of curiosity, what was the nature of the assault charges, and why were they dropped?
/r/MensRights08/01/14 06:30 PM
1

For your link: majority of Louisiana inmates are housed in for-profit facilities "for Profit" does not mean private. A government owned facility can be profitable. most prison entrepreneurs are rural sheriffs Again, these are not private prisons. These would be county jails, owned and run by the county, not a private company.
/r/MensRights22/12/13 01:58 PM
0

I understand that, but the number of people in private prisons is so low compared to the number in government controlled prisons that I don't see how any one state could have the "majority" of their prisoners in private prison. So, I did some more looking into it. It appears as though 10 state prisons in Louisiana. Only 2 are private with plans to make a 3rd private. So without anyone linking to data that suggests otherwise, Revoran pulled the statement "majority of prisoners in private prisoner…
/r/MensRights21/12/13 08:28 PM
2

majority of prisoners in private prisons Do you have a source on this? The fact that only 3.7% of the prison population is housed in private prisons in the entire country makes me skeptical that any one state can have the majority of their prisoners housed in private prisons.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 03:18 PM
6

Correct, but familial status is protected class as is gender. So firing a married man to hire a single female...
/r/MensRights20/12/13 01:51 AM
5

Unless they think the law does not apply to them. Perhaps because they are a minority.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 01:47 AM
5

I believe in the context of the Wikipedia page, the word tabloid is in reference to the size of print, and not the content.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 01:45 AM
-2

only color printers.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 02:02 PM
1

well, yes and no. Insurance is to cover the costs of eventualities.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 11:37 AM
1

no no no. everyone pays the same now. But everyone pays coverage for things that they as an individual will never need.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 11:35 AM
1

I am confused by your use of the work oxymoron in this way.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 07:52 PM
1

that is what I am staying. Women don't usually get hair cuts...they get hair styles. That is why they cost more.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 07:50 PM
3

looks like someone has not been paying attention to health care reform. Under the new rules for health insurance, everyone has to carry insurance that covers things that they don't necessarily have. This is why insurance costs are going up for almost everyone, and how it "pays for itself" Every policy must meet minimum standards, and the minimum standards cover things that a specific person may never need. I believe single women also need to cover prostate exams in their insurance policies so th…
/r/MensRights16/12/13 07:49 PM
6

You mean used to right? Now men have to get insurance that covers pap smears.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 12:44 PM
2

Off the top of my head, women pay more for haircuts most places, even if they want a man's style. Is this actually true? Usually women pay for "hair styling" not hair cuts. Most places I see have a rate for Adult Cut and Child's Cut, then a list of prices for "styles". If a man is getting a perm, he pays the same as a woman's perm. Also, if I go to the salon my wife goes to, I am going to pay much more than the $12.95 that I pay at cost cutters.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 12:42 PM
16

maybe pointing out the hypocrisy of feminists?
/r/MensRights15/12/13 05:31 PM
3

oops, i meant to say not fat. She was not a tiny girl, but not fat either. And i do consider myself very fortunate that they believed me. They were good friends.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 05:52 PM
8

Sophomore year of high school. I was hanging out with my buddies ex. She is older than me, and bigger. I was a pretty runty guy and she was not fat at all, but broad shouldered with big breasts. We started making out on a couch in her basement. Both got topless. I felt her up between her legs outside of her pants. The whole makeout session she is saying "you have made me so happy." "I have wanted this for a long time" we are both virgins. On the way home, i bring up "blue balls" as I was startin…
/r/MensRights13/12/13 12:08 PM
1

I had heard the first part. not the second interesting.
/r/MensRights09/11/13 04:09 PM
2

remember though, that this hypothetical person is trying to kill you. Doesn't that change things a bit?
/r/MensRights08/11/13 03:58 PM
0

Wow, what a great solution, why has nobody thought of this before??? Oooooh, wait, I see a problem. You didn't take into account other potentially hostile countries probably are not going to take the stance of "eh, that United States has such a small army, it is just not worth our trouble to attack them." ain't logic a bitch.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 03:55 PM
3

Glock 44? this makes me question the validity of the report.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 05:44 PM
2

I have only ever heard the term "grudge fuck" used. Never "hate fuck" And I have only ever heard it used jokingly, not in any way serious. Not that I am all knowing or anything. I mean it is on Urban Dictionary, so it has to be something people actually do, right?
/r/MensRights17/10/13 05:36 PM
-5

whoosh
/r/MensRights13/09/13 03:20 PM
-1

Well, she already killed her husband once (allegedly)...I doubt she would do it again just for kicks.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 03:12 PM
3

And if you whip out the ol cock and balls to prove you are indeed a man...well they yell at you for that too!!!
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:47 PM
2

Apparently the initial reports that stated that were wrong. Hunt turned 18 in august, the 3 incidents of sexual activity were in Dec. and January, and charges were filed in February. Also, it wouldn't matter. The Florida law is under 16, cannot consent. There is no stipulation for if they are both under 18. I am not saying I agree with the law, but until it is changed, it is what it is, and the law was broken. Hopefully the publicity in this case will get the law changed, for both sexes, and she…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 03:27 PM
1

Apparently the initial reports that stated that were wrong. Hunt turned 18 in august, the 3 incidents of sexual activity were in Dec. and January, and charges were filed in February. Also, it wouldn't matter. The Florida law is under 16, cannot consent. There is no stipulation for if they are both under 18.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 03:25 PM
1

I want to upvote this and downvote this at the same time...WHAT DO I DO????
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:44 PM
2

Muscle memory is normally used to refer to motor memory, when you do a motion repetitively enough that it becomes automatic. I don't think it applies to the context being used here.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:25 PM
5

here you go
/r/MensRights17/07/13 11:25 AM
4

Not exactly deadly, but Hot sauce plus a heat source can be used as a weapon. pretty much makes a very effective tear gas.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 10:57 AM
6

india.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 10:50 AM
2

Ummm, I don't think that is true. Can you state a source? Here is the wikipedia
/r/MensRights28/02/13 03:19 PM
6

I think it was prudential life insurance...like the ad says at the end.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:43 PM
0

ok, you lost me there???????
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:31 PM
1

know your meme
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:16 PM
3

awwww, you are such a special socially awkward penguin.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 12:24 PM
5

companies realized they could pay women lower wages to do the work. I see it going something like this "Hey Joe, we need someone to do paperwork in the office. It pays less than the insert physically demanding job here though. Joe: "You know, I like extra money, and don't mind hard work, so no thanks."
/r/MensRights01/02/13 12:36 PM
2

I wonder how often her "special female feelings of danger" are actually correct?
/r/MensRights23/01/13 04:30 PM
0

I couldn't find a link to the newest one, which is the most offensive one yet. I find them very insulting to men. It is blatantly attractive women using their sexuality to get what they want.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 12:26 PM
5

I noticed this too. It gives a timeline that implies guilt. condom wrapper was found. A fingerprint was found on the wrapper. Suspect was arrested. Nothing says the fingerprint was the cause of the arrest.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 11:29 PM
3

Really, mine was like $250 out of pocket.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 08:18 PM
8

What was the job?
/r/MensRights20/11/12 12:18 PM
2

she does have some good qualities
/r/MensRights20/11/12 11:48 AM
13

I don't disagree with anything you said. HOWEVER, OP presented it as a discrimination against males based on gender, which it is not.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 02:39 PM
19

I am glad someone else said it. I think most people didn't even read the article. Unless I missed something, which is possible, it never said anything about "girls can't grow facial hair" It said "The Priory Academy said it was "not an activity that many children would be able to join in with"."
/r/MensRights15/11/12 02:25 PM
-3

Civil Twilight: the time at which the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon. At this time, there is enough light for objects to be clearly distinguishable and that outdoor activities can commence (dawn) or end (dusk) without artificial illumination. Civil twilight is the definition of twilight most widely used by the general public. Nautical Twilight: the time when the center of the sun is 12 degrees below the horizon, and only general or vague outlines of objects are visible. During the evening th…
/r/MensRights14/11/12 09:15 PM
0

You contradicted yourself here. This is family court, not a criminal trial and different standards apply. We are also not talking about remaining silent. If she just did not respond to the text, there would be nothing. But IF she responds to the text, and does not deny the accusation, but continues on in the same way then it is akin to admission that it happened. Think about the court proceedings: Example A: HIM: Your honor, she continually threatened me with not allowing me so see our child eve…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 06:25 PM
6

also not a lawyer, but I am a reasonable person. It is not a lack of argument. If her response is "well you should learn to keep the toilet seat down" then that is acknowledgement that the threat was made.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:29 PM
14

What about sending texts after a fight restating threats she made during the fight. "I can't beleive you told me I would never be able to see my child just because I left the toilet seat up. I am still upset you would use our child against me" Then when she texts back if she doesn't refute it, it is a written acknowledgement on her part of the threat.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:03 PM
2

4:56 pm is late at night?
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:43 PM
3

There are more privately owned guns in the US than cars. I think the stat is relevant because of that. Also, if we did not test people for driving, how many deaths a year would there be. We did not even take into account injuries. Oh and I never said you said that people should be able to own guns, but you did say "more testing for people to drive then we do for people to own a gun."
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:51 PM
3

Yeah, it is hard to tell in the video. It looks like the hand went to the bag, then pointed at police in a manner consistent with holding a gun. I had no idea the cops were that close though, I mean like 10 ft. away, and yet they shot NINE other people???
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:45 PM
5

driving is not a constitutionally protected right. Even with the testing for driving, (if you exclude suicides) 2-3 times as many people are killed in motor vehicle accidents than are killed with guns each year.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:40 PM
4

Except no he wasn't. IIRC reports said after he shot the one guy, he put the gun away and left. He did not pull the gun out again before the cops shot him. EDIT: While reports on the day of said he did not pull on police, it seems video came out later showing that he did.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:34 PM
9

I think you have a misconception of the majority of concealed carry permit holders. In my experience very few people with concealed carry are "itching for an excuse" and the more common thought is "God, I hope I never have to use this."
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:13 PM
5

constant fear or constant vigilance?
/r/MensRights03/10/12 05:58 PM
26

As opposed to NYC cops who recently shot 9 innocent bystanders while attempting to shoot a gunman who was not pointing a gun at anyone at the time.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 05:57 PM
2

No, that is not what it said. "When the Court states that funds must be allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner, they mean that funding decisions cannot be based on a particular group or activity's point of view" The organization being funded does not need to be viewpoint neutral, the funding must be viewpoint neutral...meaning if a Men's Center operated offering the same level of service it would get comparable funding, but if the level of service was more or less, the funding would be adjusted…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 04:00 PM
0

So being victimized by A MAN justifies hatred of ALL MEN.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 01:58 PM
1

I would imagine that a majority of appeals end up in a confirmation that the guilty is indeed guilty, but all of those appeals clog up the system so that when someone who really is innocent comes along it just takes a ton of time to work its way through.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 09:02 PM
1

There it is right there, "CAN ruin your life" Not will, but can. A lot of things CAN ruin my life. Driving a car can ruin my life, but I do it almost every day. You are saying that marriage can ruin a Man's life. The only other component to a marriage is the woman. A man would not intentionally ruin his own life, so the fault must fall on the woman. This is why I said you are jaded against women. If I overstepped here then that is my bad, but I think it was a reasonable conclusion. There are ben…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 09:58 PM
1

WHOA, I was in no way trying to blame men. I really actually can't beleive you took it there since your comment sounds an awful lot like arguments against false rape reports as victim blaming...just sayin. What I meant was, a man can increase his chances of entering into a marriage that does not ruin him for life, if he thinks with his head. The same thing can be said for women as well. Look, I'm sorry that you have such a jaded opinion of women. I am sorry that some women fucked you over bad. I…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:23 PM
0

41% +/- of first marriages end in divorce. How is it statistically irresponsible when statistically speaking more than half of marriages do not end in divorce? If you get into people who wait until they are older to marry. and who get pre-marital counseling those numbers get even lower. Instead of just going on rants against anyone ever getting married, perhaps we could educate young men about how to choose a better spouse.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 07:59 PM
1

Could you please explain the difference to me? why is it a universally bad idea? How is a marriage that does not end bad a bad idea?
/r/MensRights08/06/12 07:50 PM
1

You are asserting that this type of situation is universal though. That the only possible result of marriage is financial ruin for the man. This is not a universal absolute rule. Dealing in absolutes is a dangerous thing. There is a such things as a successful marriage, they do happen. I am not saying that every one that ends with a death was successful, but it also does not mean that none of them are.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 07:43 PM
0

but the percentage of people who survive Niagara falls is vastly lower than the percentage who have long and happy marriages that do not destroy their lives.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 07:39 PM
0

So are you saying that no marriage has any chance of success?
/r/MensRights08/06/12 07:13 PM
1

Divorce is what devastates men financially, not marriage. Marriage can and often does lead to divorce, but not all marriage does. There are many many happily married couples that do not get divorced, raise children and end up financially secure. If you beleive otherwise you are lying to yourself. Please, be more realistic.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 07:07 PM
0

swimming over Niagara falls is not a good comparison to marriage statistics.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 07:04 PM
0

Tell me how it has nothing to do with the stats at large? The post I replied to said ANY man who is married is a complete dumb ass. That would imply that 100% of marriages end up hurting the man in some way. The divorce rate is not 100%. So therefor, my anecdote reflects the stats more than the original comment that I replied to. Men's rights doesn't have to be a circle jerk IMHO.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 06:41 PM
2

I did not pass on any advice. You made a statement covering every and all men. Marriage is not bad for every and all men. I agree that when it goes bad it goes extra bad for men, but nobody ever getting married is not the only approach to the problem.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 06:36 PM
2

I have to disagree with you. While in many cases, and increasingly so marriages are going to pot, there are exceptions to this. It is still possible to have a happy and loving marriage and not fear about divorce and getting screwed over by the legal system. My wife is pretty much a stay at home mom, she works just one day a week I don't make a ton of money, so we have to make lifestyle choices to make ends meet. We have been married 10 years, and still have a wonderful relationship. I firmly bel…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 04:24 PM
2

Glad to see there is some leeway here, and it is not an absolute. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, if someone bashed my head I don't think I would wait to see if they were going to stop. I would assume they were not going to.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 08:09 PM
2

Actually IIRC the cuts were on the back of his head. but anaway. He ADMITTED to shooting Martin at the scene. He waited for the cops. He was not trying to get away with anything. Martin was shot and killed. Zimmerman pulled the trigger. That part was never in dispute. There are times when it is justified to shoot and kill somebody. So what is in question is if this was one of those times. You don't seem to care if Martin got away from Zimmerman and came back at him or not. You don't seem to care…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 07:11 PM
2

I seem to have addressed many of your points, even though they are mostly personal opinions, while you have not addressed most of what I have said. I posted links to videos and articles talking about evidence showing that Martin attacked Zimmerman. You have not dis proven any of that, or offered any links to any refuting evidence. Yup, I am a heartless bastard with no feelings. I know this makes me a terrible human being because feelings should always trump logic and reason. I don't care about "…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:49 PM
2

I contend that you want the "forget it and move on" because you are on the loosing side of this argument. The presumption of innocence goes all the way to a jury saying "we find the defendant guilty" I don't care who committed what crime, that is the basis of our justice system. YOU keep saying things to instigate hate. The evidence that is known at this time does not point to a killing "in cold blood" It seems to be pointing to a defensive shooting. It is people like you with opinions like your…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:23 PM
7

Well a lot of the discussion I have read in this thread, and what the post was about, is the unfairness of the presumption of guilt before it is proven. Which is exactly what you have done. You know that Zimmerman is a "murdering scumbag" You have made your mind up, without all the fact, without all the evidence. You didn't even try to refute anything I said or posted about his injuries or justification. A 17 year old kid got shot, so somebody must be guilty. It can in know way be the fault of t…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:13 PM
8

No, you actually did say that "Notwithstanding the massive weight of evidence against him. So much so that a judge recently revoked his bail. Now he's 'innocent'?" The "So much so" in your comment implies that the bail was revoked due to the massive wight of evidence against him. Florida is a stand your ground state It doesn't matter what you consider to be a "sensible" self defense law, or what "laws around the world say" Florida says that "may “meet force with force, including deadly force if …
/r/MensRights07/06/12 05:37 PM
25

That is absolutely the wrong question. The correct question is what evidence is there that he is guilty? In this country we are guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on the state to prove guilt. His bail was [revoked] for hiding money that had been donated to his legal defense from the court. It had nothing to do with any "massive weight of evidence" against him. You need to do some more research on this case if you think there is a massive weight of evidence against him. If there…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 05:04 PM
4

Really, you think he has been pushing for gay rights? Tell me, what piece of legislation has he drafted or signed that furthers gay rights? The only one I can think of is the repeal of DODT, which the Pentagon was already working on and planned on getting rid of before Congress went through the dog and pony of the legislation for political points. Why, I ask you, has no politician who is in favor of gay rights pushed a piece of legislation? A simple "couples in a civil union can and will be affo…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:27 PM
15

I think you just proved the OP's point.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 01:01 PM
3

OK, so having sex w/ a 16 year old = 40 years in prison. Why are you splitting hairs about this?
/r/MensRights05/04/12 01:07 PM
2

As Cold08 said it is taking a human life and I think that is wrong. I am a Christian, I believe abortion is a sin, along with many other things. However as a Christian it is not my place to stop others from sinning. I sin, everyone I know sins, and no sin is any worse than another. A person's sin is their own problem, not mine. I am trying not to be "preachy" here, just stating what I believe.
/r/MensRights24/03/12 02:20 PM
13

Just so you know, I am a conservative, registered as a republican. I think abortion is a bad thing. However, I don't think that I have the right, nor does the government, to tell someone they can't have one. I hate that, but I accept it. We are out there.
/r/MensRights23/03/12 10:33 PM
4

Why is male privilege not up for deletion?
/r/MensRights28/02/12 08:16 PM
-3

If I cared that much I would but eh.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 06:38 PM
4

I think we are on the same side of the argument.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 04:41 PM
5

The implication is that those who make arguments for gun control, this is the core of their arguments.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 02:59 PM
-13

Don't look now, but you just made a case for gun control.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 02:02 PM
2

sexual consent form
/r/MensRights30/01/12 05:03 PM
2

From his perspective it might be rare. they never get prosecuted so they never see the inside of a courtroom so it is "rare" that the judge is presented with a case of it.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 03:06 PM
3

Wish I had thought of that. Apparently I am the diet coke of evil, just one calorie not quite evil enough.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 04:43 PM
5

And the vodka tastes better afterwards! Just remember to double (or triple) bag.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 03:31 PM
1

All depends on your insurance plan. Mine was about $600 total.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 01:51 PM
12

I used a double ziplock back with watered down vodka that had been put in the freezer. The resulting slush conforms great to body parts.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 01:49 PM
2

Not so much of a point. Sex is not a crime. Murder is a crime. non-consensual sex is a crime. If she is giving consent beforehand, she is giving consent. There is no such thing as consensual murder.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 09:23 PM
1

Not sure if I am ready to be a mod. I am unsure what it actually entails.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 12:55 PM
2

If I came up with an idea that was witty enough and would cause some lols then yes. Otherwise I would keep my week ass humor away.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 12:55 PM
3

What about creating an r/MRMemes. I would subscribe.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 06:23 PM
2

What I want to know is, was he tried as an adult or a juvenile? I didn't see where it said how old he was when he baby sat. If he was like 14, should he be treated as an adult? Edit, just saw he WAS 14.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 09:12 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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