TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

onetenth Archive

View 1 post and 619 comments by onetenth on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
96

onetenth/r/MensRights30/09/13 11:27 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

It's not considered "the same as sodomy", it IS sodomy.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 01:16 PM
2

If you wave it around in public, it starts to get problematic ( unless you start doing the helicopter, which is ancient male ritual). And if you start to force it down other peoples throats, you deserve all the backlash you get. The problem I have with this line of thought is it's usually given for things that are done ALL THE TIME by heterosexuality. Gay couples kissing in public, holding hands, mentioning their boyfriend / girlfriend / spouse, etc. are all routinely characterized as "shoving t…
/r/MensRights27/07/14 09:55 PM
1

Force people? No. Call them out for their childish bigotry? Hell yes.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 09:46 PM
1

Yeah, I'm against "correcting" ambiguous genitalia as well. Oddly enough, there is more push for stopping that practice in some circles than there is for stopping circumcision.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 09:32 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights27/07/14 08:22 PM
4

For the past week or so people have been digging up popular links from 1-4 years ago and reposting them. Not sure why.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 05:12 PM
1

Wouldn't apply here. I've never seen a castle doctrine (they vary by jurisdiction) that doesn't require the reasonable belief of harm.
/r/MensRights26/07/14 03:27 AM
2

there are lesbian women who think men who think they are women shouldn't be allowed to be women? Are you saying transwomen are men? If so, fuck you.
/r/MensRights26/07/14 12:31 AM
4

This news article was five years ago, for clarity.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 05:18 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights10/07/14 08:59 PM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights10/07/14 05:09 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights06/07/14 05:17 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights02/07/14 04:16 AM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights01/07/14 07:50 PM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights30/06/14 09:33 PM
3

He's a lazy faux-intellectual that has said many, many terrible and stupid things. Just because he's been critical of feminism doesn't make him an ally.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 05:00 PM
2

I think you'll have better luck over in legal advice. They're a pretty friendly bunch and a very good chance that there's someone there who's familiar with CA family law.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 12:10 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights21/06/14 03:39 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights16/06/14 12:38 PM
11

deleted
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:28 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights07/06/14 06:19 PM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights07/06/14 06:11 PM
-1

In response to someone talking about gender, there was a reply of: You're either a man or a woman. That's it. No in between. There's no spectrum. So yes, there are people right here deying that gender queer isn't a thing.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 08:28 PM
2

Please explain how there are two genders, biologically. Here's some hints so you can avoid obvious mistakes: First, you're probably thinking of sex, not gender. Second, man/woman, male/female, XY/XX are not the only options.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 08:25 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/05/14 06:45 PM
11

I think that it's a combination of the two. At base, men are taught that they are not entitled to sex. But if they take the correct steps, do the right activities, and so on, they are taught that they "earn" the women. That's a basic plot point in countless, countless movies, shows, etc. Beat the terrorists, slay the dragon, save the earth, get the girl. Note that we're taught that society is entitled to male bodies as a baseline, both for labour and sex.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 08:44 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights25/05/14 06:52 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights25/05/14 06:44 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights25/05/14 04:12 PM
6

The whole "women-won't-sleep-with-me-they-only-like-douchebags-friendzone-woe-is-me" thing isn't repeated ad nauseum by MRAs? Uhh, no, it isn't. That sounds like a PUA, perhaps redpill, talking point.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 03:49 PM
-1

deleted
/r/MensRights24/05/14 08:58 PM
10

deleted
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:37 PM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights27/04/14 01:47 AM
6

That was actually the common term until a concerted effort of activists to change the name associated with the practice to FGM. Stripping away the euphemism was a very smart and effective move.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 09:36 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:54 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:52 AM
1

Circumcized men have higher rates of premature ejaculation than uncircumcized men.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 11:42 PM
5

It's dumb because there has never been any indication that sexual assaults occur more frequently against scantily dressed people. In fact, some rapists have said that they wouldn't target people like that, as they are more likely to put up a fight. Also, even if it was "common sense", it was phrased in an incredibly offensive, and yes, sexist way.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 06:03 PM
3

Depends. What jurisdiction? (If you're in the US, which state?)
/r/MensRights04/04/14 12:32 AM
154

I like the idea and the message. The name has terrible connotations though. And unfortunately, marketing is crucial to social change.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 01:46 PM
2

No, not functionally. The foreskin has much, much more functionality.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 10:48 AM
6

Are you sure you did an investigation and essay? That's pretty basic information on male genitalia. One source for it is "fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis". EDIT: I've decided to stop continuing this discussion. If you actually did do the research you claimed, it was horribly distorted/incomplete.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 09:55 PM
3

The reason why FGM sometimes helps prevent HIV transmission is because WHO Type III FGM Umm, you could have just said that you weren't familiar with the study, as all of the women in the study were victims of Type I (I can't remember the name of the study, it was done by Stallings et al, 2009 I think). I think it's disingenuous to compare genital structures directly, even if they arise from the same underlying developing structure. Yes, the clitoris and glans come from the same flesh, but, for e…
/r/MensRights12/01/14 09:33 PM
7

I do have to say that female genital mutilation around the world is a LOT worse than male genital mutilation Well, if you did that investigation thoroughly, you'd realize that blanket statement is false, as there are multiple types of both, some more severe and some less severe than others. You'd also know that that FGM isn't completely ineffective at doing jack shit, as there's a study showing it prevents HIV transmission. Of course (similar to its MGM counterpart), even if the study is valid i…
/r/MensRights12/01/14 08:40 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights10/01/14 01:06 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights10/01/14 01:01 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights07/01/14 02:18 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights06/01/14 10:34 PM
2

Well, if it's intended to be preaching to the choir, then the uncommon terms and abbreviations don't matter (although being fairly familiar with the terms used in online gender discussions myself, I have no idea what SC is). As for unsupported claims, it's stuff like: It is amusing how much they rely on social proof. They despise being seen for what they are, a scorn to society. They get depressed and psychotic. or The so called radicals are the ones who make the most progress. or I recall a dia…
/r/MensRights06/01/14 10:25 PM
3

First of all, you need to change your font and background colour choice. Second, do more proofreading. There are plenty of incomplete sentences, improperly used words, and all around poor grammar. If that's not a strong suit of yours, then get a friend to do it. Finally, the article as a whole seems rather incoherent. It veers all over the place with what it's trying to say, it makes many, many unsupported claims, it uses uncommon terms and abbreviations. At best, all it's good for is preaching …
/r/MensRights06/01/14 10:02 PM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights06/01/14 09:38 PM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights28/12/13 09:19 PM
9

deleted
/r/MensRights28/12/13 05:03 PM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights17/12/13 02:07 AM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights16/12/13 08:12 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights12/12/13 09:54 AM
12

deleted
/r/MensRights12/12/13 09:45 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights12/12/13 01:04 AM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights12/12/13 12:53 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights07/12/13 05:12 AM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights07/12/13 12:32 AM
14

deleted
/r/MensRights02/12/13 04:20 PM
10

deleted
/r/MensRights01/12/13 11:38 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/11/13 12:07 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights30/11/13 06:33 AM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights28/11/13 01:41 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights26/11/13 08:12 AM
8

deleted
/r/MensRights26/11/13 05:57 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights26/11/13 02:31 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights26/11/13 02:28 AM
11

deleted
/r/MensRights25/11/13 05:02 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights24/11/13 05:58 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights23/11/13 06:55 PM
52

deleted
/r/MensRights23/11/13 04:18 PM
8

deleted
/r/MensRights21/11/13 11:03 PM
49

deleted
/r/MensRights21/11/13 08:07 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights19/11/13 05:19 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/13 05:21 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights14/11/13 03:46 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights14/11/13 01:13 PM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights13/11/13 09:41 AM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights13/11/13 07:27 AM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights13/11/13 02:18 AM
-1

deleted
/r/MensRights10/11/13 05:33 PM
8

deleted
/r/MensRights09/11/13 03:28 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights09/11/13 12:34 PM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights09/11/13 09:53 AM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights09/11/13 09:40 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights09/11/13 09:40 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights09/11/13 09:14 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights08/11/13 04:47 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights08/11/13 08:18 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights08/11/13 08:10 AM
1

Umm, it's not that disgusting was used rather than awful. It's that they didn't call you that based on the assumption that you prefer mutlilated genitals. The quote says "IF if you have a preference...". His penis is mutilated. The additional baggage you're tacking on is all on you. No one else said it.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 07:48 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights08/11/13 07:35 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights08/11/13 07:20 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights08/11/13 07:14 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights08/11/13 06:25 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights08/11/13 06:22 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights08/11/13 05:57 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights05/11/13 02:03 PM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights01/11/13 09:30 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights01/11/13 06:33 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:55 AM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights01/11/13 04:24 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights01/11/13 03:10 AM
1

Those aren't trans people.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:22 AM
2

I'm hoping all the downvotes are from knee-jerk aversion to the terminology, rather than actual belief that chromosonal sex is the same thing as gender identity.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 06:46 AM
1

So you think that these people aren't women? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome Note that they were born with female genetalia, were thought of as female since birth, etc.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 06:40 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/10/13 05:42 AM
0

Do you honestly believe that "being a woman" is entirely about what chromosomes you have?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 05:38 AM
1

Long before any kind of cultural/social influences are introduced? They are introduced from day one. Parents take longer to comfort a male cryinb baby than they do a female one, for instance.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 05:35 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/10/13 05:32 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:02 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:02 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights23/10/13 10:42 AM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights23/10/13 04:35 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights18/10/13 07:00 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights18/10/13 06:32 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights18/10/13 05:54 AM
10

deleted
/r/MensRights17/10/13 08:10 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights15/10/13 02:52 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights15/10/13 01:44 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights14/10/13 01:36 AM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights13/10/13 12:02 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights13/10/13 08:17 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights12/10/13 07:21 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights12/10/13 10:57 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights11/10/13 10:59 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights11/10/13 02:20 PM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights11/10/13 03:48 AM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights11/10/13 02:34 AM
8

deleted
/r/MensRights11/10/13 02:33 AM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights10/10/13 10:27 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights10/10/13 05:01 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights10/10/13 04:53 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights09/10/13 04:00 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights09/10/13 01:02 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights08/10/13 08:32 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights08/10/13 08:30 PM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights08/10/13 08:42 AM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights08/10/13 06:31 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights08/10/13 06:28 AM
110

deleted
/r/MensRights08/10/13 12:44 AM
8

deleted
/r/MensRights07/10/13 04:53 PM
11

deleted
/r/MensRights07/10/13 08:27 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights04/10/13 05:13 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights02/10/13 04:17 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights02/10/13 12:37 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights02/10/13 10:46 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights02/10/13 10:44 AM
8

deleted
/r/MensRights02/10/13 10:42 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights01/10/13 12:21 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 02:02 PM
27

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 01:18 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:52 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:50 PM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:36 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:27 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:11 PM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:09 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 11:41 AM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 11:30 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 11:10 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 08:58 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 08:54 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 08:52 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 08:44 AM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 07:51 AM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights30/09/13 07:31 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights29/09/13 05:10 PM
26

deleted
/r/MensRights28/09/13 09:33 PM
38

deleted
/r/MensRights28/09/13 08:55 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights28/09/13 01:54 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights28/09/13 09:39 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights27/09/13 12:36 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights27/09/13 12:27 PM
15

deleted
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:25 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights26/09/13 11:12 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights26/09/13 10:43 AM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights26/09/13 07:58 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights25/09/13 10:54 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights25/09/13 10:46 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights25/09/13 10:41 AM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights25/09/13 09:54 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights25/09/13 04:37 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights25/09/13 04:15 AM
10

deleted
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:58 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights25/09/13 03:58 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights24/09/13 03:39 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights24/09/13 02:16 AM
16

deleted
/r/MensRights23/09/13 01:48 PM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights21/09/13 01:50 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights20/09/13 07:33 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights20/09/13 04:31 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights20/09/13 04:14 AM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights20/09/13 02:41 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights20/09/13 12:52 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights20/09/13 12:47 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:30 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights19/09/13 06:56 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights19/09/13 06:49 AM
12

deleted
/r/MensRights19/09/13 03:28 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights18/09/13 11:13 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights17/09/13 01:41 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights14/09/13 02:00 AM
1

If you think "more sensation = faster orgasm", well, that just shows how much you're missing. And yes, more than 50% of the nerves in your penis are gone. MiracleRiver has included many links in this thread to sources for information on the foreskin.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 07:01 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights13/09/13 06:52 PM
1

Circumcision IS cutting the tip of your penis cut off. Calling it "extra skin" shows a vast ignorance of what the foreskin (you know, the part of your penis that contains the majority of its nerves) is and does.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 06:43 PM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights13/09/13 01:22 AM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights13/09/13 01:22 AM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights13/09/13 01:20 AM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights13/09/13 01:12 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights13/09/13 12:59 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights12/09/13 08:03 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights12/09/13 07:21 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights12/09/13 07:10 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights12/09/13 03:22 AM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights12/09/13 12:45 AM
10

deleted
/r/MensRights12/09/13 12:22 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights11/09/13 12:35 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights11/09/13 03:16 AM
2

Ah, sorry. Misinterpreted your comment.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:17 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights10/09/13 02:32 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights10/09/13 01:24 AM
4

I'd give up a couple fingers before giving up my foreskin.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 12:53 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights10/09/13 12:45 AM
4

Circumcized men have higher rates of premature ejaculation. The fact that you think "more sensation = faster ejaculation" just shows how much you are missing.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 11:35 PM
2

The vast majority of women who have undergone FGM speak positively of it. It's a cultural thing.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 11:25 PM
2

It doesn't matter that you personally don't feel mutilated or defective. You don't know if you enjoy having sex as much as anyone else...how would you know? Circumcision has been shown to cause several psychological problems, including a higher rate of PTSD and alexithymia. Circumcision has been shown to result in a higher rate of erectile disfunction, premature ejaculation, and lower sexual satisfaction in both the circumcized male and their partners. Yes, it sucks that this happened to you. No…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 09:45 AM
16

deleted
/r/MensRights09/09/13 08:22 AM
5

I'd definitely give up one testicle before giving up my foreskin.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:34 AM
31

deleted
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:31 AM
30

deleted
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:25 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights08/09/13 10:00 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights08/09/13 01:53 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights06/09/13 10:58 PM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights06/09/13 10:57 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights06/09/13 01:18 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights05/09/13 03:31 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights05/09/13 08:21 AM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights04/09/13 06:02 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights04/09/13 06:00 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights03/09/13 09:37 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights03/09/13 09:48 AM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights31/08/13 12:15 AM
11

deleted
/r/MensRights30/08/13 10:56 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/08/13 07:07 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights28/08/13 08:46 AM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights26/08/13 10:12 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:30 PM
12

deleted
/r/MensRights25/08/13 02:56 PM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights25/08/13 01:39 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights25/08/13 11:10 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights24/08/13 01:40 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights23/08/13 01:20 PM
14

deleted
/r/MensRights23/08/13 12:27 PM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights23/08/13 09:13 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights23/08/13 09:05 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights23/08/13 09:04 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights23/08/13 08:22 AM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:49 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:35 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights22/08/13 10:38 PM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights22/08/13 10:17 PM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights22/08/13 11:37 AM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights22/08/13 03:37 AM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights21/08/13 07:09 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights21/08/13 08:48 AM
39

deleted
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:15 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:05 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights19/08/13 09:34 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights18/08/13 05:04 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights18/08/13 02:10 PM
10

deleted
/r/MensRights18/08/13 02:33 AM
10

deleted
/r/MensRights15/08/13 12:29 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights14/08/13 02:54 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights13/08/13 05:27 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights10/08/13 04:53 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights09/08/13 01:43 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights01/08/13 02:30 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights31/07/13 07:51 AM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights29/07/13 03:59 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:19 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:11 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:07 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:01 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights16/07/13 04:21 AM
89

deleted
/r/MensRights14/07/13 08:21 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights08/07/13 05:44 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights06/07/13 03:27 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights06/07/13 02:22 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights06/07/13 02:20 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:06 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights04/07/13 11:05 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights04/07/13 06:34 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:51 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:41 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights22/06/13 08:51 AM
6

It's extremely different. One big difference is that the foreskin contains more nerve endings than the entire clitoris, let alone the clitoral hood.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 07:47 AM
3

Just comparing the grossly homologous parts of anatomy doesn't really work, as they serve different functions for the sexes. For example, the male prepuce is much, much, MUCH more functional than the female prepuce (foreskin compared to clitoral hood). Chopping the entire penis off is not comparable to the more extreme forms of FGM, unless the majority of victims of FGM (who say the have a satisfying sexual life) are liars.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 07:46 AM
1

It was "Jane, you ignorant slut."
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:28 AM
-2

While they are structurally analogous, they are not functionally the same. The foreskin is more comparable to the clitoris than the clitoral hood.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 09:29 PM
3

We don't know the reasons for his suicide.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 06:58 PM
7

Or neither, or both.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 02:15 PM
1

I think anything that challenges a man's right to be treated as a man or even just a person is a MR issue, whether it's a man's right to love another man or otherwise. That said, I don't think MR should get overly involved. If that makes any sense. That's a good point. I think that the concept of intersectionality should play a role. Men face issues as a whole. LGBTQ face issues as a whole. But the issues a queer man man faces aren't just an addition of the two. It is a fine line to dance withou…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 02:12 PM
11

GET OUT! (Just kidding.) Trans people are definitely welcome here, although I have seen a couple ignorant/hateful comments in the past....which are then downvoted to oblivion. Also, didn't A Voice for Men have a FtM write a couple articles? Can't seem to find them offhand.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 02:07 PM
3

It's from serum, referring both to blood and immune serum. And people with HIV have been (and still are) treated abysmally.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 09:00 PM
25

It's not even truly consensual. The foundation of medical eithics is informed consent. Unless a doctor informs a patient of the functionality of the foreskin and the complications that arise from amputating it, then it's not actually consent (from a medical perspective).
/r/MensRights26/04/13 03:18 AM
2

Sounds like what the political parties do. I don't follow. Are you suggesting that political parties select twice as many females as males? Where is this?
/r/MensRights24/04/13 11:37 PM
1

Ethiopian.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 05:19 PM
17

Simple is right. What if you have the bone, muscle, vascular structure of a man, the brain of a woman, and the reproductive system of neither? Regardless of that, you just told a bunch of men that they aren't really men. Seriously, fuck that.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 10:22 PM
3

Why not? After a couple years on HRT, the muscle mass advantages of being male are gone. You could make an argument for bone structure....but what about cisgender women who have bone structure advantages? I mean, take a look at Fallon Fox (the transgender MMA) and her latest opponent. She does not have a bone structure advantage.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 10:17 PM
2

Are you saying that men's sexuality is over-represented, or rather perceived to be? From what I see, the exact same actions from a man are perceived to be sexually aggressive while from a woman they are not.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:30 PM
2

At the top of the page is a tab with Other Discussions, it's under there.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:25 PM
3

It's not a bad idea as long as you have both. Canada has no-fault (have to be separated for 1 year) and fault (adultery, abuse).
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:58 PM
6

Why? The mother didn't release the photo or name any names. She has repeatedly asked others not to.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:44 PM
2

If he isn't serious, then Cross has been keeping up the act for a long time.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 10:48 PM
2

I hate it when people don't understand basic rhetorical techniques, such as using a more extreme scenario to display why the fundamental reasoning is wrong.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 09:12 PM
-3

I downvoted it because it added nothing to the discussion.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 07:56 AM
1

Gah, another writer who doesn't understand what the word apologetics means.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 07:39 AM
1

/r/legaladvice is very helpful.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 10:45 AM
1

So a big round of mischaracterization, assuming the worst, and hypocrisy then.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 11:21 PM
2

I'm guessing that this will get shot down early due to standing issues. This would work much better as an individual man who has to register for selective service suing, with NCFM backing him or applying for intervenor status.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 01:45 PM
2

In the same report, sorry I'm heading out at the moment so don't have time to dig it up. I can almost guarantee someone else reading this knows exactly where it is, it's been posted many, many times.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 08:06 PM
2

Well, yes, of course when you define rape as "being penetrated" you will disproportionately find male offenders. Females forcing envelopment on men was defined as "other sexual assault" or some such in that data.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 08:00 PM
2

The sexism is pretty blatant in the above quote. Women gamers aren't (as a whole) demanding that all games suit them, just that they would like more female protagonists. I mean, they make up 40%ish of gamers, it's silly to ignore a demographic that large. Pointing out that video games were (mostly) originally created by men for men as an excuse kinda reminds me of when people point out historical oppression for currently "getting even".
/r/MensRights27/03/13 11:22 AM
1

Heh, I took the opposite point from consumer reaction to Mass Effect 3. I think the original ending they had was better, story-wise.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 11:18 AM
1

I did look myself. I'm not saying there are no inherent biological differences between the sexes. That doesn't mean that all differences are biological. In the case of this difference, I have not seen evidence that it is biologically inherent. It's somewhat hard to trust you on this, because in the example you just linked, it was most emphatically not evidence of biological inheritness.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 01:28 AM
2

Sorry, I should have been more specific. When I said biology, I meant a genetic, inherent predisposition, rather than anything culturally or socially ingrained. For example, in the study you just linked, there is nothing suggesting that it's a biological predisposition -- in fact, the method used to test the bias was the Implicit Association Test, something that has been shown to be extremely sensitive to social and cultural influences.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 01:19 AM
2

I've seen a couple studies on the female in-group bias, but I can't seem to find anything on it being biologically based. Could you direct me to it?
/r/MensRights25/03/13 03:34 PM
21

tried to disengage by ending the discussion (twice!) I have to strongly disagree with that. You don't end the discussion by saying everything you want to say, and then tacking on "and I don't want to talk about it anymore." That's a childish attempt to get the last word in, not a good faith attempt to end the discussion.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 08:50 PM
3

Hmm, not entirely sold on that. Every time I've heard "abnormal" with a positive connotation, some extra label is always included. For example, "Olympic athletes are abnormally good".
/r/MensRights05/03/13 05:53 PM
2

One of the biggest issues with routine infant circumcision is not that there aren't medical benefits. There certainly are. Anyone who says outright that circumcision does not have medical benefits, is either willfully ignorant, lying, or genuinely has not seen the piles of evidence backing these benefits. I'm quite familiar with the literature on the subject, and the only benefit that I'm aware of for RIC is penile cancer. That one has good evidence for it--it's not exactly surprising that if yo…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 03:05 PM
8

Oh, it is that one. I knew he had a degree, thought it was more unrelated to medicine than that. Still, molecular biology is pretty off-tangent to weighing in on circumcision.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 02:41 PM
12

Wow, what an utterly contentless program. No real weight either pro or con. By the way, the pro-circumcision guy on the show, Brian Morris, doesn't have any sort of degree relating to medicine and is most likely a circumfetishist, that is someone who sexually fantasizes about circumcision. He's a member of the Gilgal Society (which publishes circumcision pornography) and his homepage links to several circumfetishist sites.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 12:41 PM
3

There seems to be a very heavy bias in the circumcision article. I realize that wikipedia is meant to reflect the literature on the topic, but anti-circumcision views are dismissed as biased while pro-circumcision views are aired without comment. Luckily Jake Waskett no longer controls it as he used to (he averaged about one edit a day, over 1000 total edits), as he was actually a circumfetishist, ie someone with a sexualized view of circumcision. But it still seems kind of pointless to try to m…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 12:07 PM
1

Complete tangent, but is juped a word? Never heard of it before.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 04:15 PM
4

Antitrans feminists are definitely a minority, but unfortunately a loud one. They are actually denounced very strongly by many other feminists.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 02:17 PM
1

I've never heard of anyone suggesting that should be the standard. I have heard some suggest that there has to be a verbal assent, which I think is silly and unnecessarily criminalizes a whole lot of common behaviour.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 02:06 PM
1

Quite correct, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. From the information she provided, there is no evidence that she consented non-verbally. As I said elsewhere, there's simply not enough in the original letter to tell if she was raped or not.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 02:03 PM
0

Err, you added a third and crucial element to "conscious and of age", namely a reasonable belief in consent. DPP v Morgan is no longer controlling. Debating it's standard of reasonable belief was one of the key aspects when they were reforming the rape laws, with s.1(2)'s "including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents" being put in specifically to raise the standard. Your continued insults leads me to believe you are not arguing in good faith. Unless it stops this will be my la…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 02:01 PM
1

There's not enough information presented. She could well indeed have given non-verbal assent after giving a verbal no. She doesn't say she did though.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:30 PM
1

I have not come across presumed consent in law regarding organ donation, but I haven't taken Health Law yet. And yes, I am aware of presumed consent regarding organ donation--I just assumed that you didn't mean it in that context, as we are talking about sexual assault. And yes, I am familiar with the R v Bree decision. Read it again closely, especially the part you highlighted. It's about the capacity to consent. Capacity to consent does NOT lead to a presumption of consent. I also suggest rere…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:22 PM
1

The only "presumed consent" I know of in law regards to engaging in physically dangerous activities, such as football. You are presumed to consent to the dangers a reasonable person would expect (ex. You consent to being tackled, not drop-kicked). I read the link you provided. Nothing refutes my statements. Perhaps you could be more specific? Your claim of "if she was conscious and of the age of statutory consent, then consent can be presumed" has no basis in law that I'm aware of. A discussion …
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:44 PM
7

I don't recall that being mentioned in the original letter.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:31 PM
2

No, jail him or her for not securing consent beforehand. Consent is more than just the absence of a negative, it's the presence of a positive.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:10 PM
5

It's recently been found that rape examinations for tearing is completely unreliable as an indicator for rape. Unfortunately sexual assault is an incredibly difficult crime to prove.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:09 PM
3

Consent is a positive affirmation, not the absence of a negation. It's not enough that someone doesn't actively indicate they don't want to, they have to actively indicate that they do want to. This indication does not have to be verbal.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 02:48 PM
1

There was nothing in the original letter indicating that she was "acting like she was into it". In fact, the only mention on way or the other on that is that she explicitly said she didn't want to at the beginning.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 02:46 PM
3

You're horribly misusing statistics. First of all, the 2% claim isn't about all rape charges...it's about all (female victim / male perpatrator) alleged rapes, where a vast majority of those "98% that weren't jailed" come from estimated rapes that aren't reported. Second, by saying that 98% of rapists go free, you are assuming that each and every one of those alleged rapes are true.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 02:04 PM
14

There's not enough information provided to say whether it was rape or not. A lack of a negative response is NOT consent. There must be a positive assent. Note that the communication does not have to be verbal.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 02:00 PM
12

That is not the legal test for sexual assault in Canada or of the few States that I am aware of. You don't have to think "I am totally going to rape this person", but rather "I am going to have sexual relations with this person" without bothering to secure consent.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 01:59 PM
2

No, it's not. There's no such thing as presumed consent. An absence of saying No is not the same thing as saying Yes. Note that this doesn't have to be verbal, but simply making out with someone is not a non-verbal yes to having sex. There wasn't enough information provided in the question to say whether there was non-verbal assent or not.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 01:56 PM
8

I have to agree. Expecting emotional support from a spouse isn't unreasonable.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 01:15 PM
8

Oh fuck off. If you think only attractive people are raped then you are seriously ignorant of reality. Your reply is incredibly childish.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 06:48 PM
24

5% of reporters who are killed are female, I hope. 5% death rate among all female reporters would make it far and away the most dangerous job in the world.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 06:35 PM
1

That comment thread has one of the funniest summaries of gender studies in culture I've ever heard: If it's longer than it's wide, it's a phallus. If it's longer than it's wide, it's a phallus. If it's shorter than it's wide, then you flip it on it's side, Now it's longer than it's wide, it's a phallus.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 12:46 PM
0

You seem to be under the impression that psychology begins and ends with pathological psychology.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 12:18 PM
1

I'm assuming it was downvoted because of the mild advocation of violence.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 09:48 PM
5

Consent laws do generally require a positive assent, rather than the absence of protest. This assent can be non-verbal.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 09:28 PM
2

God, everything about her makes my asshole chew bubblegum. How bizarrely evocative.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 02:24 AM
6

There's a couple huge confounds in attempted suicide statistics. Women are much more likely to seek psychiatric help than men, so you'd expect more underreporting from men. Also, once you've completed suicide, you aren't going to make any more attempts. So the higher completion rate by men results in less attempts.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 02:04 AM
1

I agree that she has issues with men and is a misandrist, but it's not due to denied sexuality. She's an out lesbian.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 05:34 PM
1

I'm not sure if it's homophobic, but it's certainly problematic. Ascribing someone's issues to them being in denial of their own sexuality is incredibly condescending. Not to mention that the author of the quote, Marilyn Frye, is a lesbian. So not exactly sure what closet they are supposed to be coming out of.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 04:35 PM
-1

it's genetic, therefore hereditary in every normal human being That really doesn't follow. Plenty of things are genetic that aren't hereditary in every normal human being. The easiest counterexample to this specific example are gay people.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 04:23 PM
1

I'm assuming that was directed towards Funcuz and not me?
/r/MensRights19/02/13 03:11 AM
1

You really don't see that by saying you were glad it happened when you were a child, you are implying that it's okay for it to happen to children? I mean, that's the big argument against it, didn't even think I had to list that. The whole non-consent thing.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 03:10 AM
3

Can you link any post where someone was okay with their own circumcision, got downvoted, and didn't also say/imply: That since they are okay with their circumcision, circumcision in general is okay. That made a comment disparaging intact men. That complained about it being called mutilation.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 12:03 PM
6

2/3rds of victims were not attacked simply because they are female. 2/3rds of victims are female. That is a huge difference.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 11:40 AM
4

More specifically, body dysphoria.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 11:34 AM
7

I think it's just the opposite in fact, women who earn more than their husbands are more likely to be unsatisfied with the marriage. Trying to find the study.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 06:35 PM
3

Here's one, and if you have access to a rarer journal (I think it was Scandanavian Sexology), there is "Premature Ejactulation and Circumcision", written by M. Vissing in 1999.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 04:27 PM
2

Circumcised men have higher rates of premature ejaculation.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:05 AM
2

The Violence Against Women Act, US legislation aimed at addressing domestic/interpersonal violence. It originally was drafted with gendered language, which was later amended to be gender-neutral (apart from the title). It's implementation has not been gender-neutral, however, with an overwhelmingly amount of enforcement and funding going to protect women only, far out of disproportion of actual IPV rates regarding genders.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:52 AM
4

I don't think I was rebutting your opinion, but rather your statements that FGM completely destroys the ability to orgasm and that it has no health benefits.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:47 AM
2

Again, you are making another very basic mistake of understanding statistics. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are saying "this is how things are", not "this is not how things should be".
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:44 AM
-1

Fair enough, my mistake. I will try to keep in mind which idiots are which in the future.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:42 AM
12

I don't believe anyone said equal, but rather comparable. Male circumcision negatively impacts sexuality more than the removal of the clitoral hood, and probably less than a clitorodectomy. Female genital mutilation does NOT destroy the ability to orgasm all together. And yes, there are studies that show health benefits to FGM. Unfortunately I don't have a link for those, I had only found them in hard copy versions. One of the references in a paper I wrote was listed as "Women who have undergone…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 06:42 AM
2

Because you can't reduce statistical information down to single cases. Maybe if you weren't told girls were more intelligent you'd understand that.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:58 AM
6

I think it's more about downvoting those that conflate that simply because they are okay with their own circumcision, that makes all circumcision okay.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:46 AM
15

It's rather easy to compare male and female genital mutilation. First, both exist on a spectrum. While male circumcision is less invasive compared to the most extreme version of FGM (which would be infibulation), it is definitely more invasive than many forms of FGM. If you wanted to pinpoint it down, I'd say male circumcsion is somewhere between removal of the clitoral hood and clitorodectomy, due to the foreskin being more integral to sexual function than the hood. Apart from the basic compari…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:43 AM
7

No one is telling you that you have to care. They are saying that circumcision is a mutilation that results in loss.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:34 AM
4

"Got their jimmies rustled" is a common term in SRS when MRAs display any sort of emotion.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:56 AM
5

Completely off topic, but you are the first person to correctly spell the phrase "toe the line" in the past dozen times I've seen it. Have an upvote.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 08:52 PM
0

Not in Canada. Law enforcement officers are second on the list of on-the-job homicides (after taxi drivers, source). There are more dangerous jobs though, with higher non-homicide fatality rates.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 04:39 PM
3

One confounding factor is that women are more likely to report IPV (interpersonal violence) than men. Since in a lesbian relationship both partners are women, this should be expected to have a huge impact on the numbers.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 06:28 AM
3

I would have to disagree. The foreskin and clitoral hood are homologous. They do indeed start from the same organ, but they develop into very functionally different organs. Analogous wise, both the clitoris and the foreskin are the most sensitivized areas of the sexual organs. The impairment to sexual function from loss of the foreskin is much more serious than the loss of the clitoral hood. There really isn't a good solid analogy of the foreskin to a part of female genitalia, but I think it's m…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 11:09 PM
3

To be fair, the poster Manzboobz is fond of trolling.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 02:42 AM
3

Manzboobz is not the operator of the site Manboobz.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 02:38 AM
1

I think you are confusing specific intent with subjective mens rea. Specific intent is what's needed for crimes like murder, theft, fraud, etc. That doesn't mean that the test for the mens rea of those crimes is a subjective one. 273.2 (a)(i) doesn't mean that if you took reasonable steps but were drunk it doesn't count. It means that if those steps were reasonable to a drunk person, but not reasonable to a sober person, it doesn't count. Drunk people can both consent to sex, and reasonably beli…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 02:27 AM
1

But there are no purely subjective mens rea for criminal law. The debate is how much to personalize the objective standard. Right now in Canada the test is that the person took reasonable steps in order to ascertain consent. That seems like a pretty good balance to me. Also emphasizing that the subjective consent part is entirely about the actus reus. If the alleged victim subjectively did not consent, then that fulfills the actus reus regardless of whether there are reasonable grounds to believ…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 12:37 AM
1

It is the law, but I don't see a problem with it. In Canada (the jurisdiciton of the cited case, R v Ewanchuk), consent is is a subjective matter, but whether the other person thought there was consent is a modified objective test. It accounts for situations where one person thought there was no consent, but an outside observer would look at the situation and say "Yes, there was consent."
/r/MensRights05/02/13 11:13 PM
12

This fellow seems to think that a man's worth stems from sexual exploits. No thanks.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 08:09 PM
2

When someone abruptly leaves their spouse and children to try to get their "last chance at happiness" while being emotionally unbalanced (the crying jags, the panic attacks)? Yes, locking down marital assets until it can be sorted out is a good idea. I wouldn't characterize it as screwing them over.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 07:57 PM
2

We've given this EXACT advice in gender reversed situations on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 07:43 PM
26

Cried-burns. Fusstache. Goateears. Whinge-strap. Assoul patch. Apparently I missed my calling as an inventor of crappy SRS puns.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 02:58 AM
4

Another possible conclusion is that women are more likely to report violence.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 12:07 AM
1

My real point is that in the studies you linked, they say two distinct things: Men who have expressed suspicions of paternity fraud are actual victims of paternity fraud in 30% of tested cases. Men who have not expressed suspicions of paternity fraud are victims of paternity fraud in 10% of tested cases. Your original claim that 30% of children are victims of paternity fraud is incorrect. Edit: Mistake on my part, after rereading the studies, the two populations are (roughly): men who suspect th…
/r/MensRights04/02/13 04:08 PM
0

Even with all that being true, all of those things affect both compared groups equally. I mean, do you simply not believe the linked studies?
/r/MensRights04/02/13 11:27 AM
0

I think you are misreading the statistics and what I said. They don't say one causes the other, they are saying there is a correlation between the two. In this case, I imagine there is a set of other variables that link the two. For example, if the mother had an affair, or the baby looks strikingly different from the putative father, or so on, that would raise BOTH the chances of: The supposed father being suspicious of the children not being his own. The actual chance of the children not being …
/r/MensRights04/02/13 06:12 AM
1

What's the problem? Men who suspect their children aren't their own are more likely to be victims of paternity fraud than men who don't.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 04:25 AM
5

No studies, no named sources, nothing other than "someone told me this" to go with some pretty hefty claims.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 03:34 AM
13

Both sides are unproven allegations at this moment.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 01:14 AM
58

The amount of negative comments here is disheartening. This is some actual activism, and already there's responses of "it's non-manly" or "it's too gay". Glad to see the upvotes.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 01:11 AM
2

Ah yes, I had forgotten about sperm donation. That's the only exception I guess -- well, egg donors as well. Surrogate mothers don't give up rights until after birth.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 01:09 AM
-2

Yes.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 10:42 PM
4

Totally unenforceable. Child support is the child's right, not the mother's or the father's. You can't have two people agree to waive a third party's rights.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 10:18 PM
2

No, 30% of chlidren of men who already suspect they are not their children are not their children. Roughly 10% of the general population is.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 10:14 PM
2

[This] (http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=bgsu1237482038) is the one I have in my bookmarks, but there's a fairly substantial body of work on it, both from viewing actual crime statistics and from mock trials.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:30 PM
1

medium-rare You monster.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 02:22 PM
4

Agreed, comparing all offenders of one gender vs another is similar to the mistakes made in the wage gap statistics. I've seen numbers before for a sentencing gap disparity when comparing the same crimes and similar fact patterns, but that was for the US.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 02:12 PM
19

The "unload the gun vs shoot a bullet proof vest" is a terrible analogy. It's more like it's easier to disarm the once-monthly bomb than it is to disable the ~100 million detonators per day.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:44 AM
2

Or not be in the US.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:19 AM
1

This is some of the most encouraging news I've read in a while. Men can be convinced to reach out for help, if the constant barrage of "man up you wuss" is lessened.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 03:57 AM
0

That is the "joke".
/r/MensRights30/01/13 03:55 AM
2

In the US, it's primarily not religion based. It was popularized around the late 19th century for (false) hygiene reasons and to curb masturbation.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 03:20 PM
1

For criminal trials, there are two separate issues concerning mental health. The first is the accused's mental state at the time of the alleged crime ("insanity plea", which by the way is very rarely used and hardly ever works), and the second is their mental state at the time of the trial. If they cannot understanding the nature of the proceedings and meaningfully contribute to their defence, then they cannot be tried and thus jeopardy does not attach. Once they recover, they can be tried.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 08:35 PM
2

All presumptions in law can be rebutted.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 06:44 PM
2

Nicole Ryan could be tried again in either country, as it would be deemed a mistrial. Jeopardy never attached.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 08:19 PM
3

In most jurisdictions deriving from English common law (the commonwealth, countries and US) the trier of law and trier of fact (judge, and either judge/jury) do not investigate at all, but simply adjudicate. So it's not really up to the judge in this case to worry that Mr. Ryan was excluded -- he's not actually a party, remember. It's the Crown (reprsenting the interests of society as a whole) v the defendant.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 01:32 AM
3

In Canada, the spousal privilege regarding testifying has gone through a lot of changes. The general rule now is that spouses are competent witnesses, but not compellable by the Crown. They can testify if they want, but can't be forced to. There are many exceptions though. Spouses can be compelled for a lot of crimes, generally serious sexual or violent ones (domestic violence included).
/r/MensRights22/01/13 08:56 PM
1

Generally, higher courts rely on the facts as determined by the trial judge. They only review them if one of the parties is claiming that there was a serious error in the facts.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 04:55 PM
1

There's two reasons I can think for this. The Crown thought he'd make a bad witness, or they didn't do it for tactical reasons. Their strategy might have been "it doesn't matter at all whether her claims of abuse are true, as even if they are they don't meet the elements for the defense of duress".
/r/MensRights22/01/13 04:52 PM
3

Less than 0.3-0.5 of a person identifies as an atheist? That sounds painful.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 01:22 PM
1

The fact that it was posted here with the title "Men or Women's section for pants?" was what I was guessing as an attempt at gender policing.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 04:12 AM
3

I'm guessing it's some sort of attempt at gender policing. "Look at these wussy men nowadays with their woman pants!"
/r/MensRights22/01/13 04:01 AM
2

She was tried once. The Crown appealed the judge's decision (specifically, the use of the defense of duress) to the provincial Court of Appeal, who upheld it, and then to the SCC, who decided that trial judge and the Court of Appeal had erred. Normally this would result in a new trial, but they entered a stay of proceedings. Double jeopardy does not apply as jeopardy did not attach the first time around--it was a mistrial.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 11:03 PM
3

I'd say the true test of manhood is whether or not they identify as a man. That's all.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 09:45 PM
1

Thanks. Read them over, and none of them (apart from R v Lavallee, the one successful time it's been used) were successful uses of the defense in Canada.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 05:20 PM
3

Thanks, haven't read the SCC decision yet.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 04:24 PM
2

It's been successfully used by men in Canada? From what I thought it's only been successfully used once before this case.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 04:24 PM
2

They were partial reproductions of court documents handed out by my professor in my first year criminal law class. I think the prof actually went to the courthouse itself.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 04:20 PM
2

I'm looking to see if I still have the readings. From what I remember, the Crown prosecutor chose not to put her husband on the stand or otherwise challenge her testimony. Might have been a tactical decision (ie didn't think it was important), but it's more likely that the husband would have been a terrible witness.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 02:21 PM
7

Unfortunately what I had read were hard copy reproductions of court documents, so they aren't readily accessible over the internet.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 02:17 PM
11

The defense of self-defense is what covers a situation like that. The defense of duress does cover situations in which there is not an immediate physical threat. What was interesting about this case is that duress explicitly does not cover killing someone else, but wasn't clear about attempting to.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 02:17 PM
175

Your title is incorrect. Unfortunately the article is rather sparse with details, but she did go to the authorities, multiple times. They didn't help her. I read the details of the case over a year ago, so my memory may be off, but from what I recall she left her husband due to him threatening to kill their daughter. He had been extremely physically abusive for fifteen odd years to her, as well as abuse such as placing a gun to her head or isolating her. When she talked to him about divroce, he …
/r/MensRights18/01/13 01:28 PM
2

"your ilk" means something like "your kind" or "your people" with negative connotations.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 11:56 AM
10

Saying it started as somewhat reasonable seems far too charitable.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 02:17 PM
1

You were misinformed. This has no worth for any kind of discussion. Also, meme posts are explicitly disallowed.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 10:33 AM
1

Sorry, I thought the first response being referred to here was CALVINBALLLERZ's "You're an asshole."
/r/MensRights12/01/13 10:21 AM
2

I just have to say that the name Omniwhore is awesome.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 10:13 AM
1

Another explanation is that women are less likely to run as a candidate when their chances of winning are less clear cut. As a mirror to this, men are more likely to get sole custody of children when they apply for it. That doesn't mean that family law is biased towards men.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 10:09 AM
2

No it wasn't. An ad hominem is when you attack the person behind an argument in order to discredit the argument. Calling someone an asshole so therefore their argument is wrong is ad hominem; just calling someone an asshole is an insult.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 05:22 PM
18

There's two huge confounds in the suicide attempts stats. First, men are far, far less likelier to seek help. Suicide attempts by men are much likelier to be unreported or unnoticed. Second, a successful suicide attempt means no future attempts.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 04:31 AM
11

Seriously, you are getting nearly every single thing you say wrong. There are medical benefits for FGC (they found stronger evidence for reduction of HIV rates, for example). It does not necessarily entails removal of the clitoris, and the clitoris may be the rough morphological analogy of the glans, but not the functional. And no, it does not make sex lack any sort of pleasure. Of course, FGC is still horribly, horribly wrong.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 03:50 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:01 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights19/12/12 02:14 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights18/12/12 06:07 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights18/12/12 01:40 PM
20

deleted
/r/MensRights16/12/12 10:06 PM
14

deleted
/r/MensRights16/12/12 07:18 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights16/12/12 05:20 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights16/12/12 05:11 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights16/12/12 12:26 AM
-7

deleted
/r/MensRights16/12/12 12:00 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights15/12/12 11:21 PM
27

deleted
/r/MensRights15/12/12 08:41 PM
-1

deleted
/r/MensRights15/12/12 08:40 PM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights15/12/12 05:56 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:22 PM
1

He's written a couple articles on AVfM about it. The gist of the argument is that due to the stricter rules on some evidence in sexual assault cases, the accused cannot make full answer and defense, therefore the trial process itself is too compromised to endorse a guilty verdict.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:51 AM
1

Most likely from Paul Elam, who advocates for jury nullification in all rape trials.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 11:01 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights12/12/12 08:41 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:41 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:36 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:34 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:19 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:07 PM
10

deleted
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:01 PM
3

You are confusing the definition used for data collection, with the definition set out in law.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 01:04 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:44 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:48 PM
8

deleted
/r/MensRights09/12/12 07:27 PM
8

deleted
/r/MensRights09/12/12 07:25 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights09/12/12 07:06 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights09/12/12 06:42 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights09/12/12 06:38 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights08/12/12 10:32 PM
20

deleted
/r/MensRights06/12/12 10:12 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights06/12/12 10:53 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights06/12/12 10:31 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights05/12/12 08:33 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights05/12/12 08:23 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights04/12/12 03:36 PM
9

deleted
/r/MensRights04/12/12 03:45 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights03/12/12 04:54 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights03/12/12 04:16 PM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights03/12/12 04:14 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights03/12/12 03:59 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights03/12/12 03:58 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights03/12/12 03:52 PM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights03/12/12 03:12 PM
13

deleted
/r/MensRights03/12/12 02:45 PM
11

deleted
/r/MensRights03/12/12 02:41 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights03/12/12 02:37 PM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights02/12/12 11:59 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights02/12/12 11:56 PM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights02/12/12 11:55 PM
27

deleted
/r/MensRights02/12/12 11:43 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights02/12/12 06:19 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights02/12/12 06:18 PM
15

deleted
/r/MensRights02/12/12 06:11 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights02/12/12 09:22 AM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights02/12/12 09:08 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights01/12/12 11:37 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights01/12/12 11:25 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights30/11/12 03:15 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights30/11/12 04:38 AM
1

Err, the amount males circumcised world-wide is over 300 per thousand. Once again, I didn't realize you were talking about anything other than the actual rate of circumcision.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 04:36 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights30/11/12 02:36 AM
1

I'm not being clear. I thought you had mispoken, because the likelihood of getting circumcised is much higher than the rate of male breast cancer. I am well aware that the rate of NECESSARY circumcision is much lower.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 02:13 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights30/11/12 02:11 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:43 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:39 PM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:29 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:19 PM
9

deleted
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:11 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights29/11/12 04:30 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights28/11/12 04:51 PM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights27/11/12 05:38 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights27/11/12 07:25 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights27/11/12 06:46 AM
37

deleted
/r/MensRights27/11/12 06:43 AM
30

deleted
/r/MensRights27/11/12 06:35 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights27/11/12 06:17 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights27/11/12 06:07 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:14 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:12 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights26/11/12 02:24 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights25/11/12 01:16 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights25/11/12 11:02 AM
19

deleted
/r/MensRights25/11/12 06:11 AM
1

So what you're saying is you disbelieve the stats presented from the CDC and DOJ. I'm sure there's some conspiracy theory subreddits on here. Also, even if your point was correct, you think that the most important bit is the gender of the assailant.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 06:02 AM
1

That was a complete non sequitur. You were presented with a study by the CDC showing that men in the past year were raped just as often as women. Your response is that men should feel lucky to be raped. Do you seriously not realize how fucking stupid that sounds?
/r/MensRights25/11/12 04:07 AM
1

Oh no, facts opposing my worldview! Better run and hide!
/r/MensRights24/11/12 11:44 PM
2

The majority of rape cases aren't prosecuted with rape kit evidence. Also, vaginal injuries are just as common in rape and consensual sex (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2123246/Voluntary-sex-lead-injuries-rape-new-study-shows.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
/r/MensRights24/11/12 11:36 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights24/11/12 11:16 PM
6

No, one of the biggest threads is someone politely asking how a an can be raped. The ones that are getting downvoted are the ones asked in the style of "lol men can't be raped".
/r/MensRights24/11/12 08:03 AM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights24/11/12 04:40 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights24/11/12 04:19 AM
13

deleted
/r/MensRights24/11/12 03:29 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights23/11/12 10:17 PM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights21/11/12 11:50 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights17/11/12 02:11 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 03:17 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 02:57 PM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 06:29 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 06:21 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:40 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:25 AM
19

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:11 AM
-6

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 04:45 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 04:30 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 01:42 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 01:38 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights16/11/12 01:06 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights13/11/12 06:08 PM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights13/11/12 06:01 AM
7

deleted
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:13 AM
11

deleted
/r/MensRights12/11/12 02:57 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights12/11/12 02:42 AM
12

deleted
/r/MensRights12/11/12 12:12 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights11/11/12 06:31 PM
9

deleted
/r/MensRights05/11/12 05:02 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights04/11/12 09:48 PM
2

No, you're downvoted because you're an idiot.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 08:08 PM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights31/10/12 03:04 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights31/10/12 01:12 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights31/10/12 12:25 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights30/10/12 06:04 PM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights30/10/12 05:47 PM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights30/10/12 10:29 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights30/10/12 10:25 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:11 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:00 AM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:57 AM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:53 AM
5

deleted
/r/MensRights28/10/12 05:40 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights28/10/12 01:09 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights24/10/12 01:04 AM
4

deleted
/r/MensRights24/10/12 01:00 AM
0

deleted
/r/MensRights22/10/12 04:28 AM
2

deleted
/r/MensRights21/10/12 04:05 AM
9

deleted
/r/MensRights26/09/12 02:17 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights03/09/12 01:23 AM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights02/09/12 05:39 PM
3

deleted
/r/MensRights02/09/12 05:33 PM
6

deleted
/r/MensRights01/09/12 03:41 AM
8

deleted
/r/MensRights01/09/12 03:38 AM
1

deleted
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:11 AM
24

"A man, for example, who gets a job isn’t going to face with suggestions that his attractiveness..." I can't seem to find the study off-hand, but I thought the height of a male had a larger impact on his career than the attractiveness of a female has on hers?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:07 AM
6

Even assuming that both are as serious in their intent to commit suicide, there are two huge confounding factors that come to mind: Men are less likely to seek help of any kind, more so for health related issues, much more so for mental health issues, and much, much more so for suicidal ideation. People who make a suicide attempt and fail have a high chance of attempting again. Someone who successfully commits suicide obviously cannot attempt to do so again. So a female suicide is much more like…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:44 AM
1

Yes, that is objectification. Note that I didn't say it was bad. But pretending that the word "objectification" has no meaning because we're all objects is silly.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:59 AM
0

Sorry, I can't agree. Objectify in this context means to treat someone as a one-dimensional thing to provide a service. I don't personally agree with all the rhetoric about objectifying, but breaking it down into the root of the word isn't helpful. It's like saying "Everything is natural, because there isn't anything apart from nature!". There are connotations to the word beyond the literal interpretation of the base.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 11:59 PM
5

Ugh, the insults about his physical appearance are so fucking petty.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 02:26 PM
1

First post by this account. Don't feed the troll.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 11:10 PM
3

They need to change their logo. They're letting out the secret that Canadian men ejaculate maple leaves.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 08:54 PM
8

To be fair, there are many efforts to limit access to abortion and birth control in the US.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 06:34 PM
1

Before you go through any legal channels, please be aware that normally, all court records are public. Many, many employers will do a search of past cases involving you. Even if you're in the right, if you sued a past employer, a lot will just not hire you.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:06 PM
2

Go read http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf A roughly equal amount of men and women were raped (using forced penetration and forced envelopment as the metric). It also says that 80% of men report a female rapist and 98% of women report a male rapist. It is not some vanishingly small problem in the US. It's near parity. And hell, going by the studies show that men VASTLY underreport sexual abuse compared to women (I can get you that later if you're unwilling to Google…
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:02 PM
2

Could you direct me to the actual quote? If we're talking about the same thread (the tall woman being harassed on a bus), I didn't see any replies about how he should have intervened because he was a man...I saw stuff attacking his reasons for not intervening. Now I think there are valid reasons for not doing so, but I didn't see anything saying "You should have saved her because you're male."
/r/MensRights04/08/12 12:48 PM
3

Read the comments, and it didn't seem like the calls to intervene were gendered.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:25 AM
9

Sorry, can't get behind the "man up" message here. All men are men, good or bad.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:18 AM
8

Umm, go back and reread the stats. Women are out raping men, and it is a real problem.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:44 PM
2

I think one of the most important stats from that is: "16% of men with documented cases of sexual abuse considered their early childhood experiences sexual abuse, compared with 64% of women with documented cases of sexual abuse. These gender differences may reflect inadequate measurement techniques or an unwillingness on the part of men to disclose this information (Widom and Morris 1997)" Men are much, much, MUCH more likely to deny that they were sexually assaulted. It's a bit of extrapolation…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:40 PM
1

Hell, not just emotionally. She was filmed physically striking him many times.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 08:32 PM
10

I'm not a big fan of either Jon or Kate, but what struck me about the show was that there was clear, documented physical, emotional, and financial abuse of Jon, seen regularly by millions of people, and nothing happened.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:12 AM
3

This isn't a story about two people having sex while intoxicated and the one of them later regretting it. It's a story about two people having sex while one of them just lays there, without giving consent. Flirting isn't consent. Leading someone on isn't consent. Not saying no isn't consent. Consent does NOT have to be verbal, but it does have to be positive. There wasn't positive verbal or physical signs of consent here. It was sexual assault.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 08:08 PM
0

Not saying no isn't the same thing as saying yes.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 07:57 PM
2

Well, there's not enough details in the OP, but at face value it sounds like the mens rea element was fulfilled, at least in Canada. In Canada there is no crime of rape, only sexual assault (sentencing coming down to various factors). The actus reus element is non-consensual sexual contact, which definitely occurred here. The mens rea element can be fulfilled if they thought there was consent, but were reckless, willfully blind, or "didn't take reasonable steps to obtain consent". If you have se…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 07:56 PM
2

As a guess, it means Fuck Off And Die.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:57 PM
1

There are many people with no religion (such as myself) who consider Scientology a cult. I'd have no problem labelling modern Christianity as one (and many sects of it are) if it engaged in similar behaviour. As a small caveat, just because a religion doesn't engage in cultish activities doesn't mean they are good or anything. For example, I think Catholicism has a much more negative impact on the world than Scientology due to its political meddling.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 01:05 AM
2

There are other modern religions that don't use such tactics (Wicca and Satanism come to mind). Yes, older religions did use similar methods in the past. Our culture has changed enormously then. It would be like if a new state joined the US, and they had slaves. "Well, all the original states had slaves, so who are we to say they are any different?"
/r/MensRights12/07/12 01:02 AM
1

It's not whether their beliefs are more crazy, it's about their methods. They routinely engage in tactics like cutting off followers from their friends and family, making them entirely dependent on the Church for material needs, thuggish lawfare to silence any critics, and even outright criminal deeds. Heck, they are behind the largest infiltration of the US government ever, by a huge margin. Mind you, other religions do similar things, but nowhere near the same level as the CoS.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 06:58 PM
1

It wouldn't be given much weight. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 06:51 PM
1

You are correct. In fact, there is no crime of "rape" in Canada, rather there's sexual assault with a flexible sentencing structure.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 08:12 PM
1

I agree that he was well within his rights to defend himself, but full force blows with a metal rod while they are on the ground seems excessive. Mind you, can't see what they are doing from that angle.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 01:00 AM
1

No charges? Wow, looking at the video it seems he went a fair bit beyond self-defense. What was he striking them with?
/r/MensRights15/04/12 09:43 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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