TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

pastafarianprez Archive

View 1 post and 58 comments by pastafarianprez 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

Because 70%+ of ads are targeted towards women. The gender that stays home more will watch more tv. Ads were never high brow to begin with and marketing plays to gender roles because they're easy.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 09:42 PM
1

Digital files are not things that can be owned. In fact digital files are not things at all, but rather lines of code that allow your computer to execute a function which in turn shows you a specific picture. When you are sent a picture the "gift" is not the file itself, but rather the retractable privilege (read: license). This privilege or license extends only to you, and machines that you own or are using. Unless specified otherwise this license is non-transferable, meaning you do not have th…
/r/MensRights16/09/13 09:34 PM
1

Well number one; a digital copy of a file does not equal a physical print under copyright law. Number two; even if it did, With that attitude you're getting your ass sued and losing a lot of money either way.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 04:43 PM
1

You misunderstand the very essence of copyright law in the US. Sending someone a picture does not relinquish ones' claim to copyright over said image. I know this is reddit, but that's simply not how the situation would play out.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 01:04 AM
1

This is an issue of both copyright and notification. The reason why every telephone hotline tells you "this call may be recorded" is because all it takes for a party to make a copy of a secure communication is knowledge that a recording may exist. Skype includes this notification in their TOS, as call recording is a big part of the video calling service. This consent to record is thus very easily given, and often simply implied. After that it a question of who originally created the file that th…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 03:28 PM
1

I agree completely that we should not ascribe personality traits by gender. However it is fair to say (as you agreed in previous posts) that the majority of positions that require risk of immediate and direct harm are filled by men. Putting oneself in danger requires bravery or courage. One step further with that logic leads us to see that men fill a majority of the positions that require bravery or courage. Bravery/courage = dangerous job/act, dangerous jobs/acts = filled by men, therefore men …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 05:39 AM
2

The unfortunate fact is, men and women have distinct biological differences that manifest themselves in quite indisputable ways, and cause us to think about/react to the environment around us in different ways.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 05:19 AM
-7

you don't have to bring race into this.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 04:57 PM
2

I see your point, but trying to call out deadbeat dad's on fathers day is the same as berating all mothers for the misgivings of a certain "octo-mom" and her ilk on mothers day. In the larger context, attacking the majority for the failings of a minority doesn't make sense.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 04:56 PM
2

Be careful with that. Some states require consent from both parties being recorded and that could win up in court.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 06:21 PM
1

Good point. Most schools that I know prohibit or at least discourage young men from wearing sleeveless shirts like tank tops. I don't see the difference between a shirt and a dress in that case.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 11:02 PM
-2

If it's NSFW it's NSF school. The action taken was harsh, but fair given the content of her photos.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 07:46 PM
0

Let them have plastic surgery. I don't want to come out looking like Michael Jackson.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 05:14 AM
1

It's not puritanical, it's the definition of objectification matched up against the scenario we're discussing. My point is that it's not a big deal and it shouldn't matter.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 10:08 PM
1

because they are not viewed as a human being worthy of the level of connection an emotional sexual experience would warrant. Men do it, fine and boo hoo. My point is really simple: any woman who has had sex without the intention of starting a fulfilling well rounded relationship has also objectified men. If feminism truly values equality and is anti-objectification, then feminists should be anti-casual sex.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 07:22 PM
3

No, my knock down argument is that women (or anyone for that matter) who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. They shouldn't fuck for pleasure and then cry boo-hoo when men do it either.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 08:39 AM
1

If a man has sex with a woman purely for the pleasure of the act and not for any underlying connection, then that is objectification. The problem with the objectification argument? With birth control women have sex for pleasure, all the time. Objectification is how humans view anything they do not have a long term interest in, simple as that.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 08:12 AM
5

Wait, you're telling me the girl who fucked her way through half the religions on this earth was upset because of someone else's lack of conviction?
/r/MensRights07/02/13 06:14 PM
2

When one is successful "being liked" becomes "being respected" because success makes being liked somewhat irrelevant (as we've seen with her boss Mr. Zuckerberg). This is a gender neutral concept for the most part.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 05:59 AM
1

It's common sense that if you feel vulnerable within a certain context, you take action to rectify that vulnerability. Why would one refuse to take advantage of those opportunities? Situational awareness is supposed to be based on the situation that one finds oneself in. Fearing all men is just as bad as naiveté.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 11:05 PM
1

Ok read carefully here UNDERUTILIZED. My point is that while there is information available (and readily at that) don't encourage women to utilize it. I know very well what these courses include, but it doesn't matter worth a damn if no one takes them.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 07:01 AM
1

If they actually promoted the type of prevention that I'm advocating then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 10:44 PM
1

"feminist style prevention"? "Boundary issues"? "Prevention tipstering"? Where are these terms coming from?
/r/MensRights26/01/13 10:35 PM
0

If you admit that rape is something bad, then women should fear it and not be coddled because of their gender. We need to teach our girls what is easiest to move and run in and what places hold more danger than others. (Knowing to always move in a group and and to watch your drink is just plain "don't be naive" common sense regardless of gender.) Right now we have a culture that teaches women to fear all men. If we teach our girls the true danger signs of rape, then they can also learn that the …
/r/MensRights26/01/13 10:31 PM
1

Women wouldn't have to feel like they need a chaperone or group if they were taught how to defend themselves and what the true signs of a rapist are. There are many steps in between fearing all men and being completely oblivious. There are also many female self defense courses all over the nation that go underutilized.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 09:45 PM
1

You wouldn't have to live in fear if you kept an eye on what was happening in the world around you.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 09:42 PM
1

You have fallen into the feminist narrative my friend. My analogy is saying that while there are plenty of cuddly happy animals out in the wild there are also lions. A meat suit does not advertise in the same way to an antelope that it would to a lion. If I don't want to get mugged, I don't walk around the bronx at night wearing the family diamond jewels and flashing all my cash. It's not a question of "asking for it" so much as simple situational awareness. If we teach situational awareness to …
/r/MensRights26/01/13 09:39 PM
1

If women are still getting raped than then feminist campaigns are obviously not working. There are a lot of cool men out there and a few really really ba ones just like everyone knows there are a lot of cool animals in the savannah, and a few that might eat you. Why then, would you wear a meat suit on a safari?
/r/MensRights26/01/13 05:03 PM
1

A girl who wants a nice guy can never date an asshole and, if they ever do, it will be proof positive that they never wanted a nice guy. While a female never dating an asshole would be an awesome individual goal, it's most likely impossible, particularly because we can't measure "asshole" or "jerk." Someone doesn't even have to mean to be dating an asshole to be perceived that way. Sound familiar?
/r/MensRights25/01/13 11:41 PM
0

women like her should wear a "crazy" sign or button or tattoo so guys like them can know to stay away
/r/MensRights21/01/13 05:40 AM
6

Equality is a bitch.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 07:03 PM
3

Take that shit to r/racist man
/r/MensRights09/01/13 02:57 PM
1

There isn't a single instance where she truly discusses both sides of the issue. This is a child's whine written in the prose of an adult.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 03:31 AM
0

Exactly. If a guy goes around saying he is someone completely different to conceal his own identity in a malicious way, then that is one thing. However the law must take into account that the line between worker/serf and warrior/leader gets a lot blurrier when trying to impress the opposite gender. Exaggeration/personal private info should not be considered grounds for rape.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 10:11 PM
8

Facemash + what they can expect to get out of the guys. If there's one for women there should be one for guys, fair is fair but it takes all the fun out of dating. On the flip side it would be nice to have a "crazy scale" before asking a woman out.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 08:01 PM
6

My point simply goes to illustrate that it is our responsibility to resist whatever negative societal pressures you claim as influences. Purporting that societal pressures are overwhelming as you have done above is giving up agency in the situation.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:50 PM
4

We're not talking about predation (of sober man-drunk woman) but rather the fact that if a man and a woman are both equally drunk (even with an identical BAC) then the man can be charged with rape. These rape laws treat women as inferiors without sexual agency, and it hurts both genders.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:10 PM
4

Imagine if after a bar fight I said: "But officer, everyone was chanting 'Fight! Fight! Fight!...' so I just had to hit him. The social psychology was too strong for me!" This will cease to be an issue when women take full control of their sexual agency and actions. If a law applies one way to men, it should apply the same way to women every time (drunk or not).
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:06 PM
4

you're still assuming women have no agency in sexual matters. It's too bad that this is what feminism has devolved to. There's obviously no possibility of having a logical discussion with you on this.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 04:55 PM
3

If more women made their will clear and then ACTED ON IT then we would not be having this discussion.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 04:48 PM
8

So now you're telling me that persistence in a non-threatening manner is a crime...no offense but that seems a little skewed to me.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:43 AM
1

It is a violation of the other person to force the issue AFTER ONE PARTY CLEARLY SAYS "NO". Do you expect your car to stop just because maybe you kinda don't wanna crash into the car in front of you? You have to slam on the brakes just like you would in any sexual situation. The act of stopping an activity is by its very nature not passive, so act like it please. So you're saying that men who actively engage women with even a side goal of physical relations is a rapist? Huh? That logic would mak…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:37 AM
8

If you don't want to have sex with someone then don't do it! Don't commit the act anyway for some convoluted personal reasoning and blame the other party for the conscious choice you made! It takes two to tango honey.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:32 AM
5

You seem to be assuming malicious intent here. In any case what is more difficult to dispute than the quick to say, easy to pronounce, hard to misinterpret word "no"? "No" is the verbal equivalent of pushing someone away like you mentioned in your post and therefore would be a clear delineation between consent and lack thereof. My point is this: if we rely on body language to determine what is rape and what is consent, the distinction will continue to remain fuzzy at best. P.S. I almost wasn't g…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:29 AM
5

If this is the system that you expect men to adhere to I'm assuming you apply this philosophy to your own life. That means you then give consent in this manner with every man, every time you have sex, at every single level of escalation during the encounter. Am I wrong? The legal issues surrounding rape charges stem from the fact that our government allows women to decide what rape is, and then allow them to apply that personalized definition retroactively. If a law is truly fair it should apply…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:12 AM
4

The oxford english dictionary defines the word begrudging as to: "give reluctantly or resentfully." That same text defines rape as: "the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will." Now let's ignore this sexist definition of rape for a second. Resent and reluctance by no means claim that the woman is doing something against her will. If you want to have sex with a man, then you will do it. If you do not want to h…
/r/MensRights30/12/12 08:01 AM
5

Getting pressured into something is completely different from rape. If a woman pressures a man into buying her expensive jewelry did she steal his money? No, he made the stupid decision to part with his money when he should have said no.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 06:05 AM
5

Are you suggesting men must breathalyze any woman they bring home before sleeping with her? How would you propose an equitable an realistic way of confirming if a woman is drunk/not drunk? If I am also drunk then does that make me a rape victim? I obviously don't know what I'm doing because making my own responsible decisions with alcohol is above my feeble state. Whoopsie!
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:45 AM
6

The law cannot both call itself fair, and attempt to judge the arbitrary and personal pressures that a woman may feel. It's her responsibility to say no in a clear and concise manner. It is not the male prerogative to read her mind.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:37 AM
5

It's always her right to say no, caving implies that she gave consent willingly. Begrudging consent is still consent so long as it is not coerced.
/r/MensRights30/12/12 05:31 AM
1

There are two different legal distinctions for a very specific reason. Alimony is meant to support a wife who for some reason (completely and utterly outside of her control) can't find gainful legal employment. The other reason is child support, which is meant to provide an equitable contribution toward the rearing of a child. If child support was for the ex-partner to finance their own personal life, the legal term would have been lazy ex support.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:59 AM
2

I'm sorry but no woman should be squeezing 5 grand a month out of a guy (more than the median American full time job) for simply being the custodian of a child. It's one thing to support single mothers, it's another to enable gold diggers.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:57 AM
4

If the ex needs help paying the bills then (while I don't agree with it because it should be her responsibility to find a way of supporting herself) then she should sue for alimony. What you are advocating is nothing better than welfare queen fraud.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 01:43 AM
3

If the money is for CHILD SUPPORT then it should go to SUPPORTING THE CHILD, not bankrolling the ex's new lifestyle. Alimony is what purports to be "spousal support" which is what I think you are referring to. A relationship is an agreement between two people to share support and resources (both emotional, financial and physical). If the woman decides to break off her end of the relationship, the man should not be under an obligation to continue his end.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 11:45 PM
1

If she wanted a discussion she could have brought her point of view to the table.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 05:35 PM
2

You're talking about the men who were asked to leave, right?
/r/MensRights11/12/12 05:42 PM
10

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/role-reversal-wives-angry-paying-alimony/story?id=8662940#.UMJhTaWftv1 The other side of the angle is women are just as pissed off when forced into similar situations.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 09:50 PM
15

Should've had a prenup. If women truly want "equal rights" then we need to completely do away with this antiquated and flawed concept of alimony. No matter how much they complain women are completely capable of supporting themselves by finding gainful employment. If they choose to leave a comfortable situation for one that is less so, that is in no way a fault of the man.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 09:40 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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