TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ralph-j Archive

View 0 posts and 22 comments by ralph-j on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

We don't say the same in employment, for instance. Although we all experience those ages, we have still decided that it is immoral to discriminate against potential employees who are considered too young or too old. Instead we may justify employment decisions based on skill/experience only.
/r/MensRights24/12/12 09:23 AM
5

I wonder if age-based equality is going to follow too? Younger vs. older drivers (ageism).
/r/MensRights23/12/12 10:47 AM
1

I think that this subreddit fully complies with Poe's Law. Without a smiley, no one can be sure if you're joking or not.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 09:51 AM
2

With female supervision?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:46 PM
10

Bring in a written note from your mother...
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:02 PM
9

I think I can top that: the worst media coverage would have ensued if they had both been male...
/r/MensRights26/09/12 04:17 PM
4

Unfortunately change is slow to come, especially with counterforces like the Catholic Church demonizing condoms.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 10:19 PM
4

The results are controlled, you are right - I didn't deny that. The risk as calculated in the study is the transmission risk during unprotected sex with someone who knowingly has HIV. However, to calculate the risk of protected sex with someone that may or may not have HIV, you have to multiply the transmission risk by the chance that the condom is ineffective and the chance that that person is infected. Edit: page two of this document by the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV explain…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:20 PM
4

HIV infection risks are conditional, which means that they have to be multiplied by the chance of your sexual partner having HIV (compare Africa vs. Europe) and the chance of the condom being faulty. This means that the actual risk is much much lower depending on the geography and the quality of your protection. If you want to use circumcision to justify having unprotected sex, it just becomes a matter of time before contracting HIV.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:48 PM
5

HIV infection risks are conditional, which means that they have to be multiplied by the chance of your sexual partner having HIV (which is very different in Africa and e.g. Europe) and the chance of the condom being faulty. This means that the actual risk is much much lower depending on the geography and the quality of your protection.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:38 PM
5

The use of condoms
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:08 PM
20

If, and only if, there's a medical need for it, then yes.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 04:35 PM
1

It does patronize women too: while they cannot be punished themselves, it takes away their choice to make the sexual act lawful on their own accord. The girl's parents could step in and demand the boy to be punished, while the girl is powerless to prevent this.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 04:38 PM
6

What does the risk of pregnancy have to do with determining whether a sex act involved consent? Wouldn't it also be against women's rights to say that only teen boys can consent to sex, but girls effectively can't?
/r/MensRights24/02/12 02:52 PM
1

Pardoning him would have sent a much stronger message regarding the social acceptance of homosexuality. Refusing the pardon just suggests that the UK Government doesn't think it was morally wrong to have this law on the books. That following the law somehow stands above the immorality of the way he was treated.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 12:32 PM
-3

I thought it was funny, and I'm not sure it's the appearance of reverse domestic violence that makes it funny (to me at least). I found it similarly funny to mister Bean meeting the Queen. It has genders reversed, and is still hilarious.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 04:46 PM
7

Why is this such a big deal suddenly? There was Lego Bellville from 1994 up until the 2000s.
/r/MensRights05/02/12 01:19 PM
1

A compromise doesn't mean that it has to be imposed by someone else. In fact, compromises are usually self-imposed ("Ok, I'll make a compromise and take care of the baby/household...") He could have also made the same compromise and let her continue with her career. Then the compromise would be on his side.
/r/MensRights05/02/12 01:00 PM
1

Are we going in circles? They could hire a nanny of course, but the choice of staying at home is at the same time a compromise regarding their career.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 04:03 PM
1

Yes, but it can be a compromise to the parent that gives their career up to let the other parent keep their career, regardless of their gender.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 03:08 PM
2

I bet she meant letting her career take a backseat for the moment, rather than the "burden" of household work and raising kids.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 10:12 AM
0

If, as a society, we're against women getting a symbolic "nick" or "pin prick" in their clitoral hoods (instead of cutting things off), we should also be against male circumcision, since this has arguably more significant consequences than the former.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 10:49 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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