TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

repete66219 Archive

View 0 posts and 246 comments by repete66219 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

Yeah, good point. They’re only used on women that would already be shitfaced.
/r/MensRights02/02/18 11:03 PM
10

From the Vox article: When I first watched her interview with Colbert, I found myself resenting her. I felt she was being pretentious and self-aggrandizing, and wondered if she was also possibly high. Why was she telling me incoherent stories about turning down Courage Street? Was that a metaphor? Was it literal? Who could say? But the more I sit with the interview, the more I think my resentment is born of a knee-jerk discomfort with watching a woman reject social norms on a talk show. Talk sho…
/r/MensRights01/02/18 09:52 PM
2

I was a bartender for about 5 years in college. It was around the time that rufies were first coming to light. Not a weekend would go by without a woman, having blacked out and/or vomited in excess, claiming to have been "rufied". Skipping dinner & doing shot after shot of hard liquor had nothing to do with it. It's not that men haven't drugged women. It's not that some men aren't above doing such a thing. It's that a.) no one has access to those drugs, b.) if they did the drugs would be cost pr…
/r/MensRights01/02/18 09:35 PM
5

She's the author of an article titled, "CASKET PRETTY: A REFLECTION ON POLICE BRUTALITY (AKA WHITE PEOPLE—SHUT THE FUCK UP!)" that has some pretty interesting suggestions & observations in it. Based on her attitude as expressed in that article I imagine she might perceive her expulsion as having been motivated by race. Based on the article I'm not surprised Middlebury jumped at the opportunity to get rid of her. She seems like a real pill and a legal liability.
/r/MensRights01/02/18 08:38 PM
4

Vox delivers as expected: The interview just seems awkward, but is actually an act of female empowerment!
/r/MensRights01/02/18 07:50 PM
2

That person is in fucking Canada. So she's apologizing to the alphabet soup on behalf of a country whose election she didn't even vote in.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 10:46 PM
8

It's not just feminist narrative, it's California law.
/r/MensRights27/07/16 03:06 PM
0

True, but the hype against the movie was significant before the "OMG, sexist" stuff started.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 12:07 PM
1

Haha, I started thinking the same thing: "If you don't like it why are you giving it so much publicity?" And yeah, so many threads are just YouTube video monologues on the controversy du jour.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 02:08 AM
0

Actually, I edited it several times for syntax & clarity not because of any contradiction.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 12:54 AM
0

The whole Ghostbusters thing seems more like a vendetta perpetrated by neckbeards who care a little too much about a movie that wasn't even very good to begin with.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 10:40 PM
1

That's really not what racism or sexism are. (I think bigotry is what you're going for.) Feminism and BLM are low hanging fruit for MRAs. Both are very high profile and have been observed to behave in batshit crazy behavior of late. This doesn't mean the poster thought her bitching was a function of her race or sex. Not all women are on board with Lena Dunham or the Mattress Girl, but a significant number of their supporters are women.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 10:37 PM
12

That comparison is a bit specious. They're bemoaning the minimization of Christmas as Christians, not white men.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 09:51 PM
35

I think it's a crude way of saying that women and black people are more inclined to engage in Victim Olympics behavior so popular with SJWs.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 09:23 PM
1

Given the average temp there I can see why they would t have it.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 11:25 PM
1

Mental health is clearly an issue. The degree to which the VA shares in the state of the guy's mental health isn't featured in the article at all. A murderer's mother simply says her son isn't to blame. What else is she going to say? That SJWs do it doesn't mean MRAs can do it too.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 11:03 PM
-3

So postmodernism it is. :-)
/r/MensRights22/07/16 04:43 PM
0

I thought you Scots were well ahead of this heat thing, which is why you wear the kilts. :-D
/r/MensRights22/07/16 04:43 PM
-5

No air con? Yeah, that's a bit stuffy. If it were 89 degrees F I'd wear a skirt too. None of my schools in the US had air con either and we regularly slogged through 90, 95, sometimes 100 degree days. Things are different now of course with the kids these days.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 04:41 PM
0

It's what we in the States call "room temperature", meaning the temperature at which you often set your thermostat. This certainly could feel a bit warm if you're dressed for 50 degrees F.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 04:37 PM
-13

Absolutely people perceive temperature differently, according to what they're accustomed to--evidenced by Californians wearing parkas when it's in the 50s--but calling temperature in mid 70s "hot" is a stretch by anyone's definition. Unless of course one prescribes to the postmodern concept of temperature relativism.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 04:24 PM
5

Ahhh, the old heat index boost.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 03:53 PM
-1

I have no reason to doubt that source. 88 degrees is definitely hot if the buildings don't have air con. I don't think it was that hot when they left for school that day, so they wore shorts not in reaction to but rather in anticipation of the heat.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 03:35 PM
8

Where is it 39 in Canada? Are you standing close to a forest fire? :-P
/r/MensRights22/07/16 03:33 PM
-9

Was it 89 that day? I looked at weather.com the day the article appeared and it said it was in the mid 70s. If it's near 90 and the school has no air conditioning then their position is understandable. Right now it's 70 degrees F in Brighton.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 03:24 PM
-6

Bland, uninteresting, has a valid point...
/r/MensRights22/07/16 03:06 PM
4

Good for them. I still fail to see how 74 degrees F is "hot".
/r/MensRights22/07/16 03:05 PM
2

Is this a men's issue? The fact is the VA treats tens of thousands of veterans each year--with a varying degree of success--so to say they only treat the "top 1%" is bullshit. The VA can't provide detailed comment because of privacy requirements. This guy had mental issues but his mother is not qualified to diagnose what those issues are. To say a computer data analyst who saw no combat suffered from PTSD is more than just a little curious. I can understand if someone has a personal interest in …
/r/MensRights21/07/16 05:16 PM
1

There's also the possibility of selection bias by the person who compiled the list, either because he/she likes pictures of attractive women--especially women who share his/her ideology--or to project the image that "all the hot women" are anti-feminists.
/r/MensRights20/07/16 05:59 PM
6

Shouldn't this fall under Title IX?
/r/MensRights14/07/16 05:22 PM
0

I did. In 2 different posts I believe. It is a weighty incident that everyone should be aware of, but how many times should it be posted?
/r/MensRights08/07/16 08:45 PM
0

This was posted several times last week.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 05:09 PM
5

"New"? Um, no.
/r/MensRights07/07/16 08:09 PM
3

He should just say he's transgender. I'm serious. Then this event would evolve from a sexist charge of child molestation to a matter of a violation of his--er, her--civil rights.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 02:12 AM
1

It's a question that's been asked by rational thinkers--usually non-Leftist atheists--for a long time. Pat Condell, Dawkins with his Muslima comment, Hitchens, Harris, et al. To date there hasn't been much of an answer. I've always seen feminism's opposition to a perceived injustice as being directly proportional to how close to home it is. This is why I often perceive feminism as being not about justice as much as it is about simply rebelling against what mommy & daddy like.
/r/MensRights29/06/16 02:23 PM
1

This was posted at least twice yesterday.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:19 PM
1

The trend in determining privilege is in the outcome, not the cause.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 07:12 PM
1

I agree, but it does fit well into the existing mold, which is that when a man and woman commit the same crime, statistics indicate that the man does more time.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 06:45 PM
1

If she wasn't present and didn't know about the father not calling 911 then I agree with the court that she's less culpable in the event that killed him. An argument could be made that she bears equal responsibility in the course of action which led to his death though.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 06:26 PM
1

Toxic femininity? You know, because patriarchy.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 06:18 PM
1

He apparently took part in Vaxxed, the anti-vaccine propaganda "documentary", and said he's being victimized for his beliefs.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 06:17 PM
1

Was the mother present at the time? If so they both deserve an equal punishment.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 06:15 PM
3

A victim shouldn't be blamed for being raped. However, somewhere along the line, "don't blame the victim" seems to have taken on the unspoken corollary that a drunk woman has no accountability or agency in determining the course of events. Getting a BAL of .23, which is what the Stanford rape victim had, requires a lot of effort. While the penalty for getting shit faced drunk isn't and shouldn't be "rape", the events which took place would not have taken place if she weren't as drunk as she got …
/r/MensRights27/06/16 06:11 PM
8

She's a silver spoon, 1%er from birth, just like that other feminist--the one who molested her sister.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 02:44 PM
24

That's the beauty of intersectionalism. I can't criticizer her because I'm a man. Camille Paglia can't criticize her because she's white. The only people who can criticize her are people with more subgroup boxes ticked. The good news is that she can be criticized by a transgender black lesbian.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 02:38 PM
1

You're correct of course, but the soft science in question here has manufactured definitions to fit the narrative. According to them, women can't be sexist--just as minorities can't be racist--because they aren't the party in control. It's Orwellian, Marxist, a tautology of sorts & calculated to produce a desired result.
/r/MensRights25/06/16 04:00 AM
1

You don't "prove" it, you establish it just as you do in any relationship--over time (=long term).
/r/MensRights22/06/16 12:16 PM
1

Why? Due Process First Amendment (or equivalent) False Accusations
/r/MensRights17/06/16 07:47 PM
2

Tell him the term is as meaningless as saying all men are potential rapists. Then ask him where he got his degree in violence from.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 07:43 PM
3

As funny & intelligent as he was, even Jon was knee-deep in the SJW camp. Virtually all of his positions were unilaterally Progressive, for better or worse.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 09:47 PM
2

Except none of those things are really true, are they? At least not all at the same time. They're creating a straw man by implying that the most stringent requirements for obtaining an abortion are in place for getting an abortion anywhere, when only some of them are required in some places. Much the same way in which different jurisdictions (i.e. Chicago) have different rules for gun ownership. I get it. The point is that many attempts are made to limit access to abortion and that buying a gun …
/r/MensRights16/06/16 06:41 PM
1

"Long term" means different things for different people and anyway, the length of the relationship is less important that how the participants feel about each other. It goes without saying that consent is a necessary component (even in arranged marriages). The real issue is trust, which tends to become established over the passage of time. If you have been with a person for a period of time long enough to establish trust and you're in a physical (sexual) relationship, I don't believe it's a viol…
/r/MensRights16/06/16 02:06 PM
1

No, I didn't.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 04:36 AM
1

They track every instance. Most of the assailants are "unknown" and with little detail as to what actually occurred. I'd wager that if you controlled to remove gang/drug violence--which is targeted violence rather than random--it'd be a very short list.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 07:53 PM
1

Again, measuring the result according to narrow parameters. Why is it that when a man explicitly states he's motivated by Islamist ideology Regressives refuse to believe him?
/r/MensRights15/06/16 07:17 PM
1

Depends on your definition of "mass shooting". There's a website (can't remember) which tracks such shootings. Their definition is "4 or more people being killed or injured from gunfire". According to their statistics, there's on average more than one mass shooting per day.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 07:14 PM
1

Is there a "Humanism Plus" movement afoot?
/r/MensRights15/06/16 07:10 PM
1

I always considered myself a feminist because I believe in equal opportunity--not forced equality--for men and women. I slowly moved away from some social justice groups--both feminist and race-oriented--that seemed more interested in revenge and equal results than they were in equal opportunity. This was over a decade ago before the Leftist Regressives gained traction in academia. I'm still a firm believer in race and gender equality, but I'm not a Feminist.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 07:09 PM
2

You can rape anyone. Two people entering into marriage does tend to establish a level of trust & understanding that I would describe as "long term".
/r/MensRights14/06/16 03:11 AM
1

That's a very good question.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 12:23 AM
2

Especially if you know the person, trust the person, have engaged in such activities in the past & would almost willingly do so again if awake.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 07:44 PM
-2

Your reasoning is flawed.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 06:07 PM
2

There's implied consent in long term relationships.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 05:50 PM
1

Oy! She should talk to her to fellow Jews in Middle Eastern countries to get a non-Hollywood perspective. If she can find any.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 04:35 PM
10

That would come up in toxicology, if they ran it. Moot point since her BAL was 0.24, which is very drunk.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 04:31 PM
3

I'm with you for the most part. Given her documented behavior & intoxication, it's not unreasonable to think she offered consent. The only case here is that what was consensual sex became rape the very moment she lost consciousness. That said, the "don't blame the victim" narrative often results in absolving the victim of accountability for the events which led up to the rape. It portrays as black & white something which actually has some shades of gray. My real issue with the "mob rule" aspect …
/r/MensRights13/06/16 04:01 PM
2

Aryan Bratherhood? Sorry, couldn't resist.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 12:47 AM
1

"Concern trolling"? Hardly. I'm a genuine believer in Men's Rights in how they relate to equal treatment for men. I'm simply not supporting what I see as a fringe group of anti-circumcision advocates. The cause seems incongruous to me in terms of MR. I was circumcised. I don't believe this was a grave injustice. Perhaps misplaced concern & ill advised, but hardly a violation of my human rights. You're presuming to speak on my behalf, but I assure you I'm not damaged as a result. "We're not going…
/r/MensRights12/06/16 03:59 AM
1

Majority? Was there a compulsory poll? Prominent person? So arguments from popularity & authority are meaningful to you? Not so much with me, but then that is part & parcel when something becomes a "movement". I equate Intactivism with anti-abortion because its adherents are speaking unsolicited on someone's behalf. Additionally, as with many men being anti-abortion, many Intactivists are women. I compare them to anti-vaxxers & feminists because the vehemence seems disproportionate to the "damag…
/r/MensRights12/06/16 01:30 AM
1

Intactivism has more in common with anti-abortion than it does with Men's Rights and its adherents are as fanatical as feminists & anti-vaxxers. So perhaps it's your lot that should go away.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 12:50 AM
1

More advocacy. yawn
/r/MensRights11/06/16 10:11 PM
1

If your intention is to remove the ability to experience pleasure from sex then you are intentionally doing something which is harmful. Social pressure to comply with cultural standards can cause otherwise reasonable adults to do things which they believe are for the good of their child even if it isn't.
/r/MensRights11/06/16 07:32 PM
1

Citation? For what? Be specific.
/r/MensRights11/06/16 05:51 PM
1

A link to a biased advocacy website or video produced by someone with a clear agenda is not a "citation". Look at the data on circumcision prevalence. It does not coincide with the life & work of Kellogg. Corn flakes, which are delicious, do though.
/r/MensRights11/06/16 02:19 PM
1

I believe you meant intent is irrelevant to whether harm has occurred. I disagree. FGM causes more damage and is intended to cause more damage. That fact is relevant.
/r/MensRights11/06/16 02:16 PM
-2

...but that's patently unfair if they void her crime because she was the one that ended up on the ground. That kind of thinking will always be punitive against the stronger or more skilled party cf. Israel/Palestine press coverage
/r/MensRights10/06/16 03:45 PM
5

Movie critics are only men? Ghostbusters (2016) Director: Paul Feig Writers: Paul Feig Ivan Reitman Dan Aykroyd Harold Ramis Katie Dippold The only woman involved wrote that Sandra Bullock/Melissa McCarthy movie The Heat, which was another rip-off of the male buddy genre. The movie's male producers even outnumber the females 7 to 5.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 03:38 PM
0

Ermahgerd you're a damaged victim! Just admit it! Stockholm Syndrome!!!1
/r/MensRights10/06/16 02:53 PM
2

I think your obsession with posting pictures and videos of baby genitalia puts you a little closer to the pedo camp than I.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 12:12 AM
2

They are both done deliberately, but for different reasons. The intent of FGM is to debilitate. Not so with circumcision.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 12:11 AM
2

Oh, is Kellogg still active? I thought he died decades ago.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 12:10 AM
0

Although some forwarded or echoed the hypothesis that circumcision would prevent masturbation, that was decades before circumcision became popular, at least in the US. Kellogg was active in the early 20th century. Circumcision became popular decades later, for reasons unrelated to Kellogg's reasoning.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 12:09 AM
3

Enthusiastic? Whuh? Tell me, has the mental illness always been there or did it creep on slowly?
/r/MensRights09/06/16 10:34 PM
3

That's 2 personal insults. You are on a roll. Wait, I think your mom's calling. She made you fish sticks. Now go shave your neck.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 10:34 PM
1

Do you wear a tin foil hat?
/r/MensRights09/06/16 10:33 PM
1

OMG, the anti-masturbation thing is such an old and invalid trope. Please stop. Circumcision arose to prominence way after that faded. Cutting off a clitoris for the express intent of removing all possibility of experiencing pleasure from sex--from becoming a slut--is exactly the same as removing foreskin?
/r/MensRights09/06/16 10:32 PM
-6

Keep going little buddy! You're winning converts here. P.S. There's some spittle on your mouth. No, the other side.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 09:48 PM
3

Thanks for showing us how to convey an argument in a rational and reasonable fashion.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 09:48 PM
0

I don't disagree that they're both outdated & unjustified. My point is that one is worse than other both in intent and effect. Thus, comparing the two as apples and apples is a false equivalency. In short: they're both bad, but one is worse than the other.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 09:47 PM
0

You linked to a YouTube video with a pronounced anti-circumcision bias, in which a mohel is seen paraphrasing a 12th century Jewish scholar's belief that cutting off the foreskin "decreases the power of lust". Hardly definitive. Regardless, as with the Victorian and Puritan motivation for circumcision before it--that circumcision weakens sexual impulse or reduces the base desire--the premise is demonstrably false.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 09:43 PM
0

Oh Jesus, it's a cut-and-paste Brown Shirt fanatic, demonstrating yet again why the "intactivism" movement fails to get any traction with the mainstream. Nothing you posted relates to anything I said, but don't let that get in the way of your crusade Comrade!
/r/MensRights09/06/16 09:15 PM
-6

Although some forwarded or echoed the hypothesis that circumcision would prevent masturbation, that was decades before circumcision became popular, at least in the US.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 08:41 PM
-2

It's not more valid but it [usually] causes far less damage to the individual.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 08:26 PM
-8

I figured that myth would arise. I call it a myth because a.) it didn't (and couldn't) work and b.) it's not actually the reason circumcision became popular in the US.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 07:57 PM
27

Oh Christ, I see we're at the "blood from a stone" stage of the news cycle, where an isolated incident is extrapolated to involve a culture-wide conspiracy. This goes back to the "How to fix rape culture: Tell women not to throw baby in dumpster" idea.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 07:20 PM
-12

Intent factors into it. In many cases, FGM is performed with the express intent of removing a woman's ability to feel sexual pleasure. Granted, "Cutting off foreskin because 8,000 year old story said to" is hardly a valid reason, but the intent isn't to prevent sexual pleasure so I think it's a mistake to equate the two.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 07:19 PM
2

pretty amazing sex life together "Crazy in bed, crazy in the head" Learn it, live it, love it File a restraining order. Document everything so it's not a "he said/she said" but what would be a clear case of harassment from the point of view of an outsider.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 06:42 PM
1

It's truly Marxist--create a language and use it until people start believing it. "Some pigs are more equal than others..."
/r/MensRights07/06/16 06:39 PM
7

Yeah, and now a small part of the Glastonbury Festival will be designed to benefit mainly lesbian women. Let's not pretend it's anything else.
/r/MensRights06/06/16 08:12 PM
2

What if he was "banged" by a 13 year old male teacher? Would it be rape then? I know, I shouldn't be feeding the trolls...
/r/MensRights01/06/16 07:37 PM
1

Odd and suspicious yes. False accusation? Mmm, maybe a bit short of that.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 06:07 PM
2

Refusing to name the guy doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I understand your position: Not naming someone absolves you of having to make your case, as we saw in the Rolling Stone debacle.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 05:10 PM
1

So then it's not a false accusation, merely suspect. I'm not suggesting it's a legitimate claim, but it seems to still be up in the air. Apparently there were at least 2 charges against the guy, so perhaps there's something to it. All that article states is that the university isn't responsible for what occurred since the guy wasn't a known offender at the time the rape occurred and that it couldn't "protect" her since she never pressed charges.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 04:36 PM
2

Is this a "false accusation"?
/r/MensRights01/06/16 03:44 PM
4

Another shout out to Stanhope's piece.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 03:30 PM
24

Why isn't difficulty in dating listed as a point of female privilege? She's taking advantage of the fact that women have a much easier time of finding a date than men do, using men for money, misrepresenting her intentions, discriminating against short people...the list goes on. The most infuriating bit is the judgy tone the article takes against the "bad" dates she had. "Oh yeah, those guys are so beneath us, now back to the protagonist who is using them for free stuff."
/r/MensRights31/05/16 09:24 PM
1

Ah, the old "Muslim women want to be covered in a tent, hijab=freedom" argument. :-/
/r/MensRights31/05/16 08:28 PM
3

Segal, who has covered protests for years and whose video work was a favorite of Breitbart News founder Andrew Breitbart, began to ask protesters if any “special snowflakes would like to explain white privilege” to him. LOL, that is freaking hilarious. There are so many levels of stupid here. As annoying as those 2 who got up on stage were, it's even more maddening to see that the protest was facilitated by university staff.
/r/MensRights26/05/16 08:54 PM
1

Vox.com?
/r/MensRights26/05/16 12:18 AM
1

Do you want to see a large group of chubby, short-haired women with red faces? If so, then give it a shot! :-) The only way a university would set aside resources for men is if those men were born women.
/r/MensRights25/05/16 08:46 PM
5

I believe the phrase is, "hoisted on your own petard". Trudeau has bent over backwards to support and therefore legitimize just the sort of insanity we're seeing here. That makes this reaction--clearly motivated by politics--no less wrong, but there's a little bit of poetic justice in seeing him fall victim to it. Personally, were I a constituent of the person who had to sit out of a vote because she was elbowed, then I'd be wondering if my district wouldn't benefit from a representative made of…
/r/MensRights20/05/16 04:21 PM
5

You lost me at "tarot card". This author seems to be a joiner and a chaser of social sub-groups. She seems to have taken an inordinately long time to mature and outgrow her proclivity for fanaticism.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 07:49 PM
6

I love poetry slams. They're like fundamentalist churches--they compel people I'd never want to be with to congregate in areas I purposely avoid.
/r/MensRights17/05/16 07:03 PM
-6

The movie does look shitty. But then, the original wasn't a good movie either. Speaking of overrated, the author of this article says the movie's defenders are acting as if this reboot is the best thing since Shawshank.
/r/MensRights16/05/16 08:04 PM
2

Imagine if we broadened the definition of violence to include "micro-aggression" as the college kids seem to be doing these days. If so, PMS would be an act of violence.
/r/MensRights09/05/16 07:54 PM
1

Thanks for your answer. My point is that the claim that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to men is specious because women aren't doing the same jobs as men. So in the military, where gender is not a variable in determining pay, the only people who are paid more are those who do a more demanding job, just like in civilian life. It's not a direct 1-to-1 correlation, but it's close enough.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 09:57 PM
4

That's what I was getting at--not just that the pay is level by gender, but that if it's not level (i.e. combat pay, submarine pay) it's because the job is more demanding or especially unsafe.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 07:16 PM
8

I think the natural question here is, do women get paid the same as men in the military? Further--and this is relevant considering the pay gap is largely a myth--does any one occupation pay more than another?
/r/MensRights04/05/16 06:38 PM
1

Exactly. It's a small contingent which tries to counter for its low numbers with high vociferousness.
/r/MensRights03/05/16 04:10 PM
2

Haha. You're right of course, but the intactivists are a prickly bunch. Fanatical as black lesbian transgender Womyn's Studies students, they'll make you believe you were mutilated and abused--OR ELSE!!!
/r/MensRights03/05/16 03:14 PM
5

What feminists do is irrelevant. If it's wrong when they do it then it's not right when men do it either. Feminism shouldn't be about revenge and neither should opposing it be.
/r/MensRights02/05/16 06:25 PM
2

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but this is hardly a civil discussion. This guy delivers a polemic in the most abrasive manner possible. It seems he wants the controversy.
/r/MensRights02/05/16 03:40 PM
2

The Tanya story is just the basic "I'm just a girl along for the ride" defense, which robs women of accountability (and agency).
/r/MensRights28/04/16 03:00 PM
1

Yeah, sorry about that. You could take a cue from Trump and build a fence. I wouldn't be offended.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 09:20 PM
2

Finally, Trump says something I can get behind.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 09:20 PM
2

You're ashamed for slapping her because of the cultural indoctrination you've received which dictates that men don't hit women. Well, men shouldn't hit women. They shouldn't hit anyone. But there's a difference between beating your wife or g/f and self defense. Violence should be avoided if at all possible, but when it comes to defending yourself from attack there should be no gender distinction.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 06:29 PM
2

When people (including women) say "bitches be crazy", this is what they mean.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 06:25 PM
2

She is clearly a useful idiot for the patriarchy. Hey, can we get some muscle over here?
/r/MensRights19/04/16 06:17 PM
4

No bias here. /s You know what they say, "When all you have is a hammer..."
/r/MensRights14/04/16 06:34 PM
2

What the fuck happened to Scandinavia? Is this some sort of cosmic karma for all the viking stuff?
/r/MensRights08/04/16 11:28 PM
1

A religious person may be capable of rational thought about some subjects, but the belief in a supernatural deity is an irrational belief. Thus, any rationality regarding, say, the social and political atmosphere on campuses is just cognitive dissonance.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 03:30 PM
2

If he's religious then he has no claim to the rational high ground. He's also a bit hypocritical when saying, "Propaganda and power reign where there used to be the pursuit of truth". Religious dogma and the tactics of those promoting it have a great deal in common with the SJWs and crybullies he's speaking out against.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 09:43 PM
2

Louis? I thought he was the gay one.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 07:54 PM
-1

Great interview. 'Tis a pity he undermines his position a bit by couching it in a Christian quote by C.S. Lewis.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 07:15 PM
1

Universities are in a bind. On one hand, you have the entire circus atmosphere in which academics and students advocate for ideas that would never survive the scrutiny of the real world and on the other you have over-reaching Title IX recommendations from the federal government. They have no choice but to over-estimate & force the courts to decide through lawsuits.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 07:05 PM
2

Your jet fuel truth=rape culture.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 01:47 AM
2

From this to 9/11 Truthers, to Pravda, "truth" must be the most abused word in the history of language.
/r/MensRights02/04/16 05:39 PM
1

I was waiting to see this angle exploited.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 09:54 PM
10

I normally despise frivolous lawsuits, but I LOVE seeing that schools, individuals and magazines are being sued for perpetrating the witch hunts. Money is the only language they understand.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 08:38 PM
2

Don't worry. She's young. Feminism in college women is like bisexuality/lesbianism. She's at an age where she's passionate for a cause, but in 10 years it's likely she'll be looking for a guy wealthy enough to allow her to not have to work. I wish I were kidding.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 02:45 PM
5

Her point #3 applies directly to the black woman who was bullying the white kid for having dreadlocks.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 02:46 AM
5

The same school that bowed to the SJWs and "no platformed" Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 01:34 PM
3

Classic example of remembering something differently than the camera, which shows how reliable witness testimony is as well as how memory can be colored by ideology.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 01:29 PM
1

Patrice was one funny m'fer.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 01:24 PM
21

But, but, blacks can't be racist.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 03:51 PM
2

Indeed. I had a princess voice in mind when writing that last comment. It reminds me of a standup comedy bit I saw--Stanhope I think--where soccer moms were worried when their children weren't the ones molested by a priest because they weren't cute enough.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 09:51 PM
1

in their minds their shrill demands and protests are the only thing preventing the hordes of out of control lust frenzied men from ravishing them As long as the men want to rape them more than anyone else in the whole world!
/r/MensRights21/03/16 09:07 PM
1

Gotta love Pat Condell. A voice of reason if there ever was one.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 09:01 PM
1

Luke should most definitely know. He should know he's dating a psycho. But I'm sure he's catching on to that already.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 06:39 PM
5

a.) Good. b.) She's not doing men any favors. c.) Who the fuck is Padma Lakshmi?
/r/MensRights21/03/16 06:35 PM
3

So a religious wacko source cites a study conducted by religious wacko doctors? No surprise here.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 06:27 PM
20

Trudeau is the Canadian version of the Clintons--he'll do anything to appear electable.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 06:19 PM
2

Not video "footage" at all, but historical fiction.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 03:42 PM
3

Marriage puts you in close, constant contact with your spouse. If you aren't nearly 100% compatible before marriage no not get married, because small incompatibilities are magnified once you do.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 03:24 PM
3

Talk to your wife about how you feel Haha. Are you serious? Have you ever been in a long term relationship with a woman?
/r/MensRights18/03/16 03:19 PM
1

Wow. Powerful stuff. I feel the same way sometimes, not just because of the wife but more because of an aging mother.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 03:18 PM
21

I don't wish discomfort on anyone, but having worked with the general public for years, it is just a tiny bit entertaining to see high strung, difficult people surprised when they're called high strung and difficult.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 02:57 PM
12

Feminists defend because, as with shame clothing (i.e. burqa, hijab), the gender-specific discrimination is an opportunity for Muslim women to express themselves. :-/ Really, it's just racism through lower expectations, a perpetuation of the Noble Savage myth--racism & sexism are OK because they're exotic, perpetrated by brown skinned people or novel in some other way.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:00 PM
4

She should have based her published work on a more contemporary teen romance. I mean, in the academic world, the Twilight series is sooo last decade.
/r/MensRights16/03/16 07:34 PM
1

Doug Stanhope does a bit on this theme, demonstrating how people (rightly) abhor the rape of women but make jokes about men getting raped in prison.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 06:52 PM
3

Hilarious. This stuff is difficult to distinguish from satire. Also, from something written by Orwell.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 06:44 PM
1

I'm wise enough to regard YouTube videos sourced by advocates as what they are--propaganda for the cause. I've talked to a doctor who has performed circumcisions. She said sometimes the babies will sleep through it and that others who are awake don't make a peep. That's not to say all babies have a pleasant experience, but let's not insult each other's intelligence here.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 06:33 PM
1

I agree that trauma at the time may be significant. I also agree there isn't significant benefit to circumcision. However, I disagree with the one-to-one correlation made in the study, mainly because it presumes that circumcision is the only pain the babies have felt.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 04:59 PM
1

Jack Nicholson? Sorry, couldn't resist.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 04:20 PM
-1

You shall rue the day you presented a position contrary to the Intactivists! Prepare to be pilloried, heathen!
/r/MensRights10/03/16 04:16 PM
2

Ugh, not surprised. Watson is a fanatical ideologue. I just wish the SGU had caught this earlier.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 03:58 PM
3

Posted by the woman who went nuts when a man invited her for coffee ruined the scientific skeptic community.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 03:57 PM
2

Humorless, inflexible, fanatical crusaders aren't very good company are they?
/r/MensRights06/03/16 02:23 AM
1

Most of the MRA board seems good. It only gets cunty when the intactivist nest gets stirred up.
/r/MensRights06/03/16 01:06 AM
0

I understand completely. I wish that weren't the case, but we we have a peculiar subset in the forum.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 09:53 PM
-1

Appeal to emotion: But that doesn't mean it should be legal! You should need CONSENT to cut off part of another person's body, unless there is a medical need. No one has the right to do this, not even a parent. Parents will go to jail if they intentionally cut off a child's finger, or ear. Why should a foreskin be different? Straw man: Please learn what the word CONSENT means....I guess you're ok with dead babies for no reason because "lol who cares. my dick is fine."
/r/MensRights04/03/16 07:57 PM
2

You should know the "100 babies die every year" statistic is an estimate arrived at by an anti-circumcision advocate who looked at nothing more than male deaths vs. female deaths. More on the stat here.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 07:52 PM
1

Orrr I'm just not an SJW. Also, it sounds like you're trying to circumvent my self-determination. Please keep your micro aggressions out of my safe space. Thanks...and peace.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 07:36 PM
1

Self determination? Even uncircumcised children don't have it. Why is it that crusaders who speak for others--and unsolicited mind you--seem to be the most fanatical?
/r/MensRights04/03/16 07:32 PM
-2

Yak yak yak ad hominem yak yak yak appeal to emotion yak yak yak straw man
/r/MensRights04/03/16 07:25 PM
1

there's no cause that doesn't have overly vocal and aggressive people Eh, perhaps, but the intactivist crusade seem upper-tier when it comes to fanaticism, especially when considering how disproportional it is to the "damage" caused.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 07:20 PM
-8

Get some popcorn. You're in for an earful. While the more reasonable people will say "Why do it if there is little to no benefit" the fanatics will cut and paste a wall of text, roll out emotional & illogical arguments, overstate the "damage" caused by the procedure and tell you circumcision is tantamount to genocide.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 05:24 PM
1

I read the study. The sample size is small and one of the three data points is subjective observation. The larger the study the more convincing the results. Regardless, your interpretation of the results is a great leap from what the study actually says. My main point of contention is the assumption being made that any difference in response is attributed only to circumcision. While that may be a valid assumption if the child has been kept in a vacuum between circumcision and vaccination, it's i…
/r/MensRights01/03/16 08:38 PM
2

Yes it would, assuming what you show me is actual evidence of psychological trauma that is directly related to circumcision and only circumcision in a verifiable way.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 04:36 PM
2

No, because that sort of behavior would just be crazy.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 01:15 AM
2

Let me guess, at the meetings you're the one at the front of the room reading from the book.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 12:38 AM
2

We already had this discussion. How many accounts do you have?
/r/MensRights01/03/16 12:08 AM
0

The contention of psychological trauma was made earlier in the comment thread, before you jumped on. I've since edited my original comment for clarity and consistency.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 09:56 PM
1

I've been disagreeing with people online long enough to avoid time wasting rhetorical traps. P.S. You didn't answer my question.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 09:35 PM
-1

Keep dancing around that fire...
/r/MensRights29/02/16 09:20 PM
2

Oh, CRIP is "peer-reviewed research"? No it's not, it's an advocacy site. And while it may link to peer-reviewed research that supports its position, it will not provide links that oppose its position. As such, it is a biased source. And let's not forget that this isn't measuring sea levels or the distance to Mars. A great deal of the data in these reports are self-reported. Some concern data from men who were circumcised as adults. Sometimes the results aren't as clear cut as you'd have us beli…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 09:19 PM
0

That's not backpedaling. The addition of one word does not change the gist of my comment, which is there is no evident psychological trauma resulting from circumcision. Why do anti-circs think there is? Is it based on empirical evidence or a projection of ideology?
/r/MensRights29/02/16 08:58 PM
1

So you presented an argument you're now calling "immaterial"... Nope. What about your daughter? After all, you wouldn't want to deny her the nominal health benefits of the procedure just because of the "immaterial" sexual superstitions of others, right? Wow, straw man and false equivalency. You're efficient! FGM and circumcision are not equivalent. If male circumcision removed the glans or the entire penis you'd have a point. But it doesn't. Unlike male circumcision, FGM is performed to remove t…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 08:52 PM
0

Semantic games, really? Zero evidence of psychological trauma.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 08:41 PM
2

There are also a multitude of websites claiming vaccines cause autism. That Kellogg erroneously encouraged circumcision to prevent masturbation is as immaterial as to the motivation for Minster Graham's invention of the delicious Graham cracker. Again, I'm not against not circumcising boys. I seriously doubt if I'd have my son circumcised even though I myself am. It's a bit silly, especially if you aren't under the delusions of religious significance, in which case it's even sillier. But I'm not…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 08:11 PM
0

Mmhmm--foam-at-the-mouth fanaticism, deflection, straw man. It seems we've gone through a SJW wormhole.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 07:40 PM
-1

Cut and paste--the calling card of any true fanatic. You forgot a few, like those which show problems encountered with the uncircumcised, like phimosis and pain in women during intercourse. Women prefer intact penises. My anecdotal data indicate 100% of women are icked out by uncut ment. The fact is women (& men) can get used to anything but they prefer what they're used to, at least initially. The increased sensitivity contention is a myth.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 07:32 PM
2

Neither masturbation-nor fellatio--are required to circumcise.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 07:26 PM
-1

Wrong. The sole purpose of FGM is to remove the girl's ability to enjoy the pleasure of sex. Not the case with male circumcision.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 07:19 PM
1

So we go from argumentum ad passiones to argumentum ad populum. Any other logical fallacies you want to roll out? The tradition of circumcision predates the false claim that it prevents the contraction of HIV (not AIDS).
/r/MensRights29/02/16 05:43 PM
-1

It's impossible to assess immediate, much less long-term, psychological effects of an event on a very young baby. This sort of projecting & employment of appeals to emotion are hallmarks of SJWs & feminists, another reason I don't see how the anti-circumcision crusade shares much of a footprint with the MR concern.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 05:35 PM
-3

While I'm not pro-circumcision, I regard a very low risk procedure with zero evidence of (edit) psychological trauma that offers at least a nominal medical benefit as hardly on par with false imprisonment and gender discrimination. Thus, it seems to fall into the "Don't like it? Don't do it." category. While theoretically children shouldn't be subjected to procedures without consent, especially when the procedures are motivated by an ancient religious superstition, I'm in the "what's the harm" c…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 05:25 PM
-3

I fail to comprehend what anti-circumcision shares with men's rights.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 03:26 PM
8

I'm glad it was reported. The more worthless complaints the more people will see such hyper-sensitivity for what it is--a waste of resouces.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 03:24 PM
5

Did they force women to promise not to throw babies in dumpsters? Because, as we all know, men only beat women and women only throw away babies because they haven't been told it's the wrong thing to do.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 03:22 PM
2

I'm surprised this doesn't get more attention. When I was considering grad school I checked out the available scholarships, grants, etc. It's incredible how many are explicitly discriminatory in regards to race and gender. It's also eye-opening how many graduate level positions at a school are (apparently) required to be filled by non-white, non-male students.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 03:19 PM
3

She's a nut, plain and simple. In the days where it's so difficult to become a professor, it just amazes me that someone who has based her publishing career on deconstructing the Twilight series of young adult romance novels can have a paying job at a large state university. It's just mind boggling.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 05:21 PM
2

It's about black folks, but in an academic context rather than community-police relations.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 02:23 PM
3

It was for Concerned Student 1950, the same group that was tied to the more famous protests in which she was calling for muscle. The absurd list of demands for Concerned Student 1950 can be found on a link on this page.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 10:58 PM
4

Woohooo! Finally, justice is served. This took way too long.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 10:53 PM
1

Haha, yeah that's what I got out of it too. To be fair, if he says she's a liar he's "blaming the victim", so perhaps he's just keeping it neutral and giving her the benefit of the doubt.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 07:58 PM
5

Holy christ she's a fucking lunatic. She rapes a man with CP, using the bullshit "facilitated communication" technique where a person just types with the hand of someone who is disabled. And since he couldn't interact with her, she simply chose him. And, true SJW academic that she is, she chose a non-white person. You know, because she isn't racist. :-/
/r/MensRights25/02/16 07:55 PM
0

In related news, all flights to Zimbabwe are fully booked.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 07:40 PM
1

Let's simplify it even further: More men are arrested for rape, so men must be experiencing sexist discrimination.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 07:19 PM
3

This entire campaign is comical, like Ke$ha is oppressed or is having her civil rights violated because she's being forced to legally honor a contract.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 05:03 PM
8

How many myths and unfounded accusations are featured in this article? Close inspection and honest reporting would remove virtually all content from this piece. But the "1 in 5" myth and the Skulkowicz case are repeated again and again, leading the casual observer to believe they're based in fact when they're not.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 05:26 PM
1

That's true. I used to listen to Dan Savage podcast and even he would go off on how the term "queer" was used so widely that it lost meaning. Some people would identify as queer even if they were 100% straight, simply because they were a queer ally.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 03:27 PM
3

Since transgender identity is outwardly unidentifiable and 100% self-reported, couldn't straight men just say they're transgender?
/r/MensRights22/02/16 07:36 PM
1

Yep, and anyone who disagrees is either a privileged racist or a duped Uncle Tom.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 07:32 PM
15

Bravo! Racism through lower expectations, and the shade of the Noble Savage inherent in such a position, is as infuriating as the repurposing of language to suit a political ideology.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 03:48 PM
1

Yeah, the SJW doublespeak is infuriating. That people think it's perfectly acceptable to appropriate a word and change its definition to suit your political ideology is positively Orwellian. "All pigs are created equal. Some pigs are created more equal than others."
/r/MensRights22/02/16 03:47 PM
2

Is he fighting forest fires too?
/r/MensRights19/02/16 09:07 PM
2

Gonzo is the only positive example I can think of.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 04:55 PM
1

Isn't the SDS the group that spawned the Weather Underground terrorists?
/r/MensRights17/02/16 04:51 PM
4

You're goddam right that's sexist. I would lodge a formal complaint. When the indoctrinated RA gave me a puzzled look I'd shrug and go around tearing them down. (Naturally, do so would make the regressives say you're pro-rape.)
/r/MensRights12/02/16 06:42 PM
2

This is the first YouTube channel I've subscribed to in years.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 04:46 PM
0

One less gold digger.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 04:45 PM
3

Ah yes, only measure the outcome. A man can bust his hump to get qualified for a career and a woman can coast into doing whatever it takes to have a low stress, clock in/clock out job, but if you pay him more for it you're sexist.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 04:42 PM
1

You must be new here. "Privilege", like racism and sexism only applies to those "in power" (i.e. white men).
/r/MensRights11/02/16 07:38 PM
4

This guy is impressive. He gave a succinct response that would have taken me 10 minutes to write.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 07:37 PM
1

It's just like the atheists who protest nativities on public property. He'll be crucified by the True Believers and poo-poo'd by the status quo for not taking "respecting" the beliefs of others.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 08:18 PM
3

...was an asshole. :)
/r/MensRights09/02/16 05:22 AM
3

He should be hated by anyone who has functioning eyes or ears. His humor is really bad.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 06:52 PM
10

Eh, I don't think so. Denis Leary, Carlos Mencia, Dane Cook, The Fat Jew--joke stealing has been happening since the Pyramids were built. The fact of the matter is that in the Pirate Bay culture we have now, with its Twitter attention span, no one cares about the integrity of the material. They just care about how many "likes" it gets. The people for whom it does matter, those of us who take standup comedy as an ersatz-philosophy and social barometer, are too few in number to matter. The only op…
/r/MensRights08/02/16 04:59 PM
2

PCU did it again in 1994.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 01:06 AM
3

I'm sure there are a few black guys who share your pain. I picked up my step-daughter only after getting my name on the "OK to pick up list". I understand your anger, but remember this sort of thing is for the benefit of your niece.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 01:03 AM
1

I am liberal on social issues but I'm not (necessarily) Progressive. I'm more of a pragmatic, reality-minded Libertarian. Men's rights should be on the liberal side of the spectrum because men and women should be equal. The Leftists who say men can't be wronged because they're "in power" are NOT liberal.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 12:55 AM
1

HRC's political positions are based entirely on their voter value. She was for women in the military because she could say she's pro-equality, but now that she might lose votes by supporting the push to put women in dangerous roles, she's reconsidering. She shouldn't be asked, "What's your position on Issue X?" but "What do opinion polls indicate you should stand on Issue X?"
/r/MensRights05/02/16 08:27 PM
4

She should have used the tried and true method of females avoiding wartime service and just gotten pregnant.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 08:21 PM
1

I am speaking of university codes, or state codes as they apply to universities, specifically California's. As it applies to this discussion, see (a)(2)(A), (a)(4)(B) & (b)(9).
/r/MensRights04/02/16 10:23 PM
1

A man and a woman have sex. If the man is sober and a woman is drunk it's rape. If the man is drunk and the woman is drunk it's rape. If the man is sober and the woman is drunk it's not rape. If the man is drunk and the woman is sober it's not rape.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 09:22 PM
7

The "______ Studies" classes aren't a science. They're largely self-referencing too, which means they don't examine the world as it is but instead write essays for each other. The net effect is that it's basically just a high level book club. And as you said, they've been sure to deploy language the ensure they're immune from criticism.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 02:42 PM
12

This is what makes my blood boil more than just about anything--the SJW/Leftist/academics who create these theory-based disciplines (i.e. gender studies) which are comprised entirely of disciples of the discipline. There's no self-criticism beyond the theoretical arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. So what do they do? The go about creating a language like Pig Latin so they can communicate with one another. Not satisfied with making up their own jargon, they then try t…
/r/MensRights04/02/16 05:24 AM
2

The article says it wasn't due to a blog post or mere disagreements but because of his confrontational and belligerent behavior. I'm not advocating for someone who would kick out a student because he's not complying with the professor's narrative, but if he expresses himself in a confrontational or uncivil manner then he has no place in the class.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 05:14 AM
1

The "continuous positive consent" advocates are reacting to the difficulty of proving rape--"because I said so" being legally inadequate--and positioning for more leverage, morphing the definition of rape from "I said no" to "I didn't say yes". The burden of proof is thus shifted on the defendant. The whole idea is so absurd that it's difficult to take it seriously, but then that's par for the course with the gender/race studies and professional campus SJWs.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:32 PM
2

I was a bartender for 5 years in a college town. I can't tell you how many times I saw women getting away with things that men would never be allowed to get away with.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:25 PM
1

If a woman is intoxicated and a man has sex with her the intoxication can be used against the man whether he was sober or drunk as well.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:22 PM
1

It's female privilege and puritanism pure and simple. Because penetration is seen as more offensive and women are seen as helpless.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:20 PM
3

Contrast that position with the California law which stipulates that positive consent must be obtained not just initially, but at each subsequent level of increased sexual activity. In short, you can't take nonverbal cues as permission to proceed from, say, kissing to fondling. In fact, you must obtain positive verbal consent at every stage along the way. Try to comprehend the legal problems such laws present.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 05:05 AM
15

Congruity? Consistency?
/r/MensRights02/02/16 10:38 PM
642

She's drunk so she's not able to give consent to have sex but yet if she drives under the same condition she's held legally responsible. Nor is the man able to press charges or claim that he too was unable to consent. This is one real world issue the continuous positive consent crowd really hasn't addressed.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 09:37 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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