TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

silverionmox Archive

View 1 posts and 916 comments by silverionmox 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)
1

silverionmox/r/seduction01/06/14 03:07 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

There are organisms that pierce the female body while mating, instead of taking the designated route... to such an extent that females of the species evolved pre-ripped tear zones in the abdomen so the holes would heal easier.
/r/seduction06/04/18 10:55 AM
1

Yeah, let's give a bouquet of plant genitals instead. Much more subtle!
/r/seduction06/04/18 10:53 AM
2

Mind you, I'm sure it is workable advice for most girls... but only because most guys know they have to actively work to open the option of getting a relationship started, and that's the only reason those girls can actually afford to do so.
/r/seduction03/04/18 09:20 PM
16

I don’t think they need to dump any of their friends It's either that, or freeze their plans to get a lover until you maybe would consider to upgrade your relationship to lovers. but I’m not just a “lover” I’m a person going through my own shit in life who often wishes I could have both the platonic and the romantic, and not have to pick one or the other. Well, the other person is also not just someone who exists to give you what you want, but someone with their own needs and desires, in this ca…
/r/seduction03/04/18 01:01 PM
15

OP doesn't want to just be a convenient vagina. She wants her lovers to value her as a human being. And how does having sex make that impossible? When a guy is obviously trying to get at you before he knows anything about you as a person, it comes off as incredibly desperate. Oh, so what you are actually concerned for is to preserve the market value of your goods, not being valued as a human being. Imagine that they see you with a lower status male! Ohno! Really, that's what he's looking for. Si…
/r/seduction03/04/18 12:26 PM
19

They came into my life expecting some kind of reward, based only on my appearance and the little knowledge they had about me. If they took more time to get to know me as me and didn’t treat me like a trophy to be won, I would’ve ended up dating some of them. They are interested in dating, they aren't interested in making new friends. They probably don't have time for that, because they already have friends. Why should they be required to dump their existing friends so you could maybe deign them …
/r/seduction03/04/18 11:03 AM
11

but the reason why I couldn’t date any of them is because they only talked to me with the intention of hooking up or dating. Why is that a problem?
/r/seduction03/04/18 09:58 AM
85

So, basically: accept the friendzoning and wait until you get chosen? That surely is comfortable for you.
/r/seduction03/04/18 09:57 AM
1

There are people who have been raped and have just become more fierce in response. Fear is not necessary. Fear is in your head, and it's something you do, unlike physical force imposed on you. Those two are two completely different things. Imposed force is a problem that you can avoid, manage, run from and if all else fails, resist and brace yourself against. Fear will not help you. Fear will betray you. If you submit to fear, fear will force you to do what it wants, for the rest of your life, e…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/17 09:53 AM
1

She didn't want to have sex That is not an accurate description of the text. She had contradictory desires. This is a communication problem and she could have used her words. He really didn't pressure her into anything, Absolutely. but they were not very compatible for a long-term relationship. Probably not, but cutting contact is a self-fulling prophecy in that respect. When I was this age, I remember going out with friends and having that one friend who'd just hook up because the guy was there…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/17 09:33 AM
1

And what makes you think that doesn't apply to men?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/17 09:17 AM
2

This is male view where quality of sex is directly related to how physically attractive their partner is. This is not how many women experience sex. But apparently the one in this particular piece is.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/17 02:59 PM
2

You're missing the point. No one is saying he's literally a murderer and was definitely going to kill Margot. But he's a man so speculation that the might be is reasonable? That's pretty sexist. Something men don't seem to understand or empathize with is that the threat and fear of violence hangs over every woman's interaction with a man. That's something this short story was getting at. Fear is in your head.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/17 02:58 PM
3

Though his final reveal shows jerkass behavior Well, he was dumped right after the sex. It seems that a little anger is at least understandable, even if everyone would be better off without.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/17 02:52 PM
2

I think the main point seems to be that Margot does the things she does because she's always mindful of Robert's feelings. I would disagree. She's making up all kinds of possible motivations and feelings in her head and how they would impact her interests. She wants the relation to play out in her favour and is anxious how the unknows (Robert's motivations) could impact that, but the very intensive theorizing about his motivations and his actions leaves no room for her to scrutinize her own acti…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/17 02:50 PM
1

You have to suck, but just a little. Just enough to feel it, then let go and slide a bit again. Don't focus on your tongue or lips either, focus on her reactions.
/r/seduction22/07/16 05:46 PM
2

They're teasing you, don't you see? They're giving a demonstration how they work. Handing out snippets of information that hint at the wonderful things that might be available for you if you sign just here, and hoping you fall for it. It's not different from their seduction techniques. They only know one trick.
/r/seduction22/07/16 06:58 AM
2

That conveniently puts the responsibility for failure entirely on the reader.
/r/seduction31/05/16 08:22 PM
1

I had in mind going over there (as a woman, she'll get past the entry guards and the "you're privileged and therefore irrelevant") and doing so. But it would still get ugly, true.
/r/seduction02/04/16 07:28 PM
8

Please share this with /r/feminism. They can use some perspective.
/r/seduction01/04/16 10:22 AM
8

Men are often scolded to be sexually interested in girls or show sexual interest ("you're only interested in sex" etc.). The reason many of those guys are frustrated is that are doing an honest effort to follow the rules and not sexualize women... but not getting any, and then they see other guys sexualizing women and flirting and those guys do get the girl. And then they become bitter because they were honestly doing what people told them they should do and it still doesn't work.
/r/seduction13/02/16 03:04 PM
-1

Is it a gym for minors? Because that's the only reason I can come up with that makes the gym ownership responsible for how people interact with each other. Yes, what the guy did was awkward, inappropriate and it's not a miracle that the OP felt uncomfortable. But how is it the responsibility of a private business to police the interactions of their customers? They're grown adults, they are free how to decide to interact with each other, with the risk of making each other feel awkward or offendin…
/r/seduction29/01/16 10:58 AM
1

High quality =/= perfection. And perhaps she's right, who knows. And we all have to learn.
/r/seduction13/01/16 03:45 PM
1

She might genuinely believe the bloke can be reformed, or that his qualities compensate for his shortcomings.
/r/seduction13/01/16 03:35 PM
-6

Do you believe that a high quality girl will fall for those? She might, yes. We all know good quality girls that put up with losers and jerks for some inscrutable reason.
/r/seduction13/01/16 07:59 AM
2

women can't NSA Women can't national security agency?
/r/seduction02/12/15 10:58 AM
36

Touch is a way to make people feel comfortable with you. It's a way to freak people out if you do it wrong..
/r/seduction26/11/15 10:55 AM
2

I didn't say it worked very well :) It's reflexive.
/r/seduction28/09/15 06:52 AM
2

Also, girls say a lot of things that they don't mean. "Oh, I never want to have kids," or "I hate birthday gifts" could honestly mean that they really really really want kids and love birthday gifts. I'll never understand why girls do this. They don't want to make themselves vulnerable by revealing their desires.
/r/seduction27/09/15 11:21 PM
18

They deserve to be treated like you'd treat your mom (or should treat your mom) I stopped reading there. If you treat them like your mom you'll get a relationship like you have with your mom, minus the sympathy and loyaltly for being a baby and a responsibility she asked for.
/r/seduction27/09/15 11:15 PM
5

That's a necessary, but by no means sufficient condition.
/r/seduction27/09/15 11:08 PM
4

(spending enough time with the woman, being attentive to her needs). ... still having a life and goals of his own rather than spending all his time with and on her...
/r/seduction27/09/15 11:08 PM
1

You can't walk in the rain and expect a positive attitude to keep you dry.
/r/seduction25/06/15 08:41 AM
-4

If you lose your job, you build up your portfolio or your resume and you attack opportunities until you land a better job than you had before. If you lose your girlfriend, you build up your mind and body and you attack opportunities until you land the girl of your dreams. If you lose physical mobility, you channel that frustration and energy into things that you can do, becoming stronger than ever. If you lose your business, you start another one with lessons learned. If you lose your job, you'r…
/r/seduction24/06/15 12:48 PM
-2

This is so undeniably true. You can fail time and time again but when you succeed, the impact it has on your improvement is far, far stronger. That's bullshit. At some point you just cower for the next whipping you're going to get, and stop finding the energy to try.
/r/seduction24/06/15 12:46 PM
1

Anything that is generic enough to be given as advice is not interesting enough.
/r/seduction23/06/15 04:32 PM
2

Lack of understanding or being aware that there is a problem are the primary problems for solving them though. It's the most low-effort constructive thing you can do.
/r/seduction29/01/15 11:00 AM
1

There are cheaper ways to buy female attention.
/r/seduction21/01/15 11:13 AM
3

If she things prettying herself up for THREE FUCKING HOURS isn't completely demented but actually "doing her part", you simply don't want to waste any time or breath with her. next! Well, at least tell her why.
/r/seduction21/01/15 10:40 AM
1

Being brutally rejected is the normal consequence of brutally approaching people.
/r/seduction11/01/15 12:07 PM
9

The friendzone is the zone where you're treading water, the why and how you end up there varies.
/r/seduction13/12/14 03:26 PM
-8

These actually sound like some good ol' bro tales as apposed to what a girl would say. Get out of here with your sexist stereotypes.
/r/seduction19/10/14 12:48 PM
1

And strangely consoling.
/r/seduction17/09/14 09:25 PM
14

"If you're so funny... why are you on your own, tonight?"
/r/seduction17/09/14 02:09 PM
1

We're all on someone's list, Quinn.
/r/seduction23/06/14 07:39 PM
4

The mathematical probability of a man being rapist when approached by woman is far less than when a man approaches woman. Rapists don't approach, anyway. They ambush.
/r/seduction23/05/14 09:55 AM
1

I wouldn't mind if I'd get some coffees back in the same way.
/r/seduction23/05/14 09:50 AM
1

There's this sense that pick-up artists manipulate women just to have sex... Ironically, those who deride pick-up artists for "just" wanting to have sex typically are offended whenever they think they spot a woman being slut-shamed.
/r/seduction23/05/14 09:47 AM
1

Or a "I have limited time and more options" type thing.
/r/seduction23/05/14 09:44 AM
1

That's all nice and cute, but the typical answer you get is maybe.
/r/seduction15/03/14 12:20 PM
0

No, I just have a counterexample of someone who isn't frivolous/stupid/emotional and yet was able to change her mind.
/r/seduction20/02/14 09:30 AM
3

Given the fact that my anecdote lead to a stable marriage, I disagree with the implication that only stupid/frivolous/emotional girls change their mind.
/r/seduction19/02/14 10:34 PM
3

I generally agree, but I had to nuance your statement. The first no is not necessarily definitive, as the anecdote shows. Trying to overcome no in no way guarantees a good result though :)
/r/seduction19/02/14 10:27 PM
3

Thanks for your response. Basically, if you ask a girl more than once, you are begging. Gross. The "witty comeback" rule is based on the misogynist idea that women are so flaky and confused that when they say "no" they don't really mean it. I have heard a woman say "I didn't want him at first" about her husband, while cradling their newborn. Women are human too, and they can and do change their mind. And thank goodness that they're not all superficial jerks who judge people forever on first impr…
/r/seduction19/02/14 10:23 PM
14

It seems that Will is the only one making an effort. Well, that's the whole problem we have to deal with, don't we?
/r/seduction13/02/14 09:32 AM
2

Why people shouldn't complain ftfy
/r/seduction14/01/14 06:55 PM
0

I've already agreed that the case worker made errors, so I don't see what you still want.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 01:33 PM
0

Bullshit - the description of the incident is clear enough to know the case worker's motivation wasn't about benefiting anyone. Woa there, mister mind reader. That's not a benevolent act; it's a controlling one. So is making your kids brush their teeth when they don't feel like it; it's still benevolent. Likewise the act of making people accept help they don't think they need can be a benevolent act, even if its controlling. I'll grant you that the case worker does seem to have had poor judgment…
/r/MensRights29/12/13 11:52 AM
1

I'm not making any claims about how it happened. I'm making claims about the motivation of the case worker.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 09:37 PM
1

It's always easier to go to a looser dress code than to a stricter one. So let's get that out of the way in school. A lot of teenagers (and parents) also appreciate that they don't have to keep up with the joneses in clothing styles.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 01:28 AM
1

No, I'm arguing that false pride can be a factor in the refusal of help, complicating the issue. I don't see why you absolutely have to frame it in terms of "who's in charge".
/r/MensRights27/12/13 09:18 PM
0

Pride and the desire to keep up appearances may cause people to refuse aid that they could use well. It's not that strange.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 01:11 AM
1

I don't see how wearing jeans and a sweater to work would make one a maverick nonconformist. Your financiers most likely will. Depending on your product, your customers might too. Officials probably will too.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 09:59 PM
1

Science from the 70s falls short of today's expectations.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 09:22 PM
1

Suit and tie is the dress of the respectable businessman, so probably yes. Jeans and sweater can mean anything, if you see yourself as a maverick nonconformist that'll work too in some circumstances - but not in most.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 11:13 AM
2

I work for my own fulfillment Unless you're a bush hunter or something, working involves cooperating with people and that means you'll need to adhere to common standards.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 11:12 AM
2

being an entrepreneur is a lot of risk Not to mention that they, too, need people to produce, package, transport, sell, and clean their amazing ground-breaking products. And they too won't be happy when people are going to experiment with their delivery schedules and production quota.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 11:04 AM
1

School is serious business.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 10:57 AM
1

Expectations of parents and pupils are different. Changes in education are often a response to changes of society's expectations. It's all tied together.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 07:10 PM
1

He may be stupid, but at least he's open to learn. So he will eventually become less stupid than you, while you will stay as stupid as you are forever.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 12:42 PM
2

Care to source that? I'd like to quantify the impact.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 12:37 PM
5

History is a one-way road. You can turn at crossroads, but you can't go back.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 12:35 PM
5

encouraging pat on the back
/r/MensRights20/12/13 07:32 PM
1

Habit, mostly.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 07:24 PM
19

I prefer to think that the genders are pretty much equal on an intellectual level. The thing is that you can't judge an individual by their gender, due to individual variation. Just judge everyone by their merit; problem solved.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 04:58 PM
10

Three-syllable words aren't that hard, you'll get used to them.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 04:57 PM
9

You're still going to throw the most weight in the scales, though.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 04:56 PM
9

However, feminism has been the movement that open the doors to discuss inequality first of women and then of race and gender in general. Imperial Germany was the first to instate pensions, but that doesn't mean we should emulate their policies right now, a century and a half later.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 04:54 PM
0

a type of discrimination that is immediately discounted by the politically correct. Depending on which attitude you consider to be politically correct and which you consider the brave maverick...
/r/MensRights20/12/13 10:01 AM
10

No, she's calmy putting her views forward. We can disagree without making personal judgments.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 04:34 PM
2

men are punished for performing femininity but rewarded socially for performing masculinity Men rewarded? Most men just have to go to work just like everybody else..
/r/MensRights19/12/13 03:14 PM
3

Thank you for this thread, it's like a fresh shower after a hot day at work (even though I don't agree with everything you say, the style is refreshing in this hot-headed debate).
/r/MensRights19/12/13 02:30 PM
4

Comments are not in any way obligated to cover all aspects of an issue. Shvedsky's remark is correct.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 01:20 PM
1

Instituting sex-selective curfews at their whim is still a questionable policy. Because it is collective punishment and because it associates a crime with a certain gender. I mean, can you imagine the campus banning people of race x or y because there were complaints of thefts? We both know that this will de facto turn into a "no males" ban 9 times out of 10, anyway.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 08:00 AM
0

A nontrivial amount of people ended up here after not getting recognition for their problems at feminist places, and they haven't let go of the resentment towards them yet. The problem is, with submissions such as these, they validate that resentment rather than using it to start something productive.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 02:23 PM
1

I don't know of any examples of people expecting to get other people harassed and convicted based on just their personal testimony. In addition, a rape accusation is a personal conflict between individual persons rather than a sign of moral failure of society or somesuch: not something to get worked up about. Disclaimer: Europe has a lot of jurisdictions, I don't cover them all.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 10:59 AM
7

If it is an issue in the dorms they can take apropriate measures, no guests of the opisite gender after a certain time of day or whatever. So effectively, every male becomes "probably a criminal" and loses their right on free movement based on these gratuitious accusations.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 10:49 AM
8

Not a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 10:40 AM
1

For me, part-time work is not a viable option. Well, you're probably not very well able to raise children then to start with..
/r/MensRights17/12/13 02:56 PM
2

Still, people do that with children. Not having children means you've got some financial space you wouldn't have otherwise. I other words, you don't need to work full-time. It's a choice.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 08:14 AM
1

That's not the case. For example, it's not legal to sell your organs, even though donating is legal. I do agree with the legality of prostitution though.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:51 AM
2

Besides enjoying life.. But that's up to your personal preferences and the job you have I suppose.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 03:42 PM
2

and if a financial transaction is involved then that's still no-one's concern but the participants. Whoa there. There are thousands of laws regulating economic interactions. So as long as you're keeping it a personal choice, it's private, but when money becomes involved, you're on the hook.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 03:35 PM
1

That's a different situation. Still, there's more to life than commercial activity.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 08:23 AM
2

I want a woman who can survive a night in the freezing cold, but that doesn't mean I'm going to lock her out on purpose.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 02:01 PM
0

So yeah... You better believe my wife would still be working! I'm sure she'll very soon develop ambitions about being self-employed that somehow fail to turn a profit in the first two decades after she quit her job.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 01:20 PM
2

I would love to give her that. I would also love to give that to myself :)
/r/MensRights11/12/13 01:18 PM
1

Cleaners are not at all expensive. If you're not a cleaner or similar yourself, perhaps.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 01:01 PM
2

Waitressing, filling shelves or the graveyard shift at factories are always an alternative.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 12:54 PM
1

Women can have a female do a smear test, or a mammary examination. Men can request a male doctor or a male nurse to insert a catheter or wash them. Which is bizarre actually: can bisexual persons request a robot? Or is it the sexual orientation of the nurse that matters, in which case the gender really isn't a waterproof indication.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 12:44 PM
1

Why don't you comb your hair and put on a fresh shirt and go ask these as questions in r/askhistorians? Since you're obviously not going to accept anything I say. For example, "Did women's suffrage cause the increase of the federal budget/and expansion of government? Did gun control cause millions of people to die?" etc. Unless, of course, you are convinced they too are all part of a big conspiracy.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 07:32 PM
2

Did most women vote for the welfare state? Yes. Otherwise we wouldn't have one. So did most men. The first examples of the welfare state date back from the 19th century, in Imperial Germany of all places. Are you telling me that Bismarck was a feminist? Without women's suffrage we wouldn't have massive levels of national debt. Speculation. The budget is like an ideal gas: it expands to fill all room available. Whether it's spent on guns or butter is a concern of the second order. Talking about g…
/r/MensRights08/12/13 02:04 PM
0

Correlation is not causation.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 02:04 PM
2

Not strictly, but it still boils down to reducing the normal market to a very limited number of participants due to information asymmetry.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 04:05 PM
2

Hiding information so the insiders are favored decreases the efficacy of resource allocation.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 02:33 PM
0

It reduces information dispersal and therefore the efficiency of decisions. Nope.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 02:33 PM
2

Women have created the welfare state, have created a system that taxes men for the benefit of women via women's suffrage. You sound like the mirror image of a feminist. Do you want to be that?
/r/MensRights07/12/13 02:31 PM
3

You're the only one responsible for your actions and reactions. This is why P.C. is such garbage: No one can offend you, you have to take offense yourself. While this is correct, you must acknowledge that repeating stereotypes like "lazy niggers", "creepy men", ... will cause these to shape the thoughts and actions of people who hear those often. You cannot control your own thoughts completely, you are social and will pick up social attitudes.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 11:45 AM
1

In both cases I would question their motivation. But creepy? No. People go to bars to see other people.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 11:32 AM
3

Similarly, the word "perverted" is used for anything sex-related, even if it's a normal sexual behaviour, like glancing at an attractive body part.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 11:23 AM
1

The best response would be to add 4 cases where men are disadvantaged, mix them around, and then use it to argue against sex-based discrimination.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 03:10 PM
1

They're just waiting for you to reciprocate in getting closer. How else do they know whether you want it?
/r/seduction25/11/13 07:19 PM
1

If it wasn't gender neutral, this law could be fought before the European court of human rights.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 03:05 PM
6

Just like foot-binding is an enhancement.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 09:28 AM
1

Deleted reaction: Barroso was in fact a Maoist, and most of what he says even to this day comes from a maoist lens, and the EU is full of ex-communists, there's nothing incorrect about that. It's just a case of sheer fact. So now we see a maoist enforce fiscal austerity measures to please the financial markets. Next you're going to say Poetin is actually a hippie.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 02:17 PM
2

She gave me a card about “Brit Shalom” described as “a non-cutting naming ceremony for newborn Jewish boys.” The ceremony is designing to replace ritual circumcision for Jews. This is a productive way of tackling the issue. Replacing is easier than abolishing.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 11:33 AM
2

"However, it won’t matter. The EU is a constant generator of totalitarian measures" "given that the EU itself sponsors Communist organizations, it’s being lead by a Maoist" Garbage article. Even by their garbage standards, though, they had to admit they were totally pulling this out of context. It's a proposal of someone in some committee that will be evaluated still. Even so, feminism is a fuzzy term and to some it still just means equality between genders. There's good reason to avoid using su…
/r/MensRights19/11/13 11:27 AM
21

Ask any janitor whether the men's or the women's toilets are the dirtiest.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 11:19 AM
2

then allow women to give up the child for adoption, thus absolving them of all responsibility. Wouldn't it be possible to challenge state laws that allow this on the grounds of violating equal rights?
/r/MensRights13/11/13 10:22 AM
10

At the time the man decides to surrender his legal paternity, there is no child; just a "clump of cells". However, the woman separately may or may not abort. If she does, then, as before, there will be no child; but if she doesn't abort, then there will be a child. Then there is an argument about responsibility. That's the difference. Since she decides 100% whether she's going to have the child or not, she's responsible for the outcome. For the situations to be equivalent, the man would have to …
/r/MensRights13/11/13 10:19 AM
1

They'll see any attempts to hang out like you do with friends as attempts to try again.
/r/seduction08/11/13 04:53 PM
1

Last data I saw it was about equal, if one included housework and paid work.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 12:33 PM
1

And taking it along, abduction, and staying, agreement with the situation. You're fucked either way.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 11:28 AM
1

I wonder what's so controversial about this statement to send it to -9?
/r/MensRights05/11/13 08:09 AM
1

All the more reason not to assume she was doing housekeeping tasks worth 83% of a professor's wage.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 07:51 AM
-11

What good is being a professor if 83% of your income is stolen by the government? It gives you status, a voice and you probably like your research subject. In addition "stolen by the government" is a ridiculous phrase: it's a normal execution of a court order, not a theft, and in a libertarian society it would be done by hired goons of a collection agency, we just tasked government with it in this society. Direct your anger against the societal standards that don't make this seem nuts. The whole…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 11:30 AM
4

If you've done what's necessary to become a professor you're not going to give that up just to spite someone. Hence, that's why the guy goes on a hunger strike.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 10:28 AM
9

His wife was a supercleaner, and her lunch packets were artworks.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:30 AM
2

Not if you were a professor.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:30 AM
7

And a child is something they use to show off, so it's only natural to pimp it.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 07:58 AM
0

Umm so let's just ignore the fact that one gender tends to be physically stronger than the other teenagers are raging packs of hormones at that age. How is that relevant?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:26 PM
-1

It weakens your point.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 09:35 AM
1

The patriarchy forces them to buy and wear heels, didn't you know?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 09:11 AM
2

Self defense courses are useful for everyone. Teaching people to respect other people's boundaries are also useful for everyone. There's no reason to distribute them in that way.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 09:08 AM
2

I have no idea.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 10:28 AM
1

She referred to male-bonding in steak-houses or at barbecues as examples of a culture of male-dominant consumption of meat and women. Obviously. Safe spaces breed circlejerks.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 09:21 AM
3

A cross-language comparison is interesting. In Dutch, for example: Women are: the weaker sex more sports-minded than men better than men Men are: more stress-resistant jerks more sports-minded than women Women aren't: to be trusted the weaker sex understandable not to be trusted Catullus (! classical culture is alive and well apparently) Men aren't: to be trusted monogamous that cool understandable A fair lot of these cancel each other out or appear with both sexes.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 09:14 AM
-3

I've been accused of rape by a girl I didn't even have sex with & She proceeds to blow me. Is your name perchance Bill Clinton?
/r/MensRights25/10/13 08:57 AM
3

That's the same bullshit as saying that women consent to rape because they get wet and/or orgasm during the act.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 11:41 AM
1

Just women, full stop. Which is the indeterminate form of a noun.. perfectly appropriate, since which women he means exactly is undetermined. Now saying all women, that would be a generalization.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 11:35 AM
-1

They want you to aknowledge them as victims, so you're obliged to indulge them whenever they make a request and play the victim card, related or unrelated to their particular misfortune.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 11:29 AM
2

Skin transplantation, mostly.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 07:04 AM
3

You can't claim perfection if you haven't experienced all possible configurations. It's like saying that someone who is born blind has perfect eyesight, since they never have known better.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 02:06 PM
1

were tossed in the hospital trash when you were a baby. They likely were sold for quite a lot of money..
/r/MensRights21/10/13 10:53 AM
3

my sensitivity as a cut individual is perfect. How can you know?
/r/MensRights21/10/13 10:51 AM
2

Too bad they didn't take the opportunity to cut off your little fingers, nipples and ears too then, don't you think?
/r/MensRights21/10/13 10:48 AM
2

You shouldn't take your poultry along with you anyway.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 10:37 AM
2

Being so trigger-happy and unquestioning about it is.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 10:36 AM
7

It's a continuum, not a black and white difference. Good education requires tailoring it to every single student, not just to vocal interest groups.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 04:39 PM
1

Because she surely didn't have the balls to come to you.
/r/seduction17/10/13 02:52 PM
1

Women can't physically compete with men and they never will be able too. They don't need to; they just need to pass the minimal requirements like everyone else. If that results in less women in duty, so be it.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 02:27 PM
0

Oh excuse me, I didn't knew you were the guy who has the final say on which of multiple possible interpretations is the only true one.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 05:24 PM
1

You conflate the analysis method with the conclusions some particular person draws and the political action they take to act on their conclusions. That's two steps too far.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 08:09 AM
0

Somebody doesn't know the definition of Marxism.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 11:25 PM
2

I do not understand the unhealthy obsession feminists have with games that they don't even play. For the same reason celibate priests prescribe how you should organize your sexuality..
/r/MensRights07/10/13 11:14 PM
-1

Why not go all-in then and say "No, but I'll prepare you breakfast tomorrow morning".
/r/seduction19/09/13 12:17 PM
0

For someone who is able to do that it's easy. For the others, it's not. So you're being extremely unhelpful, setting people up for bad experiences which they won't learn from because they don't know what they did wrong.
/r/seduction13/09/13 08:51 AM
1

I've seen footage of peacock tail spiders in the wild who did that.
/r/seduction12/09/13 06:39 AM
10

Even after the mating the male is often eaten. Extra proteins for the offspring.
/r/seduction11/09/13 12:44 PM
1

In regard to that quote; everyone who's self employed. Then you'll be judged by your potential customers, creditors and suppliers.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 12:57 PM
0

Let the girls read those rape accounts aloud as a way of presenting them! That circumvents them thinking "oh, it's just a man, we shouldn't take it seriously".
/r/MensRights05/09/13 12:21 PM
6

It's extremely hard for victims to recover from rape after you've been violated like that. It varies from person to person. I think that stereotyping rape (as literally "worse than murder"!) makes it harder for victims to recover, because the message they get from society is that they are expected to be messed up for life, instead of merely having had a very shitty experience. If I had a choice between rape and death, I'd rather choose death. You always have that option. Very few people take it.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 12:09 PM
1

So according to what you say, rape + murder is not as bad as rape alone?
/r/MensRights05/09/13 12:06 PM
2

The only people with the power to propose and implement policy in the EU are the comission, who are unelected and completely unaccountable. They are appointed by the national governments, most of which aren't elected either but somehow you don't hold that against them. Ironically, the same people that are against the EU typically are against giving the EP more powers like proposing legislation and against reducing the influence of national governments... even though that would make the Union mor…
/r/MensRights05/09/13 10:33 AM
0

It doesn't blame the victim, but it does reinforce the stereotype that men always take the initiative on sexual matters.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 01:43 PM
1

My point was that most claims of the EU being undemocratic can be translated as "the EU didn't implement all my pet policies! and I even voted!". Only the vote of a dictator changes things directly. If you want to share power democratically it means that you have to expend time and effort to gather people behind your cause, if you want to change something.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 10:29 AM
1

Let's quote the whole context. But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, …
/r/MensRights04/09/13 07:58 AM
-2

Good riddance.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 07:02 PM
2

Give me the quote where Marx says that.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 06:59 PM
5

This is not Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. I dare you to quote anything by Marx that supports this.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 06:58 PM
3

That's true and I pointed out could be an unintended negative consequence. If you mandate that gender is more important than skill when it comes to selecting candidates, that is very much the intention. I think the academic consensus is that companies stack the cards against women because they're women. But that consensus might be wrong. It's the consensus of vocal feminist activists. The other ones just go along because they don't want to risk getting tarred by the sexist brush, which wrecks ca…
/r/MensRights03/09/13 06:53 PM
5

How do you know that less qualified men weren't getting hired just for being men already? Start a business that employs all these undervalued women then, and breeze your way to the top.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 06:48 PM
11

God forbid you'd have to get out of your seat to achieve something.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 06:47 PM
1

So, mostly bullshit buzzwords that can mean anything. Thanks for making that clear quickly.
/r/seduction01/09/13 06:52 PM
8

I don't see how that is true. Certainly you can have eg. the stereotypical brilliant engineer that totally sucks at people skills. If you put him in a management position he'll be frustrated because he can't do what he loves to do, but is stuck dealing with administration and endless coordination meetings, and his underlings will be annoyed because he doesn't know how to deal with them properly. The problems arise exactly when managers start to think they are capable of filling in for the best o…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 01:45 PM
1

When having a big barbecue or so, we do indeed pool the costs. The difference between having drinks at home and drinks in a bar is that in the first case you do the choosing, in the latter they can choose. If they can choose, they pay. If I would dictate what they ate, then I should pay, yes.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 07:11 AM
2

and presenting someone with an unexpected bill when you led them to believe it was your treat is very rude. Expecting someone to pay your bill when they expected to split it is not?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 10:22 AM
2

IMO the person doing the asking should pay for the first date. The implication of asking is that you want to take her out and show her a good time. Given that women in general would rather die alone than to ask someone out, that seems a cheap excuse. Asking her to pay would be like if a buddy asked if you wanted to come over and watch a football game with him, and demanded money from you at the door because he got beer and pizza. Inviting someone in and going out together are different situation…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 10:21 AM
2

Why doesn't he give the example by not venting his political opinion then?
/r/MensRights20/08/13 01:21 PM
4

Upvote for being willing to admit an error.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 11:00 AM
7

In those cases, the man gets either joint or sole possession of the child 51%. Conversely, the woman gets either joint or sole possession of the child in 84% of those cases. When the child is assigned to a sole parent, in 80% of the cases it's the woman.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 10:57 AM
7

No men appreciates having his pants dropped in his workplace while working.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 10:06 PM
1

Silence is often taken as approval.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 10:31 AM
1

Indeed. It's often glossed over, since 90% of the material starts with "A PUA and two HB7 walk into a club".
/r/seduction24/07/13 08:56 AM
1

Why do some people dislike spicy food, and others love it? To me there's no substance to the interaction. It's all much ado about nothing.
/r/seduction23/07/13 01:12 PM
1

I'm not going to put on an act to fit in somewhere I don't want to be to get along with people who like different things than me.
/r/seduction22/07/13 02:33 PM
1

It would be like screwing in a nail. I'm better off somewhere where why screwdriver fits.
/r/seduction22/07/13 02:07 PM
0

Note to self: you've got no business in clubs.
/r/seduction22/07/13 10:56 AM
1

It's not under discussion whether they are in their rights to delete posts or not.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 08:51 AM
3

So why don't you cut off your ears?
/r/MensRights21/07/13 08:45 AM
4

They don't have the right to tattoo "I love Jesus" on their child's face either. And that's just a similar irreversible body modification.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 08:43 AM
2

Basic Pavlovian conditioning.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 08:39 AM
1

It's calling for a corollary to Godwin's law.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 10:43 AM
2

It doesn't determine those differences.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 01:44 AM
1

I don't know any organization named BillC618.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 12:45 PM
1

The founder effect is possible whether it's dna carrying genetic information or stories, attitudes and traditions carrying cultural information.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 04:13 PM
1

They only accomplished that after they built credibility. Which they are now losing again. And they only bargained after they built the organization. So if you want to pursue this strategy you'll have to build an organization that's big enough to be able to claim to represent the MRM first.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:04 AM
1

The moral base of any political movement is to get its policies enacted. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you hold to some principle if you get nothing done. You only gather support by being principled. You only get things done if you have support. Every political movement is corrupted after a while; the point is getting things done during that process. Besides, i am not talking about violence. I am talking about withholding votes and money for pro-choice candidates. I'm pro choice, for both men and …
/r/MensRights04/07/13 08:52 AM
1

This isn't a negotiation. We're mostly in the raising awareness phase. To play tit for tat, you need an organisation, an authoritative negotiator with a mandate that can make their promises come true and accepted by their supporters, and last but not least, you need an actual position of power to negotiate from. None of these are present. The whole justification for the existence of men's rights is the equality principle. If we let that depend on political bargaining, the moral base of the movem…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 07:04 AM
0

I still can't beat you, however.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 04:24 PM
0

Do you think all people who are generally in favour of MRA should hold a particular view on something as controversial as abortion? To imply I'm being sneaky when I'm simply posting my opinion is just bullshit projecting. And likewise I'm simply posting my opinion, making the distinction between these two positions because you didn't and to me they're separate. As the child is property of the marriage People aren't property. You're missing the point, at the moment the man's agreement is not need…
/r/MensRights02/07/13 03:07 PM
0

Both parents already have the option of giving the child up for adoption or giving full custody to the other parent if they're willing. The only issue of contention currently is whether the father should also ave to pay child support. They're treated as if they completely accepted their parental duties beforehand and dropped them afterwards. In other words, there's no provision at all yet. Until then we have safe sex and the morning after pill. In the rare cases that these don't work and an acci…
/r/MensRights02/07/13 01:56 PM
0

You implied the man's rights to opt out extend only as far as whether he should pay money to support the child or not. No, for the whole of his parental obligations. In the case of a man who doesn't want the baby to be aborted this is only a tangential issue, and a moot point at that. Because there's no way to have to give him a say in that that doesn't result in giving him the power to force the woman to be pregnant and give birth. Which is not acceptable. (Similarly, a woman who wants to becom…
/r/MensRights02/07/13 01:37 PM
0

You're not, because you state what I already implied as if you're bringing a new element to the table.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 01:29 PM
-1

Yes you can opt out by using birth control. Besides that. Once you're pregnant "opting out" involves killing a fetus, possibly against the wishes of the father who is an equal parent. Pretending that only one person is affected at that point doesn't make sense. You're not reading what I write.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 01:25 PM
-1

It does make sense that you should give the right to opt out of a pregnancy to whoever is pregnant. The corollaries of that do imply that men should get an option to opt out of parenthood too, as I explained above.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 01:19 PM
1

Abortion rights make sense because people should be able to opt out of being pregnant. Giving abortion rights to women necessarily also gives them the right to opt out of parenthood. If women have the right to opt out of parenthood, then men should have the same right because of equality. Therefore any discussion of abortion rights automatically involves parenting rights and obligations.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 11:38 AM
1

Why would people bother to side with us if we're just selling slightly different bullshit in a similar package? Abortion rights make sense because people should be able to opt out of being pregnant. Giving abortion rights to women necessarily also gives them the right to opt out of parenthood. If women have the right to opt out of parenthood, then men should have the same right because of equality. It's that simple.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 08:50 AM
-1

Abortion rights make sense. There's no point being against something that makes sense just to use as a trading chip for something else. That's brute forcing and won't work unless you are in a position of power. It's much more fruitful to take the moral high ground and present a consistent narrative of equal opportunity of choice of becoming a parent.. as opposed to the inconsistent situation that exists.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 08:47 AM
2

The problem is that you can't separate "I don't want to be pregnant" and "I don't want to be a parent" in the case of a woman. They can effectively opt out of parenthood by abortion (and that's not even counting the opportunity to give the child up for adoption after birth in some places without repercussions). Men don't get that option.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 08:28 AM
1

Tsk, throwing temper tantrums at your age.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 01:13 PM
0

It's their function in the rhetoric that's the same (which was the subject, not an actual comparison between the concepts).
/r/MensRights28/06/13 06:09 PM
-1

I didn't contradict that. I said it's unproductive.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 02:12 PM
-2

And that is a very defeatist way of arguing. Why go straight for the fallback position? You could for example argue that she doesn't know what she's talking about since she doesn't play them, or better invite her to try them, or ask for her pastimes and show you can easily look down upon those as well. Or by a thousand other ways. And if you did that, you can still close the discussion with stating that luckily for you, you don't care about her approval for your activities.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 12:16 PM
2

They also protested for the right to vote back in the 20s. Which was right after men got the vote. There's just a very brief window of time in which men in general could vote but women couldn't.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 12:12 PM
-2

That's just giving in, admitting you can't defend it.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 11:59 AM
4

And it's a social embarassment because.. ITJUSTISWHYAREYOUALWAYSAGAINSTME!!
/r/MensRights28/06/13 11:57 AM
4

o there's no loving face that the movement can present. The concern with fathers fighting for the right to see their children alone can do that.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 11:51 AM
2

This sound awfully like the script of feminism, but with feminism in the role of the patriarchy. We should not repeat their mistakes and become a mirror image.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 11:48 AM
17

Too Lazy; Didn't Respect.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 11:42 AM
6

people spewing vitriol at anyone who announces that they are an MRA To be honest, people who announce what they are usually have their identity and self-image riding on that idea, and attacking that idea will feel to them as a personal attack (eg. random self-proclaimed feminists on the net). So avoid waving the flag. Just hammer in the arguments.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 11:38 AM
1

The question nature or nurture still remains.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 09:46 AM
6

Be a wealthy whatever.
/r/seduction26/06/13 04:38 PM
1

When we arrived at the bowling alley, I confidently walked up to the counter and asked for bowling for two. She took her money out but I turned it away saying "Hey, no way, this date night is on me." I think she liked that one. Come on man, don't spoil it for everyone else when they finally start paying for themselves.
/r/seduction26/06/13 04:37 PM
1

What are the fixation index differences between humans, protohumans and other high primates? For comparison.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:09 PM
2

You're ranting against the movie caricature of a psychologist: a guy that sits with his back to you in a chair, hands with his fingers together in front of his face, you lie down on the couch. Then he asks you: "Tell me about your father".
/r/MensRights26/06/13 01:57 PM
1

If gender played little/no role in social behavior (and not vice versa), why would practically every culture in the world across thousands of years, connected to one another or not, place men as hunters/warriors/head of the family (or equivalent) while women are the gathers/stayed at the home/village, general care takers, etc? Founder effect. Expansionist cultures tend to spread themselves. men and women both strongly move toward their respective "roles"? Strongly is relative. There are differen…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 01:43 PM
2

Some people find a solution to certain problems, others don't. That clearly indicates their predilections play a role in finding solutions.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 01:41 PM
1

Most are, but not all.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 12:51 PM
1

Everything he said in the media. If he didn't care all he had said would have been "No comment".
/r/seduction12/06/13 10:13 PM
1

I'm sure that for example Edward Snowden is very concerned with people's perception of him... because their actions towards him depend on it.
/r/seduction12/06/13 06:20 PM
1

Suit yourself but don't come back whining when people dislike you based on your actions.
/r/seduction12/06/13 04:21 PM
1

Back in the fifties that would have made you suspect of being gay, you know.
/r/seduction11/06/13 01:04 PM
1

The OP is willingly obfuscating the issue. Not exclusive might as well be understood as not dating exclusively.
/r/seduction11/06/13 08:30 AM
-1

The expected norm in society is still monogamy. If you want to deviate from it, it's normal to explicitly state it.
/r/seduction11/06/13 08:27 AM
1

I already said I'm fine with the principle of open relationships. If you're operating on the principle that no one should be trusted ever you don't have a relationship: then you're just having random sex. And I'm fine with that, too! What I'm not fine with is hypocrisy and leading people on.
/r/seduction11/06/13 08:17 AM
2

I don't know if you're a girl or not, but it doesn't matter. It works like this: Just because a girl is sexy and a guy wants to have sex with her, doesn't mean that the guy is sexy or that he is automatically entitled to sex with her. I'd hope we'd all agree that this statement is fair... Now... Just because a guy is lovable and a girl wants to have loyalty from him, doesn't mean that the girl is lovable or that she is automatically entitled to have a relationship with him... Men aren't automati…
/r/seduction11/06/13 08:13 AM
-2

If you're hiding what you're doing with whom, the relationship is not open.
/r/seduction10/06/13 03:33 PM
1

Where he purposefully hides things. Open relationships I'm all okay with, but that involves spelling out beforehand what you're up to. What he does is more like starting relationships because he likes the safety of a partner, but keeps seeing girls and fucking them when they allow it to get his trophy count up. Of course after a while they'll call his bullshit and dump him, or as he says it "There have been some that have crashed over that time as well".
/r/seduction10/06/13 03:18 PM
-3

I am in multiple relationships, a few over 6 months old. Something that took me over a year of work to get to. Completely open, completely express. There have been some that have crashed over that time as well, but women of all different types have been super willing to engage me in an open relationship. [...] I don’t tell them I’m “fucking” other girls, that’s classless, and a tad bit mean. So, you're lying scum.
/r/seduction10/06/13 02:39 PM
2

Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Hungary, Denmark, Korea, Spain and Turkey are the places where the scores are equal for men and women. Switzerland and Italy are the only countries were men do better, and that with the smallest possible margin.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 12:13 PM
2

Reality has a well-known antifeminist bias.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 12:10 PM
1

Alright.
/r/seduction04/06/13 12:50 PM
1

I want to make the point clear that it can be counterproductive to reduce anything to a lack of effort on the part of the sufferer, piling a portion of guilt on other problems.
/r/seduction04/06/13 12:19 PM
20

Too late: http://www.theonion.com/articles/girlfriend-changes-man-into-someone-shes-not-inter,1507/
/r/MensRights03/06/13 09:13 PM
1

You keep insisting on going out as the alfa and omega of curing confidence problems, something that can never go wrong and at worst autocorrect you. Quod non.
/r/seduction03/06/13 01:54 PM
1

Why does going out mean not working on other things for you? You say: "you get confidence by going out". I say, no, you won't if you don't already have done some fundamental work in addressing your own hangups and chokepoints. If going out repeatedly is the only thing you needed to do, nobody would have confidence problems ever. It is exactly the opposite. If you are depressed, going out is going to suck, and it's gonona suck bad. But in doing so you will 1) discover that you have a problem, 2) …
/r/seduction03/06/13 01:28 PM
1

Even if you suffer by going out because you are socially unadapted, it is still good for you That's not "even", that's the optimal case. No, my point is that you have to be under severe psychological problems for going out to actually hurt you. Why, no. Small problems can become big if you don't address the core malfunctioning. One stitch in time saves nine. All the hard work in the world does you little good if you have an axe with a dull edge.
/r/seduction03/06/13 12:52 PM
1

Shocking, huh?
/r/seduction03/06/13 12:06 PM
1

Surely there are more personality types than the agoraphobic on one hand and the gregarious dude who just lacks social exercise on the other.
/r/seduction03/06/13 12:05 PM
1

The subproblem and theme of this thread was how to gain confidence.
/r/seduction03/06/13 10:56 AM
1

And similarly going out is a necessary condition to interact socially, but it may not suffice on its own.
/r/seduction03/06/13 10:55 AM
1

The point was how to get confidence, not seducing.
/r/seduction03/06/13 10:45 AM
1

The point is not fixing everything beforehand; the point is ensuring that, at the very least, leaving the home is not doing more harm than good and thereby making the experience productive. Insisting that only effort matters while other factors are at work might very well burden the sufferer further with feelings of guilt, and then they're even further from home.
/r/seduction02/06/13 10:08 PM
1

Don't you think that it is possible that if you have a psychological issue of fear of going out, and you stay locked in your room, it will just reinforce the pattern of fear of going out? It won't reinforce it because it isn't triggered. Whereas if you go out and you come back alive (like you always will) it will prove to you that there is nothing to be afraid of? Habituation or shock therapy only work on a small subset of afflicted. People with anxieties aren't rationally motivated, and I'm sur…
/r/seduction02/06/13 11:39 AM
1

No, it will hurt and it will be difficult but the fact that you go out will make you emotionally realize that your expectations are wrong and thus you tone them down to a sustainable level. That's assuming that excessive expectations are the problem. Using a more useful metaphor: reading about piano theory will really help you to get good at it, but it is only by practising that you truly make progress. And trying to learn to play the piano by trial and error might make you good at getting sound…
/r/seduction31/05/13 10:37 PM
10

Causing pain = violence.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 09:47 PM
1

Going out is learning how to get your wings. Why would I suddenly grow wings by making flying movements? It will just confuse me because movements that would have made me fly if I had wings have no effect now. Going out will never kill you or fracture you beyond repair. It will still reinforce and exacerbate bad expectations, which will make it more difficult next time. I will bite, though, what are the "other" measures that you have to take if you have no confidence? Addressing the causes of yo…
/r/seduction30/05/13 10:52 PM
1

Why did you assume that I meant "only" going out will solve your problems? No, that isn't all there is to it but it is a necessary factor. Because you dismiss any suggestion that other measures may be needed first. Why? Because human beings learn by doing. Simple as that. No amount of training will allow me to fly. I'll need to get wings first. Similarly, trying to walk with a broken leg will only ensure the fracture doesn't heal.
/r/seduction30/05/13 10:06 PM
1

You just keep asserting that going out, and only going out, will inevitably solve all problems. This discussion seems to me like rationalization and excuses for not going out to be honest. To me it seems like you'd rather psychologize the motivation of the other person in the discussion rather than consider that your opinion might not be universally valid.
/r/seduction30/05/13 09:24 PM
24

This is by far the most productive comment in the thread.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:13 PM
30

All I see is a feminist shouting down people who want a dialogue rather than listening to her reading her opinion from a piece of paper.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:10 PM
1

And it doesn't apply to this situation either, since we're talking about people who have a problem.
/r/seduction30/05/13 01:27 PM
1

But if you don't go out, you don't know your extent of your confidence problem. It would be rare to know you have a confidence problem without going out. If you don't have limits you've already smacked into, you don't have a problem.
/r/seduction29/05/13 02:55 PM
0

Or it could just be that your opinion is stupid "It's stupid!", favorite argument of five year olds. Please do better. and as such, not something I feel like taking the time to debate with you. Given that this is your sixth consecutive reply, we can safely rule out that possibility. perhaps you mean "resorting?" I thought I'd give you the credit of assuming that you do argue properly at other times, but obviously that was too generous of me. but that is not the case in this instance Yes/no discu…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 02:52 PM
1

But then you have identified another problem and you can begin working on it. That's what I'm saying: you need some basic confidence to start with, so if you don't you need to address that first. And then you still need to select the situations you get yourself into and your goals carefully, so success is possible. For example, trying to "bluff your way into the oscar ceremony and have a threesome with two movie stars" really won't help you build confidence.
/r/seduction29/05/13 10:27 AM
1

No thanks. Just because I'm not going to argue with someone's stupid opinion doesn't make me wrong. If you choose to revert to ad hominems rather than arguing the point, it certainly suggests you disagree because of a visceral emotional reaction. That's a popular belief among stupid people (and that's not an ad hominem, by the way, because I was calling your intelligence into question - something directly related to the topic at hand.) It's perfectly possible for someone stupid to be right, so n…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 10:21 AM
1

They certainly have a similar tendency for sectarianism.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 10:14 AM
3

Alright. It irks me when the issue is used to polarize and stereotype, "women are victims, men are predators", that kind of stuff.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 10:14 AM
1

Then argue that point instead.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 08:08 AM
2

Sure, go ahead on the ad hominem track and dig your hole deeper. If you had any arguments, you would argue the point instead.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 08:07 AM
-3

Given that I get downvotes instead of counterarguments, it seems logic is on my side and kneejerk reactions on the other.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 09:31 PM
-6

Double masters, darling. I'm creative with language.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 08:03 PM
5

Escalation in conflicts is only useful if you can make the other party back down. That won't happen in this case, so you have to outdo them in their professed equality and openness: have a safe space where everyone is allowed, perhaps focusing on free speech, organizing debates on controversial subjects and having a series of films that are forbidden in various countries with an explanation of why.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 07:56 PM
-1

Yes, studentic carelessness, drinking and guns. What could possibly go wrong?
/r/MensRights28/05/13 07:52 PM
7

Given the wording, probably not. They're a different denomination of feminist.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 07:50 PM
2

Which is exactly what I'm saying, so why you disagree is a mystery.
/r/seduction28/05/13 07:44 PM
2

Good. Then you'll agree that eg. victims of rape deserve sympathy because they're raped, and not women in general.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 03:12 PM
0

Soldiers are just an obvious example. Overall, men are expected to bear more risks and suck it up if it goes wrong, because "they know what the risks were". While women can blame The Patriarchy(ominous thunder in the background).
/r/MensRights28/05/13 03:08 PM
1

Eponysterical!
/r/seduction28/05/13 02:17 PM
1

If the odds of having a good experience are too low you will probably validate your bad anticipation about the experience, making you worse off. Banging your head against the wall will not bring you closer to the other side. Move and look for a door instead.
/r/seduction28/05/13 12:52 PM
1

developing inner confidence is key. Gotta take yourself out of your comfort zone to do so. But what for people who don't have a comfort zone?
/r/seduction28/05/13 12:36 PM
0

Then you don't need to get new experiences but a new mindset. With the old mindset, you will only dig the hole deeper.
/r/seduction28/05/13 12:19 PM
4

Go out, approach, get reference experiences, and that confidence will come. I disagree. Bad experiences will wreck havoc on your confidence, just like good experiences will improve it.
/r/seduction28/05/13 08:45 AM
2

No. Girls hide it on purpose.
/r/seduction26/05/13 03:24 PM
0

Even if not all white people are elite, it still is important to note that the elite are overwhelmingly white. I disagree, for the same reasons I disagree that it's relevant to point out that most people in prisons are black: that might be the case, but we're not going to hold it against them in the interest of meritocratic ideals unfettered by racial prejudice. This is an example of male privilege: being a person is equated with being a man. To me, it's an example of a word having more than one…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 05:43 PM
1

Why were you trying to nail down the color/gender of the elite then? Feminists often do declare that all men are privileged.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 12:50 PM
1

The knee jerk reaction of categorically denying white privilege only demonstrates how engrained it truly is If people deny it, it must be true. If they acknowledge it, it must be true. That's not a falsifiable statement, aka it's garbage.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 11:16 PM
1

Two out of three of these links don't even work.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 11:15 PM
1

It's not because the elite are white men that all white men are elite. Besides, the spouses of the elite have far more power and influence than most white men.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 11:09 PM
0

Giant blocks of money, mostly.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 11:07 PM
1

In understanding how discrimination operates however, it is important to acknowledge how that status has benefited you. Then tell me why all these white women are allowed to speak about discrimination of blacks?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 11:07 PM
1

He should bring it up and rub their noses in the fact that their judgments are shallow and based on his appearance, rather than the argumentation.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 10:49 PM
2

Begone, biocentrics! What about the 99,99999999% dead matter?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 10:48 PM
1

white-> viewpoint 1A How is this any less a generalization? I guarentee they will roll their eyes and laugh at you, and half of them will have predicted you would pull the old "aha, YOU'RE being sexist!" card. Of course, any argumentation why it isn't sexism is not appropriate there.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 10:42 PM
0

Ignoring that without evidence, there is no victim.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 10:32 PM
1

A system is made up out of regulations and rules: adopting a new system while keeping your current regulations would be like trying to paint your house in two different colors in the same time. In other words, you're talking nonsense.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 06:26 AM
4

sexism was defined as discrimination etc. against women, not men A professor that can't use a dictionary?
/r/MensRights15/05/13 01:05 PM
5

If someone tries to cut you up, fight back.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 01:02 PM
1

Your children are not beasts to be tamed. At least you can show them you respect and trust them as human beings. She's not up to it.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 12:56 PM
2

The only ladies you don't need a prenup with are the ones who would sign it without hesitation.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 12:50 PM
1

You can enjoy economies of scale that Sweden can't. And if the negatives of size outweigh the positives, nothing precludes doing it at state (or groups of sparsely populated states) level.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 07:19 AM
1

A different system implies different regulations.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 07:11 AM
2

The average American would be better off having Swedish health insurance and tuition fees etc., even with a tax hike to pay for it.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 03:13 PM
0

and then result in advances the woman can’t turn off ... without revealing herself as a jerk that leads people on. People lead other people on to have social control. If they went too far they have to get along with it or blow their cover, and when that happens some decide to regain control by means of false accusations. Which are, naturally, taken seriously because rape is a grave matter and more often than not it's a he says black she says white situation.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 10:19 AM
1

Like I said, as the dominant philosophies changed, so did the rhetoric, the goals, and the methods. I keep some reserve as to which was the cause and which was the result, but indeed I'm not familiar enough with the theory to go in much detail.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 11:42 AM
1

I judge them by their actions. Their internal turf fights and justifications are only marginally relevant to that.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 09:49 AM
1

In my experience these interview questions don't lead to scintillating conversation.
/r/seduction06/05/13 09:12 AM
1

What are the right questions.
/r/seduction05/05/13 11:57 AM
1

I think the big "shift" in feminism happened when the methodologically individualist philosophies of the first wave and early second wave were abandoned in favor of the radical second wave's methodologically collectivist gender-struggle-as-class-struggle paradigm. ... In fact, it's exactly the other way around. The first wave considered the interests of women as a class and used collective action. The third wave uses an individual rights perspective (alimony, interpersonal crimes like rape, focu…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 12:11 PM
2

Hey, at least they counted the dead men.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 12:01 PM
1

More likely than not, you're very wrong. A billionaire losing billions could destroy more than thousands of jobs. How? He's just using that capital as an excuse to make productive people pay him. Without him, those people will still be productive. He wasn't spending that money, so there's no demand that falls away. Yes, and now Greece is learning the hard way how the 'obvious' answer is quite often poison in the long run. How boring - blame the previous government for the cruel policies you want…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 09:23 AM
0

No. The means of the economy are providing goods and services to people, the end is whatever each individual participating wants. That doesn't even make half sense. If an individual wants to reinstate the Caliphate or to extend marriage to gay people, what does that have to do with the economy? What people want, contradictory as it may be, is a matter of politics. Providing goods and services to people is the function of the economy. It also isn't necessary or at all obvious that it is somehow b…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 09:21 AM
0

Well, by trade of some sort, not necessarily money. But ultimately, yes. In a market sense, demand only means anything if someone is willing to exchange something for the item demanded. Otherwise we're no longer talking about markets. So that means that the economy serves the interests of the rich disproportionally more. It also means that people who became rich from crime do get that large influence too. That's not really a good deal for the many productive but low-earning people. But don't you…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:26 AM
1

It's not that on a personal level I don't "care" about the poor and their plight. Why do you keep bringing that up? I don't. What I'm arguing is that, relating to the problems of a country as a whole, what matters more relative to the interests of a country is the losses of the rich, generally speaking. One man losing half his income affects the country most depending on how much the income was to begin with. That's what I'm saying. But it's never one man losing his income: it's either a few ric…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:20 AM
1

You can't just assume whatever you personally believe is indeed in the best interest of everyone. That's insane. I don't need to make that argument, because my point is that policies should be judged on their merits and results, so I've always left that door ajar. You, however, still assume that what you believe (the primacy of property rights) is indeed in the best interests of everyone. Why would you say this? Based on what? Rational self-interest. If the state works mainly for the rich, there…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:16 AM
1

While I agree in principle, I'm not understanding why forced redistribution of property is supposed to be immune to this rule. Just be consequential: if the state can enforce property rights because supposedly it's for the greater benefits, it can also enforce That's currently true of almost all property. So you agree that you don't really own your house or personal property because the police are protecting it? Great, I'm moving in next week. Obviously those who have more property benefit more …
/r/MensRights27/04/13 04:18 PM
1

You fail to understand that people are incentivized by personal utility value, not big numbers on the bookkeeping sheets. A billionaire has lots of excess cash on foreign accounts and owns means of production. He can still sell the products of the latter, no matter which level of inflation, and he'll just liquidate some of his foreign assets to live off if inflation really gets out of hand. The poor and working class on the other hand, confronted with inflation or lack of employment opportunitie…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 04:08 PM
1

85% of your replies consist out of discussing the discussion rather than discussing the subject. Perhaps you should stop commenting and just read the discussions, the average signal-to-noise ratio will increase.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 03:44 PM
1

i love this mentality: have a problem? demonize and blame someone else (preferably the rich/your employers/tax payers). cause fuck personal responsibility and money management. Saying that if their money management was good they wouldn't be in that situation... ignoring everything else that's out of their control. Recently a factory closed nearby: a few thousand people lost their jobs. I suppose that's because they suddenly became irresponsible and lost their money management skills.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 01:27 PM
1

The religious roots of manifest destiny are known (eg. http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/mandestiny.htm , ) . It stems from the protestant idea of predestination: I'm well off, so obviously God must have some special plans for me/ I must be virtuous. Manifest destiny is just predestination applied to a state. It serves the same function: to legitimize the coincidental owners of wealth.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 01:13 PM
1

You say the first here - your disagreement here simply boils down to "I hate she can tell me to take my penis out". I disagree with your interpretation. I state clearly that the trench-warfare subtext and "The Law says I can do this!" attitude bother me, not the right per se. And if it wasn't clear, this applies for any combinations of genders. I'm saying this legislation is fine (provided it's gender neutral) and it's okay if somebody wishes to withdraw consent and be legally protected in doing…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 11:04 AM
1

I don't want public services to be cut. They will, if they cut taxes. "Government should work as effective as possible" is always true, at any level of taxes. I am a bit paranoid and I don't like to give out information about myself so I'll just say you misguessed my country. It's hard to see what we're talking about then. Feel free to switch to PM.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 10:33 AM
1

Complaining that women have the right to withdraw their consent sorta shows your true colours here, bro. Where do I complain that women have the right to consent? Since when did something being an unusual situation (and i don't think this is) mean we shouldn't provide rights or legislation for that possibility? Where did I say that?
/r/MensRights26/04/13 10:30 AM
1

The value of a commodity can only be correctly quantified by giving the would-be buyers the option to trade for it. I know that is your axiom, you don't need to repeat it. You have no way of precisely knowing how many potatoes people want compared to meat [...] Demand is only effective if backed up by money. So unequal distribution of money distorts the information the market gets. One millionaire has as much to say as a million people with one dollar. Probably more, because it's easier to tailo…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 10:28 AM
0

It's not drastic if you feel the whole thing's gone south and want it to simply stop. That is a rather unusual situation, aka not normal. Seriously. Stop thinking you're entitled to your partner's time or body if she says 'no, i've changed my mind, i want this to stop' just because earlier she said 'yes'. It works the same with you, if you want to stop having sex, your wishes should be respected. Why not hers? I never said otherwise, I just disagree with the implicit legalistic it's-my-right sub…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 09:13 AM
1

And I tell you again: how would your situation improve with a smaller government? Why do you think you get to pocket the difference? What extra costs would you have because most public services would be cut? Why do you think market forces won't erode the wage back to subsistence level? Maximum corporate and income tax rate for what I suppose is your country is 10% according to what I found, by the way. I don't think excessive tax rates are the problem.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 09:06 AM
1

They outsourced the enforcement of their accumulated property rights to the state. Legal doesn't always mean just.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:31 AM
1

As we can see in Greece recently, the reverse is true. Billionaires can easily get away, to join their money in a foreign bank account (and even if they don't, a 50% inflation would still leave them half a billionaire). Poor people are just stuck.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:31 AM
0

It's a perfectly reasonable thing to change your mind on any matter, especially if new information comes to light that compels you to do so (in this instance, realizing your partner is doing something you don't like.) It's reasonable not to want to do that thing you don't want to, but stopping the whole encounter is drastic. That being said, there are acceptable reasons to flake on a date, but it's not normal.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:22 AM
1

Somehow I don't think you live in a country like this Wrong. you're either receiving aids or are young enough to don't know anything about how it feels to have your money taken away from you Nope, working. so you are forced to live day to day, counting the change in your pockets praying to somehow make it to the next payday. Learn to live within your means. Your situation wouldn't improve with liberalization: the employment situation would just ensure that anything you gained by lower taxes evap…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:19 AM
1

Ad hominems are your business, I stick to describing your arguments.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:11 AM
-3

It makes entirely perfect sense for somebody to consent to sex, but not to specific acts during sex, or to withdraw consent halfway through intercourse. It makes sense in a legal way, but we can safely say that withdrawing consent halfway sex is similar to not showing up on a date. It's legal, but it's bad form.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:27 PM
-1

You're just rehashing the manifest destiny idea popular with 16th century protestants: wealth is a sign of personal responsilibity and sound money management, hard work, etc.; conversely and by implication, poverty is the result of irresponsibility, lax money management, laziness, etc. You are arguing that poverty is immanent justice for laziness, much like some catholics argue that HIV is immanent justice for homosexuality. Therefore, any meddling with that justice is interfering with divine ju…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 01:04 PM
0

So, not giving stuff to people is sociopathy. They're entitled to the sweat of their brow, but AFAI am concerned not to extract rent from the productive part of the economy by means of financial tricks. They took it from others to begin with.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 08:15 AM
0

demonize and blame someone else For example, blame the poor/the employees/the government for your misfortune. Except that you don't have misfortune but are just fuming with rage that taxes are preventing you from buying your sixth ferrari.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 08:12 AM
1

Am I actually that "fucked up" to believe that only people who pay taxes should have a say about how their money is spent? Obviously, yes. Being good at earning money doesn't mean that you're good at making political decisions. Not to mention the fact that universal voting in the first place serves to avoid civil war by giving another outlet.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 08:10 AM
1

people paying more than half of their earnings back into the system, which is a terrifying future to imagine. The fact that the few countries with tax ratings above 50% are also in the top of the Human Development Index and the quality of life index suggest that your imagination may not be the most reliable source here. i would rather not work at all and then get free money from the system than work my ass off so that someone can take most of it and give it away. So, why don't you?
/r/MensRights25/04/13 08:07 AM
1

At this point all people, save for a few tribes, are part of the same economic network. They aren't out of reach, because there are plenty of raw materials flowing out of these countries to the rest of the economy. They are part of the economy, but still haven't reliable access to food. In the parts of the world where and when food was produced and distributed by governments, mass starvation regularly occurred. I'm sure these governments quantified their data too.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 07:19 AM
1

Do give an example.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 07:13 AM
1

That doesn't necessitate monetizing and commodifying it as a if it were shampoo or shoelaces.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 08:30 AM
0

Only if you assume that something that doesn't come with a price tag is worthless.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 07:56 AM
1

View that in the context of the US political system: would you rather have had McCain?
/r/MensRights22/04/13 06:54 AM
1

There are some differences, but they cut both ways: men might be able to carry more, but women eat less. In the end, all that matters is that you can aim a gun and pull the trigger.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 09:20 AM
1

Feminism has become obsessed with the image of the oppressive Patriarchy, and are becoming that image.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 09:06 AM
35

DO NOT HARASS THIS PERSON. Do not harass anyone, ever.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:35 PM
1

Obviously she thinks these dirty terrorist towelheads should vacate the Holy Land ASAP. While blaming white men for not mingling with oppressed muslim brothers.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:34 PM
1

Rephrase it, otherwise it's easily traceable.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 11:58 AM
2

"does this dress make me look fat?" "Yes. But the dress only does it because she's jealous."
/r/MensRights16/04/13 11:47 AM
1

You're not going to win that battle in any way. The best you can do is letting her talk, asking questions with a deferent tone. Much of the ideology sounds quite ridiculous when heard literally, and that will change the viewpoints of the audience. So drop your ego, mind the audience.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 11:42 AM
1

Ask questions. You show deference and let her make her points. The more she says, the more material you have to discover contradictions. Then you ask to explain that contradiction.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 11:09 AM
2

Personally I'm glad I don't have to. Don't start that crap.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 08:51 AM
1

No matter who did what, they owe you the right to tell your side of the story. Otherwise they're just blocking you off because they know it will probably end in a word against word stalemate, forcing them to choose. They're also choosing a side now, but they can pretend you're wrong and they're right as long as they don't let you them them your side of the story.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 08:49 AM
3

I stuffed the turkey on Thanksgiving.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 02:05 PM
1

Unless they can read minds.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 11:39 AM
0

If you can't see the systematic oppression of women, it's because you are privileged. You are privileged by the patriarchy. Therefore, you not finding evidence for it proves that it the patriarchy exists.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 10:48 AM
1

Well, she personally might be. Innocent until proven guilty etc. Doesn't impact judgment about feminism in general.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 10:07 AM
1

I'm not banned yet in the first, so perhaps that has changed.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 10:03 AM
2

Assuming you've got that covered.. It's mandatory here if you have a job.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:07 PM
2

Some people like waiting for the lottery numbers, and it has at least the chance of changing your life drastically - an effect which is practically unreachable otherwise for most people. One can't say that of a candy bar (unless you buy it from Willy Wonka).
/r/MensRights11/04/13 01:00 PM
1

But since it's a self-reporting survey, there's no way the recipient can tell the difference.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 12:40 PM
2

These are the same people that buy lottery tickets, I might add. If you're expecting to spend your life working jobs you wouldn't do if you had plenty of money, then buying a lottery ticket instead of candy is probably an improvement in your spending.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 12:38 PM
1

IMO it's more effective by implanting undeniable facts and reasoning in their mind. At some point, those will snowball into the realization that it's all a house of cards. Very few, if any, people will adjust their point of view during a discussion anyway.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 12:46 PM
1

People living longer also means they're healthy longer, so it'll balance out. And if not... it's rude to say, but that problem tends to find a new equilibrium quickly.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:34 AM
67

Good observation, but it's not about what happens the most often. It's not a race.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 04:30 PM
1

It's strategically more effective to stick to the facts, rather than start waving flags. AFAI am concerned, a discussion that devolves into a mud fight about which label is worse than the other is a lost one, because it doesn't improve anything. It's like calling someone out on using faulty reasoning methods (eg. slippery slope, ad hominems, etc.): you may be right, but you're not going to convince anyone. Instead, use your insight to show that your opponent is talking nonsense.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 01:16 PM
1

There's also some research that indicates that being very concerned about your children doing something (eg. smoking, grabbing cookies from the jar, not being careful with knives) makes them consider that behaviour the normal, expected behaviour - things that they are expected to do, and perhaps they would miss out on not doing it. So it's indeed possible to be too concerned.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 01:14 PM
1

The population can't grow forever. So we'll have to design a system that works with a stable population.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 12:09 PM
1

Apparently he shouldn't have impregnated an unstable woman. As a matter of fact, it's prudent not to. As is not drinking, flirting, going home and crawl into bed with people you don't want to have sex with.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 11:51 AM
1

Shutter Island?
/r/MensRights05/04/13 11:49 AM
1

"I don't need a man!" "Being a single mom is hard!" Pick either one, but not both.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 10:52 AM
1

There's been a kind of coup, with a posse of mods appointing themselves, if I'm not mistaken. That inevitably resulted in a splintering and founding of new subreddits. It seems anarchism attracts, among other people, radicals, and some of those will become Robespierres.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 09:33 AM
1

This is a map of how "welcoming" a country is towards foreign visitors. I know this was posted in r/Europe a while ago and many of them vehemently disagreed with it. It it's that map (can't acces the link here and now), it's self-reporting: a map of how welcoming people say they are.
/r/seduction04/04/13 09:27 AM
7

Women come into seddit because they want to be able to make the first move—if they have to. And very few women come to this subreddit. Ergo, very few women have to make the first move. That's the whole problem. Waiting to be approached is a viable strategy for all but the most repulsive women. Waiting to be approached is not a viable strategy for all but the most attractive men... and even then, women will talk themselves into believing that the guy approached them.
/r/seduction04/04/13 09:16 AM
3

Personally i've not encountered another sub that outrightly bans for having alternative views. other that r/feminsm. r/communism have Stalinist mods. At least they're not hypocritic about banning people for disagreeing with Stalinism. And r/anarchism... well, just look at the wall poster in r/metanarchism.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 09:30 AM
5

There are only two options: not sick enough to mention it, or sick enough to try and get better by any means. For women, most diseases fall in a third "not bad enough to stop doing things but nevertheless bad enough to complain and be cranky" category.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:42 PM
0

Physical exercise stimulates sexual appetite; relaxation removes possible hindrances. So I don't think that anecdote proves anything.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 12:44 AM
1

Ironically, from 19th century morals (men are strong and in control, women are weak and need protetion) that feminists claim to oppose.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 12:38 AM
0

Well, amputation is a possible method to solve gangreen, but that's not reason to preventively amputate all your limbs. I suppose those lazy cleaners also have their ears cut off and their teeth pulled?
/r/MensRights31/03/13 12:35 AM
1

I can't say anything or im pretty sure I will be berated by both of them. What use are your balls if you act like you don't have them? Respectfully state your opinion man.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 12:33 AM
1

they shouldn't do that to children either.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 12:20 AM
9

I think she had her portion.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 02:43 PM
2

There's this "don't care & be yourself" crap again. I don't know what you all do, but if I'm myself and don't particularly care about someone, I'm not chatting them up.
/r/seduction24/03/13 11:24 PM
30

There's not any real value in blowing it up either.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:27 PM
1

"Next week: how do I raise a nigger not to be a thief?" /s
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:26 PM
1

Theft is theft, it's immoral and wrong and should not be tolerated in civilized society. And it's theft of a part of me. It just shows that property rights aren't a solid base of morality. I mean, we use skin cells all the time. They're part of you too. Does inhaled air become your possession? Etc. It becomes absurd if you want to base this on property rights. I repeat, the relevant issue is that she can enforce your parental duties based on your dna. That's the whole problem. Otherwise it would…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:00 PM
1

You can consider it theft, but a theft of 5 ml of organic fluid isn't a big deal. It's only a big deal because parental obligations are considered absolute, and can be enforced even if they were created by theft, deception or otherwise lacking cooperation - or even the condition of non-involvement. You can consider it a sign of complete dedication to the parental role as well... there are no standard ways to handle case like this.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 01:54 PM
2

And that vice will ultimately be the cause of their irrelevance.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 01:19 PM
1

The whole issue is that you can't separate rights and responsibilities.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 01:18 PM
2

Women's studies are a bit isolated as a discipline, and nobody risks to criticize them. The reputation backlash can be strong.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:50 PM
2

I still have to disagree with a reduction of the paternal role to dna-delivery. I run under the assumption that both parents have their rights and responsibilities.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:47 PM
2

The comparison between fire and children isn't really apt; the two phenomena are almost totally different. You know very well I didn't compare fire and children, but firefighting and taking care of unwanted children. Becoming a parent requires more than donating gametes. In any case, the problem is not that the biological parents are being forced to support it; the problem is that for men only the financial duties are enforced, and the parental rights are denied.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:45 PM
8

Perhaps you should become a massage therapist specializing in gold miners. I can imagine they need massages after a day's work. Remember, the people who got rich in gold rushes were the ones who could sell mundane equipment at a 6000% markup to the miners.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:16 AM
1

She can, in fact, get double pregnant. It's a very rare occurrence though.. But she can have a natural abortion, and get pregnant again in that time as well. That would be less rare.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:06 AM
2

In this case, the chick deserves to be left alone to decide what she wants to do with her baby I disagree, it's his baby too.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 11:56 PM
15

I mean, if someone's going to pay I don't quite see why it should be society as a whole For the same reason that firefighting is paid for by society as a whole: these accidents happen, and society has a vested interest in mitigating them.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 11:55 PM
7

That's a conspiracy theory, much like the patriarchy is a conspiracy theory. Don't lower yourself to that level.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 11:45 PM
3

It's not a conspiracy. Their identity depends on being the sole defenders of oppressed victims/women. Question feminism, and you question their identity. They can't help but take it personally, because to them, it ispersonal.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 11:45 PM
1

It's just a limitation of the human mind that has to be overcome. Whip up an example to make it personal, and suddenly you've got everyone's attention. It's how things are, and you should learn how to do it to make your statements heard.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 06:11 PM
1

Yeah, she's good, isn't she?
/r/seduction07/03/13 12:44 PM
24

Oh, you are one of those salespeople who repeat my name until I feel verbally raped?
/r/seduction02/03/13 06:25 PM
1

You kill more Female Splices in Bioshock than Male Splicers plus the game mechanic of killing little girls. I don't remember any protests. Hey, you got the choice.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 02:28 PM
5

Exactly, 99% of objectification is us all being objectified into human resources... but it's easier to complain about sexual objectification.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 02:25 PM
2

They all do that. Hide in a bathroom stall in a women's toilet and listen.
/r/seduction25/02/13 07:30 PM
8

That's a legitimate desire, even if it's not what you're after at the time. She might well do it as a way to avoid wasting too much time with someone who doesn't want with she want, which is sensible, not crazy.
/r/seduction25/02/13 07:29 PM
4

someone who identifies as a feminist That's a big part of the issue. Many feminists use feminism as part of their identity. By consequence, any criticism against feminism feels as a personal attack. I'd say that the solution is to work on specific issues on an individual basis. It doesn't matter whether someone is a feminist, an MRA or a smurf; if they agree to do a specific actions and work on a specific issue that's all that matters.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 11:32 AM
2

Then I wonder what this fait divers is doing here and not in r/wtf.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 07:33 AM
9

Dont generalize, nutcases are nutcases.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 08:06 PM
0

It might be that in some places girls are disenfranchised from acces to education. It's justified to spend the money in a way that make that more balanced, but I don't see any reason why that is something you have to campaign with.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 11:25 AM
1

Both groups have a sense of being undervalued as part of their motivation I suppose. The difference is that some PUAs are living up to the social stereotype by becoming the jerk that's just interested in tricks to get sex, while the MRM is opposed to the stereotype. Of course there's also good advice to be had (develop yourself to become confident etc.), but the "another notch on my belt" crowd remains noticeably present.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 11:17 AM
4

Men are privileged If a man contradicts that, he's wrong because of 1.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:57 PM
1

They're long past that point, when a paternity test is considered necessary. The fastest way to get that doubt of the way is doing the test.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:08 PM
2

A refusal to allow it is as good as a confession :)
/r/MensRights14/02/13 10:57 AM
1

It might be wise to just discuss the usefulness of a movement aimed at ensuring rights for men. You could ask before the discussion to avoid the subject of feminism, to keep the discussion focused. A second discussion could be about the relation of the men's rights and the women's rights movement.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:10 PM
3

Nevertheless , the right to vote should be restricted to people who actually have a clue what's going on. A noble principle, but totally unenforceable. In addition, voting was never meant to guarantee the best policy; it is meant to guarantee stability by ensuring that at any time there's a majority behind the government, and if not, that there's a peaceful and legitimate way to change that government.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:07 PM
2

This is correct. Tying voting to income, or to military service is just an arbitrary excuse so the powers that be could make a concession by giving voting rights to certain groups, without it spiralling out of control and ending up with having to give votes to everyone.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:05 PM
3

Bring that attempt of soft censorship up in the discussion. If you do that you involve everyone, so they can't scapegoat you afterwards if they suddenly face pressure. More importantly, it's a great illustration how biased the standard discourse has become, when one equality movement paint another equality movement as something you don't want to see in public, if not hate speech.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 08:57 PM
1

They think it's funny, instead of pointless and disruptive.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:50 PM
2

Apparently the mods didn't agree and they banned me for posting too many top comments. FYI, there are two mods that are active once a month or so, and the rest is Demmian and their sockpuppets. Curiously, they also autoban you from r/askfeminists when they ban you from r/feminism, despite the stated goal there being to discuss criticism towards feminism.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:32 PM
4

It's the same concept of rape victims relabelling themselves "rape survivors". Which I am completely ok with. It happened to them, it doesn't change the outcome or the importance. Being a survivor does imply that something bad or harmful happened to you. Call them circumcision survivors, that would be the equivalent.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:18 PM
4

And I find it kind of silly to compare male circumcision to female circumcision. While the concept is similar the outcome and effects are much more dramatic for females. I disagree. The actual practice of female circumcision varies from a snip, over something comparable to male circumcision, to "hack away everything and sew the axe wound shut". It's still circumcision, and wrong in principle. Let's not lose track of the real issue by bargaining how much cutting is acceptable.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:16 PM
41

Depending on the venue, this can also be a great way to hone basic dodging and running skills.
/r/seduction11/02/13 06:44 PM
2

If sexism didn't exist it would be an incredible benefit to men too. That just shows that you think of sexism as a women's problem, implying men don't suffer sexism as well, only its secondary effects. How do you feel about feminists who campaign for advantages for women only, with the justification that women in general are disadvantaged, so giving them advantages will restore the balance?
/r/MensRights06/02/13 09:41 PM
2

They oppose feminism by supporting rape, and they support rape by opposing feminism. It's not that hard.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:52 PM
3

Being a feminist means supporting the advancement of the equality of women. Increasing equality for women would, logically, increase it for men too... Too often some feminists just support advantages for women, whether it increases equality or not.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:14 PM
0

Nature or nurture, who will tell?
/r/MensRights05/02/13 09:36 PM
1

Next week: a poster with five black guys, and the text: "one of these five is a mugger".
/r/MensRights02/02/13 02:39 PM
0

Yes, but by saying this, you're assuming that it is also necessary for taxpayers to pay for unwanted children. You'll pay for them eventually, as they mug you on their 10th birthday.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:49 PM
1

The question is not whether it's the responsibility of the government to pay for (parts of) birth control, the question is whether this delivers a net benefit for society.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:48 PM
15

The problematic feminists in general don't. Their identity is too entangled with the flag "feminism". As a consequence, any questioning of feminist ideas is perceived as a personal attack. In addition, circular reasoning is prevalent, often like this: Feminism is right > someone disagrees with feminism > they must be unable to see the truth because they're privileged > privilege exists: feminism is proven right! That being said, even in r/feminism good discussion can be had before you're eventua…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:43 PM
1

And the right are totalitarians in practice. I'll take the theoretical totalitarians then, thank you very much.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 11:54 AM
0

Have you ever been in the rest of the West?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 11:53 AM
1

People get food poisoning in restaurants too, that's no reason to ban all restaurants.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 07:15 AM
1

Rape is a form of sex, your point made no sense what so ever. That just means one or more of the people involved have failed their responsibility to do it in a proper way. Also stop avoiding my question, if drunk sex is normal and safe and not rape, why do you refer to it as dangerous which is what you would call rape. I said that drunk sex is normal, not that it can't be rape.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 04:41 PM
1

Drunk sex is just like any other sex: it's your own responsibility to do it safely.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 04:27 PM
1

Assuming you mean that rape is the only significantly dangerous event that can happen to drunk people and you ask for counterexamples: traffic accidents robbery dropping or cutting yourself or others with heavy, sharp or hot objects falling asleep somewhere and getting sick various short and long term unhealthy effects of alcohol
/r/MensRights23/01/13 04:18 PM
1

I don't think you understood the analogy because you just argued that the driver (rapist) was responsible something an mra would never do. But I'm getting off-topic. Well, that's assuming the person s/he ran over didn't run on the street unexpectedly. If the driver was sober and a drunk person suddenly appeared on the street, the driver will probably be found innocent. Let me use less complicated words, you said that getting drunk at a party was dangerous and I said what's dangerous if it isn't …
/r/MensRights23/01/13 03:50 PM
1

You do realise in that analogy the drunk driver who committed a crime represents the rapist who committed a crime, right? You don't seem to realise that their being drunk doesn't matter. They drive the vehicle, they are responsible for accidents caused while driving. I see no reason why that would be any different for driving or having sex. Also you avoided my first point so I guess you concede on that front It's unclear to me what it means.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 08:33 AM
3

Someone who was hit by a drunk driver could have avoided it if they weren't outside, doesn't mean it was their fault you idiot. Whose fault was it? The one who drunk. Because s/he is still responsible for bad things that happen, even when under influence.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 06:42 PM
2

Please don't blame innocents for being rapists. Alcohol is an accepted social lubricant, and people who do stupid shit when drunk have to face the consequences when sober. That stupid shit includes getting yourself in dangerous situations, or situations you wouldn't put yourself into while sober. If you want to keep control of the situation, it's up to you to avoid substances that are notorious for causing slacking self-control. A person who rapes someone while drunk is still a rapist. A person …
/r/MensRights22/01/13 07:42 AM
6

Or people who can't control themselves when drunk shouldn't drink.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 03:14 PM
3

... A chaperone? Welcome back to the 19th century.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 03:08 PM
1

Plot twist: he visits the club in drag sometimes (true dedication to his job).
/r/seduction20/01/13 10:49 AM
1

Yep, sadly. But it's not uncommon as a view.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 09:22 AM
2

In many places, it's ok if you marry her afterwards.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 01:52 PM
1

Alright then, I can see that it was a bit unclear.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:50 AM
1

But birth, no matter where is happens, is still a medical situation. No, birth is a natural occcurrence, unless you define basic bodily functions as medical. The motivation to decide to conduct an abortion (in itself a medical procedure, surely) can be medical or personal, that was what was hinting at, if it wasn't clear. Regardless, my original point was just to call you out on how stupid it was to claim that having an abortion isn't medical. It was just a really stupid claim with zero truth be…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 06:21 PM
0

Most people aren't born in clinics, pregnancy is a fact of life like changing teeth at six. What's your point, anyway?
/r/MensRights05/01/13 05:08 PM
0

It can be, but out of the principle of bodily autonomy, we leave it to the discretion of the pregnant person. Nothing good will come from leaving doubt in a litigious society that's polarized on the matter, anyway.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 12:14 PM
-2

Pregnancy has direct medical consequences for the woman carrying a pregnancy. She can unilaterally decide to opt out by means of abortion. Any actuary can put a number on the actual costs of abortion or pregnancy. Consequently, keeping the child is a choice. They're just mixing stuff from the old paradigm (women are weak and have to be protected) with stuff from the new paradigm (women make their own choices).
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:46 PM
1

All legislation ought to be gender, race, and religion neutral by default. I'd argue that it's up to them to provide justification to make it not gender neutral. (In addition, if women don't rape they will never be affected by it, so there's no absolutely no harm in it.)
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:11 PM
1

You'd think he'd learn after the second one though ;)
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:00 PM
0

No. Grow a spine.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 01:53 PM
3

Guns won't improve anything about his situation.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 01:42 PM
2

Obviously reacting against that nonsense is a feminist issue, but other medical uses of the pills used for birth control are coincidence, not relevant to that discussion. Getting them to say "okay, we'll pay for the cases where people need typical birth control pills for anything but birth control" is not sufficient in any case. The problem with the slogan in the picture is that it reinforces the idea that feminism exists just to get freebies for women.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:13 AM
1

Then I don't see how this is a feminism issue, but rather a general concern that more healthcare ought to be subsidized.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 11:35 PM
0

You misunderstand: they don't imply that mixed groups are unsafe, they imply that women are better than men.. everywhere.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 10:43 AM
2

There's also forced penetration by women, and other forced sexual actions.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 10:37 AM
1

There's also forced penetration by women, and other forced sexual actions.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 10:36 AM
4

Always, always support your data with multiple sources that don't copy each other.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 10:32 AM
2

Show me their track record, otherwise I'll flip a coin. They're both basketball teams, so both have the inclination not to be bad players and have pre-selected themselves.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 10:29 AM
3

Put in a context more relevant to modern life, if I see a group of poorly dressed black men walking around in a parking garage late at night, I should assume a higher risk of danger in that situation than if there were a group of well-dressed business men walking around. Conversely, when it's election time you should assume a higher risk of danger from a group of well-dressed business men on the ballot :)
/r/MensRights26/12/12 10:28 AM
1

Another counter-argument is that it's not the same as saying "black people are more likely to commit crimes statistically so therefore we should segregate them ra ra ra etc " because that's a grander economic/social issue and not in any way a biological thing that defines them. Why doesn't that excuse work for men? Would they find racism justified if someone found a sufficient difference between races? Defend the position that persons ought to be judged on their individual merit, and the genetic…
/r/MensRights26/12/12 10:25 AM
3

fyi: faux pas
/r/MensRights26/12/12 10:03 AM
1

Well, the technical situation of a child growing inside the female's body means that she has the right to choose abortion. Unfortunately, that means she also has the right to choose to reject parenthood, because you can't separate the two decisions. To restore the balance of rights, the male should have the right to reject parenthood as well. That still means the female has the option to keep the child even if the male rejects it, while the reverse is not technically possible. A woman could agre…
/r/MensRights22/12/12 06:00 PM
2

It's sometimes tricky to find a good and mutually available source, but yeah, people ought to think at least a second before they post how they could support their point, either against doubters or for the interested.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 05:52 PM
2

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309582900486 Five fairly distinct dimensions of the sexual differentiation process are identified as follows: the genetic dimension, the genital dimension, the neuro-organization dimension, the nongenital morphological dimension, and the behavioral dimension. I first heard of it in an article about people who were off on one of these dimensions, which could cause all kinds of problems without obvious solution (eg. an (otherwise) female that wa…
/r/MensRights22/12/12 03:43 PM
10

People have right to create their children and to shape them according to their own liking. No, they don't. Get a clay doll if you want that.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:09 PM
2

Even then, you would have a bit more basis for abortion, since it's also killing his unborn child-to-be as well. A pregnancy is still not a child, just the potential for a child, much like having sex + functional reproductive organs. When the child could potentially survive on its own, the abortion is no longer legal. I would judge an abortion as having slightly more weight, because a pregnancy can be life-threatening, while a lack of vasectomy can not. That being said, it's the equivalent of pe…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:58 PM
2

Real karma, even better.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 04:10 PM
2

You can, but it's cumbersome to switch between accounts.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 01:25 PM
1

Here's an excerpt. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/18/gender.bookextracts
/r/MensRights20/12/12 11:40 AM
2

After which they go right back to blaming all men for everything.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 11:30 AM
1

Women are subjected to domestic violence more often and more severely than are men. I don't have the link available right here and now, but the statistics I looked into had similar numbers of domestic abuse for both genders. The results weren't substantially different for same-sex couples, if I recall correctly.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 11:25 AM
2

You need to separate the line between the foundations of feminism and some of the radical and irrational people we have today. A problem is that those who are the most vocal about being a feminist too often are quite fundamentalist in applying it. Much like fundamentalist Islamists determine the image of muslims.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:47 AM
2

I've heard the opposite. http://www.amazon.com/Self-Made-Man-Womans-Journey-Manhood/dp/0670034665
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:45 AM
4

Those times are long gone. At this point it's not uncommon for a man to be saddled with alimony for decades, while the woman is free to do what she wants.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 09:53 AM
3

That's like saying North Koreans aren't oppressed, because North Koreans are in charge of society. edit: Or like saying that we live in a melanarchy, because blacks commit more violence (statistically), even though they also are subjected to more violence.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 09:52 AM
6

So, what did you do with your ears?
/r/MensRights20/12/12 09:01 AM
1

I get along great with virtually everyone I meet That's great for you, but don't expect that as a given for everyone. Nor attribute it to an arbitrary factor.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:04 PM
0

PUA is for males what make-up and clothing is for females.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 02:55 PM
3

The most disappointing thing about PUA is that it works, much like a push-up bra works.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 02:52 PM
-2

And how were they punished, comparing the genders?
/r/MensRights19/12/12 02:01 PM
11

You ought to search for the full name, not just "Canadian Ass".
/r/MensRights01/12/12 12:58 PM
1

all over the world You can't point to the starving children in Somalia to support a program that gives food aid to children in the USA..
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:31 AM
-1

As for women asking me to pick stuff up for them, you seem to be under the impression that they ask me to do that simply because I am a man. Well, it just so happens that women are usually weaker than men. They're not playing a card, man, they're weak. Well, according to that reasoning... when employers prefer men because females can get pregnant, they don't play a gender card; women really do get pregnant. That being said, it's not as pervasive as the picture suggests, but it does happen. If so…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:29 AM
4

Frank Zappa has them.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 10:06 AM
3

If the rape was a result of a lack of communication that can have been a contributing factor.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 10:04 AM
1

Because the difference in chance is so small that it gives the illusion of control, but doesn't really matter. Accepting that persons might be better or worse than expected is a more realistic approach. In addition, even a 1% difference (statistically) would lead to a preference for one category of persons, and over time that will lead to a head start for persons of that category by expectation and built up experience, and conversely it will discourage the persons of the other categories to even…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:26 AM
-2

Seeing Feminism behind every social injustice is about as absurd as seeing The Patriarchy behind it.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 11:30 PM
3

Then the difference is so small a coin flip is appropriate. You can't control everything.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 11:26 PM
1

Wrongfully convicted getting released from prison > Guilty accuser getting punished Making people think twice before wrongfully accusing someone > undoing a fraction of the damage in a fraction of the cases. And personally, I'd rather a hundred false rape accusers walk free than one person stay in jail when they're innocent. But what you suggest is going to make many more people risk false accusations (there's no penalty anyway), and as a result much more innocent people go to jail. It's hard al…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 02:13 PM
2

If you were serving a 20 year sentence for rape that you didn't commit and your accuser came forward after a year offering to recant as long as she wasn't charged, do you really think you'd give a damn about what harm it would cause society not to charge her? If we send the clear message that making false accusations are a grave crime, people might think twice before doing it - preventing the problem at all. In case of wrongful conviction, charging the accusers sadly can do more harm than good. …
/r/MensRights23/11/12 11:25 AM
6

So you say that we shouldn't have punishments for crimes because it might deter people from confessing? Let's just not convict people based on the testimony of the accuser, shall we?
/r/MensRights23/11/12 09:19 AM
4

Making a false accusation fucks someone's life up and perverts the course of justice. That's serious harm both to an individual and society; we mete out punishment to people who do harm, why not in this case?
/r/MensRights23/11/12 09:16 AM
1

Yes, I found those people a disgrace for the ideology. I discovered it by being banned in r/anarchism.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 09:33 AM
1

Then you ought to refrain from angelizing them as well.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 09:14 AM
1

But motherly instincts want the best for their kid. False. They want the best for her dna. For example, mothers killing their child if under stress: they can make a new one later, that can likely grow up in better circumstances. Or the common 18th century practice of city women of sending young children to the countryside to be cared for by a peasant woman, even though it was know that this arrangement had a rather high mortality rate.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 11:31 AM
2

True. I personally would accept the more efficient unisex bathrooms with urinoirs in stalls, men and women can was their hands in the same room.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 02:25 PM
2

Or look for example at the picture in the right pane of r/metanarchism .
/r/MensRights19/11/12 02:22 PM
0

Women are victims, men are oppressors; therefore, girls ought to get cookies and boys should be spanked. It's kindergarten all over again.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 02:10 PM
1

5) education: “women do better on some educational indicators, like test scores or enrolment” If affirmative action was needed when women were lagging behind, it's also needed when men are lagging behind. Given women provide the majority of unpaid labour raising children, it’s no surprise that courts might award more custody cases to the mother. It boggles the mind that they complain that fathers don't spend enough time on their children but at the same time support to deny them custody. Sadly, …
/r/MensRights19/11/12 02:00 PM
1

This is partially because women’s health has been ghettoized into what some have called “bikini medicine” that reduces women’s health to breasts, ovaries, uterus. These organs are indeed limited to women, so that's not strange. The reverse is true as well: depression is diagosed less with males (and if it is, taken less seriously) than with females. The solution is to have medicine pay more attention to personal differences and do more research, in both cases so there's no reason to see this as …
/r/MensRights19/11/12 01:28 PM
8

Yes, going to war is great fun. It's one of the privileges of patriarchy. I'd go to war every week were it not for those darn feminists in the gubmint.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 01:00 PM
4

I don't know what you think about medieval and early modern paying work, but it was not quite a 9 to 5 job where the man of the household would come home and sit on the couch smoking his pipe and reading the newspaper all evening while the woman was scrubbing clothes until the wee hours of the morning. Most people were rural laborers, and as you know, there's always something to do on a farm, for men and women alike. Then the typical industrial jobs in mining and early factories were no cakewalk…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 12:58 PM
10

To me this movement seems extremely sexist, Why?
/r/MensRights19/11/12 11:54 AM
7

Everything is due to the patriarchy. /s
/r/MensRights19/11/12 09:39 AM
6

Sex robots, to be precise.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 09:38 AM
3

Whatever you want it to mean.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 09:37 AM
3

The kitchen? :p Beware, stuff is easily taken out of context.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 08:30 AM
2

I'd consider that a problem of the club's clientele, rather than a gender issue.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 08:28 AM
3

The problem is that taking one's own subjective judgment in a situation leads to problems. The best way to prevent that, and a way everyone involved can contribute to, is communication.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 02:23 PM
4

You may have been harassed by this woman, uncomfortable also, but were you afraid? Did you think she was going to assault and/or rape you? Look, this is a problem: you're taking one person's subjective appreciation as the final judgment on a situation. If feeling bad is all that is required to be eligible for victim support and sympathy then some people who are looking for something to take offense with naturally are going to feel bad, so they can feel offended. This can take absurd forms like t…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 11:56 AM
0

Enforcing speed limits reduces the lethality of accidents, whether everyone obeys them all the time or not.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:47 AM
0

There's nothing particularly special about the exact speed limits either, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful in preventing accidents.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:19 PM
2

Some textbooks claim that men can't be victims of sexism because they are the dominant gender. And can they tell whether men are the dominant gender? Because they aren't subjected to sexism...
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:03 PM
3

So what should we conclude from all the rape fantasies in female erotic liturature then?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:49 PM
2

Ask anyone who taught later middle or high school in his late twenties what the odds are of girls falling in love with their male teachers...
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:48 PM
1

Exaggerate it until it's obvious that it's silly, turn it around.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 04:06 PM
5

Indeed, other primates have swollen breasts (or behinds) depending on their menstrual cycle; humans look (and act) as if they're constantly in heat, compared with most other species.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 05:26 PM
-13

The equivalent of cleavage for men is a fancy car, though.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 05:04 PM
8

Comparison with other primates - or mammals - indicates that feeding the young is perfectly possible without keeping your milk glands swollen for most of your life. Therefore it's much more likely that yes, breasts are just for signaling sexual attractivity.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 05:03 PM
2

Visit www.reddit.com/r/shitredditsays and see for yourself.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 03:01 PM
1

You can't just compare China to some utopian standard of a healthy society and call that a reasonable measure. You can't lower the bar to suit the examinee and call it a useful comparison either.. Compared to that, being an urban person with a wider selection of employment choices than the average Westerner had at the dawn of industrialism is a pretty sweet freaking deal. I don't know how much choice has to do with it. There's much more poverty in the rural areas now, and competition for (unheal…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 01:13 PM
1

It would only suffice to disprove a notion if that notion was absolute. It often is stated as such. People manage to say that males can't be victims of sexism because males are dominant in society. OP uses a single isolated anecdotal incident where he did not benefit to somehow prove that there is no imbalance in the treatment of and benefits provided to gender at all. No, he talked about this particular admission situation only. Therefore, he stated he couldn't find any male privilege in the ad…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 07:43 PM
1

we also cannot abandon people who are college access worthy If they are, they can actually compete in the normal categories just as well as anyone else, right? who have strong academic achievement for their narrative. I think it does more harm than good. Concentrate the means where they help a permanent solution, give criticist no easy target. You could argue that role models are needed, but people from a bad background usually move away from their old neighbourhood ASAP when they start to do we…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 06:11 PM
1

You realize that minority students in low-socioeconomic status are NOT offered the same educational access that white males of mid-to-high socio-economic status are? Both socioeconomic status and race have their disadvantages. It's not always straightforward to separate the two. Handing out scholarships to racial minorities might very well be putting a plaster on an infected fracture: it's only a part of the solution, and it might even do more harm then good if applied without disinfecting first…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 05:41 PM
1

How would that increase the impact of votes at all, let alone bring them to a level that could make a difference? Because smaller parties can attain positions of influence too. That means even one-issue parties have a chance to be heard, and consequently voting for them will raise the attention to that issue, if only because the bigger parties will need to do something about it to prevent the smaller parties growing big. But seriously, it's not mathematically possible to increase the impact of a…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 05:26 PM
1

No, not without qualitative research. The transgenerational effects of poverty are rather well-known. Given that eg. most if not all black people in the USA are descendants of slaves, the very lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder, it seems not unreasonable that it could take centuries to completely undo the damage that slavery did to their cultural capital and physical health. Racism undoubtedly is making it worse, but poor white people aren't breezing through life either.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 03:56 PM
2

That clearly shows that women are working harder than men - another ruse of the patriarchy!
/r/MensRights24/10/12 01:02 PM
1

And dunno about how it looks to you, but to me it seems so far the Chinese have largely managed the problem of the proletariat quite well. Making impossible promises, and sending the army whenever tens of thousands of people get tired of that at the same time? If that's "quite well", I'd really like to know what you would name "quite bad".
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:58 PM
1

And the West could only get away with it because there were many more resources left to extract.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:51 PM
1

When feminists of the fanatic variety have male children, they tend to empathize more with males and consequently become less fanatic.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:49 PM
1

OP uses a single isolated anecdotal incident where he did not benefit to somehow prove that there is no imbalance in the treatment of and benefits provided to gender at all. A single example suffices to disprove a notion, in this case the notion that males can't be disadvantaged in this society because they have privilege in this society.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:48 PM
2

Universities want to preserve a certain balance to look better and make their universities more appealing So, you're ok with whites-exclusive universities too?
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:23 PM
3

Look- I get your anger and what not, but minority based scholarships (as noted in your edit) are not really your enemy. Male-White privilege is dominant all over your life. Are you constantly followed whenever you go into a store by the store managers? Will you be discriminated against based on whether or not your parents name you Jamaine versus Josh? I mean, I can get my list out of 50+ privileges that white people get (thanks grad school), but yeah... That's a starving children in Somalia defe…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:09 PM
3

The funny thing is that this is a problem for women because they are finding it more difficult to get quality dates. Ironically, this may also be an entitlement issue.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:03 PM
1

Sure it may not seem fair, but where is it stated that they have to be fair? The scholarships are just tools used by the school to further its own agenda. Sooo... a school that doesn't admit black students for scholarships is ok for you?
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:01 PM
2

If a gender or minority gets something else than what they ought to based on their individual merit, that's discrimination. Handing out scholarships based on race or gender is inherently discriminatory, because it ignores individual talent and effort but focuses on group membership. If the admission procedures aren't objective you can revise the procedures to make them more objective; if individuals are having problems due to their background you can help these individuals to reach their potenti…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:01 PM
1

If you accept historical racism, then you have to accept that non-whites on average have a socioeconomically worse background than whites. But if you do that, you can't also claim that their worse position on the labour market is solely due to racism.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 11:50 AM
3

Your caps lock is on.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 11:46 AM
1

How? Proportional representation, counting all votes for national elections together, for instance. And if not finding an optimal solution means the end of civilization, then we have a problem. Wouldn't you say? Then you want an enlightened dictatorship. The problem with that is that it soon ceases to be enlightened. Democracy works better on average because it doesn't have the cost of instability that autocratic systems have when the ruler changes. (Anyway, can you name a problem that is civili…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 10:48 AM
1

We trust people to judge far more important things You know how gerrymandered voting districts are. They don't have to be, and they won't be if there is a simple and undisputed rule to determine them (like in other countries, where they simply correspond to existing administrative borders that rarely change). One man, one vote is such a simple rule. To the individual, voting is almost totally meaningless but the social impact is huge. Not a strong setup. There's plenty of room to increase the im…
/r/MensRights23/10/12 06:29 PM
1

It should be a privilege that one must earn. I trust no one to be the judge whether people earned it or not. That will very soon devolve in a circlejerk, despite the best intentions. The worst thing about democracy is that every dumb proletarian moron gets to make decisions for the greater society even when they don't give a fuck about it and don't even bother to learn anything about it. Democracy is not about selecting the best possible solution; it's about defusing civil war before it happens.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 12:59 PM
1

So does an abortion. The difference is that an abortion is a fallback measure if it still goes wrong; cutting and freezing would be standard. Not to mention that the equivalent for women would be "sterilize and freeze an ovary", not abortion. the best way to control unwanted pregnancy for men. You're still trying to reframe the issue: the issue is the imbalance of rights in case of unwanted pregnancy, not a lack of options to prevent pregnancy.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 12:56 PM
2

Why can't he? Its a legal process that varies state to state but that seems to be the only thing holding it back. Sure, making that legal process available would solve the part of the issue that can be solved without artificial wombs. The same approach follows if you have sex: you have to be prepared that you might give life to someone. That's the exact reasoning people use against abortion. It's not valid then, it's not valid now.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 08:16 AM
1

It necessitates a score of invasive and unnecessary surgical procedures, that alone makes it a bad idea. But you try to reframe the problem. The problem is not preventing pregnancy, the problem is the imbalance of control in the case of unwanted pregnancy.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 08:15 AM
1

No, it's just not really relevant.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:03 AM
1

It's about as helpful as saying "just go vegan", when people are discussing the best way to prepare a piece of meat.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 01:10 PM
1

Good analogy.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 01:05 PM
3

Two wrongs don't make a right, even more so when the wrongs are a century apart.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 01:03 PM
2

The problem is that this currently also gives them decision power about what happens with the man's life for the next decades. The decision to opt out of pregnancy should be hers, but that automatically gives her the power to opt out of parenthood as well. Currently the woman's decisions about what should happen overrule the man's. It's not possible to give the man a right to become a parent if the woman doesn't, because it's technically impossible to disentangle her decision not to be pregnant …
/r/MensRights22/10/12 01:01 PM
5

.png is better at conserving contrast, straight borders in images with little colors; .jpg is better for more pictural images with a lot of colors.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 12:50 PM
3

Couldn't a father emancipate or disown the child? No, he can't. That's the problem. Or if the mother is shown to be mentally unsound, I'm sure he could arrange for adoption since she is no longer fit to be his or her mother. That's really, really exceptional. Or just be abstinent. Or marry the mother. I detect a longing for the simple, uncomplicated times of the early '50s in a rural backwater.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 10:49 AM
1

Why would anyone down vote you. Because it's the same argument as "abortions are unnecessary, just don't have sex".
/r/MensRights22/10/12 10:47 AM
6

Maybe not appropriate for high school age Perfectly timed, why wait until it's too late? Sex ed. should have happened at 11 already, anyway. Repeat if necessary.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:12 PM
0

The justification for the bus driver hitting her was stopping her from hitting him. It wasn't enough to do that, so it certainly wasn't overkill.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 08:21 AM
1

Yes, it makes some ambiguity possible. It would have been better to split it into two sentences.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:11 PM
1

My parents still knew the time when it was the habit that men would pay for women on nights out. Why? Because they, typically, had no income since they were working in the household rather than for a wage. But when women started to have incomes too, they started to pay for their things too. So it was not tied to gender (the man should pay), but to income (the earner should pay).
/r/MensRights09/10/12 12:38 PM
9

My parents still knew the time when it was the habit that men would pay for women on nights out. Why? Because they, typically, had no income since they were working in the household rather than for a wage. But when women started to have incomes too, they started to pay for their things too. So it was not tied to gender (the man should pay), but to income (the earner should pay).
/r/MensRights09/10/12 12:22 PM
3

Then you should either say: "women are the perpetrator in 70% of non-reciprocal cases", or "women are committing violence in 85% of all DV cases; men are committing violence in 65% of all DV cases", or "in 50% of DV cases both partners commit violence, in 35% only the female and 15% only the male". But how you phrase it now, it seems as if women are only violent in 36% of total DV cases.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 12:16 PM
-1

It might kill the child. That's a ridiculous risk for a cosmetic operation. Hammer that nail in first (in particular with his wife present), and then offer the escape route: it can still be done later.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 12:09 PM
1

Or hammering off and selling your brakes, tires and shock absorbers to buy stickers to put on your windows.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 12:05 PM
1

In reciprocal cases, women perpetrated violence more frequently. Men did not.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 11:42 AM
2

meaning women are responsible for roughly 36 non-reciprocal DV out of every 100 total DV cases. That's a very strange phrasing: why don't you count the reciprocal cases when determining women's share in total DV cases?
/r/MensRights09/10/12 11:34 AM
3

Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. In 8,45% (0.24 * 0.503 * 0.70) of relationships women are the sole perpetrator of domestic violence. The 1,5 million women vs 835000 men comes from a national survey with a different methodology. I don't think it's safe to mingle these numbers, as they measure differently (or even different thi…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 11:29 AM
3

What? No they aren't. Either femaleness is genetically determined and we say trans-women are women out of politeness, or everyone is a biological woman. The analysis of gender/sex usually considers five factors (chromosomes, genitals, secondary sex characteristics, psychological and behaviour if I'm not mistaken).
/r/MensRights09/10/12 10:50 AM
0

That's just one aspect of gender out of the five that are usually taken into account.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:14 AM
2

Women aren't immune to patriottic or nationalistic fervour either.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:20 AM
1

Honestly through friends and at parties. Isn't that a limited supply? I feel like it wouldn't bother me as much meeting random guys in the street if they weren't twice my age and I wasn't honestly way out of their league. That's what annoys me more than anything.. Seems they ran out of parties to meet people at. It happens, sadly.
/r/seduction08/10/12 03:17 PM
-2

That's a general truth not specific to this issue. It does illustrate that I don't care, though :)
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:10 PM
4

So if I drug grown men so they'll have amnesia, I can do whatever I want with them?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 02:16 PM
2

Sounds like my mother.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 02:15 PM
1

Women don't want their sons, their brothers, their husbands, their fathers sent off to war against their will. Implying that either strangers, or with their permission, their own relatives, are valid cannon fodder..
/r/MensRights08/10/12 01:55 PM
-2

Decent discussion can be had in r/feminism, and you aren't banned on the spot for questioning the dogma. That's good enough, contradiction and downvotes are to be expected if you make claims that aren't widely accepted. Lead by example.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 01:40 PM
1

So, how do you meet guys then? Piechart not required, but would be appreciated.
/r/seduction08/10/12 11:30 AM
1

But essentially, hoarding of money does not change the demand for bread or other basic necessities. You argue that the billionare does not need what the poor could use to buy bread. First, I don't argue against hoarding: that in itself is just a personal decision to postpone consumption. Second, the problem is not that they hoard, but that they spend money on status games and that money spent urges the market to produce yachts and airplanes rather than clinics and schools. That's especially inef…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 02:46 PM
3

Grammar does not exist for aesthetic reasons. "You're" is a personal pronoun and verb, and "your" is a possessive pronoun. If you're sloppy to distinguish between two functionally different categories of words with different usages, you're probably also sloppy in distinguishing between different ideas and the consequences of their application. The same goes for culture. "Important" is an adjective formed like the latin participium praesens, i.e. it roughly means "carrying weight herein" which cu…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 02:37 PM
7

Spelling grammar and punctuation are all arbitrary rule systems that are unnecessary for the original purpose of language. Are you a language creationist? Fuck the "original" functions: language is also a carrier of culture and a tool to express thoughts coherently. In particular the latter is very relevant in a discussion forum like this.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:19 AM
1

Ah, ok. It seemed that you didn't consider that the woman's decline in perceived value might exceed the head start. My bad.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 07:48 AM
1

But liability can be a private matter. Courts might be needed for that, worst case scenario, but not police. Non-enforced decisions are just hot air. There'll always be cases with diffuse responsibility and interests as well. Want/need is subjective, and, for the sake of discussion, if we are going to follow Maslow's model, the needs of an individual with all of their lowest tier needs met are going to seek to have their higher tier needs met. Curiously, even after their material needs are met a…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 10:41 PM
1

The male should pay the fee to a third party, because it's the intention to provide a similar op-out, within similar constraints as the female has. But it remains an emergency exit (neither abortion nor parenthood refusal are desirable outcomes), so it makes sense to build in a negative feedback loop to prevent such situations to occur at all.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:16 PM
1

That's a good summary. But she can also not demand parenting assistance of any kind from the male should he choose to relinquish said rights during the period in which termination is a possibility. And it would ok to request a fee similar to the price of an abortion, which is to be spent on contraception campaigns/subsidies.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:03 PM
1

I don't know. To put it bluntly, the typical traits that make a woman desirable decline with age (beauty, fertility, not having children), while a man's typically desireable traits don't decline or even increase with age (status, wealth, composure).
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:56 PM
2

As a historian, I just point you to the Enlightment, the movement that endorsed the idea of equal rights against tradition, and invite you to explain the progress of civilizations that harbored it thereafter.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 12:35 PM
2

I wonder, do you think those who end abusive relationships are more likely to be the abused one? It's not because that people who are abused are more likely to end a relationship, that people who end a relationship are likely to be abused. It's not because all bananas are yellow, that all things that are yellow are bananas.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 12:11 PM
3

Also, in practice they control by far the largest part of the average household budget, which adds up to a large part of GDP.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 11:55 AM
4

That's not an advantage; it's normal. It's not a conspiracy of some group against the others either. Social justice is not a zero sum game.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 10:56 AM
1

You keep going back to abortion. Your whole reply can be summed up with "well women have the choice of abortion" and I've explained to you many times how it's a different debate altogether. I agree that the right to abort is granted for another reason (the right to bodily integrity), but we are not marsupials and therefore that automatically grants the right to choose to abort parenthood. This creates an inequality because the male doesn't get such a choice. This can be partly remedied by giving…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 04:27 PM
1

That sounds like a good solution to me. Maybe start some adult sex education programs that can be offered out or something. You would be surprised by some of the myths people believe about sex/safe sex. Prevention always is preferable. Abortion is more the emergency brake. " The only time feminism is mentioned is typicall when a woman asks a man to do a stereotypically male task; he then asks "aren't you feminist?" and she replies "feminist? Only when it suits me!". So it seems the movement had …
/r/MensRights30/09/12 12:18 PM
1

You don't have a legal right to not pay for your child. A mother doesn't have a legal right to not pay for her child either if someone took custody like the father or a relative. Not in theory, but in practice she can have an abortion and that will have the same effect. It's a side effect of the impossibility to pass along an embryo. If we were marsupials, the issue would be moot. One isn't subordinate to the wishes of the other. You had full control over the acts that led up to it. So does the …
/r/MensRights30/09/12 12:12 PM
1

I agree there is a line between vices and crimes, and definitively crossing that line is a trespass; but the corollary is that if the line has not been crossed then there has been no trespass--to justify trespass (criminalization) for a non-trespass is to replace laws with nannies. I agree, though I would consider doing it if the cost of prevention were smaller than the cost of cleaning up. People do not work for money itself but to satisfy needs indirectly That's questionable. Billionaires keep…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 11:38 AM
1

Legal possibility to what? Be able to impregnate a girl and not have to pay any child support because she can abort it if she doesn't want it? Again, you seem to think that all men would be deadbeat dads if they weren't forced to do otherwise at gunpoint. And if that's what he wants to do, why not? It gives the couple an opportunity to talk about each other's expectations and a chance to set things straight, and at the very least it gives the woman involved the clear warning that she'll be a sin…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 12:36 AM
1

I do not at this point agree with all of the abortion laws out there, which is why I keep stressing that this is in fact my completely bias personal opinion. I don't think a women herself should be allowed to have abortion after abortion, but that is a completely emotional point of view on my part. I can not stress enough that this is a PERSONAL view, and nothing I would expect anyone to take in any other way. It's obviously signalling a problem, but there ought to be enough psychological suppor…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 10:18 PM
1

She has the option because it's still a physical option for her. Men can't opt-out when the deed is done. Surely they can. Just give them the legal possibility. I don't see why they shouldn't be able, if the woman has the same option. In fact, his opt-out doesn't necessitate any abortion, so it's even easier to justify than the woman's. you simply take responsibility for your actions. If you have sex and she gets preggo you already made your choice. So you're against abortion? Because that's a w…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 09:59 PM
1

What if he keeps going from women to women having babies and taking zero responsibility for his actions? Is that ok? Should that be allowed? That would only be possible if they had unsafe sex without discussing the matter of children first, or if he consented and then withdrew consent. There's a legal term for the latter asshattery, I presume. If a woman were to have abortion after abortion while sleeping around, that's no reason at all to forbid abortion. "I agree, but feminist actions and stat…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 05:26 PM
0

If you both consensually have sex and the baby is KEPT, which this topic is really about, it's your responsibility to help pay to raise that child. Except that the woman has an option to forego that responsibility (in the form of abortion). You can't take away her right to say that she doesn't want to be pregnant, but then you automatically grant her the right to choose not to be a parent at the same time, that's a technical necessity. In order not to create an inequality in rights, the male oug…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 05:01 PM
2

Females have the right to terminate a pregnancy at will. This is justified, because it's her body. Since the male isn't pregnant, there's no need to extend that right to him because he's not directly impacted by the pregnancy. However, by necessity this also gives pregnant females a chance to choose whether they want to be a parent or not. This creates an inequality, because males are definitely impacted by parenthood. So the technically possible solutions appear to be either to give the male al…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 04:47 PM
0

Too direct, apparently. Impossible to know beforehand; that's why people get to know each other slowly, to learn the sensitive areas of the other.
/r/seduction29/09/12 03:39 PM
1

Yeah, I've seen it.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 02:43 PM
1

Stop criminalizing non-ideal choices I agree up to the point where they negatively impact other people. For example, a lack of minimum wage might drive down general wage levels, not just the wages of people on the bottom rungs.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 02:39 PM
2

My problem with the the concept is that it's used to automatically render any male suspect and an oppressor, without acknowledging the other side of the coin, the upper hand in family matters as you say. Ironically, sometims it seems some of them are building a hierarchy of their own with female feminists at the top, men who agree with them below that, and all other men as the enemy below that.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 11:14 AM
2

Sure, I agree. I think there are more similarities between moderate muslims and westerners than between moderate muslims and sharia muslims. Lumping people together under the same label can obfuscate that.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 10:56 AM
5

They also do not get tattoos, drink alcohol, or get piercings Come on :) You almost sound like Ahmadinejad claiming there are no gays in Iran..
/r/MensRights28/09/12 04:39 PM
3

Hey, that's actually dangerous.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 04:36 PM
4

You've never heard "oh, she shouldn't have worn a skirt that short" or "oh, she shouldn't have worn a top that shows off her tits it she didn't want it"? There's a lot to say about this. If someone breaks into your car, it's the thief's fault, no matter what you did. That doesn't contradict that leaving your laptop on the front seat is inviting burglars, and not doing so is good advice to prevent burglary. Second, what is rape? Obviously there's the classic masked-attacker-jumps-on-girl-from-beh…
/r/MensRights28/09/12 04:35 PM
3

It's to justify this line of though: "Men can't control themselves. Therefore, we must control them." Ironically, that's pretty much what some people in the origin era of feminism thought about women.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 04:06 PM
-1

Comparing is not equating. Sometimes, a comparison is made to make the contrast clear rather than the similarities.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 04:00 PM
2

Aren't all rapists doing it by choice? While all criminals are responsible for their crimes, it goes without saying that the crime rate is higher or lower in some populations/regions because of external factors, not free will. Rape doesn't just magically happen... someone has to choose to rape. According to some people's view on rape, you can actually accidentally rape someone.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 03:58 PM
6

If so, it's pointless to call it the Patriarchy. Hierarchy hurts people.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 03:54 PM
10

Abortion is not contraception, it's an emergency brake after conception. Semantics aside, the starving children of Somalia aren't on the frontpage either, but I didn't hear you about that. And yes, it's in the comments and firmly upvoted. I've yet to see a comment mentioning inconsistent treatment of men and women with regards to rape in a feverishly feminist subreddit get the same decent treatment.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 10:10 AM
1

Just mentioning that the reason of the existence of these differences can thoroughly sidetrack a discussion.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 11:00 PM
1

As always, that's an observation. It's most often best to leave the nature or nurture debate aside.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 10:11 PM
4

It is; it still is necessary.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 10:01 PM
3

Usually there are five dimensions used to help people with gender problems analyze their particular situation. That does not mean that a simple binary model isn't adequate for daily use for most people, and usually they'll see you as either one you resemble the most. This has the advantage that you can be either gender insofar you can change your appearance, but the disadvantage that you'll have to do the explaining if you want a customized gender.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:56 PM
3

I can't agree with a blanket statement on "all" feminists (or "all" MRA's, for that matter). Always be reasonable. If they're reasonable people too who call themselves feminist because of a concern for equality, and didn't get the latest memo's, you'll find some common ground. If not and it's a member of the dogmatic cult variety of feminism, you'll notice soon enough and then you can point out a major contradiction in their own words, and then leave it at that; it's not necessary to have the la…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:44 PM
3

Some of the tolerant and anti-oppressive folks of r/anarchism apparently felt the need to stalk and downvote me in other threads and reddits. I don't mind the downvotes, but I'd rather discuss the issue.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:26 PM
1

Simply drilling a well would make a world of difference in many places, and is conceivably quicker, easier and has a more lasting effect than trying to convince a whole village to stand in line for a snipe (that's how it usually happens: travelling surgery teams). And if there's no clean water, pushing surgery is not a good idea.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 04:53 PM
1

Marxism is a theory that was used by some existing political groups to support dictatorships, while feminism was a political movement that produced socioneconomic theories to support their preexisting political movement. In both cases there's the acquisition of theories to support political goals, but Marxism arose independently from the groups that later used it for ill, while feminist theories specifically (not the general ideology of equality) have had the purpose of supporting political femi…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:32 AM
5

No, it's important that a some kind of authority like facebook does it. It's too easy to dismiss 4chan and the likes as goons who do it for shit and giggles.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 10:25 AM
1

According to the justification, because I compared creating "safe spaces" for women because they fear being raped by men, with creating "safe spaces" for whites because they fear being robbed by blacks. And because I called someone out on asserting that women would inevitably be harassed in unisex bathrooms by men without backing it up. At least, that's the stated reason. I only did attract direct mod attention when I referred someone expressing a blanket dislike for MRA's to r/circlejerk.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:32 AM
0

So many subreddits, so little time :). I think I have a stronger position to argue from as a generalist commenter rather than a focused one: it's harder to label me. Not that they won't do it anyway, but the reasonable people will judge me reasonably.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:29 AM
6

Doesn't matter. It sends a message by discomforting her.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:25 AM
4

Directing the funds towards clean water would save and improve more lives.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:22 AM
1

so I think it is entirely justified to say that in some places FGM is completely different from male circumcision. I don't think so. They're both still kinds of mutilating torture. It makes no difference in our stance towards them: both are wrong, in principle, and no bargaining will make them right. So ultimately making a difference between different types of circumcision will weaken our position against them in general. Not to mention creating yet another inequality in treatment of men and wom…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:21 AM
9

The only reason to put the seat up is to avoid splashing on the seat for those who come after you. It's polite and considerate behaviour.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:10 AM
0

It's going to be the last one there, though, their mods are on a power trip and banned me. It's almost as if they feel the need to be officially against oppression, because they project their own oppressive tendencies on others, much like those publicly anti-gay senators who are caught in gay bars.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 12:47 AM
1

I disagree. There's no notion of dialectics in feminism. There's also no notion of materialism in femininism, as they are mainly concerned with cultural elements. They also don't say gender conflict has been the main agency of historical change. The thing they do have in common is vaguely being against oppression. But it's perfectly possible for someone to support both feminism and capitalism, or think that Marxism is correct and support traditional gender roles. And I do want to stress that Mar…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 12:25 AM
1

If the dynamic really is that good, they ought to be able to take some tactfully formulated criticism directed against sexism (not against them personally). Don't overdo it though, you've got an emotional drive behind it, and that risks escalating it into a conflict.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 12:20 AM
-1

Meanwhile, they let I don't think the "right" to privacy extends equally to men and women. pass by unhindered.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 11:13 PM
-1

Because people should get sick days for being sick. Group membership is irrelevant, it's an individual matter.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 11:07 PM
13

If they're legitimately hindered by it, it's ok; just like people with migraine can do so.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 11:05 PM
1

Feminism is not heavily based on Marxism. Feminism originally was the political movement representing the interests of women, while Marxism is a socioeconomic theory hypothetizing that the result of the industrial revolution would be a classless society. The only connection is that you often find them associated in the same political groups.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 10:53 PM
0

Feminism is the ugly daughter of Communism/Socialism. It is used as a means to destroy families, clans, and tribes so that their sons and daughters will learn loyalty to the state or the AnCom intelligensia above all others. That's conspiracy theory claptrap. First wave feminism adressed real inequalities in rights and made some real, positive change towards equal rights. After that, it became more of a club for people to feel good about themselves; like people with a hammer looking for nails, s…
/r/MensRights25/09/12 10:46 PM
-3

What the fuck is wrong with these people, seriously? They use their oppression as an excuse to oppress others. Questioning their opinion on what is oppression is not tolerated.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 10:28 PM
1

That's an overgeneralization, but apparently at least a silent majority of mods of r/anarchism do.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 10:26 PM
0

It's not a sports game.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 10:14 PM
1

IMO, men getting the reputation for being crybabies stems from the way they process disease: either they consider it insignificant, in which case it's completely ignored, or they consider it serious, in which case they rest until it's no longer serious. Women in general tend to have some gray area where they complain but go ahead anyway. I have no indication whether it's nature or nurture.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 10:13 PM
1

For first dates it's better, it's less potentially threatening and you can still reach their forearm (which suffices for starters) or reach out if you want to poke her for some reason. And, you can still go elsewhere for drinks afterward.
/r/seduction16/09/12 09:26 AM
1

Yeah, going into a bar and acquainting someone in a crowded bar while tipsy, with weird lighting and 80 decibel in the background is so deep.
/r/seduction16/09/12 09:22 AM
1

They tried to keep their heads cool, but putting them in a jar in the ice cellar didn't prove to be the best way to do that.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 08:35 PM
2

There's also significantly more money invested in breast cancer research than in prostate cancer research, even though both are about as deadly.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 01:01 PM
4

Second, many (if not most) of the cultures in the developing world severely oppress women Then money is not the problem. (e.g. women are property, honor killings, men use violence to control women, slavery, etc.) Excuse me? Men are killed in feuds too, people use violence to control people, and slavery isn't restricted to women last time I checked. The only valid point you have is the legal inferiority women have in some places, and that's not going to be helped tremendously by educating them in…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 12:57 PM
6

I feel like this is worth pointing out because "well, he was hard, so obviously he wanted it!" is pretty common and completely biologically inaccurate grounds for dismissing the belief that women can rape men. It's the equivalent of "she was wet, so she wanted it!".
/r/MensRights22/08/12 03:45 PM
4

That reminds me of the Italian judge that ruled that it was physically impossible to rape a woman who is wearing a jeans.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/277263.stm
/r/MensRights22/08/12 03:45 PM
12

It's the emergency brake. She's fully entitled to use it. Not for frivolous purposes or get fined, but that's to be sorted out with hindsight.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 03:44 PM
2

Yes, it's necessary to make that clear, because a movement striving for equality can't afford to have a semblance of partisanship for either gender. You can hide those posts if they clutter your frontpage.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 10:54 AM
0

Eh, never mind that one. It's past bedtime here. I agree that someone shouldn't be adversely affected just because he happens to be in the same demographic. I don't consider it offensive though if someone of the same religion is prompted by people to affirm their mutual dislike of suicide bombing nutcases on the occasion.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 10:56 PM
0

I don't advertise myself as a r/mensrights member, nor does my identity rely on it. See it as a chance to educate some people. Just you saying "But I'm not a muslim" must already be a mind-bending experience for some of them.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 10:34 PM
-2

That's just prejudice on their part. But I do think people who choose to label themselves as member of a group should expect to occasionally have to justify their membership of that group if another member does something wrong. Especially when the latter claims it's because of his membership that he does it. That still does not preclude those people to disapprove of that action, but you ought to take a stance as a person.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:56 PM
-2

For no reason, because religion is a choice.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 09:23 PM
3

In my experience, that combination of quiet confidence and not feeling the need to prove your worth to anyone around you drives girls crazy – they’ll really start qualifying themselves to you. They’ll start becoming more and more interested in your mystique and wonder why you aren’t trying to win their attention. Honestly, that works ok in situations where you see a lot of girls regularly for other reasons (eg. classes), because you're working on the long term. But for regular people that have t…
/r/seduction21/08/12 12:07 PM
2

Treat others as you would want to be treated Doesn't work, because women want someone who's better than them and makes them feel good, not an equal that engages them rationally. Get a good job Plenty of lowlifes get women wherever they come. It may help if having a job supports your self-esteem and independence, but it does not directly contribute to your appeal. Unless you're looking for a women nearing her thirties with a ticking biological clock ("he's not great, only ok, but he has a steady …
/r/seduction18/08/12 10:36 AM
0

Negging is not a matter of undermining self-esteem; it's a matter of showing "I'm not afraid of you".
/r/seduction18/08/12 10:28 AM
5

They should have changed their behaviour a long time ago, because talking garbage is not fun. It's not a gender issue, though.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 11:58 PM
1

You won't convince the hard core, but you need to chip off the hangers-on anyway.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 06:17 PM
9

Wouldn't work well for non-verbally oriented people.
/r/seduction07/08/12 11:28 PM
2

When men have sex, it's always rape, by feminist definition.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 10:25 AM
1

Wearing a lab coat is enough to get the authority bonus, sadly.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 08:53 AM
2

Depends how you define gender/sexe. If I'm not mistaken doctors use five aspects to analyze transgender problems of people. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309582900486
/r/MensRights05/08/12 11:53 AM
7

A lab coat has become a symbol of authority, of course people are going to try to abuse it.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 11:52 AM
1

No, no. That's how kids get bullied in school: one big-mouthed jerk starts, and 90% of the herd just goes along. There are plenty of normal ways to verify your trustworthiness that do not involve cowering before bullying paranoiacs.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:28 PM
4

i don't think it's feminism that's the problem, it's how obsessed society is with "ZOMG THINK OF DA CHILDREN". Even though the paranoia has grown about the safety of children in all forms after WW2, I disagree, nobody bats an eyelid if a woman does the same things which make men suspicious. And which people have been chanting "men are violent, men are oppressive, men are rapists" the last half century?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:33 AM
6

It is a really bad idea, as if you as a male need the permission of random strangers to watch your friends' children. Don't carry permits, but be prepared to register a complaint against slander and harassement against the one that called the police, and possible the police itself, depending on their treatment of the case.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 10:29 AM
3

Setting an absolute rather than a relative standard would be a good idea. Far less prone to abuse.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 08:21 PM
2

Shaming facilitates group homogeneity, which facilitates group cohesion. It's evolutionary advantageous for social animals.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 11:13 AM
3

Nowhere does it state that she consented to anything. Well, neither does it state that the strippers consented. Why shouldn't they be able to claim rape then?
/r/MensRights14/07/12 10:27 AM
1

(It does, but assuming it doesn't:) Neither does removing his tonsils, but we aren't hurried to do that while the placenta is still warm, either.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:41 PM
4

The best thing everyone can do is stop waving flags and wearing team colors, and simply argue the point.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:36 PM
3

Because cutting into babies = bad.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 09:43 AM
2

Then why do it?
/r/MensRights04/07/12 08:36 AM
3

"Please mommy, cut me up!"
/r/MensRights04/07/12 06:59 AM
0

As long as they aren't to disruptive, it's up to them to choose towards which goal to apply the techniques they learn.
/r/seduction04/07/12 06:49 AM
-1

Doing it shortly after birth makes sense. For people who don't mind torturing babies. The health benefits are so minor.. I suggest that you witness the circumcision of a baby, see for yourself what the procedure entails for the child. Nipples may be useless, but there's no medical benefit to removing them. Fingers and toes are useful (I just used my little finger twice in that sentence). Lips are used for speech, ears allow us to hear, and the nose is an important sensory organ. The foreskin is …
/r/MensRights03/07/12 09:17 PM
1

I don't see where the article indicates that removal prevents the conditions, but I also don't think that is the point. Neither does removing the foreskin prevent anything; it merely fudges the percentages somewhat. Seems like it has benefit. In sub-sahara Africa, for sexually active men. So unless you're intending to make your newborn sexually active within a year, there's no need for it. It is a useless piece of skin and cutting it off has benefits. >>> Is this wrong? His nipples, little finge…
/r/MensRights03/07/12 07:17 PM
2

Well, here are some things that can go wrong with nipples: http://radiographics.rsna.com/content/27/suppl_1/S65.full Quite a long list, including cancer. If you don't have nipples, you don't get these. Still no reason to cut them off at birth. I'm yet to see an argument against it You need arguments against slicing pieces of newborns without anaestetic? I hope nobody lets you babysit. They:"And don't cut off pieces of your children." You: "Why shouldn't I?".
/r/MensRights03/07/12 05:34 PM
1

I can't see anything but minor benefits expressed in a few % of inflammations (which are easily cured by common medication anyway). If they get inflamed, it'll be a lesson to wash properly. The slightly lessened chance to contract HIV is irrelevant, since it's nothing you can rely on. So I see no significant benefit to have it myself, and much less any reason to hurry to cut up a newborn infant without anaesthetic. Maybe the reason people want to do it so quickly is because the children can't pr…
/r/MensRights03/07/12 03:21 PM
3

You asked why MR was so adamant about this issue, it's an answer to that question. There are plenty of other reasons not to circumcize, or not to circumcize right after birth specifically, but these are named often enough throughout the thread.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 01:14 PM
1

It's not unreasonable for an employer to set up guidelines for their employees' clothing. So I'd say, if you really want to work there, it'll have to be without earrings. Asking nicely will get you a no, most likely. Insisting will make them create a formal rule that forbids earrings. Making a case of it will get you fired. So, decide whether you really want to stay there or would rather start looking for a better place.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 01:09 PM
5

Plenty of people circumcise for non-religious reasons. So it's mostly a matter of traditionalism vs. looking at something as with a fresh eye.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 12:56 PM
1

I remain wary of the motivations of people who seem eager to punish.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 12:55 PM
3

A child having a foreskin does not impact the life of the parent. Having a child or not does. Abortion is the emergency brake before there is a child, as there are few things worse than growing up as an unwanted child.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 12:17 PM
3

When it comes to enforce the non-mutilation of minors, let's err on the side of effectiveness.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 12:16 PM
2

If you think a baby needs to be protected against sexually transmitted HIV, then I'm going to doubt your sanity.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 12:15 PM
3

Because it's a clear example of double standards. Female circumcision is considered horrible by almost everyone in the west, while male circumcision is waved away as trivial... with very similar arguments the proponents of female circumcision use, no less. Plus, it's irreversible.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 12:13 PM
2

And the person himself, why doesn't he need a choice?
/r/MensRights03/07/12 12:11 PM
3

So you want to do to children what you don't dare having done to yourself?
/r/MensRights03/07/12 12:00 PM
3

It's a convention from a time when servants were more common. Sending a servant to someone out of habit signaled high status.
/r/seduction02/07/12 11:19 AM
4

Gay men maybe. Neg me and I riposte, reflexively.
/r/seduction02/07/12 10:39 AM
6

It's probably correct that for females, youth and beauty is sweetness: everyone likes it; other personality characteristics are like coffee, spiciness, broccoli: they're more acquired tastes. The latter is more refined, the former is universal.
/r/seduction02/07/12 10:22 AM
1

Personally I never intend to argue the label, but the point. So condemning the movement isn't really a problem. As you see, I use the words "tendency", "people calling themselves feminist", etc. to avoid blanket black-and-white statements.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 02:13 PM
4

A tendency of people callying themselves feminist and other people misogynist/patriarchal/male chauvinist. They tend to use double standards. Take for example the stance on date rape: often it seems that a woman can, at any point in time before, during or after the facts, decide that she didn't want any particular stage of intimacy and therefore claim rape... because it's the man's - and only his - responsibility to make sure no rape is happening. If anything goes wrong, it's therefore automatic…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 01:44 PM
1

Oh, it's a little troll. Coochie-coochie-coo.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 01:28 PM
1

This is constructive feedback. It describes exactly where good intentions turn into wrong practices.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 01:06 PM
4

It's a noticeable tendency.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 12:27 PM
1

Pandering is good. It makes people who are only in it for the money/power still do things right.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 12:17 PM
0

in our stupid American culture ftfy
/r/MensRights23/06/12 11:17 AM
1

A limited choice of work, given the limited access to jobs (people doing what their parents did, guild restrictions for newcomers, etc.) As for preaching for the choir, it's inevitable in any group that tries to change habitual ways of thinking. It's possible to exaggerate it though.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 06:24 AM
8

Then soon, you'll unsubscribe reddit, and shortly thereafter, the world.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:40 PM
2

Stop being a dumbass. Just moving this aside. Eyelids protect our eyes from particles and help keep them moisturized. Foreskin protects nothing. Foreskin protects your glans from friction and dust, and keeps it moisturized. If you don't have one, consider a prosthetic.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 02:13 PM
28

As a matter of fact, women's toilets are more dirty than men's toilets, in general. Ask any janitor.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 01:05 PM
1

Many of these women were also required to take care of the home and childcare also. They hardly could be expected to work long hours at the mine and at home at the same time, right? Older children took care of their younger siblings, if not the surviving grandparents. In that day and age, pretty much the whole family was doing their part in the household: no particular disadvantage for women there. Are you saying that the higher paying jobs are manual labor jobs? No, I'm saying that the conventi…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 08:20 AM
2

Let's reformulate: there's a bit of skin covering your eye as well. Is that dirty and primitive too?
/r/MensRights14/06/12 08:07 AM
1

Then whence the "we didn't have an alternative"?
/r/MensRights14/06/12 07:04 AM
1

Not on demand, fresh, 24/7. Also factor in the heating costs and hassles, as opposed to breast milk, that comes at exactly the right temperature. Whenever possible, agricultural land was sown with grains for human consumption. Only the more prosperous areas could spare significant diversion of basic foodstuffs to the relative luxury of dairy. Even then, a combination of hygiene/conservation and transport difficulty made some kind of treatment into other kinds of dairy preferable... which then be…
/r/MensRights14/06/12 06:39 AM
2

In reality they had the choice to work Work or starve, right.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 12:00 AM
1

Having a family was the expected course of action. It wouldn't be only their mother and their extended family, but also about every authority figure in their lives asking them when they were finally going to start a family now that their income was somewhat stable.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:59 PM
1

There is such a thing as a cow. That was quite a luxury.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:55 PM
1

Depending on her inherited wealth. Just as often she was all but forced to remarry - especially if she had children to take care of. Male widows, due to greater male mortality, were a rarity in comparison with female ones, and therefore much more desired.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:47 PM
2

Were they given the benefit of the doubt, or just not considered worthy? Their worth as person was pretty much subordinate to their material provisions. If that's not objectification, I don't know what is.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:42 PM
1

Career options were often limited to the family business or something related... as well as the education. Stories often are about exceptional people.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:39 PM
1

It shouldn't, but a comparison shows that the badness of sexism is minor in comparison. In addition, the gender issues are easier to find support for because the teams are easier to recognize and to support for... rightly or misguidedly.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:37 PM
1

Mechanized labor was defined as the domain of men Women worked in factories too. since their jobs always paid less than the positions men held A convention stemming from preindustrial times, with good reason: upper body muscle power is significantly higher with men, and most manual jobs benefit from it. A lot of traditional, close-minded people might think that a man being a homemaker is wrong, but for those of us that aren't idiots, there is no reason that a man couldn't be a stay at home fathe…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:35 PM
3

I'm 100% certain the reverse-gender version exists too.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:20 PM
12

They're dead tissue, and grow back. Quite different.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:17 PM
11

It's not like non-circumsized cultures all died out because of rampant foreskin infections.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:16 PM
2

Why don't you scrape off the rest of your skin then? Or your lips. Your eyelids...
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:14 PM
15

Amputating the little fingers of children at birth reduces the chance of broken fingers with 20%. Let's do it!
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:09 PM
1

She was distressed, looking for sympathy and you didn't give it to her, which made her more distressed and emotional. Reflecting from hindsight, the best course of action would have been showing your sympathy while moving the subject of conversation to how she felt about it, and later, preferably following a subject where she was reasoning, bring it up again.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 03:22 PM
1

"Great, we found the last cop in the USA that isn't a corrupt sadist". /myonlyinformationontheusacomesfromreddit
/r/MensRights08/06/12 03:17 PM
0

Why is it that feminists can't seem to see things in any other way than black and white? Stop it people, my irony detector is heating up!
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:12 PM
1

Hi, Raystantz. Still on Reddit?
/r/seduction30/05/12 03:45 PM
3

and has his shit together. Does he? Or will he have to let his mortgage slide because he can't combine it with his alimony payments, within a few years?
/r/seduction30/05/12 03:44 PM
-2

If the price for that is that you have to wear my granny's necklace AND her spray-on tan... be my guest.
/r/seduction30/05/12 03:37 PM
1

No, mental.
/r/seduction29/05/12 08:23 PM
2

Most likely. It's called making love for a reason, though.
/r/seduction28/05/12 06:20 PM
2

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
/r/seduction28/05/12 10:43 AM
1

Sex comes first, love comes afterwards.
/r/seduction28/05/12 10:41 AM
1

I think you should ask once, before you penetrate them. And getting her naked with her legs open is something normal, that you can't derive implicit consent from? That seems more like a masochistic fetish to me, where the mistress denies consent to her servant at the last moment, just because she can. Unless you're into five-minute fucks, there's plenty of opportunity for both to see where you both are heading and time to back out. And if you are into five-minute fucks, it does require consent a…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 10:34 AM
2

I said "a significant step on the way". But given how many relationships start in various states of intoxication, the downstream effects might be larger.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 11:26 PM
1

The context isn't gender-free. It's like making abortion illegal for both genders - that will also only affect one of them.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 09:22 PM
5

Let's change the expectations first then before saddling one gender with a substantial risk to technically commit a felony while just doing what everyone expects from him. In addition, it won't work that way. People will risk a lot, before risking their success on the dating market.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 09:19 PM
3

What kind of proof is required? On who is the burden?
/r/MensRights27/05/12 09:16 PM
4

The current expectation is that the man makes the moves and crosses the tresholds (nature or nurture, that's not relevant). Therefore, requiring explicit consent will be a huge problem and risk for males, and not at all for females.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:59 PM
3

So any contracts that I sign while drunk are void as well?
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:56 PM
3

That would be a significant step on the way of outlawing all sex.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:55 PM
2

It's impossible to rape when the communication is ok - communication is a mutual responsibility. The way you present it, it will be the responsbility of the male in 99% of cases. Making only a single gender responsible for the failures of both people involved is sexist.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:52 PM
3

It's really fricking easy to do. You're hooking up, making out, touching boobs, whatever. She spread her legs At that point one can assume implicit consent for sex, and assume that she sufficiently at ease to protest when she doesn't want sex Women are capable independent adults, goddamnit. We don't need to ask their permission every two minutes.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:43 PM
2

When you've been flirting and making out all night with someone, she agreed to come to your room, and actively participated in undressing both of you, then you can reasonably assume she's consenting for sex. In that case, the "I didn't protest because I was afraid" line is just not applicable.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:39 PM
1

Attractive for girls means high status. Appearance is just one aspect of that, and not a very important one either. Tiger Woods can make a career out of cheating and then she'll still be pleading for marriage counseling. If he was a sometimes employed factory worker, he would be lucky not to have his much less attractive wife leave him.
/r/seduction23/05/12 05:45 PM
6

We want an attractive man that makes us feel special and cared for above all else. ftfy
/r/seduction23/05/12 06:37 AM
2

It's not discrimination, but it's laying the foundation for it. More to the point, a lawsuit won't change anything, but a canny follow-up might.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 02:57 PM
1

And Tibet.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 02:56 PM
1

people say nice things to each other and if you're using "people compliment me" as the reason why you think you're attractive No, I base myself on parts of brutally honest talks when we were actually trying to be objective, mostly with people who'd rather swallow a porcupine backwards than give a casual comment. you sound like an average looking dude (at best) with an inflated ego because fat cindy from geography class once blushed at your lame joke. It was more like the attractive half of the e…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 10:47 AM
1

I'm just using the terms of the post I replied to, direct your criticism there.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 10:22 AM
0

females get an "extra chance" due to biology - because they are the ones who will have to carry and grow a baby for 9 months before ejecting it out of their vaginas. I agree that they should get an extra chance due to the risks and effort associated with pregnancy. However, it's impossible to separate the carrying of the baby and her becoming a parent. Inevitably, she will have the opportunity to opt out of parenthood if she has the opportunity to opt out of pregnancy. To keep everything equal, …
/r/MensRights18/05/12 10:13 AM
1

Its not like you had sex then learned after the fact that one of the consequences is getting her pregnant. Same goes for her, but still she gets another emergency exit. You also should know said person enough to know that if she does get preggers that you are both on board with the course of action you will take. So far the easy cases. The problems arise when this isn't the case. Now this is all fine but what about the 1 night stands and shit. Well when playing russian roulette your gonna get st…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:29 PM
-1

entered into that situation willingly and aware of the potential dangers By that reasoning, abortion wouldn't be a matter of personal choice either if the pregnancy resulted from consensual sex.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:21 PM
1

The point is that a woman gets a second chance to opt out. Or do you really believe that they only consider the possible dangers of pregnancy when deciding about abortion? No, it's effectively a second chance to opt out of parenthood. Therefore, males should have the option to refuse all parenthood rights and duties, during a period of, let's say, a month from the time they are informed they will become/have become a parent.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:18 PM
-2

Bodily integrity is not an inherent right either. There are plenty of damaging work situations that are accepted as normal, for instance.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:12 PM
-1

then you are not as good looking as you think. fyi, most people (even average lookers and uglies) think they are above-average in the looks department ;) I've had plenty of people say it in person, from both genders, with and without interest. And a 9/10 on hot or not, which undoubtedly has an error margin, but not one of 5. also i would say not getting into car crashes is the most important thing Sure, but it's not quite the deal breaker that beer gut is for women.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:56 PM
0

first off i would say that being a "good driver" is extremely crucial for american women. you can die in a car crash, you know? Not getting in car crashes is more like the minimum requirement rather than being good IMO. even when i was a socially awkward fuck, women were drawn to me the way men are drawn to attractive women. Then you weren't quite as socially awkward as you thought. Women being drawn to you and the both of you actually ending up together are two different things. second, you mus…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:35 AM
0

IMO you just applied the stereotypes as I mentioned above.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:19 AM
1

Does Quasimodo suffice? Don't know about his dick, though.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:03 PM
1

Where is the same for men? Soaps and romantic literature.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 01:58 PM
-2

"Being good looking" is about as important for men as "being a good driver" is for women, with regards to attractiveness. It helps, but it's far from crucial.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 01:57 PM
0

At that point he'll likely change his mind, cause he's already gotten what he wanted. Paraphrased: women are honest people looking for sincere commitment, men are horndogs who are just going through the motions for getting laid. You sexist pig! (No offense, pigs.)
/r/MensRights16/05/12 01:54 PM
1

It's been a decade and it was an article in a paper newspaper, but I'll give it a shot. ed. No luck. It was a Dutch source too, so..
/r/MensRights15/05/12 05:05 PM
1

The squeaky wheel gets the most grease.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 04:50 PM
17

Ask people who worked with an all women-team... you'd rather have all men.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 03:47 PM
3

Because the identity of many women relies, among other things, on being the primary caretaker of the children, the center of the household. There has been a study what would happen when men started to spend more time with/on their children: the women on average did not use their extra time to advance their careers, expand their hobbies or enliven their social life: they started to spend even more time than they already did on their children, so they could remain the primary parent. As an aside, …
/r/MensRights15/05/12 03:39 PM
1

I see you have adapted your text. Good.
/r/seduction14/05/12 06:43 PM
1

we go out just because she wants to. That contradicts about everything you say about lead, decide, etc. I'd say: pay in proportion to both of your paychecks, overall.
/r/seduction14/05/12 06:09 PM
-2

*Pay for her. She is your girlfriend. You take her out, not the other way around. If you have to pay for her, she 's a hooker.
/r/seduction14/05/12 06:07 PM
1

Go where you are most comfortable, most confident, most natural. Pick up women there as you'll be at your best. For many people here, that's when they're occupied with their solo hobby.
/r/seduction13/05/12 08:28 AM
1

Well, that's fun for half an hour. Then what?
/r/seduction13/05/12 08:24 AM
1

Assumptions and biases on part of the sender as well as the receiver of the message are essential to correctly interprete the message. You personally may very well interprete the message that way, but that says nothing about how other people do it.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 05:29 PM
1

Do you also have arguments?
/r/MensRights09/05/12 04:22 PM
9

Cut us a bit of slack. Have you any idea how hard it is to browse internet and rape people at the same time?
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:47 AM
3

It implies that all men are suspected rapists, and that it's such an integral and reflexive part of their being that it requires conscious effort not to do it. In other words, men are implied to be wild beasts that have to be kept under control. This is very similar to the sexist 19th century where women were routinously called "hysterical".
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:38 AM
-1

With a 5-to-1 rate in my favour? Yes.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:33 AM
1

Well, we're now considered rapists anyway, there's no reason to behave otherwise now. If only raping was fun, then I could have a good time.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:30 AM
8

Hey, why don't they start a campaign against murder, traffic casualties and jaywalking then?
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:29 AM
1

That's one reason. Another is that I do have qualities, but am not really eager to let them go unappreciated and unused just because of my lousy PR.
/r/seduction07/05/12 08:30 AM
1

You get an impression of people, whatever you do. I'm merely making it more balanced.
/r/seduction07/05/12 08:29 AM
1

It's the idea that you can let everything hinge on the decisions of one person, or a few lines of the law, that's so strange. If a large part of the population thinks that they need uniformed and armed crusaders to enact judgment without trial on the evildoers that run rampant, then they will get it sooner or later. The president is no superhero, and the constitution is not the one ring. The only real check is political engagement of the population.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 09:22 PM
2

I get slightly pissed and start to hypothesize how they hide their weaknesses.
/r/seduction06/05/12 09:11 PM
1

It's very easy to shock their stereotypes a bit then, though.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 12:42 PM
12

He holds the office of president, not every seat of congress. It's strange that in the USA people boast about checks and balances, but expect their president to have dictatorial powers, and, ironically, to use them to preserve freedoms. Placing all the right people in political institutions is good for nothing as long as a large segment of the population remains convinced that authoritarianism means safety. Democracy is hard work.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 12:40 PM
3

If all pedophiles satisfied their urges with viewing beach pictures of toddlers, that would be a better than it is now.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 12:29 PM
3

I take you also stand guard at the women's toilets?
/r/MensRights06/05/12 12:25 PM
7

While in general this is true, many people here need a bit more specific pointers so they can develop their intuition. Your self-confidence isn't going to be all that slick when you've timed your move wrong a few times.
/r/seduction03/05/12 04:07 PM
9

Grab her arms to restrain her, pull her in close, BAM! You really do need a fun, relaxed atmosphere before doing this particular move though. :p
/r/seduction03/05/12 04:04 PM
2

Because in a bipartisan system everyone tries to convince the center by adding a light version of the other party's talking points to their program. That alone makes the democrats center-left at most. In addition they tend to be willing to compromise, true to their POV, which dilutes their points even more, if the position they have (presidency) doesn't require that on its own already. And as far as the center in the USA goes, after the emancipation of the sixties the center has been absorbing r…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 02:43 PM
1

The rest of the western world and affiliates. I presume they think differently in, say, Afghanistan.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 02:33 PM
4

Just mentioning that it is possible to push too far in one go.
/r/seduction24/04/12 03:24 PM
4

If you push yourself too far, you're going to break down though and miss out on much more because you're just too tired to react how you want to react. Keep some reserve.
/r/seduction24/04/12 12:52 PM
1

I'm getting doubts about keeping my pocket knife in my pocket now..
/r/MensRights23/04/12 03:10 PM
15

With a life expectancy of 80 years, 40 is indeed middle-aged. And how did the "tall blonde with a terribly mis-shaped body and the face of a particularly unfortunate meth junkie" all of a sudden turn into a "pretty average girl"? It's his usual tactic to gather courage vs women probably.
/r/seduction22/04/12 02:34 PM
4

Yes, focus on the failure!
/r/seduction13/04/12 10:31 AM
4

A poster alone isn't going to do it, but it's about educating the public and making sure they know exactly what is rape. At the same time, we also have to make sure victims aren't scared of admitting they've been raped, and this will partly be achieved by ending victim blaming. The problem is that the message given is: if you have any doubt at all you have been raped, you probably have been raped (and maybe even if you think you haven't). This causes paranoia and suspicion. It's too one-sided. T…
/r/MensRights11/04/12 02:15 PM
3

Often the victims aren't even sure if they've been raped. And a poster is going to clarify that? Or who guilt-tripped their partner into sex ("Oh, come on, I took you to see that movie last week, we never do things that I like") So if a woman guilt-trips someone into buying her dinner, it's theft?
/r/MensRights11/04/12 01:57 PM
1

You need to lose the "always" part of your question. It's innate. What can you do then?
/r/seduction11/04/12 10:44 AM
1

Good. Any tips for people who will, because of natural characteristics, always be at unease when meeting new people?
/r/seduction10/04/12 10:11 AM
1

How do you isolate without a ridiculously contrived or transparent excuse? If the girl is the latter How do you determine that?
/r/seduction09/04/12 05:25 PM
1

Yeah, as soon as you're out to win, you've lost already.
/r/seduction07/04/12 11:27 PM
9

If I'm not mistaken, it was something along the lines of: Winning a discussion on the internet is like winning at the special olympics: even though you won, you're still a retard for participating.
/r/seduction07/04/12 11:03 PM
6

Well, he's trying to reform himself ;)
/r/seduction05/04/12 09:10 PM
1

It still sets standards, by lack of other widespread material on the subject.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 07:45 PM
1

They give the same advice over there, though. Cosmo is written by women, for women; it's not unlikely they're doing a lot of projection there, i.e. writing what would work to seduce themselves..
/r/MensRights28/03/12 07:22 PM
10

They were probably just tired of recommending ice cubes.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 07:18 PM
1

Don't you and your same-sex friends make jokes that imply something bad about each other, for fun?
/r/seduction10/03/12 03:21 PM
1

Go to some place you'd like to be.
/r/seduction04/03/12 12:19 AM
1

I would argue the that having an open community where they not only talk to each other, but actually can talk to people who disagree with them, keeps them from becoming delusional and thus actually protects children. I agree in theory, but how many people that are not sympathetic to pedophilia are going to hang around in these places? Do you have any evidence that an open community of pedophiles increases the risk of a child being molested? That's impossible to prove either way. eg. Prisons have…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:31 PM
4

Hey, it's not like we're intelligently designed.. Natural selection has proven otherwise - in the very long run.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 01:14 AM
1

I think that having a community where pedophilia is contributing more to the risk of actually committing pedophilia crimes than having pictures of nude children.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 02:14 PM
1

I said pedophiles discussing etc. Anyway, I'm sure that there precedence for convicting people for "inciting others to commit a crime" or similar cases. That's the reason I'm wary of it, as finding a receptive community is a much bigger support for pedophiles to cross the line than a collection of pictures ever will be. But indeed it must be judged on case by case.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 02:10 PM
1

There were pictures on there that were already judged as CP by courts in other countries... And with the short look I got between becoming aware of its existence and the ban, they weren't even trying to hide the fact that it was just a picture collection of children starting from partial nudity (with even a "not over 13" clause as guideline in the sidebar...). On the other hand, subs like r/jailbait are in itself harmless and a result of a shifting age of secual maturity, but there too were peop…
/r/MensRights18/02/12 02:05 PM
1

So they could have removed the offending material and leave the rest alone. The reason reddit cracked down was to send a message that they won't hesitate to cut away legit parts of the site if that's necessary, with as recipients both the ones that were trying to see how far they could stretch the freedom of speech idea and the outside world, looking for crusade targets and damaging competitors. The alternative was continuous heavy moderating and judgment calls - "is this CP or not"? I don't kno…
/r/MensRights18/02/12 01:07 PM
-4

By that reasoning, there was no reason at all the ban the recently banned subreddits, because they were just discussion material. Technically there was nothing wrong with most of the stuff on there, but they crossed a line in spirit. So along came the rough broom. There is plenty of occasion to discuss relevant policy changes or societal phenomena without having a subreddit dedicated to pedophilia.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 04:56 PM
-1

One can safely assume that pedophiles discussing pedophilia are contributing to the sexualization of children.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 04:27 PM
4

because ofter all, its all a social construct, why would they be any different or complimentary? Feminism certainly succeeded in pushing the opinion that gender is only completely social construct - which simply isn't true. Humans are average in sexual dimorphism, compared with other primates (more than bonobos, less than gorillas). Feminism was inspired on the notion of equality, equity, equal chances, but has since been misused to cherrypick gender privileges. You never hear feminists arguing …
/r/MensRights07/02/12 02:08 PM
6

That text isn't really helpful, it just stokes up antagonism and spiteful vindicativeness in response to the same from the other side. You have to rise above that or it will keep dragging you down.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 09:13 AM
6

The term alpha is starting to mean whatever the writer wants it to mean.
/r/seduction29/01/12 12:26 AM
1

In an emergency situation, it's pretty easy to see who are the children. It's pretty hard to see who's on the verge of a breakthrough. And fame is a pretty lousy indication of value.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 09:34 PM
1

They have more hours of life left. It's more efficient.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 09:30 PM
2

No, when creatures are larger their surface-to-volume ratio decreases. I agree that the body fat - nicely spread around the body - has a bigger impact, though. In addition, women are more compact with relatively smaller limbs.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 09:28 PM
4

Skeletons of hunter-gatherers have been found with severe skull fractures - that had healed significantly. This indicates that they received care and food, even though their chance of healing was not encouraging.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 09:23 PM
1

Like he just demonstrated, dangle something in front of your target, and don't really follow up.
/r/seduction03/01/12 02:40 PM
3

It's just as difficult, and just as necessary, as bringing up the issue of anticonception etc. before diving under the sheets.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 09:41 PM
1

As such, none. There is however a social convention that it is superficial to be interested in looks alone. You have to have a cover story, no matter how quaint/flimsy/ridiculous so the people involved have plausible deniability/a reason to allow themselves to go ahead anyway.
/r/seduction18/12/11 04:24 PM
1

If you came on to her practically begging for her attention because she's cute, that's not likely to happen.
/r/seduction18/12/11 04:23 PM
1

I misremembered, it was the male testosteron - and therefore agression and sexual appetite - that was reduced by the tears.
/r/seduction20/11/11 12:10 PM
2

So if you jump out from behind her trash can and grab her, ten seconds of hugging will calm her? Miniature Stockholm syndrome. :p
/r/seduction18/11/11 04:03 PM
1

Chemicals found in tears actually decrease sexual appetite. But when she feels relieved afterwards, then, yes, possibly BAM!
/r/seduction18/11/11 04:01 PM
3

Rollercoaster rides.
/r/seduction18/11/11 04:00 PM
3

If there were less than 1% black people in NY and Illinois...
/r/MensRights08/11/11 05:54 PM
1

Communicating that abortions are gross and objectionable may communicate to some people the gravity of their decision. It's doubtful, but not outside the realm of possibility. But we have the data, you can compare before and after, with and without, in the same country as well as other countries.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 09:44 AM
4

Abortion interest groups have been waving pictures and intimidating people at abortion clinics for decades. How has that affected abortion numbers?
/r/MensRights30/09/11 01:25 PM
9

Because we should empathize with others if they look like us, and otherwise not?
/r/MensRights30/09/11 01:05 PM
1

I suggested a girl to use a cast iron pedestal once, while washing cars and she was looking for something to stand on; I got a wet sponge coming my way, but she was smiling.
/r/seduction27/08/11 02:01 PM
2

Because of the notion that the gender of the persons involved determines the type of policy.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 11:15 PM
6

The notion of patriarchy is sexist itself...
/r/MensRights17/08/11 10:48 PM
1

I'm not anti-porn. I'm not anti-sports either, but I still think naming your child after your favourite sports team is inappropriate.
/r/seduction02/08/11 08:21 PM
1

Given the frequency and circumstances most blowjobs are given with and in, I sorely doubt the average one rises above the level of sexual fast food. Furthermore, it's well-known that sexual habits that feature prominently on porn are copied and finding their way into popular culture, even though they mostly used there because of their visual spectacularity, rather than the good feeling they give. If blowjobs are the best you got, it likely means you never had good sex (or any at all). See? I can…
/r/seduction02/08/11 02:14 PM
-2

Not everyone is obsessed with blowjobs and/or anal sex, no matter what porn shows.
/r/seduction01/08/11 11:40 PM
7

Sorry if this is a terrible FR This is a great FR. People bragging that they got 150 phone numbers, 7 kiss closes and a couple of threesomes on a Tuesday night when they were a bit feverish are not helpful - because they tend to skip stuff like choice of talking subjects, how to get comfortable, choice of people to approach etc.
/r/seduction02/07/11 05:12 PM
-1

What are you thinking of? <raised eyebrow>
/r/seduction01/07/11 03:52 PM
1

But it's all about calibration and context. In other words, it's really not black and white, it depends on the situation and many other factors of personality... QED. Alphaness is often just used as a seal of approval for a whole casuistry of stuff that works.
/r/seduction01/05/11 10:11 AM
1

A lot of people are convinced that being alpha makes them want one night stands. If it doesn't work, it's justified by thinking that they weren't alpha enough.
/r/seduction30/04/11 03:23 PM
2

It just exposes the limits of the 'dominant=alpha=good' and 'anything else=beta=bad' simplisms one often hears.
/r/seduction30/04/11 03:21 PM
1

But there are no stars in New York sky, they're all on the ground
/r/seduction11/04/11 08:10 PM
1

As an objective limit, I'd say the moment when they are able to live as a separate physical entity. It is partly a matter of choice where you draw the line. There are examples of cultures where children don't get a real name before their third birthday. Why? Rampant child mortality, i.e. purely because of pragmatism. I think it's worse to force someone to live as and with an unwanted creature rather than allowing their life to be prevented.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 07:34 PM
1

If it depends on the definition, you can't use regardless. Reducing the issue to a matter of taste is not productive though. Why should or shouldn't it have the rights of a human being?
/r/MensRights01/04/11 08:13 PM
1

Why?
/r/MensRights29/03/11 07:10 AM
1

The best thing to do is to discuss it between the two parties to decide on the best solution for both people but this can be difficult sometimes. Given that they're two equal parties, deadlocks where both want something different are inevitable. We need fallback rules for such cases. BIts cruel to force someone to go through pregnancy who does not wish to. Its cruel to force someone to have an abortion who does not wish to. Half a life of paying child support isn't? We'll be forcing people to do…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 07:10 AM
1

In that case, why shouldn't she pay child support? If a man didn't want to take care of her child, she would be able to demand c s. Why shouldn't he?
/r/MensRights29/03/11 06:56 AM
1

Well, so are her mitochondria and her intestinal flora.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 11:39 PM
1

It's often confirmed that stepchildren are treated somewhat worse than genetic children... And that's with people choosing to be in that situation. Forcible child transfer would create more problems than it solves (if any). Not to mention that it would be far, far simpler to give the money to the child rather than giving the child to the money.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 11:21 PM
7

Then as a consequence the man should be able to obligate the woman to carry the child to term, and demand child support from her afterwards?
/r/MensRights28/03/11 11:16 PM
3

Agents provocateurs is more like it.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 11:52 PM
2

Only for someone who actually knows the job. For someone else you're doing arcane wizardry. Anyone who uses your network depends on you.
/r/seduction12/03/11 02:05 PM
5

The child is still a son of a bitch though.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:49 PM
2

Putting someone in front of you on hold for a phone call is horrible. He's returning the favour.
/r/seduction14/01/11 08:26 PM
1

It's simple, you just have to show interest without showing that you're interested. ;)
/r/seduction01/01/11 09:35 PM
2

You're the exception rather than the rule, in my experience, that's all.
/r/seduction26/12/10 12:09 AM
1

If you had been from the start, she wouldn't be your girlfriend now.
/r/seduction25/12/10 08:15 PM
1

Just do what they do: never tell anything straight about your feelings, but give hints instead.
/r/seduction25/12/10 04:37 PM
1

The only reason to marry is getting tax breaks anyway. Treat it as such a chore.
/r/seduction19/12/10 07:48 PM
2

His answers are indeed those of a dick, though I suspect the problem is more that everyone recommends "be social and enjoy yourself!", and they might as well have said: "be vegetarian and eat meat!" because that would make as much sense to him. So the question that he needs an answer to is "How to enjoy being social." (And how not be dickish to people who give him advice, relevant or not.)
/r/seduction20/11/10 02:21 PM
1

Tell us how many tries (to make contact on OKC) it took, and how far they advanced before floundering.
/r/seduction02/11/10 10:05 PM
6

Latin is relaxed as far as word order goes.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 02:57 PM
2

The big gaping hole in all this "act like you aren't interested" is the following: if you do, they'll get the message and lose interest themselves. What they get right is that you can't shove the carrot in their mouth; but neither will hiding it do you any good. So the OP needs this question answered: How do I dangle the carrot?
/r/seduction18/10/10 05:47 PM
1

Strange, I always get the urge to punch him, just to take the smug bastard down a notch.
/r/seduction18/10/10 05:38 PM
1

Tell them you have a rare syndrome makes you unable to work more than one hour straight without resting as much directly afterwards. That should help.
/r/MensRights03/10/10 09:37 AM
8

Discriminate against the slightly above average applicants, actually.
/r/MensRights02/10/10 11:01 PM
0

It's the land of the free, and everyone does as they please until someone forces them not to. The American way of life is non-negotiable. Only the use of force is acceptable.
/r/MensRights28/08/10 03:56 PM
1

People will cooperate if you smile nicely, while the same can't be said for steel girders.
/r/MensRights28/08/10 03:53 PM
1

Just go for equality: if you buy drinks for guys you just met, you also buy drinks for girls you just met. Otherwise not.
/r/seduction22/08/10 02:10 PM
10

Talk hard enough, they might have hearing problems.
/r/seduction19/08/10 09:38 PM
2

If you don't give a fuck you don't do it.
/r/seduction31/07/10 11:00 AM
1

They do require you to say how many children you have (you can refuse to answer, but that's obvious). However, if they so aggressively screen you out you can't be blamed for not telling it: nothing to lose!
/r/seduction28/07/10 07:47 PM
0

Pardon, but I don't see how asking a woman to end a potential life and put herself physically at risk is the same as asking a man to help pay for the child once it's there Jobs are dangerous, even more so for men. So the physical risk is present. The woman isn't asked to end a potential life; she merely has to make the choice without being able to shift some of the consequences to others. Besides, with everyone giving up responsibility for these unwanted children, what happens to THEM? Who picks…
/r/MensRights25/07/10 09:07 PM
1

I said potential. Not if you know what you're doing of course.
/r/seduction11/07/10 04:04 PM
7

One potential danger is that they can see you as a free drinks dispenser. Being busy with something is more an advantage than a disadvantage. They'll have to come to you, after all.
/r/seduction11/07/10 11:53 AM
4

He can, but it's a valid ground for divorce. It even was a valid ground for women to ask divorce in the Middle Ages. Also, she has no arguments when he looks for it elsewhere.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 11:10 AM
-1

You could also just wash yourself regularly. If your hygiene is good, and you don't combine a sweaty climate with excessive clothing, and you still are bothered, then the problem is in your head.
/r/seduction04/07/10 12:00 PM
1

individuals shouldn't need to just to avoid being called child molesters because of their faith. They shouldn't be called child molesters, but they should be able to justify why they support a movement that directly or indirectly stimulates it. So it's really a matter of what they do, not what they are.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 10:50 AM
1

We shouldn't tarnish other individuals as individuals, but if there's a link between the ideology and practices of their movement and bad thing like child molestation, we can and should ask them to justify their membership.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 10:16 AM
1

It can be argued that the Catholic ideology of despising bodily desires and the policy of suppressing them has been the most important contribution to that phenomenon.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 09:51 AM
7

They're using commercial game: set prices high so people assume they're selling something valuable.
/r/seduction23/05/10 08:31 PM
3

I didn't let them take either of my sons out of my sight at the hospital for this reason. Good work.
/r/MensRights19/05/10 07:44 AM
6

And it fades so fast.
/r/seduction18/05/10 03:32 PM
2

And men die much more often on the job. Does that mean that alimony is unacceptable?
/r/MensRights25/04/10 09:45 PM
2

If there's a parent that's willing to raise the kid, he or she ought to get the opportunity to do so. Abortion in that case would still be possible in the case of higher than average medical risk.
/r/MensRights25/04/10 09:37 PM
7

That must be why they live half a decade longer.
/r/MensRights25/04/10 11:26 AM
10

Or Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir.
/r/MensRights25/04/10 11:25 AM
1

I'm wary of the categorization "completed or attempted rape". Your creditor isn't satisfied either with an 'attempt' of yours to pay your mortgage this month.
/r/MensRights14/04/10 07:03 PM
2

That's about as relevant as the distinction between Trotskyist and Leninist communists: most people outside the movement have no clue about the difference.
/r/MensRights12/03/10 10:57 PM
5

what should essentially be a label for anyone (male/female) that believes women and men should have equal rights (over simplification?). Egalitarianism is striving for equal rights. Feminism is the movement that strives for more rights for women. Very useful in the 19th century, almost obsolete today. That's a good thing, but there are always generals and soldiers who'd rather look for new enemies rather than to disband the army. We'd be better off with a movement that actually strives for equal…
/r/MensRights12/03/10 05:42 PM
0

Girls aren't porcelain dolls, although at times they like to look like them. In general, they prefer frank and rough above meek and polite.
/r/MensRights21/02/10 08:20 AM
2

he stopped her He didn't. He meekly went along and left it to her to notice his discomfort. Which is not a good plan with horny, drunk people in the middle of a night in a semi-dark environment.
/r/MensRights20/02/10 01:24 PM
3

I don't know how the whole dating thing works. No one does.
/r/seduction28/01/10 11:22 PM
1

The alternative to monogamy (serial or otherwise) is an excess of partners of one sex. That is guaranteed to make those unhappy; in addition, all the other members of their sex will be more stressed because of the risk of losing their partner.
/r/seduction13/12/09 11:59 PM
1

Keep a barbecue on the spot.
/r/MensRights02/12/09 06:54 PM
7

The problem is not the methods, but the casting of woman & man as master & subordinate.
/r/MensRights02/12/09 12:00 AM
2

The fat ones, on the other hand, don't get away that easily.
/r/MensRights01/12/09 11:58 PM
6

what makes these women think they aren't up for open discourse? Maybe that wasn't their aim from the start?
/r/MensRights01/12/09 11:56 PM
3

Effective coaches tailor their approaches to their pupils. That being said, one needs to decide for himself which exact part of Roissy's rants are merely an example of irrational self-confidence.
/r/seduction25/11/09 10:48 PM
1

Do you think that blacks shouldn't be working in whites-only stores too (at least, if the store doesn't want blacks)?
/r/MensRights22/11/09 12:14 AM
3

One should of course leave the option open for compromise and splitting the difference, but indeed never based on attrition tactics.
/r/MensRights20/11/09 03:24 PM
4

Know what you want, be frank about it, stick to the subject when talking, don't let it be dragged into a matter of assigning guilt, continue until you both have reached a conclusion that you both explicitly agree on. And then choose to dismiss all tension that might have been generated en cours de route.
/r/MensRights19/11/09 02:14 PM
3

They've all been infected by a virus that causes people to stiffen in unnatural poses.
/r/seduction18/11/09 11:51 PM
1

To start with, never use "please" when seducing.
/r/seduction10/11/09 04:09 PM
2

Some say it was agriculture. How to change it to a better world is the big question. And then we're not even talking about which world would be better.
/r/MensRights16/10/09 09:53 PM
3

If it can be utilized in pieces as needed while the child is growing up, it would be reasonable.
/r/MensRights16/10/09 07:00 PM
5

Welcome to the summit of civilization.
/r/MensRights16/10/09 06:58 PM
8

People should have the option to balance their professional and private lives more freely, so exceptions and unequal measures like maternity leave aren't necessary. In other words, people should have enough free time options at their disposal, otherwise one unequally distributed measure (eg. maternity leave) will always have consequences (employers hesitating to employ women who might become pregnant).
/r/MensRights16/10/09 06:04 PM
3

Maybe for you, and not for many others... I wasn't speaking from my own experience, anyway.
/r/seduction15/10/09 11:21 AM
7

One wonders how she got that boyfriend. The ways of courting that are socially completely acceptable rarely work.
/r/seduction14/10/09 09:29 PM
1

Because the people with the lowest wages and the worst education need it most and would use it the least if it wasn't paid.
/r/MensRights15/09/09 11:03 PM
2

If you want to pick up a hooker.
/r/seduction25/08/09 09:42 AM
5

Shopping!
/r/MensRights17/08/09 03:11 PM
1

f your son and his male friends can't find anything better to do than playfully hit each other Boys play rough on occasion, and some girls too. It's normal.
/r/MensRights09/08/09 02:02 PM
1

What ever happened to doing nice things for each other? after 1950: One paid job per adult, instead of one paid job per two adults. Time is money!
/r/MensRights09/08/09 01:49 PM
0

Given that there is birth control with 99%+ certainty, assuming they had consensual sex, given that mothers dying while giving birth is a rarity, I think it's unacceptable to abort a child that still has a willing and able parent ready for it.
/r/MensRights28/01/09 10:19 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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