TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

tectonic9 Archive

View 1 posts and 277 comments by tectonic9 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

You're mixing up lifetime incidence vs. annual incidence, so even if you take the inital survey results at face value, your math is off.
/r/MensRights10/10/18 12:09 AM
14

Yes, men are more visual. No disagreement on that, but you're backpedaling. You were suggesting that male sexuality is dangerous and that women are therefore unsafe (feel unsafe? that's a different thing) on an island resort. I certainly agree that rational people will generally try to avoid unsafe situations, but what rational person sees a man enjoying a resort beach and thinks "rape threat?" A person conditioned to be a hateful bigot, that's who.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 07:11 PM
23

male sexuality is visual and dangerous ... I hope this doesn’t seem antagonistic. Well what do you think? Yes, that sort of casual demonization of normal, natural, healthy male behavior is misandry. When you express a worldview that casually vilifies entire demographics of people, people learn a lot about you.
/r/MensRights25/04/18 06:50 PM
1

Yeah, that's the score. No sense being annoyed by it, just accept that it's on you to do more of the work and make the moves. Say hi, throw out a couple of conversational hooks, see if they bite. Talking about some relevant external thing is often safe (a teacher, food, non-political current events, a funny thing happening across the street, etc.). People like talking about themselves, so that's a good place to steer it. Try making leading statements about her rather than questions, so it doesn'…
/r/seduction05/09/15 07:37 PM
4

Peacocking, conversation pieces. Carry around a book, wear a band t-shirt if you can find one that looks good. Got any accessories that suggest something about your background or beliefs? It's easy to take this too far and be some kind of cheesy douchebag. But consider the basic idea: if someone sees you and wants to strike up a conversation, what can they pick out to comment on? If there's nothing noteworthy and specific about the way you present yourself and the way you act, it's harder for ot…
/r/seduction05/09/15 05:46 PM
4

You keep an eye on her body language and level of reciprocation. Sure, you might initiate the physical contact, you might do some of the escalation, but it's a dance. She likes the way you touch her, so she leans in, or touches you back, or changes her expression and demeanor in a way that indicates she's getting into it. If she's leaning away or using closed, defensive body language, or conspicuously avoiding reciprocation, then you're probably pushing too hard and she's not ready for it, at le…
/r/seduction02/09/15 02:39 AM
2

I've pared my posessions to two travel bags and a few boxes in storage. It was immensely freeing, and made me want to pare down even further. I highly recommend it for many people, for reasons of improved living environment, more flexible lifestyle, and insight about your relationship to your possessions. But I side with those who emphasize that many people just aren't in a position to improve their lives with your degree of asceticism. If you enjoy hobbies that require gear, keep enjoying them.…
/r/TheRedPill26/08/15 01:39 AM
1

Could be. Is that evidence of illegal discrimination? Doubt it. Imagine a few ways that a printing business might respond to customers: "We print shirts for female clients but not male clients." - Discriminatory, grounds for lawsuit. "We print pro-woman slogans for female clients but not male clients" - Discriminatory, grounds for lawsuit. "We print pro-woman slogans for any client, but never pro-man slogans or pro-equality slogans." - Does not suggest illegal discrimination. Political views are…
/r/MensRights13/08/15 05:31 AM
4

Remember, Mac chilling in the living room is all part of the D.E.N.N.I.S. system. Since you've been having an intimate convo, roommates in the living room are just reasons to move straight into the bedroom for continued, quiet privacy.
/r/seduction13/08/15 12:40 AM
1

I think you'd see outrage, even if the guy came out and said, "Hey, I sell to women all the time." But is there a case there? Sure, social media would turn it into a shit show. Not a lawyer, but I don't think there would be any standing for a lawsuit though. I believe any business should have the right to refuse doing business with anyone for any reason I'm on board with a business' right to refuse service for a broad variety of reasons; but anti-discrimination laws are important, and if you're …
/r/MensRights12/08/15 08:29 PM
7

I get the instinct, but the cake issue isn't about content so much as about customer demographic. E.g. if a customer asks for a cake with a couple of dicks on it, the bakery may certainly dismiss them saying "we won't make dick cakes" so long as that's a fairly consistent policy. On the other hand, if they make dick cakes for every bachelorette party that walks through the door, it looks more like "we won't make dick cakes for you," which is discriminatory. While I find these shirts awfully tame…
/r/MensRights12/08/15 07:51 PM
2

Mostly don't disagree with what's presented there, other than suggesting that it's not my job to back up anyone who can't see past their own feelings. Sometimes "stop selfishly whining about minor BS" strengthens a person's sense of reality and personal agency more than "oh, if you had a bad feeling than that means other people are bad." But more importantly, the omissions follow a really fucked up pattern. Protect (only) boys who are soft, weak, effeminate eunuchs? NO. They may need some protec…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 01:18 AM
1

Yo man, don't stress. Focussing on one girl that you're not with is bad for you. Better to see every opportunity around you than to focus like a sniper. And forget that girl's BF - he's just some guy, not a benchmark for your own growth. Always look for ways to improve yourself. That stuff can be cumulative. Recognize that a lot of limitations are in your head ("getting the balls," etc.). Understand what you want and don't want, and how that differs from "need." Stop giving a fuck, then go out a…
/r/seduction29/07/15 08:04 PM
1

Well ok, I can flesh it out a bit more. Guy A can't have been more than like 5'3", with the caveat that I'm terrible at estimating such things. Decent job, dressed business casual, college educated, mid 20s, ginger I think. Fun conversationalist, high energy. He appeared to be a fearless approacher, and ate the 3-second rule for breakfast. I saw him get shot down so many times, but he knew that was just a part of the game, and did not let it get to him. He'd just move on and chat up someone else…
/r/seduction29/07/15 06:55 PM
2

Great content! Guys like Brandon who are tall and handsome are not likely to be the most fruitful role models for this because their physical attractiveness means that they need to meet a lower threshold for charisma game, strategy, etc. But when you meet a short, ugly, or fat guy who does well, you pay attention and you learn. I've known a couple of short dudes who were educational for me: the first was absolutely relentless, and made a volume of fearless approaches that guaranteed success. Lik…
/r/seduction29/07/15 03:34 AM
3

Ok, so Rogers was active in an anti-PUA forum. Using that to paint him as an MRA implies either journalistic incompetence on the part of the author and her fact checkers, or dishonesty and violation of journalist ethics on the part of the author and her editors. That's bad. The article's man point, that it's hypocritical to blame one group for the actions of outlier members of that group while not blaming another group for the members of its outliers, is reasonable. The rational counter would be…
/r/MensRights29/07/15 02:05 AM
1

What you really object to Well, if you're unable to rebut my points and instead resort to assumptions about my motivations, then we're clearly not engaging in a good-faith debate, and that's my cue to move on.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 06:28 AM
1

Nah, you seem to have missed the entire point about context and about not negatively defining common categories as not-outlier. If you think you've got some valid point, you can start by rebutting that. Even the way you write emphasizes my point: you mention "trans people," but you didn't even mention whether they are non-astronauts, non-zoroastrians, or non-philatelists. Clearly, as I've pointed out repeatedly, you do this because those distinctions are not relevant to the conversation, and bec…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 02:19 AM
1

Did you read? If we used those terms in situations where "man" would suffice, it would look odd and deliberate. If we're specifically talking about handedness, or about age demographics, or about sleeping vs. awake physiology than these may be useful distinctions. Same with "cis," fine when germane, odd and deliberate when irrelevant. This was all in my previous comment.
/r/MensRights20/07/15 09:30 PM
8

If women did not make false allegations men would not need to secretly film. Rather, if the legal system did not allow unfounded accusations to ruin lives, citizens would not need to retain evidence of innocence.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 08:31 PM
2

True, but keep some perspective. You've chosen your hobbies for a reason. If they are genuinely rewarding to you in some way, keep them. You should absolutely not be trying to justify most things in your life based on whether they help you meet women. So keep attending your bow hunting meetup, but maybe throw a couple of other things in the mix too if you're looking to meet more women.
/r/seduction14/07/15 09:42 PM
11

It's a reasonable term when used in a discussion of trans people or issues related to them. It's intended as a marginalizing insult otherwise; as a linguistic rule we don't refer to things as not-things-that-they-probably-aren't. When a small portion of something deviates from the norm, we colloquially use special terminology for the outliers, rather than continually specifying that the normal things are non-outliers. Cats and dogs are called pets, not non-iguana pets. That cis-male is also non-…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 10:03 PM
2

IANAL, but given the parts about rescinding consent at any time (does this include after the act?) and silence not implying consent, this adds up to constant expiration of consent. In other words, the person who strips down, begs you for sex, and physically guides you into her body cannot be demonstrated to be consenting ten seconds later when she is not actively encouraging you. Since she now has no legal expectation to say "no" or "stop," you're legally required to ensure that she is constantl…
/r/MensRights09/07/15 01:03 AM
3

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S05965&term=2015&Summary=Y&Votes=Y&Text=Y Relevant section: AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY. 1. EVERY INSTITUTION SHALL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION OF AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT AS PART OF ITS CODE OF CONDUCT: "AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT IS A KNOWING, VOLUNTARY, AND MUTUAL DECISION AMONG ALL PARTICIPANTS TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY. CONSENT CAN BE GIVEN BY WORDS OR ACTIONS, AS LONG AS THOSE WORDS OR ACTIONS CREATE CLEAR PERMISSION REGARDING WILLINGNE…
/r/MensRights08/07/15 07:39 PM
1

The next step is to become outcome dependent you mean "outcome independent" Also, not all requests are shit tests/compliance tests, and you're gonna seem like an ass if you treat every sincere request like a test. One needs to learn to recognize subtext to draw the distinction sometimes. "Please change the channel" could go either way depending on tone and context, but if that one's a shit test then asking me to miss a show I enjoy requires a much bigger hoop than "pass the remote." Maybe someth…
/r/seduction03/07/15 12:00 AM
2

As with so much, this is about subtext. Are you using self-deprecation because you feel you are inadequate, and seek to identify with others through disparaging yourself, or preempt others' imagined criticisms by saying them first? That's obvious, toxic, and unattractive. Do you occasionally self-deprecate because you have overcome the defensiveness of your ego such that it is not a threat to acknowledge personal faults (like everyone else, you're human and will have weaknesses and mistakes and …
/r/seduction26/06/15 09:16 PM
1

Well, the "victim blaming" boilerplate falls flat: in contrast to Oliver's claim, when discussing other crimes, we do in fact routinely offer people advice to protect themselves from victimization. The idea that law enforcement is generally ill-equipped to deal with online crimes is an entirely reasonable point. The implicit idea that online threats are more credible or more offensive when directed at women is nonsense, derived from a paternalistic, sexist perception of women as fragile flowers.…
/r/MensRights22/06/15 08:53 PM
1

Tick tock
/r/MensRights12/06/15 01:31 AM
2

Here and in other areas, it's misguided to confuse rights with equal outcomes. You have the right to free assembly, for example, but you do not have some kind of right that ensures those of your sex will not commit suicide more often than the other sex. Likewise, if those of your sex select lower-paying career fields and specialties, shorter careers and work fewer hours, it's not a rights issue. If these outcomes could be shown to derive not from personal choices but from discrimination, especia…
/r/MensRights11/06/15 10:06 PM
6

Seconded. I don't even spend much time in this section; but if censorship destroys this forum, then Reddit in general is not a place of free and open discussion and I'll certainly take that as my cue to delete my account. If Reddit becomes a ghetto for schoolmarms and SJWs, there are other places to go, and it'll only serve as one more call to action for perspectives that are marginalized online.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 04:35 AM
5

Let's not attack a special interest group for doing what special interest groups do Let's be clear that a group that claims egalitarian motives is actually about grasping for gender-biased powers, privileges, and entitlements. But more importantly, "I will be calling and emailing my representative to make my voice heard in support of this bill." YES EVERYONE DO THIS, don't just have an internet conversation about this!
/r/MensRights15/04/15 07:11 AM
3

ice cream plus innuendo sounds good, but the name makes me worried that they may be pushing this "affirmative enthusiastic consent" nonsense. It's a concept that ignores normal human nonverbal communication, and effectively demands that if female consent is not explicitly verbalized at frequent intervals during sexual escalation, then the man should be considered a rapist. Not only is that opposed to human behavior, egalitarianism, and constitutionally protected due process rights; its also not …
/r/seduction13/04/15 06:55 AM
13

Everybody laugh.
/r/seduction26/03/15 02:53 PM
2

would love some sort of statistic about this, wouldn't you? Nah, I don't see how it's necessary. It's still a violation of bodily autonomy by cutting healthy pieces off of unconsenting babies. If X percent of the victims do not bear lasting trauma, that does not change the argument at all.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 05:11 AM
1

/r/skincare
/r/seduction11/03/15 03:24 AM
3

Ah, semantic misinterpretation. In America, it was started by... vs. It was started in America by...
/r/MensRights11/03/15 02:57 AM
4

Like you, I'm not much bothered regarding my own anatomy. But it's easy to recognize that supporters of bodily autonomy rights have the moral high ground against those who support cutting off healthy parts of babies.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 02:53 AM
4

I'd wager that most circumcised folks don't dwell on it at all. But how many people would gladly have greater sexual sensitivity and less chafing? I'm guessing many would choose those benefits. But more importantly, your "morality isn't factual" thing is sophomoric bullshit. "Murder is bad" is not factual. A functioning society is one that prohibits a degree of immoral behavior. This is expressed well in the concept of rights, of which bodily autonomy is one of the primary.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 02:46 AM
5

It was started in America by puritans Nooo. It's much older than that, and derives from a number of different cultures.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 02:26 AM
1

Sounds like you're trying to talk people into putting chemicals on their dicks because some stranger on the internet said so. If this is legitimate you should probably drop your anonymity and post your background and credentials.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 04:07 AM
1

Yes, slicing the problem narrowly will be useful for aid workers, since rehabilitation of the affected children will vary by role and degree. But the problem will be effectively addressed only via large-scale, funded, prioritized intervention on the national and international levels, and I'd argue that slicing the problem narrowly is less optimal for that.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 07:01 AM
1

If you had the power to stop the recruitment of child soldiers, you wouldn't simultaneously overlook children beside them serving as sex slaves or soldiers-in-training. My point is that the fundamental statement of this social problem is "armies enslaving children" (or even more broadly "armies enslaving people," which encompasses press gangs, conscription, comfort women, and more). Referring to "child soldiers" is thus a kind of synecdoche, using a vivid image to refer to a larger phenomenon.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 06:18 AM
2

But gender-based infanticide is not a choice made by social engineering bureaucrats, it's a choice made by parents. I don't think that stabilizing population growth is a motive of the parents, rather I think avoiding fines and ensuring their retirement security is the motivation. (For those more concerned about having grandchildren, a daughter would be a better bet than a son.)
/r/MensRights09/03/15 06:02 AM
1

Hmm. Gonna disagree with this a bit. Children abducted to be basically slaves to an army is a terrifying thing. Also, performing camp tasks is likely a common early step in stockholm-syndrome grooming of a child to be a loyal soldier. I'd expect rehabilitation of brainwashed child infantry to be a bit different than rehabilitation of child sex slaves, and both are probably different than helping those children slaved to an army who have not yet been forced into sex or combat. But I think address…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 05:56 AM
4

I'm reminded of infanticide of female infants under China's one-child policy. Instinctive reaction says it's due to less value being placed on the lives of girls, but in fact there are other issues at play: the responsibility for care of the elderly falls exclusively on sons (and their spouses), while daughters are obliged to care for elderly in-laws. So a couple without sons has no retirement safety net beyond their own savings (apparently no social security type of program). So the result is t…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 05:30 AM
1

Being myself an introvert, if the other person isn't responding to my behaviour clearly, I get confused. I only really open up with people who display signs that they like me, because I get no pleasure from sharing important pieces of myself with people who aren't interested in receiving them. Are you saying your MO when you like a girl is to start dumping all your hopes & dreams & inner struggles into her ear, but that's hard to do without overt signs of interest from her? If so, that sounds li…
/r/seduction26/02/15 02:46 AM
1

Whoa, what's the history there?
/r/seduction22/02/15 01:29 AM
2

when do I know that I have reached the point of diminishing returns and improving my fashion further won't have any more significant improvements in my success with women? Right now. Feel free to play with your style as much as you want, but if you're expecting it to be some magic transformation after which dating will be easier than before, then stop thinking about it right now, and go outside and meet some girls today. Yes, style is an easy way to improve your appearance, but it's not magic, i…
/r/seduction17/02/15 05:57 AM
2

You're projecting. As a male, you probably find that your attraction to women is largely based on appearance. Women's attraction to men tends to be less about appearance, more about charisma and relative status. Appearance matters too, so it's great that you've been working on it. But don't let appearance be your excuse to give up rather than take risks. Talk about (better yet, DO) the things that you're passionate about and good at. Don't draw your self-worth from Tinder, the odds are against e…
/r/seduction06/02/15 08:55 AM
3

I'm a fan, and I certainly know some guys that need to hear and digest Burr's message, but this is not really a rights issue...
/r/MensRights03/02/15 09:04 AM
0

TL;DR: if you are a man and you think it's dangerous for a law to consider every sex act a rape by the man unless proven otherwise, then it's probably just because you're a horny rapist.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 10:05 AM
2

I get where you're coming from, but for the guy looking to improve his dating, getting friendzoned (not basic rejection, but friendzone) is an indication of a tactical error. Instead of broadcasting his sexuality when he met a girl, he tucked his dick and tried to ingratiate himself. When he finally stopped being ashamed of his sexuality and afraid of rejection, he made a move, but it was too late to reverse the image he had already established. Lesson: be bold, take risks, do not be ashamed of …
/r/seduction27/01/15 10:00 PM
3

It can certainly get easier if you still have your shit together and don't let yourself go. Most women like guys somewhat older than themselves, so that means as you get into your 30s you have a broader range that you'll appeal to based on age alone. You may find that you have less energy for all night binge adventures, and clownish game will likely lose its appeal. You may get pickier about the tradeoffs that dating and relationships require. You may find that you lose wingmen as your friends g…
/r/seduction23/01/15 04:55 AM
0

Is this even a serious question or just concern trolling? Wanting to make better impressions, improve one's sex life, or date on satisfactory terms are not predatory desires, and women who date you or choose not to date you are obviously adults who are responsible for their own decisions. Perhaps you should be more specific if you're going to come in with accusations of callousness, misogyny, or predatory intent. Are you asking because you've seen up-voted examples of that here? Or because you y…
/r/seduction20/01/15 06:12 AM
6

And even though I'll never completely understand the feminist perspective on this issue because I am a man If you were taught that your penis impairs rationality, you should eliminate that false belief. If a feminist has a rational, reality-based perspective on an issue, they will have no trouble convincing a rational, reality-aware person, male or female. If you find arguments, based on emotion or debunked statistics to be unconvincing, that's not some shortcoming of your gender, that's a short…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:41 PM
2

No, this is not the Gambler's Fallacy. The gambler's fallacy is when you treat independent events as dependent, such as believing that a series of "heads" coin flips increases the likelihood of "tails." Addition of probability is an entirely different thing. A coin gives a .5 chance of heads on each flip. But if you're calculating the odds of getting heads at least once in four flips, then you have .5+.5+.5+.5 = 2. That's 2-to-1 odds that you'll get heads at least once in four flips. Likewise if…
/r/MensRights13/12/14 03:07 AM
5

Please keep in mind: The 6-in-1000 sexual assault statistic is per year, so for a 4-year student that's about 24-in-1000 – about 1 in 42. The title is misleading. Sexual assault includes serious stuff like rape but more mild stuff like an unwanted kiss, a threat of an unwanted squeeze, etc. If you're concerned with completed rape during a 4-year term of study, this survey puts that at 2-in-1000 per year, so about 1 in 125 total The survey data goes back to 1995, but rape rates declined significa…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 03:59 AM
1

Keep in mind that for minor crimes, the underreporting numbers will be extremely high, and the term "sexual assault" is tricky because it encompasses serious, heinous acts as well as trivial ones. I think it would be useful to differentiate such things, but you're not going to find stats that do so.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 04:32 PM
3

I disagree with that limitation. Write about events, sure, but when you look back on this in the future, a record of your thoughts, ideas, and conflicts would be of more value than an itemized list of every chore or errand. Include the meaningful events, but also include the inner life.
/r/seduction06/12/14 02:16 AM
1

Sorry to hear about your crappy childhood, but you sound like you're dwelling on the past and using it as an excuse for your own past failures, and as a guarantee for future failure. You avoid effort and risk because of fear of failure, and you expect failure because of your past and your low self esteem. "Being a man" requires self-mastery, so drop the excuses, and continue from the mindset that you can rebuild your outlook, instincts and habits. The past is not your master. This will require f…
/r/becomeaman03/12/14 02:58 AM
1

Yeah, pretty much. If I were his boss before the interview, I'd tell him to change. If I were his boss after the interview (or the boss of anyone facing outside criticism for their attire), I'd say that our focus is astrophysical, not sartorial - and that judged on such merits the employee's expertise and performance are exemplary. Demands for public apologies would not be considered.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 06:48 AM
1

Her shirt is obviously vastly worse in content, but his was worn in professional context as opposed to recreational context. I don't want a world where I can be fired for what I wear in my free time, but I do believe that there are boundaries to professional attire. Were I this guy's boss, I would have privately told him to change before the interview to something more conservative. I think that the reaction was overblown, but that it was a poor professional choice. Valenti's shirt indicates poo…
/r/MensRights18/11/14 05:53 AM
11

False premise. Remember that the major historical foundation of feminist political organization was the temperance movement, which was primarily about removing the freedom to drink alcohol. It's no mere coincidence that back in 1873 alcohol consumption was mostly a male indulgence, and that bars were places where men could meet and socialize outside the purview of women. So more or less from its inception, feminism included the urge to eliminate male spaces and curtail freedoms of men.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 05:03 AM
1

Sorry you think it's unjust that compensation accounts for hours worked. Disagree with you there. Yeah, there are experimentally documented pro-male prejudices. There are experimentally documented pro-female prejudices. You'll have to show your work in detail if you're using that as a basis for a victim olympics game of some sort of gimmedat policy demand. other things that are a good deal more complex than CONSAD’s vision of the labor market allows for This is laughable - the CONSAD report ackn…
/r/MensRights09/10/14 06:42 AM
4

The CONSAD report for the US Bureau of labor statistics trashes the long-falsely-held claim that women earn 75% for the same work. They earn about 77%-81% on average, for different work, fewer hours, shorter careers, flexible hours, more benefits, less danger, etc. As you start controlling for variables like profession and hours worked (so that it's even a bit more honest, apples-to-apples), the gap dwindles rapidly - controlling for even a few variables brings it down to about 5% (as CONSAD sho…
/r/MensRights08/10/14 04:00 AM
8

Controlling language is hugely important. Imagine how the average person might feel about "gay marriage" vs. "marriage equality," "legal abortions" vs. "the right to choose," "outlawing firearm ownership" vs. "violating 2nd ammendment rights" vs. "disarming the citizenry" vs. "gun control" vs. "assault weapon ban" I'm sure you can name more, but a pattern you may notice is that language control is an area where (in america) the left runs circles around the right. You can chalk some of it up to c…
/r/MensRights08/10/14 03:27 AM
1

Your gender swap argument fails if you're still trying to sneak in statistics that have been known to be false for decades. You are being dishonest.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 02:22 AM
14

This is the main takeaway. The statistics on false rape claims (and unreported rape, for that matter) are crap, and at this point anyone who claims a specific percent is lying to you. We know that false accusations happen, and this is why we have basic due process protections for the accused. This is why a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. This is why a person has the right to confront their accuser. This is why false allegations are criminal. The principal is independent of the…
/r/MensRights08/10/14 02:11 AM
17

You come in here asking us to take some action to defend someone accused of various things. Lacking proof of accusations, I don't condemn. But having not seen disproof of accusations, I also don't put my reputation on the line for a stranger on your suggestion. I just shrug my shoulders and figure that the person best positioned to present Peppers' defense is Peppers. Sorry, you're obviously looking for a fight, but I just don't care. Maybe try writing to Peppers and suggest he post videos of th…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:00 AM
9

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I condemn him.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 04:59 AM
16

But I notice you don't think it's on anybody else to prove... That's not the issue with the previous comment. I'm not gonna assume this guy's guilt without proof, but I'm also unlikely to go to bat for him without some proof. Given your description, it sounds like he should have plenty of documentation to make his case about the videos if he so chooses. Not that I expect Youtube to care, they're just trying to avoid controversy in the easiest possible manner.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 03:57 AM
5

If we're going by a standard of verbal affirmative consent with no alcohol ever involved, then all of them except maybe one which was a bit awkward.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 02:40 PM
2

I don't see romantic preferences as a rights issue. A person demanding behavior alteration by the opposite gender in a UN forum absolutely approaches rights issues. Before even considering contradictions between her demands and her preferences, imagine the UN inviting Rupert Grint to tell the world that we all ought to pursue the advantage of men over women, and that women behave like shite and ought to be more demure.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 03:20 PM
3

It's valid to point out that a male code of battlefield conduct, piety, loyalty and honor has been corrupted over the years to "be deferential to all women, and place their convenience and welfare above your own interests and safety." Even when the concepts of courtly love and defending the weak were originally added, chivalry was a virtue of self-discipline by professional, above-the-law killers, characterized in part by mercy towards their lessers. The corrupted modern idea of chivalry is inst…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 05:33 AM
1

empathy != being forced to marry In your previous comment you quoted a guy saying "just don't marry them" and you suggested it indicated a lack of empathy. You're right that poor decisions have antecedents that can be worthy of discussion. If your empathy for the foolish, misguided, self-indulgent, imprudent, or self-destructive is greater than mine, then you have my admiration. But I likewise respect those who insist on personal responsibility and that adults should be free to reap what they so…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 01:14 AM
7

Well it's easy to suggest a difference in empathy towards victims of misfortune vs. those whose poor decisions made them architects of their own misfortune. Personal responsibility is to be valued, and that includes facing the consequences of your own mistakes and short-sightedness. Note also that it is possible to have empathy for someone while seeing the cause-and-effect nature of their actions, or while believing that the consequences are just and rational, or while not wanting to marry them.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 06:06 AM
1

because personal responsibility and dysgenics
/r/MensRights30/08/14 07:27 PM
3

Eh, sure people are expected to navigate between extremes: be assertive but not a full on asshole, act sexy but not easy, be manly but not a mach chest-thumper, be considerate but not a weak pushover, be financially responsible but not a cheapskate, enjoy food but avoid gluttony, and a thousand other examples. Most of these things are reasonably easy to navigate if you can develop some social perception, delay gratification, and avoid acting on every feeling or urge. Some of these apply more to …
/r/MensRights30/08/14 06:07 PM
2

I don't define patriarchy as gender roles. Your argument would be stronger if you'd assert an actual definition.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 04:05 AM
2

Hey, I think male-only socializing opportunities are important. I also think that a newcomer who insists a culture change to cater to them is often an entitled jerk. But I think adopting "safe spaces" rhetoric is as silly as "trigger warnings." It validates the concept that delicate snowflakes must have social structures to protect their uncontrollable, important emotions. How about you just phrase it as "this is a forum for discussing geek topics X, Y, and Z. Please avoid topics of A, B, and C.…
/r/MensRights22/08/14 03:46 PM
5

For those unfamiliar, "The Good Man Project" is a site financed and run by feminists, yet purporting to advocate for men's issues. In actuality, its agenda is to subvert the internet's male-led discussion of men's issues and divert them towards the standard feminist narrative of men as oppressor and women as unilateral victims; with the offered remedies of self-flagellation, derision masculine virtue and demeaning of the masculine in general, and of course lots of white knight self-sacrifice.
/r/MensRights16/08/14 12:48 AM
1

Was this false statement by Obama regarding gender a joke also then? It can be so hard to tell!
/r/MensRights09/08/14 07:35 PM
1

Read up on game basics from respected sources, not from other people starting out. Great job identifying your personally challenging issues. Height: as with any other extreme body type, dress in a manner that flatters you by minimizing the extreme. There are plenty of style guides out there for short/tall/fat/skinny people. Read a few and gradually integrate their advice into your wardrobe. Fix any posture issues you have. Beyond that, there's not much you can do about height; so accept it, don'…
/r/seduction25/07/14 05:35 PM
2

That it usually enriches the woman lawyers in the marriage is just an added bonus.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 02:09 AM
2

One advantage of describing an injustice as racist or gendered (when accurate), is that it can highlight the hypocrisy of saying that X would be unacceptable when applied to my group, but ok when applied to your group. The moral inconsistency is thus hard to deny.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 05:04 AM
1

On a broader scale, the solution is to de-incentivize divorce by ensuring that the expected risks, expenses, and custody fall more evenly between husbands and wives. This guy's only talking about such extreme measures because he doesn't like unilateral risk. He's right not to!
/r/MensRights20/07/14 07:04 AM
1

That does come across as awkward the way you describe it, and outside of the standard waiter/customer interaction patterns. I'd think it odd if a waiter said that to me, and I'd pay more vigilance to their subsequent behavior. In contrast, walking down the sidewalk is not odd or extraordinary in the least.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 04:31 PM
1

that sums it up for me too. Wish we had more than two viable party options here.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 01:17 AM
1

Interesting. You should attempt to contact the author to get the data in complete detail, and ask your procedural questions.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 09:46 PM
8

I think you'll need to make your case with some examples so we know what you're getting at.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 09:39 PM
1

well done
/r/MensRights01/07/14 01:04 AM
1

Yes, war rape is a big deal, and soldiers who rape should wind up in prison or dead. It's a noteworthy example of a war crime. Men, women, and children can find themselves victim of heinous acts during wars, and I'll support efforts to raise awareness of war crimes and appropriately punish all responsible. This does not validate nonsense about "women have always been the primary victims of war." And if you read the quote, Clinton ain't at all talking about war rape, she's talking about when "wom…
/r/MensRights29/06/14 05:12 PM
7

No one is pro-domestic abuse. But it takes a certain cynical, slimy brain to view a pile of men's corpses as a platform for focussing on domestic abuse, and even to frame abuse as an exclusively women's issue that merits discriminatory law. Hillary may be many things, but she is certainly not stupid. Her statement reflects not weakness of thought but weakness of character and compassion. It's a tactic.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 04:54 PM
2

My junk works fine! I could indeed weave that into conversation Maybe have a couple of variations in mind, to suit the tone of conversation. If it's not the right moment for going sexual, you could say something along the lines of "I can do everything except walk or run."
/r/seduction25/06/14 02:49 PM
12

Got some serious guns, right? Short sleeves to show them off. Does your junk work ok? It seems possible that some girls might reject you out of fear of that being an issue. Obviously they're not gonna ask. If your gear works, find a funny way to weave that into conversation, and learn to gauge the right moment for getting sexual like that. As with any other game handicap like being short or something, just own it and show that you're confident and able to acknowledge it without obsessing over it…
/r/seduction25/06/14 12:46 AM
1

Instead of raging that mass incarceration issues are not adequately addressed here, I'd be delighted if you'd make some posts about it to help get that ball rolling.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 02:34 AM
2

Damn right mass incarceration is an important men's rights issue. Not because of hitting checkboxes but because black and latino men men citizens humans are being treated in an appalling manner, prisons for profit represent a conflict of interest, and our current system destroys lives rather than rehabilitating. As a society we can do better. And this should be a priority here.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 02:28 AM
9

Absolutely agreed. I can't look at this alone and conclude discrimination. If a group commits more crimes, that group should have higher incarceration rates. This graph should, however, convince everyone concerned with the well-being of men that prisons and the justice system are worthy of attention. I'd prefer a graph of sentencing disparities too.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 02:21 AM
9

Considering how much of nursing is about heavy lifting, You're implying it's not, but I'm sure there are constantly situations where nurses or medical assistants need to lift people.
/r/MensRights20/06/14 03:54 PM
2

The magic was in you all along
/r/seduction16/06/14 07:50 AM
7

What are some tricks into picking up girls or just asking for their numbers? You may not want to hear it, but that shouldn't be your priority. Work on being more social in general. Join some clubs and talk to people there. Talk to the people with lockers near yours. Talk to the people in your classes (after class). Talk about TV. Talk about classes and assignments. Talk about sports. Talk about current events. Talk about games. Talk about whatever interests you. Right now your priorities should …
/r/seduction16/06/14 07:18 AM
1

I would react in the same way to saying a person was "begging to be hit" by calling some black guy a n___. The implication is tempting fate or goading someone into an action. I accept this analogy. I'd be quite comfortable using "begging" or "asking for it" in that context, so I guess that highlights our semantic disagreement. Interestingly, I'm giving agency and the credit to men that they can not be a rapist. That's not interesting, that's normal. Few men are rapists, and it takes a hateful fr…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 01:45 AM
1

But nobody is begging to be raped Hate to sound rude , but this seems to be a reading comprehension issue. Taken literally, "begging to be raped" is either an oxymoron or perhaps a bdsm scene. It's very obvious in context that he's using "begging for it" in the same figurative manner that he refers to deliberately engaging in other reckless, high-risk behaviors. has an air of suggesting the victim deserved it. No, the article says, in clear black and white: ' “Deserved” is a different topic.' So…
/r/MensRights10/06/14 05:15 AM
1

People should be careful about not getting raped. That suggests an agreement with the content of his argument. He's stating that people knowingly engage in reckless behavior that puts them at higher risk of crime, and that doing so is unwise (though he's perfectly clear about moral culpability remaining upon the criminal). If you're just disagreeing semantically with his figurative language, that's fine, and it's a point I wouldn't bother to dispute. He's intensionally using inflammatory languag…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 05:32 AM
2

If you're willing to share the cancer story with people, it's the sort of thing that can certainly be spun into a you-vs.-adversity story. Could simultaneously be humanizing and show a vulnerable side while also leaving emphasis on your history as someone who can take being fried, poisoned, and shot with ray-guns, and you just power through it and stand back up with a scar to warn the next thing that tries to fuck with you. Battle scar, not disfigurement.
/r/seduction08/06/14 10:30 PM
2

Is your objection that his tone is not conciliatory enough, or do you actually take issue with the idea that rational people can exercise some degree of foresight and caution to moderate their risk exposure?
/r/MensRights08/06/14 10:22 PM
2

First meet, I prefer to keep it super cheap and casual so I avoid this problem. Drinks. "I've got this round, you can get the next." No loss if there's no chemistry, avoids positioning me as a provider chump, sets precedent of reciprocal payment of bills (taking turns is more elegant than splitting bills or doing the math).
/r/seduction05/06/14 01:34 AM
0

You're not wrong but semantics can set the frame. Extreme examples: "Hey, I'm at that coffee shop four blocks from your place procrastinating on my novel. You should swing by and distract me." vs. "I humbly beseech thee, m'lady, if you'd do me the profound honor of gracing me with your presence for a celebratory coffee on the wednesday after next."
/r/seduction05/06/14 01:30 AM
3

It's douchier to think you should try to buy a woman's affection, or that you must invest in order to be graced with her presence. Have some dignity and respect your time and resources at least as much as hers.
/r/seduction05/06/14 01:23 AM
2

If X% of the subscribers to r/marxism are also subscribers to r/shoes, does that imply an identical ideology? An ideological overlap? Nothing?
/r/MensRights04/06/14 01:52 AM
1

Online or off? Normal people don't have sources at hand for conversational stuff, so you may have to break out a phone. If it's online, throw your own strong sources at them and dismiss with ridicule or tactful dismissal as you deem appropriate.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 07:43 PM
3

"You'll understand my skepticism, since Feminism is infamous for perpetuating false data for decades. Like 77¢/$100 for equal work, or 1 in 4 women being raped - emotionally persuasive to the ignorant, but in fact are KNOWN DECEPTIONS that have discredited some of the movement's foundations. I'd hate to see you or me emotionally swayed by false data." Yeah, I know that won't work. You can't argue logic with a zealot.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 07:40 PM
6

That's great. If you'd like to pursue childcare as a career, though, at some point very soon you'll want to start thinking a couple of steps ahead: will this gig/job lead to something better next, or will it just pay my bills? Babysitting, for example, may work for now but may also be a dead-end track. You could look into teaching, or working at a daycare, eventually owning a daycare, etc. You may want to find out what certificates are needed or valued for such occupations. Ask satisfied parents…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 10:34 PM
1

Danger, vigilance, and fear are three entirely separate things. Danger can be high, low, ambiguous, concealed, or random. Vigilance can be practiced in a dangerous or a safe situation. It can make a potentially dangerous situation safer, it can allow better reaction to danger. Fear is an emotion. It can exist in a state of danger or safety. It can inspire vigilance or it can inspire a sense of helplessness or bigoted prejudices. Chronic fear is not healthy or useful. A habit of vigilance is high…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 10:06 PM
8

Spell it out then: do you think it's an ethical law/policy if it makes a man's educational investment and freedom from social blacklisting entirely dependent on a woman's feeling? If a man untruthfully stated that a woman in college was a hooker with AIDS, and the entire establishment treated it as fact (because why would he lie?), published her name while concealing his, prevented her from defending herself, and kicked her out of school, would you argue that the fault is hers for not being cool…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 08:53 PM
9

Come on, man. Argue against the dogma and hypocrisy and dishonest data, not the physical appearance.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 03:52 AM
1

I have opinions on internet pop-feminism's current kooky spin on the issue; but it's not about rights at all, just a point of friction between the sexes. Dating and sex will always have friction points. Gripes like that don't seem to belong here - unless someone starts trying to build legislation or policy around them.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 03:40 AM
2

Great points, I think this audience could benefit from more attention to rhetorical tactics and strategies of engagement. A couple of things that I'll add: Pick your battles wisely. Let's say someone who posts a biased statement to facebook or twitter with an intended "you go girl" message. Something to the effect of "Girls are strong and wonderful and boys are worthless, lazy, and incompetant." You could ignore the subtle sexism with the result that several people vote "like," since they percei…
/r/MensRights26/05/14 06:47 PM
0

Well, for starters, skip all the posts that are along the lines of "a woman committed a heinous act somewhere" or "someone wrote made a stupid statement on the internet or wrote a stupid article." Yes, we're aware that some people do horrible things or promote stupid ideas. Nothing very new to see there. Perhaps your attentions are also better diverted from rant posts about legal inequalities or personal hardships, and focussed instead on political and social action opportunities?
/r/MensRights26/05/14 03:56 PM
5

And let's not forget that NOW is overtly opposed to shared child custody as a default. It is not an equalist organization.
/r/MensRights16/05/14 02:42 PM
1

So being opposed to feminist agendas is not equivalent to being opposed to women. If someone were to declare that feminism is their enemy, it would not follow that women are their enemy. It's an important clarification.
/r/MensRights16/05/14 02:14 AM
3

Women ≠ Feminists
/r/MensRights15/05/14 02:51 AM
6

No, he's doing his "duty" to his party by setting up the return of the "war on women" theme for the next Democrat candidate.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 05:22 AM
3

To help a reasonable woman understand, you might compare it to a woman getting wet while being raped. We wouldn't consider wetness to contradict a charge of rape, and erection is equivalent.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 04:39 PM
2

No doubt. Naturally, the perpetrator of a crime bears the moral culpability, but that's unrelated to the value of street smarts and other risk-mitigation behaviors.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 03:37 AM
1

For example, it is technically true to say that if a woman was wearing less provocative clothing, it would have made her a less likely target of the rape. However, to say so puts the onus on the victim to "defend" herself, instead of putting the blame where it rightfully belongs; on the attacker. Promotion of this theory of "rape culture" would therefore be at odds with the truth and make individual women more likely to be targets of rape. I'd hope most women people are rational enough to see th…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 03:34 AM
2

I agree with most of your criticisms here, except this: Options 1 and 2 can give the results you seek, but they give projected estimates based on samples while the 30% here is a concrete number based on actual tests, which makes it subjectively better to me. Good demographic data is almost always generated by projection from a random sample of the population. If your survey sample is moderately large (like a couple thousand), and actually random, then population-level projection is pretty darned…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 02:09 AM
2

Get a grant to attempt testing on a random population sample or find an existing child/putative father genetic data set that is not selected for the confounding variable of suspected fraud or find existing child/putative father trait data sets that would rule out paternity via recessive phenotypes, and use the result as a minimum number or institute mandatory/default testing somewhere and see what happens I don't have the resources for such studies, but that wouldn't justify me throwing around m…
/r/MensRights22/04/14 03:22 PM
1

It's about attempts to abuse the system of childcare and to show that it's not a few instances here and there Right, and that is best shown through an estimation of the actual % of duped "fathers" in the general population. 30% is unrelated, since it refers to a specific subset of the population selected by increased likelihood of having been duped. 30% is a big number and gets attention, but it doesn't answer the question you'd want to show the answer to.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 05:19 AM
1

That sounds like an excellent research idea!
/r/MensRights22/04/14 05:11 AM
1

An honest statistic would be one that takes random population samples and reports the result of paternity tests. It would be interesting. This 30% statistic only tells you that if you have doubts, you should damn well get a test!
/r/MensRights22/04/14 03:43 AM
1

The very next thing that follows after "named as fathers" is "who test for paternity". If that "leads the reader to believe" it applies to the whole population, the reader is a moron. Yet using fine print to pump up the numbers to an alarming level is cheaply manipulative, like the 77-cents-to-the-dollar wage gap canard: has some technical truth, but utterly wrong if you think it's a fair apples-to-apples comparison. If misleading statistics are repeated enough, they get disconnected from the fi…
/r/MensRights22/04/14 03:41 AM
1

Yes. And because the bar for sole paternal custody is so much higher than maternal custody, it means there's a selection bias: the average guy awarded sole custody is filtered to be a better parent than the average woman awarded sole custody. These numbers don't imply that fathers on average are better or more necessary than mothers, so why use a chart to imply that argument? Rather, these numbers suggest that custody decisions are heavily biased. THAT'S the message to focus on.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 03:33 AM
2

Worthless, uninformed, dismisses valid points by means of distraction tactics. But I did find something to like about it: "Male privilege is looking at other men put women on a pedestal and getting angry … at the women" This fails at a rebuttal of women's chivalry privileges in society, but it's a great reminder that many of women's privileges rely on male collusion.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 09:23 PM
1

I'm not clear what you're asking, but the basic considerations are (or should be) the woman's reproductive rights, the man's reproductive rights, the woman's right to bodily autonomy, and the embro/fetus' rights to life and bodily autonomy. There is debate about the amount of weight to place on each of these sometimes conflicting rights, and how those weights change over the course of development.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 08:43 PM
5

It is missing the violent part for rape. In USA (and I assume many other nations), violence need not occur for a sex act to be classified as rape. Coercion, threat, and incapacitation are also viable arguments for considering the act to be nonconsensual and therefore rape. I'd say it's very good that rape law includes such situations, as long as we're careful to draw the lines at reasonable places when dealing with the gray areas of voluntary intoxication or voluntary agreement to quid pro quo s…
/r/MensRights13/04/14 01:30 AM
3

Of course i made some approaches in the last few years Just a few, over the course of years?! If you wanted to be a skilled musician, would you get there by practicing a few times over a few years? You need to go out and make way, way, more approaches. Force yourself, disregard your excuses. The anxiety may not ever go away, but push through it.
/r/seduction30/03/14 05:45 PM
1

Upvote for doing the work to provide a numeric breakdown in response to my comment. Thanks. I'm still a bit skeptical of these numbers, though. I'm curious to see if other studies find similar results.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 01:30 AM
30

Right, and it's always disingenuous to lump SA stats in with rape in an attempt to boost rape stats. Someone grabbing your butt in a crowded club in sexual assault, but that's a far cry from rape.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 01:47 PM
8

Yup. The party line is that girls be anything they want, and boys can be anything they want as long as they want to be girls. Look, I don't much care if you're gay or you don't care for sports or whatever. I'll judge you on your abilities and your character just like everyone else. But be wary when a message of tolerance creeps toward a message of disdain for tradition, nature, or majority.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 09:47 PM
2

Exactly. They allege that some people don't know what rape is, and so it's better to ask behavioral questions than questions with the label "rape." When questions are worded without any ambiguity, perhaps one might make a case for this. But frequently, they're worded such that they might include consensual rough sex, drunken voluntary hookups, seductive persuasion, sexual "buyer's remorse," etc. Coincidentally, doing this makes for numbers that appear more urgent, which is great for those who ma…
/r/MensRights21/03/14 06:30 AM
1

heh. not traumatizing at all
/r/seduction20/03/14 04:07 AM
2

A google image search would definitely be the prudent way to answer the question.
/r/seduction20/03/14 03:30 AM
2

That probably goes back to the scaremongering 1982 survey by Mary Koss, commissioned by Ms. magazine. By including an ambiguous question about drug and alcohol use, and letting the experimenters act as arbiters of what constituted rape, they were able to conjure up enormous scary numbers - allegedly 27% of women surveyed had been a victim or what the researchers tried to pass off as rape or attempted rape. But wait... there was a follow up study that contacted those same women for clarification,…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 03:09 AM
6

In fairness, the article highlights how ridiculous it is that people are more reluctant to hire male babysitters. Sure, the author ends it by spinning it into their universal victim narrative, but they do make the necessary points about the 97% before they get there.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:54 AM
2

Also note that a person can have multiple "unsuccessful" suicide attempts if they are so inclined, whereas a person with the resolved intent to complete a suicide will be counted once. If one in a hundred men commits suicide, but one in a hundred women has a few "cry for help" incidents, then that's more attempts among women. But that statement would obscure the real story. Luckily, trying to discern an objective picture from the statistics does not preclude acting on the real issue: connecting …
/r/MensRights16/03/14 04:21 AM
1

Well, that's a zero for reading comprehension. If you prefer cartoonish mischaracterization rather than addressing my actual statement, then you lack the integrity (or merely the aptitude?) for intelligent discussion on this topic, and I won't waste further time.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 03:03 AM
1

the victim's or the rapist's Well, that's obviously begging the question. If our omniscience has already determined guilt and the details of what occurred, why bother with the formality of a trial? But back in the real world, in a situation where an accuser and an accused offer different interpretations of events, we're obliged to look at the overt facts. Did the accuser say "I want to your ," or "no, I don't want to do this with you?" Did the accuser actively participate and reciprocate, or did…
/r/MensRights08/03/14 02:33 AM
1

Are we referring to the same groups? I (and I think the person who first used the term garbage) refer to those who hold the harmful ideology. There are certainly those with whom we can disagree with civility, but when a person's ideology causes harm, and especially when that harm is intended, I will hold them in vehement disdain. Anyway, I hope our differences here are mostly semantic.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 02:14 AM
1

Sorry, I don't follow. Why do you think it's a problem to refer to "bad people" who "harm others" as "human garbage?"
/r/MensRights07/03/14 04:04 PM
1

because one can never be sure that no might not actually mean yes, there is literally no way for anybody to say that they do not want to have sex No, by my logic people are pretty good at reading consent as-is without busybodies declaring themselves the sex police, and making up rules for everyone. Instead of taking on a patronizing attitude and acting like you know better what they mean or want than they do. No, YOU'RE the one looking to revise basic rules of human courtship with this "enthusia…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 04:01 PM
3

Consider the ambiguity that you describe here, and imagine that your freedom from incarceration for the next decade hangs on your ability to argue that the nuances and tones of the conversation meant that it wasn't an implicit threat of divorce if your partner refused your demands. Remember, actual words are inadmissible under this approach - if he said "yes, I'm happy to oblige," but actually harbored secret reservations, then you are guilty of coercive rape and you will be sent to a prison whe…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:02 AM
2

didn't even harm anybody Do you not understand how it is harmful to characterize all members of one gender as rapists, and all members of the other gender as children unable to make informed decisions about their sexual behavior? When someone spews such hatred and condescension that it leads to paranoia, witch hunts, learned helplessness, unjust incarceration, etc., they and their ideas really do belong in the garbage bin of history.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:39 AM
4

I think we can all agree that not saying no is a necessary condition for consent to be there, and the sex not being rape. Coyness is not just a thing, it's a staggeringly common thing. If you think women should not be coy, then your quarrel is with women, not with men who recognize coyness. if a boss tells an employee to have sex with them or they will fire them That's quid pro quo harassment, and it's good that our legal system recognizes it as an illegal act. It should not be confused with rap…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:27 AM
2

Give the old folks a pass. They may not be as good at walking as they used to be, but you've got the agility to move around an obstacle without as much effort. Asserting yourself does not need to entail being an ass.
/r/becomeaman02/03/14 08:24 PM
3

Indeed. And no, the criminal justice system is not all about helping the victim feel better. Retribution is part of it, but so is ensuring the public safety. We want rapists and murderers in prison where they will not harm the general public. So yes, prosecuting for such a crime is in the public interest. But obviously you don't incarcerate an alleged victim for refusal to testify.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 03:55 PM
-1

The internet has been great for as a forum for tossing around MR ideas. Is meeting in the real world really going to be stronger for that? Certainly forming campus groups would be good for publicity, as academia and the media struggle to demonize them. But otherwise? Better to use the internet as a means to rally people for charity efforts, petitions, and letter writing campaigns to steer our representatives towards legislation that is pro-equality rather than anti-male. For that matter, is ther…
/r/MensRights09/01/14 06:06 AM
2

#4 sounds like it has potential for abuse by doxxers and the like.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 05:56 AM
2

Thanks, this should be far, far higher on the MRM agenda. As should the broader issue of prison reform. The USA has far too many citizens (and non-citizens) in its prisons and correctional systems. In addition to implementing the recommendations of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, we need to: shut down the private prison system, in which maximizing number of inmates and minimizing quality of life amenities are the formulas for profit. reform sentencing guidelines for non-violent …
/r/MensRights09/01/14 05:51 AM
2

Is it a matter of more hands on work? Letting them burn off energy in between lessons? Visual over lectures? Excellent start. Also, treat competition as positive, not negative. Bring back recess. Bring back success and failure. Reward mastery, not congeniality and mere participation. Do not treat heroic play (yes, that means pretend violence) as any more of a problem than domestic play or princess fantasies or whatever. If a student points out an error in your lesson, or proves more advanced tha…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 07:37 AM
1

Please tell me your user name is not your real name also. Don't write stuff like this in any place where it can be connected to you and used against you by her lawyers sometime in the future. Good luck. Depression can be overcome. Start with some basics: eat, breathe, exercise, get outside, spend time among friends.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 09:46 AM
1

Can anyone shed some insight as to why I seem to be threatening relationships here and am only able to find success with girls who are already seeing someone Attractive girls get hit on so often that they're going to have shorter down time, if any, between relationships. Therefore, if you want 'em, you'll often have to go for them when they're already seeing someone. if my significant other ever cheated on me, the relationship would be over and I'd be seeking revenge on the guy who got with her.…
/r/seduction26/12/13 03:43 AM
6

George Clooney is 52 and looks it, Robert Downey Jr. is 48. Both are sex symbols. There's really no female equivalent. An older woman may have gained charm and wisdom etc. through the years, and may be a wonderful human being, but she'll never be as attractive at 50 as she was at 23.
/r/seduction24/12/13 07:23 AM
5

Yeah, exactly. An ugly woman is dealt a worse hand than an ugly man - attractiveness is basically the only game in town for a girl. But an ugly man can fall back on humor, wealth, skills, style, charm, knowledge, wit, authority, connections, worldly experience, etc. as enhancements to his attractiveness. Many of these are nice traits in a girl too, but they really wont have much impact on her attractiveness. It really helps you understand the enormous pressure placed on a woman's appearance, and…
/r/seduction24/12/13 06:23 AM
4

You and your friends and yourself should write dated, signed statements about their recollections of that night. Mail copies of the statements to yourself, keep the envelope unopened as proof of the date. Get a lawyer, describe the situation. Ask his advice. Back up any and all emails, texts, facebook chats, etc. with this girl to demonstrate history together. Track down as many photos of that night as you can. Ideally, you find some of you and her smiling together after the incident.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 12:41 AM
18

Women are attracted to charisma, status and to a lesser extent appearance in guys. So a guy with good game is one who displays charisma, status, or to a lesser extent appearance. Guys are mostly attracted to beauty in girls. So a girl with good game is one who cultivates and accentuates a beautiful appearance. Girls tend to be better at appearance game than guys, and that's the game that pays off more for them. Sure, it's a very passive in an actual interaction, but what do you expect? If we wan…
/r/seduction23/12/13 11:36 PM
2

While MRAs may come from any place on the political spectrum, let's not kid ourselves: MR is a set of political issues.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 03:01 PM
4

I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage, and I do I agree that gay divorce may improve divorce law in general. But gay lobbies are stronger, better funded, and higher status than general MR groups. I suspect it's because of a more coherent group identity paired with less bias against making an underdog claim. But the result is that gay activist groups are going to be more effective at pursuing such things than general men's groups.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 06:57 AM
1

Tact smooths social conflict.
/r/seduction20/12/13 06:15 AM
2

Creepy means a woman is having an awkward feeling and blames a man for her emotions. Doesn't necessarily mean anything about you. She can fuck right off with that solipsistic BS. Buuuut, if you're trying to create a fun, sexual, or romantic vibe, then you're gonna have better luck if you're able to guide her emotional response in the desired direction. This largely boils down to being able to read subtext, unspoken language, emotional states, and conversational hints. Know when to be bold, know …
/r/seduction19/12/13 05:25 AM
9

Hmm, let's play this game and see where it leads: IF a woman who alleges fear for her life can legally, preemptively murder her husband, even while he sleeps, AND IF the law purports to be gender neutral, THEN THEREFORE, a man should fear that his wife could murder him, and would be legally excused from preemptively killing her in "defense." Preposterous. So where's the fault? Oh, I see, this professor does not promote a law that is gender neutral, instead she promotes a separate, private law to…
/r/MensRights11/12/13 08:03 AM
7

This is for a petition: New York State Family Court lawmakers: Stop incarcerating fathers who can not pay child support because they have no jobs. The video provides background about the dude's situation. Skip it if you have a short attention span, but please sign the petition here I'm not the biggest fan of petition-based advocacy, but we've got to at least be able to get our voice behind this. Please sign.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 04:05 AM
7

This is a perfect solution for people with flawless ability to judge character and predict future moods, behaviors, social pressure, and potential buyer's remorse. For the rest of us, innocent until proven guilty is a more comforting principle.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 04:49 AM
3

Good that she's aware of a danger to her son and gives him advice to reduce his risk. Bad that she does not put the pieces together to recognize that well-intended rape hysteria has undermined her son's constitutional rights and safety from law and administrative witch hunts. Bad that even when she has a prominent public forum to sway popular opinion, she can't step away from team woman long enough to side with her son and defend his rights.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 04:44 AM
7

It's not either/or. When the system enables this sort of fraudulent parasitism, and men are overwhelmingly the victims because they are blinded by service to a trained sense of honor and duty, then it's a great topic for any place where men gather to discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and risks to their personal interests.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 12:05 AM
17

Interesting angle, as long as it doesn't lead to some sort of sense of entitlement or material dependence. Don't cop an attitude like "I deserve good food and exciting adventures and I need nice stuff," rather tell yourself "I enjoy good food and exciting adventures. I prefer good stuff." If you take a financial hit and can't afford luxuries anymore, you can still be the same awesome guy you were the day before. Your stuff doesn't matter that much.
/r/seduction16/11/13 03:51 AM
3

Sort out any problems with logistics and lifestyle. Shrug off rejection, and don't fixate on one girl. Get out and talk to people. Make it a habit. Find actual social boundaries by pushing on them to the point of rejection. The boundaries are not where you believe them to be. Embrace your masculinity.
/r/seduction07/11/13 01:24 AM
19

Tonight's entrée is a generous portion of shaming men into defining their worth in terms of utility for women, served with a side of sour grapes.
/r/seduction09/10/13 05:32 AM
3

A person successful in dating is not desperate because they know they know they have other options. 95% of game is presenting yourself as someone who is successful in dating. So a desperate appearance is obviously not desirable. A good technique is rather than asking an ambivalent girl on an obvious date, merely invite her along to something fun you intend to do anyway. That way she has an opportunity to spend time with you but knows that you're not unattractively overinvested in her.
/r/seduction06/10/13 07:56 PM
1

I disagree. If date pressure is too much or you're not getting along, cut it short and go home. Unless one of the parties is trapped, the persistence takes two. Accusing a straight person of being gay is rude, but there's no power imbalance or quid pro quo or anything. It's just an insult. And the example in the textbook does not include gossip about deformity or heath or hygiene problems, merely a guy who is self-conscious and suspects other people may be talking about him. That's not harassmen…
/r/MensRights05/10/13 01:20 AM
-7

I don't like the idea of expanding the definitions of sexual harassment like this, even with the token male "victim." Awkward feelings after a bad date are not sexual harassment. Imagining that someone said something bad about you is not sexual harassment. Being too chickenshit to tell someone you don't appreciate their physical compliments is some really damn flimsy harassment at worst. I'm fine with fighting quid pro quo harassment, but it's another thing entirely to conflate it with the audac…
/r/MensRights04/10/13 07:21 AM
1

Not to mention sponsorship - endowments such as the Rockefeller connection, grants, government funded programs. But the argument's a bit circular - if MRM were to get big enough that the money flows in, then this barrier is eliminated. I don't see this as a likely outcome, because I believer our greater willingness to help women in distress than men in distress is probably an innate bias.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 09:27 PM
2

I break MRA topics into 3 categories: legal objectives, social critique, and struggle against biological implications. Most MRA legal objectives are moderate egalitarian ideas - equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity. Those are pretty straightforward and until you get into craziness like disparate impact law, they have an end-point. You also have issues that perhaps ought to be recast as men's rights issues, such as prison reform and workplace safety. Prison reform in particular wil…
/r/MensRights22/09/13 09:27 PM
7

Then you lost a girl who was not loyal to you. Advantage: you.
/r/seduction22/09/13 06:17 PM
6

Yeah, exactly. If she gets hit on when you're out together, she gets hit on even more when you're apart. If she values you so little that the only thing keeping her from being won over by another guy is your chest thumping, then she will cheat on you or dump you. But if she values you highly, she'll shoot these guys down without help, whether you're there or not.
/r/seduction22/09/13 06:06 PM
7

Thanks for the detailed rebuttal. I disagree on a couple of points. You seem dismissive of the following two ads: http://i.imgur.com/YQUK8nd.jpg http://i.imgur.com/glyiIbd.jpg which place the woman in the position of power over men who have been stripped of clothing (and by implication, dignity) and placed in a servile position. The first explicitly treats men as animals, slaves in bound service of the master woman. The second treats the men as incompetent and the woman as hyper-competent. Claim…
/r/MensRights11/09/13 02:05 AM
3

Don't apologize, that's admitting to her that her interpretation is founded, and that you were in the wrong. Strive to keep your interactions with her minimal, preferably with 3rd parties around. If she's running around looking to turn everything into a discrimination case, she won't advance far either.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 05:17 PM
1

Perfect. The mistaken idea that women should be the ultimate arbiter of men's behavior applies to 80% of the issues in this subreddit, but it's perfect here.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 02:04 AM
-1

I notice that most women I've known get cold more easily than me (never the reverse), yet these same women like to wear more revealing clothing than me or the average american man during the summer. I may not know all the nuances of avoiding boob sweat, but I too call b.s. on the temperature excuse. Wear that low-cut top with my blessing, but don't act surprised when I unapologetically look at what is shown.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 01:45 AM
2

trying it once doesn't tell you much. try it ten times and compare notes with other guys who have done the same.
/r/seduction30/07/13 06:14 AM
1

Sigh right back at you. You're still talking about giving deference to minority views merely for the sake of being minority views. And that's poor thinking, based on the fallacies I've pointed out to you. Let's take your "logic" and flip the content: Our society has, as a whole, agreed that the existence of gay people should be accepted, and that gay people should not feel obliged to hide or pretend to be straight or whatever. No newspaper, TV show, or movie will contradict that. It's the mainst…
/r/MensRights19/07/13 09:02 PM
2

Cis privilege ...cis people probably can't speak to issues of gender... Ad Hominem ...that they have a voice society rarely listens to. We can learn from people like this Argument from Authority, Appeal to Secret Knowledge You're all on about "voices" and "opinions" and "perspectives," but that stuff is of extremely limited value when deciding public policy, ethics, etc. And the fallacies that you've dressed up here are distractions from honest discourse. If whatever group has a point to make, t…
/r/MensRights18/07/13 07:52 PM
0

Righteous indignation is addictive, and when you also have a scapegoat to rail against, it's a potent combo. It's easy to see this pattern in others sometimes, but you have to be more vigilant to catch it in yourself.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 07:15 PM
2

It's not about being in a "victim" group. I see. So equally, trans people should listen and learn from me, a straight, non-trans person, on the subject of sexuality and gender identity? Yes, people have different experiences and that can be interesting. But that doesn't add weight or authority to the opinions of one person or group, simply for being "other."
/r/MensRights18/07/13 05:50 PM
3

Exactly right. I just posted a comment about the fallacies involved in the argument, but that's actually a foolish response. The game they're playing is not rational debate, it's competing rhetoric; so fallacious arguments are fair game for them when trying to sway a crowd of solipsistic zealots. And urging rationality will not win the day. A better counter-tactic is to pit their own beliefs against each other. If they're talking about Schrodinger's rapist, throw race into the scenario, so that …
/r/MensRights18/07/13 08:54 AM
2

people from different backgrounds can speak with different experiences The thing is, those people still need to make their case with logic and/or data. Looking like a member of a designated noble victim class does not make you right, or even more right than someone who looks like a member of a designated evil overlord class. Appeal to Victimhood and Appeal to Exotic Identity are fallacies too - being non-white, female, gay, trans, etc., or claiming to marginalized does not lend any weight to an …
/r/MensRights18/07/13 08:31 AM
8

I don't want to go ruin this man's (Adam)'s life. Being a victim of Jen's paternity fraud is what will ruin his life. Paying to raise someone else's child and staying in a relationship that he was likely pressured into is what will ruin his life. Learning that this girl whom he loves is not his actual daughter will hurt, a lot. But it's the one thing that will allow him to regain control of his life and end the fraud. For his sake, I hope it happens as soon as possible. He and the daughter have …
/r/MensRights18/07/13 08:10 AM
1

So your response to rudeness is more rudeness? You seem to have misread.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 07:22 AM
1

Yup, even if you characterize it as yelling. Yelling is not a crime, but the girl from whom he requested a cigarette threatened him with violence (via police proxy). It was a clumsy overreaction. She could easily have conveyed "don't approach me, and know that I will not be a passive victim" without accusing him of hostility or threatening him. People with good street smarts can do that deftly.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 07:19 AM
-1

actually do face legitimate issues that men don't in society True, but in this case we're talking about the issue of violent crime from a stranger. Men face this issue MORE than women. We understand. We develop street smarts. We don't pull clumsy stuff like this girl. There are plenty of ways to be alert and keep your distance, etc., without calling the cops on a harmless stranger. She needs more nuanced street skills, but at least she's figured out the alertness part.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:03 PM
1

It's relevant because it shows that guys don't need some kind of "femsplaining" about how it can be dangerous to allow strangers to approach them at night. Men are MORE likely to experience victimization from strangers, so it is MORE necessary for men to develop street smarts. And those street smarts include de-escalating a situation but do not include pissing off random strangers. When some girl like this shows that she can only go from zero to "omg everyone wants to rape me" it shows that her …
/r/MensRights05/07/13 06:56 PM
0

Ideally, rude behavior should be highlighted and countered so as to discourage it. However, in my experience, countering with further rudeness tends to vindicate the original transgressor. Better to counter with deliberate civility or mockery, as these can shame the rude person instead.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 06:47 PM
0

Yup, this is the correct response. Stay alert and protect yourself without being a complete ass to someone who is probably harmless. If that's not working, use your judgment to escalate if necessary.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 06:32 PM
3

Post some Field Reports so people can try to spot where things are going wrong.
/r/seduction04/07/13 06:17 PM
1

That overview doesn't tell me anything. Look at the level of detail in OP's FR. Next time you go out, post a detailed field report like that and lots of people will be happy to chime in with their diagnoses. I need to feel like a woman is receptive before I make a move like that. I try innuendos, kino, sexually suggestive (fun-flirty) jokes. By the way, you can create a lot of sexual tension through vocal tone and eye-contact. The maddening (or fun, depending on your attitude or personality) thi…
/r/seduction03/07/13 10:38 PM
1

Have you posted any field reports or anything similar? Other than the bitter defeatism you're conveying here, I don't have much to go on in trying to diagnose things.
/r/seduction03/07/13 07:03 PM
1

expects girls to like him for who he is Sadly, that's not the way people work, outside of (hopefully) your family. This will sound cynical, but people like you for what you have to offer them. Do you make them laugh? Do you make them feel important? Do you teach them interesting things? Do you invite them to cool events? Do you make a night out feel exciting and spontaneous? These and many other things can make other people value you. That's what makes people like you and want to spend more time…
/r/seduction03/07/13 06:44 AM
1

Whether you believe you can improve your life or not, I guarantee you'll be right about it. Look, everyone has some handicaps that are beyond their control, that influence the way others treat them. Everyone has things within their control that influence the way others treat them. For the sake of argument, let's say that you're bald, short, fat, ugly, and have a lazy eye. Have you been saving up for eye treatment? Are you exercising and eating well in order to improve your physique? Do you dress…
/r/seduction03/07/13 03:22 AM
1

Seeing the way things are is not victim mentality. But when you respond to the world in a passive, fatalist manner, it can be. Either go with the flow and accept the way it pushes you downstream, wear yourself out trying to swim upstream, or learn to surf.
/r/seduction02/07/13 10:13 PM
1

Yeah, it's tough at first because of all the things you mentioned. But if you wait around for others to fix your problems for you, those problems will not get fixed. The part of the equation that you control is you. If you don't like your results, take concrete steps to change yourself - appearance, outlook, behavior - improve whatever is holding you back. You are a man. Become the master of yourself.
/r/seduction02/07/13 10:06 PM
1

Pretty good detail, thanks. In the future, it would be cool if you're also able to throw in descriptions of things like appearance, style, voice tone. (Obviously, it's not easy to remember every detail when you're mostly trying to have a fun time!)
/r/seduction02/07/13 10:05 PM
6

Chivalry is a warrior code. Before the longbow and the pike, power in Europe depended largely upon controlling an army of professional armored killers. How do you do that? Sure, you offer them land and wealth and exemption from the laws of commoners. But you also foster a code that offers them respect when they do what you want and shame when they do otherwise. (note that this principal works in any military, prison, office, police force, group of friends, etc. It is a standard aspect of allianc…
/r/MensRights02/07/13 09:40 PM
1

people would just go to nevada or lie to the court. It was a big problem Yep, change the rules and it changes the scam. I certainly don't pretend to have a perfect system to offer, but our current system is evidently broken - so much divorce (by women, mostly) leading to so much wealth transfer from men to women and lawyers, so many children harmed, so much middle-class wealth destroyed.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:36 PM
1

Jesus, people. This is not a tool to get competitive with various other scandals. And no, this kid was not raped because of feminists. It's crappy when PEOPLE get raped. It's crappy when PEOPLE falsely allege rape. It's crappy when PEOPLE with evidence that they were raped get treated badly sometimes. If you feel especially bad for this kid, fine - help publicize this story. Too late to push for harsher criminal prosecution or anything, but I bet you could donate to help the kid civilly prosecut…
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:22 PM
1

If there are accusations of abuse, that would not be a no-fault proceeding.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 04:25 PM
4

Exactly. The idea that gender roles and institutional discrimination screw over men in some ways and women in some ways, and that we should work to minimize such problems, is one thing. But it's different entirely to believe in patriarchy theory, in which there has always been an effort by all men, consciously and subconsciously, to empower all men at the expense of all women. Men were not exploited by women or other men. Women are always the victims, men are always the exploiters; and this theo…
/r/MensRights24/06/13 06:07 AM
3

Hard to get on board with this interpretation in situations where the 'obligations' enforced are to the benefit of the one who initiated divorce. Given the numbers, where most divorces are initiated by women, and most alimony also goes to women, that seems to be the standard game. Perhaps that's a complaint about no-fault divorce. Wouldn't it be fairer to have a system where initiating divorce without fault would prohibit alimony or provide a penalty in asset division?
/r/MensRights24/06/13 05:26 AM
1

Hardly. I'll refer to my previous question: How many movies this year teach that as a lesson? How many TV shows? Actually try counting, please. Use a list of movies if it helps. You may find it insightful. You can even ignore romantic comedies and my point stands (though young guys do learn from those genres too). You'll find that the hero must prove his worth and sincerity in order to get the girl. You won't find much where the hero demeans women and gets many girls as a reward, unless the stor…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 02:30 AM
1

How many movies this year teach that as a lesson? How many TV shows? It's always the sincere guy who wins over that one special woman who is presented as the hero. That's the environment guys are raised in. It may be hard for you to see because you're looking at it from the outside. Also, is there some selection bias here? If you believe that most guys are assholes and players, it tells me about your dating history - you've dated a lot of assholes and players, which calls into question your orig…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:35 PM
1

I don't see this as a men's rights issue. Women will be attracted to whatever they're attracted to. So will men. But as to your point, how many women have you fucked/dated? Probably a lot, right, if you're giving advice on how to do it? Most American guys grow up bombarded with messages to be nice and respectful and deferential to women, but they are too rarely taught to value themselves and their interests, or to treat women as common flawed humans. So when they need to change their approach in…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:19 PM
1

"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." -Ulysses S. Grant
/r/MensRights12/06/13 06:20 PM
1

No, dude. Getting meaningless internet revenge points is not worth it if you're still legally entangled with her (ongoing divorce, kids). In fact, it's best if you don't mention her or your situation online at ALL until the divorce is final. Ask your lawyer, but it's pretty standard advice to keep your mouth shut until its over, lest some offhand online remark be used against you.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 06:08 PM
1

Well, the speed gap scales all the way from sprints to ultramarathons. If there's a racing category where women have the advantage, we haven't found it yet. But yes, I'm using completion time as a proxy for endurance. Your comment made me consider that marathon completion rates by gender would also be useful. This was harder to find, but numbers from the 2012 Boston Marathon showed similarity in pre-race and mid-race drop out rates between men and women. If you can dig up similar data, please le…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:54 PM
0

When you're mischaracterizing your opponents' arguments with made-up strawmen, don't put quotation marks around them. That crosses the line from fallacious and disingenuous to straight up dishonest. I did not say or write the quote you assigned to me. You are being a dishonest person. I'm done here.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 04:18 AM
2

[that women are superior endurance athletes to men] is something I never claimed. This is you: In fact, if we want to talk about biological differences, the higher percentage of body fat makes women more competent at endurance hunting. Ok, let's break this down. You make a claim, you're called on factual errors, and you respond by backpedaling, then saying that the error of your claim is not relevant to your argument, and then denying you made the original claim. Multiple times in this thread I'…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 02:32 AM
3

Look, I sympathize with how overwhelming it can be when you're trying to argue with many people at once, and sometimes that's what forums turn into. But you don't score points by pretending that I or any of the other individual commenters vouch for all of the arguments above. A quick glance shows a few that I'd probably agree with ( minus your straw man presentations), some that I'd probably disagree with, a handful of naturalistic fallacies, and some that are irrelevant assertions. I'm not goin…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 01:02 AM
1

If the demolition of your supporting argument is irrelevant, then your supporting argument was itself irrelevant.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 11:32 PM
0

Which is fine, because hunting isn't the same as a marathon Right, hunting is more complex than running. With athletics in general, the performance difference between men and women tend to be greater in complex sports that combine multiple skills, such as basketball, than in single-skill sports such as running. I'll note that there does not seem to be a gender gap in marksmanship performance. But if your claim is that women have equivalent primitive hunting skills to men, do you have any evidenc…
/r/MensRights11/06/13 09:59 PM
1

I don't have stats handy, but they're out there for anyone who wants to go looking. there are gold diggers out there Gold diggers are fairly easy to avoid, but there are also sweet, loving people who become vindictive monsters down the road. I've seen that too.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:44 PM
3

So, when presented with facts that contradict your statement, you resort to unfounded character assassination? Learn some critical thinking skills.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:40 PM
2

No. Average marathon completion times differ by about half an hour between men and women. Record times seem to differ by about half that. I'll also note that qualifying times differ by half an hour by gender. If women are equally capable of endurance racing, then this is sexist and a huge number of those women should surrender their jerseys to more qualified men, right?
/r/MensRights11/06/13 12:44 AM
1

See, here's the thing: when they're preparing to walk down the aisle, everyone is "just one of those hopeful dreamer types that believe in one and only one marriage." And yet the divorce rate proves that such optimism is naive for half of them. And for the half who do not divorce, what half remain happy? You're absolutely correct that your family histories place you in a lower-risk group for divorce, along with the highly educated and those whose first marriage comes later than average. But even…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 11:35 PM
1

I certainly wish you a long, happy marriage, but I think your argument is a red herring. Why is making yourself unilaterally financially vulnerable supposed to be an expression of trust? If this is the way we're defining trust, it implies that a woman who does not sign a prenup is indicating lack of trust. I don't endorse such a simplistic view, but I also think it's preposterous to expect the man to take as much of the burden of risk as is standard in the USA today.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 03:37 PM
4

So, instead of making financial decisions now with a loving partner, roll the dice and place your trust in your future self, future partner, your lawyer, her lawyer, an unknown judge, and a variety of state legislators? Seems to me that trusting that whole collection of strangers in the future is more perverse than trusting yourself and your partner, right now, to make fair decisions about your futures.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 07:27 PM
4

I think we will mostly only have it cover what would happen when children are involved. IANAL, but my understanding is that custody and child support stuff in a prenup gets tossed right out. Talk to a lawyer. You probably want to make a prenup that focusses on alimony and division of assets instead.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 06:58 PM
1

Having drinks together is a social convention that many adults enjoy with friends and strangers. It's as old as civilization. If you don't enjoy it, that's fine too - but don't make it out to be some sinister thing.
/r/seduction31/05/13 10:31 PM
1

When one of your friends offers you a beer, do you believe he's creep-raping you or whatever? You've probably slept with a number of women who offered you drinks; in how many of those situations were you a rape victim? Are you trolling, or do you really believe that women's beverage autonomy is unreliable and that their drink choices should be policed by white knights?
/r/seduction31/05/13 09:55 PM
1

Why the would you say that women choosing to drink alcohol is predatory? You know women are adults and can choose to consume alcohol or not. And they can take responsibility for their choices. Treating them like helpless infants doesn't make you anyone's hero.
/r/seduction31/05/13 09:36 PM
2

We may disagree on the importance of pointing out the raw difference by gender of people in dangerous fields, but: Hell, you could even show the percentages of males and females within each military position to make it even more apparent that men are significantly pushed towards the more dangerous/life threatening positions, on top of then showing how men are given more dangerous assignments within the same position I do also want to see research like that.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 02:33 AM
2

And you don't believe that is relevant? In the military? Where there is a lot of pushback for even allowing females to take combat positions? Yes, I think it's also an excellent subject for inquiry. If that's your intent, go for it - I'd be fascinated to see your results. That does not seem to be the intent of this chart, however. The first chart is basically "percentage of certain sucky events by affected gender." Yeah, it's a cherry-picked set of categories. If we added in things like sexual a…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 07:21 AM
3

Thank you for pointing out a biased sample set and providing links to back up your statement. The seriousness of paternity fraud remains, but misleading statistics are not a good way to draw attention to it.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 01:59 AM
5

Correcting for total numbers enlisted would make sense if you were talking about how one gender is less successful at self-preservation as soldiers, or one gender is given safer assignments. Those are not the arguments being presented here. Rather, the argument is that the burden of risky but socially vital professions such as warfighting, manufacturing, and construction disproportionately fall upon men. The discrepancy in total numbers of individuals in hazardous roles is precisely the point.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 01:53 AM
3

Also, where it mentions the average sentence for crime by gender, this is not the heart of the issue. Exactly. Similar to constantly misrepresented wage gap stats, this is misleading unless it controls for variables. The type of crimes committed matters, as do things like prior convictions. Also, the paternity testing part is dependent upon sampling bias. Basically, 30% of men who strongly doubt paternity are correct. Of men who are confident in paternity, doubtless a much, much smaller percenta…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 01:41 AM
9

Your goal need not be quantity or on-night-stands for dating and charisma skills to be valuable. Learn and practice now, so that when you meet women who seem worthwhile to you, you'll have the ability to effectively convey your own worth back to them. However, you do yourself a disservice to focus on "a particular girl" with whom you are not currently in a serious relationship. Date around, so that if one partner isn't working out for you, you can move on without emotional fallout, and also so t…
/r/seduction15/05/13 07:32 PM
3

Also, there are lots of people out there who consider it sinister for a guy to simply desire sex; but if a girl wants to get laid, she's an empowered modern woman and you go, girl. That's sexist. It's perfectly fine for every guy to have desires and to seek sexual satisfaction. If one disagrees, perhaps one should consider the origin of the prejudices that inform that opinion.
/r/seduction29/04/13 02:25 PM
4

Interesting. Are they also eliminating "man" and "woman," and mandates for sex-specific services, funding, quotas, and hiring preferences? Or is it just things like profession words that are perceived to refer to a specific gender? Still, it's a start. Though as a taxpayer I hope they're not throwing out millions of printed documents rather than grandfathering them in until the next print run.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 05:19 AM
1

Thanks for teaching me this great term. It sounds like a deliberate use of a Catch-22, or like the old joke "when did you stop beating your wife?" or even every timid husband's favorite, "does this dress make me look fat?" If you can share more details, I'm interested in hearing the specific trap from your story. It seems that the most important defense against a Kafka Trap, like against a "shit test," is to recognize that you are in such a situation at all, and then to sidestep the false dilemm…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 12:25 AM
2

You're right about all of that. I'd tell you that you shouldn't desire approval or validation from trash such as this table of women, but: In academics, I will need to worry about this more than in many other work environments You've obviously put yourself in a situation where you need to do a little shuffle and jive and smile when saying "yes suh." Do the Steppin Fetchit act when you must, but keep publishing and making alliances so that when some professional offense-taker decides to advance h…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 08:39 PM
1

Do you speak Japanese?
/r/seduction14/04/13 07:13 PM
3

It's also possible that she likes stringing along orbiters for ego validation or other benefits, and your presence reveals to them that they've been played for fools.
/r/seduction24/03/13 04:33 PM
2

From now on, whenever you mention this, you say "my parents live with me" rather than "I live with my parents." If you want to explain, just say they need your help for a while. But make no excuses. If you've made good choices, you don't need to make excuses. But logistics are very important. Move out when you can. Until then, see if you can arrange a separate living area, with a separate entrance. You don't want to bring a girl home and oh wow, mom stayed up to watch Leno tonight. Oh, and here …
/r/seduction13/03/13 03:07 AM
7

It doesn't matter, I'm gonna go hot cook a salmon and then brush my teeth in about 6 months. Slow down ladies, there's enough of me to go around.
/r/seduction09/03/13 03:16 AM
1

Hero.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 05:57 AM
7

You should talk to her after class sometime to express appreciation for her willingness to stand up to sexist ignorance. When you're saying unpopular stuff, a word of recognition can be very welcome and encouraging.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 03:32 AM
2

That's phrased as a flippant answer. But men do have the the burden of being expected to be the primary provider for a current or future spouse and family, as well as knowing that some part of his attractiveness derives from his financial resources (more so than for women). And that influences men to emphasize pay more than women do when selecting careers and jobs. Women emphasize things like convenience and flexibility in jobs and careers more than men do. I won't say that one approach is right…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 04:37 AM
1

Good quote. What's the source?
/r/MensRights06/03/13 04:28 AM
2

Which is especially important in the case of hookups between two drunk people. If she was too drunk to consent, and he was equally drunk, it's sexist to call him a perpetrator and her a victim, merely because of genital configuration. It fails the equal protection clause.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 03:43 AM
4

You are correct. There is a fairly small percentage that remains unaccounted for after controlling for a number of variables. One could speculate that the remaining percentage could be accounted for by any number of remaining variables such as gender bias, height bias, effort, motivation, personality, values, productivity, sales technique, handshake style, public speaking ability, IQ, car model, shirt color, etc. The fact is, we don't know, and anyone who insists it must be the result of gender …
/r/MensRights06/03/13 03:39 AM
1

As someone who somewhat favored gun control when younger, I have migrated to your position in defense of legal gun ownership. But the gun control position relies heavily on an emotional feeling of fear for public safety. Given that violent crime has been in decline for decades, it's easy to fight that fear and assert rights. But all it would take is a sustained crime wave to turn popular opinion. /tangent
/r/MensRights05/03/13 07:55 PM
3

I'm tempted to agree, since early feminists had pretty reasonable demands in terms of sufferage and labor and housing opportunities. But then I remember that feminism grew from the temperance movement, which was all about controlling the evil men so they'd be better providers for their virtuous women. Fuck that.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 07:43 PM
1

I think it's a question of extremes. I lose respect for people who lose their emotional control over minor setbacks, or who are too easily swayed by emotional appeal. However, the idea that suffering from trauma after loss of a loved one, warfare, rape etc. is unmanly (or unwomanly, in the case of a woman) is BS, I totally agree. And I agree that teaching the former may contribute to the latter. Yet I maintain the value of emotional control. I think that sort of self-control gets more risky when…
/r/MensRights21/02/13 09:25 PM
11

I disagree. Emotional control is a valuable trait that should continue to be taught. While our society increasingly caters to emotional capriciousness and fragility, those really aren't gonna help your life as much as some good 'ol self-knowledge and self-control. That said, we also need to teach ways to prevent bottled emotions from consuming a person.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 10:49 AM
11

If you're writing a paper on this topic, consider also referencing The Stranger (L'Étranger) by Albert Camus.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 10:42 AM
1

Noooo! Don't shit where you eat. You could probably start making moves and make something happen, but if/when it goes south you now have an awkward roommate situation. Instead, turn her into an awesome wingwoman. If your living situations change in the future, reevaluate.
/r/seduction19/02/13 11:35 PM
-1

Exactly. Men matter because they are human beings, not because they sometimes perform services for women. Otherwise, welcome! edit: typo
/r/MensRights19/02/13 07:16 PM
2

Jesus, that's unimaginably horrible. I hope you find a way to carry on. Sadly, you're absolutely right that society is culpable here. Your story is heavier than most, but I'm sure you can find similar aspects of it in the lives of others within a stone's throw of wherever you're living. The destruction of families by divorce should not be incentivized and abetted the way it is. Tell your story to your representatives.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 09:50 PM
2

Work to improve your body. Use makeup and clothing and hair to present yourself in a flattering manner. Be pleasant. Be generous and adventurous in bed. If you're looking for relationships, don't act like you want to fuck every guy in the room. Lower standards for how much you expect an attractive guy to invest in you. For real though, consider whether you might be happier being appreciated by a less attractive guy versus being briefly sampled by a more attractive guy. Your call!
/r/seduction18/02/13 08:50 PM
2

Can you provide some details or links?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 10:08 PM
2

Right, but if the unhappy relationship is not a marriage, you can typically leave without legal intervention or financial devastation.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 10:05 PM
6

No, the Toronto Warren Farrell protest was a thing that happened.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:17 AM
1

Yeah, of course. Welcome. On a vaguely related note, I'm hoping that legal gay marriage and divorce will help make straight marriage and divorce more gender-neutral.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:36 PM
1

Yes, the dating coach was right that he was unable to help you with your most apparent dating handicap. Take it as an indication of his own human limitation as a teacher, not your own as an improving charmer.
/r/seduction15/01/13 05:48 AM
5

Would you offer some examples of the sort of misuse you have in mind?
/r/MensRights13/01/13 11:57 PM
0

Sounds too general, and possibly not on topic. MRAs are not so much a marginalized population, rather they are people with a counter-cultural set of views. You could present the case that men are a marginalized population, but I'd suggest you get more specific so that you can make a focussed argument with rock solid support, rather than shallowly touching on a lot of issues. For example, you could choose more a more specific group such as: fathers male employees soldiers prisoners homeless men d…
/r/MensRights11/01/13 06:37 AM
5

It's all about you because you don't understand inductive reasoning.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 01:40 AM
3

Push for equal treatment under the law, without regard for gender. Understand that this doesn't mean equal outcomes, it means equal opportunities. Enforcing equal outcomes means discriminatory handouts to the underperforming. And rewarding mediocrity is not good for society. If someone's telling you about a the "wage gap" or Title 9, etc., tell them that you expect everyone to earn what they get, on the levelest playing field we can manage. And ask if they think it's honest to compare a part-tim…
/r/MensRights07/01/13 12:42 AM
1

Very tough. Don't know how old they are, but if they know the effort that you're putting into being a part of their lives, that matters a lot more than a date on a calendar. Celebrate with them on the days you're able.
/r/MensRights24/12/12 06:32 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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