TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

thechort Archive

View 1 post and 109 comments by thechort on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
29

thechort/r/MensRights17/07/13 09:55 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Not sure... thanks. I'll pass on the links.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 05:11 AM
28

Girls are doing better at all levels in all areas of the educational system today. The pendulum has swung, you're living in the past. here's a source
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:35 PM
2

This is about the definition of pedophilia. Pedophilia specifically denotes attraction to pre-pubescent individuals. Attraction to teenagers isn't pedophilia. Once you've someone has started to show sign of puberty, psychologically it's considered perfectly normal to be attracted to them. Acting on those urges is a legal and moral issue due to the relative speeds at which we develop mentally and physically. But it has nothing to do with pedophilia. Just because someone isn't a fully competent ad…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:10 AM
2

That makes it way too hard for the over age person to have any idea if what they're doing is legal though, unless you're suggesting that they should get an assessment before the sex occurs. How do I know if you're competent, when there's no simple test and it takes time with a shrink to figure it out. Thus clear bright lines in the law.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:01 AM
5

If you have a community with a problem, you should just be silent about it instead of having a talk about how to help fix it? The claimed reason it's so bad here is because the audience is supposedly full of rapists and harassers. You don't want them to listen to a talk that might get them to take a harsh look at themselves?
/r/MensRights28/02/13 04:04 AM
1

If your found innocent you get paid a certain amount for everyday you spent inside and if you get found guilty the time spent inside is taken off your sentence. In the US we have the part where if you're found guilty, you get time off your sentence based on "time served" the time you were locked up while awaiting trial. But from everything I've been looking at it seems we do not have the part where we pay people for time served when found innocent during trial. If they were legally arrested and …
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:32 PM
1

Read what I type make it sound like When you argue against a fringe position, (Take for example this ask a feminist thread, sidebarred in /r/feminism, where the position you argue against is not held by any of the the posting feminists), call it the typical feminist view, and compare it to violent stranger rape as if it was the only competing alternative, it sounds bad.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 11:28 PM
1

Wasn't clear to me. And I'm tired of MRas getting accused of being rape apologists, but it's gonna keep happening if we keep saying things that make it sound like we believe violent rape is the only rape.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 10:29 PM
-4

Is the author talking about stranger rapes in dark alleys? Or a more typically feminist definition of rape that includes regretting last nights decisions? Fucking stop it. Are these really the only two options? Are you really gonna say just because you know someone, maybe even went willingly to their place or even bedroom, they can't possibly rape you? This kind of shit is not helping anyone.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 09:38 PM
2

Someone can certainly consent behaviorally. Let say, I ask, "do you want to have sex," and she jumps on top of me and starts kissing and grinding, that's pretty clear consent. The question becomes how do you define this all legally, which is a real pain in the ass, because trying to deal with this properly sucks in a legal arena... there's not much evidence available one way or the other, generally, if the act of sex is uncontested. I think that having a requirement for physical resistance was a…
/r/MensRights22/11/12 06:20 PM
1

Yes really. See my response to the other person who actually asked in a reasonable manner.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 06:32 PM
6

Who abused and neglected children? ... More than two-fifths (45.2%) of unique perpetrators were men and more than one-half (53.6%) were women Note that although men get first billing, women are the majority. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm10/cm10.pdf#page=12 Serious government statistics.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 06:31 PM
15

That's a lie. However, the statistics do show that more women commit abuse than men. How about pushing for training to match reality?
/r/MensRights08/09/12 05:57 PM
1

It's not the helping that's hard, it's the likely response to your help that is hard to stomach. Maybe we just hear more of the bad stories, but I see stories all the time of men trying to offer genuine help who are responded to as predators.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 05:53 PM
2

And I'm continually surprised that there are more than a few people heartless enough to commit rape. Doesn't change the fact that it happens every day.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 03:41 PM
11

Not only that, but because men enjoy challenges, whereas women just want it easy. This guy is a real piece of work.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 05:50 PM
1

Weird, every atheist I've ever talked to says that atheism just means that they don't believe in god. Not sure who you're talking to. Yes, that "or" really is crucial, since disbelief means pretty much the same thing as lack of belief. dis·be·lief [dis-bi-leef] Show IPA noun the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. source Even if they mean something different, that "or" means that if I fit either clause, the word applies.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 05:58 PM
2

Personal attacks are uncalled for. If my assumption was incorrect, Can you please tell me how you have heard this definition disputed? Sorry I assumed... the only people I've heard claiming that atheists didn't follow that definition were people who confused a lack of belief with an active disbelief, a common misconception atheists often have to correct. And I've dealt with many of them. If you've got some other issue, please, inform me.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 05:27 PM
2

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" I've never heard an atheist dispute that. All atheists lack a belief in god or gods. This is different from an active belief that there is not god. Got it? We fit the dictionary definition, you're trying to read things into it that aren't there.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 05:13 PM
1

What dictionary definition do you find Atheists challenging?
/r/MensRights09/07/12 04:38 PM
9

Isn't it actually more likely that they'll only strike down certain parts?
/r/MensRights28/06/12 09:07 AM
22

Useful is kinda an odd word to use, but when I have relationships, it's with people who add value to my life. And I would expect that others would have similar requirements in their relationships. It seems like nit-picking to me based on one poorly chosen word. The basic advice is sound, surround yourself with people of value. You would tell people something different? Of course there's other advice about being a person of value, but that doesn't make this bad advice. You be the best person you …
/r/MensRights19/05/12 05:58 PM
4

Mens rights is about confronting these sexist double standards, not bowing down to them. Yes. I think where we differ is that you would alter the double standard by making misogyny acceptable, while I would alter the standard by making misandry unnacceptable. If you want to erase the double standard by making misogyny acceptable, you have to make misandry acceptable too.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 12:56 AM
3

So you've got this all mixed up and back to front in your head because of pc culture. Nope. Simply being a realist rather than an idealist. Ideas are great, but they only mean anything when they intersect reality.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 11:55 PM
5

Well, please explain to me the difference here. Why shouldn't we have a problem when one of our own starts promoting true misogyny? It happens around here sometimes. We call on feminist groups to call out misandry within their own ranks, should we not hold ourselves to the same standard?
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:50 PM
9

Im not trying to deny facts. Yes, yes you are. You are claiming that the entirety of the reason people have a problem with our movement is misandry and misdierection. That's the same as the feminists claiming the only reason anyone has a problem with them is misogyny and the patriarchy. There are a significant number of really offensive posts here from people who obviously have some anger issues. They've probably been wronged, there might even be said to be a righteousness to that anger. But I d…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:45 PM
4

What? Oh, so you're saying we should just trash talk women because they trash talk men. I get it, petty revengism. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind you jackass. I propose we work towards solutions rather than slinging mud.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:33 PM
7

I wasn't proposing a plan of action, I was merely pointing out that you were trying to deny facts. You can't ignore something and make it go away.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:11 PM
9

You're being foolish. A credibility problem isn't about what you think is right, it's about appearances in the real world. Appearances, as frustrating as it is, matter, because they are what others judge on before deciding to take a closer look and see what's really up. We have a credibility problem because we are perceived as having a credibility problem, if for no other reason. This keeps people from looking closer and learning the whole story. It keeps the knowledge from getting out. And hone…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 09:57 PM
2

No one says that female circumcision should be legal. The person you are arguing with is using the analogy to try to show you why male genital mutilation should be illegal, not why female circumcision should be made legal. Because the people in cultures where FGM is/was a widespread practice use the same arguments you do in favor of MGM; it's tradition, it's not harmful, it's required by our religion. The problem is, these arguments aren't any good. You have been mutilated to appease a sky fairy…
/r/MensRights19/12/11 07:05 PM
6

It's a troll. Get a hold of yourself man! There's some bad shit going on in reality, but it's not this.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 03:50 AM
2

Wow, you're an idiot. Congratulations.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 03:49 AM
3

And woman shouldn't go out at night dressed sulty but there's theory then reality. Why the fuck not? I like looking at sluttily dressed women. She should maybe be careful about where she goes, as we all should, but you want they should all wear sweatshirts all the time or something? Also, I think the appropriate analogy is that a woman shouldn't have to worry about going out at night dressed sluttily if that's what she wants to do.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 01:41 AM
7

The bot doesn't make the SRS posts nor is it run by SRS people, it just tells people they've been linked there so that they know what's going on. It's a pubic service, meant to show people the crazy that is SRS.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 06:30 PM
14

No, it's better for the child to never see him than to see him every now and again in and out of the kid's life at the whims of his insane mother.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 06:27 PM
3

I thought this was a really nice explanation of outcome independence and some ways it might come about naturally.
/r/seduction30/11/11 06:00 PM
2

I agree completely. I only saw it with the whole sentence, and I agree with your statement.
/r/seduction20/11/11 11:35 PM
3

I never said he had no point. I have in fact said that what he claims is true. What I said is that he's arguing against something nobody ever claimed, and doing it in a manner which belittles the usefulness of these statistics. examine why it is you're so eager for the majority of abusers to be women. I'm not eager for this to be true, it just is. Empircal fact, a child is more likely to be abused by a woman than by anyone else. You may need to brush up on your statistics if you missed this. I'm…
/r/MensRights05/11/11 01:08 AM
3

Your persecution complex, even if justified, does not change statistical and analytical facts. No, his weaseling does not change the facts. Which is why I challenged him on it. Exactly, and you're not going to win points with anyone if you seem to attack all mothers out of nowhere. I never attacked all mothers, I just reiterated the statistics that you and the guy you're defending keep trying to weasel out of and minimize. This dude, in fact, came out of nowhere to start defending women against …
/r/MensRights04/11/11 11:06 PM
5

His strawman that he had so much fun knocking down was the argument nobody had made, that women had a higher propensity to be abusers. Nobody made that claim, why did he have to make a point of disputing it? You say you want to make the point that women abuse kids too That 'too' is what I have the biggest problem with. It makes it sound like child abuse is primarily committed by men, and oh yeah, sidenote, women do it too. Where are these people? I don't see them in this thread. Just because the…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 09:34 PM
3

Nope. Not what I'm doing. I wasn't the one who brought it up out of the blue. Let me summarize: 1) Somebody posts results of a study showing that women are responsible for the majority of child abuse. 2) Someone else posts a dismissive comment that serves only to minimize the impact of the study, arguing against a strawman that no one else had even come close to mentioning. For unknown reasons, this becomes the top comment in the thread. 3) Yet another someone complained that it got some downvot…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 08:58 PM
1

It matters because laws and beliefs are in place in society which claim that abuse is largely or solely perpetrated by men. Challenging this misconception is a step in the direction of righting these wrongs.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 08:20 PM
7

I already recognized that your comment is basically true. As I've been saying all along, bringing it up out of the blue, calling it a "little" finding, saying that all it shows is that women "can" abuse "too" when it shows that the actual abuse that's happening is perpetrated much more frequently by women than by men, unfairly belittles this study and this problem. And I stand by it. You just keep saying "that wasn't my intent" and "nobody else read it that way." Well, the first is irrelevant an…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:52 PM
3

The problem people had here is that it's a factual statement which downplays the importance of the figures. He minimizes the issueThink about that statement again: it shows little more than that women can be abusers too It shows a lot more than that. It's not that women can be abusers, it's that they are; it's not that "they do it too" it's that "they do it more." Propensity is an abstract and irrelevant concept. The empirical evidence is being played down by that comment, even though it is stil…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:42 PM
6

LOL. I was not the only one who made a response along the lines of thinking that you minimized something which was not worth minimizing. Read your other responses, they say the same fucking thing. I'm not expanding based on nothing, I'm expanding based on the fact that other people posted comments in agreement with me, And I'm not attacking you, I'm criticizing your statement. You're knee-jerk defending yourself and not thinking if perhaps what I've said has merit.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:32 PM
5

That's how a lot of people read it. When you start pointing out obvious limitations that everyone already got and saying it shows "little more" than something horrific which is not largely accepted in the public consciousness, it sounds like you don't think that's a problem. Again, not speaking to your actual intentions, just telling you how it sounded to me, and from a lot of other comments I saw you got in response, I was not alone. Think about it, don't just get all defensive.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:21 PM
3

Your original acts to try to minimize the problem of female abusers, when it's something society already fails to recognize. Whether that was your intent or not, I don't know, but that's how it reads. Not sure why you would make it being that it's contrary to your experience and not even a direct reply to anyone claiming anything that you are arguing against. I just don't see where you're coming from, continually trying to make arguments against a straw man which seem to have no purpose but to m…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:12 PM
14

But it cannot show that women have a larger propensity to abuse than men do. Who said it did? Listen to what's being said again, most people believe men are the primary or sole abusers. Facts prove the opposite. That's basically all I've said. Of course, you still appear to assume that it's just because men don't have as much of a chance to since more women are primary caregivers. Maybe you're right, but you don't have any more facts to back that claim up than anybody has facts to back up the op…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 06:03 PM
11

does little more than to communicate that women can be abusers too. Bullshit. It shows more than that they can be, but that they have a significant propensity to be. Also, as someone else said, most people know that women are more often the primary caregiver, but still believe that most or all child abuse is perpetrated by men... It's not about who's the primary caregiver, it's about educating people as to how the reality of current situations compares to their belief about it. They believe that…
/r/MensRights04/11/11 05:48 PM
2

They questioned the kids for hours without letting them see lawyer or their parents, according to this article. If that's even rremotely true, then yeah, the defense fucked up, because those confessions and any evidence tainted by such illegal measure by the police should be completely inadmissible.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 04:49 PM
5

That's the point he was trying to make in posting this... the fact that the article focuses on the toys being destroyed instead of the fucking physical abuse. Now apologize to the class and try to pay attention next time.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 08:23 PM
5

No, she was saying the were supposed to ask to use her picture. Which is BS. You go hold an event, you don't get to control the reporting.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 07:45 PM
14

Actually, it's quite unreasonable. Journalists don't have to ask permission to publish photos of public events. It would be quite harmful to the freedom of the press, and to our ability to know what's going on in the world outside of our own little bubble, if they did.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:25 PM
0

------> You should read the sidebar, there's lots of good info there. But to answer your question aa is approach anxiety.
/r/seduction28/10/11 04:42 PM
4

I got the idea from your posts in this thread that you were in general an anti-vaccine crazy. Was I incorrect? Because there are a lot of highly contagious, airborne childhood illnesses out there that were essentially gone, but we're now starting to see outbreaks and minor epidemics of, because of the idiots who think the vaccines are more dangerous than the actual diseases. They never got those diseases growing up, and never saw how much harm they do unchecked, because the vaccines are so damn …
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:06 AM
3

I hope you see the error of your ways before your child dies of a completely preventable disease, taking down dozens of babies with them who were too young to be vaccinated.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 05:55 AM
1

Yes, you're crazy. We understand. Now shut up before you do any more damage.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 12:47 AM
2

non-existent misogyny Misogyny and misandry are not mutually exclusive. And they both clearly have strong footholds in various areas of society. Denying the existence of misogyny gets you nowhere except laughed at. If you want other people to listen to your issues, you've got to be willing to listen to theirs too.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 11:32 PM
4

There is a huge anti-vaccination craze going on right now. Rest assured, it's largely unfounded, anti-intellectual bullshit.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 11:07 PM
0

Read it again. I never once called you anything.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 07:44 PM
0

Well, use your fucking head then. We all know most murders are committed by someone close to the victim. the title didn't imply anything one way or another, therefore, someone with a brain would assume it was someone she knew and a specific "isolated" incident. (I put isolated in scare quotes because it's not exactly isolated, women commit murder and then claim BWS defense on a fairly regular basis.)
/r/MensRights26/10/11 07:36 PM
4

Sorry, being in a relationship does not give you a pass to kill your partner. Murder is murder, and killers walking free are killers walking free. The details of this case might be that it was actual self defense, neither you nor I have seen the details that the case was decided on. But it really makes no significant difference, in anyone's opinion but your own, what the relationship between the killer and the deceased is. It's not sensationalistic, everyone who frequents this forum knew exactly…
/r/MensRights26/10/11 07:22 PM
9

Whether they were in a relationship or not is irrelevant, isn't it? I mean, yeah, you could say woman stabs husband or woman stabs boyfriend or whatever they were, but can you explain to me how "woman stabs man" editorializing or being any more dramatic than "woman stabs boyfriend?"
/r/MensRights26/10/11 06:42 PM
1

I don't know, it's a pretty garbled article... I'm not entirely sure that that is a fair representation of what they were trying to say. Chivalry is dead is not equivalent to men are bad, if you think of chivalry as an unnecessary set of social conventions which tends to privilege females.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 07:16 PM
3

though saved by the noble sacrifice of men, were in the equally hard situation of seeing the ship go down. Yeah, that line was some serious bullshit. But these women weren't on the boat, who knows what they would've done if they were. And they do explicitly claim in their rebuttal that each lifeboat should be half men and half women... If I am reading the article correctly, it is reporting that a bunch of people are pissed at the suffragettes for claiming that the men shouldn't have given up the…
/r/MensRights22/10/11 05:34 PM
2

The hallmark of any true MRA. Now that's not very fair, is it? I mean, I know you're trolling, to some degree or another, as evidenced by your thread in the transphobia project, but generally your responses have been much more civil. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by insulting your entire audience, and your claim that all MRA's have faulty morals is false and insulting. Try arguing on the merits rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks, it's much more useful. Just seeing a statement like …
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:00 PM
5

By acting sociable. Make friends with everyone you meet. Also, don't think about the bar/club scene as the only place to pick up chicks. Talk to people everywhere; coffee shops, grocery stores, etc etc. Especially since you claim not to be looking for the party girls, go meet them at places other than party locations.
/r/seduction06/10/11 08:48 PM
1

You misunderstood this comment. This is a guy stating that if his chick is off-limits for period sex, he's getting a better one. Now apologize to the man.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 06:43 PM
2

No, no. That asshole had the nerve to laugh it off when it happens to straight men. Because everyone knows that straight men cause everyone's problems, including our own.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 06:16 PM
0

Who's asking anybody to redefine themselves? All that's happened is somebody put some latin roots together to make a contrasting descriptor. It's a fucking word, a tool for communication. Specifically, it's a jargon term for talking about specific issues in technical ways. Why does that threaten you?
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:59 PM
2

WTF? Look, we need words for things. Given that choosing to change your gender is a thing, staying with your original gender also needs a word. Otherwise when you're having discussions where the difference might be important, you have no way to talk about it. Many people care and talk about these things, thus they have words for them. What does it have to do with "press one for English" in England? It's more like you're saying there should be no word "English" in the English language.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:51 PM
2

They don't fit because people like you don't want to make space in the circle. How does being transgendered make you non-functional? Other than you know, not making babies, which plenty of straight cisgendered people choose not to do anyway? Why is it a big deal?
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:44 PM
4

1:1000 is a very generous ratio in any group. I would say any group you could pick out has a higher ratio of shitheads ruining it for everyone else than that. Then take the fact that being a cop is the single way to get the most authority for the least effort in our society, and think about some of the people that will be attracted to that. I would argue that the ratio of assholes to people doing it right is even worse than your average group. I saw a cop post in a thread the other day stating h…
/r/MensRights30/09/11 08:09 PM
3

Please, you're really fucking stretching with those lyrics. Where is there anything even remotely abusive? 1)"please please me, oh yeah, like I please you." asking for/ desiring a more reciprocal relationship is not abuse. 2) Leaving an unhappy relationship for a better one is not abuse. I mean come on now.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 04:30 PM
5

I actually do feel sorry for someone who would hold the viewpoint that people can't change. It would make them themselves incapable of change, which would be pretty fucking sad, since growth is pretty much life. Without it you're nothing. At least that's my experience. And I don't really know about Lennon, I don't idolize the guy or anything. For all I know all the song lyrics and such about beatings were just metaphor, hyperbole. Or maybe the song about change was just to woo someone into a fal…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 04:38 AM
5

Hint: guys don't stop beating women. You know, I hear that claim repeated a lot, and I certainly wouldn't expect a person to change while within a given relationship, or to advise someone who is being abused that their partner might change, I really have to question it, on the whole, stated as a global truth. I mean, we as people all change in an extraordinary number of ways over the course of our lives. Our wisdom, our knowledge, our attitudes, our drives, our goals, our dreams, our emotions, a…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 04:24 AM
7

Used to be. That song is about realizing his problems and moving forward. Don't be such a hater.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 03:57 AM
4

Good example, didn't come to mind for some reason. Interestingly, from Wikipedia: Lennon designated this song as his "least favourite Beatles song" in a 1973 interview and later said it was the song he most regretted writing.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 02:00 AM
2

A number Beatles songs are about violence against women and female subserviance. Examples please.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 01:50 AM
1

Unsolicited contact info? Use it. Quick email, set up a meet. Or were you asking for phone number, got email instead? Then things are more murky...
/r/seduction21/09/11 11:27 PM
11

Don't think about negging, think about teasing. It's a much more useful model. How would you make fun of your friends, playfully? Or a little sister? That's how you do it. Hard to explain I guess. If she's getting offended, you are to close to home, or your topic is too serious. Teasing is a more fun and useful model than negging IMHO. They key is it should be something light and clearly non-serious. Something that you would laugh at if somebody called you out on it. Also important is smiling at…
/r/seduction20/09/11 07:51 PM
2

I hear just as much on both sides these days... maybe it's just the crowd I deal with. Either way it's bullshit, don't try to extend sexual repression to a larger group of people, try to shrink it where it already exists.
/r/seduction20/09/11 07:35 PM
23

I'm pretty sure that guys who figured out they were gay late in life would get the same treatment from the LGBT community.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 08:45 PM
6

I was told by a friend (also read the game, familiar with the culture) I shouldn't bring up paranormal investigating during pickup. You absolutely should. Bitches love the paranormal. And it's interesting/out of the ordinary. Not every chick is gonna dig it, but if it's what you're into and you can sound cool about it, then sure. Don't go off on a rant or anything but you can and should talk about it if it fits the conversation.
/r/seduction05/08/11 04:34 PM
0

Very funny, jackass. It's not simple multiplication, it's multiplication by the inverse, also known as division. Calling it a multiplication operator is inaccurate and confusing, as it implies the equality a*b=a/b. In the real world, we call it division. And as far as I can recall that convention was used in every high level math or engineering course I ever took.
/r/seduction05/08/11 02:28 AM
-1

Bullshit! In what fucking language is a '/' a multiplication operator? It is in fact a division operator, and the answer you gave shows that you know that. Multiplication by the multiplicative inverse = division. It's just that the person you were responding to who thought you had to multiply before dividing doesn't really understand order of operations. Multiplication and division are simultaneous and proceed left to right when used in this manner, in almost any relevant syntax. And you may cal…
/r/seduction05/08/11 01:23 AM
2

You aren't differentiating between types of interest though. The one who messaged the larger girl probably actually thought she would be a good person to date, potentially seriously. Almost everyone who messaged hot but crazy was looking for a quick fuck. I mean, that's my hypothesis anyway, you'd have to analyze the messages you actually got to see if you could categorize. Also, in only four hours, she got a request for a date! I mean, really, you're saying nobody wants her? That's not a long t…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 02:18 AM
2

That's a great explanation. Thanks!
/r/seduction03/07/11 08:04 AM
4

Please explain.
/r/seduction02/07/11 11:21 PM
3

Hot enough for me. Not exactly a flashy dresser or anything, she's a schoolteacher and dresses like it + she's curvy. HB6-7 I guess, more like 7-8 internetwise I guess...
/r/seduction22/06/11 10:34 PM
1

Ok, I wrote up an FR. Here it is.
/r/seduction22/06/11 08:41 PM
1

Yeah, I guess so. Done.
/r/seduction22/06/11 08:40 PM
0

I want to tell the story, but I feel very conflicted. I mean, I see the value that field reports contribute to the community, and I want to give back. But I worry about the ethics of publicizing what some would likely consider to be very private information. Edit: Spelling.
/r/seduction21/06/11 02:24 AM
1

We got the right to vote in America 150 years before women did. The rest was fluffy, I'm not gonna take the time to back it more rigorously though. Since you aren't back your claim with any sort of rigor either, I guess we'll just be in disagreement on this point.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:47 PM
3

I use OKC almost exclusively during downtime at work. I have now gotten laid through it. So no, I'm not gonna stop that. It's at least a good supplement for starting off IRL, and I know that I was working on both concurrently, OKC was what worked first, largely because I was closer to my comfort zone. You've gotta break that box for sure but if you just go shooting out of it like a cannonball too fast you're gonna be, well, super-uncomfortable, and that certainly shows and doesn't help anything.
/r/seduction20/06/11 09:41 PM
1

You've taken the same course as the radical feminists, interpreting everything in the worst possible light and turning everything into an attack. 1) Maybe, maybe not. It's certainly a big problem. It's omission is perhaps notable but doesn't mean you can't agree with what is on the list. Well, I can't speak for you, but I don't personally see this omission as being relevant to the truth value of any of her other statements. 3) You're just denying history. Certainly there is currently little in t…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:05 PM
6

I don't think anyone is demanding anything, someone is asking if there is a consensus. And it certainly sounds like a pretty reasonable list to me. What do you disagree with? Well, other than calling an equal rights movement feminism, as that inherently implies that males have no problems worth talking about or fighting for.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:57 PM
2

Be careful, I've even read of one of our female redditors being offended at being called a female. Not in any offensive contest, just something along the lines of "it's dehumanizing, why use such a clinical term."
/r/MensRights17/06/11 05:12 PM
5

Relatively certain the whole question here is how one goes about doing that. A question I share.
/r/seduction16/06/11 04:23 PM
0

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just say'n.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 04:32 PM
2

Hmm, if it's bad enough that you were going to break up with him, then you probably shoulda sent him out that night... it's your house. I think of this as about arguments that you know you are going to get over, you're just mad at the time.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 10:30 PM
1

Bull fucking shit. This is a man's wife, the person who based on accounts of his character he is most honest with, trusts completely, and who he expects to be honest with him. Do you think that if she told him what was going on, he would still be spending all his time and money raising these children? Do you think he would be spending his life loving this woman? Ok, so he hasn't been "forced" into anything, he's been defrauded. Which in colloquial use is one of the meanings of "being forced to d…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 08:17 PM
3

GayPUA basically covered everything better than I could, but I noticed you said you think he stopped looking to discourage you from approaching. I think it's more likely he stopped looking because he decided he was caught, and didn't want you to think he's a creep. Or at least started hiding it better.
/r/seduction27/04/11 12:29 AM
3

You took the words right out of my mouth.
/r/seduction27/04/11 12:19 AM
3

It's not that you inspire the nerves, but if he's shy/nervous/anxious in general then it's likely 10x as bad when he's around a girl he's attracted to. If you're still interested, please, try to push on through. It doesn't sound to me like someone who dislikes you, it sounds like someone who is trapped in his own head. Probably someone who for whatever reasons has little self-esteem and assumes he could never get someone like you. I've been that guy. Hell, I largely still am that guy. So please,…
/r/seduction26/04/11 11:24 PM
7

Really? Did you read it? He gave just about as much info as most of the field reports I've seen here, just in one paragraph and he actually got laid at the end.
/r/seduction31/03/11 08:43 PM
2

It's definitely not despite your emails. First, girls just don't make first contact with guys with any sort of regularity, guys are still expected to make first contact. Also, everything I ever hear is that looks don't matter nearly as much to girls as they do to guys. So a message and a profile which show you to be a quality guy are what count. Pictures insomuch as they show that you're awesome, not that you're hot (although of course it doesn't hurt to be hot.)
/r/seduction31/03/11 08:34 PM
5

Hmm, wow. This is basically the same technique I've been using, but with much lower success rates. Everybody visits my profile, very few respond. Maybe I need to work on my profile :/
/r/seduction31/03/11 06:30 PM
1

I'm a male, and it doesn't please me too much either. I'd much rather have chick trying to pick me up all the time. Approaches are a very hard for me. Straight girls just have it easy here.
/r/seduction19/03/11 07:13 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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